整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統之開發與初步評估

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：54

、訪客IP：3.144.88.153

姓名

嚴均恩(Chun-En Yen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統之開發與初步評估
(Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Design Thinking Learning System with Multiple Scaffolding)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2028-7-6以後開放)

摘要(中)

二十一世紀核心能力和十二年國民基本教育中，皆強調「溝通與團隊合作」、「問題解決能力」、「思考能力」及「創新能力」，而設計思考被視為培養上述關鍵能力的有效方法之一。本研究旨在探討並改進設計思考活動中遇到的問題與挑戰，以便學習者能更有效地學習如何運用設計思考進行專案發想。透過實地調查與文獻回顧，本研究發現設計思考在教育場域的應用面臨諸多挑戰，包括：想法保存困難、缺乏流程概念導致方向迷失、設計思考階段對新手過於複雜、以及合適的創意發想空間及工具並非隨處可見，為解決這些問題，本研究基於學習者為中心的設計理論，開發一款整合多元學習鷹架與想法視覺化模組的「設計思考學習系統」，該系統旨在提供結構化的鷹架與工具，幫助學習者在設計思考過程中保持思路清晰，提高創意發想的效率和效果。
待系統開發完成後，本研究採用問卷調查法，針對三十二名大學生及研究生進行測試與分析，以評估「設計思考學習系統」的「科技接受度」和「學習鷹架與系統工具的知覺有用性」，並收集受測者的建議與回饋。經統計分析顯示，受測者普遍對「設計思考學習系統」持正面評價。本研究期望未來能持續改進該系統，使其在設計思考教與學中得到更廣泛的應用與實踐。

摘要(英)

The 21st-century core competencies and Taiwan′s Twelve-Year Basic Education Curriculum emphasize "communication and teamwork," "problem-solving skills," "thinking abilities," and "innovation capabilities." Design thinking is an effective method for developing these skills. This study addresses challenges in design thinking activities, enabling more effective project ideation.
Field investigations and literature review identified key challenges: difficulty preserving ideas, process disorientation, stage complexity for novices, and limited access to creative spaces and tools. A learner-centered design thinking system was developed, integrating diverse learning scaffolding and an idea visualization module to provide structured support and enhance creative ideation efficiency.
A survey involving 32 university and graduate students evaluated the "technology acceptance" and "perceived usefulness of learning scaffolding and system tools" of the Design Thinking Learning System. Participants′ feedback was generally positive. This study aims to continuously improve the system for broader application and practice in design thinking education.

關鍵字(中)

★ 設計思考
★ 知識翻新理論
★ 學習者為中心設計
★ 鷹架理論
★ 學習系統

關鍵字(英)

★ Design Thinking
★ Knowledge Building Theory
★ Learner-Centered Design
★ Scaffolding Theory
★ Learning System

