Page 153 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 153
i. ž. žagar ■ slovenian experience with rhetoric in primary schools
The next operative objective, and a very important one, was (Žagar,
Ž. et al., 1999/2004, p. 6): “Pupils learn what argumentation is”. This ob-
jective has two goals:
a) “Pupils understand the definition (To argue is to support one
statement (claim, standpoint, conclusion) with one or more other state-
ments (data, arguments ...)”;
b) “Pupils learn the basic elements of argumentative procedure (they
understand what data, claim and warrant are)”.
What we have used as a model was Toulmin’s (1958) basic scheme:
Claim (C) Janez is a Slovenian citizen. (standpoint, conclusion)
(What have you got to go on?)
Datum (D) Janez was born in Slovenia. (argument, premise)
(How do you get there?)
Warrant (W) People born in Slovenia will generally by Slovenian
citizens.
And here is the activity designed to achieve the above-mentioned
goals (Žagar, Ž. et al., 1999/2004, p. 6):
“Pupils in work groups analyse examples from textbooks they use
in other subjects (and also in magazines they read, TV shows they watch,
etc.) in terms of whether the topic is given and explained in accordance
with the elements of argumentative procedure.”
I’ve chosen the Toulmin model, because I thought it was pedagog-
ically and didactically the best (and I still do). Why? Because it leads the
student from one stage to another with rather clear questions, serving as
guidelines and instructions. But it somehow didn’t work.
After discussing this problem with several teachers, I think it did not
work for two reasons:
a) the pupils, as well as the teachers, did not understand these lead-
ing questions well. As a consequence, they did not understand the im-
portance and the role of the warrant, because they did not understand
the question, leading from the argument (datum) to the warrant: “How
do you get there?” Get where, exactly? Well to the point where you have
to explain why you think this particular data supports the claim, where
is the relation and of what kind? But, instead of looking for a relation be-
tween D and C (argument and conclusion), they were producing more
and more D’s that (in their view) supported the C, but never explained
their rationale.
The role of the warrant is to the argument to the conclusion, or more
precisely, to explain, to make it clear why this particular argument is a
suitable backup for this particular conclusion (standpoint). Obviously,
151
The next operative objective, and a very important one, was (Žagar,
Ž. et al., 1999/2004, p. 6): “Pupils learn what argumentation is”. This ob-
jective has two goals:
a) “Pupils understand the definition (To argue is to support one
statement (claim, standpoint, conclusion) with one or more other state-
ments (data, arguments ...)”;
b) “Pupils learn the basic elements of argumentative procedure (they
understand what data, claim and warrant are)”.
What we have used as a model was Toulmin’s (1958) basic scheme:
Claim (C) Janez is a Slovenian citizen. (standpoint, conclusion)
(What have you got to go on?)
Datum (D) Janez was born in Slovenia. (argument, premise)
(How do you get there?)
Warrant (W) People born in Slovenia will generally by Slovenian
citizens.
And here is the activity designed to achieve the above-mentioned
goals (Žagar, Ž. et al., 1999/2004, p. 6):
“Pupils in work groups analyse examples from textbooks they use
in other subjects (and also in magazines they read, TV shows they watch,
etc.) in terms of whether the topic is given and explained in accordance
with the elements of argumentative procedure.”
I’ve chosen the Toulmin model, because I thought it was pedagog-
ically and didactically the best (and I still do). Why? Because it leads the
student from one stage to another with rather clear questions, serving as
guidelines and instructions. But it somehow didn’t work.
After discussing this problem with several teachers, I think it did not
work for two reasons:
a) the pupils, as well as the teachers, did not understand these lead-
ing questions well. As a consequence, they did not understand the im-
portance and the role of the warrant, because they did not understand
the question, leading from the argument (datum) to the warrant: “How
do you get there?” Get where, exactly? Well to the point where you have
to explain why you think this particular data supports the claim, where
is the relation and of what kind? But, instead of looking for a relation be-
tween D and C (argument and conclusion), they were producing more
and more D’s that (in their view) supported the C, but never explained
their rationale.
The role of the warrant is to the argument to the conclusion, or more
precisely, to explain, to make it clear why this particular argument is a
suitable backup for this particular conclusion (standpoint). Obviously,
151
