近年來，高等教育領域嘗試將共創的協作學習概念導入課程設計，並結合多元教學方法融入教學中，以提升學生對課程的反思和參與。規劃專業的角度來看，與社區協作共創的社區參與更加受到關注與重視。規劃系所之實習課學生同樣也透過多樣的方式進入社區場域，學生除了是學習者外，也是規劃專業者跟社區場域的參與者，成為另一種類型的權益關係人。然而，在此教學背景下，目前的研究多偏向以老師視角做學習成效評估，較少以學生觀點理解參與成效；其次，共創的理論概念應用在規劃教育的相關研究較少，其概念多數被概括在社區參與、夥伴關係、服務學習等相關理論中，缺乏深入探究；且針對規劃專業的社區參與共創，尚缺乏具體的指標說明。
因此，研究問題聚焦於共創的過程中學生觀點的課程反思並探討共創效益，方法論以參與式行動研究為基礎，並以國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士班111學年度第二學期的「永續都市與地方行銷實習課程」為案例，透過直接參與觀察、深度訪談、焦點團體等資料蒐集方法，以課程期中、期末兩個迴圈進行學生視角的反思，藉以瞭解學生參與社區參與背景下的規劃實習課程之參與歷程，並在課程結束後，以社區知識共創三角框架評估各項共創指標，探討課程學生、授課老師和社區專家在共創過程中的效益及背後影響因素。
研究結果發現，學生參與過程雖然產生課程執行壓力及組內相處方面遇到挑戰，但仍給予學生參與式學習的經驗，促成學生與研究者共同提出想法的歷程，同時給予課程學生另一種發聲管道；而研究者多重角色也影響方法論的實踐效果；另外，在課程有限度的共創背景下提供授課老師更多的教學經驗思考。社區知識共創三角在群體間存在多種類型的知識交流體系，從知識的多元性思考，補足群體間不同資源、經歷與背景差異，看見課程學生、授課老師與社區專家之間共創價值。社區知識三角共創影響因素包含時間不足、群體內組別合作挑戰及、社區團體參與期程差異等內部因素；也包含對等的對話空間、小規模班級、既有知識背景落差等外部因素。不均等的參與狀況以及群體分類範疇過廣造成研究的侷限性，因此未來研究可再進一步探討社區專家的參與程度差異，並細分參與權益關係人，藉以提高共創的分析效果。

In recent years, the field of higher education has endeavored to integrate the concept of co-creative collaborative learning into curriculum design, combined with participatory action research methods, to enhance student reflection and engagement in courses. From a professional planning perspective, community participation in collaborative co-creation with communities has garnered increased attention and importance. Students from planning departments also engage with communities through various means during internship courses. Students not only act as learners but also as professionals participating in community workshops, becoming another type of stakeholder. However, within this educational context, current research tends to view students as research groups integrated into the higher education system, with less emphasis on allowing students to independently explore beyond course groups. Furthermore, there is limited research on the theoretical concept of co-creation in planning education. Most concepts are generalized within related theories lacking in-depth exploration, and there is a lack of specific indicators for community participation co-creation in planning professions.
Therefore, the research questions focus on students' course reflections during the co-creation process and explore the benefits of co-creation from their perspectives. The methodology is based on participatory action research, utilizing the Planning & City Marketing Practices studio from the second semester of the 111th academic year at the Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University, as a case study. Data were collected through direct participation observation, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to analyze students' reflections in two cycles (midterm and final) during the semester. The goal is to comprehend the participation process of the planning internship course within the context of community involvement. Following the course completion, the community knowledge triangle framework is employed to assess various co-creation indicators and investigate the benefits and underlying influencing factors of co-creation among students, teachers, and community experts.
The research findings revealed that although students experienced pressure from course implementation and faced challenges in group interactions, they still gained participatory learning experiences. This process facilitated the co-creation of ideas between students and researchers, providing students with another channel for expression. The researchers' multiple roles also influenced the effectiveness of the methodology. Additionally, the limited co-creation context of the course provided teachers with more considerations for their teaching experience. Within the community knowledge triangle, there existed various types of knowledge exchange systems among groups. The diversity of knowledge compensated for the differences in resources, experiences, and backgrounds among the groups, highlighting the co-creation value between course students, teachers, and community experts. The factors influencing the community knowledge triangle included internal factors such as insufficient time, challenges in group cooperation, and differences in the duration of community group participation, as well as external factors such as equitable dialogue spaces, small class sizes, and gaps in existing knowledge backgrounds.
The limitations of the study stemmed from unequal participation and the broad classification of groups. Therefore, future research could further explore the varying degrees of community experts' participation and subdivide the stakeholders involved to enhance the effectiveness of co-creation analysis.

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health, 60(10), 854-857. https://jech.bmj.com/content/60/10/854
Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2015). Co-creating curriculum in higher education: promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120734
Billig, S. (2008). Bring learning to life: service-learning in action. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Bovill, C. (2013). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770264
Bovill, C.. Cook-Sather, A.. Felten, P.. Millard, L, & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195-208. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
Burgess, J. (2006). Participatory action research: first-person perspectives of a graduate student. Action research, 4(4), 419-437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306070104
Chang, H. B., & Huang, W. J. (2022). Stakeholder workshops as a pedagogical method for experiential learning in collaborative planning education. Planning Practice & Research, 37(4), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2021.2019523
Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1).
Díaz‐Méndez, M., Gummesson, E., & Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co‐creation and university teaching quality. Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 571-592. https://doi/10.1108/09564231211260422
Dollinger, M., et al. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 28(2), 210-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756
Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756
Fischler, R. (2012). Teaching spatial planners: Knowledge, skills, competencies and attitudes–Accreditation standards in the US and Canada. Higher Education in Spatial Planning: Positions and Reflections, 140-48.
