D1.2.9-12: Where Experts Agree and Disagree on a Compelling Question
In plain English: D1.2.9-12 is the C3 Framework inquiry indicator for grades 9-12 that asks students to explain points of agreement and disagreement experts have about interpretations and applications of the concepts behind a compelling question. Students map where historians share ground and where they split, for example on whether a collapse was inevitable.
Explain points of agreement and disagreement experts have about interpretations and applications of disciplinary concepts and ideas associated with a compelling question.
C3 Framework for Social Studies (NCSS) · Dimension 1: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries · Constructing Compelling Questions · Official standard
Experts rarely agree on everything or disagree on everything. D1.2.9-12 asks students to explain both points of agreement and points of disagreement that experts have about the concepts behind a compelling question, and to do so for two kinds of claims: interpretations (how an expert explains what happened and why) and applications (how an expert uses that explanation, for example to judge another time or to decide how an inquiry should be framed).
The topic is a vehicle for the skill. The compelling question is Was the fall of Rome in the West bound to happen? Students read two of the most influential historians of the subject: Edward Gibbon, whose Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is an eighteenth-century classic, and J. B. Bury, who answered explanations like Gibbon's in 1923. The two share more ground than students expect, and they split sharply on the central concept of historical causation: was the collapse an inevitable effect of general causes, or the result of a chain of contingent events? Students build an agreement map, test an invented student's notes against it, and apply both ways of thinking to a new case.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Identify points of agreement and points of disagreement between two experts on the same compelling question, with evidence from each
Classify expert claims as interpretations or applications, and explain how a shared interpretation can still lead to different applications
Explain the disagreement between general causes and contingency in historical explanation, and why it matters for the compelling question
Evaluate a summary of expert views, correcting claims that overstate agreement, invent disagreement or misattribute a view
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Explaining how a question reflects an enduring issue in the field D1.1.9-12
Evaluating authors' differing points of view by assessing their claims, reasoning and evidence RH.11-12.6
Basic background on the Roman Empire: its division into eastern and western halves, and the city of Constantinople in the east
"A favorite team goes from champion to last place in three seasons. One fan says, 'It was bound to happen: they got old and paid too much for stars.' Another says, 'It was bad luck: two injuries and a coach who quit.' Where might the two fans agree? Where do they really disagree?"
Students list one point each fan would accept (for example, the team did get worse) and one point that divides them. Name the divide: general causes (long-term conditions that make an outcome likely) against contingency (events that did not have to happen and could have gone differently). Tell students that two famous historians of Rome split along the same line.
Direct Instruction25 minutes
Part 1: Four boxes. Show Diagram 1. Any expert claim on a compelling question can be placed in one of four boxes: agreement or disagreement, about an interpretation or about an application. A complete answer to D1.2.9-12 fills all four boxes with evidence. Two cautions: silence is not disagreement (if one expert does not discuss a point, say so), and agreement on a fact can hide disagreement about what the fact means.
Part 2: The experts. Gibbon was an eighteenth-century English historian; Source 1 and Source 2 come from the "General Observations" that close his account of the western empire. Bury wrote his History of the Later Roman Empire in 1923, more than a century later, as a specialist on the empire's last centuries. Source 3 shows Bury reviewing other historians' explanations, including Gibbon's "principle of decay"; Source 4 gives Bury's own answer. Vocabulary: immoderate (excessive), contingency (an event that might not have happened), depopulation (a fall in population), federate (a people allied to Rome by treaty), irruption (a sudden invasion).
1The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigor of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.
2The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the translation of the seat of empire; but this History has already shown, that the powers of government were divided, rather than removed. The throne of Constantinople was erected in the East; while the West was still possessed by a series of emperors who held their residence in Italy, and claimed their equal inheritance of the legions and provinces. This dangerous novelty impaired the strength, and fomented the vices, of a double reign: the instruments of an oppressive and arbitrary system were multiplied; and a vain emulation of luxury, not of merit, was introduced and supported between the degenerate successors of Theodosius. Extreme distress, which unites the virtue of a free people, imbitters the factions of a declining monarchy. The hostile favorites of Arcadius and Honorius betrayed the republic to its common enemies; and the Byzantine court beheld with indifference, perhaps with pleasure, the disgrace of Rome, the misfortunes of Italy, and the loss of the West. Under the succeeding reigns, the alliance of the two empires was restored; but the aid of the Oriental Romans was tardy, doubtful, and ineffectual; and the national schism of the Greeks and Latins was enlarged by the perpetual difference of language and manners, of interests, and even of religion. Yet the salutary event approved in some measure the judgment of Constantine. During a long period of decay, his impregnable city repelled the victorious armies of Barbarians, protected the wealth of Asia, and commanded, both in peace and war, the important straits which connect the Euxine and Mediterranean Seas. The foundation of Constantinople more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East, than to the ruin of the West.
