--

()

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