Overview

Lesson Procedure

65-75 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure5-10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Pose a school-sized version of the problem before any history appears.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Something fell off the stage during Friday's assembly. Three people describe it: a student in the front row who says she saw it happen, a student in the back row who heard it and saw it only afterward, and a student who wrote about it for the school newsletter on Monday after talking to both. They disagree about what fell. Whose account would you trust for what fell, and whose for what the crowd did? What would you want to know about each one first?"

   Collect the questions students ask (where were you? when did you write this? did you see it or hear about it? why are you telling me?). Label them on the board as date and origin. Tell students that RH.9-10.1 asks them to cite evidence from historical sources while paying attention to exactly these features, and that the answer to "whose account is best" depends on the question being asked.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Part 1: Primary, secondary, date, origin. A primary source was made by someone who took part in or witnessed the events, or at the time of them: a survivor's account, a letter, an official report of 1912. A secondary source is made later by someone who was not there and who works from other sources: a textbook, a historian's article. Present Diagram 1: every source gets five sourcing questions before any of its words are used as evidence. Then give the frame for an evidence sentence: claim + exact quotation + date and origin tag + what the tag means for this claim.

   Sourcing questions and what to look for in the text

   Question	Look for	Why it matters
   Who made it?	Name, role, relation to the event	A survivor, an officer and an editor have different knowledge and different interests
   When?	Dates, phrases like "five weeks after"	Soon after: fresher memory. Later: more information, but more retelling
   Where was the author?	Distance, position, light, what blocked the view	Vantage point limits what a witness could see
   How did the author know?	"I saw," "I heard," "he told me," "the report reads"	Firsthand and secondhand claims in the same document carry different weight
   Why was it made?	Stated purpose, audience, publisher	A purpose can shape which details are included or stressed

   Part 2: Model with Beesley. Lawrence Beesley, a science teacher traveling in second class, left the ship in lifeboat 13. Read his preface aloud. It tells students when and why the book was written, so it is itself evidence about origin. Model worked examples 1 and 2 with it.

   1The circumstances in which this book came to be written are as follows. Some five weeks after the survivors from the Titanic landed in New York, I was the guest at luncheon of Hon. Samuel J. Elder and Hon. Charles T. Gallagher, both well-known lawyers in Boston. After luncheon I was asked to relate to those present the experiences of the survivors in leaving the Titanic and reaching the Carpathia.

   2When I had done so, Mr. Robert Lincoln O'Brien, the editor of the Boston Herald, urged me as a matter of public interest to write a correct history of the Titanic disaster, his reason being that he knew several publications were in preparation by people who had not been present at the disaster, but from newspaper accounts were piecing together a description of it. He said that these publications would probably be erroneous, full of highly coloured details, and generally calculated to disturb public thought on the matter. He was supported in his request by all present, and under this general pressure I accompanied him to Messrs. Houghton Mifflin Company, where we discussed the question of publication.

   3Messrs. Houghton Mifflin Company took at that time exactly the same view that I did, that it was probably not advisable to put on record the incidents connected with the Titanic's sinking: it seemed better to forget details as rapidly as possible.

   4However, we decided to take a few days to think about it. At our next meeting we found ourselves in agreement again,--but this time on the common ground that it would probably be a wise thing to write a history of the Titanic disaster as correctly as possible. I was supported in this decision by the fact that a short account, which I wrote at intervals on board the Carpathia, in the hope that it would calm public opinion by stating the truth of what happened as nearly as I could recollect it, appeared in all the American, English, and Colonial papers and had exactly the effect it was intended to have. This encourages me to hope that the effect of this work will be the same.

   5Another matter aided me in coming to a decision,--the duty that we, as survivors of the disaster, owe to those who went down with the ship, to see that the reforms so urgently needed are not allowed to be forgotten.

   6Whoever reads the account of the cries that came to us afloat on the sea from those sinking in the ice-cold water must remember that they were addressed to him just as much as to those who heard them, and that the duty, of seeing that reforms are carried out devolves on every one who knows that such cries were heard in utter helplessness the night the Titanic sank.

   Now read what Beesley says he saw at the end. Model worked examples 3-5, and ask after each: what could Beesley know from where he was?

   1At about 2.15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. It is difficult for a landsman to calculate distance at sea but we had been afloat an hour and a half, the boat was heavily loaded, the oarsmen unskilled, and our course erratic: following now one light and now another, sometimes a star and sometimes a light from a port lifeboat which had turned away from the Titanic in the opposite direction and lay almost on our horizon; and so we could not have gone very far away.

