本研究旨在探討教育性遊戲模擬教學與促進設計決策學習之關聯性，並結構以遊戲模擬、教育性遊戲模擬教學、設計理論與價值工程等理論基礎，進行具體研究目的之探討，其內容包括一、探討實施遊戲模擬價值工程對促進設計決策與組織溝通的影響。二、探討實施教育性遊戲模擬教學與學習動機、組織溝通等相關構面的關係。三、了解學生對教育性遊戲模擬教學實施的感受、意見與反應。
為達上述研究目的，針對國立師範大學工業教育學系室內設計組大學部四年級27名學生與研究所8名學生，同時進行量的研究與質的研究。量的研究運用一次個案實驗研究、準實驗研究與量表施測等方法進行，質的研究、則以文獻分析、觀察分析等方式進行探討。
資料處理在量的研究方面，蒐集各項量表測驗分數進行次數分配、百分比、平均數、標準差及T考驗等統計方式分析，在質的方面，將實驗過程的錄影、錄音之資料，運用結構性觀察分析作陳述性總結。
研究結果發現：
一、 實施遊戲模擬價值工程分析，運用角色模擬能夠使學生可能由各種領域的專業角色的扮演，進行設計評估，達到溝通的多樣性，增加對設計案的認知，並且提出更符合業主在成本上、價值上、設計意象上需求的設計決策。
二、 實施遊戲模擬價值工程分析小組在「情報的溝通」的構面分數高於一般價值工程分析小組，並達顯著差異。
三、 實施遊戲模擬價值工程分析小組在「失真的溝通」的構面分數高於一般價值工程分析小組，並達顯著差異。
四、 實施教學性遊戲模擬教學，研究所學生只針對自己喜愛的任務而學習，研究所學生亦較不在意教育性遊戲模擬教學對自己的影響。
五、 實施教學性遊戲模擬教學，在「情報的溝通」的構面，研究所的學生高於大學部四年級同學，並達顯著差異。
六、 實施遊戲模擬價值工程，由觀察資料顯示，所有溝通的情形，皆正面地有關「設計決策工作」的發展，不論是遊戲階段、創造力發展階段亦或價值工程評估階段。
七、 實施教學性遊戲模擬教學，能夠促進學生對「設計決策」了解達93%的學生認同；96%的學生認為能夠提高學習興趣。
八、 實施教學性遊戲模擬教學， 97%的學生認同此教學法對促進設計決策有幫助；100%的學生認同參與教學活動時，會增進同學之間的關係；而且96%的學生希望多進行此教學法。
本研究最後針對上述之研究結果加以討論，並綜合歸納研究結論，提出有關教育性遊戲模擬教學的相關因素與後續研究的建議，以供參考。

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between educational gaming/simulation and the learning of design decision –making. Based on the theories of value engineering, educational gaming/simulation, design theory and design teaching method, this study is structured into three following specific projects: First, this study seeks to examine the role of gaming/simulation value engineering in design decision-making and organization communication. Second, it is to explore the relationship among the implementation of educational gaming/simulation, learning motivation and organizational communication. Finally, this study strives to understand how those students who participated in the study felt about the application of educational gaming/simulation in design decision-making learning.
In order to achieve the objectives, 27 undergraduate and 8 graduate students who studied in interior design division, industrial education department, National Normal University were invited to be the research samples of this study. Both quantitative and qualitative research method are employed. The quantitative research method comprises three approaches including one-shot case study experiment research, quasi-experimental research and measuring test. The qualitative research method is composed of documentary analysis and observation methodology.
In terms of data processing, test scores and results are collected to undergo various statistical analysis including frequencies, percentage, means and independent-sample T test to achieve quantitative research. While in qualitative research, observation methodology is applied such as audio/ videotaping, and the observational data was analyzed and concluded by narrative form.
The findings of this study are as follows:
1. Role-play is an activity in gaming/simulation value engineering analysis. By being asked to play different professional roles in a design case, the students are able to do a case study based on diversified communication modes to have a better understanding of the design case thus to come up with design decisions that can better meet the client’s requirement in cost, value, and image.
2. The gaming/simulation value engineering team scores impressively higher in “communication of information” than non-gaming/simulation value engineering team.
