Rhetorical Art Festival “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate”. An Educational Experience of Communication and Expression for Primary School Students

Реторика и педагогическа комуникация

Rhetoric and Pedagogical Communication

DOI 10.55206/BLGP2734

 

Foteini Egglezou

President of Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical &

Communication Studies and Εducational Advisor

E-mail: fegglezou@yahoo.gr

 

Abstract: The Rhetorical Art Festival for Primary School Students entitled “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…” has been organized since 2018 by the Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical and Communication Studies (H.I.R.C.S.), in collaboration with the Cultural Affairs Coordinators of the Primary Education Directorates of Attica and the teachers of the participating schools. It is addressed to students of the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades of public and private schools, who take part in rhetorical games such as expressive reading in front of an audience, impromptu speaking, and argumentation games, within the framework of the educational program “Rhetorical Art Games at School: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…”. Since its inception, the Festival has been held annually, hosting 1,354 students. This study presents a thematic analysis of the responses from one hundred and eighteen (118) teachers to an evaluation questionnaire regarding the benefits students gained from their participation. The findings highlight significant benefits, such as the development of oral and com­munication skills, improvement in public speaking, enhancement of self-confidence, and the social-emotional growth of participants.

Keywords: rhetorical festival, primary education, communication, public speak­ing, skills

  1. Introduction

Festivals have accompanied human history since its very beginning. The first recorded festival, dedicated to the celebration of Dionysus, the god of wine, dates back to 534 BC. [1] Since then, festivals have remained pivotal to the evolution of human civilization, [2] providing a framework for social integration and cohesion for both small and large communities. [3] Through communication and the sharing of common values, ideologies, and identities, festivals serve as vehicles of cultural continuity and renewal.

The etymological origin of the term festival can be traced to the Latin word festum, meaning “public joy, entertainment, festivity”. [4] Later, it became associated with the word feria, denoting “a day of rest in honor of the gods” [5], thus highlighting the religious and social character of early festivals. In modern times, these concepts have evolved, reflecting the diversity of forms (e.g. cultural, religious, educational, artistic, athletic) and functions (e.g. entertainment, strength­ening social cohesion, preserving traditions, economic development, fostering creativity and innovation) that festivals assume in various societies. However, there is no universally accepted definition of a festival, as its meaning varies depending on the academic perspective (e.g. anthropological, sociological, psychological, theological etc.).

According to Getz, an expert in event studies, festivals are “thematic, public celebrations” [6] that fall within the broader category of events. At the same time, they constitute a distinct field of academic inquiry. [7] Consequently, contemporary researchers examine festivals in relation to an increasing variety of issues, such as the outcomes of participation, including learning, the acquisi­tion of social and cultural capital, and overall well-being. [8]

This study focuses on a specific type of festival, the educational Rhetorical Art Festival “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…” for primary school students (4th, 5th, and 6th grades). Its organization responds to the question posed by M. Fabius Quintilianus in the 1st century AD regarding the appropriate age to begin a student’s rhetorical education: “To avoid a lengthy discussion on the question ‘When should a student be sent to a rhetorician?’, I think the best answer is: ‘When he is ready’”. [9]

The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits that participants gain from it. The Rhetorical Art Festival has been organized since 2018 by the Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical and Communication Studies (H.I.R.C.S.) in collaboration with the Cultural Affairs Coordinators of the Primary Education Directorates of Attica and the teachers of participating schools.

This festival represents an innovative initiative for the educational community. It is the first of its kind in the Attica region and it has been successfully implemented for two consecutive years in the Drama region. The festival is part of the educational program “Rhetorical Art Games at School: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…”, [10] which has been approved by the Institute of Educational Policy (I.E.P.) (2018-24).

For these reasons, this research is particularly significant, as no previous study in Greece has explored the pedagogical benefits of participation in such a festival. The following sections will provide a detailed presentation of its characteristics, linking it to other types of festivals. Furthermore, key aspects of the supporting educational program will be highlighted, including its pedagogical and didactic nature, as well as the contemporary educational needs it addresses. Finally, the study will present the thematic analysis methodology used for data collection and analysis, followed by an in-depth discussion of the findings and the conclusions drawn.

  1. Characteristics of the Rhetorical Art Festival “Rhetorical Art Games at School: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…”

The Rhetorical Art Festival for Primary School Students “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…” embodies the fundamental characteristics that, according to Cudny (see Figure 1), are inherent in every festival, while also reflecting its unique identity. [11] Its characteristics are analyzed below, with some of them presented in combination for brevity reasons.

  1. Public Celebration of Rhetorical Art and Education. The Rhetorical Art Festival is organized with the voluntary participation of 4th, 5th, and 6th-grade students from public and private schools in the Attica region, supported by their teachers. The participating students have previously engaged with the educational program “Rhetorical Art Games at School: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…”. [12] The festival’s organizing committee encourages each school to nominate a team of student representatives, selected based on the students’ own proposals. Each team can consist of up to fourteen (14) students.

This celebration honors rhetoric not only as the art of speech but also as an educational process—one that cultivates the mind, educates intellect, and shapes the character of future citizens. [13] The program aims, through playful activities inspired by classical rhetorical exercises (progymnasmata), to familiarize students with core principles of classical rhetoric for effective speech delivery. This is achieved through:

  • public reading of texts in front of an audience,
  • impromptu speaking (1-2-minute spontaneous speeches), and
  • argumentation games, such as dialogue-based discussions (e.g., the “fishbowl” debate), negotiation scenarios, mock trials (e.g., “fairy tale trials”), and debate competitions.

For Quintilian, reading is an integral part of rhetoric, as it promotes eloquence, fosters a love for literature, and acquaints students with what is ethically excellent. [14] Impromptu speaking allows students to develop both vertical/analytical and linear thinking, express their viewpoints, compare ideas, describe concepts, and define terms. This process enhances flexibility and speed of thought, imagination, creativity, and the ability to structure spoken texts. [15] Additionally, the diverse argumentation games encourage free thought and speech during the discussion of both individual and collective issues. [16] Effective speech delivery plays a crucial role in these activities, encompassing articulation, vocal variety, facial expressions, and gestures.