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 x
圖目錄 xii
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的 3
一、開發「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」 3
二、對已完成開發的「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」進行初步評估 4
第三節研究問題 5
一、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之科技接受度為何？ 5
二、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之學習鷹架及系統工具知覺有用性為何？ 5
三、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之系統建議與回饋為何？ 6
第四節名詞解釋 7
一、設計思考（Design Thinking） 7
二、知識翻新理論（Knowledge Building） 7
三、以學習者為中心設計（Learner-Centered Design） 7
四、鷹架理論（Scaffolding Theory） 8
第二章文獻探討 9
第一節設計思考 9
一、設計思考概述 9
二、與敏捷式專案管理的比較 13
三、設計思考的實踐與挑戰 14
四、設計思考教與學的實踐與挑戰 15
五、小結 16
第二節知識翻新理論 17
一、知識翻新理論概述 17
二、知識翻新理論的實踐與挑戰 20
三、小結 20
第三節以學習者為中心設計 21
一、以學習者為中心設計概述 21
二、以學習者為中心設計的實踐與挑戰 22
三、小結 22
第四節鷹架理論 23
一、鷹架理論概述 23
二、鷹架理論的應用與挑戰 23
三、小結 24
第五節相關系統介紹及分析比較 25
一、相關系統介紹 25
二、相關系統與工具之分析比較 30
三、小結 36
第六節總結 37
第三章系統設計與實作 38
第一節系統開發方式 38
一、系統開發人員與參與者架構圖 38
二、系統開發流程 39
第二節系統設計與規劃 42
一、系統設計特色 42
二、系統功能模組 44
三、系統使用案例 49
四、系統使用流程規劃 58
第三節系統配置 60
一、硬體設備與環境 60
二、軟體建置 60
第四節系統介面與模組 61
一、登入註冊模組 62
二、設計思考活動管理模組 63
三、設計思考階段歷程檔案管理模組 67
四、設計思考階段流程管理模組 68
五、設計思考活動排程模組 70
六、想法視覺化模組 74
七、學習資料分析模組 78
八、設計思考檔案空間模組 79
九、即時聊天室 80
第四章研究方法 81
第一節研究對象 82
一、受測對象基本資料 82
二、受測對象之設計思考專案經驗 82
三、受測對象之專題合作經驗 83
第二節研究流程 84
一、施測及評估階段 85
二、結果分析階段 85
第三節系統評估流程 86
一、系統平台介紹 87
二、系統平台操作和實際討論 87
三、系統問卷施測與建議回饋 87
第四節研究工具 88
一、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之科技接受度六點量表 88
二、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之鷹架功能及系統工具知覺有用性六點量表 89
三、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之其他回饋問卷 91
四、結果分析編碼方式 92
第五節資料收集與分析 93
一、資料收集 93
二、資料分析 93
第五章研究結果與討論 94
第一節學生對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」科技接受度 94
一、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」整體知覺有用性 94
二、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」整體知覺易用性 97
三、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」整體使用意願 99
四、小結與討論 101
第二節學生對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之學習鷹架與系統工具知覺有用性評估 102
一、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之概念鷹架知覺有用性為何？ 102
二、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之反思鷹架知覺有用性為何？ 103
三、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之流程鷹架知覺有用性為何？ 104
四、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之想法視覺化模組知覺有用性為何？ 106
五、學習者對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之系統工具知覺有用性為何？ 108
六、小結與討論 109
第三節學生對於「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」之系統建議與回饋 110
一、操作、功能回饋 110
二、 UI/UX 回饋 112
三、未來使用意願與原因 113
第六章結論與建議 115
第一節研究結論 115
一、「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」協助學生進行設計思考專案是有用的 115
二、「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」協助學生進行設計思考專案是容易使用的 115
三、「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」對學生而言，具有很高的使用意願 116
四、「整合多元學習鷹架之設計思考學習系統」提供之學習鷹架與系統工具對學生而言是有用的 117
第二節研究建議 118
一、系統改善建議 118
二、未來研究建議 119
參考文獻 120
附錄 127
附錄一學習者背景調查 127
附錄二學習系統科技接受度模型 129
附錄三學習鷹架與系統工具知覺有用性 132
附錄四學習者其他回饋 148

