Curriculum Studies Assignment

Stephen Taylor Curriculum Studies

A
critical
review
of
a
Grade
10
Introductory
Physics
course
as
part

of
the
International
Baccalaureate
Middle
Years
Programme,

examining
selected
aims
and
purposes
and
analyzing
the
extent

to
which
these
are,
in
my
experience,
achieved
in
practice.

Stephen
Taylor

MA
International
Education

University
of
Bath

(@IBiologyStephen)

This
assignment
was
submitted
as
part
of
my
MA
coursework
in
August
2012.
It
is
uploaded
here
to
be
part

of
my
online
professional
development
and
reflection
portfolio
at
is.gd/IBiologyReflections.


Introduction

What
happens
when
an
unstoppable
force
encounters
an
immovable
object?

The
‘unstoppable
force
paradox’
of
Physics
can
be
used
as
an
analogy
in
education:
as

curriculum
theories
develop
and
our
body
of
understanding
on
how
students
learn

grows,
change
is
inevitable
in
educational
planning
and
implementation.

With
changing

curriculum
comes
the
necessity
to
update
our
practice
as
educators,
to
adapt
to
meet

the
needs
of
our
students
and
to
adjust
the
way
we
teach
in
order
to
meet
the

requirements
of
new
curriculum.
However,
the
unstoppable
force
of
curriculum

development
often
collides
with
the
immovable
object
of
resistance
to
change
and
the

perceived
difficulties
associated
with
adapting
or
re-‐writing
the
established
syllabus.
As

educators
we
are
agents
of
change:
it
is
our
responsibility
to
facilitate
these
changes
in
a

way
that
will
benefit
our
learners
and
meet
the
aims
and
objectives
of
the
wider

curriculum
model.

The
analogy
of
the
unstoppable
force
paradox
particularly
suits
this
international

school
in
Japan,
with
its
100-‐year
history
of
academic
success.
The
school
has
been

running
the
International
Baccalaureate’s
Diploma
Programme
(IBDP)
as
a
graduating

qualification
for
students
aged
16-‐19
for
thirty
years
and
has
traditions
and
academic

systems
–
and
therefore
a
written
curriculum
-‐
that
are
firmly
established.

However,

the
introduction
of
the
Middle
Years
Programme
(MYP,
students
aged
11-‐16)
and

Primary
Years
Programme
(PYP,
students
aged
4-‐11)
are
very
recent.
These
new

curriculum
models,
along
with
changing
leadership,
a
shift
in
the
student
body
and

adapting
to
new
learning
technologies
and
educational
paradigms,
have
thrust
the

school
into
a
period
of
rapid
change.
There
is
tension
between
the
old
and
the
new;

between
the
established
and
the
developing;
and
between
the
ideas
of
curriculum
as

syllabus
and
of
curriculum
as
a
wider,
more
total
learning
experience.
This
tension
is

enhanced
by
the
fact
that
the
MYP
itself
is
undergoing
a
major
review
(IB,
2011a).

Already
existing
as
a
broad
curriculum
framework,
the
resulting
“Next
Chapter”
will

emphasise
further
the
concept-‐based
nature
of
teaching
and
learning
and
seek
to
better

articulate
the
three
IB
programmes
into
a
continuum
of
learning.
The
MYP
is
evolving

into
a
programme
that
could
be
seen
as
a
‘greatest
hits’
collection
of
curriculum
theory,

with
diverse
yet
well-‐known
sources
and
foundations.
At
the
moment
however
there
is

an
atmosphere
of
uncertainty
as
we
await
the
official
publication
of
new
subject
guides

and
documentation
in
2014.

2


In
this
assignment
I
aim
to
critically
review
the
current
state
of
a
one-‐semester
(18-‐
week)
Grade
10
Introductory
Physics
course
as
part
of
the
wider
whole
of
the
MYP.
The

course
is
taught
with
a
partner
teacher
and
is
built
around
a
core
syllabus,
which

reflects
typical
high-‐school-‐level
preparatory
Physics
content,
based
loosely
on
National

Science
Education
Standards
(NSES)
from
the
USA
(NSES,
1997).
We
are
adapting
the

course
to
better
meet
the
aims
and
objectives
of
the
MYP,
as
well
as
current
best

practices
in
Physics
instruction
and
preparing
for
the
wide-‐reaching
curriculum

changes
which
are
to
be
part
of
the
MYP’s
‘Next
Chapter’.
Appendix
I
features
a

summary
of
the
content,
unit
questions,
enduring
understandings
and
assessed
tasks

for
the
Physics
course.
I
will
build
upon
a
foundation
in
curriculum
theory
to
analyse

the
extent
to
which,
in
my
experience,
the
course
meets
the
needs
of
its
stakeholders,
as

well
as
a
selection
of
the
MYP
sciences
aims
and
objectives
(full
description
in

Appendix
II)
(IB,
2010a):

• “Acquire
scientific
knowledge
and
skills,”

• “Develop
critical,
creative
and
inquiring
minds
that
pose
questions,
solve
problems,

construct
explanations,
judge
arguments
and
make
informed
decisions
in
scientific

and
other
contexts.”

• “Develop
awareness
of
the
moral,
ethical,
social,
economic,
political,
cultural
and

environmental
implications
of
the
practice
of
using
science
and
technology.”

These
aims
have
been
chosen
as
they
represent
apparently
contrasting
approaches
to

curriculum
as
part
of
one
curriculum
model:
the
acquisition
of
knowledge
and
skills
in

contrast
with
a
concept-‐based
approach
to
application
and
problem-‐solving;
and
a

content-‐driven
focus
in
contrast
with
values-‐based
education.
I
will
give
a
discussion
of

some
issues
in
curriculum
studies
that
are
pertinent
to
these
aims
in
relation
to
our

Physics
course,
before
identifying
strengths
and
weaknesses
and
making
some

recommendations
for
improvements
in
the
next
cycle
of
teaching
and
learning.

