有任務的學習與設計思考：淡水宗教文化與歷史街區再生工作坊個案研究

Task-Based Learning and Design Thinking Process-A Case Study of Tamsui Religious Culture and Historical Sites Regeneration

10.53106/101632122021060116008

黃瑞茂(Jui-Mao Huang)；賴婷鈴(Ting-Ling Lai)；張月霞(Yueh-Hsia Chang)

設計思考 ； 參與式設計 ； 任務導向學習 ； 都市設計工作坊 ； Design Thinking ； Participatory Design ； Task-Based Learning ； Urban Design Workshop

建築學報

116_S期：建築設計教學及設計教育專刊Ⅱ（2021 / 06 / 30）

21 - 40

繁體中文

本個案研究是教育部大學社會責任計畫「淡水好生活—學習型城鄉建構計畫」之「淡水世界遺產潛力點田野學校」子計畫的一部分。本研究以都市設計工作坊的實踐模式，發展創新的「社區營造」課程模組，以設計思考的同理心、需求定義、創意發想、製作原型及測試等歷程軌跡，檢驗學生在進入真實生活世界的社區與社群中，如何透過與小組團隊一起從田野調查、界定問題到計畫提案的學習歷程中發展設計思維。本研究以臺灣北部的淡水歷史街區為場域，依據當下場域中的真實議題，選定「宗教文化與歷史街區再生」作為工作坊的操作主題。以非物質文化資產的「宗教文化」經驗為專題提案內容，透過包括課堂上課、小組討論、街區走訪、學生訪談、學習反思日誌等資料的蒐集，分析有關淡水歷史城市再造可能性的構思與設計歷程。研究結果發現，透過與在地的「人」與「物」的交流與經驗世界的理解，參與此課程的學生為完成提案任務的學習是一個參與式設計的意義建構與共識（sense making）的過程。研究還發現，將課程帶到生活現場進行有任務的學習，為學生開展了新穎卻又貼近傳統文化的學習經驗。透過設計進行研究獲得的建築知識以及促進設計思考的可視性功能在此研究中有進一步的討論。此外，本研究透過設計思考課程模組的建構，有助於優化參與式設計「社區營造」教學模式在大學課程改革的實踐。

This case study is part of the University' Social Responsibility project ＂World Heritage Potential Field School＂, an interdisciplinary university course program. This study developed an innovative ＂community construction＂ curriculum module using hands-on model of urban design workshop. The curriculum is designed based on the design thinking process-empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. This study examined how students developed design thinking through the learning process of fieldwork, problem definition, and project proposal with teamwork in real-life communities and neighborhoods. In this study, ＂Religious Culture and Historic District Regeneration＂ was selected as the theme of the workshop course, based on the real issues in context, and the religious culture experience of the intangible cultural heritage was used as the topic of the proposal. Data were collected from classroom sessions, group discussions, neighborhood and community visits, student interviews, and learning reflective journals to analyze the conceptualization and design process that stimulate the possibility of rejuvenating the historic Tamsui district. The research findings revealed that, through participatory design, students' learning to accomplish the proposed tasks was a sense making process through their communication with the ＂people＂ and ＂surroundings＂ of the place as well as their own experiential understanding. The study also found that bringing the curriculum to the real-life world for task-based learning initiated novel learning experiences while students were exposed to traditional culture. The architectural knowledge built by research through design and the visibility function that promotes design thinking are further discussed in this research. In addition, the curriculum module on innovative participatory design ＂community construction＂ developed in this study will help optimize the practice of design thinking learning model in university curriculum reform.