3. The gaming/simulation value engineering team scores impressively higher in “distortion communication” than non-gaming/simulation value engineering team.
4. In proceeding educational gaming/simulation, graduate students only focus on the areas that they are most interested in. They also care less about the influence of educational gaming/simulation to themselves than undergraduate students.
5. In proceeding educational gaming/simulation, graduate student team scores impressively higher than the seniors in undergraduate school.
6. In proceeding value engineering gaming/simulation, the data collected from observation shows that every communication in between the students has positively affected the various stages in design decision making process including gaming, creativity development and value engineering assessment.
7. 93% of the students agree that the application of educational gaming/simulation can improve their understanding of “design decision-making”, and 96% of the students agree that educational gaming/simulation reinforces their motivation in learning design decision-making.
8. 97% of the students recognize that educational gaming/simulation indeed is helpful to them in design decision-making process, and 100% of them agree that participating in education gaming/simulation activities can improve their interpersonal relationship. Furthermore, 96% of the students express their hope to see more of this kind of curriculum will be brought along.
The study carries out a discussion based on the findings of various research methods mentioned above and offers a number of suggestions regarding relative factors and further studies of educational gaming/simulation.

壹、中文部分
何俊亨（民87）。設計思考的搜尋策略模型－專家與生手的差異。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所未出版碩士論文。
沈文修（民83）。價值工程理論之實踐--執行價值工程研析。營建管理季刊，19，18-24。
余政峰（民88）。讀書會的團體動力因素之研究。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
李燕，李浦譯（民87）。人際溝通。台北市：揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
李堅萍（民86）。解決問題教學策略的價值與實施程序。中學工藝教育月刊，30（11），17-20。
林世元（民86）。合作學習對國小數量低成就學生補救教學實施成效之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所未出版論文。
林守亮（民86）。解決問題教學法之評量。國立臺灣師範大學物理研究所未出版碩士論文。
吳明清（民80）。教育研究－基本觀念與方法之分析。台北市：五南。
侯信安（民88）。價值工程研析電腦輔助系統。雲林科技大學營建工程研究所未出版碩士論文。
徐載華譯（民79）。局論。台北市 : 桂冠。
施建生（民86）。賽局理論的要義。臺灣經濟研究月刊，22，6-8。
陸纘霓，章艾霞（民89）。價值工程在營建工程規劃設計階段之運用。中興工程，62，81-100。
郭獻國，蔡一生（民80）。價值工程在建築設計發展階段之應用--以辦公大樓分間牆材料選擇為例。空間雜誌特別增刊：建築技術，1，205-215。
紅塵客（民89）。價值工程將主導21世紀企業的興衰。品質管制月刊，36（3），58-59。
陳家富（民86）。發現問題在建築設計創造力中的角色。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所未出版碩士論文。
陳禮文（民86）。問題解決為導向的設計思考過程－專家與生手的比較。淡江大學建築學系研究所未出版碩士論文。
陳耀茂（民86）。談價值工程在服務業的應用。品質管制月刊，36（6），57-61。
黃政傑，林佩璇（民85）。合作學習。台北市：五南出版社。
黃炯探（民88）。討教育改革的根本--解決問題能力的教學。中二中學報，3，1-12。
黃衍明（民85）。集居性質實質環境中的配合遊戲。第9屆建築學術論文發表會論文集，199-202。
黃俊仁（民88）。網路合作學習系統與小組互動觀察工具。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所未出版碩士論文。
程上修（民89）。運用合作學習及創造思考問題解決策略於高一氣象學習之成效分析。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所未出版碩士論文。
梁文貴（民87）。訊息不足對決策行為之影響--賽局、訊息與交易成本三理論之觀點。大同學報，28，45-54。
湯偉君，邱美虹（民88）。創造性問題解決(CPS)模式的沿革與應用。科學教育，223，2-20。
葉安琦（民88）。促進國小學童創造性問題解決能力的個案研究--發展問題表徵。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
葉錦堂，黃南斗譯（民88）。現場的價值工程（VE）。台北市：臺華工商圖書出版公司。
游萬來，宋同正譯（民87）。設計進程－成功設計管理的指引－。台北市：六合出版社。
鄧方譯（民85）。賽局理論與經濟模型。台北市：五南出版社。
貳、英文部分
Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of Architecture Design. Pion Limited.