In
order
to
achieve
this,
we
must
consider
the
role
of
various
stakeholders
in
the

curriculum
framework
as
a
whole
and
in
our
own
Physics
course.
The
learners
in
the

course
fall
into
two
distinct
categories:
those
who
will
go
on
to
IBDP
Physics
at
a

standard
or
higher
level,
and
therefore
must
be
adequately
prepared;
and
those

students
who
are
terminating
their
Physics
education
upon
completion,
yet
still
need
to

be
prepared
to
study
other
sciences
in
the
IBDP.
The
teachers
who
will
accept
these

students
into
their
IBDP
class
are
under
considerable
time
pressure
to
get
results
in
a

3


high-‐stress
two-‐year
programme;
they
require
their
students
to
be
well
prepared
in

order
to
allow
them
to
focus
on
preparation
for
largely
content-‐driven,
high-‐stakes

terminal
assessment.
In
our
context,
these
are
the
same
teachers
involved
in
delivering

the
MYP
4-‐5
curriculum,
so
have
the
benefit
of
acting
as
the
bridge
between
the
MYP

and
the
DP.
The
framework
nature
of
the
MYP
allows
for
–
even
requires
-‐
these

teachers
to
be
fundamentally
involved
in
the
school-‐based
portion
of
the
curriculum

design
(IB,
2008).
As
a
result,
we
have
a
buy-‐in
in
what
we
teach,
although
within

parameters
limited
by
the
needs
of
other
stakeholders:
we
are
the
“change-‐agents
in
the

school,”
(Kelly,
2004,
p.116),
and
the
autonomy
afforded
by
this
should
allow
for
a

research-‐based
and
iterative
cycle
of
curriculum
improvement.
The
decision
to
move

into
the
MYP
was
taken
a
school
level,
yet
curriculum
is
not
‘done
to
us’,
we
have
the

power
to
develop
and
improve
the
programme
we
teach.

As
many
of
our
students
apply
to
US
universities,
the
counseling
office
here
at
school,
as

well
as
the
admissions
officers
at
target
universities,
act
as
another
set
of
stakeholders
in

the
course.
Closely
related
to
this
is
the
school
itself,
as
its
reputation,
at
least
to
some

extent,
depends
on
the
academic
success
of
our
students
and
prestige
of
their

destinations
universities.
Alongside
this,
our
programmes
are
audited
by
the
Council
of

International
Schools
(CIS)
and
the
Western
Association
of
Schools
and
Colleges

(WASC);
these
‘seals
of
approval’
are
seen
as
a
sign
of
our
quality
of
education
and

therefore
an
economic
bargaining
chip
in
the
competition
with
other
international

schools.
Grade
point
averages
(GPA)
are
calculated
from
Grade
9
onwards,
so
the

learning
and
assessment
that
take
place
in
pre-‐IBDP
years
can
affect
the
outcome
of
a

student’s
applications.

What
is
Curriculum?

In
the
context
of
the
MYP,
curriculum
must
be
understood
to
be
more
than
a
syllabus.

“Many
people
still
equate
a
curriculum
with
a
syllabus
and
thus
limit
their

planning
to
a
consideration
of
the
content
or
the
body
of
knowledge
they
wish
to

transmit…”

(Kelly,
2004,
p.4)

Our
Physics
course
must
therefore
also
fit
as
a
part
of
a
wider
curriculum
whole;
it

should
be
judged
as
more
than
the
addressing
of
discrete
content
or
skills-‐driven

assessment
statements
and
it
should
facilitate
the
emergent
properties
of
a
more

4


holistic
curriculum
experience.

In
my
experience
working
alongside
teachers
–

especially
those
who
have
seen
many
iterations
of
curriculum
and
generations
of

students,
teachers
and
school
leadership
–
there
is
a
lingering
misconception
that

“content
is
king”
and
that
changes
to
the
knowledge
items
in
a
course
will
somehow

affect
its
‘academic
rigour’
or
viability.

Could
this
understanding
be
a
result
of
the

memories
of
educators
and
parents
of
their
own
educational
experiences?
As
educators,

we
consider
ourselves
well
educated
yet
our
memories
of
schooling
may
taint
our

understanding
and
therefore
practice.
We
are
used
to
national-‐curriculum
style
models

of
education,
which
are
generally
based
on
a
prescribed
syllabus,
set
by
government
or

local
bodies,
based
on
knowledge
that
is
deemed
important
for
all
young
people
to

know.
We
are
used
to
being
asked
“what
did
you
learn
in
school
today?”
rather
than

“what
values
did
you
develop
today?”
but
this
mindset
ignores
the
fact
that
curriculum
is

a
much
wider
experience
for
the
learner,
with
many
facets.
Denis
Lawton
gives
a

concise
description
of
the
connection
between
culture
and
curriculum
here:

“…
the
school
curriculum
(in
the
wider
sense)
is
essentially
a
selection
from

the
culture
of
a
society.
Certain
aspects
of
our
way
of
life,
certain
kinds
of

knowledge,
certain
attitudes
and
values
are
regarded
so
important
that
their

transmission
to
the
next
generation
is
not
left
to
chance
in
society
but
is

entrusted
to
specially-‐trained
professionals
(teachers)
in
elaborate
and

expensive
institutions
(schools).“
(Lawton,
1975)
(emphasis
mine)