  1. Central Theme and Cultural Evolution. Each year, the Rhetorical Art Festival revolves around a central theme (e.g. art, human rights, music, human values, fairy tales) (Table 1) to connect rhetoric with students’ contemporary realities and foster engagement with social and cultural issues. This thematic approach stems from the belief that the value of classical rhetoric in humanistic education lies not only in its persuasive power but also in its socio-cultural dimensions. It serves as a tool for developing individual education and cultural awareness, requiring students to gain essential knowledge for understanding the social, political, and cultural aspects of human identity. [17]

The selected themes, as familiar cultural tools, facilitate the social interac­tion of students with the content [18], while also fostering their linguistic, cognitive, and intellectual development within the framework of the Zone of Proximal Development, guided by educators and/or through interaction with more experienced peers.

  1. Consistency and Ongoing Organization. Since 2018, the Rhetorical Art Festival has been consistently organized once a year, typically toward the end of the academic year. The timing takes into consideration socio-political and cultural factors (e.g. elections, public holidays, celebrations) that could poten­tially affect its execution. Notably, the festival was postponed during the 2019-2020 academic year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, similar to other events. [19]
  2. Non-Competitive Nature of the Festival. The Rhetorical Art Festival: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… does not follow the tradition of competitive rhetorical practices that date back to antiquity [20] and continue today in the form of rhetorical and debate competitions, primarily at the secondary and tertiary education. This decision is based on the age of the participants, recognizing that primary school students have not yet developed the necessary cognitive, emotional, and experiential foundation [21] to engage in a formal, competitive rhetorical process.

Additionally, this approach is supported by research highlighting the potential risks of early exposure to competitive environments, such as increased anxiety [22], an overemphasis on final outcomes rather than the learning process [23], distrust among participants, adversarial relationships [24], and the creation of an emotionally insecure climate. [25] Furthermore, it helps reduce inequalities among students from different geographic areas or socio-economic backgrounds or schools with varying resources (e.g. presence or absence of debate clubs), thereby preventing advantages for already privileged students. [26]

Figure 1. Festival’s characteristics (Cudny, 2014: 644)

The festival’s non-competitive philosophy draws on the original meaning of the term agon as a gathering or assembly [27], similar to public games. [28] It emphasizes the learning process, intrinsic motivation for improvement, and a love for knowledge. However, it is acknowledged that participation in rhetorical competitions can be a natural progression in the students’ educational journey. As they gradually build confidence and acquire more advanced rhetorical skills, they may choose to engage in competitive formats at later stages (e.g. in sec­ondary education) when the perceived threat is lower. [29]

  1. The Rhetorical Festival as Part of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Rhetoric is recognized as part of intangible cultural heritage, serving as a social practice, expression, knowledge, and skill [30], inherited from the past through human interaction. This aligns with the Faro Convention (2005) by the Council of Europe, which emphasizes the value of cultural heritage for society. From an anthropological perspective, culture itself is rhetorical, as it is understood as a set of accepted actions and reactions within a historical society aimed at persuasion and social transformation [31], motivating individuals toward action.
  2. Takes Place at a Specific Time and Location Outside Routine. As shown in Table 1, with the exception of the 2021 and 2022 academic years—when the Rhetorical Art Festival was held online due to COVID-19—the event has consistently taken place at the National Library of Greece – Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center. It is scheduled on days and times outside the regular school timetable (from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), emphasizing its role as an extracurricular cultural celebration.
Festival Title and Theme Date Venue Schools Number

of Participants
1 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate in Expressive Reading and Impromptu Speech Sunday, June 3, 2018 National Library of Greece – Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center 30 200

 
2 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… Art in Our Lives Through the Art of Speech Saturday, June 8, 2019 28 212
3 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… Giving Voice to My Rights Saturday-Sunday, May 22 & 23, 2021 Online

 

 37 185
4 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… The Speech on Music and the Music of Speech Saturday-Sunday, June 4 & 5, 2022 23 180
5 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… Speech for Enchanting Stories: Talking With and About Fairy Tales Sunday, May 7, 2023 National Library of Greece – Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center 35 257
6 I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate… Talking About Life Values Sunday, April 21, 2024 45 320

 

Table 1. Data on the Organization of the Annual Rhetorical Art Festivals “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate”

 

This event offers participants the opportunity to break away from the routine of daily school life and gain new, enjoyable experiences with others. [32] As such, the Rhetorical Art Festival can be linked to non-formal learning environments that exist outside the traditional classroom [33], while the choice of venue emphasizes its connection to culture.

  1. A Social Event Aimed at Shaping Rhetorical Identity and Building Social Capital

When a speaker addresses an audience, the members form a collective bond among themselves and with the speaker. [34] As a social event that highlights orality, the Rhetorical Art Festival involves not only organizers but also teachers, students, parents, and the staff of the hosting venue.

Among these individuals—who come from different geographic regions and schools in Attica—complex dynamics of relationships and networking develop to varying degrees. This strengthens bonds of trust between students and teachers, as well as among parents, children, and educators, fostering a sense of unity. Additionally, the rhetorical identity of the participant community is reinforced through their shared experiences and collective engagement, con­tributing to the formation of social capital. [35]

  1. Research Methodology

This qualitative research adopts the thematic analysis method to identify and analyze “repeated semantic patterns” [36] in the collected data. The primary goal is to explore, analyze, and interpret the perceptions of one hundred and eighteen (118) out of one hundred and fifty-six (156) teachers from public and private primary schools in the Attica region regarding the main benefits their students gained from participating in the Rhetorical Art Festival.

These teachers implemented the educational program “Rhetorical Art Games at School: I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate…” in their classrooms and supported their students’ participation in the festival during the academic years 2021-2024. The analysis focused specifically on their written responses (Table 2) to a Google Forms questionnaire, which included the open-ended research question: “In your opinion, what was the greatest benefit your students gained from participating in the rhetorical art festival?”

Although this question was part of a broader evaluation questionnaire for the event, the research focused on it for conciseness. However, the voluntary nature of teacher participation in the survey may affect the representativeness of the responses, as it is possible that mostly highly enthusiastic teachers responded. Furthermore, the answers reflect the teachers’ perspectives and not those of the students directly, as there was no access to the students’ personal emails.

