1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 設計思考的應用 － 以探討高中生參與工作坊的經驗知覺為例
Applied design thinking - Exploring the experiences of high school students participating in workshops
作者 林舜晨
Lin, Shun Chen
貢獻者 吳靜吉
Wu, Jing Jyi
林舜晨
Lin, Shun Chen
關鍵詞 設計思考
創意自我效能
創新氛圍
交融記憶系統
design thinking
creative self-efficacy
innovation climate
transactive memory system
日期 2012
上傳時間 3-Mar-2014 15:29:21 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨在探討設計思考（Design Thinking）工作坊的在地應用之成效。設計思考採用史丹佛大學d.school五個步驟的流程：同理心（empathize）、定義問題（define）、概念發想（ideate）、雛型製作（prototype）、測試（test）。參與者是30名宜蘭高中職學生，由畢業或在學的研究生共10名擔任工作坊的教練和助手。
     
     將參與者分為5個6人成員團隊。他們最終團隊作品要以6張故事板（storyboard）呈現對宜蘭的未來想像。整個工作坊先由一位專家做30分鐘「幸福宜蘭‧創意城鄉」的專題演講開始，然後正式進行8個小時的工作坊。在第一個步驟同理心的階段，每一個團隊必須輪流訪談5位宜蘭縣政府官員，和5位政大建構宜蘭創意城鄉團隊的成員。接著依照定義問題、概念發想、雛形製作、測試和說故事等步驟，完成團隊作品及其呈現。
     
     衡量設計思考工作坊歷程的量表包括設計思考「活動過程」、交融記憶系統和創新氛圍三個量表。五個團隊在最後也產生團隊作品並公開發表，這些創意作品有三種衡量方式。一為設計思考教練（coach）和助手（helper）、建構創意城鄉團隊成員與宜蘭在地達人組成的6人專業評審團評審，二是所有的參與者對除了他自己的團隊的四個團隊的創意作品，以及台上表現程度兩個部分進行評分。同時每一個參與者也都自評其團隊的最終創意作品。最後根據Jobst, Köppen, Lindberg, Moritz, Rhinow, & Meinel （2012）的推論，設計思考會增進參與者的創意自我效能，因此本研究也應用創意自我效能量表來檢驗每一個參與者在參與了設計思考之後，他們的創意自我效能表現如何。本研究也探討，所有成員對整個工作坊的整體滿意度（所有的量表皆採李克特式5點量表，1代表非常不同意，2代表不同意，3代表普通，4代表同意，5代表非常同意）。研究發現，參與者在團隊歷程的量表上面，平均分數都高於3.9。從第一組到第五組的量表平均分數依序為4.60、3.90、4.03、4.63、4.83。
     
     團隊的創意作品方面，自評的分數高於一般水準，30位參與者的量表平均分數為4.30，從第一組到第五組隊團隊創意作品平均數依序為4.63、3.87、3.97、4.67、4.37。同儕互評作品的平均數為3.93，專家給予的作品平均數為3.68，在報告表現方面同儕互評表現的平均數為3.90，專家給予的報告表現平均數為3.75。但不管是在報告或作品的評估上，參與者和專家評分的等級是一樣的。本研究也根據專家同儕評比的結果，選出第四組為得分最高團隊和第二組為得分最低團隊，進行比較分析。
     
     最後本研究應用簡單相關分析，探討參與者對設計思考團隊歷程的知覺與其參與後的創意作品、個人創意自我效能和整體滿意度的關係。發現高中生參與1天的設計思考的歷程中，對設計思考活動的知覺、團隊交融記憶系統和創新氛圍的感受，都和自評的團隊創意作品、團隊成效、創意自我效能具有顯著的正相關，從0.411到0.613。但和個人總體的滿意度沒有相關。
     
     設計思考工作坊應用在高中生是可行的，而以在地的未來想像為題，進行設計思考工作坊也是可行，參與者對設計思考的活動歷程、交融記憶系統、創新氛圍以及團隊作品、整體滿意度都很高，但個人創意自我效能表現普通。而且設計思考的團隊歷程知覺越正向，其團隊的創意作品、個人創意自我效能越佳。
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the local application of a design thinking workshop, which utilizes the Stanford University d.school five-step process: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test. Participants were 30 local high school students in Yilan. 10 graduate students served as assistant coaches during the workshop.
     
