Page 213 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 213
2. Students learn (master) effective persuasion and presentation of 213
arguments.
A pronounced usability-orientation of knowledge acquisition in the school
subject of rhetoric needs to be pointed out, which is not reduced to bare and
empty instructions for persuasion. What students are supposed to learn is
‘mainly how to form and express their opinions in an independent, coherent
and critical manner in relation to other subjects, during the course of further
education, as well as in all (other) fields of social and personal life’ (Žagar Ž.
et al., 1999: 5). This is based on a suitably adapted theoretical model of rhet-
oric and argumentation and also includes a number of other humanistic, so-
cial science and science contents within other subjects (e.g. in relation to lin-
guistic issues, social and cultural patterns, functioning of the body, perception
of time and place etc.). In spite of its non-compulsory nature and a high lev-
el of difficulty, the subject is very successful; in many lower-secondary schools
it has been taught continuously for several years. With regard to this, the sig-
nificant role of teachers should not be overlooked in making students familiar
with these contents, their knowledge of rhetoric and argumentation and their
motivation for integrating the contents in the educational process at a teach-
ing level.
The compulsory elective subject of rhetoric in Year 9 of lower secondary
school is considered the only case of systematic and comprehensive teaching
of skills of rhetoric and argumentation in Slovenian education at lower-sec-
ondary and upper-secondary levels. Otherwise, rhetoric and argumentation
can also appear within different subjects either as a set of (randomly select-
ed and designed) elements at the level of learning content or as part of learn-
ing objectives. Thus they are most commonly present in an indirect form, i.e.
as concepts that are not directly related to the theoretical fields of rhetoric and
argumentation. However, this involves a number of weaknesses, which lead to
an unsuitable conception and unsatisfactory command of rhetoric and argu-
mentation. These weaknesses include:
− fragmentation of the rhetoric-argumentation model, which does not
enable a comprehensive command of the strategies of persuasion and
presentation of arguments;
− randomness / arbitrariness in terms of selection of the concepts that
are discussed, which makes it difficult to understand, and consequen-
tly suitably use, the principles of rhetoric and argumentation;
− an interpretation of rhetoric-argumentation notions and concepts
within the context of these disciplines that differ significantly from
rhetoric and argumentation in terms of the field, methods or theore-
tical models. Generally, such subordination to the ‘primary’ discipline
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
arguments.
A pronounced usability-orientation of knowledge acquisition in the school
subject of rhetoric needs to be pointed out, which is not reduced to bare and
empty instructions for persuasion. What students are supposed to learn is
‘mainly how to form and express their opinions in an independent, coherent
and critical manner in relation to other subjects, during the course of further
education, as well as in all (other) fields of social and personal life’ (Žagar Ž.
et al., 1999: 5). This is based on a suitably adapted theoretical model of rhet-
oric and argumentation and also includes a number of other humanistic, so-
cial science and science contents within other subjects (e.g. in relation to lin-
guistic issues, social and cultural patterns, functioning of the body, perception
of time and place etc.). In spite of its non-compulsory nature and a high lev-
el of difficulty, the subject is very successful; in many lower-secondary schools
it has been taught continuously for several years. With regard to this, the sig-
nificant role of teachers should not be overlooked in making students familiar
with these contents, their knowledge of rhetoric and argumentation and their
motivation for integrating the contents in the educational process at a teach-
ing level.
The compulsory elective subject of rhetoric in Year 9 of lower secondary
school is considered the only case of systematic and comprehensive teaching
of skills of rhetoric and argumentation in Slovenian education at lower-sec-
ondary and upper-secondary levels. Otherwise, rhetoric and argumentation
can also appear within different subjects either as a set of (randomly select-
ed and designed) elements at the level of learning content or as part of learn-
ing objectives. Thus they are most commonly present in an indirect form, i.e.
as concepts that are not directly related to the theoretical fields of rhetoric and
argumentation. However, this involves a number of weaknesses, which lead to
an unsuitable conception and unsatisfactory command of rhetoric and argu-
mentation. These weaknesses include:
− fragmentation of the rhetoric-argumentation model, which does not
enable a comprehensive command of the strategies of persuasion and
presentation of arguments;
− randomness / arbitrariness in terms of selection of the concepts that
are discussed, which makes it difficult to understand, and consequen-
tly suitably use, the principles of rhetoric and argumentation;
− an interpretation of rhetoric-argumentation notions and concepts
within the context of these disciplines that differ significantly from
rhetoric and argumentation in terms of the field, methods or theore-
tical models. Generally, such subordination to the ‘primary’ discipline
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
