數位科技的學習已是近年教育領域之必要趨勢，亦是應培養學生之現代國民應具備的科技素養。於現今技術型高中著重技術層面之引導，然於實務工作中發現，於實際課程安排上，諸多設計思維訓練並不足夠，且會因以作品評定學習優劣，而忽略學生於創作主體過程中，發現問題、解決問題及思考創作的重要能力。是故，本研究進行之目的將設計思考引入課程，透過學習成效分析及問卷填寫及訪談回饋，進而探討該法的可行性與應用性。研究中針對技術型高中美術系學生二年級「藝術與科技」此堂課，分為控制組及實驗組兩組，控制組為一般傳統授課方式，實驗組則教授運用「設計思考」之概念，將以創作之作品進行評分，研究採用任課老師評分、專家評分及學生互評等3項進行評估兩組之學習成效，並收集「課程學習歷程問卷」、「課程滿意度問卷」及「設計思考引入課程之課後回饋問卷」，以分析學生學習態度、滿意度情形及實際授課感受之結果，另加以實際訪談呈現更多學生回饋內容細節。經本研究發現：(1)任課老師及專家評分之總分平均，於實驗組及控制組無顯著差異，兩組的學習成效未有顯著差異，經現場實地教學之觀察，研判乃係受新冠疫情影響學生學習動機及作業製作時效，建議於未來研究得根據環境狀態適時調整課程安排及內容。(2)另經分析問卷及實地訪談，發現透過授課方法及課程內容之調整，使學生能更享受於學習中，並提升學習動機及成就，同時增加學生創作之創造力，且執行設計思考後，有效提升團體之學習氛圍、創造力激發及自我創作認同感。(3)本研究結果可做為未來引入「設計思考」概念課程之參考，並有效提供建議作法及研究引入之限制性。

In recent years, the learning in digital technologies has become a trend in education and it is also crucial in the cultivation of students’ technological literacy as modern citizens. Today's vocational-technical high schools pay attention on technical guidance. However, the training of design thinking found to be insufficient in the actual curriculum. Students are evaluated by their works instead of their abilities to identify and solve problems as well as creativity during the creation process. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to introduce design thinking into the curriculum and explore its feasibility and applicability through learning effectiveness analysis, questionnaires, and interviews. In the study, second grade vocational high school students in the Fine Arts Department are divided into experimental group and control group in the course of "Art and Technology." In the control group, traditional teaching method is adopted. On the other hand, the concept of "design thinking" is used in the experiment group to help grade students’ works. Learning effectiveness of two groups is evaluated by scores from teachers and experts, as well as peer assessment. "Learning historical questionnaire," "course satisfaction questionnaire," and "post-course feedback questionnaire on the introduction of design thinking" are collected to analyze students' learning attitude, level of satisfaction, and learning experience. In addition, interviews are conducted to explore student feedbacks in further details. The findings of this study are as follows: (1) In terms of the average scores from the teachers and experts, there is no significant difference between the experimental group and control group. In other words, there is no significant difference in the learning effectiveness between two groups. Based on the field observation, students' learning motivation and creation time are affected by COVID-19 pandemic. The study suggests that course arrangement and content shall be adjusted timely according to the environment in the future. (2) After analyzing questionnaires and field interviews, the study finds out that students are more engaged in learning, and their motivation and achievement are improved through the adjustment of teaching methods and course contents. Meanwhile, it makes students more creative. After implementing design thinking, it effectively enhances the learning atmosphere of the group, stimulates creativity and boosts a sense of self-identity. (3) The findings of this study can serve as references for introducing "design thinking" into the curriculum in the future, and provide effective recommendations on practices and limitations of the introduction.

1. 李大偉 & 張玉山. (2004). 性別、人數、個人創造力與小組技術創造力之相關研究.
2. 杜瑞澤、陳漪佩 (1996)。設計素養教育之重要性與內涵規劃。工業設計，25(3)，18-23。
3. 姚世澤 (2008)。論〔藝術與科技〕如何反映人類的需求與社會文明的價值觀，台灣教育，650，2-7。
4. 陳舜文、魏嘉瑩 (2013)。大學生學習動機之「雙因素模式」：學業認同與角色認同之功能。中 華心理學刊，55(1)，41-55。
5. 張春興 (1996)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華。
6. 張雅萍 (2007)。學習動機對學習成效之影響-以領導行為為干擾變數，中華管理學報，8(4)，2007。
7. 教育部 (2016)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要技術型高級中等學校，科技領域。
8. 劉政宏 (2009)。對學習動機最有影響力的動機成分?雙核心動機模式之初探。教育心理學報，41(2)，361-384。
9. 鍾明芬 (2009)。影響學生學習成效關鍵成功因素之彙總分析。國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
10. Bhatnagar, T., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2017, January). Design thinking and creative problem solving for undergraduate engineering education in India: The need and relevance. In International Conference on Research into Design (pp. 953-967). Springer, Singapore.
11. Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
12. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92.
13. Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5-21.
14. Cigaina, M. (2013). Innovation management framework: Enabling and fostering innovation at enterprises. SAP internal document (to be published by Epistemy Press).
15. Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer Verlag.
16. Cross, N. (2011) Design Thinking. Berg: Oxford.
17. d.school (2010), Bootcamp Bootleg. Sanfrancisco, CA: Stanford University.
18. d.school, Institute of Design at Stanford. (2019). retrieved from https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdf.
19. Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512-523.
20. Efeoglu, Arkin, et al. (2013). Design thinking: characteristics and promises. 14th International CINet Conference on Business Development and Co-creation. Continuous Innovation Network.
21. Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C. C., & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching design thinking in business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(2), 182-192.
22. Hassi, L., & Miko, L. (2011). Conceptions of Design Thinking in the design and management discourses. Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th world conference on design research, Delft.
23. IDEO & Riverdale. (2012). Design Thinking for Educators, http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/ Retrieved 26.03.2013.
24. Kember, D., & Biggs, J., & Leung, D. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. The British journal of educational psychology. 74. 261-79. 10.1348/000709904773839879.
25. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
26. Kurokawa, T. (2013). Design thinking education at universities and graduate schools. Science & Technology Trends Quarterly Review, 46, 50-63.
27. Lahey, J. (2017). How Design Thinking Became a Buzzword at School. The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 Jan. 2017, ww.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01 /how-design-thinking-became-a-buzzword-at-school/512150/.
28. Lawson, B. (2006 [1980]) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demyistfied, 4th edn. Oxford: Architectual Press.
29. Meinel, C., Leifer, L.& Plattner, H. (2011). Design Thinking: Understand-Improve-Apply. Springer.
30. Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162-166.
31. Owen, C. (2007). "Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use." Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.
32. Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010).
33. Sandars, J., & Goh, P. S. (2020). Design Thinking in Medical Education: The Key Features and Practical Application. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7, 2382120520926518.
34. Scheer, A., & Plattner, H. (2011). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17 (3), 8-19.
35. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Pro- fessionals Think in Action. Basic Books, Cambridge, MA.
36. Schön, D. & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of Seeing in Designing. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1, 68-74.
37. Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
38. Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). "Design thinking: past, present and possible futures." Creativity and innovation management 22.2: 121-146.
39. Smith, C. R., Iversen, O. & Hjorth, H. (2015). Design thinking for digital fabrication in education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 20-28.
40. Vetterli, C., Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F.& Berger, K. (2012). Dynamisches IT-Management: So steigern Sie die Agilität, Flexibilität und Innovationskraft Ihrer IT. Düsseldorf: Symposion Publishing.