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XXXVIII, "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West" (Source 1: Gibbon on why Rome fell) (1781; this edition 1845). Public domain (published 1845). Source text.
1This awful revolution may be usefully applied to the instruction of the present age. It is the duty of a patriot to prefer and promote the exclusive interest and glory of his native country: but a philosopher may be permitted to enlarge his views, and to consider Europe as one great republic whose various inhabitants have obtained almost the same level of politeness and cultivation. The balance of power will continue to fluctuate, and the prosperity of our own, or the neighboring kingdoms, may be alternately exalted or depressed; but these partial events cannot essentially injure our general state of happiness, the system of arts, and laws, and manners, which so advantageously distinguish, above the rest of mankind, the Europeans and their colonies. The savage nations of the globe are the common enemies of civilized society; and we may inquire, with anxious curiosity, whether Europe is still threatened with a repetition of those calamities, which formerly oppressed the arms and institutions of Rome. Perhaps the same reflections will illustrate the fall of that mighty empire, and explain the probable causes of our actual security.
2I. The Romans were ignorant of the extent of their danger, and the number of their enemies. Beyond the Rhine and Danube, the Northern countries of Europe and Asia were filled with innumerable tribes of hunters and shepherds, poor, voracious, and turbulent; bold in arms, and impatient to ravish the fruits of industry. The Barbarian world was agitated by the rapid impulse of war; and the peace of Gaul or Italy was shaken by the distant revolutions of China. The Huns, who fled before a victorious enemy, directed their march towards the West; and the torrent was swelled by the gradual accession of captives and allies. The flying tribes who yielded to the Huns assumed in their turn the spirit of conquest; the endless column of Barbarians pressed on the Roman empire with accumulated weight; and, if the foremost were destroyed, the vacant space was instantly replenished by new assailants. Such formidable emigrations can no longer issue from the North; and the long repose, which has been imputed to the decrease of population, is the happy consequence of the progress of arts and agriculture. [...]
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, "General Observations" (Source 2: Gibbon applies the lesson to the Europe of his day) (1781; this edition 1845). Public domain (published 1845). Source text.
1The explanations of the calamities of the Empire which have been hazarded by modern writers are of a different order from those which occurred to witnesses of the events, but they are not much more satisfying. The illustrious historian whose name will always be associated with the "Decline" of the Roman Empire invoked "the principle of decay," a principle which has itself to be explained. Depopulation, the Christian religion, the fiscal system have all been assigned as causes of the Empire's decline in strength. If these or any of them were responsible for its dismemberment by the barbarians in the West, it may be asked how it was that in the East, where the same causes operated, the Empire survived much longer intact and united.
2Consider depopulation. The depopulation of Italy was an important fact and it had far-reaching consequences. But it was a process which had probably reached its limit in the time of Augustus. There is no evidence that the Empire was less populous in the fourth and fifth centuries than in the first. The "sterility of the human harvest" in Italy and Greece affected the history of the Empire from its very beginning, but does not explain the collapse in the fifth century. The truth is that there are two distinct questions which have been confused. It is one thing to seek the causes which changed the Roman State from what it was in the best days of the Republic to what it had become in the age of Theodosius the Great — a change which from certain points of view may be called a "decline." It is quite another thing to ask why the State which could resist its enemies on many frontiers in the days of Diocletian and Constantine and Julian suddenly gave way in the days of Honorius. "Depopulation" may partly supply the answer to the first question, but it is not an answer to the second. Nor can the events which transferred the greater part of western Europe to German masters be accounted for by the numbers of the peoples who invaded it. The notion of vast hosts of warriors, numbered by the hundreds of thousands, pouring over the frontiers, is, as we saw, perfectly untrue. The total number of one of the large East German nations probably seldom exceeded 100,000, and its army of fighting men can rarely have been more than from 20,000 to 30,000. They were not a deluge, overwhelming and irresistible, and the Empire had a well-organised military establishment at the end of the fourth century, fully sufficient in capable hands to beat them back. As a matter of fact, since the defeat at Hadrianople which was due to the blunders of Valens, no very important battle was won by German over Imperial forces during the whole course of the invasions.
