D1.3.9-12: Mapping Expert Agreement and Disagreement on a Supporting Question

Overview

Lesson Procedure

70-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15-20 minutes
4. Independent Practice15 minutes
5. Closure10-15 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Two doctors agree that you broke your wrist. One says you need a cast for six weeks; the other says four weeks and then physical therapy. Do they agree or disagree? Be exact about what they agree on."

   Let students argue for two minutes, then sort their answers on the board under two headings: what the injury is and what to do about it. The doctors agree on the first and disagree on the second. That split, between what an idea or fact means and how to act on it, is the core of D1.3.9-12. Tell students that experts in social studies split the same way, and that a careful researcher reports both halves instead of saying "the experts disagree."

2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes

   Part 1: The four boxes. D1.3.9-12 asks students to explain points of agreement and disagreement that experts have about the interpretations and applications of disciplinary concepts tied to a supporting question, one of the narrower questions that help answer a compelling question. That gives four possible boxes:

   • Agreement about interpretation: experts read the concept, or what it explains, the same way.
   • Disagreement about interpretation: experts read it differently, for example by weighing causes differently.
   • Agreement about application: experts use the concept the same way on a case, or draw the same practical conclusion.
   • Disagreement about application: experts share a reading but draw different conclusions about a case or about what to do.

   Two cautions. First, a statement that only one expert makes is not a disagreement unless another expert says something incompatible; it is one expert's point. Second, a disagreement explained well names both positions, the evidence or reasoning behind each, and which box it belongs in.

   Part 2: The case. The topic is a vehicle for the skill. The concept is the division of labour, splitting the making of a product into many small tasks, each done by a different worker. In 1776 Adam Smith explained in The Wealth of Nations why it raises output. In 1832 Charles Babbage, who was building a calculating engine and had visited many workshops and factories in England and Europe (his preface says both), wrote a chapter that quotes Smith and then argues with him. The supporting question is: Why does dividing work among specialists make goods cheaper to produce? Source 1 holds both voices, because Babbage quotes Smith directly in paragraph 5.

   1[...] The various principles on which the advantages of this system depend, have been much the subject of discussion amongst writers on Political Economy; but the relative importance of their influence does not appear, in all cases, to have been estimated with sufficient precision. It is my intention, in the first instance, to state shortly those principles, and then to point out what appears to me to have been omitted by those who have previously treated the subject.

   [...]

   2222. 5. Skill acquired by frequent repetition of the same processes. The constant repetition of the same process necessarily produces in the workman a degree of excellence and rapidity in his particular department, which is never possessed by a person who is obliged to execute many different processes. [...] In nail-making, Adam Smith has stated, that it is almost three to one; for, he observes, that a smith accustomed to make nails, but whose whole business has not been that of a nailer, can make only from eight hundred to a thousand per day; whilst a lad who had never exercised any other trade, can make upwards of two thousand three hundred a day.

   3223. In different trades, the economy of production arising from the last-mentioned cause will necessarily be different. The case of nail-making is, perhaps, rather an extreme one. It must, however, be observed, that, in one sense, this is not a permanent source of advantage; for, though it acts at the commencement of an establishment, yet every month adds to the skill of the workmen; and at the end of three or four years they will not be very far behind those who have never practised any other branch of their art. [...]

   [...]

   4226. Such are the principles usually assigned as the causes of the advantage resulting from the division of labour. As in the view I have taken of the question, the most important and influential cause has been altogether unnoticed, I shall re-state those principles in the words of Adam Smith:

   5"The great increase in the quantity of work, which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances: first, to the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; secondly, to the saving of time, which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; and, lastly, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many."

   6Now, although all these are important causes, and each has its influence on the result; yet it appears to me, that any explanation of the cheapness of manufactured articles, as consequent upon the division of labour, would be incomplete if the following principle were omitted to be stated.

   7That the master manufacturer, by dividing the work to be executed into different processes, each requiring different degrees of skill or of force, can purchase exactly that precise quantity of both which is necessary for each process; whereas, if the whole work were executed by one workman, that person must possess sufficient skill to perform the most difficult, and sufficient strength to execute the most laborious, of the operations into which the art is divided.

   Part 3: Model the analysis. Read paragraphs 4-7 aloud first, then paragraphs 1-3. Think aloud through the examples below, naming the box each time. Note for students that the numbers 222, 223 and 226 inside the passage are Babbage's own section numbers; this page cites its paragraph numbers.

