Page 148 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 148
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
competently participate in public life. This is now an explicit objective in
our present revision of the syllabus, mostly because of the changes in soci-
ety in the last 20 years.
And what were the functional objectives necessary to meet the ed-
ucational objectives? They are as follows, in hierarchical and pedagogical
order (ibid.):
1. Pupils learn what rhetoric is.
2. Pupils learn why it is useful to learn rhetoric.
3. Pupils learn the ethics of dialogue.
4. Pupils learn what argumentation is.
5. Pupils learn the difference between good and bad argument (not
compulsory).
6. By learning the component parts of rhetorical technique, pupils un-
derstand how they can form a convincing speech.
7. Pupils learn how important the character of the speaker and the pas-
sions of the listeners are for successful persuasion.
8. Pupils learn about the origins and history of rhetoric (not
compulsory).
You are probably wondering what “non-compulsory” means? It
means that it is a content that can be left out. I have already mentioned
that the syllabus was finally approved just for the 9th grade, so if anything
had to be left out in those modest 32 hours of teaching rhetoric, it should
be these two things:
- History of rhetoric. We judged it was more important for the pupils
to learn how to construct an effective and persuasive speech;
- The difference between good and bad arguments. Especially from
a philosophical point of view, this is an important topic. But again,
working with just 32 hours, we judged that at this level (9th grade),
it was more important for the pupils to learn what an argument is,
how to build it, and where to use it, then to master the difference be-
tween good and bad arguments (which is, by the way, still a hot top-
ic among argumentation theorists).
You may also wonder why we placed argumentation before parts of
speech. The answer is that argumentation and argument (of one kind or
another) play such a crucial role in rhetoric and persuasion, that we judged
it of paramount importance in learning the basics of rhetorical technique.
If pupils manage to master (well, learn) what argumentation is and what
role arguments play in the game of persuasion and the structure of speech,
it will be much easier for them to master the role of other parts of speech,
146
competently participate in public life. This is now an explicit objective in
our present revision of the syllabus, mostly because of the changes in soci-
ety in the last 20 years.
And what were the functional objectives necessary to meet the ed-
ucational objectives? They are as follows, in hierarchical and pedagogical
order (ibid.):
1. Pupils learn what rhetoric is.
2. Pupils learn why it is useful to learn rhetoric.
3. Pupils learn the ethics of dialogue.
4. Pupils learn what argumentation is.
5. Pupils learn the difference between good and bad argument (not
compulsory).
6. By learning the component parts of rhetorical technique, pupils un-
derstand how they can form a convincing speech.
7. Pupils learn how important the character of the speaker and the pas-
sions of the listeners are for successful persuasion.
8. Pupils learn about the origins and history of rhetoric (not
compulsory).
You are probably wondering what “non-compulsory” means? It
means that it is a content that can be left out. I have already mentioned
that the syllabus was finally approved just for the 9th grade, so if anything
had to be left out in those modest 32 hours of teaching rhetoric, it should
be these two things:
- History of rhetoric. We judged it was more important for the pupils
to learn how to construct an effective and persuasive speech;
- The difference between good and bad arguments. Especially from
a philosophical point of view, this is an important topic. But again,
working with just 32 hours, we judged that at this level (9th grade),
it was more important for the pupils to learn what an argument is,
how to build it, and where to use it, then to master the difference be-
tween good and bad arguments (which is, by the way, still a hot top-
ic among argumentation theorists).
You may also wonder why we placed argumentation before parts of
speech. The answer is that argumentation and argument (of one kind or
another) play such a crucial role in rhetoric and persuasion, that we judged
it of paramount importance in learning the basics of rhetorical technique.
If pupils manage to master (well, learn) what argumentation is and what
role arguments play in the game of persuasion and the structure of speech,
it will be much easier for them to master the role of other parts of speech,
146
