Page 216 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 216
Another relevant circumstance can be addressed on the basis of the brief-
ly outlined characteristics of argumentation and its appearance in curricula.
Explicit (although commonly problematic) use of argumentation and simul-
taneous omission of rhetoric in curricula, - wherein objectives and contents
are concerned that are undoubtedly connected with persuasion-related (and
in this respect also argumentation-related) aspects of language use – reflects
a lack of knowledge of both of these fields. This is based on the previously ad-
dressed value-related delineation between the two disciplines and implies a
possible negative conception of rhetoric. In the author’s opinion, such intro-
duction of rhetoric and argumentation in education is extremely problemat-
ic, as implicitness of rhetoric and the use of different principles (and (or) con-
cepts), which actually characterise rhetorical and argumentative strategies,
may result in poor knowledge, difficulty understanding and inappropriate use
of rhetoric and argumentation. Its main consequence is reflected in all of those
fields that have been recognised as being of key importance for successful par-
ticipation at school and in extracurricular activities.
It also needs to be pointed out that civic education is regarded as a subject
216 and educational content, and that rhetoric and argumentation are especially
closely related to the ideas and concept of democratic citizenship (Audigier,
2002: 21, 22; Dürr et al., 2005: 57). This is another reason why these types of con-
tent should also encompass direct teaching of strategies of (public) persuasion
and presentation of arguments. Since civic education is part of both lower and
upper-secondary education, this could simultaneously, at least partly, solve
the issues for students regarding the absence of systematic teaching about
rhetoric and argumentation at school. However, a more in-depth overview of
curricula for this field shows that rhetoric and argumentation remain, at best,
part of the so-called ‘civic competencies’, but which have not been defined ad-
equately (and suitably). Within these competencies, the strategies of persua-
sion and presentation of arguments are not clearly defined or systematically
designed as educational objectives; they appear as recommendations or con-
tent elements at the level of principles.19 On account of the social dimension
of rhetoric and argumentation, the integration of the rhetoric-argumentation
model in civic education lessons is viewed as taking place at three inter-related
levels: a) as an independent content (i.e. what is the rhetoric-argumentation
model), b) as one of the key elements of a democratic society (the role of rhet-
oric and argumentation in modern democratic society and its predecessors),
c) as one of the key competencies used by students daily as part of their social
19 A comparison of the 2000 and 2001 curricula reveals that the 2000 curriculum explicitly mentions
rhetoric and argumentation within the content set Communication within the Community, which
is destined for Year 7 of lower secondary school. Moreover, individual elements of both of these
skills are referred to in terms of objectives, learning contents, concepts and standards of knowl-
edge. More in relation to this in Žmavc (2011).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
ly outlined characteristics of argumentation and its appearance in curricula.
Explicit (although commonly problematic) use of argumentation and simul-
taneous omission of rhetoric in curricula, - wherein objectives and contents
are concerned that are undoubtedly connected with persuasion-related (and
in this respect also argumentation-related) aspects of language use – reflects
a lack of knowledge of both of these fields. This is based on the previously ad-
dressed value-related delineation between the two disciplines and implies a
possible negative conception of rhetoric. In the author’s opinion, such intro-
duction of rhetoric and argumentation in education is extremely problemat-
ic, as implicitness of rhetoric and the use of different principles (and (or) con-
cepts), which actually characterise rhetorical and argumentative strategies,
may result in poor knowledge, difficulty understanding and inappropriate use
of rhetoric and argumentation. Its main consequence is reflected in all of those
fields that have been recognised as being of key importance for successful par-
ticipation at school and in extracurricular activities.
It also needs to be pointed out that civic education is regarded as a subject
216 and educational content, and that rhetoric and argumentation are especially
closely related to the ideas and concept of democratic citizenship (Audigier,
2002: 21, 22; Dürr et al., 2005: 57). This is another reason why these types of con-
tent should also encompass direct teaching of strategies of (public) persuasion
and presentation of arguments. Since civic education is part of both lower and
upper-secondary education, this could simultaneously, at least partly, solve
the issues for students regarding the absence of systematic teaching about
rhetoric and argumentation at school. However, a more in-depth overview of
curricula for this field shows that rhetoric and argumentation remain, at best,
part of the so-called ‘civic competencies’, but which have not been defined ad-
equately (and suitably). Within these competencies, the strategies of persua-
sion and presentation of arguments are not clearly defined or systematically
designed as educational objectives; they appear as recommendations or con-
tent elements at the level of principles.19 On account of the social dimension
of rhetoric and argumentation, the integration of the rhetoric-argumentation
model in civic education lessons is viewed as taking place at three inter-related
levels: a) as an independent content (i.e. what is the rhetoric-argumentation
model), b) as one of the key elements of a democratic society (the role of rhet-
oric and argumentation in modern democratic society and its predecessors),
c) as one of the key competencies used by students daily as part of their social
19 A comparison of the 2000 and 2001 curricula reveals that the 2000 curriculum explicitly mentions
rhetoric and argumentation within the content set Communication within the Community, which
is destined for Year 7 of lower secondary school. Moreover, individual elements of both of these
skills are referred to in terms of objectives, learning contents, concepts and standards of knowl-
edge. More in relation to this in Žmavc (2011).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