Data Collection

The identification number accompanying each response (e.g., 4/2021) (Table 2) indicates: a) the serial number of the responding teacher, and b) the academic year during which the response was given.

Academic Year Sample (N)
2020–2021 42
2021–2022 29
2022–2023 21
2023–2024 26

 

Table 2. Sample Distribution by Academic Year

Data Analysis Procedure

The analysis followed the six phases of thematic analysis [37]:

  1. Familiarization with the Data: The data were organized and examined using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.
  2. Generation of Initial Codes: Codes were developed based on recurring patterns in the responses, using both inductive and deductive approaches. [38] Deductive analysis was applied to topics such as public speaking, following the review of relevant literature, while inductive analysis revealed social and emotional experiences directly from the data.
  3. Searching for Themes: The codes were grouped to identify initial thematic axes.
  4. Reviewing Themes: The thematic categories were reevaluated and refined for better organization.
  5. Defining and Naming Themes and Subthemes: Final themes and subthemes were identified, reflecting the most significant and interesting aspects of the data [39] (Table 3).
  6. Presenting the Analysis: The thematic axes were documented, and the findings were recorded and presented.
Themes (T) Subthemes (St)
Theme 1: Oral Speech St (1) : Argumentation
St (2) : Reading
St (2) : Improptu Speech
Theme 2: Public Speaking St (1): Exposure to Audience

St (2): Confidence Development

St (3): Communication Skills
Theme 3: Social Interaction St (1): Participation

St (2): Social Skills

St (3): Emotional Aspect of Social Interaction

Table 3. Themes (T) and Subthemes (St) of Data Analysis

  1. Data Analysis

4.1. Analysis of the First Theme: Oral Speech

The first theme, oral speech, emerged as one of the main areas that was enhanced. According to the educators’ views, the festival significantly con­tribut­ed to the cultivation of oral expression, promoting the free articulation of ideas and opinions, and raising students’ awareness regarding the value of oral speech. Students were encouraged to understand the importance of oral communication and to improve their language use. Indicatively, we mention:

  • The opportunity given to them to cultivate their oral speech and understand its significance (4/2021).
  • Significant incentives were provided to enhance oral expression (22/2024).
  • They learned to better manage their speech and expression (29/2022).

For the educators, students practiced considering both sides of each issue and organizing their speech more effectively. The following responses recall the second of the five canons of classical rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery); that of arrangement (dispositio). [40] It refers to the “organic arrangement of the parts of speech into a whole”. [41]

  • They learned to put their thoughts in order, to consider the other side… (13/2021).
  • Exposure to an audience and organization of oral speech (3/2023).

Other educators emphasized vocabulary development (4/2024) and the ability to orally narrate stories (4/2023, 16/2023). A characteristic statement was:

  • The children remembered to rediscover words from the beginning and to give space to their own stories, no matter how unrealistic they seemed (21/2024).

Mainly, however, the cultivation of oral speech was associated with: a) the production of arguments, b) the cultivation of expressive reading, which conveys meanings and emotions in a vivid way during students’ interaction with a text, and c) the production of spontaneous speech.

  • I would mention the cultivation of oral speech through meaningful reading, the lively expression of ideas, the development of argumentative ability, as well as their exposure to an open audience (15/2024).

Subtopic 1. From the analysis and interpretation of the sample’s responses regarding the first subtopic, that of argumentation, it emerged that the festival contributed to familiarizing students with its application and developing their argumentative speech.

  • They came into contact with argumentation… (21/2022).
  • Through the festival, students realized argumentation beyond its theory and recognized their potential (37/2021).
  • Engagement in an activity of high value content that promotes dialogue and the presentation of arguments… (23/2022).
  • Development of argumentative speech. The deep need of students to express their views without interventions, advice, and admonitions was met (11/2021).

Additionally, educators mentioned the students’ ability, in an enjoyable way, to manage their arguments, organize and structure their thoughts and speech, and substantiate their views. In the following comments, the connection between argumentation and thinking is of interest, possibly indicating that participants approached argumentation not only as a communication tool but also as a cognitive process. Also, the repeated use of the cognitive verb ‘learn’ possibly suggests that some educators perceived the Rhetoric Festival as an educational experience during which students learn how to argue and speak publicly.

  • Cultivation in managing arguments… (6/2023).
  • They learned how to use logical arguments to persuade others (40/2021).
  • They learned to develop and substantiate their opinion. To arrange their arguments in order and not deviate from the topic (9/2021).
  • At the same time, they assimilated basic rules of public speaking and argumenta­tion (2/2023).
  • They were able to engage, in an enjoyable way, with argumentation. They developed their speech. They managed to place their thoughts in a logical sequence to form a structured speech (27/2021).

However, educators did not highlight argumentation only as a “means and object of education”. [42] Some responses emphasized its interactive nature and the exchange of arguments as “verbal events related to disagreement” [43], as well as the corresponding socio-emotional benefits for students during their interaction with other children both during their preparation and at the festival.

  • Understanding the importance of proper communication and exchange of arguments to support their positions (8/2022).
  • The development of argumentation as a means of advocacy on various issues, so that we resolve our differences with decent speech and not with verbal and physical violence (11/2023).
  • We had a lot of fun during the preparation as we examined negotiation scenarios. The children often enriched the argumentation scenarios and enjoyed role reversals. Students became more familiar with the structure of the argument…

Subtheme 2: Εxpressive Reading

Regarding the second subtheme, expressive reading, teachers’ responses highlighted its benefits within the context of the Rhetoric Festival for students. The responses focused on improving reading techniques, emphasizing fluency and accuracy. This finding is significant, especially for children facing difficul­ties, as it appears to enhance their willingness to participate in the process.

  • Improvement in reading fluency… (23/2021)
  • Cultivation of reading skills… (28/2022)
  • Initially, the children’s desire to learn to read “correctly.” Several children who had difficulty reading began to “open up.” (10/2022)
  • Development of reading skills and comprehension… (41/2021)

Additionally, some responses highlighted the benefit of engaging with quality texts. Exposure to these texts seemed to enhance students’ aesthetic enjoyment which derived from the reading process and contributed to changing their attitude towards it.

  • They came into contact with high-quality texts, as the festival’s theme was particularly interesting. (36/2021)
  • The student engaged with interesting texts and renowned authors. She adopted a beautiful way of presenting, not only herself but also each text. (24/2022)
  • Exposure to various types of texts that enabled them to recognize and select them. (4/2023)
  • All the children who prepared for the festival engaged with excellent texts, and their approach to them changed. (8/24)
  • Specifically, it appeared that the festival fostered a more positive and enjoyable approach to reading. Students realized the importance and joy of the reading process, which can influence their lifelong quality relationship with reading.
  • It changed the way they view reading. (16/2022)
  • Μeaningful reading… (9/2024)
  • They also understood how they can improve their reading in a fun way. (24/2024)

Some teachers focused on improving students’ expressiveness. In other words, students enhanced their ability to convey meanings and emotions by utilizing oral language and vocal variety (rhythm, intensity, tone, speed, etc.).

  • Cultivation of expressive reading… (5/2022)
  • I believe the greatest benefit for students from participating in the rhetoric art festival was the opportunity to convey meanings and messages through reading stories… (4/2023)

Subtheme 3: Spontaneous (impromptu) Speech. Regarding the third subtheme, which focuses on enhancing the ability for natural and uncontrived expression in various contexts, the responses indicated a strengthening and empowerment of this specific oral skill among students within the framework of the Rhetoric Festival.

  • “It enhanced spontaneous speech. The spontaneity and expression of the chil­dren in front of an audience increased.” (14/2022)
  • “I believe the greatest benefit for the students from their participation in the rhetoric art festival was […] to speak spontaneously…” (4/2023)
  • “The ability to approach a random topic and ‘unfold’ their thoughts in a limited time in front of an unknown audience and in an unfamiliar space, as it was their first time there.” (16/2023)
  • “To raise their own, spontaneous speech and not have something memorized.” (18/2023)

Theme 2: Public Speaking. The teachers’ responses highlighted that one of the main benefits of students’ participation in the Rhetoric Festival was the cultivation of public speaking, i.e., the process of delivering a speech in front of a live audience. [44] Public speaking dates back to ancient societies, such as Athens and Rome, and was considered an essential skill for the formation of a citizen. [45]

  • “Students had the opportunity, in the formal context of public speaking, to share thoughts and make suggestions on issues that concerned them.” (25/2024)
  • “Public speaking. A very important life skill.” (10/2023)
  • “Their familiarization with public speaking…” (22/2022)
  • “I believe the greatest benefit for the students from their participation in the rhetoric art festival was the opportunity given to them to express themselves publicly, to convey meanings and messages…” (4/2023)

Subtheme 1. The focus of the first subtheme was on students’ exposure to an audience and the opportunity provided to them to become accustomed to delivering their speech in front of it.

  • I believe the benefits were manifold, with the greatest being their familiarization with presenting themselves to an unfamiliar audience, where they were called to act as “orators”—a novel experience… (3/2021)
  • Familiarization with public exposure – (6/2021)
  • To become accustomed as speakers-readers to presenting in front of an audience (3/2022).
  • Through their participation in the festival, students become familiar with the process of speaking before an audience and presenting their views in a structured manner, shedding their insecurities and any shyness they may have. (20/2023)

The audience seemed to function as a means of enhancing students’ communication, as it motivates them to pay greater attention to the structure and delivery of their speech.

  • Exposure to an audience and the organization of oral speech. (3/2023)
  • Practice in presenting to an audience outside the classroom… (33/2021)
  • The participation and the opportunity to argue and express themselves in front of unfamiliar third parties… (38/2021)

Moreover, beyond the cultivation of oral speech, students’ public exposure during the festival appeared to promote the development of body language.

  • They gained fluency in expressing themselves in front of an audience, both verbally and through gestures. (39/2021)
  • They acquired significant knowledge regarding the management of public speaking (posture, movements, style, etc.). (5/2024)

Subtheme 2: The development of confidence and self-assurance, even among the most reserved students, due to their public exposure, was evaluated as a significant benefit by the educators. The responses highlighted that the ex­perience of public speaking encouraged students’ free expression and articula­tion of their personal voice, as they gained greater trust in their abilities. [46]

  • Learning to argue and speak in front of an audience with the courage of their convictions. (2/2021)
  • I believe the greatest benefit from the children’s participation was, on the one hand, the enhancement of their communication skills, but mainly the encourage­ment to speak and express themselves in front of an audience, feeling confident and self-assured. (22/2021)
  • […], boosting the self-confidence of the more reserved children. (11/2022)
  • Their exposure to an unfamiliar audience… (18/2023)
  • They gained greater self-confidence. (17/2021)
  • Now they feel more self-assured. Exposure in front of an audience made them believe in themselves more. (6/2024)
  • It served as another building block for class cohesion and a step in building their self-confidence. (17/2024)
  • The development of self-confidence was linked to confronting and overcoming fears, hesitations, insecurities that characterized the participants, and the anxiety or “glossophobia” that usually accompanies public exposure and speaking (Lall et al., 2021:352).
  • […] an opportunity to face the anxiety of public speaking. (15/2022)
  • Our students, through their participation, manage to express themselves in front of an audience, overcoming the fear of exposure by coordinating all their senses. […] (7/2021)
  • They overcame their fears and expressed themselves confidently in front of the audience! They felt “significant” having a specific role which they fully supported! They responded to a higher-level activity! (6/2022)
  • They overcame their fears and insecurities and were eager to showcase the talent they had hidden within. (42/2021)
  • They overcame their hesitations, the anxiety about the audience, and their performance at the festival was even better than during rehearsals. They enjoyed the process and wanted to stay until the end to see the others. (8/2021)
  • Through their participation in the festival, students become familiar with the process of speaking in front of an audience and presenting their views coherently, shedding their insecurities and any shyness they may have. (20/2023)

Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to claim that, for some educators, the public exposure of students was recorded as a transformative experience, which seemed to promote their overall personal development and self-esteem.

