Making MYP Physics fit: how I plan, check, and teach it

Week 2 of Term 1, my Year 9 physicists nailed the math for weight = mg, then stalled when I asked them to “evaluate” the assumptions in our local gravity model. That’s the MYP rub: physics content plus assessed ways of thinking. Criterion A wants precise concepts and relationships. B asks for investigating and designing (even in mini form). C expects data handling, uncertainty, and interpretation. D pulls in ethical and societal impacts. A worksheet on forces that only says “calculate” can still miss MYP because it dodges command terms and context.

I keep a short list of red flags: no Statement of Inquiry tie-in; command terms that don’t match the rigor; no data or uncertainty; and nothing for Criterion D. To sanity-check myself, I skim the task and ask, “Where would a student earn A, B, C, and D here?” If I can’t point cleanly, it isn’t fit. When I need fresh sparks, I browse the science community in the library, then tailor the prompts so each criterion has a clear landing zone. That’s saved me from pretty-but-pointless handouts more than once.

Last Friday my Grade 8s got a kinematics handout that used “describe” for what was clearly an “explain” level question. They hesitated, I realized the mismatch, and we fixed it on the fly—but it cost ten minutes. Now I run quick checks: command terms match the thinking; each criterion is visible in at least one prompt; data or a scenario exists to earn C; and D isn’t an afterthought tacked to the bottom.

I also check vocabulary: are we saying resultant force (not just net force), and is uncertainty treated as absolute or percentage? I glance for a context line that ties to our Statement of Inquiry and a space for students to plan or reflect. When I build quick quizzes in ClassPods, I test a single prompt against the rubric language before I let it loose. If you want to try that flow, you can spin up a draft pack in minutes here and tune the command terms to your unit plan.

On 12 September, my Year 9 class grappled with motion graphs using a dataset we called “Hannah’s Bike Ride to School.” It’s local, measurable, and has enough quirks to spark debate. Here’s the lesson flow that hit A–D without rushing kids.

• Objective (2 min): Interpret and explain speed–time graphs; justify model choices using Hannah’s ride data.
• Starter (8 min): Two mislabeled segments on a v–t graph; students “identify” and then “explain” the error. Quick pair talk.
• Main task (30 min): In groups, plan a mini-method to estimate average speed during a hill segment (Criterion B), compute areas to find distance (A), and discuss uncertainty from timing intervals (C). Provide a 1–2 sentence local impact link about safe cycling lanes (D).
• Formative check (10 min): Individual prompt: “Explain which model (piecewise-constant or linear) best fits Segment 3 and justify your choice.”
• Plenary (10 min): Gallery walk; students leave one feedback note using the words accuracy, reliability, and validity.

I drop the exit ticket into ClassPods so I can tag evidence for A and C quickly. If you want a ready-to-edit version of this sequence, start a pack with your own dataset via this sign-up and swap in your city’s commute.

I used this with Grade 8 for a ramp-and-cart investigation. It’s tight, student-readable, and maps straight to MYP Science Criterion C. Paste it on the task.

• Task stem: “Process and evaluate your data to answer: How does ramp angle affect average speed?” Include units, show working, and discuss uncertainty.
• 0: Work is incomplete or irrelevant to the question.
• 1–2: Records basic data but with major errors; limited calculations; states a conclusion without reference to data; minimal comment on errors.
• 3–4: Organizes data in a table/graph; correct calculation of at least one measure (e.g., average speed); conclusion relates to data; lists simple sources of error.
• 5–6: Appropriate graphs with labels/units; consistent calculations; conclusion supported by data trends; explains uncertainty (e.g., timing reaction) and suggests realistic improvements.
• 7–8: Precise processing with uncertainty shown; model comparison justified; conclusion critically evaluates data quality and limitations; improvements target validity and reliability.
• Sentence starters: “The data suggest… because…”, “Our model fits Segment __ best since…”, “The largest source of uncertainty was… which affects…”

I keep this rubric parked in ClassPods so I can drag it into any motion task. If you want to drop it into your next pack, duplicate my structure and tweak the stems in the builder.

Thursday, Week 5, my Grade 7 bilingual group froze at “justify the model.” The physics wasn’t the blocker—the command term was. I’ve started printing a dual-language command-term strip (define, describe, explain, justify, evaluate) and a micro-glossary (resultant force, constant velocity, uncertainty). During tasks, I ask for diagrams first, then words, so language isn’t a gate to the physics.

For pacing, I cap group investigations at 25–30 minutes and switch to an individual formative prompt. That lets me see who can think without the group voice. For homework, I set two parts: Part A skills (3–4 short calculations) and Part B reflection (one Criterion D paragraph tied to our local context). For revision, I throw in one mixed graph each week and keep a tiny error bank kids can annotate. If you want example task frames to adapt, the science area in the community library has enough starting points to trim for your SOI.