     Participants were divided into five teams, each containing six members, and their final team projects included six storyboards displaying imaginative futures forYilan. An expert first gave a 30 minute lecture, titled “Happiness of Yilan: Creative cities and rural communities” to all workshop participants before the formal eight hours workshop was conducted. During the first stage, “empathize,” each team had to interview five Yilan county government officials and five team members of the National Chengchi University research team working on the Yilan creative cities and rural communities development project. They then completed their final products based on the design thinking process, including the define, ideate, prototype, test, and storytelling steps.
     
     In this study, three scales were utilized to measure the design thinking workshop process, namely: Activity Process, Transactive Memory System, and Innovation Climate. During the final stage of the workshop, the five teams both produce and present their creative products. These were measured in three ways. First, a six-member professional judging group was assembled by the workshop coaches and their assistants from among the Yilan creative cities and rural communities research team members and notable representatives of the Yilan community. Second, all participants judged the other four teams’ creative products and presentations. In addition, each participant had to do a self-assessment of his or her team’s ultimate creative work. Finally, according to Jobst, Köppen, Lindberg, Moritz, Rhinow, & Meinel (2012), design thinking can enhance participants’ creative self-efficacy, and therefore this study applied a creative self-efficacy scale to evaluate each participants’ creative self-efficacy after the design thinking workshop. This study also discusses the overall satisfaction of all participants regarding the entire workshop (all scales are Likert-type scales, where 1 is strongly disagree, 2 is disagree, 3 is neutral, 4 is agree, and 5 is strongly agree). The study found the average team activity process score averaged higher than 3.9, and each group’s average score is as follows (from group one to group five): 4.60, 3.90, 4.03, 4.63, and 4.83.
     
     Regarding each team’s creative products, the self-assessment scores were above average (3.0). The average score from all 30 participants was 4.30 and the average scores from the first group to the fifth group were: 4.63, 3.87, 3.97, 4.67, and 4.37. The average score of the peer assessment of the final work was 3.93, while the experts’ assessments averaged 3.68. The average peer assessment score of the on-stage presentation performance was 3.90, while the experts’ assessments averaged 3.75. However, rankings were the same whether based on assessments done by peers or experts. Based on the results of rankings from the peer review process and from experts, the fourth group was identified as the highest scoring team and the second group as the lowest, both of which were then used for comparative analysis.
     
     Finally, this study used a simple correlation analysis to explore the relationship between participants and the design thinking teams’ perceptions of process, final creative products, personal and creative self-efficacy, and overall satisfaction. A significant positive correlation (r ranging from 0.411 to 0.613) was found between the high school design thinking workshop participants’ perceptions of design thinking activities, transactive memory systems, and innovation climate with self-assessment scores for team creative products, team effectiveness, and creative self-efficacy. However, overall personal satisfaction was not correlated with the other factors.
     