參考文獻

教育部. (2014). 十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱. 臺北: 教育部
郭富銘. (2021). 基於「知識翻新理論」與「設計思考」的跨領域專題學習平台之開發與初步評估 [碩士論文, 國立中央大學]. 桃園市.
陳又齊. (2022). 以想法為中心的多維度跨域專題學習平台之開發與初步評估 [碩士論文, 國立中央大學]. 桃園市.
曾譯宏. (2023). 知識翻新導向的設計思考學習平台之開發與初步評估 [碩士論文, 國立中央大學]. 桃園市.
Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a Design Thinker: Assessing the Learning Process of Students in a Secondary Level Design Thinking Course. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 438-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12139
Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 138-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827646
Ambrose, G., & Harris, P. (2010). Basics Design 08: Design Thinking. AVA Publishing.
Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Examining the challenges of learner-centered education. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 63 - 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715619922
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243 - 270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation: One Concept, Two Hills to Climb. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_3
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. The Journal of product innovation management, 28(3), 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development outreach, 12(1), 29-43.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The Challenges of Using Design Thinking in Industry – Experiences from Five Large Firms. ORG: Other Innovation & Organizational Behavior (Topic). https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176
Chen, C.-H., Wu, I.-C., & Jen, F.-L. (2013). Designing online scaffolds for interactive computer simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21, 229 - 243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.549831
Chen, H.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2017). Integrating the SOP model into the flipped classroom to foster cognitive presence and learning achievements. Educational Technology & Society, 20, 274-291.
Devolder, A., Braak, J. v., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 28, 557-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Ecker, J. (2023). Universal Design for Learning as a Framework for Designing and Implementing Learner-Centered Education. AI, Computer Science and Robotics Technology. https://doi.org/10.5772/acrt.16
Geert, P. v., & Steenbeek, H. W. (2005). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.05.003
Gopinathan, S., Kaur, A. H., Ramasamy, K., & Raman, M. (2021). Enhancing innovative delivery in schools using design thinking. F1000Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72860.1
Greener, S. (2015). What do we mean by “student-centred” learning? Interactive Learning Environments, 23(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1005423
Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Everaert, P., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2023). Impact of design thinking in higher education: a multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09724-z
Heiner, C. E., Schnaithmann, C., Kaiser, N., & Hagen, R. (2023). Fostering student-centered learning with design thinking in higher education. International Journal of Management and Applied Research. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.102.23-014
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C. C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Higuchi, M. M., & Nakano, D. N. (2017). Agile Design: A Combined Model Based on Design Thinking and Agile Methodologies for Digital Games Projects. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, 8, 109-126.
Hod, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Co-development patterns of knowledge, experience, and self in humanistic knowledge building communities. Instructional Science, 46, 593-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9459-z
Hong, H.-Y., Chen, F. C., Chai, C. S., & Chan, W.-C. (2010). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39, 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9143-4
Jacobsen, M. (2010). A Special Issue of the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology on Knowledge Building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2Q59N
Kitzmiller, R., Hunt, E., & Sproat, S. B. (2006). Adopting Best Practices: "Agility" Moves From Software Development to Healthcare Project Management. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24(2), 75-82.
Kivinen, O., Piiroinen, T., & Saikkonen, L. (2016). Two viewpoints on the challenges of ICT in education: knowledge-building theory vs. a pragmatist conception of learning in social action. Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 377 - 390. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1194263
Lin, L., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., & Shen, S. (2020). From knowledge and skills to digital works: An application of design thinking in the information technology course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646
Lin, T.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., Lin, S.-S., Changlai, M.-L., Yang, K.-Y., & Lai, T.-l. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10763-011-9322-Z
Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying Learner-Centered Principles to Middle School Education. Theory into practice, 42(2), 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4202_4
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2012). Design Thinking Research.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423 - 451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
Pereira, J. C., & Russo, R. d. F. S. M. (2018). Design Thinking Integrated in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review. 775 - 782. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2018.10.101
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2012). Design thinking research. Springer.
Pol, J. v. d., Volman, M. L. L., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E. A., Edelson, D. C., & Soloway, E. (2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337 - 386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? [Article]. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Reid, D. (1998). Scaffolding: A Broader View. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 386 - 396. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100408
Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about "design thinking": a study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific journal of education, 36(sup1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-Century Skills Requires 21st-Century Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400203
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A Brief History of Knowledge Building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2859M
Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., & Sobel, L. (2016). The Design Thinking Mindset: An Assessment of What We Know and What We See in Practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 2(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1
Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work? - A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 1040-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 27 - 46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972
Tan, S. C., Chan, C. K. K., Bielaczyc, K., Ma, L., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: aligning education with needs for knowledge creation in the digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2243 - 2266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09914-x
Thakur, A., Soklaridis, S., Crawford, A., Mulsant, B., & Sockalingam, S. (2021). Using Rapid Design Thinking to Overcome COVID-19 Challenges in Medical Education. Academic Medicine, 96(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003718
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), Manchester.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press.
Walczyk, J. J., & Ramsey, L. L. (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 566-584. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10098
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
Wolniak, R. (2017). The Design Thinking method and its stages. Systemy wspomagania w inżynierii produkcji, 6(6), 247-255.
Wolniak, R. (2023). Design thinking and its use to boast innovativeness. Silesian University of Technology Scientific Papers. Organization and Management Series, 170, 647-662.
Wu, B., Hu, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Scaffolding design thinking in online STEM preservice teacher training. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 50, 2271-2287. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJET.12873
Ximenes, B. H., Alves, I. N., & Araújo, C. C. (2015). Software project management combining agile, lean startup and design thinking. Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Discourse: 4th International Conference, DUXU 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Yuen, A. H. K., & Ma, W. W. K. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pacific journal of teacher education, 36(3), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660802232779
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. L. (2011). Sustaining Knowledge Building as a Principle-Based Innovation at an Elementary School. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 262 - 307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317
Wilson, K., & Devereux, L. (2014). Scaffolding theory: High challenge, high support in Academic Language and Learning (ALL) contexts. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8, 91-100.

指導教授

吳穎沺

審核日期

2024-7-23

推文