What I check before trusting an MYP Maths resource

Last Monday, my Year 9 MYP Maths class wrapped a quick algebra warm-up, and I pulled a worksheet I’d grabbed from a search. The problems were fine, but the prompts were all “solve” and “calculate.” Not a single “justify” or “explain,” and the final task was a naked number drill. That’s on-topic, but it isn’t MYP-fit. In our pathway, the content lives inside Criteria A–D, and resources that ignore investigating patterns or real-life context make feedback muddy.

What I look for now: tasks that spiral from procedural fluency into pattern-spotting, space to communicate reasoning with correct notation, and a context that lets me judge application without inventing it myself. If the sheet doesn’t let students show their method clearly (diagrams, tables, function notation), I pass. If the command terms are misused, I pass. There’s plenty of material out there; the trick is curating for the MYP shape. When I’m hunting fresh ideas, I browse the community maths packs to see how others framed similar strands—then adapt rather than start from scratch. You can scan what other teachers share in the library.

On Week 4 of our Patterns unit, my Year 8s hit linear models from a real data table. I’d found a slick slide deck, but I ran my alignment checks first. Step one: language. Do the prompts use MYP-friendly command terms like “state,” “determine,” “justify,” and “describe,” and do those verbs match the depth of the question? Step two: evidence. Is there deliberate space for tables, graphs, and algebra so students can communicate, not just answer? Step three: criteria coverage. Can I tag at least one task to each of A–D without mental gymnastics?

I also skim for assessment style: a non-calculator opener, then calculator-allowed modeling, and at least one real-life application with units and reasonableness checks. A final, quick hack: try the questions cold. If you can’t show two different representations in under two minutes, students won’t either. When I’m short on time, I paste the prompt list into ClassPods and regenerate with my command terms and criteria tags baked in so I’m not editing late at night. If you want to spin up a draft to test these checks, you can do that in the demo.

Last Thursday with Year 9, I ran a single-period lesson on linear models using bike-hire pricing. It landed well because the plan was built to surface A–D explicitly. Here’s the structure I used; feel free to lift it.

• Objective (2 min): Determine and justify a linear model from a context; communicate reasoning using tables, graphs, and function notation.
• Starter (8 min): Non-calculator; quick table of input–output pairs. Students “state” the next two outputs and “explain” the rule.
• Main task (30 min): Worked example: Bike hire fee f(t) = 2.5t + 7 (t in hours). Students build a table, sketch the graph, interpret gradient/intercept (“describe”), then compare with an alternative company g(t) = 3t + 5 and “determine” when each is cheaper. Pairs must justify with two representations.
• Formative check (10 min): Mini whiteboard exit: “justify which model you’d pick for 6 hours and why.” I note A (method), C (notation), D (decision in context).
• Plenary (10 min): Gallery walk; sentence stems: “I agree because…,” “A clearer notation would be…,” then quick self-assess against A–D.

I keep this as a one-pager in ClassPods so I can clone and swap contexts (taxis, data bundles). If you want to generate a ready-to-teach pack, you can start by creating a lesson pack.

Friday afternoon my Year 10s handed in a modelling task and my marking went fast because the rubric language was already student-friendly. Here’s the template I paste on the back of tasks. It’s aligned to A–D without copying IB text.

Mini-Rubric (8 levels per criterion; student-friendly):
Criterion A: Knowing & Understanding — 1–2: basic recall; 3–4: correct method with slips; 5–6: correct method and accurate results; 7–8: selects efficient methods and checks reasonableness.
Criterion B: Investigating Patterns — 1–2: spots pattern with prompting; 3–4: extends pattern or rule; 5–6: generalises with justification; 7–8: tests and refines generalisation.
Criterion C: Communicating — 1–2: some working shown; 3–4: mostly clear steps and notation; 5–6: clear, organised work with multiple representations; 7–8: precise notation and structure aids understanding.
Criterion D: Applying Maths — 1–2: partial use of context; 3–4: interprets results; 5–6: sound decisions with units; 7–8: justified decisions and limitations noted.

Task Sheet Skeleton: Context blurb → Command terms bolded → Space for table/graph → “Show method” box → “Decision and justification” prompt → “Check reasonableness: units, scale, assumptions.” I drop this template into my packs in ClassPods and tweak command terms per task. If you want examples to riff on, scan shared maths units in the community library.

In Week 2 this term, my mixed-language Year 7 group hesitated to write explanations even when their answers were right. Our fix was pacing plus language scaffolds. I built a dual-column keywords list (gradient, rate, intercept) with sentence starters: “I determined… because…,” “The graph shows… so…”. We did micro-timings: 5 minutes no-calculator fluency, 10 minutes pair talk on representations, then a longer context problem so I could score D without rushing.

For homework, I recycle the same context with nudges: Part A (procedural), Part B (pattern), Part C (justify in words). The next lesson starts with two retrieval questions pulled from last week’s criteria—students shade which criterion they think each targets. It keeps the language and structure fresh without new overhead. When I need quick bilingual variants or extra practice that mirrors our command terms, I draft the core in ClassPods and generate a second language version to proof. If you want to mock up a bilingual pack to test with your class, try building a quick prototype using the demo.