   • Agreement about interpretation (Source 1)

     Does skill gained by repetition help explain the gain from dividing work?

     Result: Yes, for both. Smith (paragraph 5) lists "the increase of dexterity in every particular workman." Babbage (paragraph 2) says repetition "necessarily produces in the workman a degree of excellence and rapidity," and in paragraph 6 he calls Smith's causes "important causes." Box: agreement about interpretation.

   • Disagreement about interpretation (Source 1)

     Is Smith's list of three causes the whole explanation?

     Result: No, says Babbage. In paragraph 4 he writes that "the most important and influential cause has been altogether unnoticed," and paragraph 7 states the principle he thinks Smith missed. Smith's list (paragraph 5) gives three circumstances and stops. Box: disagreement about interpretation, because they explain the same concept with different causes and different weights.

   • Agreement and disagreement about application (Source 1)

     What does the nail-making case show?

     Result: Agreement: Babbage repeats Smith's figures without challenge, a nailer making "upwards of two thousand three hundred a day" against 800 to 1,000 for a general smith (paragraph 2). Disagreement: Babbage adds that "the case of nail-making is, perhaps, rather an extreme one" (paragraph 3), so he doubts the case applies with the same force to other trades. Box: both, on the application of the concept to a case.

   Check the arithmetic with the class: 2,300 nails against 800 is a ratio of about 2.9 to 1, which is Smith's "almost three to one"; against 1,000 it is 2.3 to 1. Ask: "Does Babbage disagree with Smith's numbers, or with what the numbers prove?" The second. Distinguishing a dispute about evidence from a dispute about interpretation is the high school step beyond D1.3.6-8.

3. Guided Practice15-20 minutes

   Now the same skill in civics. The supporting question: Did the proposed Constitution need a bill of rights to protect liberty? Source 2 is Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 84, published in 1788. Source 3 is Thomas Jefferson, writing from Paris to James Madison in December 1787, before No. 84 appeared, so Jefferson is not answering Hamilton; he is answering "Mr. Wilson," another defender of the Constitution whose argument he summarizes. Two founders reach the same question independently. Words to know: a writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring the government to bring a prisoner before a judge and justify holding them; an ex post facto law punishes an act that was legal when it was done; a gratis dictum is an assertion made without proof.

   1It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the Constitution of this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of titles of nobility, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. [...]

   [...]

   2I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights.

   1[...] There are other good things of less moment. I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly & without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land & not by the law of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved, might do for the audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely a gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation which had declared that in express terms. It was a hard conclusion to say because there has been no uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to abandon this mode of trial, therefore the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just & wise to have concluded the other way that as most of the states had judiciously preserved this palladium, those who had wandered should be brought back to it, and to have established general right instead of general wrong. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. [...]

   Pairs fill in a four-box grid like Diagram 1 for Sources 2 and 3, with a quote in every box they fill. Then the class builds one grid together.

   Teacher key.

   • Agreement about interpretation: the writ of habeas corpus is a core protection of liberty. Hamilton, Source 2, paragraph 1: the writ of habeas corpus and the ban on ex post facto laws "are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism" than anything in New York's constitution. Jefferson, Source 3: he wants "the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws" written into a bill of rights. (Jefferson also names jury trial, which Hamilton's excerpt does not mention, so that is not a shared point here.)
   • Disagreement about interpretation: whether the Constitution's grant of limited powers already protects rights. Hamilton, Source 2, paragraph 2, asks "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Jefferson calls the version of that argument he heard "a gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument."
   • Disagreement about interpretation: what a list of rights would do. Hamilton says it "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence" for claiming power. Jefferson sees a list as protection "providing clearly" for each right.
   • Disagreement about application: whether to add a bill of rights at all. Hamilton: such bills "are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Jefferson: a bill of rights is something "no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."

   Discuss: both men want liberty of the press protected; they disagree about the means. Ask students to write that sentence in their own words, because "they disagree about the Bill of Rights" hides the shared goal. Score the reasoning, not the side a student finds more persuasive.

4. Independent Practice15 minutes

   Each student writes one paragraph, six to eight sentences, answering the supporting question from Direct Instruction: "Why does dividing work among specialists make goods cheaper to produce?" The paragraph must report one point of agreement and one point of disagreement between Smith and Babbage, name the box of each, quote both men with paragraph numbers, and end with a sentence saying what the disagreement means for anyone trying to answer the question. Students who finish early add a second disagreement that the examples above did not cover.

