Focus on Enhancing the MYP

As I wrote in my recent newsletter, Enhanced MYP  (EtMYP) is intended for first teaching 2028. As such, we have yet to see the final guides – for example, we haven’t yet seen the detail of level descriptors in the new assessment criteria. Workshop leaders have not yet been ‘upskilled’ for the new framework. While IB-endorsed publishers may at this point have seen beta / draft guide materials, those materials are locked down under non-disclosure agreements – so cannot inform resources that are already being marketed. Still, this has not prevented some Edu-tech providers from advertising unit planners and teaching resources already. One can only conclude that what the Edu-tech platforms in question offer as ‘Enhanced MYP resources’ are only their best guess at what those resources might look like.

So, the approach here will be to build resources that can be trusted to align with the new framework.

There is quite a lot of information already in the public domain, however. We know that the IB wants EtMYP to increase flexibility and accessibility, while remaining compatible with best MYP practice in schools. This last caveat will be a relief to many teachers.

Rounding up the key changes, we have:

1.      Creation of an MYP core, which brings together interdisciplinary learning, skill development (approaches to learning), community engagement and self-directed projects

2.      Introduction of subject-generic assessment criteria, alongside subject-specific assessment criteria

3.      Programme flexibility to allow use of subject-generic criteria in MYP 1-3

4.      Conflation of existing assessment criteria into 3 assessment objectives (so, three criteria per subject group.)

5.      A more explicit framework for concept-based learning

6.      Reconfiguring Global Contexts as six MYP Themes.

I would gauge impact of these changes on schools as follows:

(1)    MYP Core. This intends I think to give greater coherence and focus to the pedagogical specialities of the MYP we all value so much. While the IDU has been removed, there is emphasis on interdisciplinarity that derives from subject teaching directly. Skill development consists in a relaxation of the approaches to learning framework, such that there is no expectation that schools must audit every strand in the framework across every subject; instead, schools should demonstrate a coherent development of the 5 big AtL organizing domains. Community engagement is amplified, with a clearer framework which looks rather similar to the CE strand of the IB Careers Programme. The profiling of self-directed projects intends, I think, to favour greater student agency in learning.

My assessment: moderate impact, which can be implemented over time.

(2) and (3) Subject-generic criteria. This could be an opportunity for schools which already favor an integrated approach to Sciences in MYP 1-3, however the devil (as we say) is in the detail here. The IB is developing teacher support materials (TSM) to model how subjects might implement the generic criteria. However, this remains optional – so schools can continue to use subject-specific criteria if they wish (and anyway must in MYP 4-5).

My assessment: moderate impact initially, high impact for schools opting to use the subject-generic criteria.

(4) Conflation to 3 assessment criteria. In Sciences, this means Criterion A is still Knowing and Understanding, Criteria B and C are now combined into Criterion B Investigating, and criterion D becomes criterion C ‘Exploring beyond the classroom.’ There is no apparent change of scope in assessment objectives, so this really is just a reorganization. The key question is how all of the assessed objectives will now be addressed with level descriptors across the three criteria.

My assessment: high impact, because this means assessment tasks will need to be reviewed and modified.

(5) Concept-based learning. On the one hand, this brings greater structure, with the explicit incorporation of CBCI routines into learning activities and a set of 12 concepts prescribed for the Sciences subject group, if the school wishes to prepare students for Sciences e-assessment. Those concepts are Balance, Change, Energy, Environment, Evidence, Form, Function, Models, Movement, Relationships, Sustainability and Systems. On the other hand, there is greater flexibility in that schools can choose their own concepts (outside of e-assessment). More significantly, the statement of inquiry is now refigured as a central idea which is a statement of conceptual understanding, and does not have to explicitly incorporate the MYP Theme for the unit (formerly known as Global Contexts.)

My assessment: medium impact, since schools will be allowed to use existing statements of inquiry as they develop their Enhanced MYP towards the new framework.

(6) MYP Themes. There is an implicit mapping of the six new MYP Themes to the current Global Contexts – although I don’t think it’s direct. The themes are developing through experiences and interactions; connecting time, place and space, expressing diverse perspectives, exploring innovations and impacts, examining complexity in systems, shaping the future with hope.

In fact, I think I prefer the new Themes – they carry a bolder intent and allow for some flexibility in approach. I particularly like the last two.

My assessment: high impact, as schools will need to review unit contexts and activities to align with the new themes.

In the next few weeks I will further explore these developments and offer some thoughts about how I will evolve the MYP Physics course on this site to align with the 2028 programme.