     Ultimately, this study demonstrates that a design thinking workshop is a feasible project for high school students, while future imagination is also a possible topic for use in activities related to the design thinking process. Perceptions of the design thinking process, transactive memory systems, innovation climate, final team products, and overall satisfaction were high, while individual creative self-efficacy was ordinary. In addition, teams with higher positive perceptions of the process demonstrated better team creative products and higher personal creative self-efficacy.
第壹章 緒論 5
     第一節 研究動機 5
     第二節 研究目的 7
     第三節 研究流程 8
     第四節 研究限制 10
     第貳章 文獻探討 12
     第一節 設計思考發展歷史 12
     第二節 設計思考的定義與流程 15
     第三節 設計思考應用範圍與實例 22
     第四節 影響設計思考的因素與設計思考的效果 30
     第參章 研究方法 38
     第一節 單次實驗個案設計 38
     第二節 研究對象 39
     第三節 設計思考工作坊之設計 40
     第四節 研究工具 51
     第肆章 研究結果分析 60
     第一節 「個人」參與歷程與合作結果分析 60
     第二節 「團隊」參與歷程與合作結果分析 63
     第三節 團隊創意作品評分表結果分析 72
     第四節 作品與呈現分數最高與最低團體比較 84
     第五節 設計思考團隊歷程與參與後成效相關分析 97
     第六節 研究發現與綜合討論 100
     第伍章 結論與建議 111
     第一節 結論 111
     第二節 建議 113
     第陸章 參考文獻 119
     附錄一：施測問卷1 126
     附錄二：施測問卷2 130
     附錄三：工作坊參與團隊（第四組）故事板 136
     附錄四：工作坊參與團隊（第二組）故事板 139
參考文獻 Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations, Harvard Business School.
     Archer, L. B. (1964). Systematic method for designers. Council of Industrial Design.
     Archer, L. B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology. Design Studies, 1(1), 17-18.
     Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
     Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4-6.
     Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.
     Brown, T. (2008). "Design thinking." Harvard business review 86(6): 84.
     Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30-35.
     Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A. & M. Hornstein. (2010). Destination, Imagination, and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29, 1, 37-53.
     Cowan, J. (2012). MPP Professional Paper (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota).
     Degen, H., & Yuan, X. (2011). Ux best practices how to achieve more impact with user experience. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
     Erichsen, P. G., & Christensen, P. R. (2013). The Evolution of the Design Management Field: A Journal Perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management.
     Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21: 1112-1142.
     Jobst B, Köppen E, Moritz J, Rhinow H, Meinel C, Lindberg T, (2011). Design Thinking Research:Understand- Improve- Apply, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0, Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_3/fulltext.html
     Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management.
     Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012). Reclaim Your Creative Confidence. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 115-118.
     Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Wadsworth Publishing.
     Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587.
     Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1254-1265.
     Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384-393.
     Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2010). Design thinking: integrating innovation, customer experience and brand value. Allworth Press.
     Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage, Harvard Business School Press.
     Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983-2017.
     Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design-thinking. Mi-Fachverlag.
     Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M.（2002）.Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45（6）, 1137-1148
     Rauth I, Köppen E, Jobst B, Meinel C (2010) An educational model towards creative confidence. In: 1st Proceedings of ICDC, Kobe
     Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282.
     Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design Thinking. The MIT Press.
     Riverdale Country School & IDEO , designthinkingforeducators free toolkit (2012). Retrieved July 05, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/
     Stanford d.school , Stanford d.school bootcamp bootleg (2010). Retrieved June 05, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf
     Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
     Tim Brown(2010)，How Design Thinking Transforms Organization and Inspires Innovation，《設計思考改造世界》，吳莉君譯，聯經出版
     Tom Kelly(2002)，The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO. America’s Leading Design Firm，《IDEA物語》，徐峰志譯，大塊文化出版
     Tom Kelly(2008)，The Ten Faces of Innovation.《決定未來的10種人》，林茂昌譯，大塊文化出版
     Von Zastrow C (2010) New design for learning: a conversation with IDEO Founder David Kelley. http://www.learningfirst.org/new-designs-learning-conversation-ideo-founder-david-kelley. Accessed 9 July 2013.
