近年來工業設計愈發受到重視，投入工業設計界的莘莘學子也逐年攀升，使其成為近幾年熱門科系。而在臺灣教育體制影響之下，大學畢業後繼續研究所進修的人日益增多，然而設計能力是否會因繼續攻讀研究所而有所增進？因此本研究欲探討工業設計系的大學部學生與研究所學生，其設計過程是否有所差異，而彼此間的差異又為何。
　　本研究之研究對象為大二生、大四生與碩二生，由這三個設計教育的學習年數差距均為兩年的年級做比較，以便進一步探討不同年級之思考行為上所呈現之設計過程差異。依常理判斷，愈高年級的學生對於設計過程中所展現之相關設計能力應愈優於低年級生，但於設計過程當中彼此究竟有何種差異則為此研究所探討之主要議題。因此本研究問題為大二生、大四生與碩二生，其設計過程是否會因受教年級而有所有差異。
　　本研究的目的為：透過FBS與鍊結表記來分析大二生、大四生與碩二生於設計過程，以了解其設計過程之差異。
　　本研究目標為以下三點：
　　1. 本研究為個案研究型式，以大二生、大四生與碩二生為對象進行口語實驗，分析一個相同的問題其解決方式有何差異及其他相關的設計能力。
　　2. 以Gero(1990)所提出之設計原型理論(Design Prototype Theory)的FBS模型，來分析解釋大二生、大四生與碩二生的思考行為關聯。
　　3. 並同樣以設計研究方法之一的鍊結表記(Linkography)為輔，與FBS模型交互分析大二生、大四生與碩二生之設計生產率。
　　研究分析主要分為以下步驟：
　　1. 大二生、大四生與碩二生進行實驗任務設計，觀察各個受測組之討論過程內容。
　　2. 實驗任務結果將經由三位專家進行評估。
　　3. 透過FBS模型與鍊結表記，取得編碼分布數量與圖形，探討各年級之設計過程的差異與演化情形。
　　最終本研究得到三大結論：
　　1. 於設計討論中，與設計議題較無直接關係的斷句數多寡，並不會影響設計成果之優劣。
　　2. 於FBS分析結果中，愈高年級愈是注重設計規範(R)與結構(S)的發展，而與實際運作行為(Bs)相關連之設計發想則依年級而遞減。
　　3. 透過統計分析鍊結表記的概念密度、Entropy、句法上與語義上轉移的分布過程、片段活動與專家評鑑的比較結果，發現隨著年級的遞增，設計成果與專家評鑑成正比。

　　Industrial design has been receiving wide attention during recent years, so there are more and more students getting into this field, making Industrial Design a popular undergraduate program in Taiwan. Under the influence of the educational system in Taiwan, students tend to choose to pursue postgraduate studies after graduating from university. However, does obtaining a master degree improve their design abilities? Based on this issue, our research intended to examine the differences in the design process between undergraduate and postgraduate students majoring in Industrial Design.
　　The participants of this research included sophomores, seniors, and postgraduate students in their second year. To explore the differences of their design abilities, we compared the design processes of these three groups of participants. Our intention was to explore the differences in the design process in order to examine whether the difference of academic year could influence students’ design process.
　　The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences of design processes of sophomores, seniors, and postgraduate students in their second year with FBS model and Linkography.
The objectives of our study were shown as follows:
　　1. To conducted protocol experiments with sophomores, seniors, and postgraduate students in their second year, analyzing the difference in their ways of solving the same problem and in related design abilities.
　　2.To adopt the FBS model proposed by Gero(1990) as coding scheme to represent the design processes of sophomores, seniors, and postgraduate students in their second year.
　　3. To use Linkography as the second method to analyze the design productivity of sophomores, seniors and postgraduate students in their second year.
　　The analysis process was divided into the following steps:
　　1. The sophomores, seniors, and postgraduate students in their second year were involved in an experimental task design, so that we could observe the discussion of each participant group.
　　2. Three design experts evaluated the results of the experimental tasks.
　　3. Using Function-Behavior-Structure Model and Linkography, we obtain design issue distribution and graphs to explore the differences of the design processes.
　　To conclude, the results of our study were shown as follows:
　　1. In our cases, the number of pauses that are not directly related to design issues does not affect the design result.
　　2. According to the encoded results of FBS Model, the more senior students are, the more they attend to design regulations and structure development. On the other hand, there is a negative correlation between the design ideas related to behaviors and academic year.
　　3. After the analyses of link index, entrophy, Process Distribution of Syntactic Transitions and Semantic Transitions, Average First Passage Events, and Linkography, we found that with the increase of academic years, there is a positive increase in design problem-solving abilities and the quality of design results.

