本研究旨於提出大學校園共享學習空間的設計方法與規劃，藉以回應高等教育機構領導永續發展的責任，培育具備創造力與永續思維的學生。大學圖書館因此陸續啟動轉型計畫，而電子計算機中心與討論小間亦為討論的對象，許多大學將非正式學習空間的設計融入校園規畫，以期發展多元而彈性的學習模式。
對於共享學習空間進行問卷調查並且提出設計構想。問卷調查首先以考試周、空間類型、學生背景為變因，了解課餘時間之校園共享空間使用行為，其次就圖書館、電算中心與討論小間等三類校級空間類型，了解學生對於空間之期望。
重要結論為(一)個人學習者亦重視「適合交談討論」的空間性質，表示交流討論為學生所重視的學習模式。(二)共享學習空間設計須能反映考試周的變動性。(三)當前學生混合學習模式以及應用資訊設施之互動學習，共享學習空間需兼顧可飲食、可交談、團體討論等特性。(四)營造半私密性的對話交流空間，以容納如躺臥、盤坐、飲食由私密、半私密乃至開放之多樣性行為。
以國立臺灣科技大學作為設計基地，可行性討論設定面積約900平方米且可容342人之校級共享學習空間，並部分取代鄰近之電腦教室機能，採用曲線牆面，創造視線與動線流動性，提供多種類型且移動式的家具，打破僵化之正交式配置。擇定於銜接三個學院空間樞紐位置之場域進行模擬操作。作為後續研究及大學校園規劃者的建議與參考。

The study aimed at drawing a proposal of shared learning common at university campus, for reflecting the responsibility of higher education institutions, to transform students into critical thinkers who are capable of solving problems and building knowledge for themselves. Plenty of academic libraries therefore have initiated renovative or new constructed projects, as well as computer centers and group study rooms. Informal learning has been regards as an important design element of university planning.
A survey was conducted at NTUST campus, including two main goals. The first one is change of students’ out-of-class behavior at campus influenced by exam weeks, type of spaces and their background; second one, students’ expectations of library, computer center and group study rooms.
The critical findings are that (1) individual learners consider “suitable for discussion” is an important factor of learning spaces, (2) learning common design should be able to reflect students’ change for exam weeks, (3) eating, talking and discussing are allowed in learning commons for blended learning mode and applying of digital tools, and(4) varieties of behaviors are allowed, like lying, Sitting cross-legged.
The study took NTUST campus as hypothetical site and proposed a design plan as suggestions for future research and university planning. Feasible area is about 900 square meters and capacity is 342 people. The plan includes computer area to replace adjacent computer classrooms, curved wall for flow of visibility and route, various and movable furniture. A campus traffic center which connects to three college space was chosen as site to stimulate and demonstrate the concept of learning common.

1. Coulson, J., P. Roberts, and I. Taylor. (2010). University Planning and Architecture: The Search for Perfection: Taylor & Francis.
2. Neuman, D.J. (2003). Building Type Basic for College and University Facilities: Wiley.
3. Ibrahim, N. and N.H. Fadzil. (2013). Informal Setting for Learning on Campus: Usage and Preference. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 344-351. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.036
4. 湯志民 (2014) 。校園規劃新論。台北市: 五南出版社。
5. 賴鈺淇 (2020) 。校園共享空間之用後評估 -以臺灣科技大學學習角為例 (碩士論文)。 國立臺灣科技大學，台北市。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zfha64
6. Amaral, A.R., et al. (2020). A review of empirical data of sustainability initiatives in university campus operations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119558. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119558
7. Fischer, D., S. Jenssen, and V. Tappeser. (2015). Getting an empirical hold of the sustainable university: a comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks across 12 contemporary sustainability assessment tools. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(6), 785-800. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1043234
8. Lozano, R. (2006). Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9), 787-796. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010
9. Cortese, A.D.J.P.f.h.e. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. 31(3), 15-22.
10. 張家綺 (2016) 。臺灣永續大學評估指標建構之研究 (碩士論文)。國立政治大學，台北市。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ww3zgj

