為了培養良好的學生品格，我國推行108年課綱規劃，培養學生自主學習的能力，並且挖掘自身個人特質，有別於以往教育形式，知識的獲取也不再僅是書本上的內容，而是透過教育者的教授和引導，讓學生從日常生活中發現新知、體驗生活。因此，國內有學校仿效國外大學引入設計思考課程，指導學生如何以科學探究的方式和透過設計師的角度去發掘、思考問題，而這股風氣也逐漸延伸至國中教育體系中。
國中學生處於生涯探索的重要階段，許多學校藉由各式各樣的聯課活動讓學生參與，並且從課程活動讓學生對未來的生涯規劃有參考依據，本研究在此背景下透過聯課活動，配合國中學生的學習狀況將設計流程、設計思考等課程進行規劃，並招募有興趣的學生參與，除了培養學生觀察生活、發掘問題、解決問題等能力，同時更能為學生生涯探索提供新的方向。
本研究施行兩學期的教學實踐課程，課程內容根據相關文獻整合出三個階段的課程規劃:觀察、發想、統整，讓學生根據課程發展從相關議題挖掘問題，並且透過小組討論利用設計思考方法進行創意發想，最終將其所提出的設計提案進行統整，在課程期中和期末透過課程滿意度感受問卷調查學生對於課程的反應，除此之外本研究更與學生和相關專家進行訪談，以做為課程調整依據並作為未來研究和課程規劃參考。
本研究最終獲得結論如下:(1)教師協助國中學生進行設計課程和討論有效降低學生對於課程的不理解;(2)配合學生狀況一同進行課程，可以避免課程教授速度過快而導致學生學習興趣減少;(3)除了紙本或資料的研究，國中學生對於實作課程有很高的興趣，有助於增加學生對課程的興趣和滿意度;(4)了解學生期望，在課程規劃上加入實作可增加學生的課程參與興趣程度，並且發揮自主團隊分工精神;(5)設計課程帶動國中學生進行創意思考與提案，且實作課程將設計提案進行實體化給予學生成就感，提高學生對課程的吸引度。

In order to develop students' good character, the government has implemented the 108 Curriculum Education System, which enables students to not only cultivate the ability of self-directed learning but also explore their own personality traits. Different from the traditional forms of education, the way of knowledge acquisitions no longer just depends on learning the contents of books. Through the teaching and guidance of educators, students are able to discover new knowledge from their daily lives. Therefore, some domestic schools have introduced design thinking courses, which are referred to foreign universities, to instruct students how to explore and think about problems in a scientific way and from the perspective of designers so that they can propose innovative solutions to the problems. The trend of this new practice has been gradually applied to the secondary education system then.
Middle school students are at an important stage of life exploration. Many schools engage students in a variety of extracurricular activities that allow students to have a blue print for future career planning. In this context, there search recruited interested middle school students as participants and integrated both design process and design thinking into the curriculum according to their learning situation. In addition to cultivating students’ ability to observe and explore as well as their problem-solving skills, it also provides new directions for students to explore their lives.
There search implemented a two-semester teaching practice course. The content of the course was integrated into three stages of curriculum planning based on relevant literature: observation, ideation, and integration, allowing students to explore problems from related issues and use design thinking methods for innovation via group discussions. Eventually, the design proposals of each group were summarized. At the mid-term and the end of the course, a satisfaction survey was conducted to evaluate the reaction of participants to the course. Furthermore, there search interviewed the participants and relevant experts for reference of future studies and curriculum planning.
The generate results of this study come as follows: (1) It is effective to improve students' understanding of the courses when teachers assist middle school students in the design-related courses and take advantage of discussions; (2) Carrying out courses in accordance with students' conditions can avoid loss of interest for students when the pace of teaching is too fast to follow; (3) In addition to the paper or data research, the middle school students are very interested in hands-on courses, which help increase students' interest and satisfaction to the course; (4) The integration of hands-on practice into courses according to students' expectations can therefore improve the degree of their participation and the mindset of teamwork; (5) Design courses drive the middle school students to think creatively and make proposals while hands-on courses materializing design proposals bring a sense of achievement to students and improve their interests in the courses.