     巫博瀚、賴英娟(民96)。人類動力的基礎—自我效能兼論自我效能對學習者自我調整學習行為與成就表現之影響。教育人力與專業發展雙月刊，3，49-56
     林碧芳、邱皓政(民97)。創意教學自我效能感量表之編製與相關研究。教育研究與發展期刊, 4(1), 141-169.
     李澄賢 (民93)。大學生的情緒調節、調節焦點、樂觀與創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育學系教育心理與輔導組碩士學位論文。
     邱皓政 (民95)。量化研究與統計分析- spss 資料分析範例 (三)。台北：五南出版。
     郭家倫(民93)。團隊交融記憶系統之研究--以學生及企業人士為對象。國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士學位論文。
     蔡雅如（民94）。大學生逆境經驗及其相關因素之研究。
     IDEO http://www.ideo.com/ 2013/5/28
     Stanford hasso plattner design school. http://dschool.stanford.edu/ 2013/5/29
     AFP. (2011, Aug 9). Apple briefly tops ExxonMobil in market cap. [Online news].Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihIXg77xffxULm2dqBHvDbJhCmdA?docId=CNG.6af0ea33245699929774f17e5a39d6bc.3b1
     Aquino, J. hex_design-1 [Picture file]. Retrieved June 22, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://joeyaquino.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/want-a-crash-course-in-stanfords-design-thinking-here-it-is-for-free-pt-1-empathy/
     cbme3. cycle [Picture file]. Retrieved June 22, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://couldbecasestudies.wordpress.com/design-thinking-overview/
     88tc88. Design-Thinking_1 [Picture file]. Retrieved July 21, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://blog.88tc88.com/design-thinking-at-the-88tc88-office/
     Bizjournals. (2008, Aug 19). Stanford, German institute in research alliance. [Online news].Retrieved from www. .com/sanjose/stories/2008/08/18/daily13.html
     Brown, T. (2008, Nov). Tim Brown: Tales of creativity and play. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html
     Brown, T. (2008, Nov). Tim Brown urges designers to think big. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html
     Benedict, E. (2013). Nexus 7 maths. Retrieved July 21, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2013/2/19/nexus-7-maths
     Cohan, P. (2012, March 12). How Procter & Gamble Designs Change. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/03/12/how-procter-gamble-designs-change/
     Lin Yang (2013, February 28). Mobile Revolution Buffets Taiwan PC Rivals. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
     IDEO Takes on the Government. (2011, June). Metropolis. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/Metropolis_IDEO_govt_June2011_1.pdf
     Jean, C (2010, Jan). A warm embrace that saves lives. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_chen_a_warm_embrace_that_saves_lives.html
     KITCHEN GADGETS FOR ZYLISS. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/work/kitchen-gadgets/
     DONOR EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICAN RED CROSS. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/work/donor-experience-for-american-red-cross/?work/featured/red-cross/
     IBM (民101 年 5 月 7 日)。 2012 全球 CEO 調查報告。取自http://www-935.ibm.com/services/tw/zh/c-suite/ceostudy2012/overview/
     NTU design thinking material collection。2013/7/10。取自：https://sites.google.com/site/designthinkingrc/home/dt-workshop-ppt
     林俊劭 (民101年3月)，「廣達、賓士都搶著學的課」，商業週刊第1217期
     李欣岳 (民101年10月)。設計思考，拯救老牌化工廠 。Cheers雜誌145期。
     由使用者需求出發­，拯救百萬早產兒生命 Embrace保溫袋的社會創業啟示。取自：2013/7/21 https://sites.google.com/site/designthinkingrc/home/ntu-d-thinking-news/04embrace
     從一個人開始 -- 瑟吉校長。2013/7/1 。 取自http://www.dfcworld.com/dfc/taiwan/subnode.aspx?subnodeid=171&Country=37
     符芳碩(2013.01.17)，「翻盤！Nexus 7擊敗iPad 稱霸日本」。Yahoo!奇摩新聞，http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E7%BF%BB%E7%9B%A4-nexus-7%E6%93%8A%E6%95%97ipad-%E7%A8%B1%E9%9C%B8%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-105244742--finance.html
     教育部（民100年1月1日）。「未來想像與創意人才培育」計畫。民102年7月22日，取自：http://hss.edu.tw/plan_detail.php?class_plan=174
     Cheers雜誌編輯部(民100年8月18日)。冒險，才能創造不平凡。Cheers雜誌145期。取自http://m.cheers.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5023857
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
100359021
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100359021
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 吳靜吉zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Wu, Jing Jyien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林舜晨zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Shun Chenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林舜晨zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Shun Chenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Mar-2014 15:29:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Mar-2014 15:29:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Mar-2014 15:29:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100359021en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/64312-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100359021zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討設計思考（Design Thinking）工作坊的在地應用之成效。設計思考採用史丹佛大學d.school五個步驟的流程：同理心（empathize）、定義問題（define）、概念發想（ideate）、雛型製作（prototype）、測試（test）。參與者是30名宜蘭高中職學生，由畢業或在學的研究生共10名擔任工作坊的教練和助手。
     
