Lesson Plan: Claims and Warrants dialogic lesson
# of Days 2 (1.5 for Warrants; .5 SAT Practice)
Prior Knowledge knowledge of how to use evidence and how one makes a
claim in an argument.
Lesson Objective(s) Students will be able to strengthen support their claims by
using appropriate warrants in their arguments.
Lesson Assessment Individual warrants collected at the end of the hour.
Standards CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.1
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of
substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and
relevant and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1
Initiate and participate effectively in a range of
collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and
teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 11-12 topics,
texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing
their own clearly and persuasively.
Materials Needed Printed Cartoons from Hillocks chapter 1 (actually, all of
Hillocks chapter 1 as a resource), Warrants Google slides with
examples, pencils, Printed Warrants and examples. Printed
chart for organizing evidence and warrants
Differentiated Individual instruction, one on one assistance or group
Instruction assistance if necessary.
Time Learning Task Methods or Procedures
10 min Intro into Warrants Evidence and Warrants. mini lecture
Definition and examples from essays
looked at yesterday explained..
Sometimes warrants are implicit and
unstated. Why unstated warrants can be
a problem.
15 Slip and Trip Begin by passing out “Slip and Trip”
and asking a student to read it aloud.
Ask students to discuss with their tables
which evidence they feel is important in
determining if this was truly an
accident. (4-5 min). Bring class back
together for the collection of evidence.
Put the outline of the chart students
have on the board and put it together as
a class. Students provide evidence and
we work together to develop a warrant
and the subsequent conclusion.
15-20 Scenario 2 Have students complete the next
mystery scenario in a similar fashion at
Commented [1]: This part I wished I had moved to
after the Slip and Trip segment of the lesson. I actually
did move it for 5th hour and I think it made more sense
for students. I think I could still begin with definitions of
warrants but I don't know that examples are really that
helpful this early in the game. Similarly, by putting this
after the Slip and Trip activity, students are engaging in
more of an inquiry based learning type situation in
which they are developing the idea more on their own
(and I just highlight the warrant for them).
Commented [2]: I needed to budget more time for this.
This ended up taking close to 30 min. The student
engagement was good so I was rolling with it. By
second hour, I realized that I had vastly underestimated
how long this would take.
Commented [3]: Students talking in order to develop
and find evidence. In their groups, students are making
connections to other texts and the outside world.
Commented [4]: This part helped me learn a lot more
about facilitating student talk. I wish this had been the
part that I chose to transcribe, actually. Something I
realized I could do was create a que of sorts. If three
hands were up at the same time, I could simply order
them and students would know who would speak next.
I also was surprised at how much student engagement
I really got. There were students who don't usually
speak that shared their thoughts and reasoning.
Commented [5]: The class makes meaning as the
development of warrants becomes something they are
familiar with. This part I would not change. I actually
think this part went really well and was really important
to the lesson as a whole.
 their tables.
Have students begin by reading the
passage aloud. Each person is
responsible for keeping record of their
own claims and warrants and
conclusions but they may work
together.
10 min Large group share Ask students generally what their
position was. Table by table, have
students share evidence that they
thought was relevant and have them
share the warrant and their conclusion
Day 2
20 min Nutshell Dollhouse Have students complete another
murderscapes exercise like that of Scenario 2 from the
day previously. This time, use a few
photos of the Nutshell Dollhouse
murderscapes as the story and from
which students will draw their
evidence.
10 min Large group share Ask students generally what their
position was. Table by table, have
students share evidence that they
thought was relevant and have them
share the warrant and their conclusion.
This one might be a bit more
ambiguous. That’s alright.
30 min SAT Practice 22 questions of SAT Language and
Grammar practice. 20 minutes for
students and 10 minutes to go over
answers
Transcript of Recorded Student talk
Siera: I don’t think a hundred and 10 pound person could easily bash someone’s head in
Commented [6]: I kind of wish I hadn't done this
activity. Because I had so underestimated the amount
of time the first Slip and Trip scenario would take, this
spilled into day 2, I kind of wish I had students look at
the Nutshell dollhouses instead. At the same time, I
think those might be a bit tough and ambiguous for
students to complete the activity.
Commented [7]: I think this part was a good idea. By
making sure each student was recording the warrant, I
could make sure that students understood how the
warrant operated when dropping in on tables to hear
their discussions by looking at their sheets in front of
them.
Commented [8]: I wish I had addressed the fact that
yes, tables would have some of the same evidence but
that doesn't mean that each table shouldn't address the
evidence that was relevant to their conclusion. Simply
because we've already heard it did not mean that the
evidence was not vital to their conclusion. I think this
part was educational in the "proactive teacher" sense.
Looking forward to how students might interpret their
role in group sharing after others have shared similar
ideas was something I realized I need to think about.
Commented [9]: This part ended up being cut
because scenario two spilled into day 2
Commented [10]: This part ended up being cut
because scenario two spilled into day 2
Emma: Well I don’t think she bashed his head in I think she just like, if he was already
drunk she could have just pushed him down the stairs and then he toppled over and
then fell and hit his head at the bottom
Anya: I don’t know why but I feel like they want us to make her kill him because it’s just
like the perfect crime but I don’t think she did that she did it. If he were really that drunk,
he could have fallen.
E: is it saying that she walked--in the middle of the second paragraph, is it saying that
she walked in without all of her friends and then she walked back out to tell them?
S: No, she--they were like ok we’ll go to my house and she got there ten minutes before
they did and then when they got there she’s like oh my god he fell down the stairs and
he’s dead. So like, I feel like there’s enough evidence to say she is or isn’t guilty
E: So we don’t think she’s guilty
S:I don’t think she’s, because they got into a fight yes but one fight is all we know about.
E: but they were both drunk and they were arguing
A: I saw this once on Law and Order…(joking)
E: oh my goodness. I watch Bones
A: Criminal minds
S: with my forensics science knowledge, I think she’s innocent.
A: Yeah, I don't’ know exactly why--
E: Ok, why are they cooking some food behind him? She’s been home for ten minutes
A: I think it was the perfect way to frame her but I don’t think it was her
Sy: I mean she could have tripped him but at the same time he was already drunk so it
wouldn’t be weird if he just fell down the stairs and died because he was stupid. Either
way makes sense
A: if she was really that upset over the argument they had i feel like she wouldn’t have
like gone to hang out with her friends
S: Yeah like if she went to go hang out with her friends, that would have calmed her
down
E: yeah that's true, for her to come back having calm down
S: she be like (indistinguishable) not to commit murder
A: ok
E: Do we have to start filling out this chart now?
A: I think she said we do it together..?
S: yeah
E: ok so we’re just like deciding