He
suggests
that
the
curriculum
represents
a
portion
or
snapshot
of
a
culture
that
is

deemed
important
enough
to
be
expressly
articulated
and
purposefully
passed
on
to

students.
To
me
the
content-‐driven
dogma
of
traditional
curriculum
reflects
a

knowledge-‐as-‐power
mindset:
“Productive
power
is
[then]
fundamentally
concerned
with

disciplinary
knowledge.”
(Scott,
2008,
p.53).
With
a
system
of
education
geared
towards

university
entry,
we
experience
considerable
content
and
assessment
backwash,
which

flows
beyond
the
IB
Diploma
into
the
MYP,
as
we
need
to
ensure
students
are
prepared

in
order
to
achieve
highly
and
be
competitive
applicants.
But
this
also
puts
power
in
the

hands
of
the
more
traditional
teachers
and
curriculum
developers,
whose
rebuttal
of

change
is
frequently
the
need
to
be
competitive.
To
some,
the
move
into
the
MYP
is
seen

as
a
‘power-‐coercive’
approach
to
curriculum
development,
where
an
‘empirical-‐
rational’
strategy
might
be
needed
to
ensure
the
success
of
the
programme
(Kelly,
2004,

p.111).
This
aligns
with
the
first,
and
to
some
extent
the
second,
of
the
MYP
sciences

aims
that
I
identified
in
the
introduction.
Our
course
could
not
be
judged
a
success
–

5


particulary
in
the
eyes
of
those
resistant
to
change
–
if
it
does
not
deliver
on
content

knowledge,
skills
and
preparation
for
the
IB
Diploma.

However,
culture
changes
over
time,
and
thus
so
must
the
curriculum.
Further
to
kinds

of
knowledge
are
attitudes
and
values.
It
might
be
comforting
to
teachers
and
students

(and
examining
bodies)
to
be
able
to
boil
the
outcomes
of
student
learning
down
into

discrete
assessed
bites
of
knowledge
that
can
be
checked
off
a
list
and
examined
using

reliable
mass-‐scale
methods
such
as
standardized
tests,
but
the
curriculum-‐is-‐syllabus

view
fails
to
consider
the
myriad
elements
of
curriculum
that
really
exist.
The
total

curriculum
(Kelly,
2004,
p.5)
represents
a
more
holistic
view
of
the
teaching
and

learning
that
goes
on
within
(and
without)
our
school
walls.
This
includes
the
overt,

planned,
formal
and
assessed
curricula
–
the
intended
and
documented
learning
and

assessment
experiences
that
are
the
‘targets’
of
the
learning
and
take
place
during
the

school
day.
However,
it
also
includes
the
implicit,
received,
hidden
and
informal

curricula
–
those
learning
experiences
that
may
not
be
formally
documented
as
part
of

scheduled
classes.
They
may
arise
as
a
result
of
the
school
ethos,
or
a
teacher’s

interaction
with
a
student
beyond
the
content
of
the
course.
They
are
more
likely
to
be

attitudinal
and
values-‐related,
yet
they
also
incorporate
the
element
of
just-‐in-‐time
(or

ancillary)
learning
as
students
pick
up
new
knowledge
and
skills
in
order
to
complete
a

set
task
or
negotiate
a
social
situation.
For
example
in
our
Physics
class
students
might

be
required
to
develop
methods
of
collecting
and
analyzing
data
to
describe
the
motion

of
the
local
train
(Appendix
I),
but
could
additionally
be
developing
knowledge
and

skills
regarding
the
use
of
new
tools
and
software
packages.
Regardless
of
what
is

written
on
official
school
planning
documents,
students
are
likely
to
be
always
learning

–
for
the
better
or
worse
–
and
a
total
curriculum
view
recognizes
and
aims
to
plan
and

account
for
this
(Kelly,
2004,
p.5).

In
an
interesting
contrast
with
equivalent
secondary
educational
programmes
(such
as

the
English
General
Certificates
in
Secondary
Education,
or
GCSE’s),
the
MYP
does
not

have
a
prescribed
syllabus.
In
fact,
the
specific
content
of
a
course
is
left
up
to
those

responsible
for
developing
the
school’s
own
curriculum,
which
may
or
may
not
be
the

classroom
teachers
(IB,
2009).
It
is
a
curriculum
framework,
driven
by
a
clearly-‐defined

philosophy
through
the
IB’s
Mission
Statement:

6


“The
International
Baccalaureate
aims
to
develop
inquiring,
knowledgeable

and
caring
young
people
who
help
to
create
a
better
and
more
peaceful
world

through
intercultural
understanding
and
respect.

To
this
end
the
organization
works
with
schools,
governments
and

international
organizations
to
develop
challenging
programmes
of

international
education
and
rigorous
assessment.

These
programmes
encourage
students
across
the
world
to
become
active,

compassionate
and
lifelong
learners
who
understand
that
other
people,
with

their
differences,
can
also
be
right”.
(IB,
2012a)
(emphasis
mine)

As
this
assignment
is
focused
on
the
MYP
I
should
draw
attention
to
and
build
upon
the

IB’s
definitions
of
curriculum
through
this
assignment
(IB,
2008,
p.17):

“The
MYP
comprises
a
composite
curriculum
model

(fig.
1)
where
each
component
has
equal
value.
[…]

Double-‐headed
arrows
indicate
that
developing,

implementing
and
monitoring
the
school’s
written,

assessed
and
taught
curriculum
is
an
integrated

process
whereby
each
component
informs
the
other

two.”

Figure
1:
The
curriculum
model.
(IB,
2008)

With
the
emphasis
on
developing
the
learner
rather
than
transmitting
a
certain
set
of

knowledge,
the
continuum
of
the
IB’s
programmes
better
represent
Kelly’s
idea
of
a

total
curriculum.
The
framework
model
pushes
the
aims
of
the
MYP
in
their
mission
and

subject-‐specific
guides,
yet
allows
for
freedom
of
content-‐based
planning;
this
can
be

used
to
ensure
national
or
state
‘standards’
are
met,
or
students
are
prepared
for
other

external
examinations
and
qualifications.

Whose
culture,
whose
curriculum?

