② Deep · Connect & organize

Phase 2 — Connect & organize

Now students take the facts from Phase 1 and relate them: mapping each response option against its consequences, interrogating real primary sources, and building an argument from evidence. Deep learning is where knowledge becomes usable — the bridge to the problem.

🎯 By the end of Phase 2 students can lay out the U.S. response options and their risks, read a primary source for its point of view and reliability, and defend an evaluative claim about the crisis with evidence — the exact moves the problem will demand.

🎟️ Entry ticket — 1-minute warm-up

Concept mapping · d 0.64§113.41(c)(8)(A), (c)(8)(B)

1 · Options–consequences concept map

Build a class concept map with "Missiles found in Cuba — what should the U.S. do?" in the center. Around it, place the five real options ExComm weighed: do nothing · diplomacy · blockade/quarantine · airstrike · invasion. For each, cluster its possible consequences — and mark which ones risked escalation to nuclear war.

Option	Possible upside	Risk / consequence
Do nothing	avoids provoking the Soviets	accepts missiles 90 mi away; looks weak
Diplomacy / back-channel	may resolve it without a shot	slow; missiles keep going operational
Blockade / "quarantine"	firm but leaves room to negotiate	a ship confrontation could spark war
Airstrike	destroys the missiles directly	kills Soviet troops; near-certain retaliation
Invasion	removes the threat and Castro	full war; possibly nuclear catastrophe

Talk move: draw an arrow from any option to a consequence and say the cause-and-effect sentence aloud. This rehearses §113.41(c)(8)(B) and sets up the weighing of options in the Transfer phase.

Elaboration & organization · d 0.72§113.41(c)(28)

2 · Primary-source analysis — read for point of view

Give pairs one or two real (district-approved) primary sources — for example a U-2 reconnaissance photograph of the missile sites, Kennedy's October 22 televised address, the two Khrushchev letters (the emotional first and the harder-line second), or the record of the secret Jupiter-missiles trade. Use a four-question source routine:

Source: Who made this, when, and why?
Observe: What do you actually see or read? (facts only)
Point of view: Whose story does it tell — and whose is missing?
Question: What does it make you want to find out?

Corroboration & credibility check (c)(28): is this a first-hand record or a later account? Is it public or was it secret at the time? What other source would confirm or complicate it? How do we know?

⚠️ Handling difficult history: the crisis carried a genuine risk of nuclear war and mass civilian death, and its resolution included a secret U.S. promise to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey — kept hidden so Kennedy would not appear to have traded away allies. Cuba, whose sovereignty was directly at stake, was not at the table. Study these honestly and respectfully as documented fact — the point is understanding, not blame or sensationalism (TEC §28.0022).

📚 Primary sources & analysis tools: JFK Library · Kennedy's Oct 22, 1962 address ↗ · National Security Archive · documents & the Khrushchev letters ↗ · National Archives · DocsTeach: aerial photo of missiles in Cuba ↗ · LoC · Getting Started with Primary Sources ↗

Argumentation · d 0.86§113.41(c)(8)(A), (c)(28), (c)(29)

3 · Structured argument — a warm-up claim

A low-stakes rehearsal of the reasoning the problem needs. Pose a focused evaluative question and have students take a side with evidence, using a claim–evidence–reasoning frame. Then have them state the other side's strongest point (civil discourse) — this rehearses the evidence-based evaluation of §113.41(c)(28).

Warm-up question: Was the naval blockade the wisest U.S. response — or should Kennedy have chosen a bolder or a more cautious path? Give your claim, one piece of evidence from Phase 1 or the sources, and your reasoning.

Sentence stems (ELPS support): "My claim is ______." · "My evidence is ______." · "This matters because ______." · "Someone who disagrees might say ______, but ______."

Note: keep this a practice argument about the general question. The specific October 1962 decision — with stakeholders in the room — belongs in Phase 3.

✅ Deep check before the problem: can students name an option and its risk, read one source for its point of view and reliability, and state an evaluative claim with evidence? Those three abilities are exactly what Phase 3 will ask them to transfer.

🎫 Exit ticket — check yourself

‹ Phase 1 — Surface Phase 3 — Transfer ›

Aligned to (not reproduced from) 19 TAC Ch.113 §113.41; effect sizes from Visible Learning MetaX.