Hello, thanks for posting a copy of your sources. Reading the one by Jellicoe, I'm a little confused about what he is saying here:
I'm doing this same question with my Y10s at the moment - if it's of any use at all, here are the sources I'm using. Hopefully it might give you a couple of ideas.
I've been encouraging my lot to think thematically and break down 'the war at sea' into different aspects, e.g. u-boats, battleships, battles, blockades and impact on rationing etc. Then they can assess which aspects of the threat from the sea were most significant to Britain, and compare them in the two wars. This way hopefully they can demonstrate the kind of analytical thinking and reasoning needed for the L4 judgement. So far their research seems to be going quite well.
"even on August 19th, 1916, the much reduced Fleet made precipitately for home as soon as it was warned by its Zeppelin scouts of the approach of the Grand Fleet. This is hardly the method of procedure that would be adopted by a Fleet flushed with victory and belonging to a country which was being strangled by the sea blockade."
While I get that he is making the point that Jutland wasn't an event over which the German fleet should be, "flushed with victory", is he trying to say the naval blockade wasn't effective in an attempt to justify the earlier action at Jutland or is he suggesting the naval blockade must not have been effective or they would have made a more active attempt to 'break out' due to the impact of the blockade?