The
MYP
is
currently
offered
in
over
900
schools
across
the
globe
(IB,
2012b).
If
we
are

to
think
of
the
curriculum
as
a
selection
of
a
culture,
or
the
“features
which
produce
the

school’s
ethos”
(Marsh,
2009,
p.9),
then
this
could
offer
a
real
challenge
for
the
IB;
how

could
an
international
organization
with
European
origins
claim
to
represent
the

cultures
of
all
of
its
diverse
schools?
If
the
IB
were
to,
as
Lawton
(1975)
suggests,

analyse
the
culture
from
which
they
were
to
take
a
selection
for
the
curriculum,
it
would

be
an
insurmountable
task;
whose
culture
would
result
and
whose
curriculum
would
it

7


represent?
Although
it
could
be
perceived
that
an
IB
education
represents
a
Euro-‐
centric
world-‐view
(Coates
et
al.,
2007),
the
curriculum
framework
model,
rather
than
a

prescribed
syllabus,
should
facilitate
global
flexibility
in
a
schools
curriculum
planning

and
assessment.
The
MYP
has
clear
philosophical
goals,
based
on
the
IB’s
mission
and

underpinned
by
the
Learner
Profile,
yet
refrains
from
dictating
content
for
the
courses

that
are
offered
in
its
schools.
Schools
must
apply
to
the
IB
for
authorization
to
run
their

programmes,
during
which
process
they
outline
how
they
will
meet
the
standards
and

practices
of
the
IB
programme
to
which
they
are
applying
(IB,
2012c).

Therefore
I
would
argue
that
by
buying
into
the
IB’s
programmes,
schools
are
to
the

greater
extent
choosing
the
culture
of
the
IB
and
its
interpretation
of
the
values
of

internationalism
it
represents;
an
IB
education
and
its
core
philosophy
could
be
seen
as

a
commodity
or
a
product
of
economic
globalization
(Cambridge
&
Thompson,
2004).
In

measuring
the
success
of
our
Intro
Physics
course,
I
suggest
that
it
should
exemplify
the

values
of
both
internationalism
and
globalization.
From
the
perspective
of

internationalism
it
should
“embrace
a
progressive
existential
and
experiential

educational
philosophy
that
values
the
moral
development
of
the
individual
and

recognizes
the
importance
of
service
to
the
community
and
the
development
of
a
sense
of

responsible
citizenship.”
(Cambridge
&
Thompson,
2004)
In
terms
of
the
globalist
view,

it
should
“facilitate
educational
continuity
for
the
children
of
the
globally
mobile

clientele,”
as
well
as
“for
the
children
of
the
host
country
clientele
with
aspirations

towards
social
and
global
mobility.”
(Cambridge
&
Thompson,
2004).
Our
Physics
class

in
essence
then
should
be
values-‐based
yet
internationally
recognizable;
it
should

promote
international
ideals
of
peace
and
cooperation
yet
remain
identifiable
as
a
high

school
standard
of
academic
rigour.

From
a
content-‐based
perspective,
it
is
perhaps
a

globalist
product,
transferable
as
a
university
entry
requirement.
The
elements
of

internationalism
align
with
the
third
of
the
MYP
sciences
aims
I
identified
in
the

introduction,
so
to
judge
the
course
‘successful’,
these
would
need
to
be
an
overt
and

integral
part
of
the
educational
experience
in
the
Physics
class.

Ostensibly,
our
choice
of
the
NSES
standards
to
some
extent
makes
the
Physics
course

representative
of
the
academic
culture
of
the
USA;
within
the
international
framework

of
the
IB
MYP
we
have
chosen
to
use
a
set
of
standards
that
are
recommended
for

schools
in
the
United
States.
The
intention
here
is
to
ensure
our
course
is
recognizable

8


to
university
admissions
offices,
yet
we
may
have
unintentionally
introduced
tension

between
the
aims
of
the
programme.
I
will
explore
this
further
in
the
final
analysis
of

the
Physics
course.

The
MYP
as
a
curriculum
framework

As
a
learner-‐centred
total
curriculum
framework
constructed
from
a
philosophy
first

perspective,
the
development
of
the
MYP
could
be
seen
as
a
way
of
drawing
together

the
most
current
and
relevant
ideals
of
curriculum
theory.
A
full
description
of
the

current
MYP
model
is
included
in
Appendix
III.
Documentation
provided
by
the
IB
is

abundant
and
diverse,
including
guides,
principles
to
practice
and
recent
position

papers
on
the
continuum
of
education,
holistic
education
and
culture
(all
2010)
and

concept-‐based
education
(Erickson,
2012).
Within
each
subject
guide
we
see
the

influence
of
curriculum
theorists.
Where
syllabus-‐based
curricula
tend
towards
the

objectives-‐based
model
of
WJ
Popham
(Scott,
2008,
p.21),
this
was
criticized
by

Lawrence
Stenhouse:
“…Trivial
learning
behaviours
may
be
prioritised
at
the
expense
of
more

important
outcomes
because
they
are
easier
to
operationalize.”
Stenhouse

1975
in
(Scott,
2008,
p.27)

And:

“A
behavioural
objectives
model
that
is
underpinned
by
a
taxonomic
analysis

of
knowledge
content
does
not
take
account
of
pedagogical
knowledge
or
the

way
students
learn.”
(Scott,
2008,
p.28)

Furthermore:

“Stenhouse
argues
that
the
teacher
should
be
concerned
not
only
with

students’
behavioural
changes,
but
also
with
wider
issues
such
as
the
ethical

dimension
of
their
behaviour,
unexpected
outcomes
of
adopting
a
rigid

behavioural
objectives
regime,
and
the
consequences
of
their
behaviour
on

other
stakeholders
such
as
parents.
This
argument
assumes
that
ends
and

means
can
be
clearly
separated,
and
that
the
efficient
delivery
of
behavioural

objectives
can
be
achieved
without
the
teacher
paying
any
attention
to

unexpected
consequences”.
(Scott,
2008,
p.28)
(emphasis
mine)

The
MYP
has
leaned
more
towards
Stenhouse’s
process-‐based
model,
including

emphasizing
the
role
of
self-‐assessment
in
student
work
(though
the
teacher
remains

the
final
assessor).
“Ethical
dimensions
of
their
behavior…”
fits
with
the
Learner
Profile

and
“…wider
issues…”
are
the
fundamental
basis
for
the
Areas
of
Interaction.
The

process-‐based
model
would
seem
to
fit
more
comfortably
with
the
holistic
aims
of
the

9


MYP,
yet
the
IB
have
drawn
on
more
than
this
in
their
design
and
development
of
the

programme.