   [...]

   2And then, as we gazed awe-struck, she tilted slowly up, revolving apparently about a centre of gravity just astern of amidships, until she attained a vertically upright position; and there she remained--motionless! As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether. And as they did so, there came a noise which many people, wrongly I think, have described as an explosion; it has always seemed to me that it was nothing but the engines and machinery coming loose from their bolts and bearings, and falling through the compartments, smashing everything in their way. It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship: I suppose it fell through the end and sank first, before the ship. But it was a noise no one had heard before, and no one wishes to hear again: it was stupefying, stupendous, as it came to us along the water. It was as if all the heavy things one could think of had been thrown downstairs from the top of a house, smashing each other and the stairs and everything in the way. Several apparently authentic accounts have been given, in which definite stories of explosions have been related--in some cases even with wreckage blown up and the ship broken in two; but I think such accounts will not stand close analysis. In the first place the fires had been withdrawn and the steam allowed to escape some time before she sank, and the possibility of explosion from this cause seems very remote. Then, as just related, the noise was not sudden and definite, but prolonged--more like the roll and crash of thunder. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments.

   3No phenomenon like that pictured in some American and English papers occurred--that of the ship breaking in two, and the two ends being raised above the surface. I saw these drawings in preparation on board the Carpathia, and said at the time that they bore no resemblance to what actually happened.

   • Date: when the account was written

     T1, paragraph 1: "Some five weeks after the survivors from the Titanic landed in New York" Beesley was asked to write; paragraph 4 adds that he first "wrote at intervals on board the Carpathia."

     Result: Two dates, two documents. The short Carpathia account was written within days; the book was begun more than a month later, after he had seen drawings being prepared for the newspapers and "Several apparently authentic accounts" (T2, paragraph 2). The book's memory is still recent, but it is no longer untouched by other people's versions.

   • Origin: why the account was written

     T1, paragraph 2: the editor of the Boston Herald urged him "to write a correct history" because other books were being written "by people who had not been present at the disaster."

     Result: Beesley's stated purpose is to correct secondhand accounts, and paragraph 5 adds a second purpose: that "reforms so urgently needed are not allowed to be forgotten." Citing these words lets a student explain why he stresses what he saw and argues against rumors.

   • Origin: vantage point

     T2, paragraph 1: "I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. It is difficult for a landsman to calculate distance at sea."

     Result: Beesley tells the reader his own limits: distance, a moving boat, and "landsman" (a person with no experience at sea). A careful citation keeps his hedges ("I think") because they are part of the evidence.

   • Evidence that limits the witness

     T2, paragraph 2: "her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether."

     Result: The lights went out as the stern swung up, the moment a break would have happened. Beesley's own words show that he watched the key seconds in the dark from a mile or more away, which weakens his certainty on this one question without making him a poor witness on others.

   • A full evidence sentence

     Claim: Beesley rejected the break-up accounts he had heard.

     Result: Beesley, writing about five weeks after the landing, insists that "No phenomenon like that pictured in some American and English papers occurred--that of the ship breaking in two" (T2, paragraph 3). Because he watched from a lifeboat he placed "a mile to two miles away," his account is strong evidence for what could be seen from the boats and weaker evidence for what happened to the hull.

   Show Diagram 2 to place each source in time, and point out that the secondary source students read later was written in 2026, long after the others.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Archibald Gracie's discussion of the same question. Gracie, a first-class passenger, went down with the ship and survived on an overturned lifeboat. He died on December 4, 1912, and his book appeared in 1913 with a closing note by another writer. Pairs highlight in one color what Gracie saw himself and in another what he reports from other people or documents.

   1I was on the Carpathia when I first heard any one make reference to this point. The seventeen-year-old son of Mr. John B. Thayer, “Jack” Thayer, Jr., and his young friend from Philadelphia, R. N. Williams, Jr., the tennis expert, in describing their experiences to me were positive that they saw the ship split in two. This was from their position in the water on the starboard quarter. “Jack” Thayer gave this same description to an artist, who reproduced it in an illustration in the New York Herald, which many of us have seen. Some of the passengers, whose names I have just mentioned, are also cited by the newspapers as authority for the statements that the ship “broke in two,” that she “buckled amidships,” that she “was literally torn to pieces,” etc. On the other hand, there is much testimony available which is at variance with this much-advertised sensational newspaper account. Summing up its investigation of this point the Senate Committee’s Report reads: “There have been many conflicting statements as to whether the ship broke in two, but the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that she assumed an almost end-on position and sank intact.” This was as Lightoller testified before the Committee, that the Titanic’s decks were “absolutely intact” when she went down. On this point, too, Beesley is in accord, from his viewpoint in the lifeboat some distance away out of danger, whence, more composedly than others, he could see the last of the ill-fated ship as the men lay on their oars watching until she disappeared.