     將參與者分為5個6人成員團隊。他們最終團隊作品要以6張故事板（storyboard）呈現對宜蘭的未來想像。整個工作坊先由一位專家做30分鐘「幸福宜蘭‧創意城鄉」的專題演講開始，然後正式進行8個小時的工作坊。在第一個步驟同理心的階段，每一個團隊必須輪流訪談5位宜蘭縣政府官員，和5位政大建構宜蘭創意城鄉團隊的成員。接著依照定義問題、概念發想、雛形製作、測試和說故事等步驟，完成團隊作品及其呈現。
     
     衡量設計思考工作坊歷程的量表包括設計思考「活動過程」、交融記憶系統和創新氛圍三個量表。五個團隊在最後也產生團隊作品並公開發表，這些創意作品有三種衡量方式。一為設計思考教練（coach）和助手（helper）、建構創意城鄉團隊成員與宜蘭在地達人組成的6人專業評審團評審，二是所有的參與者對除了他自己的團隊的四個團隊的創意作品，以及台上表現程度兩個部分進行評分。同時每一個參與者也都自評其團隊的最終創意作品。最後根據Jobst, Köppen, Lindberg, Moritz, Rhinow, & Meinel （2012）的推論，設計思考會增進參與者的創意自我效能，因此本研究也應用創意自我效能量表來檢驗每一個參與者在參與了設計思考之後，他們的創意自我效能表現如何。本研究也探討，所有成員對整個工作坊的整體滿意度（所有的量表皆採李克特式5點量表，1代表非常不同意，2代表不同意，3代表普通，4代表同意，5代表非常同意）。研究發現，參與者在團隊歷程的量表上面，平均分數都高於3.9。從第一組到第五組的量表平均分數依序為4.60、3.90、4.03、4.63、4.83。
     
     團隊的創意作品方面，自評的分數高於一般水準，30位參與者的量表平均分數為4.30，從第一組到第五組隊團隊創意作品平均數依序為4.63、3.87、3.97、4.67、4.37。同儕互評作品的平均數為3.93，專家給予的作品平均數為3.68，在報告表現方面同儕互評表現的平均數為3.90，專家給予的報告表現平均數為3.75。但不管是在報告或作品的評估上，參與者和專家評分的等級是一樣的。本研究也根據專家同儕評比的結果，選出第四組為得分最高團隊和第二組為得分最低團隊，進行比較分析。
     
     最後本研究應用簡單相關分析，探討參與者對設計思考團隊歷程的知覺與其參與後的創意作品、個人創意自我效能和整體滿意度的關係。發現高中生參與1天的設計思考的歷程中，對設計思考活動的知覺、團隊交融記憶系統和創新氛圍的感受，都和自評的團隊創意作品、團隊成效、創意自我效能具有顯著的正相關，從0.411到0.613。但和個人總體的滿意度沒有相關。
     
     設計思考工作坊應用在高中生是可行的，而以在地的未來想像為題，進行設計思考工作坊也是可行，參與者對設計思考的活動歷程、交融記憶系統、創新氛圍以及團隊作品、整體滿意度都很高，但個人創意自我效能表現普通。而且設計思考的團隊歷程知覺越正向，其團隊的創意作品、個人創意自我效能越佳。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the local application of a design thinking workshop, which utilizes the Stanford University d.school five-step process: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test. Participants were 30 local high school students in Yilan. 10 graduate students served as assistant coaches during the workshop.
     
     Participants were divided into five teams, each containing six members, and their final team projects included six storyboards displaying imaginative futures forYilan. An expert first gave a 30 minute lecture, titled “Happiness of Yilan: Creative cities and rural communities” to all workshop participants before the formal eight hours workshop was conducted. During the first stage, “empathize,” each team had to interview five Yilan county government officials and five team members of the National Chengchi University research team working on the Yilan creative cities and rural communities development project. They then completed their final products based on the design thinking process, including the define, ideate, prototype, test, and storytelling steps.
     