The
programme
becomes
further
removed
from
the

discrete
knowledge
items
of
a
syllabus-‐driven

system
with
the
new
emphasis
on
concept-‐based

curriculum.
In
this
model
(fig.
2),
Erickson
(2008
&

2012)
argues
that
the
two-‐dimensional
topic
or
skills

based
model
focuses
“…
on
facts
and
skills
with
the

goals
of
content
coverage,
and
the
memorization
of

information”
(Erickson,
2012).
On
the
other
hand,

she
argues
that:

“Three-‐dimensional
models
focus
on
concepts,

principles
and
generalizations,
using
related
facts

and
skills
as
tools
to
gain
deeper
understanding
of

Figure
2:
2D
and
3D
instructional
models
(Erickson,

2008),
used
in
(Erickson,
2012)
disciplinary
content,
transdisciplinary
themes
and

interdisciplinary
issues,
and
to
facilitate
conceptual

transfer
through
time,
across
cultures
and
across

situations.”

The
introduction
of
the
MYP
to
this
school,
along
with
the
impending
changes
to
the

MYP
as
a
whole,
have
necessitated
a
change
in
the
way
teaching
and
learning
take
place

in
the
high
school:
the
move
from
2D
to
3D
instruction
requires
some
fundamental

shifts
in
curriculum
planning
and
classroom
pedagogy.
Many
of
these
represent
a

tension
in
the
way
high-‐school
sciences
in
have
been
traditionally
taught,
and
thus

highlight
some
of
the
areas
for
development
in
our
Physics
class.
Despite
this,

curriculum
review
cycle
changes
on
the
horizon
for
IB
Diploma
sciences
do
not
–
in
my

view
-‐
represent
a
significant
shift
into
the
realm
of
three-‐dimensional
instruction.
The

assessment
model
remains
as
a
content-‐driven
high-‐stakes
terminal
examination

model;
the
weighting
of
exams
to
practical
work
shifting
from
76%:
24%
to
80%:
20%

(IB,
2012d).
In
essence,
the
methods
perceived
to
be
required
for
success
in
the
IB

Diploma
science
better
fit
with
the
two-‐dimensional
model,
whereas
the
sea
change
in

curriculum
and
pedagogy
in
the
MYP
is
heading
towards
the
model.

For
our
course
to
be
successful
in
the
aims
of
the
MYP
as
well
as
act
as
a
solid

10


preparation
for
the
Diploma
Programme,
these
tensions
between
traditional
two-‐
dimensional
and
concept-‐based
instruction
must
be
overcome

effectively,
in
particular
these
selected
tensions
identified
by
Erickson:

Two-‐dimensional
instruction
Three-‐dimensional
instruction

Goal
is
increased
factual
knowledge
and
Goal
is
increased
conceptual
understanding

skill
development.

supported
by
factual
knowledge
and
skills.

Assessment
of
factual
knowledge
and
skills.
Assessment
of
conceptual
understanding
ties

back
to
a
central
idea.

Instruction
relies
on
lecture
and
Instruction
is
student-‐led
and
inquiry-‐driven.

information-‐dissemination
to
students.

Focus
on
content
(syllabus)
coverage.

Focus
on
student
understanding
and
thinking.

Selected
from
a
summary
table
of
Erickson’s
views
of
two-‐dimensional
versus
three-‐
dimensional
instruction,
included
in
Appendix
II.
(Erickson,
2012)(Emphasis
mine)

Judging
the
success
of
the
Intro
Physics
course

Our
Physics
course
is
therefore
in
a
challenging
position,
as
it
must
perform
multiple

roles
and
satisfy
the
needs
of
myriad
stakeholders.
It
acts
as
a
preparatory
course
for

students
entering
DP
Physics;
as
a
final
course
for
students
who
may
never
study

Physics
again;
as
preparation
for
IBDP
internal
assessments;
and
as
part
of
the
wider

MYP
at
our
school.
It
survives
in
a
semester
of
tension,
as
students
make
choices
for

their
Diploma
Programme
subjects
while
coming
to
the
end
of
their
MYP
experience.

The
sciences
also
experience
a
jarring
transition
from
MYP
to
DP.
In
the
current
model,

one-‐sixth
of
sciences
assessment
in
the
MYP
is
potentially
exam-‐focused,
generally

achieved
with
unit
tests;
this
shifts
to
76%
of
assessment
in
a
series
of
three
terminal

exams
after
two
years
in
the
Diploma
Programme.
There
is
a
significant
weight
of

responsibility
on
the
MYP
teachers
to
help
their
students
succeed
in
the
high-‐stakes

Diploma
Programme
by
giving
them
sufficiently
‘rigorous’
preparation.

This
responsibility
to
prepare
students
for
the
IB
Diploma
ties
closely
with
the
first
of

the
aims
on
the
MYP
sciences
I
have
identified
to
discuss:
“Acquire
scientific
knowledge

and
skills”
(IB,
2010a).
In
this
respect,
I
would
consider
the
course
to
be
largely

successful.
From
the
perspective
of
the
IBDP
Physics
teacher,
students
are
able
to
be

successful
in
his
class.

The
content
of
the
course
is
based
on
recognized
‘traditional’

Newtonian
physics
as
outlined
in
the
NSES
standards
and
which
also
feed
into
the
IB
DP

Physics
course.
It
fits
a
logical
progression
of
Physics-‐based
learning
(Kibble,
1998,

11


p.99).
The
articulation
of
this
content
and
the
use
of
defined
command
terms
fits
more

in
line
with
Popham’s
objectives-‐based
model
–
discrete,
unambiguously-‐stated
and

descriptive
performance
outcomes
(Ross,
2000,
p.21)

-‐
and
prepares
students
to
use

the
language
of
assessment
in
the
IBDP
sciences
courses.
Examples
of
defined
command

terms
are
included
in
Appendix
V.