11. 鄒宗翰 (2016) 。綠色大學學生環境素養表現之研究－以中區綠色大學為例(碩士論文) 。國立臺中教育大學，台中市。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/859bp7
12. 教育部 (2017) 。教育部補助大學社會責任實踐（USR）計畫 推動重點議題內涵。 取自 http://usr.moe.gov.tw/files
13. 教育部 (2019) 。第二期(109-111年)大學社會責任實踐計畫 徵件規劃草案簡報。 取自 http://usr.moe.gov.tw/files
14. Sady, M., A. Żak, and K. Rzepka. (2019). The Role of Universities in Sustainability-Oriented Competencies Development: Insights from an Empirical Study on Polish Universities. 9(3), 62.
15. 閻自安 (2016) 。問題導向式行動學習的整合應用: 以高等教育為例，課程研究，201503 (10:1期)，51-69。 doi:10.3966/181653382015031001004
16. Coulson, J., P. Roberts, and I. Taylor. (2014). University Trends: Contemporary Campus Design: Taylor & Francis.
17. Jamieson, P. (2009). The Serious Matter of Informal Learning. 37, 18-25.
18. Choy, F.C. and S.N. Goh. (2016). A framework for planning academic library spaces. Library Management, 37(1/2), 13-28. doi:10.1108/LM-01-2016-0001
19. Staines, G.M. (2012). Universal Design of learning spaces. In G.M. Staines (Ed.), Universal Design (pp. 67-86): Chandos Publishing.
20. Acker, S.R. and M.D. Miller. (2005). Campus Learning Spaces: Investing in How Students Learn.
21. 天野 克也、谷口 汎邦 (2001)。 建築計画・設計シリーズ 図書館。市ケ谷出版社。
22. 李奉真 (2020) 。臺灣公共圖書館總館-分館管理體制營運績效評估研究 (碩士論文) 。 國立政治大學，台北市。 取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3gauss
23. 陳敏珍 (1991) 。公共圖書館分館綜論. 台北市立圖書館館訊，第09卷第01期，33-42。
24. 黃品舜 (2018) 。 公共圖書館第三場域及建築設計影響對大眾使用之研究(碩士論文) 。國立臺灣師範大學, 台北市。 取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/yst83q
25. 日本建築學會 (2007) 。建築設計資料集成[教育‧圖書篇] 。天津大學出版社。
26. Dober, R.P. (1996). Campus Planning.
27. Freeman, G., et al. (2005). Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space. CLIR Publication No. 129. Council on Library and Information Resources.
28. OMA. Qatar National Library. Retrieved from https://oma.eu/projects/qatar-national-library
29. Henkel, M., et al. (2018). Qatar National Library as part of a countrywide knowledge infrastructure. . Paper presented at the International Conference on Library and Information Science, Bangkok, Thailand.
30. Lux, C. (2014). Qatar National Library – Architecture as innovation in the Arab world. IFLA Journal, 40(3), 174-181. doi:10.1177/0340035214546984
31. Qatar National Library. (2021). Qatar National Library. Retrieved from https://qnl.qa/en
32. ALA. (2021). Helsinki Central Library Oodi. Retrieved from http://ala.fi/work/helsinki-central-library/
33. Payne, L., O. Programs, and R. Division. (2007). Library Storage Facilities and the Future of Print Collections in North America: OCLC Programs and Research.
34. Charles Library Temple University. (2021). The library of the future is here. Retrieved from https://www.temple.edu/about/libraries/charles
35. 臺灣大學圖書館 (2021)。自動化書庫服務中心。取自 http://www.lib.ntu.edu.tw/asrs
36. LAAC. (2018). PMA P2 Urban Hybrid | City Library. Retrieved from http://www.laac.eu/en/projects/p2-urban-hybrid-city-library

37. Carlson, S. (2001). The Deserted Library. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48.
38. Bieraugel, M. and S. Neill. (2017). Ascending Bloom’s Pyramid: Fostering Student Creativity and Innovation in Academic Library Spaces. College & Research Libraries, 78(1). doi:10.5860/crl.78.1.35
39. 陳忠信 (2017)。多校區大專校院學生對圖書館服務品質之研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ew5wa4
40. Antell, K. and D. Engel. (2006). Conduciveness to scholarship: The essence of academic library as place. College & Research Libraries, 67(6), 536-560. doi:DOI 10.5860/crl.67.6.536
41. Shill, H.B. and S. Tonner. (2004). Does the Building Still Matter? Usage Patterns in New, Expanded, and Renovated Libraries, 1995–2002. College & Research Libraries, 65(2), 123-150. doi:10.5860/crl.65.2.123
42. Gayton, J.T. (2008). Academic Libraries: “Social” or “Communal?” The Nature and Future of Academic Libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60-66. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.011
43. Yoo‐Lee, E., T. Heon Lee, and L. Velez. (2013). Planning library spaces and services for Millennials: an evidence‐based approach. Library Management, 34(6/7), 498-511. doi:10.1108/lm-08-2012-0049
44. Fox, B. and P.E. Sidorko. (2013). Hong Kong projects and trends. In L. Watson (Ed.), Better Library and Learning Space: Projects, Trends, Ideas (pp. 49-60): Facet.
45. The University of Hong Kong Libraries, T.U.o.H.K. Main Library Level 3. Retrieved from https://lib.hku.hk/level3/zones.html
46. Chan, D. L. H. and E. Spodick. (2014). Space development. New Library World, 115(5/6), 250-262. doi:10.1108/NLW-04-2014-0042
47. Schumacher, C. (2018). Supporting Informal Workplace Learning Through Analytics. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Digital Workplace Learning (pp. 45-46): Springer.
48. Johnson, C. and C. Lomas. (2005). Design of the Learning Space: Learning and Design Principles. EDUCAUSE review, 40, 16-28.

49. Chism, N.V.N. (2006). Challenging Tranditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
50. Cunningham, H.V. and S. Tabur. (2012). Learning space attributes: reflections on academic library design and its use. 2012, 1(2).
51. Riddle, M.D. and K. Souter. (2012). Designing informal learning spaces using student perspectives. 2012, 1(2).
52. Gee, L. (2006). Human-Centered Design Guidelines. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces / Diana G. Oblinger, editor. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
53. JISC. (2006). Designing Space for Effective Learning: A guide to 21th centure learning space design.
54. 國立臺灣科技大學圖書館 (2021)。 2020 國立臺灣科技大學圖書館年報。
55. Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning spaces. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
56. Wilson, H.K. and A. Cotgrave. (2016). Factors that influence students’ satisfaction with their physical learning environments. Structural Survey, 34(3), 256-275. doi:10.1108/SS-01-2016-0004
57. Oblinger, D. and J.L. Oblinger. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation. In D. Oblinger, J.L. Oblinger, and J.K. Lippincott (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation: EDUCAUSE.
58. Ibrahim, N., N. Fadzil, and M. Saruwono. (2013). Learning Outside Classrooms on Campus Ground: Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 4, 97-109. doi:10.21834/ajbes.v3i9.68
59. Jamieson, P., et al. (2000). Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 221-236. doi:10.1080/072943600445664