     In this study, three scales were utilized to measure the design thinking workshop process, namely: Activity Process, Transactive Memory System, and Innovation Climate. During the final stage of the workshop, the five teams both produce and present their creative products. These were measured in three ways. First, a six-member professional judging group was assembled by the workshop coaches and their assistants from among the Yilan creative cities and rural communities research team members and notable representatives of the Yilan community. Second, all participants judged the other four teams’ creative products and presentations. In addition, each participant had to do a self-assessment of his or her team’s ultimate creative work. Finally, according to Jobst, Köppen, Lindberg, Moritz, Rhinow, & Meinel (2012), design thinking can enhance participants’ creative self-efficacy, and therefore this study applied a creative self-efficacy scale to evaluate each participants’ creative self-efficacy after the design thinking workshop. This study also discusses the overall satisfaction of all participants regarding the entire workshop (all scales are Likert-type scales, where 1 is strongly disagree, 2 is disagree, 3 is neutral, 4 is agree, and 5 is strongly agree). The study found the average team activity process score averaged higher than 3.9, and each group’s average score is as follows (from group one to group five): 4.60, 3.90, 4.03, 4.63, and 4.83.
     
     Regarding each team’s creative products, the self-assessment scores were above average (3.0). The average score from all 30 participants was 4.30 and the average scores from the first group to the fifth group were: 4.63, 3.87, 3.97, 4.67, and 4.37. The average score of the peer assessment of the final work was 3.93, while the experts’ assessments averaged 3.68. The average peer assessment score of the on-stage presentation performance was 3.90, while the experts’ assessments averaged 3.75. However, rankings were the same whether based on assessments done by peers or experts. Based on the results of rankings from the peer review process and from experts, the fourth group was identified as the highest scoring team and the second group as the lowest, both of which were then used for comparative analysis.
     
     Finally, this study used a simple correlation analysis to explore the relationship between participants and the design thinking teams’ perceptions of process, final creative products, personal and creative self-efficacy, and overall satisfaction. A significant positive correlation (r ranging from 0.411 to 0.613) was found between the high school design thinking workshop participants’ perceptions of design thinking activities, transactive memory systems, and innovation climate with self-assessment scores for team creative products, team effectiveness, and creative self-efficacy. However, overall personal satisfaction was not correlated with the other factors.
     