中文參考文獻:
1.王靜如、周金燕、蔡瑞芬(2006)。國小教師科學教學基準系列(二)科學本質與科學探究。屏東教大科學教育，23，3-17。
2.中川聰(2006)。通用設計的教科書(張旭晴譯)。台灣:龍溪國際出版。
3.立德威、荷登、巴特勒(Lidwell, W.,Holden, K.&Butler, J. )(2011)。設計法則:125個影響認知、增加美感，讓設計更好的關鍵法則(呂亨英、吳莉君譯)。台北：原點出版。(原著出版年:2010)。
4.李孟達(2011)。運用設計思考方式發展之概念設計(碩士論文)。取自：http：//etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G00M9713019%22.&searchmode=basic。
5.何偉雲(2002)。從創造性思考觀點探討國小學童物理問題解決。科學教育研究與發展，30，1-19。
6.吳宛珊(2018)。探究、創新、師大典範-探究式教學法工作坊。國立臺灣師範大學教學發展電子報，78。
7.吳靜宜、李明芬(2020)。連結內在深層意義的設計思考-整合U型理論視域的探究。設計學報，25(1)，25-45。
8.吳善輝(2013)。淺談自主學習的首要配套¬-小班教學的實施。台灣教育評論月刊，2(7)，95-98。
9.張仁家、林癸妙、彭儀雯、周全鋒(2017)。實務專題課程應用探究式教學對電資相關系科大學生探究能力與創造思考能力之影響。科技與工程教育學刊，48(2)，17-43。Doi：10.6232/JTEE.201712_48(2).0002。
10.林崇宏(2000)。產品設計流程的模式分析與探討。2000科技與管理學術研討會論文集，67-73。
11.陸定邦、林群超(2004)。台灣設計和應用藝術教育於專業知識與技能之供需調查及研究。設計學報，10(2)，89-104。
12.陳辰洧(2005)。創意、設計與科技。生活科技教育月刊，38(8)，57-72。
13.陳郁茜(2020)。「引導發現式學習」融入技高廣告創意課程對學生學習興趣、創意自我效能及學習成果之影響(碩士論文)。取自：http：//etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10710903%22.&searchmode=basic。
14.陳文典(2003)。自然與生活科技學習領域主題式教學活動設計。台北:國立教育研究院籌備處。
15.黃茂在、陳文典(2004)。「問題解決」的能力。科學教育月刊，273，21-41。
16.黃柏芸(2014)。整合學習風格理論與設計思考方法探究建築設計教育的學習成就(碩士論文)。取自： http：//etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10113034%22.&searchmode=basic。
17.章月鳳、李子建(2014)。香港小學小班的教育實踐。香港教師中心學報，13，35-47。
18.章月鳳、鄧耀南(2014)。香港中學推行小班教學的現況及啟示。香港教師中心學報，13，49-64。
19.葉建源(2003)。為何要推動小班教育。聖公會小學監理委員會<春雨>，86，24-26。
20.楊敏英、游萬來、陳斐娟(2004)。探討工業設計系學生面臨的困擾及生涯輔導需求對設計教育的意涵。設計學報，10(2)，57-75。
21.謝如梅(2019)。跨域團隊創意實踐與自主學習的挑戰。大學教育實務與研究學刊，4(1)，113-140。Doi：10.6870/JTPRHE.202006_4(1).0004。
英文參考文獻:
1.Blatchford P., Bassett P., Goldstein H. & Martin C.(2003). Are Class Size Differences Related to Pupils' Educational Progress and Classroom Processes? Findings from the Institute of Education Class Size Study of Children Aged 5-7 Years. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 709-730.
2.Bobbe,T., Krzywinski, J.&Woelfel,C. (2016.May16-19).A Comparison of Design Process Models from Academic Theory and Professional Practice. Paper presented at the International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
3.Brown, T. (2008).Design Thinking. Harvard Business School Publishing.
4.Green, L.N. & Bonollo, E. (2002).The development of a suite of design methods appropriate for teaching product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education.6 (1), 1-6.
5.Gordon, A.V.,Rohrbeck, R.,&Schwarz, J.-O.(2019).Escaping the ‘Faster Horses’ Trap：Bridging Strategic Foresight and Design Based Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review.9 (8), 30-42.Doi：10.22215/timreview/1259.
6.IDEO.org. (2011).The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design(1sted.).San Francisco：IDEO.
7.IDEO(2012).Design Thinking Toolkit for Educators. New York：Riverdale Country School & IDEO.
8.Lo, J. –S.,Lo, C.-H.,Huang, S.-C.,&Wang,W.-C. (2019).Application of User Experience and Design Thinking to the Construction of a Class Assistance System for Hearing- and Speech-Impaired People. Sustainability.11(24),1-27.Doi：10.3390/su11247191.
9.Tu, J.-C., Liu, L.-X.,& Wu, K.-Y. (2018). Study on the learning effectiveness of Stanford design thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability, 10(8), 2649.https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2649.
網路中文參考文獻:
1.教育部國民及學前教育署。課程綱要-108課綱重點。2020年11月6日取自https://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3-1.php。
2.國家教育研究院(2014)。十二年國民教育課程綱要。2020年11月6日取自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf。
3.國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民教育課程綱要國民小學-生活課程。2020年11月6日取自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/813/(%E7%99%BC%E5%B8%83%E7%89%88)%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81.pdf。
4.國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校-科技領域。2020年11月6日取自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/816/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%B0%91%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E5%9C%8B%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%AD%E5%AD%B8%E6%9A%A8%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E5%9E%8B%E9%AB%98%E7%B4%9A%E4%B8%AD%E7%AD%89%E5%AD%B8%E6%A0%A1-%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F.pdf。
網路參考英文文獻:
1.Ball,J. (2019).The Double Diamond：A universally accepted depiction of the design process. Retrieved from https: //www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/double-diamond-universally-accepted-depiction-design-process(2021/04/20)
2.Drew, C. (2019).The Double Diamond：15 years on. Retrieved from https：//www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/double-diamond-15-years (2021/04/19).
3.Doorley, S., Holcomb, S.,Klebahn, P.,Segovia, K., &Utley, J. (2018).Design thinking Bootleg. Retrieved from https：//static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/5b19b2f2aa4a99e99b26b6bb/1528410876119/dschool_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm+%282%29.pdf (2021/04/22).
4.Design Council(2015), What is the frame work for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond. Retrieved from https：//www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond (2021/04/20)
5.The Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford.(2016).An Introduction to design thinking PROCESS GUIDE. Retrieved from：https：//web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf (2021/04/25).