J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, chapter IX, section 7, "Modern Views on the Collapse of the Empire" (Source 3: Bury on other historians' explanations) (1923). Public domain (published 1923). Source text.
1The truth is that the success of the barbarians in penetrating and founding states in the western provinces cannot be explained by any general considerations. It is accounted for by the actual events and would be clearer if the story were known more fully. The gradual collapse of the Roman power in this section of the Empire was the consequence of a series of contingent events. No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable.
2The first contingency was the irruption of the Huns into Europe, an event resulting from causes which were quite independent of the weakness or strength of the Roman Empire. It drove the Visigoths into the Illyrian provinces, and the difficult situation was unhappily mismanaged. One Emperor was defeated and lost his life; it was his own fault. That disaster, which need not have occurred, was a second contingency. His successor allowed a whole federate nation to settle on provincial soil; he took the line of least resistance and established an unfortunate precedent. He did not foresee consequences which, if he had lived ten or twenty years longer, might not have ensued. His death was a third contingency. But the situation need have given no reason for grave alarm if the succession had passed to an Emperor like himself, or Valentinian I., or even Gratian. Such a man was not procreated by Theodosius and the government of the West was inherited by a feeble-minded boy. That was a fourth event, dependent on causes which had nothing to do with the condition of the Empire.
[...]
3The supremacy of a Stilicho was due to the fact that the defence of the Empire had come to depend on the enrolment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and that it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms. It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence. The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline.' " The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above.
J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, chapter IX, section 7 (Source 4: Bury's own answer) (1923). Public domain (published 1923). Source text.
Part 3: Model the move. Work through the four examples, one per box of Diagram 1, before students build their own map.
Disagreement on an interpretation: inevitable or contingent? (Source 1, paragraph 1; Source 4, paragraph 1)
Did the western empire have to fall?
Result: Gibbon: "the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" (Source 1, paragraph 1). Bury: "No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable" (Source 4, paragraph 1). This is a direct split on the concept of causation, the heart of the compelling question.
Agreement on a fact, disagreement on its meaning (Source 1, paragraph 2; Source 3, paragraph 1)
What do the two historians make of the eastern empire's survival?
Result: Both note it. Gibbon says Constantinople "more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East, than to the ruin of the West" (Source 1, paragraph 2). Bury asks how, "in the East, where the same causes operated, the Empire survived much longer intact and united" (Source 3, paragraph 1). They agree the East lasted; Bury uses that fact as an argument against general causes, while Gibbon credits the eastern capital.
Agreement on an interpretation: a weakened army (Source 1, paragraph 1; Source 4, paragraph 3)
Do the historians agree on any weakness inside the empire?
Result: Yes. Gibbon says that "the vigor of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved" (Source 1, paragraph 1). Bury says that "the defence of the Empire had come to depend on the enrolment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army," which he calls "a consequence of the decline in military spirit" (Source 4, paragraph 3). Both see an army that had lost its old strength, though they describe the weakness in different terms. They share this point and differ on whether it made the fall certain: Bury calls it "a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal."
Disagreement on an application: what lesson can be drawn? (Source 2, paragraph 1; Source 3, paragraph 2)
How does each historian use his explanation?
Result: Gibbon applies his account to his own time: "This awful revolution may be usefully applied to the instruction of the present age" (Source 2, paragraph 1). Bury applies his view to the way historians frame the inquiry itself: "there are two distinct questions which have been confused" (Source 3, paragraph 2), the long change and the sudden collapse. One draws a lesson for the present; the other warns against answering two questions with one cause.
Guided Practice15 minutes
Pairs place three more rows on their agreement map. For each row they quote each historian or write "not discussed," then label it agreement, disagreement or one historian only, and interpretation or application.
