本研究旨在探討運用「設計思考」教學活動於公務人員訓練，能否有助於受訓人員從使用者角度分析問題，並加以應用於未來實務工作。本研究採行動研究模式，透過受訓人員參加「設計思考工作坊」，以問題解決為導向，引導其洞察使用者的真實需求。藉由實施二次設計思考工作坊的行動研究循環，進行行動監測與自我評鑑，讓研究者得以修正教學活動，並評估訓練成效。
　　本研究資料以多元質性方式蒐集並輔以量化資料，透過研究者三角檢定分析，以評估訓練成效。本研究發現「設計思考」之教學活動中，著重「探究」和「解讀問題」，有助於受訓人員從使用者角度分析問題。其次，受訓人員應具開放心態，內化「設計思考」的心智模式，以應用於未來實務工作。最後，活動引導者應動態修正教學活動內容並適時給予適量資訊，協助受訓人員完成各個階段任務，以確保達成預期訓練成效。

This research mainly focuses on discussing whether the trainees can analyze the problems by assuming the users’ authentic requirements but also apply ideas in the future by applying the teaching activity of design thinking in civil service training. The purpose of this program is to lead the trainees pierce the uses’ requirements through the attendance of design thinking workshop with problem-based concept. Through put the cycle of action research into practice in the two workshops, we can do action monitoring and self –evaluation, and it makes the researchers have chances to modify the teaching activities and evaluate the efficiency of the training.
The data of this research are collected in the way of multiple qualitative research and the quantitative data are also consulted. The researchers consolidate these data and then determine the efficiency by using triangulation. This research shows three important conclusions. First, the empathy and how to define the problems are the emphases in the teaching activities of design thinking. These two emphases can help the trainees analyze the problems by standing on the uses’ side. Second, the trainees also need to be open-minded and internalize the mental model of design thinking and put it into practice in the future. Third, the guides of those activities should modify the content of the teaching activities and offer proper information in time to help the trainees to finish missions of each status and make sure to achieve the presumption.

一、中文部份
吳明隆（2001）。教育行動研究導論：理論與實務。臺北市：五南。
吳翰中、吳琍璇（2010）。美學CEO：用設計思考，用美學管理。臺北市：繆思。
李選、張婷（2018）。公務人員應用設計思考成為落實永續發展目標之設計師。T&D飛訊，241，1-21。
柯文娟、侯詩妍（2017）。論「翻轉教室」於公部門人才培養應用之可行性。科際整合月刊，2(8)，1-19。
陳俐彤（2017）。設計思考的創新擴散研究─以大中華地區為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立清華大學，新竹市。
楊振甫、黃則佳（2011）。打開服務設計的秘密。臺北市：財團法人台灣創意設計中心。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。臺北市：心理。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。臺北市：五南。
蔡璧煌（2013）。文官訓練新方向。T&D飛訊，162，5-10。
蔡璧煌（2015）。文官培訓哲學的新思考─發展性訓練理念與實踐。文官培訓學刊，1，35-56。
魯俊孟（2013）。公部門應用個案教學法可能之績效與障礙分析。T&D飛訊，171，1-15。
鍾佩君（2017）。初探新版柯氏學習評估模式。評鑑雙月刊，68，34-38。

二、外文部份
Baek, S., & Kim, S. (2018). Participatory public service design by gov.3.0 design group. Sustainability, 10(1), 245. doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/10.3390/su10010245
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84-92.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. NY: Harper Business.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment.Creativity and innovation management, 25(1), 38-57.
Cox, C. Apedox, X., Silk, E., & Schunn, C. (2017). Analyzing materials in order to find design opportunities for the classroom. In S. Goldman & Z. kabayadondo (Eds.). Taking design thinking to school (pp. 204-20). NY: Routledge.
Davis, M., & Littlejohn, D. (2017). The culture of practice: Design-based teaching and learning. In S. Goldman & Z. kabayadondo (Eds.). Taking design thinking to school (pp. 20-36). NY: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London:Routledge
Donar, A. (2011). Thinking Design and pedagogy: An examination of five Canadian post-secondary courses in design thinking. Canadian review of art education: Research and issues, 38, 84-102.
Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibbles. London: Falmer Press.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking Design Thinking to School: How the Technology of Design Can Transform Teachers, Learners, and Classrooms.NY: Routledge.
IDEO. (2017). The design thinking for educators toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: IDEO.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kremel, A., & Wetter-Edman, K. (2019). Implementing design thinking as didactic method in entrepreneurship education. The importance of through. Design journal. 22(sup1), 163-175.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2, 34-46.
Luchs, M. G., Swan, S., &Griffin, A.(2015). Design Thinking: New Product Development Essentials from the PDMA. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practices (3rd Ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
McDonald, J. K., West, R. E., Rich, P. J., & Pfleger, I. (2019). It’s so wonderful having different majors working together: The development of an interdisciplinary design thinking minor. Tech Trends. 63(4). 440-450.
Stickdorn, M., & Schineider, J. (2012). This is service design thinking basics tools cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tu, J. C., Liu, L. X., & Wu, K. Y. (2018). Study on the learning effectiveness of Standard design thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability, 10(8), 2649. doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/10.3390/su10082649
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374-385.
Yang, C. M. (2018). Applying design thinking as a method for teaching packaging design. Journal of education and learning, 7(5), 52-61.