| Summary: | 博士 === 國立新竹教育大學 === 教育與學習科技學系 === 102 === This research takes the prospective of wisdoms for action, looking back and forth to view the construction, development and practice of the fundamental rights of college students. This research originates in the problem consciousness aroused by Chief Justice’s interpretation of the document No. 684, which raises the debates between college students’ fundamental rights and college autonomy caused by the conflict of legal interest of both sides. The researcher collects nine tools that are focused on college students’ rights accordingly. The study is influenced by the wisdoms for action and Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This study starts with the analysis of five questions, which are related to oppression, humanization, legalization, rule of law, and the wisdoms for action. They are the cornerstones for the construction of college students’ fundamental rights. It results in the five domains of wisdoms for action, which are strategic intelligence, awareness intelligence, executive intelligence, reflective intelligence and liberating intelligence. The five domains of wisdoms for action then construct the five major central objectives of college students’ fundamental rights – personal dignity, humanization education, sustainable development, civic participation, and multiculturalism. It further explores nine dimensions of judgment for wisdoms for action, and the subjective and subjective specifications. This study uses multi-layer research methods, such as document analysis, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and reflexive inquiry, and then finds the approaches to protecting fundamental rights of action wisdom-oriented indicators, which can effectively ensure and measure academic and practical truth of the rights. There are 33 interviewees in the in-depth interviews taken to the full diversity of purposive sampling, and result in 15 findings. Throughout literature review, three focus group conferences, in-depth interviews, and triangulation inspection, this study gets nine categories from converting nine grade A indicators, 51 grade B indicators, and 217 grade C indicators. The nine grade A indicators are 1. democratic dialogues and financial disclosure; 2. ensure a friendly and safe environment; 3. wisdoms for action and humanization education; 4. public performance of the rule of law and the legalization; 5. school governance and empowerment evaluation; 6. atmosphere of human rights and human rights education; 7. evidence performance and consumer protection; 8. efficiency and student satisfaction; and 9. student learning effectiveness. The checklists are classified into three parts, self checklists for college students’ wisdoms for action, the checklists for the public to apply the wisdoms for action to urging the country actively practice the perspectives of college students’ fundamental rights, and the functional indicators for college authorities to implement the rights for their students. This
ii
study finally proposes suggestions for colleges, students and related authorities for their references.
|
|---|