Row A: Was depopulation the cause of the collapse in the West?
Row B: Did dividing the government between two emperors weaken the West?
Row C: Did the West have to fall when it did, or could it have lasted longer?
Teacher model for Row A: Bury: depopulation "does not explain the collapse in the fifth century" (Source 3, paragraph 2). Gibbon: not discussed in these passages. Label: one historian only, interpretation. Students should not call this a disagreement, because Gibbon is silent here.
Answer key for Rows B and C: Row B: Gibbon calls the division a "dangerous novelty" that "impaired the strength, and fomented the vices, of a double reign" (Source 1, paragraph 2); Bury does not discuss the division in these passages. One historian only, interpretation. Row C: Gibbon says "we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long" (Source 1, paragraph 1); Bury says a German takeover "might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence" (Source 4, paragraph 3). Disagreement, interpretation: Gibbon thinks the empire outlived the odds, Bury that its timing was a matter of chance.
Independent Practice15-20 minutes
Each student writes a 200-250 word state of the debate paragraph on the compelling question, as an introduction to a research paper. It must include one point of agreement and one point of disagreement, at least one interpretation and one application, and a quotation from each historian. The paragraph must not take a side; its job is to map the debate fairly so that a reader understands what is settled and what is still argued.
Partners check: (1) Is every "agree" backed by both historians? (2) Is every "disagree" a real split, not one historian's silence? (3) Is each claim labeled correctly as interpretation or application? (4) Would Gibbon and Bury each accept the summary of their own view?
Closure10 minutes
Exit ticket: In two sentences: "One thing Gibbon and Bury both accept is ___. The point that most divides them is ___, which matters for the compelling question because ___."
Teacher note on the sources: Sources 1-4 are quoted exactly. Gibbon writes "Barbarians" and, in Source 2, ranks Europeans "above the rest of mankind" and calls other peoples "savage nations." This is dated and offensive language that reflects the eighteenth-century European outlook he shared; it is kept so students can see that perspective, and it is worth naming as part of judging him as an expert. Bury speaks of "German nations" and "Germans" for the peoples who settled in the West. Both historians also discussed whether Christianity weakened the empire; those passages are left out, and religion appears only once, in Source 3, paragraph 1. Keep the inquiry on ancient Rome: the lesson does not ask students to compare Rome with any modern country or government.
Quiz passage. Questions 7-12 of the quiz use Source 5, an invented student's notes. It is a deliberately mixed sample: some notes are accurate and some are not.
1Marcus, an invented twelfth grader, made these notes on Sources 1-4. His teacher asked the class to check each note before he used it in an essay.
21. Gibbon and Bury both say the Huns' movement west set off the trouble on Rome's frontiers. 2. Gibbon and Bury agree that the invaders came in overwhelming numbers. 3. Gibbon blames the emperors themselves for weakening the army's discipline. 4. Gibbon says the empire's decay began only in its last few years. 5. Bury says the emperor who let a federate nation settle inside the empire foresaw the consequences. 6. Gibbon thinks the Europe of his day was safer partly because of the progress of arts and agriculture.
SVHS (invented scenario written for this page), Marcus's Notes (Source 5: an invented student's notes for the quiz). Original passage written for this page.
Homework passage. The homework uses Source 6, an invented club that grew and then collapsed.
1The Northfield Robotics Club is an invented high school club. It began with 10 members. Over three years it grew to about 200 members, with four teams, a large budget from fundraising, and a waiting list.
2In the fourth year the club collapsed. Its founder and president graduated and moved away. Two teams quarreled over the budget and left to start a rival club. A week before the regional contest, the club's only coach took a new job in another city. By the end of the year, 15 members were left.
3Two students wrote short explanations for the school paper. One wrote: "The club grew too big too fast. Its fall was the natural result of its own success." The other wrote: "The club could have survived. It fell because of a chain of bad luck: the president leaving, the quarrel, and the coach leaving, all in one year."
SVHS (invented scenario written for this page), The Northfield Robotics Club (Source 6: an invented scenario for the homework). Original passage written for this page.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give a version of Diagram 1 with the quotations from the worked examples already placed, so students start by labeling rather than finding
Provide frames: "Both ___ and ___ say ___." "___ says ___, but ___ says ___." "Only ___ discusses ___."