Frank, A. I., & Sieh, L. (2016). Multiversity of the twenty-first century – examining opportunities for integrating community engagement in planning curricula. Planning Practice & Research, 31(5), 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2016.1180573
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Expanding Boundaries: Serving and Learning, 1, p.1-6. https://diaitalcommims.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/128
Galletta, A., & Torre, M. E. (2019). Participatory action research in education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.557
Halliday, A. J., Kern, M. L., Garrett, D. K., & Turnbull, D. A. (2018). The student voice in well-being: a case study of participatory action research in positive education. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 173-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1436079
Irazabal, C., Mendoza-Arroyo, C., Arciniegas, C. O., Sanchez, R. O., & Maya, J. (2015). Enabling community-higher education partnerships: common challenges, multiple perspectives. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 17, 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.020
Jacobs, S. D. (2016). The use of participatory action research within education-benefits to stakeholders. World Journal of Education, 6(3). http://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/wje/index/
Kumari, R., Kwon, K.-S., Lee, B.-H., & Choi, K. (2019). Co-creation for social innovation in the ecosystem context: the role of higher educational institutions. Sustainability, 12(1), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010307
Levkoe, C. Z., Friendly, A., & Daniere, A. (2018). Community service-learning in graduate planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18754318
Liang, H. F., Wu, K. M., Hung, C. C., Wang, Y. H., & Peng, N. H. (2019). Resilience enhancement among student nurses during clinical practices: a participatory action research study. Nurse education today, 75, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.01.004
Lina Kaminskiene, V. Z., Vaida Jurgilė, Tetiana Ponomarenko. (2020). Co-creation of learning: a concept analysis. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(2). http://ejournal1.com/en/index.html
Liu, B. (2019). Teaching design of intercultural discussions in college english based on ORID mode. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 9(02), 67. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. M. (2018). Students as partners in learning and teaching: The benefits of co-creation of the curriculum. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3207
Morales, M. P. E. (2016). Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 156-165. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105165
National service-learning clearinghouse- national youth leadership council (2015). The IPARD Framework. http://gsn.nylc.org/topics/292/documents/1173
Owusu-Daaku, K. N. (2021). Engaging students in planning for superfund site remediation and redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Management, 278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111567
Perks, H., Gruber, T., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Co-creation in radical service innovation: a systematic analysis of microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 935-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00971.x
Reybold, E. L., Lammert, G. J., & Stribling, M. S. (2013). Participant Selection as a Conscious Research Method: Thinking Forward and the Deliberation of “Emergent” Findings. Qualitative Research, 13(6), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112465634
Rutherford, G. E., Walsh, C. A. & Rook, J. (2011) Teaching and learning processes for social transformation: Engaging a kaleidoscope of learners, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(5), pp. 479–492.10.1080/08841233.2011.614206
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sieh, L., & Frank, A. I. (2018). Designing impact evaluation for students’ engagement with communities in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(2), 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18807287
Sletto, B. (2010). Educating reflective practitioners: learning to embrace the unexpected through service learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(4), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10362771
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, M. B., Doll, C. N. H. & Kraines, S. B. (2014) Beyond the third mission. Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability, Science and Public Policy, 41(2), pp. 151–179.10.1093/scipol/sct044
UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. (2015). Institutionalizing Community University Research.https://unescochaircbrsr.org/unesco/pdf/CURP_Guidelines.pdf
van Karnenbeek, L., Janssen-Jansen, L., & Peel, D. (2022). Conceptualising co-creative planning pedagogies: the community knowledge triangle. Planning Practice and Research, 37(4), 446-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1856501
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Winkler, Tanja. 2013. At the coalface: community-university engagements and planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 33(2), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X1247431
方世杰、李慶芳（2016）。〈平台經濟、共享經濟、價值共創的定義、差異、意義〉。取自http://reskm98.blogspot.tw/2016/12/blog-post.html
王羿霖(2018)。通過參與式行動培養特定場地建築和環境設計人才：以學生參與台南六甲林鳳社區營造為例，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。臺南市。
成大人文社會科學中心(2023)。〈成大持續推動USR/4個計劃通過教育部第三期112-113年大學社會責任實踐計畫〉。取自https://web.ncku.edu.tw/p/16-1000-254337.php?Lang=zh-tw
林業及自然保育署(2023)。〈社區林業計畫申辦資訊網/結案計劃查詢〉。取自https://communityforestry.forest.gov.tw/Frontend/Plan/PlanList
國立成功大學(2021)。國立成功大學2021年大學社會責任報告書，〈咱行e路，牽手成行〉。取自https://www.usr-c.chass.ncku.edu.tw/pub
張秀慈(2023)。111學年度第二學期永續都市與地方行銷實習課程大綱，國立成功大學數位學習平台。取自https://moodle.ncku.edu.tw/
張淑華（2005）。社區參與式行動研究中研究者角色之探討－以林田山林業文化園區為例，國立花蓮師範學院生態與環境資源教育研究所碩士論文。花蓮縣。
教育部大學社會責任推動中心(2023)。〈關於USR/甚麼是USR〉。取自https://usr.moe.gov.tw/tw/about/usr。
惡地協作：淺山地區之區域創生與跨域實踐(2021)。〈關於〉。取自https://cobadlands.blogspot.com/。
黎立萱（2020）。影響學校與社區夥伴關係的因素-以花蓮縣永豐國小發展地方本位課程為例。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文。花蓮縣。
駱信昌(2021)。以青銀共創打導入福祉設計實務專題課程，設計學報第26卷第2期，頁91-108。
闕蓮（2023）。集體記憶、地方認同與社區參與之研究—以臺北市內湖梘頭為例，臺北市立大學社會暨公共事務學系碩士論文。臺北市。