1. 黃光廷, K. T.,顏亮平, L. P.,江益璋, Y. C.,楊欣潔, T. C.,林家暉, C. H.,溫國忠, K. C.(2018)。探索建築設計教學行動中的反思。建築學報，106，25-43。
   連結：
2. (2010).d.school teaching team (2010). Bootcamp Bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford..
3. Ahn, H.-C.,Park, S.-H.(2007).Design Tools and Three Steps in Participatory Design Processes: A Proposal for Better Communications among Residents and Experts, based on a Case.Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the Pacific Rim Community Design Network
4. Azman Monirski, L.(2019).Urban design workshops in the education curriculum: Advantages and disadvantages.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
5. Brown, T.(2009).Change by Design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation.New York, NY:Harper Business Books.
6. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation.
7. Cox, V.,Goethals, M.,De Meulder, B.,Schreurs, J.,Moulaert, F.(2014).Beyond design and participation: The thought for Food Project in Flanders, Belgium.Journal of Urban Design,19(4),412-435.
8. Dede, O. K.,Dikmen, C. B.,Ayten, A. M.(2012).A new approach for participative urban design: An urban design study of Cumhuriyet urban square in Yozgat Turkey.Journal of Geography and Regional Planning,5(5),122-131.
9. Department of City Planning(1971).The urban design plan for the comprehensive plan of San Francisco.San Francisco Department of City Planning.
10. Dorst, K.(2006).Design Problems and Design Paradoxes.Design Issues,22(3),4-14.
11. Dorst, K.(2011).The core of design thinking and its application.Design Studies,32,521-532.
12. Harden, R. M.,Crosby, J.,Davis, M. H.,Howie, P. W.,Struthers, A. D.(2000).Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years.Medical Education-Oxford,34(5),391-397.
13. Harden, R. M.,Laidlaw, J. M.,Ker, J. S.,Mitchell, H. E.(1996).AMEE medical education guide no. 7.: task-based learning: an educational strategy for undergraduate postgraduate and continuing medical education, part 1.Medical Teacher,18(1),7-13.
14. Harden, R. M.,Laidlaw, J. M.,Ker, J. S.,Mitchell, H. E.(1996).AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 7.: Task-based learning: An educational strategy for undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education, Part 2.Medical Teacher,18(2),91-98.
15. Heskett, J.(2002).Toothpicks & logos: Design in everyday life.New York:Oxford University Press.
16. Holyoak, K.(Ed.),Morrison, R. G.(Ed.)(2005).Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
17. Kimbell, L.(2011).Rethinking design thinking: Part I.Design and Culture,3(3),285-306.
18. Krebs, R.(Ed.),Tomaselli, M.(Ed.)(2019).Urban design lab handbook: Dialogue-oriented urban transformation processes and practical approaches from Latin American and Caribbean.Berlin:JOVIS.
19. Krieger, A.(Ed.),Saunders, W.S.(Ed.)(2009).Urban design.University of Minnesota Press.
20. Krippendorff, K.(1989).On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things).Design Issues,5(2),9-38.
21. Loeckx, A.(2009).Framing urban renewal in Flanders.Amsterdam:SUN Architecture Publishers.
22. Manzini, E.,Vezzoli, C.,Clark, G.(2001).Productservice systems. Using an existing concept as a new approach to sustainability.Journal of Design Research,1(2),12-18.
23. Marres, N.(2012).Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics.London:Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Martin, R.(2009).The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business Press.
25. Merriam, S. B.,Tisdell, E. J.(2015).Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
26. Momirski, L. A.(2019).Urban design workshops in the education curriculum: Advantages and disadvantages.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
27. Ozkan, H.,Degirmenci, B.,Musal, B.,Itil, O.,Akalin, E.,Kilinc, O.,Alici, E.(2006).Task-based learning programme for clinical years of medical education.Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice,19(1),32-42.
28. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.battelleforkids.org/learning-hub/learning-hub-item/framework-for-21st-centurylearning
29. Perkins, D. N.(1981).The mind’s best work.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
30. Polat, S.,Tümer Yildiz, H. Ö.(2019).Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey.Urbani Izziv,30(2),70-84.
31. Qing, Z.,Ni, S.,Hong, T.(2010).Developing critical thinking disposition by task-based learning in chemistry experiment teaching.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2(2),4561-4570.
32. Race, P.(2000).Task-based learning: commentaries.Medical Education,34(5),335-336.
33. Rawsthorn, A.(2013).Hello World: Where design meets life.Penguin Books Ltd.
34. Rowe, P.(1987).Design thinking.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
35. Roy, R.,Baxter, D.(2009).The product-service system.Journal of Engineering Design,20(4),327-328.
36. Russell, J. S.(Ed.)(2002).The Mayors’ Institute: Excellence in City Design.NY:Princeton.
37. Sanoff, H.(2000).Community participation methods in design and planning.New York:John Wiley & Sons.
38. Sanoff, H.(2006).Multiple views of participatory design.METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture,23(2),131-143.
39. Sanoff, H.(2002).Participatory design in focus.Architectural Behavior,4(1),27-42.
40. Speaks, M.,楊千慧（譯）(2010)。設計智識。台灣建築，172，94-97。
41. Tilden, F.(1957).Interpreting our heritage.Chapel Hill, NC:The University of North Carolina Press.
42. Urban Design Associates(2003).The urban design handbook: Techniques and working methods.NY:W. W. Norton.
43. Van de Weijer, M.,Van Cleempoel, K.,Heynen, H.(2014).Positioning research and design in academia and practice.Design Issues,30(2),17-29.
44. Whiteley, N.(1993).Design for society.London:Reaktion Books.
45. Yin, R. K.(2018).Case study research and applications: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
46. Zurlo, F.,Cautela, C.(2014).Design strategies in different narrative frames.Design Issues,30(1),19-35.

1. 涂敏芬(2023)。大學社會責任的實踐說：以物探域的行動者網絡分析。管理學報，40(3)，299-334。
2. (2024)。服務學習與大學社會責任實踐計畫的關連性研究：以國立暨南國際大學為例。服務學習與社會連結學刊，7，39-58。
3. (2024)。設計本位學習導入經典教育提升醫學大學學生自我效能：以論語為例。通識教育學刊，33，65-126。