Read Source 4 aloud and stop after each contingency to number it on the board (first, second, third, fourth)
For Advanced Students
Find the phrase in Source 4, paragraph 3, that Bury puts in quotation marks, and explain whose kind of argument he is answering
Write one compelling question that a historian who agreed with Gibbon and one who agreed with Bury could both research fairly
Explain how the Latin phrase Bury quotes at the end of Source 4 connects his view to Gibbon's point about the army
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Strong work fills all four boxes (agreement and disagreement, interpretation and application) with quotations from both historians, distinguishes silence from disagreement, and notices when a shared fact carries different meanings. Watch for four errors: calling a one-historian point a disagreement; overstating agreement; confusing an interpretation with an application; and summarizing a historian's view in words he would reject.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Interview the Historians
15 minPairs
One partner answers as Gibbon, the other as Bury, using only quotations from their own sources (Sources 1-2 for Gibbon, Sources 3-4 for Bury). The interviewer reads five questions; each answer must quote the source. After each answer the pair marks the exchange on a tally sheet: agreement or disagreement, interpretation or application.
The Five Interview Questions
Did the western empire have to fall?
Why did the eastern empire last longer?
Was there a weakness inside the Roman army?
What should readers of your history learn from it?
What would you say to the other historian?
Answer Key for the Teacher
Questions 1-4 match the four worked examples in Direct Instruction; accept the quotations used there or others from the same sources that make the same point.
Question 5 has no single answer. A strong "Bury" answer points to Source 4, paragraph 1: "No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable." A strong "Gibbon" answer points to Source 1, paragraph 1, where he says the story "is simple and obvious."
2
Two Lenses on New Cases
15-20 minGroups of 3
Groups apply both historians' ways of thinking to three invented cases from other fields. For each case they write a "general causes" explanation in Gibbon's style and a "contingency" explanation in Bury's style, then name one piece of evidence that would help decide between them. This is practice in application: using an expert's concept to explain something new.
The Three Invented Cases
Economics: a small-town newspaper closes after 80 years, in the same year its owner retires and a new highway moves shoppers to a mall outside town.
Geography: a canal company goes bankrupt five years after a railroad opens along the same valley, and in the same spring a flood breaks two of its locks.
Civics: a student council stops meeting after it grows from 8 members to 40, and after its adviser leaves mid-year.
All three cases are invented for this activity.
Sample Responses for the Teacher
Case 1, general causes: shoppers were moving to bigger stores, so the paper's advertisers were bound to leave. Contingency: the retirement and the highway came in one year; with a new owner the paper might have adapted. Evidence: the paper's advertising income over the previous ten years.
Case 2, general causes: railroads were faster, so the canal was doomed. Contingency: without the flood the canal might have kept its cheap bulk freight. Evidence: the canal's freight and income before the flood.
Case 3, general causes: a council of 40 is too large to decide anything. Contingency: a new adviser could have reorganized it. Evidence: what happened in other councils that grew as large.
These are samples. Accept any pair of explanations that uses each concept correctly and names evidence that could tell them apart.
3
Fishbowl: Is "Inevitable" Fair?
15 minWhole class: inner and outer circles
Four students in an inner circle discuss the compelling question for eight minutes, using only Sources 1-4. Students in the outer circle keep a tally of every claim they hear: agreement or disagreement, interpretation or application, and which source it comes from. Then the circles switch.
Procedure
Each inner-circle speaker must quote a source at least once
A speaker who says "the historians disagree" must name both historians' positions
Outer-circle observers mark any claim that treats one historian's silence as disagreement
Debrief: which box of Diagram 1 had the most claims, and which had the fewest?
What to Listen For
The discussion succeeds when students describe the debate fairly, not when one side wins. Listen for students who separate the two questions Bury distinguishes, the long change and the sudden collapse, and who notice that agreeing on a fact (such as the East's survival) can still leave room for disagreement about what it means.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
1 diagrams
Diagram 1: The Agreement Map
Each box holds one kind of claim: agreement or disagreement (columns) about an interpretation or an application (rows). The entries are the four worked examples from Direct Instruction. Students add their own rows from Guided Practice and the quiz.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
D1.2.9-12 Homework: Two Explanations of a Collapse
Directions: Use Source 6 (the invented robotics club, printed in the Closure section) and Sources 1-4. Quote exactly and give the source and paragraph for every quotation. You are scored on how fairly and accurately you map agreement and disagreement, not on which explanation you prefer.