5. Closure10-15 minutes

   Exit ticket: "A classmate says, 'Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed about rights.' Rewrite the sentence so it is accurate about what they agreed on and what they disagreed on."

   Teacher note on the sources: Sources 1-3 are quoted exactly from the editions named under each passage, with omissions marked [...]. Source 1 is Babbage's account of Smith, but the Smith passage in it (paragraph 5) is a direct quotation, so students are reading Smith's words, not a summary (Babbage's copy differs from Smith's own text by only a word or two). Hamilton and Jefferson are presented as two founders who studied government closely; neither is a neutral observer, and both arguments were part of a live political fight in 1787-1788. The page takes no side: students should be able to state each argument fairly. Sources 4 and 5 are invented scenarios; their people, places and numbers are not real.

   Quiz passage. Questions 9-17 of the quiz use Source 4, an invented question about why fewer students walk to one high school.

   1The invented city of Fairview has two high schools of about the same age. A school board member asked the compelling question "Should Fairview spend money to help more students walk to school?" and, as a first step, the supporting question "Why do fewer students walk to Westfield High than to Eastfield High?" A district count (invented) found that 144 of Westfield's 1,200 students walk to school, compared with 342 of Eastfield's 900. Three invented experts answered.

   2Dr. Mensah, a geographer: This is distance decay, a pattern geographers see everywhere: the farther people live from a place, the fewer of them walk there. Westfield draws students from newer neighborhoods spread over a wide area, so more of its students live far away. Route 9, the six-lane road south of the school, does not help, but distance is the main cause. The district should add bus routes for students who live more than two miles away.

   3Ms. Lindqvist, a geographer: Distance matters, as it always does. But the district's own count shows something distance cannot explain. Of the 250 Westfield students who live within one mile, only 50 walk. At Eastfield, 220 of the 400 students who live within a mile walk. Westfield's close-in students are cut off by Route 9, which has one crosswalk in two miles. The city should build a pedestrian bridge over Route 9.

   4Mr. Torres, a city transportation planner: Both distance and Route 9 matter, and the count of close-in students tells me the road is the bigger problem at Westfield. I would not start with a bridge, though. A bridge takes years to fund and build. A traffic signal and a crossing guard at the busiest corner could be in place this school year, and the district could count walkers again next fall to see whether it worked.

   Homework passage. The homework uses Source 5, an invented river town that lost half its people.

   1Between 1900 and 1930 the invented river town of Harper's Landing shrank from about 4,000 people to about 2,000, according to the town's invented census records. A class studying the compelling question "Should towns fight to keep their main road running through downtown?" wrote the supporting question "Why did Harper's Landing lose half its people between 1900 and 1930?" Three invented historians answered.

   2Dr. Price: Harper's Landing lived on river trade, and the trade died when the state opened a paved highway in 1924 that ran ten miles east of town. Farmers who had shipped grain from the town's docks began trucking it to the highway towns instead. The population fell fastest after 1924. A town today should think hard before it lets a new road bypass its center.

   3Professor Nakamura: The town did depend on the river, but the decline began well before the highway. The river channel silted up after 1912, and the last regular steamboat stopped calling in 1916. The census already shows about 3,100 people in 1920. The highway finished off a town that the river had already left. A town today should look first at what its businesses depend on, not only at its roads.

   4Mr. Okoye, curator of the county museum: Both are right that the river trade was the town's life. Our museum's letters from residents also describe the flood of 1918, which wrecked the docks; many families left that year and never returned. I would show visitors all three causes, the silt, the flood and the highway, and let them weigh which one mattered most.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, paragraph 3, Babbage says skill from repetition "is not a permanent source of advantage." How does this relate to Smith's first circumstance in paragraph 5?

   AIt rejects Smith's claim that dexterity matters at all BIt repeats Smith's claim in different words CIt accepts the cause but limits how long it lasts DIt applies Smith's claim to a new trade

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   A pin maker pays a skilled worker for the hardest step and lower-paid workers for the simple steps. Which idea in Source 1 does this apply?

