Page 215 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 215
Below is an example from the curriculum, wherein various concepts are 215
listed one after another; these concepts are partly presented in a descrip-
tive form, however, they are still used as self-evident, self-referring concepts,
whereby mutual relationships are defined in an unclear way (for instance,
there are no explanations about what it means to express an opinion in com-
parison with negotiating or solving problems within different life situations in
a peaceful manner).
/…/ [S]tudents develop readiness for speaking and writing; in this way
they express their thoughts, points of view, volition, emotions or experien-
ces, negotiate and solve problems in different life situations in a peaceful
manner. They are aware that speaking/writing is an interpersonal activity
as part of which the person one is speaking to needs to be respected and
the principle of politeness and the speech situation need to be considered
(Križaj Ortar et al., 2005: 9, 10).
Likewise, curricula examined during the study (Žmavc, 2011) contain no in-
formation about what specifically students are supposed to learn about argu-
mentation, or what standards of knowledge in this relation (if any at all) they
are supposed to achieve. Simplified verbalisations are also used in relation to
the objective, and what is referred to as ‘argumentation’ is presented as an ob-
vious, natural competence. Judging from the above descriptions, it seems stu-
dents are expected to have already mastered argumentation and are even
expected to be able to distinguish between argumentation and non-argu-
mentation within discourse.
One such example is noticeable in the aforementioned curriculum for
the Slovenian language in primary/lower secondary schools; in accordance
with the curriculum, students are, at an initial level, expected to know what
it means to ‘receive a text in a reflective and critical way’ (conditionally this
could maybe be called ‘critical thinking’?) and that by means of a direct activi-
ty alone they (‘receive’ and consequently ‘develop’) automatically learn the ba-
sic principles of argumentation (drawing conclusions, evaluating, presenting
arguments). In doing so, they obviously also distinguish between argumenta-
tive synthesis and analysis (i.e. the ability to construct valid argumentation and
the ability to evaluate validity), as well as between different types of reason-
ing (formal-logical and informal reasoning) that might be characterised by the
juxtaposition of the concepts listed one after another, such as logical thinking,
drawing conclusions, evaluating, presenting arguments: ‘They receive texts in a
reflective and critical way and thus develop their ability of logical thinking, draw-
ing conclusions, evaluating, presenting arguments, as well as respecting differ-
ent opinions’ (Križaj Ortar et al., 2005: 60, italics are by the author).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
listed one after another; these concepts are partly presented in a descrip-
tive form, however, they are still used as self-evident, self-referring concepts,
whereby mutual relationships are defined in an unclear way (for instance,
there are no explanations about what it means to express an opinion in com-
parison with negotiating or solving problems within different life situations in
a peaceful manner).
/…/ [S]tudents develop readiness for speaking and writing; in this way
they express their thoughts, points of view, volition, emotions or experien-
ces, negotiate and solve problems in different life situations in a peaceful
manner. They are aware that speaking/writing is an interpersonal activity
as part of which the person one is speaking to needs to be respected and
the principle of politeness and the speech situation need to be considered
(Križaj Ortar et al., 2005: 9, 10).
Likewise, curricula examined during the study (Žmavc, 2011) contain no in-
formation about what specifically students are supposed to learn about argu-
mentation, or what standards of knowledge in this relation (if any at all) they
are supposed to achieve. Simplified verbalisations are also used in relation to
the objective, and what is referred to as ‘argumentation’ is presented as an ob-
vious, natural competence. Judging from the above descriptions, it seems stu-
dents are expected to have already mastered argumentation and are even
expected to be able to distinguish between argumentation and non-argu-
mentation within discourse.
One such example is noticeable in the aforementioned curriculum for
the Slovenian language in primary/lower secondary schools; in accordance
with the curriculum, students are, at an initial level, expected to know what
it means to ‘receive a text in a reflective and critical way’ (conditionally this
could maybe be called ‘critical thinking’?) and that by means of a direct activi-
ty alone they (‘receive’ and consequently ‘develop’) automatically learn the ba-
sic principles of argumentation (drawing conclusions, evaluating, presenting
arguments). In doing so, they obviously also distinguish between argumenta-
tive synthesis and analysis (i.e. the ability to construct valid argumentation and
the ability to evaluate validity), as well as between different types of reason-
ing (formal-logical and informal reasoning) that might be characterised by the
juxtaposition of the concepts listed one after another, such as logical thinking,
drawing conclusions, evaluating, presenting arguments: ‘They receive texts in a
reflective and critical way and thus develop their ability of logical thinking, draw-
ing conclusions, evaluating, presenting arguments, as well as respecting differ-
ent opinions’ (Križaj Ortar et al., 2005: 60, italics are by the author).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