Part 1: Two Explanations of the Club (Problems 1-3)
Which student explanation in Source 6 follows Gibbon's way of thinking, and which follows Bury's? Quote the words in Source 6 that show each, and match each to a phrase from Source 1 or Source 4.
Name one point the two student writers in Source 6 agree on and one point on which they disagree. Label each as being about an interpretation or an application, and explain the label.
Name two pieces of evidence that would help decide between the two explanations of the club, and say which explanation each piece could support.
Part 2: Back to Rome (Problems 4-6)
Write a compelling question about the fall of Rome in the West that a follower of Gibbon and a follower of Bury could both research fairly. Add two supporting questions.
Choose one claim from Source 3 or Source 4 that is not in the worked examples. Explain whether Gibbon, in Sources 1-2, agrees, disagrees or is silent, and quote the evidence.
Write a state of the debate paragraph of 150-200 words on the compelling question. Fill at least three of the four boxes of Diagram 1, with a quotation for each, and do not take a side.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Agreement
States a real shared point, backed by both experts
States a point backed by one expert only
Missing or invented
Disagreement
States a real split and both positions, with evidence
Treats silence as disagreement, or gives one side only
Missing
Interpretation and application
Labels claims correctly and explains the labels
Labels without explanation, or one error
Missing or confused
Fairness
Each historian would accept the summary of his view
One view slightly distorted
A view misstated or caricatured
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
Questions 1-6 use Sources 1-4 (in the Direct Instruction section). Questions 7-12 use Source 5, an invented student's notes (in the Closure section). Questions 13-20 may use any source on the page. For each multiple-choice question, choose the best answer. For short-answer questions, write three to five sentences.
Multiple choice: pick an option to check it. Short answer: write your answer, then reveal the model answer.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which pair of quotations shows a disagreement about an interpretation?
Answer: A
A sets a slow, built-in decay against a chain of chance events, two opposed explanations of why the West fell. B is a point of agreement about the army. C is a disagreement, but about applications, not interpretation. D pairs two observations about the East that do not conflict.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which statement is an application rather than an interpretation?
Answer: C
C takes an explanation of Rome and uses it to judge other states, which is an application. A, B and D each explain what happened to Rome and why, which are interpretations.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Bury writes that "Depopulation, the Christian religion, the fiscal system have all been assigned as causes of the Empire's decline in strength" (Source 3, paragraph 1). What is he doing in this sentence?
Answer: D
"Have all been assigned" reports what others have argued; the next paragraphs test those causes, starting with depopulation. A misreads a report as agreement. B is Gibbon's move in Source 2, not Bury's. C is wrong because Bury gives his own explanation later, in Source 4.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Source 4, paragraph 3, Bury puts the words "inevitable effect" inside quotation marks. Why?
Answer: A
Gibbon called the decline "the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" (Source 1, paragraph 1). Bury quotes such wording in order to deny it: the loss of the provinces "was not" such an effect. B and D misidentify the quotation, and C reverses Bury's meaning.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why does the disagreement about contingency matter most for the compelling question "Was the fall of Rome in the West bound to happen?"
Answer: B
The compelling question asks exactly the point on which Gibbon ("inevitable") and Bury ("contingent events") split. A invents a disagreement neither source raises. C is false: Bury quotes Gibbon's "principle of decay" (Source 3, paragraph 1). D misdefines contingency, which concerns whether events had to happen, not whether they did.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which supporting question would best help decide between Gibbon's and Bury's interpretations?
Answer: C
If other very large empires survived the same kinds of pressure, that weakens the claim that great size made a fall inevitable; if they did not, it supports it. A, B and D are facts about the books or the language, not evidence about causes.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which note in Source 5 reports a real point of agreement between the two historians?
Answer: A
Gibbon says the Huns "directed their march towards the West" (Source 2, paragraph 2), and Bury calls "the irruption of the Huns into Europe" the "first contingency" (Source 4, paragraph 2). Note 2 claims an agreement that does not exist, and Note 4 misstates Gibbon, so B, C and D are wrong.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which note in Source 5 turns a disagreement into a false agreement?
