How I make ‘physics’ work inside an IB PYP unit

Monday of Week 2, my Year 4s started our forces inquiry with a walk around the playground. No formulas—just noticing pushes, pulls, and friction in the wild. That’s the fit issue I keep seeing when I hunt for IB · PYP physics resources: lots of “speed = distance/time” sheets that ignore central ideas, and slick demos with no concept map back to causation or change. In PYP, physics usually breathes inside How the World Works, and it’s transdisciplinary: maths for measuring, language for explaining, design for building.

What misses the mark? Resources that: (1) assess recall instead of performance of understanding; (2) front-load vocabulary without context; (3) treat learning as a lesson, not a unit of inquiry; (4) skip reflection. The stuff that works keeps the central idea steady and lets evidence of learning show up in journals, models, photos, and peer talk. When I need inspiration, I skim the science community library and adapt, then track what we change in ClassPods so the unit improves each year.

Last Thursday after dismissal, our PYP planning huddle combed through a “forces and motion” pack someone found. We don’t just ask if it’s on-topic—we check if it’s PYP-fit. I keep a sticky note of tests on my laptop and run them fast before printing anything.

• Central idea match: can I write one clear sentence the tasks actually support?
• Key concepts: do activities surface causation and change, or just facts?
• Lines of inquiry: are there at least two authentic entry points for students?
• ATL skills: is there explicit space for research, thinking, and communication?
• Assessment: can I collect evidence beyond a quiz—photos, measurements, reflections?
• Vocabulary: is it stage-appropriate and introduced through experience first?
• Transfer: does it connect to home, playground, or other subjects this term?

If something passes most checks, I’ll test-generate a draft sequence and exit tickets in a sandbox, then tune it with our planner open. ClassPods is useful here because I can keep the concept language consistent across lessons so the throughline doesn’t wobble.

On Tuesday, Week 3, I ran our Toy Car Ramp Challenge with Year 4. The central idea was “Forces cause changes in motion,” with causation and function as key concepts. The named worked example: measuring how ramp height affects distance while keeping tests fair.

Objective: students explain how a change in height changes motion and justify why it’s a fair test.

• 0–7 min Starter: Show two slow‑mo clips of cars on different ramps. Quick talk: “What changed? What stayed the same?”
• 7–20 min Main (Part A): Groups build a 30 cm ramp, release car three times, record distances. Introduce “fair test” variables.
• 20–35 min Main (Part B): Raise to 45 cm, repeat. Compare means; sketch a simple graph.
• 35–47 min Formative check: Gallery walk; students place a dot sticker on a poster that best explains “why higher = further.” I note misconceptions.
• 47–58 min Main (Part C): Groups revise one step to improve fairness and annotate why.
• 58–60 min Plenary: 30‑second exit slip: “Because…, the car went…; next time I’ll…”

I keep the exit slips together and spin them into the next lesson’s starter; if you want a head start building a pack around this sequence, you can spin one up here. ClassPods lets me stash the video clips and slides with the notes so I’m not reinventing the wheel.

I used this rubric in Week 5 as we wrapped the ramp investigations. It’s tight enough for quick marking and open enough for student voice. Swap language to match your central idea.

• Conceptual understanding (causation/change): Proficient—explains how a variable changes motion with evidence from tests; Developing—states what happened with limited why; Extending—links to another context (playground, cycling) with clear reasoning.
• Scientific skills (planning/measuring): Proficient—identifies and controls at least two variables, measures consistently; Developing—controls one variable, measurements inconsistent; Extending—suggests an improvement and justifies it.
• Communication (vocabulary/representation): Proficient—uses “force,” “friction,” “height,” and simple graphs accurately; Developing—uses some terms, representation partly accurate; Extending—adds labels/units and a concise caption.
• Reflection (metacognition): Proficient—states what changed in thinking; Developing—describes activity only; Extending—explains how feedback/data shaped a next step.

Student prompt stems: “I changed… so…,” “My evidence shows…,” “To be fair, we…,” “Next time, I would….” I drop this directly into ClassPods as a checklist so feedback is fast; if you want to generate a matching student sheet and teacher copy, you can sketch both in minutes using a draft builder.

Wednesday’s double with my mixed Year 3/4 (half are new-to-English) reminded me to plan talk first, text later. We co-created a bilingual word bank (home language + English), paired students for “say it, show it, sketch it,” and used photo sequences before any writing. Sentence frames like “I think ___ because I saw ___” lowered the bar to join the conversation without lowering the concept.

For pacing, I split the build‑measure‑reflect loop across two lessons and run quick 1:1 conferences while groups reset ramps. Teacher review stays light: I collect two photos, one graph, and one reflection per group—enough for evidence, not a paper mountain. For revision/homework, I assign a Forces Scavenger Hunt at home: find three pushes/pulls, take photos, and caption them using our frames (home language allowed, English preferred).

If you’re mapping resources across a team and need to sort budget in advance, I’d check the details on pricing so nobody’s surprised later; I still keep most artifacts inside the same workflow so planning time stays sane.