  • Development of reading skills and comprehension, increased participation in school life, development of self-esteem. (41/2021)
  • Students believed in their abilities and showcased them. (32/2021)
  • […] But also how much we can achieve, how “visible” our improvement can be if we try. (4/2022)
  • Also, to discover their own potential and the joy of participation and effort. (4/2021)
  • Their “confrontation” with the audience, the opportunity to extrovertedly present their uniqueness. (7/2023)
  • They were tested, exposed, emerged from their introversion strengthened, were fascinated by the challenge of communication, reflected, faced their limits, difficulties, but also their capabilities. (27/2024)

Subtheme 3: Additionally, the public exposure of students at the Rhetoric Festival appeared to contribute to the development and enhancement of their linguistic (14/2021, 15/2022) and communication skills, according to the responses that form the third subtheme of the second topic.

  • The cultivation of speech, communication, and directness in expression. (12/2022)
  • The development of communication skills, the cultivation of oral speech, and the expression of ideas and opinions. (39/2021)
  • I believe the greatest benefit of the children’s participation was, on the one hand, the enhancement of their communication skills and, more importantly, the encouragement to speak and express themselves in front of an audience, feeling confidence and self-assurance. (22/2021)
  • The students cultivated their oral and communication skills and practiced using arguments to persuade others of their views. (20/2024)
  • They enhanced their communication skills, received applause, boosted their self-confidence, and felt more capable. (26/2024)

The strengthening of students’ communication skills was assessed as a result of the program’s implementation, accompanied by the forging of friendly bonds among group members and the acquisition of clear criteria for conducting their communicative interactions:

  • The strengthening of friendships and communication skills due to teamwork within the program. (2/2024)
  • The students developed clearer criteria regarding communication, both as speakers and as listeners. They gradually became more direct in their verbal expression and formed a healthy expectation for more argumentative support in discussions, both inside and outside the classroom. (29/2021)

Among the communication skills developed, particular value was placed on active listening:

  • Exposure to an audience, active listening, engagement with rhetorical contests, and a life experience. (9/2023)
  • The greatest benefit was that we met and heard how students from other schools express themselves. Listening to others motivated them to improve their oral expression. (22/2023)

This translation highlights the role of the Rhetoric Festival in promoting communication and interpersonal skills, fostering students’ confidence, and encouraging meaningful dialogue and active listening.

Theme 3: Social Interaction

The third theme that emerged from the responses was related to social interaction. Such an interaction developed both during the students’ preparation for the festival within the context of formal education (school) and through their active engagement and participation in the festival as an example of non-formal educational activity.

Social interaction, as a term, refers to a situation “where the behaviors of one actor are consciously reorganized by the behaviors of another actor and influence each other reciprocally”. [47] These behaviors include not only observable actions but also mental, emotional processes, and physiological responses.

  • They attended a true celebration of speech. They had the opportunity to strengthen their bonds with each other, meet new children who share the same love for rhetoric, and be inspired by the speeches of other students. (12/2023)
  • All students thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to use the internet for such interactive processes and found the exchange of ideas through the platform much more meaningful, as it allowed them to evaluate the overall work of each school’s teams and the level of cooperation among educators and students in a spirit of healthy competition within a short and dynamic timeframe. (31/2021)
  • I believe the festival gave my students the opportunity to participate in an event outside their familiar school environment and to meet other students from diverse backgrounds through their expression and speech. (36/2021)
  • The greatest benefit was meeting children from other schools, fostering communication, and helping participants become more comfortable with public exposure and gain self-confidence. (19/2023)
  • They engaged with the topic and stepped outside their school environment. (14/2024)

Notable features of the social interaction that developed both during the students’ preparation and at the Rhetoric Festival were dialogue, discussion, and the exchange of opinions.

  • … the opportunity for dialogue with peers. (13/2022)
  • The experiential nature of a communication-based activity like rhetoric. Participation in an activity of high ethical value that promotes dialogue and the presentation of arguments. (23/2022)
  • The opportunity to discuss interesting and diverse topics. (20/2022)
  • … they reflected on issues related to children’s rights, leading to the exchange of many opinions in class. (21/2021)

The students’ interactions appeared to broaden their perspectives on topics of wider social interest and foster democratic habits, reaffirming the necessity of incorporating rhetorical perspectives in the education of future citizens. [48]

  • The students developed rhetorical skills, habits of democratic dialogue through group discussions during preparation, self-confidence during public presenta­tions, and general awareness on broader societal issues that contributed to the further development of their personalities and the expansion of their thinking. (21/2023)
  • The ability to express thoughts and emotions in a different, creative way on issues related to our world and the opportunity for students to interact with one another. (35/2021)

Sub-theme 1: Participation. Based on the data, participation emerged as a key aspect of social interaction among the students, constituting the first sub-theme of the third topic. The participatory nature of the social experience, both during the students’ preparation and their involvement in the Rhetoric Festival, was positively evaluated. Consequently, the sense of ‘belonging’ and the social integration of the participants [49] were highlighted.

  • “…an increase in participation in school life…” (41/2021)
  • Participatory experience (17/2023)

The responses revealed the development of a participatory culture that connects and empowers its members.

  • Participation in something shared, where common interests are exchanged! (26/2022)
  • […] participation in a festival held in a beautiful venue, alongside other schools (4/2024)
  • An excellent experience! Unforgettable! […] Facing challenges through participation in group activities… (9/2022)

Some responses also highlighted the non-competitive nature of the festival as a positive aspect. Conversely, one response linked participation to the concept of competition.

  • Participation in a celebration and not in a competition chasing prizes. (28/2021)
  • Understanding that what matters is participating in a festival rather than winning first, second, or third place in a competition. (19/2022)
  • Their participation in the festival is significant because they transcend the boundaries of their microcosm and enter the macrocosm of competition. (11/2021)

Sub-theme 2: Social Skills. The second sub-theme focused on additional social skills (beyond communication), such as cooperation, teamwork, mutual assistance, and more [50]. These skills manifested as social competencies [51] through observation, reflection, and the demonstration of specific behaviors by the students.