Answer: D
Gibbon writes that "the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians" (Source 1, paragraph 1), but Bury answers that "They were not a deluge, overwhelming and irresistible" (Source 3, paragraph 2). On the size of the invasions they disagree. Notes 1 and 3 are accurate, so A, B and C are wrong.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which note in Source 5 is accurate but reports a point made by only one historian?
Answer: A
Gibbon says "The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline" (Source 1, paragraph 1); Bury does not discuss this in Sources 3-4. Note 1 is shared by both historians, and Note 5 is inaccurate, so B, C and D are wrong.
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which note in Source 5 describes an application rather than an interpretation?
Answer: C
In Note 6, Gibbon uses his explanation of Rome to judge the safety of the Europe of his own day, saying its "long repose" is "the happy consequence of the progress of arts and agriculture" (Source 2, paragraph 2). Notes 1 and 2 are about what happened to Rome, which makes them interpretations.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which note in Source 5 does Source 4 contradict?
Answer: B
Bury says the emperor who let a federate nation settle "did not foresee consequences" (Source 4, paragraph 2), so Note 5 reverses him. Notes 3 and 6 are about Gibbon, and Source 4 does not address them.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Note 4 in Source 5 says Gibbon thought the decay began only in the empire's last few years. Which correction is accurate?
Answer: D
Gibbon writes, "Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest" (Source 1, paragraph 1), a slow process. A is the view Gibbon rejects in paragraph 2 ("divided, rather than removed"). B describes a contingency, Bury's kind of explanation. C narrows a long process to its final years, the very error Note 4 makes.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
A research paper begins: "Historians agree that Rome fell because it grew too big." What is the best critique?
Answer: B
The claim is Gibbon's ("immoderate greatness"), and Bury explicitly denies that general causes made the fall inevitable. A overstates agreement. C confuses a rejection with silence. D misses the real problem, which is a misreported debate.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which question would let a researcher study the debate without taking a side in advance?
Answer: C
C keeps both explanations open and asks how to weigh them. A and B assume the answer. D is loaded: it assumes a single cause and blames it in advance.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Choose one point of agreement between Gibbon and Bury that is not one of the worked examples, and explain how they still differ on what it means. Quote both.
Model answer: Both put the Huns at the start of the crisis. Gibbon describes the Huns who "directed their march towards the West" as part of an "endless column of Barbarians" pressing on the empire (Source 2, paragraph 2), a lasting pressure. Bury calls their arrival "an event resulting from causes which were quite independent of the weakness or strength of the Roman Empire" (Source 4, paragraph 2), a contingency. They agree on the event and disagree on whether it shows a general cause or a chance one. Rubric: full credit for a shared point, a quotation from each historian and a clear difference in meaning; partial credit for the shared point without the difference.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Write two sentences that summarize the debate fairly: one stating a point of agreement and one a point of disagreement, each with a short quotation from both historians.
Model answer: Gibbon and Bury agree that a weakened army hurt the West: Gibbon says "the vigor of the military government was relaxed," and Bury traces the army's dependence on barbarian recruits to "the decline in military spirit." They disagree on whether the fall had to happen: Gibbon calls it "the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness," while Bury writes that "No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable." Rubric: full credit for one accurate agreement and one accurate disagreement, each quoting both historians; partial credit for one of the two.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Gibbon applies his account to "the instruction of the present age." Explain what he concludes about the Europe of his day in Source 2, and what view of causes his conclusion depends on.
Model answer: Gibbon concludes that Europe is safe from a repeat of Rome's fate, because "Such formidable emigrations can no longer issue from the North" and its "long repose" comes from "the progress of arts and agriculture" (Source 2, paragraph 2). The conclusion depends on a view that large, general conditions decide such outcomes: if the conditions are gone, so is the danger. Bury's view, that collapse came from "a series of contingent events," would make that kind of forecast much less certain. Rubric: full credit for Gibbon's conclusion with a quotation and the underlying view of causes; partial credit for the conclusion alone.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Explain why silence is not disagreement, using Row A or Row B from the Guided Practice as your example.