     Ultimately, this study demonstrates that a design thinking workshop is a feasible project for high school students, while future imagination is also a possible topic for use in activities related to the design thinking process. Perceptions of the design thinking process, transactive memory systems, innovation climate, final team products, and overall satisfaction were high, while individual creative self-efficacy was ordinary. In addition, teams with higher positive perceptions of the process demonstrated better team creative products and higher personal creative self-efficacy.		en_US
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 第壹章 緒論 5
     第一節 研究動機 5
     第二節 研究目的 7
     第三節 研究流程 8
     第四節 研究限制 10
     第貳章 文獻探討 12
     第一節 設計思考發展歷史 12
     第二節 設計思考的定義與流程 15
     第三節 設計思考應用範圍與實例 22
     第四節 影響設計思考的因素與設計思考的效果 30
     第參章 研究方法 38
     第一節 單次實驗個案設計 38
     第二節 研究對象 39
     第三節 設計思考工作坊之設計 40
     第四節 研究工具 51
     第肆章 研究結果分析 60
     第一節 「個人」參與歷程與合作結果分析 60
     第二節 「團隊」參與歷程與合作結果分析 63
     第三節 團隊創意作品評分表結果分析 72
     第四節 作品與呈現分數最高與最低團體比較 84
     第五節 設計思考團隊歷程與參與後成效相關分析 97
     第六節 研究發現與綜合討論 100
     第伍章 結論與建議 111
     第一節 結論 111
     第二節 建議 113
     第陸章 參考文獻 119
     附錄一：施測問卷1 126
     附錄二：施測問卷2 130
     附錄三：工作坊參與團隊（第四組）故事板 136
     附錄四：工作坊參與團隊（第二組）故事板 139		-
dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 5
     第一節 研究動機 5
     第二節 研究目的 7
     第三節 研究流程 8
     第四節 研究限制 10
     第貳章 文獻探討 12
     第一節 設計思考發展歷史 12
     第二節 設計思考的定義與流程 15
     第三節 設計思考應用範圍與實例 22
     第四節 影響設計思考的因素與設計思考的效果 30
     第參章 研究方法 38
     第一節 單次實驗個案設計 38
     第二節 研究對象 39
     第三節 設計思考工作坊之設計 40
     第四節 研究工具 51
     第肆章 研究結果分析 60
     第一節 「個人」參與歷程與合作結果分析 60
     第二節 「團隊」參與歷程與合作結果分析 63
     第三節 團隊創意作品評分表結果分析 72
     第四節 作品與呈現分數最高與最低團體比較 84
     第五節 設計思考團隊歷程與參與後成效相關分析 97
     第六節 研究發現與綜合討論 100
     第伍章 結論與建議 111
     第一節 結論 111
     第二節 建議 113
     第陸章 參考文獻 119
     附錄一：施測問卷1 126
     附錄二：施測問卷2 130
     附錄三：工作坊參與團隊（第四組）故事板 136
     附錄四：工作坊參與團隊（第二組）故事板 139		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100359021en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 設計思考zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創意自我效能zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創新氛圍zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 交融記憶系統zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) design thinkingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) creative self-efficacyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) innovation climateen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) transactive memory systemen_US
dc.title (題名) 設計思考的應用 － 以探討高中生參與工作坊的經驗知覺為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Applied design thinking - Exploring the experiences of high school students participating in workshopsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations, Harvard Business School.
     Archer, L. B. (1964). Systematic method for designers. Council of Industrial Design.
     Archer, L. B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology. Design Studies, 1(1), 17-18.
     Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
     Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4-6.
     Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.
     Brown, T. (2008). "Design thinking." Harvard business review 86(6): 84.
     Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30-35.
     Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A. & M. Hornstein. (2010). Destination, Imagination, and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29, 1, 37-53.
     Cowan, J. (2012). MPP Professional Paper (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota).
     Degen, H., & Yuan, X. (2011). Ux best practices how to achieve more impact with user experience. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
     Erichsen, P. G., & Christensen, P. R. (2013). The Evolution of the Design Management Field: A Journal Perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management.
     Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21: 1112-1142.
     Jobst B, Köppen E, Moritz J, Rhinow H, Meinel C, Lindberg T, (2011). Design Thinking Research:Understand- Improve- Apply, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0, Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_3/fulltext.html
     Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management.
     Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012). Reclaim Your Creative Confidence. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 115-118.
     Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Wadsworth Publishing.
     Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587.
     Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1254-1265.
     Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384-393.
     Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2010). Design thinking: integrating innovation, customer experience and brand value. Allworth Press.
     Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage, Harvard Business School Press.
     Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983-2017.
     Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design-thinking. Mi-Fachverlag.
     Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M.（2002）.Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45（6）, 1137-1148
     Rauth I, Köppen E, Jobst B, Meinel C (2010) An educational model towards creative confidence. In: 1st Proceedings of ICDC, Kobe
     Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282.
     Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design Thinking. The MIT Press.
     Riverdale Country School & IDEO , designthinkingforeducators free toolkit (2012). Retrieved July 05, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/
     Stanford d.school , Stanford d.school bootcamp bootleg (2010). Retrieved June 05, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf
     Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
     Tim Brown(2010)，How Design Thinking Transforms Organization and Inspires Innovation，《設計思考改造世界》，吳莉君譯，聯經出版
     Tom Kelly(2002)，The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO. America’s Leading Design Firm，《IDEA物語》，徐峰志譯，大塊文化出版
     Tom Kelly(2008)，The Ten Faces of Innovation.《決定未來的10種人》，林茂昌譯，大塊文化出版
     Von Zastrow C (2010) New design for learning: a conversation with IDEO Founder David Kelley. http://www.learningfirst.org/new-designs-learning-conversation-ideo-founder-david-kelley. Accessed 9 July 2013.
     巫博瀚、賴英娟(民96)。人類動力的基礎—自我效能兼論自我效能對學習者自我調整學習行為與成就表現之影響。教育人力與專業發展雙月刊，3，49-56
     林碧芳、邱皓政(民97)。創意教學自我效能感量表之編製與相關研究。教育研究與發展期刊, 4(1), 141-169.
     李澄賢 (民93)。大學生的情緒調節、調節焦點、樂觀與創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育學系教育心理與輔導組碩士學位論文。
     邱皓政 (民95)。量化研究與統計分析- spss 資料分析範例 (三)。台北：五南出版。
     郭家倫(民93)。團隊交融記憶系統之研究--以學生及企業人士為對象。國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士學位論文。
     蔡雅如（民94）。大學生逆境經驗及其相關因素之研究。
     IDEO http://www.ideo.com/ 2013/5/28
     Stanford hasso plattner design school. http://dschool.stanford.edu/ 2013/5/29
     AFP. (2011, Aug 9). Apple briefly tops ExxonMobil in market cap. [Online news].Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihIXg77xffxULm2dqBHvDbJhCmdA?docId=CNG.6af0ea33245699929774f17e5a39d6bc.3b1
     Aquino, J. hex_design-1 [Picture file]. Retrieved June 22, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://joeyaquino.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/want-a-crash-course-in-stanfords-design-thinking-here-it-is-for-free-pt-1-empathy/
     cbme3. cycle [Picture file]. Retrieved June 22, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://couldbecasestudies.wordpress.com/design-thinking-overview/
     88tc88. Design-Thinking_1 [Picture file]. Retrieved July 21, 2013. from the World Wide Web: http://blog.88tc88.com/design-thinking-at-the-88tc88-office/
     Bizjournals. (2008, Aug 19). Stanford, German institute in research alliance. [Online news].Retrieved from www. .com/sanjose/stories/2008/08/18/daily13.html
     Brown, T. (2008, Nov). Tim Brown: Tales of creativity and play. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html
     Brown, T. (2008, Nov). Tim Brown urges designers to think big. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html
     Benedict, E. (2013). Nexus 7 maths. Retrieved July 21, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2013/2/19/nexus-7-maths
     Cohan, P. (2012, March 12). How Procter & Gamble Designs Change. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/03/12/how-procter-gamble-designs-change/
     Lin Yang (2013, February 28). Mobile Revolution Buffets Taiwan PC Rivals. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
     IDEO Takes on the Government. (2011, June). Metropolis. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/Metropolis_IDEO_govt_June2011_1.pdf
     Jean, C (2010, Jan). A warm embrace that saves lives. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_chen_a_warm_embrace_that_saves_lives.html
     KITCHEN GADGETS FOR ZYLISS. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/work/kitchen-gadgets/
     DONOR EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICAN RED CROSS. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ideo.com/work/donor-experience-for-american-red-cross/?work/featured/red-cross/
     IBM (民101 年 5 月 7 日)。 2012 全球 CEO 調查報告。取自http://www-935.ibm.com/services/tw/zh/c-suite/ceostudy2012/overview/
     NTU design thinking material collection。2013/7/10。取自：https://sites.google.com/site/designthinkingrc/home/dt-workshop-ppt
     林俊劭 (民101年3月)，「廣達、賓士都搶著學的課」，商業週刊第1217期
     李欣岳 (民101年10月)。設計思考，拯救老牌化工廠 。Cheers雜誌145期。
     由使用者需求出發­，拯救百萬早產兒生命 Embrace保溫袋的社會創業啟示。取自：2013/7/21 https://sites.google.com/site/designthinkingrc/home/ntu-d-thinking-news/04embrace
     從一個人開始 -- 瑟吉校長。2013/7/1 。 取自http://www.dfcworld.com/dfc/taiwan/subnode.aspx?subnodeid=171&Country=37
     符芳碩(2013.01.17)，「翻盤！Nexus 7擊敗iPad 稱霸日本」。Yahoo!奇摩新聞，http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E7%BF%BB%E7%9B%A4-nexus-7%E6%93%8A%E6%95%97ipad-%E7%A8%B1%E9%9C%B8%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC-105244742--finance.html
     教育部（民100年1月1日）。「未來想像與創意人才培育」計畫。民102年7月22日，取自：http://hss.edu.tw/plan_detail.php?class_plan=174
     Cheers雜誌編輯部(民100年8月18日)。冒險，才能創造不平凡。Cheers雜誌145期。取自http://m.cheers.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5023857		zh_TW