Page 158 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 158
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
Memoria (ibid., p. 8):
different techniques were used, but predominantly learning by heart.
There was no big problem with this objective
Actio (ibid., p. 8):
Goals
a) “Pupils understand the importance of performance and non-ver-
bal language/body language for efficient persuasion.”
b) “Pupils learn and understand how gesticulation and mimics em-
phasize or weaken what has been said.”
c) “Pupils learn the importance of stress, intonation, tempo, rhythm,
pitch and intensity of voice for successful persuasion.”
Activities
a) “Pupils (if possible) listen to a famous speech from history, the ef-
fects of which are well-known (they can also use inserts from films)-”
b, c) “Pupils read the same speech many times by changing gesticula-
tion and mimics, stress, intonation, tempo, rhythm, pitch and intensity of
voice; they discuss the effects and reasons for such effects (also with a fel-
low pupil representing the opposing point-of-view).”
Activities b) and c) did not work, of course, because – you must
know it by now – they demanded far too much time. Again, I hope you
can see that these activities – not taken out of the blue but tested and well
established – were carefully planned and designed – but not for one year
of teaching. I am the only culprit to be blamed, of course, but on the other
hand, the syllabus was so rich with activities that it could have been read
as a catalogue of activities, and teachers could have chosen just some of
them, or reduce the extent of particular activities. Unfortunately, this was
not the case (or very rarely).
Conclusion: What Should/Could be Done?
Besides the amendments I have already mentioned, here are, in rather gen-
eral terms, the main changes we are going to introduce based on system-
atic consultations with some 20 teachers of rhetoric in primary schools, as
well as with different experts from different fields.
1. When teaching the canons of rhetoric, we are not going to start with
inventio, but with actio. Why? It is a didactic decision. Rhetoric is
being taught in the 9th grade, which is the last year of our prima-
ry schools. Through all their schooling, through all those previous
years, they were systematically exposed to and actively participated
in different kinds of “oral presentation”. Therefore, we thought it
156
Memoria (ibid., p. 8):
different techniques were used, but predominantly learning by heart.
There was no big problem with this objective
Actio (ibid., p. 8):
Goals
a) “Pupils understand the importance of performance and non-ver-
bal language/body language for efficient persuasion.”
b) “Pupils learn and understand how gesticulation and mimics em-
phasize or weaken what has been said.”
c) “Pupils learn the importance of stress, intonation, tempo, rhythm,
pitch and intensity of voice for successful persuasion.”
Activities
a) “Pupils (if possible) listen to a famous speech from history, the ef-
fects of which are well-known (they can also use inserts from films)-”
b, c) “Pupils read the same speech many times by changing gesticula-
tion and mimics, stress, intonation, tempo, rhythm, pitch and intensity of
voice; they discuss the effects and reasons for such effects (also with a fel-
low pupil representing the opposing point-of-view).”
Activities b) and c) did not work, of course, because – you must
know it by now – they demanded far too much time. Again, I hope you
can see that these activities – not taken out of the blue but tested and well
established – were carefully planned and designed – but not for one year
of teaching. I am the only culprit to be blamed, of course, but on the other
hand, the syllabus was so rich with activities that it could have been read
as a catalogue of activities, and teachers could have chosen just some of
them, or reduce the extent of particular activities. Unfortunately, this was
not the case (or very rarely).
Conclusion: What Should/Could be Done?
Besides the amendments I have already mentioned, here are, in rather gen-
eral terms, the main changes we are going to introduce based on system-
atic consultations with some 20 teachers of rhetoric in primary schools, as
well as with different experts from different fields.
1. When teaching the canons of rhetoric, we are not going to start with
inventio, but with actio. Why? It is a didactic decision. Rhetoric is
being taught in the 9th grade, which is the last year of our prima-
ry schools. Through all their schooling, through all those previous
years, they were systematically exposed to and actively participated
in different kinds of “oral presentation”. Therefore, we thought it
156