Model answer: A disagreement needs both experts to take positions that conflict. In Row A, Bury says depopulation "does not explain the collapse in the fifth century" (Source 3, paragraph 2), but Gibbon does not discuss depopulation in Sources 1-2. We cannot say Gibbon disagrees; we can only say the point is Bury's, and we would need more of Gibbon's work to know his view. Rubric: full credit for the definition plus a correct example; partial credit for the definition without the example.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
In Source 2, Gibbon calls peoples outside Europe "savage nations." How should a researcher handle an expert's dated or offensive views when weighing his interpretations?
Model answer: The researcher should name the view plainly as part of the expert's perspective, ask whether it shapes his interpretation (for example, Gibbon's confidence that Europe stood "above the rest of mankind" may color his lesson for "the present age"), and test his factual claims against other evidence, as Bury does. An expert can be valuable on some questions and unreliable on others. Rubric: full credit for naming the bias, linking it to the interpretation and describing a way to test claims; partial credit for naming the bias only.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
A classmate writes: "Gibbon and Bury both have good points about Rome." This is a weak summary. Explain why, and rewrite it as a specific statement of agreement and disagreement.
Model answer: It is weak because it names no point, no evidence and no disagreement, so a reader learns nothing about the debate. Rewrite: "Gibbon and Bury agree that the eastern empire outlasted the western one, but they disagree about why that matters: Gibbon credits Constantinople, while Bury uses the East's survival to argue that no general cause made the West's fall inevitable (Source 1, paragraph 2; Source 3, paragraph 1)." Rubric: full credit for a clear diagnosis and a specific, cited rewrite with both agreement and disagreement; partial credit for a rewrite with only one.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does D1.2.9-12 mean?
D1.2.9-12 asks high school students to explain where experts agree and where they disagree about the concepts behind a compelling question, both in how they interpret events and in how they apply those interpretations. A full answer maps all four combinations with evidence from each expert.
How is D1.2.9-12 different from D1.2.6-8?
The grades 6-8 indicator, D1.2.6-8, asks only for points of agreement. D1.2.9-12 adds points of disagreement, so students must show where experts split as well as where they share ground, and must not mistake one expert's silence for disagreement.
What is the difference between an interpretation and an application?
An interpretation explains what happened and why, such as "the West fell because of a chain of chance events." An application uses that explanation for something else: judging another time, forecasting, or deciding how an inquiry should be framed. Gibbon applying Rome's fall to "the instruction of the present age" is an application.
Why use Gibbon and Bury for D1.2.9-12?
The topic is a vehicle for the skill. Gibbon and Bury are classic historians of the subject whose texts are in the public domain, and Bury answers explanations like Gibbon's directly, so a short source set shows real agreement (the army, the East's survival) and a sharp disagreement (inevitable effect or contingent events).
What do historians mean by contingency?
A contingency is an event that did not have to happen and could have gone differently. Bury argues that the West fell through "a series of contingent events," such as the arrival of the Huns, rather than through general causes that made the fall certain.
Does the lesson say which historian is right?
No. Students map the debate fairly and the rubrics score accuracy and fairness, not a preferred answer. The compelling question, "Was the fall of Rome in the West bound to happen?", is left open for students to argue with evidence.
How does the lesson handle Gibbon's offensive language?
Gibbon's words are quoted exactly, including "savage nations," and a teacher note names this as dated and offensive language. Question 19 asks students how a researcher should weigh an expert's biased views when judging his interpretations.
What mistakes do students make when mapping expert debates?
Common ones are calling one expert's silence a disagreement, overstating agreement, confusing interpretations with applications, and summarizing an expert in words he would reject. The invented student notes in Source 5 contain several of these errors for students to correct.
Can D1.2.9-12 be taught in an economics or civics class?
Yes. Every field has expert debates with the same four boxes, for example economists who agree on a fact about prices but disagree about its cause. Activity 2 applies the general causes and contingency lenses to invented cases from economics, geography and civics.
What comes next after D1.2.9-12?
D1.3.9-12 asks the same questions about supporting questions, and D1.5.9-12 asks students to choose sources that represent multiple points of view. In history courses, D2.His.14.9-12 develops the analysis of multiple and complex causes.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to D1.2.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
D1.2.6-8Prerequisite
Explain where experts agree on ideas tied to a compelling question
Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.
