The purpose of this study was to reconceptualize ‘warrant’ for the teaching and learning of argumentation and to develop a ‘warrant unit’ using a backward design model. Based on previous discussions about warrant in argumentation, this study conceptualizes warrant as underlying assumptions that an arguer uses to draw an argument (conclusion) from evidence. In particular, this study extends the element of warrant to include not only commonly shared principles but also possibly subjective values and beliefs. Drawing on the three steps of the backward design model, this study developed the warrant unit: confirming desired results, determining assessment evidence, and planing instruction.
We expect the study to have the following effects. First, it contributes to rethinking the possibility and meaning of teaching and learning of warrant in argumentation education. In Korean education, warrant is often regarded as an element that is largely shared and can be easily omitted. Although this may be true, teaching the element of warrant could help students to examine logical connections between claim and evidence and explore possible disputes between different warrants. In addition, warrant instruction could help students to examine their own underlying assumptions and those of others and to interact with people who might have different assumptions. Considering our globalized society, which is filled with conflicting assumptions, the teaching and learning of warrants are remarkably valuable.