Page 210 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 210
are also supported by means of research, verification and evaluation of
new facts (Andrews, 2010: 1). Andrews’ claims, which seem almost self-
-evident, can also be presented in terms of rhetoric. In addition to the
unambiguously argumentative nature of knowledge, another aspect
of knowledge can also be highlighted: the so-called ‘communication
aspect’ (i.e. how speakers – both teachers and students – communi-
cate knowledge to the people they speak with), which is as part of di-
fferent speaking-related events (i.e. during discussions accompanying
new contents, oral examinations, discussions among students etc.)
embedded in a specific structure and verbalisation. The function of
the latter is also always persuasion-centred, at a so-called subjecti-
ve level. In other words: one always reacts to any kind of content, in-
cluding facts, at an emotional level; and through the objectively pre-
sented content, the speaker simultaneously also presents him/herself,
intentionally or unintentionally, whereby he/she influences the credi-
bility of what has been presented.
2. Communication. On account of its social characteristics (e.g. as a me-
210 ans of resolving controversial issues), as well as linguistic-pragmatic
and (non)formally logical ones (e.g. structure, soundness, validity), ar-
gumentation is within public and consequently also pedagogical di-
scourse most commonly recognised as an objective means of com-
munication that is unproblematic in terms of development of good
interpersonal relationships, and is used by speakers (e.g. teachers, stu-
dents, parents) to efficiently explain their points of view and persuade
the persons to whom they are speaking about their views on an issue.
The key competence in relation to this is distinguishing between argu-
mentation and other (non-argumentative) means of communication,
that are closely intertwined, that take place at the same time and differ
from one another only in terms of their salience within a given discou-
rse. The means of communication alone are not problematic in terms
of their existence, but merely at the level of substantiated, legitimate
and appropriate use within a specific communication situation.
3. Public participation. Command of techniques of argumentation as
principles of the so-called rational presentation of arguments and
their effective presentation are still the foundations of public partici-
pation in a ‘cultivated’ society. In line with parliamentary traditions of
the 19th and 20th centuries, modern democratic systems, especially
within the European and North American geopolitical area, expect (at
least in principle) active participation within society, which – as an ele-
ment of its key (i.e. operational) part - also includes command of the
principles of rhetoric and argumentation. Consequently, some speci-
fic contents and curricular guidelines can be recognised within edu-
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
new facts (Andrews, 2010: 1). Andrews’ claims, which seem almost self-
-evident, can also be presented in terms of rhetoric. In addition to the
unambiguously argumentative nature of knowledge, another aspect
of knowledge can also be highlighted: the so-called ‘communication
aspect’ (i.e. how speakers – both teachers and students – communi-
cate knowledge to the people they speak with), which is as part of di-
fferent speaking-related events (i.e. during discussions accompanying
new contents, oral examinations, discussions among students etc.)
embedded in a specific structure and verbalisation. The function of
the latter is also always persuasion-centred, at a so-called subjecti-
ve level. In other words: one always reacts to any kind of content, in-
cluding facts, at an emotional level; and through the objectively pre-
sented content, the speaker simultaneously also presents him/herself,
intentionally or unintentionally, whereby he/she influences the credi-
bility of what has been presented.
2. Communication. On account of its social characteristics (e.g. as a me-
210 ans of resolving controversial issues), as well as linguistic-pragmatic
and (non)formally logical ones (e.g. structure, soundness, validity), ar-
gumentation is within public and consequently also pedagogical di-
scourse most commonly recognised as an objective means of com-
munication that is unproblematic in terms of development of good
interpersonal relationships, and is used by speakers (e.g. teachers, stu-
dents, parents) to efficiently explain their points of view and persuade
the persons to whom they are speaking about their views on an issue.
The key competence in relation to this is distinguishing between argu-
mentation and other (non-argumentative) means of communication,
that are closely intertwined, that take place at the same time and differ
from one another only in terms of their salience within a given discou-
rse. The means of communication alone are not problematic in terms
of their existence, but merely at the level of substantiated, legitimate
and appropriate use within a specific communication situation.
3. Public participation. Command of techniques of argumentation as
principles of the so-called rational presentation of arguments and
their effective presentation are still the foundations of public partici-
pation in a ‘cultivated’ society. In line with parliamentary traditions of
the 19th and 20th centuries, modern democratic systems, especially
within the European and North American geopolitical area, expect (at
least in principle) active participation within society, which – as an ele-
ment of its key (i.e. operational) part - also includes command of the
principles of rhetoric and argumentation. Consequently, some speci-
fic contents and curricular guidelines can be recognised within edu-
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
