Page 212 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 212
tion of rhetoric-argumentation contents in educational programmes, which
mostly reflect an incoherent approach with no clear educational objectives.
At a lower secondary and upper secondary level, only individual elements of
rhetoric and argumentation are noticeable; they can be identified within the
curricula for Slovenian language, philosophy, civic culture, sociology, commu-
nicology and other subjects and teaching contents (that will be described in
short at a later time).18
There is, however, a minor exception (that proves the rule) and thus it is ap-
propriate to stress the benefits of learning rhetoric and argumentation and to
carry on endeavours to integrate them into the entire educational hierarchy.
Since 2001, rhetoric has been a compulsory subject in Year 9 of lower second-
ary school in Slovenia, which is largely owing to Igor Ž. Žagar, who designed
both the curriculum and suitable education and training for teachers of rheto-
ric. The curriculum is based on findings of contemporary linguistic pragmatics
and the theory of argumentation and rhetoric. Its main objective is to present
the basic concepts of the system of rhetoric along with elements of argumen-
tation that are discussed in a systematic and comprehensive way. Since this is
212 something special, both in Slovenia and internationally, the operative objec-
tives of rhetoric lessons are presented below, wherein the fundamental orien-
tation and content-related emphasis of the subject can be discerned unam-
biguously (Žagar Ž. et al., 1999: 5, 6; italics are by the author):
− Functional objectives:
1. Students learn what rhetoric is.
2. Students learn why it is useful to learn rhetoric.
3. Students learn about the ethics of dialogue.
4. Students learn what argumentation is.
5. Students learn about the difference between good and bad arguments
(non-compulsory).
6. By getting acquainted with the components of the technique of rheto-
ric, students understand how they can give convincing speeches.
7. Students learn about the importance of personality (of the speaker)
and passion (of listeners) for effective persuasion.
8. Students learn about the origin and history of rhetoric (non-compulsory).
− Educational objectives:
1. Students learn (master) how to speak in public and express their
points of view.
18 At this point, the non-formal, market forms of ‘rhetorical’ education, which have been very popular
in the last ten years and which have no significant parallels with formal / curricular forms of educa-
tion, will not be touched upon. Such schools often present rhetoric and argumentation as a collec-
tion of simplified recipes for ‘beautiful, sophisticated language’ and are mainly focused on ‘perfor-
mance’ without any appropriate training in developing arguments.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
mostly reflect an incoherent approach with no clear educational objectives.
At a lower secondary and upper secondary level, only individual elements of
rhetoric and argumentation are noticeable; they can be identified within the
curricula for Slovenian language, philosophy, civic culture, sociology, commu-
nicology and other subjects and teaching contents (that will be described in
short at a later time).18
There is, however, a minor exception (that proves the rule) and thus it is ap-
propriate to stress the benefits of learning rhetoric and argumentation and to
carry on endeavours to integrate them into the entire educational hierarchy.
Since 2001, rhetoric has been a compulsory subject in Year 9 of lower second-
ary school in Slovenia, which is largely owing to Igor Ž. Žagar, who designed
both the curriculum and suitable education and training for teachers of rheto-
ric. The curriculum is based on findings of contemporary linguistic pragmatics
and the theory of argumentation and rhetoric. Its main objective is to present
the basic concepts of the system of rhetoric along with elements of argumen-
tation that are discussed in a systematic and comprehensive way. Since this is
212 something special, both in Slovenia and internationally, the operative objec-
tives of rhetoric lessons are presented below, wherein the fundamental orien-
tation and content-related emphasis of the subject can be discerned unam-
biguously (Žagar Ž. et al., 1999: 5, 6; italics are by the author):
− Functional objectives:
1. Students learn what rhetoric is.
2. Students learn why it is useful to learn rhetoric.
3. Students learn about the ethics of dialogue.
4. Students learn what argumentation is.
5. Students learn about the difference between good and bad arguments
(non-compulsory).
6. By getting acquainted with the components of the technique of rheto-
ric, students understand how they can give convincing speeches.
7. Students learn about the importance of personality (of the speaker)
and passion (of listeners) for effective persuasion.
8. Students learn about the origin and history of rhetoric (non-compulsory).
− Educational objectives:
1. Students learn (master) how to speak in public and express their
points of view.
18 At this point, the non-formal, market forms of ‘rhetorical’ education, which have been very popular
in the last ten years and which have no significant parallels with formal / curricular forms of educa-
tion, will not be touched upon. Such schools often present rhetoric and argumentation as a collec-
tion of simplified recipes for ‘beautiful, sophisticated language’ and are mainly focused on ‘perfor-
mance’ without any appropriate training in developing arguments.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
