Page 214 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 214
fails to reflect suitable conceptualisation of rhetoric and argumentati-
on as independent disciplines or delimits the application to the disci-
pline in question only, in spite of suitable interpretations.
Some selected examples will be examined below which were found in cur-
ricula for the Slovenian language, sociology, philosophy and civic education
and have been presented in more detail in the aforementioned study on the
knowledge and use of rhetoric and argumentation in Slovenian lower second-
ary and upper secondary schools (Žmavc, 2011).
One of the most obvious observations with regard to rhetoric and argu-
mentation that accompany all curricula, is that the term is not used explicitly
anywhere. Moreover, no documents of this type contain any explicit referenc-
es to the concept of ‘public persuasion’. The only reference found are formu-
lations that imply elements of rhetoric or persuasion in the context of what
could be called public verbal (and non-verbal) activity. For instance, in the up-
dated curriculum for civic culture, which was introduced in the school year
2011/2012, some starting points can be noticed that are directly related to ar-
214 gumentation in particular, while rhetorical elements (such as rhetorical devic-
es, persuasion procedures, rhetorical situation, the ethics of dialogue) – that
should be presented as a constituent part of the so-called skills – are missing
and might remotely be recognised in the use of the vague concept of commu-
nication and its connection with the democratic public sphere.
The subject promotes students’development of the following skills (Karba
et al., 2011: 5; italics are by the author):
− judgement about social and ethical dilemmas and issues;
− communication and development of arguments within the context of the
public sphere;
− informed, critical, constructive and committed social activity;
− lifelong learning.
On the other hand (as is evident from the above example), curricula rel-
atively often contain terms such as ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation’. However,
this use is very random, as it is mostly not clear what these two expressions re-
fer to, or on what concepts they are based. Instances where different concepts
are clustered together, without any explanations or definitions, such as argu-
mentation, explaining, conflict solving, communicating, critical thinking etc.,
are perceived as the most problematic. The listed linguistic and cognitive strat-
egies are, at the level of educational policy, often regarded as desirable in the
sense of currently ‘topical’ contents or educational principles, however, what,
and by which means, teachers should teach in relation to argumentation, are
not defined.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
on as independent disciplines or delimits the application to the disci-
pline in question only, in spite of suitable interpretations.
Some selected examples will be examined below which were found in cur-
ricula for the Slovenian language, sociology, philosophy and civic education
and have been presented in more detail in the aforementioned study on the
knowledge and use of rhetoric and argumentation in Slovenian lower second-
ary and upper secondary schools (Žmavc, 2011).
One of the most obvious observations with regard to rhetoric and argu-
mentation that accompany all curricula, is that the term is not used explicitly
anywhere. Moreover, no documents of this type contain any explicit referenc-
es to the concept of ‘public persuasion’. The only reference found are formu-
lations that imply elements of rhetoric or persuasion in the context of what
could be called public verbal (and non-verbal) activity. For instance, in the up-
dated curriculum for civic culture, which was introduced in the school year
2011/2012, some starting points can be noticed that are directly related to ar-
214 gumentation in particular, while rhetorical elements (such as rhetorical devic-
es, persuasion procedures, rhetorical situation, the ethics of dialogue) – that
should be presented as a constituent part of the so-called skills – are missing
and might remotely be recognised in the use of the vague concept of commu-
nication and its connection with the democratic public sphere.
The subject promotes students’development of the following skills (Karba
et al., 2011: 5; italics are by the author):
− judgement about social and ethical dilemmas and issues;
− communication and development of arguments within the context of the
public sphere;
− informed, critical, constructive and committed social activity;
− lifelong learning.
On the other hand (as is evident from the above example), curricula rel-
atively often contain terms such as ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation’. However,
this use is very random, as it is mostly not clear what these two expressions re-
fer to, or on what concepts they are based. Instances where different concepts
are clustered together, without any explanations or definitions, such as argu-
mentation, explaining, conflict solving, communicating, critical thinking etc.,
are perceived as the most problematic. The listed linguistic and cognitive strat-
egies are, at the level of educational policy, often regarded as desirable in the
sense of currently ‘topical’ contents or educational principles, however, what,
and by which means, teachers should teach in relation to argumentation, are
not defined.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