   ABabbage's principle of paying for just the skill needed (paragraph 7) BSmith's saving of the time lost in passing between tasks (paragraph 5) CSmith's claim that machines let one man do the work of many (paragraph 5) DBabbage's claim that nail-making is an extreme case (paragraph 3)

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which point about machines do Smith and Babbage share in Source 1?

   AMachines are the most important cause of the gain BMachines were invented mainly by factory owners CMachines raise wages for every kind of worker DMachines are one important cause of the gain

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Two invented judges agree that a city law banning "motor vehicles" on park trails is meant to keep trails quiet and safe. One says the law covers electric scooters; the other says it does not, because scooters are small and quiet. What kind of disagreement is this?

   ADisagreement about interpretation of the law's purpose BDisagreement about application of the law to a case CNo disagreement, since both describe the same law DDisagreement about whether the law was ever passed

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Two invented historians agree that a colony's 1610 harvest failed because of drought, poor planning and conflict with neighbors. One says drought mattered most; the other says poor planning did. Which statement is accurate?

   AThey disagree about the causes they list BThey agree completely, since they list the same causes CThey agree on the causes and disagree on their weight DThey disagree only about what the colony should do

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which explanation of an expert disagreement is strongest?

   A"The experts disagree, so the question cannot be answered by anyone." B"Expert A is right about the cause and Expert B is wrong about it." C"Both experts make good points about the topic in their own ways." D"A blames X, B blames Y, using different data: interpretation."

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Two invented economists agree that raising the entry fee at the city pool from $2 to $4 reduced visits. One wants the fee cut back to $2; the other wants to keep $4 and sell a cheap summer pass for families. What do they agree and disagree on?

   AThey agree on the fee's effect and disagree on the remedy BThey disagree on whether the fee reduced the number of visits CThey agree on everything except the fee's actual amount DThey disagree on interpretation and agree on application

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does it matter, for an inquiry, whether experts disagree about interpretation or about application?

   AIt shows which expert is more qualified to speak BIt decides whether the question is a compelling one CIt shows what evidence could settle the dispute DIt decides which expert the inquiry should quote first

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What point of interpretation do all three experts in Source 4 share?

   ADistance affects how many students walk BRoute 9 is the main reason fewer students walk CThe district should build a bridge over Route 9 DNewer neighborhoods have fewer students in them

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What is the main disagreement about interpretation in Source 4?

    AWhether students at Eastfield walk more than at Westfield BWhether distance or Route 9 matters more there CWhether the district's count of walkers was accurate DWhether walking to school is good for students' health

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What evidence does Ms. Lindqvist offer that Dr. Mensah's explanation does not account for?

    AThat Westfield draws students from a wider area BThat Route 9 has six lanes south of the school CThat few Westfield students within a mile walk DThat both schools are about the same age

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Using the invented counts in Source 4, what share of students who live within one mile walk at Westfield and at Eastfield?

    A12 percent and 38 percent B50 percent and 220 percent C20 percent and 55 percent D80 percent and 45 percent

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How would you describe Mr. Torres's position compared with Ms. Lindqvist's?

    AHe disagrees with her on both interpretation and application BHe agrees with her on interpretation but not on application CHe agrees with her on application but not on interpretation DHe agrees with her on both interpretation and application

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which paragraph of Source 4 proposes a way to check whether an application works?

    AParagraph 1 BParagraph 2 CParagraph 3 DParagraph 4

15. Question 15 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Dr. Mensah writes that Route 9 "does not help." How should a careful reader treat this phrase?

    AAs proof that he agrees Route 9 is the main cause BAs a sign he has changed his mind about distance CAs a disagreement with the district's walker count DAs a small concession within his main claim

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a short memo, four to six sentences, to the Fairview school board explaining what the experts in Source 4 agree on and disagree on. Name the box of each point and quote at least two experts.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    A weak sample answer to fix. A student wrote: "The experts in Source 4 disagree, so the board cannot learn anything from them." Explain what is weak about this sample, then rewrite it.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Smith published in 1776 and Babbage in 1832, and Babbage set out to show what earlier writers had left out. Explain why the points Babbage still accepts carry special weight, and how your view would change if a later writer simply repeated Smith without testing him.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a new supporting question about the division of labour on which experts could agree about interpretation but disagree about application. Explain what they might agree and disagree on.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Explain the difference between experts disagreeing about an interpretation and disagreeing about an application. Use one example of each from any social studies field, not from this page.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D1.3.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

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.