View
235
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
工程師幻想曲-想像力在工程教育之運用與評估--想像力在工程概論教育之運用(二)
Citation preview
--
()
100-2511-S-002-016-MY2
2011 6 1 2013 7 31
()
101 3 15
I
1
()
1 100
II
Summary
In recent years, it began to focus on cultivation of imagination in engineering education, In
addition to the enhance of engineering expertise, combination of imagination and professional
innovation capability is very important. In this project, through by Engineering Introduction
curriculum so that students can learn to fully complete a series of imaginative training courses. It
is the initial required courses to enter other engineering field (e.g.: engineering graphics,
surveying, ...) with guidance and support functions. We hope that through Engineering
Introduction courses, the effectiveness of the curriculum of imagination complete play to the
course among the other fields of engineering. We have designed a complete set of cultivate
teaching materials and lesson plans of imagination, supporting teachers and students to complete
the course teaching and learning. Through by subprojects1 who the researchers are educational
background related theoretical research of the imagination, subprojects2 developed imagination
teaching materials, teaching methods and assessment tools that appropriate engineering education,
and verify the mechanism of imagination as well as the cultivation of imagination, and the use of
its effectiveness in the teaching of the future. In addition, imagination is extremely important key
in the field of engineering and technological sciences. Research results of this project are also
available for reference and application of the instructional design of other engineering courses,
and serve as examples of the use of imagination for scientific and technological talent cultivation.
Keywordsimagination, engineering education, conceptual design studio of civil engineering,
imaginative teaching materials, imaginative assessment tool.
1
Pad Game
(emotion)
2
Todd (1993)
Prados(1998)
Rugarcia
(2000)
3
(
)
IDEAL MODEL
IDEAL MODEL
IDEAL MODEL
1
IDEAL Training Model
1. Ieee= Initiation eee
2. Dee= Development e
3. A = Alternatives
4. L = Links
IDEAL MODEL
14 15
42 44
4
1
2060 IDEAL Training Model
IDEAL
IDEAL Training Model 2060
5
2
3
4
6
5
6 2060 ( - )
()
2060
case study
(Joern Utzon)
7 IDEAL
7
7
()
case study
2060
8
8
()
case study
8
9
9
()
2060
case study
10
10
IDEAL Training Model
Woods
(2000)
11
100
IDEAL MODEL
A
2 T
(t = 3.82, p = 001t = 4.06, p = .000)
( p
> .05)
2
t p
15 38.33 11.24 .58 .569
14 36.29 7.31
15 35.15 9.61 3.82 .001**
14 23.68 6.03
15 40.36 12.29 4.06 .000***
14 24.52 8.14
15 50.60 12.43 1.87 .073
14 42.50 10.79
15 38.40 8.06 1.65 .111
14 33.88 6.57
**p < .01, ***p < .001
3 (MANOVA)
(Wilks = .54, F = 7.20; Wilks = .53, F = 7.38)
( p > .05)
(F = 22.33, p = 000)
(F = 9.64, p = 004F = 19.43, p = 000)
( p > .05)
12
3
Wilks F Levene SD Univariate F p
.79 2.20 .04 12.36 2.94 .02 .882
12.19 3.00
.39 12.89 4.17 .05 .821
13.21 3.42
6.20* 13.09 5.69 1.72 .201
10.88 2.80
.54 7.20** .87 10.30 3.35 1.54 .226
8.93 2.50
.00 11.50 2.46 1.65 .210
10.36 2.33
28.18*** 13.35 6.89 22.33*** .000
4.39 1.72
.53 7.38** 8.65** 11.18 4.74 9.64** .004
6.79 2.43
.02 14.67 4.13 3.71 .065
11.81 3.84
2.04 14.62 5.80 19.43*** .000
5.93 4.72
.87 1.30 .20 10.31 3.90 2.63 .117
8.14 3.24
.01 12.18 3.45 1.33 .260
10.83 2.78
1.26 13.20 3.33 3.42 .075
11.14 2.58
.82 1.87 .18 10.18 2.59 .00 .989
10.19 2.46
.04 14.98 3.18 .79 .382
13.93 3.17
1.46 13.24 4.55 5.37* .028
9.76 3.42
15 14 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
13
4 T (t
= 3.58, p = 001) (t = 3.96, p = 000) (t = 3.51, p = 001)
(t = 4.82, p = 000) (t = 2.69, p = 012) (t = 3.78, p = 001)
(t = 3.18, p = 003)
( p > .05)
4
t P
2.48 0.52 3.58 .001**
2.79 0.45
2.69 0.43 3.96 .000***
3.00 0.40
2.72 0.60 3.51 .001**
3.09 0.50
3.01 0.48 1.99 .055
3.19 0.45
2.31 0.70 0.51 .612
2.38 0.78
2.59 0.54 1.23 .227
2.76 0.70
2.70 0.50 4.82 .000***
3.10 0.46
2.81 0.62 2.69 .012*
3.03 0.64
2.67 0.60 3.78 .001**
3.06 0.54
2.89 0.50 3.18 .003**
3.18 0.40
3.05 0.51 0.76 .452
3.13 0.50
N=31, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
14
5 (MANCOVA)
(Wilks = .81, F = 4.31, p = 009)
( p > .05) (F = 8.14, p = 006)
( F = 9.79, p = 003)
5
Wilks F
Univariate F P
.89 2.29 2.79 2.79 2.67 .108
2.59 2.60
3.00 2.99 1.57 .215
2.84 2.85
3.09 3.07 6.03* .017
2.74 2.76
.95 .88 3.19 3.15 1.50 .226
2.93 2.98
2.38 2.40 1.78 .188
2.16 2.14
2.76 2.70 1.41 .240
2.43 2.50
.81 4.31** 3.10 3.07 8.14** .006
2.70 2.73
3.03 3.02 .83 .367
2.88 2.89
3.06 3.05 9.79** .003
2.63 2.64
.94 1.81 3.18 3.16 2.94 .092
2.93 2.96
3.13 3.12 .24 .625
3.04 3.05
31 30* p < .05, **p < .01
15
IDEAL
MODEL
101
100
6
80 91%
8 9%
7""
1 - 0 0%
2 0 0%
3 2 2%
4 29 33%
5 - 57 65%
16
8""
1 - 6 7%
2 17 19
3 27 31%
4 18 20%
5 - 20 23%
101
9101
A B C
IDEAL MODEL
IDEAL MODEL
17
(1)
2012
IDEAL Training Model
(2)
(3)
18
IDEAL
IDEAL Training Model
Pad Game
()
web2.0 web3.0
Prados, J.W. (1998). Engineering Education in the United States: Past, Present, and Future, In:
Proceedings of ICEE98 Conference, 17 20 August 1998, Rio de Janeiro. Paper no.255.
Rugarcia, R.M., Felder, D.R. &Woods, J.E. (2000). The future of engineering education: I. A
vision for a new century, Chemistry Engineering Education,34(1),2000. 1625
Todd, R. H., S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, B. R. Swan and D. K Anthony (1995). A survey of
capstone engineering courses in North America. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84, no. 2,
1995, 165-174.
IDEAL
https://sites.google.com/a/caece.net/ideal/
19
11
12IDEAL Training Model
20
13
21
1.
2.
1 1
22
3.
(1) 2 0 2 10 5
IDEAL
(2) 1
2012
(3) 1
Recommended