  • Very good cooperation among the children, effective communication and research, exchange of ideas and arguments! (7/2022)
  • Cooperation, communication, knowledge of rights, development of self-con­fidence, and a range of emotions! (5/2021)
  • Teamwork, the ability to present themselves, their organized and coherent presentation, collaboration, and purposeful work. (15/2021)
  • The children dared to face choices and made selections without complaints or whining. They understood that for the good of the team, they should choose the capable ones, not just their friends. (18/2024)
  • Strengthening friendship bonds and their communication skills through teamwork within the program. (2/2024)
  • […] and they learned to help others improve with constructive feedback rather than criticism. (21/2024)
  • … they were introduced to the process of building relationships of solidarity and mutual assistance. (22/2024)

Sub-theme 3: Emotional Dimension of Social Interaction. Social interac­tion and social experiences are deeply connected with the activation and ex­pression of emotions, which play a crucial role in forming social bonds and complex socio-cultural structures. [52] Every form of social interaction both influences and is influenced by the emotional responses of those involved. Similarly, social interaction during the Rhetoric Festival was intertwined with the emotions of the students, as revealed in the analysis of the third sub-theme, highlighting the festival’s human-centered nature. These emotions were diverse, positive, and encouraging, contributing to increased student engagement and participation.

For instance, references to feelings of joy and excitement were associated with the students’ involvement in activities perceived as pleasant, creative, and entertaining. This involvement strengthened their connection with their peers and fostered a sense of inner satisfaction from participating in the Rhetoric Festival.

  • They mostly felt joy, and this was evident in their broad smiles at the end! (7/2021)
  • They showed enthusiasm for the process and their participation in the festival. (3/2024)
  • They enjoyed the process and wanted to stay until the end to watch the others. (8/2021)
  • They experienced a fantastic and fun event. (2/2023)

The feeling of joy was also linked to the discovery of a shared love for the art of rhetoric, which connected the participating students and reinforced their sense of community and appreciation for the value of collaboration.

  • The joy of discovering that many other children from numerous schools are engaged in the art of rhetoric. (30/2021)

Additionally, the positive emotion of pride experienced by the students within the social framework of the Rhetoric Festival stemmed from the recognition of their efforts and the display of their abilities.

  • They felt very proud to have successfully presented themselves before an unfamiliar audience in such a beautiful venue. (8/2024)
  • Beyond the self-confidence development discussed in the second theme, the festival experience also contributed to the emotional maturation of the students and strengthened their love for rhetorical art, public speaking, and oral ex­pression.
  • The festival experience promoted their emotional growth. (25/2024)
  1. Conclusions

This study explored the multifaceted benefits that students gained from their participation in the Rhetoric Festival during the period 2021-2024, as reflected through the perceptions of their teachers. The thematic analysis of the data revealed three central themes and their corresponding sub-themes.

Firstly, student participation in the event appeared to cultivate and strength­en their orality (vocabulary, expressiveness, storytelling) through argument exchange, reading practices, and spontaneous speech production. The findings indicated not only an enhancement of students’ verbal skills but also a promotion of understanding the significance of oral communication in both personal and social contexts.

Secondly, the Festival functioned as a workshop for developing public speaking and communication skills. Students became familiar with addressing an audience, using body language, practicing active listening, and effectively pre­senting their ideas. These skills contributed to building their self-confidence, sense of self-efficacy, and competence as speakers. [53]

Thirdly, the students’ participation in the Rhetoric Festival was positively evaluated in terms of social interaction. It fostered participation, teamwork, and dialogue. Additionally, the festival atmosphere nurtured positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, and pride while promoting social inclusion and a sense of belonging.

Through the lens of rhetorical theory, the Rhetoric Festival successfully guided students, as evolving citizens, toward active and reasoned expression and participation. Students experienced rhetoric as: a) a process that integrates cognitive, verbal, and non-verbal (bodily) expressions, b) a form of social interaction between interlocutors as well as between speakers and audiences, and c) an educational practice based on clear goals and methods, as developed through the educational program. [54]

Most importantly, students encountered an authentic festival experience that activated physical, emotional, creative, and collaborative skills. This experience allowed them to connect with the cultural heritage and the future of rhetorical education. Through their participation, they found meaning and fulfillment, affirming their transition into both the role of Homo Festivus—the celebratory and participative human—and Homo Rhetoricus—the individual who uses language to shape personal and social identity.

Notes: The text is a translation from the manuscript Egglezou, F. (2025). Rhetorical Art Festival “I Think… I Express Myself… I Communicate”. An Educational Experience of Communication and Expression for Primary School Students. In F. Egglezou, I. Antipati & Ai. Gorginaki (Eds.) The Development of Language Skills in School Practice (pp. 36-52). Athens: Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical & Communication Studies (H.I.R.C.S.). ISBN. 978-618-85245-3-8. Copyright is assigned by H.I.R.C.S. to Rhetoric & Communications Journal and to the publisher, the Institute of Rhetoric & Communications for the purpose of sharing best contemporary rhetorical practices in Greece and presenting rhetoric in the context of pedagogical communication.

References

[1] Quinn, Β. (2005). Arts festivals and the city. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 929.

[2] Falassi, A. (1987). Festival. Definition and morphology. In A. Falassi (Ed.) Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival (pp. 1–10). Albuquergue: University of New Mexico Press.

[3] Duvignaud, J. (1976). Festivals. A sociological approach. Cultures, 3(1), 13–28.

[4] Falassi, A. (1987). Festival. Definition and morphology. In A. Falassi (Ed.) Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival (pp. 1–10). Albuquergue: University of New Mexico Press, 1–2.

Glare, P.G. (Ed.) (1982). The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 686, 694–695.

[5] Falassi, A. (1987). Festival. Definition and morphology. In A. Falassi (Ed.) Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival (pp. 1–10). Albuquergue: University of New Mexico Press, 2.

[6] Getz, D. (2005). Event Management and Event Tourism. Elmsford: Cognizant Communication, 21.

[7] Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29, 403–428.

[8] Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research, 5(1, 2), 5.

[9] Quintilian. (2002). The Orator’s Education, Volume I: Books 1–2. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library 124. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 265.

[10] Egglezou, F. (2018b). Rhetorical ‘paedeia’ in modern educational settings: From theory to praxis… again (2018), Rhetoric and Communications (E-Journal), 35 (Special issue – papers of 4 th ESTIDIA conference).

