Unit Planning Series — Chapter 22 of 24. ← Chapter 21: Building an MYP Unit Plan from Start to Finish

Understanding individual planning elements in isolation is only the first step — the true craft lies in synthesis. This chapter examines a fully completed, "Exemplary" Individuals and Societies unit (Year 3/Grade 8) on the garment industry, fast fashion, and global trade, with commentary explaining the rationale behind every decision.

Why This Matters

Educational purpose: the blueprint for meaning-making

Seeing a complete, annotated model makes the abstract philosophy of constructive alignment tangible — showing exactly how a broad Global Context translates into a daily classroom activity, and how an ATL Skill impacts a final grade.

The Annotated Unit Plan

Part 1: Inquiry

Unit Title: The True Cost of a T-Shirt (Year 3, 20 hours). Key Concept: Systems. Related Concepts: Globalisation, Sustainability. Global Context: Globalization and Sustainability (exploration: consumption, conservation, commercialization).

Rationale: Systems fits because the garment industry is a complex web of interconnected parts; Globalisation and Sustainability provide the specific disciplinary depth needed to examine environmental impact.

Statement of Inquiry: "The globalization of economic systems drives commercial consumption, requiring us to critically evaluate the sustainability of our habits."

Inquiry Questions — Factual: What is a supply chain? What are the environmental impacts of textile manufacturing? Conceptual: How does globalization affect local economies? Debatable: To what extent are consumers responsible for a product's sustainability?

Part 2: Objectives and Summative Assessment

Criteria: A (Knowing and Understanding) and D (Thinking Critically). Task: as an Independent Sustainability Auditor, students trace an everyday item's global supply chain, produce an "Impact Report," and propose a sustainable alternative.

Rationale: Backward design in action — the assessment was designed before any classroom activity, using GRASPS to make it an authentic performance directly tied to the SOI.

Part 3: Approaches to Learning

Target skill: Information Literacy — evaluate and select information sources based on appropriateness.

Rationale: only one skill was chosen. Students naturally gravitate toward the first biased Google result; without explicitly teaching source evaluation, Criterion D (Thinking Critically) cannot be met.

Part 4: Action

Week 1 (Factual): mapping the t-shirt's journey on a world map. Week 2 (Conceptual): "Claim, Support, Question" analysis of a factory-conditions documentary. Week 3 (Skill-building): explicit CRAAP-test mini-lesson, modeling a biased brand website. Week 4 (Debatable): Socratic Seminar on consumer responsibility.

Formative: Week 1 exit tickets, Week 2 process journal linking the documentary to Systems, Week 3 peer-review of research sources using an ATL checklist.

Differentiation: a Guided Research Matrix for ELA/learning support students; an investigation of a "hidden" supply chain (e.g., cobalt mining) for highly capable students.

Part 5: Reflection

Prior to teaching: students are engaged by fashion/technology, but will lack economic vocabulary. During teaching: exit tickets showed 60% confusing environmental vs. economic impact — the teacher paused to reteach with a Venn diagram. After teaching: strong Criterion A results, but weak Criterion D synthesis — next year's plan adds a second ATL focus on organizing information logically.

Common Mistakes in Unit Planning (and how the model avoids them)

1. The disconnected summative

The model's Supply Chain Impact Report directly requires demonstrating the SOI, rather than testing unrelated facts.

2. The ATL "laundry list"

The model selects one highly specific skill and dedicates an entire week to teaching and practicing it.

3. Invisible scaffolding

The model specifies a tangible tool (the Guided Research Matrix) rather than a vague promise.

4. Empty reflection boxes

The model uses summative data to directly influence next year's planning.

5. Overloading concepts

The model selects exactly one Key Concept and two Related Concepts, keeping the intellectual focus sharp.

Reflection Questions

  • Am I starting with the destination and planning backward, or listing daily activities?
  • Does my summative prompt explicitly force exploring my Statement of Inquiry?
  • Have I selected a realistic number of ATL Skills with a specific lesson to teach them?
  • Would a learning support teacher know exactly what tangible tools I'm using?
  • Am I actively reflecting in the "During teaching" box when a lesson fails or succeeds?

Quick Checklist: Evaluating Your Unit Plan

  • ☐ Inquiry alignment — do concepts and context synthesize into a meaningful SOI?
  • ☐ Assessment validity — does the summative measure the targeted strands?
  • ☐ Skill integration — are ATL skills explicitly taught, not just expected?
  • ☐ Formative checkpoints — diverse, low-stakes, real-time data gathering?
  • ☐ Actionable reflection — specific, data-driven goals for next year?

Key Takeaways

  • The planner is a living document, heavily annotated across three reflection stages.
  • Constructive alignment is non-negotiable — concepts, lessons, and assessment must match.
  • Less is more — one Key Concept, one Global Context, one explicit ATL skill outperforms a dozen skimmed.
  • Differentiation requires tangible tools like matrices and sentence frames.
  • Data drives design — summative results are the ultimate feedback on your learning design.
← Chapter 21: Building an MYP Unit Plan from Start to FinishChapter 23: Common Mistakes in MYP Unit Planning →