   [...]

   2From my personal viewpoint I also know that the Titanic’s decks were intact at the time she sank, and when I sank with her, there was over seven-sixteenths of the ship already under water, and there was no indication then of any impending break of the deck or ship. [...]

   3One explanation which I offer of what must be a delusion on the part of the advocates of the “break-in-two” theory is that when the forward funnel fell, as hereafter described, it may have looked as if the ship itself was splitting in two, particularly to the young men who are cited as authority.

   Debrief with two questions. Which sentences make Gracie a primary source, and which make him a secondary source? His own experience ("when I sank with her") is primary; his summary of Thayer's statement and of the Senate report is secondhand. What does Gracie tell us about Beesley's origin? He notes that Beesley watched "from his viewpoint in the lifeboat some distance away out of danger." Point out that Gracie treats distance as an advantage (calm observation), while Worked Example 4 treated it as a limit. Both readings cite the same fact; students must say which claim they are judging.

   For Activity 2 (Fact-Check the Summary). The summary below was written for this page as practice. It is a secondary source, and it contains errors on purpose.

   The Titanic struck an iceberg late on the night of April 14, 1912, and sank early the next morning. Survivors in the lifeboats watched the end from a safe distance.

   Eyewitnesses agreed that the ship's lights stayed on until the moment she disappeared beneath the water. As the stern rose into the air, a series of boiler explosions tore the ship in two, and every survivor who saw the sinking described the break. The official United States Senate inquiry of 1912 confirmed that the ship had split.

   One passenger, Lawrence Beesley, wrote a careful account of the disaster. Because he wrote his book on the night of the sinking, while the events were fresh, it is the most reliable account we have.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read two more sources and answer the quiz on their own. The first is Jack Thayer's account as printed in a book compiled in 1912 by Logan Marshall, an editor who was not on the ship. Ask students to notice the layers of origin: whose words are printed, and who put them on the page. The second is a secondary source written for this page in 2026. Students should keep T2 and T3 open for questions that compare sources.

   1SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD SON OF PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD OFFICIAL TELLS MOVING STORY OF HIS RESCUE--TOLD MOTHER TO BE BRAVE--SEPARATED FROM PARENTS--JUMPED WHEN VESSEL SANK--DRIFTED ON OVERTURNED BOAT PICKED UP BY CARPATHIA

   [...]

   2The boy's own account of his experience as told to one of his rescuers is one of the most remarkable of all the wonderful ones that have come from the tremendous catastrophe:

   [...]

   3"About five seconds after he jumped I jumped out, feet first. I was clear of the ship; went down, and as I came up I was pushed away from the ship by some force. I came up facing the ship, and one of the funnels seemed to be lifted off and fell towards me about 15 yards away, with a mass of sparks and steam coming out of it. I saw the ship in a sort of a red glare, and it seemed to me that she broke in two just in front of the third funnel.

   4"This time I was sucked down, and as I came up I was pushed out again and twisted around by a large wave, coming up in the midst of a great deal of small wreckage. As I pushed my hand from my head it touched the cork fender of an overturned life-boat. I looked up and saw some men on the top and asked them to give me a hand. One of them, who was a stoker, helped me up. In a short time the bottom was covered with about twenty-five or thirty men. When I got on this I was facing the ship.

   5"The stern then seemed to rise in the air and stopped at about an angle of 60 degrees. It seemed to hold there for a time and then with a hissing sound it shot right down out of sight with people jumping from the stern. The stern either pivoted around towards our boat, or we were sucked towards it, and as we only had one oar we could not keep away. There did not seem to be very much suction and most of us managed to stay on the bottom of our boat.

   1Until the 1980s, the question of whether the Titanic broke in two could be argued only from the memories of survivors. The two official inquiries of 1912, one by a committee of the United States Senate and one by the British Wreck Commissioner, both concluded that the ship went down in one piece. Their conclusion leaned heavily on the testimony of surviving officers such as Second Officer Charles Lightoller, who was still on board as the bow went under, and on passengers in lifeboats who watched from a distance after the ship's lights failed. Several of the witnesses who described a break, including seventeen-year-old Jack Thayer, had been in the water close to the ship, and newspapers had mixed some of their statements with rumors of explosions, which made their accounts easier to doubt.