[11] Cudny, W. (2014). The phenomenon of festivals: Their origins, evolution and classifications. Anthropos, 109(2), 644.

[12] Egglezou, F. (2018b). Rhetorical ‘paedeia’ in modern educational settings: From theory to praxis… again (2018), Rhetoric and Communications (E-Journal), 35 (Special issue – papers of 4 th ESTIDIA conference).

[13] Miller, A. (2007). Rhetoric, paideia and the old idea of a liberal Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2), 187.

[14] Quintilian. (1968). Institutio Oratoria. Trans H.E. Butler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, Book VIII, 4:149.

[15] Egglezou, F. (2018a). Rhetorical Art Games in School. I Think… I Express… I Communicate… Educational program approved by the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP). Athens: Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical & Communication Studies (H.I.R.C.S.), 6.

[16] Egglezou, F. (2014). The Teaching of Argumentation in Primary Education. From Oral to Written Discourse. Theory and Practice. Grigoris Publications. [in Greek]

[17] Miller, A. (2007). Rhetoric, paideia and the old idea of a liberal Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2), 196.

[18] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Τhe Development of Higher Psy-chological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[19] Riga, V. (2022). A children’s festival during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 9(5), 1–15.

[20] Falassi, A. (1987). Festival. Definition and morphology. In A. Falassi (Ed.) Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival (pp. 1–10). Albuquergue: University of New Mexico Press, 4–6.

Hawhee, D. (2002). Agonism and Aretê. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–207.

Ong, W. J. (1982).  Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. Routledge, 45.

Chaniotis, A. (2011). Greek festivals and contests: definition and general char­ac­teristics. In Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquo-rum (ThesCRA) VII. Festivals and Contests (pp. 4–19). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 16.

[21] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Τhe Development of Higher Psy-chological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[22] Yayla, A., & Çevik, Ö. (2022). The effect of competition on moral development: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9, 967–977.

[23] Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situations that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24–33.

[24] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools. A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 459–506.

[25] Shindler, J. (2010). Transformative Classroom Management. Positive Strategies to Engage all Students and Promote a Psychology of Success. Jossey-Bass.

[26] Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children. Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. The New York Press.

[27] Hawhee, D. (2002). Agonism and Aretê. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–186.

[28] Ηutcheon, L. (2003). Rhetoric and competition. Academic agonistics. Common Knowledge, 9(1), 44.

[29] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Τhe Development of Higher Psy-chological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[30] UNESCO, 2003, Article II.1.

[31] Carrithers, M. (2005). Why Anthropologists should study Rhetoric. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(3), 577–583.

[32] Hede, A. M., & Rentschler, R. (2007). Mentoring volunteer festival managers: Evaluating of a pilot scheme in regional Australia. Managing Leisure, 12, 157.

[33] Scott M. R., Coraggio, H. J., Hohlfeld, T., Kromrey, J. D., Chavez, T., & Bane, A. (2007). Evaluation of a Children’s Festival: Children Learning through Fun and Games. Paper presented at the Eastern Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting (February 14-17, 2007), Clearwater, FL. Retrieved on 25/02/2025 from the following website: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf& doi=4be97c2235f2155f4fe8492fd11758cd6e73960.  Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

[34] Ong, W. J. (1982).  Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. Routledge.

[35] Arcodia, C., & Whitford, M. (2007). Festival attendance and the development of social capital. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 8(2), 1–18.

[36] Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 86.

[37] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

[38] Dawadi, S. (2020). Thematic Analysis Approach: A Step by Step Guide for ELT Research Practitioners. Journal of NELTA, 25 (1–2), 62–71.

[39] Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. Αll Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 3, 3351–33514.

[40] Cicero. (1949). De Inventione. De Optimo Genere Oratorum. Topica. London: W. Heinemann, 21.

[41] Egglezou, F. (2014). The Teaching of Argumentation in Primary Education. From Oral to Written Discourse. Theory and Practice. Grigoris Publications. [in Greek], 69.

[42] Heller, V. (2023). Argumentation as a situated discursive practice: Social and epistemic functions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39, 100699, 1.

[43] Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.  (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 254.

[44] Schreiber, L., & Hartranft, M. (2024). Public Speaking. Τhe Public Speaking Project. LibreText. https://LibreTexts.org. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

[45] Waruwu, Υ., Telaumbanua, R.K., Mendrofa, F.T., Harefa, N. (2024). The im­portance of public speaking for students. Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Multidisipliner, 8(2), 145.

[46] Adnan, N. I. (2014). Using Public Speaking to Improve Malaysian Students’ Confidence Level in Speaking Skill: A Case Study. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts. Universiti Sains Malaysia.

[47] Τurner, J. H.  (1988). A Theory of Social Interaction. California: Stanford University Press, 13–14.

[48] Kock, C., & Villadsen, L. V. (2017). Rhetorical citizenship: studying the discursive crafting and enactment of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 21(5), 570–586.

[49] Schormans, A. F. (2014). Social participation. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclo­pedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6135–6140). Springer.

[50] Goleman, D. (2000). Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In D. Goleman & C. Cherniss (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations (pp. 1–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[51] McIntyre, Τ. (2006). Teaching social skills to kids who don’t have them. Aνακτήθηκε στις 7/1/2025 από τον δικτυακό τόπο. www.ldonline.org. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

[52] Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2005). The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge Uni­versity Press, 1.

[53] Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

[54] Žmavc, J. (2021). Teaching rhetoric in primary school. Towards modernization of society with classical techniques and practices. In N. Gutvajn, J. Stanišić, V. Radović, (Eds.) Problems and Perspectives of Contemporary Education (pp. 74–94).  Bel­grade. Institute for Educational Research.

Bibliography

Adnan, N. I. (2014). Using Public Speaking to Improve Malaysian Students’ Confidence Level in Speaking Skill: A Case Study. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts. Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Arcodia, C., & Whitford, M. (2007). Festival attendance and the development of social capital. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 8(2), 1–18.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Carrithers, M. (2005). Why Anthropologists should study Rhetoric. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(3), 577–583.

Chaniotis, A. (2011). Greek festivals and contests: definition and general characteristics. In Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquo-rum (ThesCRA) VII. Festivals and Contests (pp. 4–19). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Cicero. (1949). De Inventione. De Optimo Genere Oratorum. Topica. London: W. Heinemann.