However,
I
would
argue
that
the
volume
of
content
defined
in
the
course
is
too
great
to

be
covered
in
a
semester
and
at
the
same
time
meet
all
the
others
aims
of
our
course
as

part
of
the
wider
MYP
model.
This
in
agreement
with
the
findings
of
Schmidt
et
al

(2005)
in
their
exploration
of
data
from
the
Third
International
Mathematics
and

Science
Study
(TIMSS),
in
which
student
achievement
and
curriculum
standards
are

compared
between
the
US
and
other
countries.
They
found
that
countries
with
higher-‐
achieving
students
have
more
coherent,
less
bloated
curricula,
with
the
US
curricula

more
prone
to
becoming
a
‘shopping
list’
of
content
to
cover
in
an
aim
to
appear

‘rigorous’
(Schmidt
et
al.,
2005).
I
propose
that
it
would
be
wise
for
us
to
look
carefully

at
the
level
of
content
included
in
the
course
and
aim
to
bring
this
more
in
line
with

countries
that
typically
rank
more
highly
than
the
US.
This
may
serve
a
secondary

purpose
of
adding
a
more
authentic
element
of
‘internationalism’
to
our
curriculum,

whilst
modeling
the
skills
and
content
of
more
highly-‐achieving
countries.

The
first
aim
requires
students
to
develop
scientific
skills
as
well
as
knowledge,

referring
to
the
ability
to
design
and
implement
scientific
investigations,
collect
and

analyse
data
and
draw
conclusions
and
evaluations.
In
my
experience,
I
see
our
course

as
being
particularly
successful.
It
is
largely
based
in
practical
investigation,
modeling

and
data
analysis.
Descriptors
of
three
of
the
assessment
criteria,
Knowledge
and

understanding
in
Science,
Scientific
inquiry
and
Data
processing
(see
appendix
II),
are

universal
in
the
MYP
sciences,
as
are
the
assessment
criteria
of
the
various
scientific

disciplines
of
he
IB
Diploma.
As
a
result,
skills
developed
in
the
Physics
course
are

transferable
and
allow
students
to
be
successful
in
the
IB
Diploma,
whether
they
study

Physics,
Chemistry
or
Biology.
The
assessment
criteria
also
emphasize
the
importance

of
critical
inquiry
and
analysis
of
data
and
ideas
over
simple
memorization.
This
leads

into
the
second
of
the
aims,
to
“…
develop
critical,
creative
and
inquiring
minds
that
pose

questions,
solve
problems,
construct
explanations,
judge
arguments
and
make
informed

decisions
in
scientific
and
other
contexts”
(IB,
2010a)
Although
students
are
generally

12


able
to
meet
these
descriptors
with
support,
it
highlights
an
area
for
improvement
in

our
course
design
and
implementation.
It
is
quite
a
linear
course,
following
a
traditional

‘Newtonian’
pathway
with
set
assessment
tasks.
Although
instruction
generally
follows

Erickson’s
model,
there
is
significant
scope
for
improvement
or

adjustment
and
I
feel
that
there
is
potential
to
open
up
the
choices
of
topics
and

assessments
to
students
yet
retain
the
core
philosophy
of
concept-‐based
learning.
In
an

attempt
to
cover
the
content,
we
are
conforming
to
Popham’s
model,
where
we
perhaps

should
be
exploring
more
open
models
such
as
suggested
by
Erickson.

The
final
aim
of
the
MYP
sciences
I
have
chosen
to
identify
is
to
“…develop
awareness
of

the
moral,
ethical,
social,
economic,
political,
cultural
and
environmental
implications
of

the
practice
of
using
science
and
technology”
(IB,
2010a).
In
this
respect
the
MYP
as
a

whole
and
our
physics
course
within
are,
in
my
experience,
very
successful.
Sciences

assessment
criterion
A:
One
World
is
designed
in
such
a
way
that
students
are
required

to
address
the
implications
stated
above
in
their
discussion
and
analysis
of
the
use
of

science.

I
see
the
One
World
criterion
as
one
example
of
the
IB’s
development
of
a
total

curriculum,
encompassing
values
education
and
internationalism,
which
lies
in
contrast

to
other,
less
holistic
programmes
such
as
content-‐driven
iGCSE’s
or
Advanced

Placement
(AP)
courses.

This
criterion
is
assessed
throughout
the
course,
with

students
engaging
in
a
community
project
(speeding
drivers)
and
research
on
the

applications
of
science
in
the
global
context
(safety
in
sudden
accelerations
and

sustainable
energy
issues).
Furthermore,
we
take
care
to
connect
the
One
World
issues

of
science
with
the
content
being
studied
at
any
given
time
–
to
try
to
ensure
that

students
see
science
as
something
that
is
key
to
solutions
to
local
and
global
issues

rather
than
a
discrete
academic
discipline
that
is
reduced
to
a
simple
set
of
assessment

statements.
However,
some
students
still
perceive
the
course
in
this
light,
and
the

cultural
relevance
of
science
is
an
area
for
improvement
in
the
design
and
delivery
of

our
programme.

Strengthening
the
course

Curriculum
is
always
in
flux,
just
as
culture
is
always
changing.
Our
course
does
fulfill

its
role
as
an
adequate
preparation
for
the
high-‐stakes
IB
Diploma
Programme
and
we

make
a
concerted
effort
to
bring
in
elements
of
internationalism,
concept-‐based

learning
and
the
moral,
ethical
and
social
implications
of
science
in
the
global
context.

