以「設計導向學習」模式初探智齡設計課程

Using ＂Design-Based Learning＂ as Preliminary Foundation of Smart Aging Design Course

10.6173/CJSE.201812/SP_26.0002

楊朝陽(Chao-Yang Yang)；康仕仲(Shih-Chung Kang)；陳彥甫(Yen-Fu Chen)；林喬茵(Chiao-Yin Lin)；王嫊淩(Eng Suk Leng)；林怡萱(Yi-Hsuan Lin)

以學習者為中心的學習 ； 設計導向學習 ； 專案導向學習 ； 問題導向學習 ； 跨領域教學 ； Learner-Centered Learning ； Design-Based Learning ； Project-Based Learning ； Problem-Based Learning ； Interdisciplinary Teaching

科學教育學刊

26卷S期（2018 / 12 / 01）

399 - 418

繁體中文

「以學習者為中心的學習」在受重視後，教學現場分別推行「問題導向學習」與「專案導向學習」的教學模式，藉此將學生的學習連結真實世界問題及培養解決問題能力。為了讓自主學習更為完整，基於設計思考的「設計導向學習」隨之興起。本研究以設計導向方式設計「智齡設計」一跨領域總整課程為案例，課程以美國史丹佛大學d.School的ME310課程課綱為基礎，在臺灣的大學教學現場開課，招募跨校跨不同領域之大三以上學生參與，同時邀請對高齡議題有興趣之臺灣企業參與課程並提出產業議題。研究方法採用參與式行動研究，歷經派遣團隊至史丹佛大學學習ME310課程，以相同模式於臺灣的大學開課二學年，其中不斷地修正完成適合臺灣學生之課程內容安排，期間課程針對相對應步驟會接觸到的議題給予教授課程，讓知識的驗證更有其臨場感。結果顯示透過設計導向學習方式，學生能夠認同釐清問題前同理階段的價值，團隊溝通的成長對學生來說也印象深刻。本研究為以高等教育教學現場的創新實務經驗及發現，對於其他課程來說將增進設計導向學習實施的機會，研究成果所建立之課程能夠提供適當教學結構，並提醒執行上的挑戰，支持未來「設計導向學習」之課程設計與執行。

Since Learner-Centered Learning (LCL) has been seen as important pedagogy, Problem- Based Learning (PBL) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) have been a phenomenon of modern higher education. To complete the LCL, Design Thinking-structured Design-Based Learning (DBL) has then been introduced. Using DBL as the main structure, this research has developed interdisciplinary capstone course-Smart Aging Design. Based on ME310 course of d.School at Stanford University, we developed Smart Aging Design course adapted with Taiwanese course design regulation. The course recruited junior and senior college students from different departments and universities. Companies were invited to participate in the course and provide practical issue they are interested in. The course was designed for one year, i.e. two semesters to build students non-linearly experience in design thinking stages such as empathy, define, ideate, prototype and test. After participating ME310 course, this research has used Participatory Action Research method to repeat plan, action, observe and reflect Smart Aging Design course design. As the results of DBL, students recognized the value of empathy after finishing the products, the products were convincing to the companies in their marketing prospective, experience of team communication were also impressive. This research experienced and explored the chance implementing DBL in the future. The results provided appropriate DBL teaching structure and call attention to possible challenges support for teachers. DBL builds up teamwork competency, and successful DBL also requires top-down real-life issues provided by real companies in conjunction with bottom-up teachers and student's passions.