一、英文部份
1.Akin, O. (1978). How do Architects design? Proceedings of IFIP working conference held. France: Grenoble.
2.Akin, O. (1984). An exploration of the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodologies (pp. 189-208). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3.Anderson, J. R. (1983).The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25-39.
5.Cai,H., Yi-Luen Do, E., and Zimring, C. M. (2009). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies 31, 146-168.
6.Davis, J. G. (1992). Conceptual data modetling in database design: simlarity and differences between expert and novice designers. Man-Machine Studies, 37, 83-101.
7.Eastman, C. M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design process. In G. Moore (Ed.), Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (pp. 21-37). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
8.Eckersley, M. (1988). The form of design process: a protocol analysis study. Design Studies, 9(2), 86-94.
9.Gero J. S. (1990). Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.
10.Gero, J. S. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies 25. 373–391.
11.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 123-143.
12.Goldschimidt, G. (1992). Serial sketching: visual problem solving in designing. Cybernetics and systems: An international Journal, 23, 191-219.
13.Goldschmidt, G. (1996). The designer as a team of one. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans & K. Dorst (eds.), Analysing Design Activity (pp. 65-91). Chichester: John Wily & Son.
14.Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Is a figure-concept binary argumentation pattern inherent in visual design reasoning? In J. S. Gero B. Tversky & T. Purcell (Eds.), Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II (pp. 177-205), Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
15.Goldschmidt, G. (2003). Cognitive economy in design reasoning. In U. Lindemann (Ed.), Human behaviour in design (pp. 53-62), Berlin: Springer Verlag.
16.Goldschmidt , G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26, 593-611.
17.Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Issue,16, 189-209.
18.Gero J. S, & Tang, H.-H. (2001). Differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Design Studies, 21(3), 283-295.
19.Kavakli,M., & Gero J. S (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies 23, 25–40.
20.Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Lee, H. S. and Park, J. A. (2007). An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: Limited Commitment Mode control strategy. Design Studies 28, 585-604.
21.Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2005). Entropy Measurement of Linkography in Protocol Studies of Designing. In J.S. Gero & N. Bonnardel, (Eds.), Studying Designers’05 (pp. 229-245). Australia: 2005 Key Center of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
22.Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design Studies 29. 315–337.
23.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
24.Mitchell, W. J. (1990). The design studio of the future: the electronic design studio. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.Popovic, A. (2004). Expertise development in product design—strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies 25, 527–545.
27.Reed, S. K. (1988) Cognition: theory and applications ( 2nd ed.). California: Brooks, Cole Publishing Company.
28.Suwa, M. (1998). Content-oriented Protocol Analysis Coding Scheme. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
29.Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135-156.
30.Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving, Mind and Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31.Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1962). Computer simulation of human thinking and problem solving, though in the young child. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
32.Solso, R. L. (1991). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
33.Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies 21(5), 505-522.
34.Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Lolyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition?. Design Studies, 16, 237-259.

二、中文部份
35.何俊亨（1997）。設計思考的搜尋策略模型－專家與生手的差異。未出版之碩士論文，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所，新竹市。
36.林文傑（2008）。基模理論探討設計思維之研究－以專家與生手差異為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學創新設計研究所，臺北市。
37.周建瑋（2008）。鍊結表記-合作式設計中成員創意潛能組合與設計過程對設計成果的影響。未出版之碩士論文，私立長庚大學工業設計研究所，桃園縣。
38.陳立季（2001）。建築設計之生手與專家使用SEED-Layout之設計行為模式解析。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學建築研究所，臺北市。
39.陳聖智（2001）。專家與生手設計者使用電腦媒材的認知差異－一般性思考到創造性思考的歷程。未出版之碩士論文，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所，新竹市。
40.陳禮文（1998）。問題解決為導向的設計思考過程-專家與生手的比較。未出版之碩士論文，私立淡江大學建築學系研究所，新北市。
41.黃世遠（2001）。以原案分析探討同工造型之設計活動。未出版之碩士論文，國立成功大學工業設計研究所，臺南市。
42.盧彥甫（2004）。工業設計在台灣企業建立品牌的過程中所扮演的角色之探討。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所，臺北市。
43.謝易成（2007）。探討傳統與數位媒材對於設計概念的影響-以合作式設計為例。未出版之碩士論文，私立長庚大學工業設計研究所，桃園縣。
44.陳李綢（1992）。認知發展與輔導(修訂一刷)。臺北市：心理出版社。
45.楊裕富（1998）。概論與設計方法。臺北市：田園城市。
46.鄭麗玉（2006）。認知心理學- 理論與應用(三版一刷)。臺北市：五南圖書。
47.鍾聖校（1990）。認知心理學。臺北市：心理出版社。