   2On September 1, 1985, a French-American expedition led by Jean-Louis Michel and Robert Ballard located the wreck about 3,800 meters (roughly 12,500 feet) below the surface of the North Atlantic. The bow and the stern lie about 600 meters apart, and a field of debris lies between them. The hull had broken apart. Researchers who have studied the wreck generally conclude that the break happened at or near the surface, in the last minutes before the ship sank, which supports the witnesses who said she split.

   3The wreck does not show that the witnesses who disagreed were lying. A passenger in a distant lifeboat, an officer who went into the water with the bow and a teenager fighting to stay afloat each saw a different part of the same few minutes in the dark. Each described what he could see from where he was.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Write one evidence sentence about the sinking that quotes any source from today and includes a date and origin tag. Then write one sentence explaining what that tag does to the weight of your evidence." Sort the tickets into "quotation only," "tag added" and "tag explained" to plan the next lesson.

   Homework passage. Introduce the report of the British inquiry, led by Lord Mersey and published in July 1912. The U.S. Senate ordered it printed on August 20, 1912, and that printing is quoted here. Ask students to notice whose testimony each sentence rests on.

   1The later stages of the sinking can not be stated with any precision, owing to a confusion of the times which was natural under the circumstances.

   2The forecastle deck was not under water at 1.35 a. m. Distress signals were fired until two hours after the collision (1.45 a. m.). At this time the fore deck was under water. The forecastle head was not then submerged though it was getting close down to the water, about half an hour before she disappeared (1.50 a. m.).

   3When the last boat, lowered from davits (D), left the ship, A deck was under water, and water came up the stairway under the boat deck almost immediately afterwards. After this the other port collapsible (B), which had been stowed on the officers' house, was uncovered, the lashings cut adrift, and she was swung round over the edge of the coamings of the deckhouse on to the boat deck.

   4Very shortly afterwards the vessel, according to Mr. Lightoller's account, seemed to take a dive, and he just walked into the water. When he came to the surface all the funnels were above the water.

   5Her stern was gradually rising out of the water, and the propellers were clear of the water. The ship did not break in two, and she did, eventually, attain the perpendicular, when the second funnel from aft about reached the water. There were no lights burning then, though they kept alight practically until the last.

   6Before reaching the perpendicular, when at an angle of 50° or 60°, there was a rumbling sound which may be attributed to the boilers leaving their beds and crashing down on to or through the bulkheads. She became more perpendicular and finally absolutely perpendicular, when she went slowly down.

   7After sinking as far as the after part of the boat deck she went down more quickly. The ship disappeared at 2.20 a. m.

   Teacher note. More than 1,500 people died in the sinking, and the sources describe deaths directly. Some students may have a personal connection to disasters at sea; allow a quiet exit if needed. The 1912 texts use terms of their time, such as "steerage" (the cheapest passenger class) and "stoker" (a crewman who fed the boiler fires); they are quoted exactly as printed.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to paragraph 2 of T5, how did Jack Thayer's words reach the page of Marshall's 1912 book?

   AThayer wrote them in a diary on the night of the sinking BThayer told his account to one of his rescuers, and the book printed that telling CThayer gave them as sworn testimony to the British inquiry DLogan Marshall saw the sinking and wrote down what he remembered

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which detail in T5 best shows how close Thayer was to the ship when he saw what he describes in paragraph 3?

   A"About five seconds after he jumped I jumped out, feet first" B"it shot right down out of sight with people jumping from the stern" C"as we only had one oar we could not keep away" D"one of the funnels seemed to be lifted off and fell towards me about 15 yards away"

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In paragraph 3 of T5, Thayer says "it seemed to me that she broke in two just in front of the third funnel." What do the words "it seemed to me" add to this evidence?

   AThey show that Thayer was certain and had checked the fact later BThey show that the editor added the claim CThey mark the claim as Thayer's own impression, which a careful citation should keep DThey mean Thayer is repeating what Gracie told him

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Paragraph 1 of T5 is the book's headline for the chapter: "SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD SON OF PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD OFFICIAL TELLS MOVING STORY OF HIS RESCUE." What does it show about the origin of the book?

   AThe book was written and published by the Pennsylvania Railroad company BThe editor packaged survivors' stories for a popular audience, stressing emotion CThayer wrote the headline himself to correct false newspaper reports DThe headline is copied word for word from the Senate committee's report

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In paragraph 2 of T5, whose judgment is "one of the most remarkable of all the wonderful ones"?

