Page 165 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 165
m. cestnik ■ experiences in teaching rhetoric as an elective course ...
I tried and persisted every year to improve my notes, teaching style
and working methods. In this regard, functional objectives set out in the
beginning of the syllabus for the course were very helpful (Žagar et al.,
1999, p. 7). These eight functional objectives (two of which are optional)
presented a baseline; I understood them and can say that we implement-
ed them successfully. In contrast, the detailed operational objectives were
often too difficult for both myself and for the pupils (ibid. p. 7–14). In
all these years, I somehow steered a middle course between a profession-
ally demanding syllabus, my skills gaps and pupils’ interests. This is how
a revised annual lesson plan was developed each year anew. I tried at least
one new method every year and responded to a new group of pupils. Each
group had special characteristics and it seemed to me, as a teacher, that the
most important thing is to adapt to the pupils, their capabilities and inter-
ests, all in connection with the syllabus. As is done in Slovenian language
course, where 20% of the objectives are chosen by the teacher according
to the group of pupils, it appeared appropriate to do the same in rhetoric
course. For example, if the group was composed of pupils with high cogni-
tive and well-developed communication abilities, I mentioned digression
and topoi during oral presentations. The second challenge of the annual
lesson plan was to arrange the objectives into 32 hours of one school year.
Which content should I begin with and which should I continue with? I
tried to find an optimal way every year and I believe that after 15 years I
have found the most appropriate distribution of objectives and the best
way of achieving them.
The second major obstacle was the didactic approach, mainly in terms
of teaching argumentation. I struggled with how to explain argumenta-
tion and transfer the knowledge about an argument and conclusion to
the pupil’s preparation for the oral presentation. This turned out to be the
main obstacle over and over again. When teaching individual examples of
an argument and conclusion, the pupils partially understand them, but it
depends on the examples and the pupils’ capabilities. However, the prob-
lems occur when they have to form all of the above themselves and keep
it in mind during their oral presentation. While they are used to talking
about a particular topic and presenting their knowledge (e.g. about World
War II, the state, insects and natural phenomena), they are not familiar
with persuading, making statements and supporting them in the pres-
entation. They always found the set of relevant topics interesting (e.g. It is
healthy and beneficial to have a pet, Teenagers need to have pocket mon-
ey, Vegetarianism is healthy, Drug use in athletics spoils fair competition).
They were happy to choose the topic that appealed most to them, searched
for literature, but putting their thoughts into words usually fell through.
163
I tried and persisted every year to improve my notes, teaching style
and working methods. In this regard, functional objectives set out in the
beginning of the syllabus for the course were very helpful (Žagar et al.,
1999, p. 7). These eight functional objectives (two of which are optional)
presented a baseline; I understood them and can say that we implement-
ed them successfully. In contrast, the detailed operational objectives were
often too difficult for both myself and for the pupils (ibid. p. 7–14). In
all these years, I somehow steered a middle course between a profession-
ally demanding syllabus, my skills gaps and pupils’ interests. This is how
a revised annual lesson plan was developed each year anew. I tried at least
one new method every year and responded to a new group of pupils. Each
group had special characteristics and it seemed to me, as a teacher, that the
most important thing is to adapt to the pupils, their capabilities and inter-
ests, all in connection with the syllabus. As is done in Slovenian language
course, where 20% of the objectives are chosen by the teacher according
to the group of pupils, it appeared appropriate to do the same in rhetoric
course. For example, if the group was composed of pupils with high cogni-
tive and well-developed communication abilities, I mentioned digression
and topoi during oral presentations. The second challenge of the annual
lesson plan was to arrange the objectives into 32 hours of one school year.
Which content should I begin with and which should I continue with? I
tried to find an optimal way every year and I believe that after 15 years I
have found the most appropriate distribution of objectives and the best
way of achieving them.
The second major obstacle was the didactic approach, mainly in terms
of teaching argumentation. I struggled with how to explain argumenta-
tion and transfer the knowledge about an argument and conclusion to
the pupil’s preparation for the oral presentation. This turned out to be the
main obstacle over and over again. When teaching individual examples of
an argument and conclusion, the pupils partially understand them, but it
depends on the examples and the pupils’ capabilities. However, the prob-
lems occur when they have to form all of the above themselves and keep
it in mind during their oral presentation. While they are used to talking
about a particular topic and presenting their knowledge (e.g. about World
War II, the state, insects and natural phenomena), they are not familiar
with persuading, making statements and supporting them in the pres-
entation. They always found the set of relevant topics interesting (e.g. It is
healthy and beneficial to have a pet, Teenagers need to have pocket mon-
ey, Vegetarianism is healthy, Drug use in athletics spoils fair competition).
They were happy to choose the topic that appealed most to them, searched
for literature, but putting their thoughts into words usually fell through.
163