13


The
course
could
also
be
judged
against
Stenhouse’s
definition
of
curriculum
(1975,
p4)

as
"…an
attempt
to
communicate
the
essential
principles
and
features
of
an
educational

proposal
in
such
a
form
that
it
is
open
to
critical
scrutiny
and
capable
of
effective

translation
into
practice."
I
would
argue
that
our
course
meets
the
definition
put

forward
by
Stenhouse
in
that
it
is
well
articulated
in
a
public
form
(website,
curriculum

documents),
and
is
scrutinized
by
teachers
and
coordinators
on
an
annual
basis.
My

teaching
partner
and
I
frequently
analyse
the
content
and
assessment
of
the
course,
in

order
to
make
sure
it
is
meeting
the
aims
that
have
been
set
and
it
has
evolved
a
long

way
from
its
origins
as
a
simple
content-‐driven
syllabus
in
the
days
before
the
school

had
the
MYP.
In
documenting
our
curriculum
and
reviewing
it
on
a
regular
basis,
we
are

increasing
our
ability
to
put
the
wider
aims
of
the
MYP
into
practice
and
I
feel
that
the

course
and
the
educational
experience
of
the
students
is
improving
as
a
whole.

The
freedom
we
have
to
design
the
content,
learning
experiences
and
assessment
tasks

withing
the
MYP
sciences
framework
is
a
further
strength
of
the
programme.
Although

the
initial
introduction
of
the
MYP
to
the
school
(and
to
a
lesser
extent
curriculum

updates
from
the
IB)
may
have
been
seen
by
some
teachers
as
a
‘power-‐coercive’

strategy
to
impose
curriculum
on
teachers
(Kelly,
2004,
p.111),
my
strong
feeling
is
that

we
are
in
a
much
more
‘normative-‐reeducative’
phase
of
the
MYP
in
our
school.
There
is

abundant
professional
development
and
we
have
significant
autonomy
on
the

development
and
implementation
of
curriculum
in
our
courses
–
we
are
the
“change

agents”
with
the
IB
acting
as
our
“outside
support
agency”
(Kelly,
2004,
p.116).
This

environment
therefore
will
allow
us
to
take
action
on
some
of
the
areas
for

improvement
identified
in
this
essay,
in
order
to
strengthen
the
course.

As
a
first
recommendation,
I
feel
strongly
that
we
should
reduce
the
‘shopping
list’
as
it

is
too
much
to
carry
as
well
as
doing
the
aims
of
the
MYP
sciences
justice.
Although

discrete
knowledge
and
understanding
items
are
clearly
defined
in
terms
of
their

outcomes
(see
appendix
I),
students
find
them
useful
and
they
are
in
line
with
the

assessment
statements
of
the
IB
Diploma
Physics
syllabus,
the
volume
of
content
leads

into
a
prescriptive
course
with
little
room
for
genuine
inquiry
in
the
short
semester

allotted.
With
the
evolution
of
the
MYP
into
a
concept-‐based
model,
I
feel
that
we
can

allow
for
greater
student-‐led
inquiry
under
the
same
key
concepts.
For
instance,
the

first
unit
question
of
“How
do
we
describe
change?”
could
easily
be
applied
to
other

14


elements
of
Physics,
such
as
light
and
sound,
tapping
into
students’
interests
in
a
more

authentic
manner.
Furthermore,
a
reduced
content
load
would
allow
for
greater
time

spent
on
scientific
investigation,
developing
key
skills
in
experimental
design,
data

processing,
analysis
and
evaluation
that
are
fundamental
for
success
in
all
of
the
IB

Diploma
sciences,
not
just
physics.

Reducing
the
volume
of
discrete
content
components
would
weaken
the
framing
of
the

course,
giving
the
teachers
and
students
more
control
of
the
direction
of
inquiries,
as

described
by
Bernstein
(Ross,
2000,
p.77).
As
a
result,
it
will
allow
us
to
further
develop

the
pedagogy
of
the
course,
moving
from
the
two-‐dimensional
model
of
content-‐driven

teaching
into
the
model
of
concept-‐based
learning
(Erickson,
2012).

I
would
hope
also
that
it
would
allow
the
course
to
be
more
culturally
relevant
to
our

students,
giving
opportunities
to
adapt
content
to
suit
their
own
needs,
personal

backgrounds
and
potential
university
destinations.
Through
making
these
changes,
I

would
hope
to
see
a
greater
level
of
student
engagement
in
active,
self-‐directed

learning,
without
sacrificing
‘academic
rigour’
or
producing
learners
who
are
under-‐
prepared
for
the
challenges
of
the
IB
Diploma.

My
final
recommendation
is
more
personal,
yet
pertinent
to
this
course.
As
MYP

Coordinator
I
am
the
“change-‐agent”
for
the
MYP
in
our
school,
yet
I
am
keen
to
push

this
into
a
greater
role
as
an
action-‐researcher
(Kelly,
2004,
p.118).
In
doing
so,
I
would

hope
to
establish
a
culture
of
critical
inquiry
on
curriculum
issues
in
our
school,
in

particular
with
regard
to
“…the
planning,
design,
and
organization
of
curriculum

including
attention
to
matters
of
content
selection
and
emphasizing
scientific
and

epistemiological
issues
in
the
selection
of
school
curriculum
content.”
(Pinar, 2003, p.7).
This is starting to get underway under our new leadership, with teachers looking at data-
driven student learning goals, and I would like it to develop into a deeper culture of
evidence-based and forward-thinking attention to curriculum across the school.

Globalisation
and
the
evolution
of
culture
-‐
and
therefore
curriculum
-‐
may
be

unstoppable
forces,
but
our
teaching
does
not
need
to
be
an
immovable
object.

15


References

Cambridge, J. & Thompson, J., 2004. Internationalism and globalization as contexts for
international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
32(4), pp.161-75.

Coates, H., Rosicka, C. & MacMahon-Ball, M., 2007. Perceptions of the International
Baccalaureate Diploma Programme among Australian and New Zealand Universities.
ACER.