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Perspective on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Binmore, Ken (1972). Fun and games: a text on game theory. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath.
Connell, J.P.& Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe(Ed+s.).
Cotton, S, Ahmadi, R. (1977). Assessing Simulation Games for the Classroom. Assessment Update, 9 (3), 6-9.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dorst, K. and Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16, 261-274.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational Processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Ellington, H., Addinall, E., & Percival, F. (1982). A handbook of game design. London: Kogan Page.
Faria, A. J. (1987). A survey of the use of business games in academia and in business. Simulation and Games,18, 207-24.
Faria, T. Richard Whiteley and Faria, Anthony J. (1987). A Study of Relationship between Student Final Exam Performance and Simulation Game. London: Sage Publications.
Ference, Eugene Andrew (1977). A Gaming-Simulation Model for Teaching Interpersonal Human Relations Decision-Making Skills in the Hotel Industry. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Freeman, P. and Newell, A. (1971). A Model for Functional Reasoning in Design. In Proceedings of the Second IJCAI, London, England, 621-633.
Greenblat, Cathy Stein t & Duke, Richard D. (1975). Gaming-Simulation－Rationale, Design, and Applications. London: Sage Publications.
Greenblat, Cathy Stein & Duke, Richard D. (1981). Principles and Practices of Gaming-Simulation. London: Sage Publications.
Habraken, N.J. (1987). Concept Design Games: Book One: Developing. Book Two: Playing. A report submitted to the National Science Foundation. Cambridge: MIT Department of Architecture.
Hong, J.C.; Liu, M.C. & Wu, M.T. (1996). A Study on Product Development and Technical Innovation Strategies of Electric,Electronic and Information Industries in Taiwan. International Conference on Technology Management: Univesity/ Industry/ Government Collaboration, June, 24-26.
Hubert, Walter (1987). The Effects of the Use of Gaming and Simulation on Cooperative Problem Solving. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Joldersma, Cisca (2000). Policy Learning thought Simulation/Gaming. Simulation &Gaming Yearbook, 6, 79.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kirk, Stephen Jarome (1992). Improved Design Decision-Making Using Small Group Value Engineering Gaming/Simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Klabbers, Jan H.G. & Scheper, Willem J. (1988). Simulation-Gaming: On the Improvement of Competence in Dealing with Complexity, Uncertainty and Value Conflicts. New York: Pergramon Press.
Ladousse, G. P. (1987). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, O. & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 585-610.
Livingston, S. (1973). Simulation games. Free Press.
Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine (1995). Creative Problem Solving. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Markus, H.M., & Rurulo, A. (1990). Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In L. Pervin(Ed.), Goal concepts in Psychology, 211-241.
Mitchell, W. J., et al. (1976). Synthesis and Optimization of Small Rectangular Floor Plans. Environment and Planning B, 3, 37-70.
Moore, Carl M. (1992). Group Techniques for Idea Building. London: Sage Publications.
Morry Van Ments (1989). The Effective Use of Role-Play. New York: Nichols Publishing.
Newell A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). The Theory of Human Problem Solving. Reprinted in Readings in Cognitive Science, Collins & Smith (eds.), 1.3, 33.
Newell, A. & Simon H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievenent motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
Rittel, Horst W.J. & Melvin M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 155-169.
Romiszowski, J. (1989). Producing Instructional Systems. Lodon:Kogan Page.
Rowe, P. (1987). Design Thinking. The MIT Press.
Ryan, R.M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning. Greenwich, CT JAI Press.
Schuler, R.S. and L.F. Blank (1976). Relationships Among Types of Communication, Organizational Level and Employee Satisfaction and Performance. in: IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, August, 23(3), 124-129.
Slavin, R. (1995). A model of effective instruction. The Educational Forum, 59, 166-176.
Stevick, Earl W. (1976). Memory, Meaning & Method. Rowly Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Society for Academic Gaming and Simulation in Education and Training (1980). Simulation/Games for Learning: the journal of SAGSET. London: Kogan Page.
Stiny, G. (1976). Two exercises in Formal Composition. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 3, 187-210.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82(4), 616-622.