Teacher: So your evidence could be from the cartoon, it could also be from the short
passage that you’ve just read
E: So it could be from the cartoon
A: why is she making food in the background
S: I mean it could have been stuff for her friends
E: It could , It could--they said they were just getting drinks but it could have been her
husband’s drunk cooking but I feel like there’s no way to fall down the stairs like that.
A: maybe he was at the top and he was drunk and wobbly and just blacked out and
smack
S: All you gotta do is miss one step and goodbye everything because that’s a long way
down.
E: I mean, I do that when I’m not drunk so,
A: Maybe he’s clumsy

E: I mean he’s still holding onto the glass. But even if she pushed him, he could have still
been holding onto the glass
S: but if she pushed him, he might have… i don’t know
E; he would have reacted if he was drunk too
A: i think if he was pushed he would have grabbed something
E: oh that’s true.
S: yeah! He would have turned or done something. Even if he were so drunk that he fell
on his own, he probably wouldn't’ reacted as fast as someone being pushed
A: cause i feel like if you think about it, if you’re being pushed you’re not going to be like
“oh my god I gotta hold my beer”
S: yeah like “one more drink before I die, let’s go!” I feel like you’d react more to being
pushed than you would to just tripping
E: yeah
S: queenie had a tiff or fight with her husband. The warrant is “motivation”
E: And then after that are you talking about how she went to the bar?
S: yeah to like hang out with friends and that would calm her down
E: and then what are you saying after that? I mean, first we should talk about how he
was also drunk too
A: oh yeah
S: I feel like the last two boxes should be he was drunk and the last one is he has a
wound on his head
E; yeah that’s true
A: I don’t know what the third one would be

Image of Evidence collected, conclusion drawn, and warrant connecting them: