My MYP History Playbook: Fit First, Flash Later

Week 4, Term 1: my Year 9 MYP History group breezed through a flashy “Reign of Terror” activity, then froze when I asked them to evaluate Robespierre’s justification using two sources. The sheet was lively, but it wasn’t MYP. Inside MYP Individuals and Societies, History asks for conceptual framing (Key Concept: Change; Related Concepts: Causality, Perspective), a Statement of Inquiry that ties to a Global Context, and assessment anchored to Criteria A–D. Too many “history resources” skip those rails and leave us patching.

Fit issues I see most: command terms that don’t match the intended criterion, source work without origin/purpose/value/limitation prompts, and tasks that sprint to product without inquiry questions (factual/conceptual/debatable). The content can be spot-on and still off-path for MYP. I keep a short list of tasks that already speak MYP, and when I need fresh ideas, I scan community pieces in the History category in the community history library. I still align them to my Statement of Inquiry, but starting closer to fit saves my prep time and my students’ confusion.

Last Friday, between duty and my Year 7 class, I skimmed a Cold War “origins” worksheet. It looked fine until the verbs: list, define, match. I needed analyze, compare, evaluate for Criterion C and D. I’ve learned to do three fast checks. First, language: do the task verbs mirror MYP command terms, and does each section map to one criterion only? Second, structure: can I point to a Key Concept, at least one Related Concept, and a Global Context that meaningfully frames the inquiry questions (factual/conceptual/debatable)? Third, assessment: are there explicit success descriptors that echo A–D bands (0–8) without copy-pasting the full rubric?

I also glance for source handling (origin/purpose/value/limitation prompts), ATL skills (research, organization, collaboration), and a communication demand that fits the year level’s writing stamina. If any piece is missing, I either revise or prototype a quick replacement. When I’m tight on time, I sketch a one-pager and build it into a lesson pack using the lesson-pack builder. Starting with MYP language prevents me from retrofitting at 7:45 a.m.

Tuesday, Week 5: my Year 8 class hit “Causes of the Boston Tea Party.” Last year I crammed facts; this year I framed it with Key Concept: Change; Related Concepts: Causality, Perspective; Global Context: Fairness and Development. Worked example: a 1773 shipping manifest excerpt and a political cartoon (“The Bostonians paying the excise-man”). Objective: Use two sources to explain short- and long-term causes, then evaluate one perspective.

Here’s the flow I used:

• Objective (1 min): Share success criteria tied to Criterion A (recall of context) and D (evaluation of perspectives).
• Starter (7 min): Quick retrieval grid on pre-taught Acts; pair-share with sentence stems (Because…, Therefore…).
• Main task (25 min): Source stations. Students annotate origin/purpose/value/limitation; then construct a causal chain on mini whiteboards. Include one contrasting colonist vs. British viewpoint.
• Formative check (10 min): Criterion C micro-write. Prompt: “Compare how Source A and B explain the cause of direct action in 1773.” Collect two best sentences per pair.
• Plenary (7 min): Exit ticket: “Evaluate: To what extent were economic grievances more significant than political principles?” Students self-mark against a 5–6 band descriptor.

I keep my prompts and stems in a single pack so I’m not digging through folders; you can spin one up in a couple of minutes using this planner.

Wednesday after school, my Year 10s asked for “what good looks like.” I hand them this one-page rubric. It mirrors MYP Individuals and Societies while staying student-friendly. Paste it into your next source task and tweak the context.

Criterion A: Knowing and understanding

• 7–8: Uses accurate, relevant historical knowledge with precise terminology to explain context and events.
• 5–6: Mostly accurate knowledge; uses subject terms; explanations have minor gaps.
• 3–4: Basic knowledge; inconsistent terminology; brief or partial explanations.
• 1–2: Limited facts; little/no subject vocabulary.

Criterion B: Investigating

• 7–8: Formulates focused research questions; selects/references sources effectively.
• 5–6: Clear questions; mostly appropriate sources with basic referencing.
• 3–4: Simple questions; limited or uneven source selection.
• 1–2: Vague questions; minimal source use.

Criterion C: Communicating

• 7–8: Structures ideas logically in appropriate formats; accurate conventions.
• 5–6: Clear organization; minor convention errors.
• 3–4: Some organization; several errors.
• 1–2: Disorganized; frequent errors.

Criterion D: Thinking critically

• 7–8: Analyzes origin/purpose/value/limitation; compares perspectives; substantiates evaluation.
• 5–6: Explains OPVL; some comparison; developing evaluation.
• 3–4: Describes sources; limited comparison or evaluation.
• 1–2: Lists features; no valid evaluation.

I drop this straight into a lesson pack so students see it before they write; you can do the same by adding it to your planner.

Monday Period 4, my Year 8 bilingual cohort (Spanish–English) circled “evaluate” three times. They knew the history; the verb tripped them. I run dual-language stems on the board (evaluate: valorar/ponderar) and build a tiny glossary tied to command terms. Students keep two-column notes: key terms and sentence starters on the left, evidence pulls on the right. For pacing, I chunk the main task with a halfway verbal check and a visual timer. If the room slows, I trim to one source and push the comparison into homework.

For extension, I set revision cards with Concept/Context/Command Term on fronts and evidence on backs, then close the week with a five-minute Criterion C sprint. Homework stays MYP-shaped: one factual, one conceptual, one debatable question—answered with a source reference and a sentence stem. If you’re sorting department rollout or budgeting for mixed-year groups, the options are outlined clearly on the pricing page. It’s not glamorous, but these small moves keep language from disguising thinking—and they protect the line back to Criteria A–D.