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.

Cudny, W. (2014). The phenomenon of festivals: Their origins, evolution and classifications. Anthropos, 109(2), 640–656.

Dawadi, S. (2020). Thematic Analysis Approach: A Step by Step Guide for ELT Research Practitioners. Journal of NELTA, 25 (1–2), 62–71.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children. Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. The New York Press.

Duvignaud, J. (1976). Festivals. A sociological approach. Cultures, 3(1), 13–28.

Egglezou, F. (2014). The Teaching of Argumentation in Primary Education. From Oral to Written Discourse. Theory and Practice. Grigoris Publications. [in Greek]

Egglezou, F. (2018a). Rhetorical Art Games in School. I Think… I Express… I Communicate… Educational program approved by the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP). Athens: Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical & Communication Studies (H.I.R.C.S.).

Egglezou, F. (2018b). Rhetorical ‘paedeia’ in modern educational settings: From theory to praxis… again (2018b), Rhetoric and Communications (E-Journal), 35 (Special issue – papers of 4 th ESTIDIA conference).

Falassi, A. (1987). Festival. Definition and morphology. In A. Falassi (Ed.) Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival (pp. 1–10). Albuquergue: University of New Mexico Press.

Faro Convention. (2005). Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Ανακτήθηκε στις 7/1/2025 από τον δικτυακό τόπο: https://www.coe.int/en/web/ culture-and-heritage/faro-conve-ntion. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

Getz, D. (2005). Event Management and Event Tourism. Elmsford: Cognizant Communication.

Getz, D. (2007). Event Studies Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. Elsevier.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Manage­ment, 29, 403–28.

Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research, 5(1, 2), 1–47.

Glare, P. G. (Ed.) (1982). The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Goleman, D. (2000). Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In D. Goleman & C. Cherniss (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations (pp. 1–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hawhee, D. (2002). Agonism and Aretê. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–207.

Hede, A. M., & Rentschler, R. (2007). Mentoring volunteer festival managers: Evaluating of a pilot scheme in regional Australia. Managing Leisure, 12, 157–170.

Heller, V. (2023). Argumentation as a situated discursive practice: Social and epistemic functions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39, 100699.

Ηutcheon, L. (2003). Rhetoric and competition. Academic agonistics. Common Knowl­edge, 9(1), 42–49.

Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.  (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools. A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 459–506.

Kock, C., & Villadsen, L. V. (2017). Rhetorical citizenship: studying the discursive crafting and enactment of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 21(5), 570–586.

Lall, H., Tapader, B., & Das Biswas, S. D. (2021). Speech anxi-ety: improper communication & fear of public speaking. Interna-tional Journal of English Learning and Teaching Skills, 1(4), 352–356.

Maguire, M., &  Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practi-cal, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. Αll Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 3, 3351–33514.

McIntyre, Τ. (2006). Teaching social skills to kids who don’t have them. Aνακτήθηκε στις 7/1/2025 από τον δικτυακό τόπο. www.ldonline.org. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

Miller, A. (2007). Rhetoric, paideia and the old idea of a liberal Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2), 183–206.

Ong, W. J. (1982).  Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. Routledge.

Quinn, Β. (2005). Arts festivals and the city. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 927–943.

Quintilian. (1968). Institutio Oratoria. Trans H.E. Butler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

Quintilian. (2002). The Orator’s Education, Volume I: Books 1–2. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library 124. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situations that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24–33.

Riga, V. (2022). A children’s festival during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 9(5), 1–15.

Schormans, A. F. (2014). Social participation. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6135–6140). Springer.

Scott M. R., Coraggio, H. J., Hohlfeld, T., Kromrey, J. D., Chavez, T., & Bane, A. (2007). Evaluation of a Children’s Festival: Children Learning through Fun and Games. Paper presented at the Eastern Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting (February 14-17, 2007), Clearwater, FL. To έγγραφο ανακτήθηκε στις 7/1/2025 από τον διαδικτυακό τόπο: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=4be97c2235f2155f4fe8492fd11758cd6e73960. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

Shindler, J. (2010). Transformative Classroom Management. Positive Strategies to Engage all Students and Promote a Psychology of Success. Jossey-Bass.

Schreiber, L., & Hartranft, M. (2024). Public Speaking. Τhe Public Speaking Project. LibreText. https://LibreTexts.org. Retrieved on 25.02.2025.

Τurner, J. H.  (1988). A Theory of Social Interaction. California: Stanford University Press.

Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2005). The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Τhe Development of Higher Psy-chological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waruwu, Υ., Telaumbanua, R. K., Mendrofa, F. T., & Harefa, N. (2024). The importance of public speaking for students. Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Multidisipliner, 8(2), 145–149.

Yayla, A., & Çevik, Ö. (2022). The effect of competition on moral development: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9, 967–977.

Žmavc, J. (2021). Teaching rhetoric in primary school. Towards modernization of society with classical techniques and practices. In N. Gutvajn, J. Stanišić, V. Radović, (Eds.) Problems and Perspectives of Contemporary Education (pp. 74–94).  Belgrade. Institute for Educational Research.

Foteini Egglezou. Since 2016 she is the founder and President of the Hellenic Institute of Rhetorical and Communication Studies (HIRCS) (IRESE in Greek), (https://www.rhetoricinstitute.edu.gr/). The topic of her PhD dissertation touches upon the topic: Teaching the argumentative writing in primary school. Since 2011 she has been an active member and president of the international organization for adults’s Τοastmasters which aims at the enhancement of the skills of public speaking and leadership. She is a member of the Rhetoric Society of Europe. She is a certified debate trainer by the IDEA organization. She participates to the organization of many rhetoric contests in Greece in collaboration with academic and regional institutions. She has academic experience in teaching “Rhetoric and Public Speech” and “Critical Pedagogy” in master-programs and universities.

Manuscript was submitted: 02.03.2025.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 03.03.2025 till 04.04.2025.

Accepted: 05.04.2025.

Брой 63 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“ (април 2025 г.) се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП6/48 от 04 декември 2024 г.

Issue 63 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (April 2025) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP6/48 of December 04, 2024.