所謂Z世代，也可以稱為「數位原生世代」，他們與過去的世代相比，有許多不同的行為習慣，這是因為他們已經習慣了與數位科技的緊密聯繫。再加上新冠肺炎疫情席捲全球教育圈，正對仍在求學階段的Z世代學生產生了影響，因此改變了他們的學習模式。此外，考慮到設計專業的特殊性，該專業學生的學習方式也與其他學科有所區別。本研究目的在於探究Z世代大專院校設計專業學生於現況的學習過程中，有什麼樣的學習行為改變以及學習過程中產生了什麼行為需求，並透過產品設計的思維來對應此需求，進而構思輔助Z世代學習的產品設計想法。研究方法採用質性研究的途徑，並將研究方法分成三個階段，分別是半結構式問卷與深度訪談、個案行為分析、目標族群回饋分析。研究結果發現Z世代設計專業學生的學習行為會隨時依照個人需求而有所改變，具有高度個性化和多樣性的特徵，而他們在學習上的重要需求主要有四個面向：高效的資料篩選與掌握、清楚呈現想法與討論、有效的溝通與取得共識、分享與交換資訊。最後本研究為其需求所設計創作的內容為「輔助課堂記錄的智能機器人」、「輔助課堂討論的可撓式觸控軟板」、「Learner+」這三項產品設計。

Generation Z, also known as "Digital Natives", has developed numerous habits closely intertwined with digital technology. Consequently, this generation exhibits distinct behaviors when compared to previous generations. Furthermore, the global education landscape has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting Generation Z students who are still in their academic stages, leading to changes in learning patterns. Design education, given its specialized nature, follows different learning approaches compared to other disciplines. The purpose of this study is to analyze the learning behavior changes and emerging needs of Generation Z university students majoring in design during their current learning processes. Through the application of design thinking, the study aims to address these needs and generate innovative product design ideas that can assist Generation Z in their learning journeys. The research adopts a qualitative approach, divided into three stages: semi-structured questionnaires and in-depth interviews, case behavior analysis, and target group feedback analysis. The research findings reveal that the learning behaviors of Generation Z design students are highly personalized and diverse, adapting to individual needs in real-time. Their key learning needs can be categorized into four main aspects: efficient data filtering and mastery, clear presentation of ideas and discussions, effective communication and consensus-building, and sharing and exchanging information. In response to these needs, this study proposes three product designs: the "Smart Robot for Classroom Note-taking," the "Flexible Touch Panel for Classroom Discussions," and the "Learner+" system.

丁毓珊、洪健容（2024）。認識Z世代：學習特徵與數位教學策略探討。臺灣教育評論月刊，13（5），89-94。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20130114001-N202405030017-00016
王志菁（2021）。新冠肺炎疫情對教育的衝擊與省思–從學生學習權的觀點分析。中華管理發展評論，10（1），1-13。https://doi.org/10.6631/JCMD.202106_10(1).0001
吳美瑤（2017）。時代變遷中的偏鄉教育及其師資問題。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（9），20-22。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201709-201709050013-201709050013-20-22&PublishTypeID=P001
李遠哲（2005）。成長在急速變遷的時代裡。國教輔導，44（3），8-18。https://doi.org/10.6772/GEE.200502.0008
洪福源（2018）。人工智慧的發展、種類與未來教育發展應用的可能性。台灣教育，（712），55-64。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=18166482-201808-201808160010-201808160010-55-64&PublishTypeID=P001
紀依盡、林旭龍（2008）。應用跨理論模式探討健走對高體脂女大學生運動行為及肥胖變化之研究。學校衛生，（53），17-33。https://doi.org/10.30026/CJSH.200812.0002
張志成、蔡守浦（2005）。以跨理論模式（The Transtheoretical Model）探析健身運動行為的改變。大專體育，（77），137-144。https://doi.org/10.6162/SRR.2005.77.23
陳文誌（2009）。工業設計專業學習的問題與資源運用初探。工業設計，（121），216-222。https://doi.org/10.29918/ID.200911.0014
陳文誌、游萬來（2008）。網路輔助跨校合作設計學習專案的問題與影響。藝術教育研究，（15），105-135。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=1680435x-200805-x-15-105-135-a&PublishTypeID=P001
陳佳正（2018）。人工智慧在未來教育的問題與契機。台灣教育，（713），87-94。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=18166482-201810-201811050011-201811050011-87-94&PublishTypeID=P001
陳紀錚（2016）。以學生為中心的課堂「討論」。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（6），239-244。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201606-201606030018-201606030018-239-244&PublishTypeID=P001
陳淳迪、黃佳音、翁註重（2012）。工業設計專案學習的評量項目意涵及意涵說明：教師觀點。藝術教育研究，（23），71-100。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=1680435x-201205-201208240007-201208240007-71-100&PublishTypeID=P001
游婉琳（2022）。大學通識教師於疫情前後使用數位學習平台之教學改變與資訊素養能力之探究。通識教育學刊，（30），33-67。 https://doi.org/10.6360/TJGE.202212_(30).0002
游萬來、楊敏英、廖珮泠（2007）。大學工業設計系學生的學習態度調查。設計學報，12（2），15-36。https://doi.org/10.6381/JD.200706.0015
黃繼仁（2022）。向上提升抑或向下沈淪？談資訊科技對語文教育的衝擊與回應。台灣教育研究期刊，3（1），1-19。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20220316001-202201-202203230012-202203230012-1-19&PublishTypeID=P001
楊敏英、游萬來、陳斐娟（2005）。探討工業設計系學生面臨的困擾及生涯輔導需求對設計教育的意涵。設計學報，10（2），57-75。https://doi.org/10.6381/JD.200506.0057
劉勝豪（2017）。AI人工智慧趨勢對教育的省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（8），70-73。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201708-201708020021-201708020021-70-73&PublishTypeID=P001