   AThayer's judgment of his own story BThe rescuer's judgment, quoted by Thayer CThe judgment of the book's editor, Logan Marshall DLord Mersey's judgment in the British report

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thayer's account was printed in 1912, within weeks of the sinking. Which is a real strength of that date for a historian?

   AThe wreck had already been examined, so the account could be checked BThayer had read the British report before telling his story CAn early date proves that every detail in it is accurate DIt was recorded before decades of retelling could reshape the memory

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thayer says the stern "stopped at about an angle of 60 degrees" (T5, paragraph 5). Beesley says the ship reached "a vertically upright position" (T2, paragraph 2). Which statement best uses both sources?

   AThe sources differ on the angle, and each author saw it from a very different position BBoth sources agree that the stern stood straight up before it sank CBoth sources agree that the ship broke in two before it went under DBeesley gives the angle as 60 degrees, and Thayer calls it vertical

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   T6 is a secondary source. Which sentence from T6 shows that it uses evidence that no 1912 writer could have had?

   A"Several of the witnesses who described a break, including seventeen-year-old Jack Thayer, had been in the water close to the ship" B"The two official inquiries of 1912 ... both concluded that the ship went down in one piece" C"Each described what he could see from where he was" D"On September 1, 1985, a French-American expedition led by Jean-Louis Michel and Robert Ballard located the wreck"

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   How many years passed between the sinking (1912) and the discovery of the wreck (T6, paragraph 2)?

   A41 B73 C74 D114

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    T6, paragraph 1, says the inquiries' conclusion "leaned heavily on the testimony of surviving officers such as Second Officer Charles Lightoller." Which feature of the 1912 evidence does this point to?

    AIts origin: the conclusion depended on who testified and where they stood BIts length: the reports were too long for most readers to finish CIts date: the reports were written too late to be of any use DIts language: the reports used words that modern readers cannot follow

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What evidence does T6 give that the ship broke apart?

    AJack Thayer's sworn statement to the Senate committee in 1912 BThe ship's lights going out just as the stern rose up C"The bow and the stern lie about 600 meters apart, and a field of debris lies between them" DNewspaper reports that boiler explosions tore the hull

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In paragraph 3 of T6, the author writes that "The wreck does not show that the witnesses who disagreed were lying." What is the author's point?

    AWitnesses who disagreed with the wreck evidence should be ignored by historians BThe wreck evidence is less reliable than the survivors' 1912 memories CThe 1912 inquiries hid the truth about the break on purpose DEach witness's account reflects his position during the same few minutes in the dark

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which pair of quotations best supports the claim "Thayer's 1912 account of a break was supported by later evidence"?

    A"it seemed to me that she broke in two just in front of the third funnel" (T5) and "The hull had broken apart" (T6) B"No phenomenon like that pictured in some American and English papers occurred" (T2) and "The hull had broken apart" (T6) C"SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD SON OF PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD OFFICIAL" (T5) and "located the wreck" (T6) D"the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that she assumed an almost end-on position and sank intact" (T3) and "The hull had broken apart" (T6)

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    A student writes: "T6 is the best source on every question about the sinking because it is the most recent." What is the flaw?

    AT6 is a primary source, so it cannot be ranked against the other sources BT6 was written before the wreck was found, so it lacks the new evidence CA later date helps only where there is new evidence; on what people in the boats saw, T6 relies on the 1912 witnesses DT6 never mentions Jack Thayer, so it cannot judge the witnesses' accounts

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Gracie suggests (T3, paragraph 3) that the young witnesses may have mistaken the falling forward funnel for a break. Use Thayer's own words in T5 to test this explanation. Does T5 support or weaken Gracie's theory? Quote T5.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Is T5 a primary or a secondary source? Explain, and name one thing a historian should be careful about because of how Thayer's words reached print. Quote T5.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Describe the date and origin of T6: when it was written, by whom, and what evidence it draws on. Name one strength and one limit of T6 as evidence about the sinking. Quote T6.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    T6 says "Researchers who have studied the wreck generally conclude that the break happened at or near the surface." What kind of claim is this, and why does it matter for judging Thayer as a witness?

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write one evidence sentence that supports the claim "Some survivors in 1912 believed the ship broke in two." Quote T5, give the paragraph, and include a date and origin tag.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Thayer writes, "There did not seem to be very much suction" (T5, paragraph 5). Explain why Thayer's position makes him a strong witness for this detail, and a weaker one for the exact angle of the stern.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to RH.9-10.1: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy. © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.