How I plan MYP Geography so criteria A–D come through

Week 3, MYP Year 4, we’d just annotated a meander cross-section when Sofia asked, “Do we need case study dates for this?” Perfect example: on-topic, but not yet MYP-fit. In Individuals & Societies, Geography assessment isn’t a vibe check; it’s Criteria A–D. Criterion A wants accurate geographic knowledge and use of terms; B is about investigating; C requires structured communication; D asks for analysis and evaluation through the lens of our Statement of Inquiry and global context.

Where resources miss: they teach “river processes” but skip explicit command terms (“explain,” “evaluate”), ignore global contexts, or give rubrics that don’t map to 0–8 bands. I keep a short sanity test: can I point at each activity and name the criterion strand it hits? If not, it’s a supplement, not a lesson. When I find something that passes the test, I drop it into my queue so I can cross-check against our unit planner; you can browse community-made Geography pieces and see how others structure theirs in the library.

Last Thursday after school, I pulled a glossy “Population Pyramids” worksheet that looked great until I noticed every question used “discuss” and “describe” interchangeably. That’s a red flag. In MYP Geography I run four fast checks: 1) Command terms match the cognitive demand—“explain” before “evaluate,” not the other way around. 2) Success criteria echo MYP wording so students can self-mark against A, B, C, D. 3) Evidence types are explicit (map, graph, paragraph, diagram) so Criterion C has something to bite. 4) Any evaluation links back to our Statement of Inquiry and global context, not just generic pros/cons.

I also test rigor by sampling one student-friendly mark band: if I can’t quickly write what a 5–6 looks like for that task, it’s not assessable yet. When I prototype these checks, I paste prompts into my planning doc and sanity-scan them against previous moderation notes; if you want to spin up a trial task and stress-test wording, you can rough one out in this demo. It’s saved me a few Sunday night rewrites.

Two Fridays ago my MYP Year 4 class tackled the Three Gorges Dam as a development trade-off. The class before, they’d mixed up “explain” and “evaluate” in their flood-control answers, so I built today to rehearse both. Here’s the exact structure I used, with the worked example baked in.

• Objective (2 min): Know key facts on Three Gorges; explain benefits/costs; evaluate overall sustainability (A, C, D).
• Starter (8 min): 10 true/false facts on location, capacity, displacement. Quick pair-correction to surface misconceptions (A).
• Main task (30 min): Jigsaw: groups read short sources (map, bar chart, quote). Produce a two-paragraph response: “Explain two benefits” then “Explain two costs,” with sentence stems (A, C).
• Formative check (10 min): “Evaluate the overall impact of the Three Gorges Dam on people and environment.” Students annotate the verb and plan two criteria for judgment (D). I sample three plans under the visualizer.
• Plenary (10 min): 4–3–2–1 exit slip: 4 facts, 3 explain stems, 2 trade-offs, 1 evaluation verdict tied to the Statement of Inquiry (C, D).

I keep the slides and prompts tidy so I can reuse them next term; if you want to build this flow fast, you can start a pack by signing up. ClassPods holds my versions so I can tweak by cohort.

Last term my MYP Year 3s wrote sprawling answers on urban heat islands. I built this one‑pager so they channel effort into criteria. Paste it into your next lesson and change the topic line.

Investigation One‑Pager (MYP Geography)
Topic: ____________________ Global Context: ____________________ SOI link: ____________________

• A: Knowing & Understanding (0–8) Key terms defined in own words; one precise fact per term; labeled sketch/map where relevant.
• B: Investigating (0–8) Research question written with a command term; 2–3 relevant sources listed; brief method for data/graph choice.
• C: Communicating (0–8) Structured response with subheadings; units and scales correct; one diagram or map embedded and referenced.
• D: Thinking Critically (0–8) Compare at least two perspectives; judge using named criteria (e.g., social, economic, environmental); conclusion links to SOI.

Question stems: “Explain how…,” “To what extent…,” “Evaluate the impact of… by considering…”. I print the rubric bands on the back and have students circle their target band before writing. If you want a quick canvas to duplicate and adapt, you can sketch it out in the planner. I don’t love crowded grading screens, so I keep this to one page.

Monday’s double with my MYP Year 2 bilingual class (Spanish/English) reminded me: language can bury good geography. I pre‑teach 6–8 command terms with dual‑language glossaries and keep sentence frames visible: “Explain the process by…” or “Evaluate by weighing…”. During tasks, I allow answers in home language first, then partner‑translate key sentences so Criterion C improves without losing speed.

For pacing, I set strict micro‑timers and harvest two exemplars mid‑lesson so students see what “explain” looks like before they attempt “evaluate.” Homework is short but cumulative: one data‑response per week (3 questions: define, explain, evaluate) and a 10‑minute retrieval quiz every other lesson. Before reporting windows, I run a 20‑minute clinic where students re‑write one paragraph to hit the next band.

I’ve parked my prompts and bilingual glossaries in ClassPods so the department can copy them without emails back‑and‑forth; if you’re sorting department budgets or seats, the details are laid out on the pricing page. Keep the core: command terms clear, criteria visible, feedback quick.