蔡育佑（2003）。運用跨理論模式於大專學生運動行為改變計畫之研究。北體學報，（11），53-66。https://doi.org/10.6167/TPEC/2003.11.6
賴阿福（2018）。探討智慧教育的內涵及國中小教師對於智慧教育看法。國教新知，65（4），63-81。https://doi.org/10.6701/TEEJ.201812_65(4).0005
顏進雄（2007）。論板書在現代多媒體課堂中的應用優勢與展望。花蓮教育大學學報，（25），157-176。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=1025966x-200710-x-25-157-176-a&PublishTypeID=P001
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Boudhraâ, S. (2016). A new representational ecosystem for design teaching in studio courses. Design Studies, 47, 164-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.003
Emily A. Vogels, Risa Gelles-Watnick, Navid Massarat. (2022). Teens, social media and technology 2022. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
Gee, J. P. (2013). The Anti-Education Era: Creating Smarter Students through Digital Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
GII Global Information. (2023). Smart Education and Learning. GII Global Information. https://www.gii.tw/report/go1222964-smart-education-learning.html
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381
Karl Haller, Simon Glass, Christopher K. Wong, Jane Cheung. (2018). What do Gen Z shoppers really want. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/report/genzshoppers
Katherine Schaeffer. (2019). Most U.S. teens who use cellphones do it to pass time, connect with others, learn new things. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/23/most-u-s-teens-who-use-cellphones-do-it-to-pass-time-connect-with-others-learn-new-things/
Michael Dimock. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Monica Anderson, Jing-Jing Jiang. (2018). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Monica Anderson, Jing-Jing Jiang. (2018). Teens's social media habits and experiences. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-social-media-habits-and-experiences/
Monica Anderson, Michelle Faverio, Colleen Mcclain. (2022). How teens navigate school during COVID-19. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/06/02/how-teens-navigate-school-during-covid-19/
Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 27(3), 229-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.002
Pearson. (2018). Beyond Millennials：The next generationof learners. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/
Priya Thomas. (2019). How generation Z students are learning. Knack. https://blog.joinknack.com/generation-z-learning
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy : toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy : Theory Research and Practice, 19, 276-288.
Prochaska, J. O., & Marcus, B. H. (1994). The transtheoretical model : Applications to exercise. InR.K. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in Exercise Adherence (pp. 161-180). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C.A. & Evers, K. (1997). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer, B. K. (Ed.), Health Behavior and Health Education (2nd. Ed.). CA: Jossey-bass Publishers.
Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P., Stoyanov, S., & Hoogveld, B. (2011). The Future of Learning: Preparing for Change. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/64117
Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191-205.
Richard Fry, Kim Parker. (2018). Early benchmarks show “Post-Millennials” on track to be most diverse, best-educated generation yet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/11/15/early-benchmarks-show-post-millennials-on-track-to-be-most-diverse-best-educated-generation-yet/
Schön, D. A. (1987). Education: The reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shefaly Shorey, Valerie Chan, Priyadharshni Rajendran, Emily Ang. (2021). Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare students: Scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103247
Simon Glass, Christopher K. Wong, David McCarty, Jane Cheung. (2017). What brands should know about Generation Z shoppers. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/report/uniquelygenz
Thomas Rudiger Smith, Naomi Yamakawa. (2020). Asia's generation Z comes of age. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/asias-generation-z-comes-of-age
Trevor Davis, Eva Heukaeufer, Jane Cheung. (2017). The expanding purchasing influence of Generation Z. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/report/genzbrand
Zimring, C., & Craig, D. L. (2001). Defining design between domains: An argument for design research à la carte. In C. Eastman, W. McCracken, & W. Newsletter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 125-46). Oxford: Elsevier Science.