1. Apedoe, X. A.,Reynolds, B.,Ellefson, M. R.,Schunn, C. D.(2008).Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit.Journal of Science Education and Technology,17(5),454-465.
2. Archer, L. B.(1979).Whatever became of design methodology?.Design Studies,1(1),17-20.
3. Brown, T.(2008).Design thinking.Harvard Business Review,86(6),85-92.
4. Brundiers, K.,Wiek, A.(2013).Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem- and project-based learning courses in sustainability.Sustainability,5(4),1725-1746.
5. Buchanan, R.(2001).Design research and the new learning.Design Issues,17(4),3-23.
6. Carleton, T.,Leifer, L.(2009).Stanford's ME310 course as an evolution of engineering design.Proceeding of the 19th CIRP Design Conference-Competitive Design,Bedford, UK:
7. Chevalier, J. M.,Buckles, D. J.(2013).Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry.Oxon, UK:Routledge.
8. Craig, D. V.(2009).Action research essentials.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
9. Creswell, J. W.(2008).Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
10. Design Council(2007).,未出版
11. Dewey, J.(2012).Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.Scotts Valley, CA:Createspace.
12. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
13. Doppelt, Y.,Mehalik, M. M.,Schunn, C. D.,Silk, E.,Krysinski, D.(2008).Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context.Journal of Technology Education,19(2),22-39.
14. Dumont, H.(Ed.),Istance, D.(Ed.),Benavides, F.(Ed.)(2010).The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice.Paris, Frence:OECD.
15. Dym, C. L.,Agogino, A. M.,Eris, O.,Frey, D. D.,Leifer, L. J.(2005).Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning.Journal of Engineering Education,94(1),103-120.
16. Gómez Puente, S. M.(2014).Design-based learning: Exploring an educational approach for engineering education.North Brabant, The Netherlands:Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
17. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Retrieved July 20, 2018, from https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdf
18. Helle, L.,Tynjälä, P.,Olkinuora, E.(2006).Project-based learning in post-secondary education-Theory, practice and rubber sling shots.Higher Education,51(2),287-314.
19. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46
20. Linge, N.,Parsons, D.(2006).Problem-based learning as an effective tool for teaching computer network design.IEEE Transactions on Education,49(1),5-10.
21. ME310. (2010). About 310. Retrieved July 12, 2018, from http://web.stanford.edu/group/me310/me310_2018/about.html
22. Mehalik, M. M.,Doppelt, Y.,Schunn, C. D.(2008).Middle-school science through designbased learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction.Journal of Engineering Education,97(1),71-85.
23. Mehalik, M. M.,Schunn, C.(2006).What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes.International Journal of Engineering Education,22(3),519-532.
24. Morçöl, G.(Ed.)(2007).Handbook of Decision Making.New York:CRC.
25. Rittel, H. W. J.,Webber, M. M.(1973).Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences,4(2),155-169.
26. Scheer, A.,Noweski, C.,Meinel, C.(2012).Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education.Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,17(3),8-19.
27. Schwab, J. J.(Ed.),Brandwein, P. F.(Ed.)(1962).The teaching of science.New York:Simon and Schuster.
28. Stokholm, M.(2014).Problem based learning versus design thinking in team based project work.Proceeding of the 16th International conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Design Education and Human Technology Relations,Enschede, The Netherlands:
29. Tuckman, B. W.,Jensen, M. A. C.(1977).Stages of small-group development.Group and Organizational Studies,2(4),419-427.
30. van Merriënboer, J. J. G.(1997).Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology.
31. Wijnen, W. H. F. W.(2000).Towards design-based learning.Eindhoven, The Netherlands:Eindhoven University of Technology.
32. 陳毓凱、洪振方(2007)。兩種探究取向教學模式之分析與比較。科學教育月刊，305，4-19。
33. 經濟部人才快訊(2011)。史丹佛大學設計創新及跨領域人才培育方案：ME310。人才快訊電子報，查詢日期：2018年7月14日。檢自http://itriexpress.blogspot.tw/2011/10/me310.html

1. 胡依嘉(2022)。混成課程設計結合機器人創客教育應用於合作學習課程之實踐與成效：學習參與度之中介效果。嶺東通識教育研究學刊，9(3)，103-145。
2. 駱信昌(2021)。以青銀共創導入福祉設計實務專題課程。設計學報，26(2)，93-110。
3. 沈永祺(2022)。應用設計導向學習於新產品管理課程以提升學生關鍵能力。科技管理學刊，27(3)，75-111。
4. 楊朝陽,傅翊棋(2022)。概念混成策略兼顧創新原創性與實踐性之逐步式跨領域團隊思考整合工具。科技管理學刊，27(3)，113-131。
5. 張聖翎(2022)。培育社會參與素養學習方法的行動研究－以地理資訊單元的教學為例。地理研究，75，53-80。
6. 張聖翎(2022)。培育社會參與素養學習方法的行動研究－以地理資訊單元的教學為例。地理研究，75，53-80。
7. (2022)。當大學遇到高齡化：「高齡友善大學」運動的理念、實踐及其啟示。教育政策論壇，25(3)，73-113。