Erickson, H.L., 2008. Stirring the Head, Heart and Soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction
and concept-based learning.. Third. ed. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Corwin Press.

Erickson, H.L., 2012. Concept-based teaching and learning (pdf). [Online] International
Baccalaureate Organization Available at:
http://blogs.ibo.org/positionpapers/2012/07/12/concept-based-teaching-and-learning/
[Accessed 18 July 2012].

IB, 2008. MYP: From principles to practice [Note: Password protected]. Cardiff, UK:
International Baccalaureate Organisation. Available at: http://ibo.org [accessed 18 October
2011].

IB, 2009. The Middle Years Programme: A basis for practice (pdf). Cardiff, UK:
International Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [accessed 4
January 2012].

IB, 2010a. MYP Coordinator's Handbook (pdf). Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate
Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org/ [accessed 4 January 2012].

IB, 2010a. MYP: Sciences guide. For use from January 2011. Cardiff, UK: International
Baccaluareate Organisation. Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [accessed 30 January 2011].

IB, 2010c. Command terms in the MYP. Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate
Organisation.

IB, 2011a. MYP Statistical Bulletin, November 2011 moderation session (pdf) [Note:
password protected]. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ibo.org/facts/statbulletin/mypstats/index.cfm [Accessed 12 February 2012].

IB, 2011a. MYP: the next chapter. Project report October 2011. [Online] Available at:
http://occ.ibo.org [Accessed 25 November 2011].

IB, 2011. Development Report: MYP Sciences guide (pdf). [Online] Available at:
http://occ.ibo.org [Accessed 5 November 2011].

IB, 2012a. Mission and strategy. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibo.org/mission/
[Accessed 20 July 2012].

IB, 2012b. School Statistics. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ibo.org/facts/schoolstats/progsbycountry.cfm [Accessed 21 June 2012].

16


IB, 2012c. How to become an International Baccalaureate® World School. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ibo.org/become/index.cfm [Accessed 30 July 2012].

IB, 2012d. Curriculum review report: Physics (pdf). [Online] Available at: http://ibo.org
[Accessed 23 June 2012d].

IB, 2012. IB Fast Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibo.org/facts/fastfacts/ [Accessed
20 February 2012].

Kelly, A.V., 2004. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. [online]. SAGE Publications.
Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=37096. Accessed19 June 2012.

Kibble, B., 1998. Forces.. In M. Ratcliffe, ed. ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education.
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.

Lawton, D., 1975. Class, Culture and the Curriculum. [online]. Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd.

Marsh, C.J., 2009. Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. Teachers' Library Series.
[online]. 4th ed. Taylor & Francis. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=208487.
[Accessed 19 June 2012].

Nicolson, M. & Hannah, L., 2010. History of the Middle Years Programme (pdf). [Online]
Available at: http://occ.ibo.org [Accessed 14 February 2012].

NSES, 1997. Science Content Standards. [Online] National Academies Press, USA.
Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=103 [Accessed 20
July 2012].

Pinar, W.F., 2003. International Handbook of Curriculum Research. [online]. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Available from:
http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104616065#. [Accessed 19 June 2012].

Ross, A., 2000. Curriculum: Construction and Critique. [online]. Taylor & Francis.
Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=2011. [Accessed 19 June 2012].

Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C. & McKnight, C.C., 2005. Curriculum coherence: an
examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), pp.525-59.

Scott, D., 2008. Critical Essays on Major Curriculum Theorists. [online]. Taylor & Francis.
Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=94328. Accessed 18 June 2012.

Stenhouse, L., 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.

17


Appendices

Appendix
I:
Summary
course
of
our
Grade
10
Intro
Physics
course

[Selected
from
our
ATLAS
rubicon,
based
on
MYP
Unit
Planners]

Unit
1:
Describing
Motion
(kinematics)

Unit
Question
Selected
Assessment
Statements
(content)

How
can
we
describe
change?
• Distinguish
between
scalars
and
vectors.

Enduring
Understanding(s)
• Distinguish
between
distance
and
displacement.

• Describe
displacement
of
an
object
using
components

Change
can
be
communicated
using
(coordinates),
magnitude
and
direction
and
directed
line

descriptions,
graphical
segment
vector
diagrams.

representations
and
quantities.

• Describe
motion
of
an
object
in
a
given
direction
based
on

positive
and
negative
displacement.

• Calculate
distance
and
displacement
from
a
map.

• Plot
distance
and
displacement
graphs
from
raw
data
or
a

strobe
diagram

• Distinguish

between
instantaneous
and
average
speed/velocity.

• Calculate
average
speed
and
velocity
from
a
displacement-‐
time
graph
or
set
of
recorded
data.

• Draw
and
analyze
vector
diagrams
to
show
velocity

(magnitude
and
direction)

Summative
assessment
tasks

Criterion
A:
One
World
Community
speeding
driver
project

Criterion
B:
Communication
in
Science
Describing
motion
of
Olympic
sprinters

Criterion
C:
Knowledge
&
Understanding
Unit
test,
criterion-‐graded.

Criterion
D:
Scientific
Inquiry
Design
a
method
to
measure
and
communicate
the

Criterion
E:
Processing
Data
motion
of
the
Rokko
Liner
train.

Criterion
F:
Attitudes
in
Science
Self,
peer
and
teacher-‐assessed
in
lab
work.

Unit
2:
Forces
and
Motion

Unit
Question
Selected
Assessment
Statements
(content)

How
do
interactions
cause
change?
• State
that
forces
cause
change
in
shape
and/or
change
in

motion

Enduring
Understanding(s)
• Describe
the
common
forces

Change
is
the
result
of
unbalanced
net
• Explain
how
the
magnitude

of
a
force
can
be
measured

force.

• Calculate
the
weight
of
an
object
on
Earth
from
its
mass

• State
Newton's
first
law
of
Motion:
Inertia

• Draw
free
body
diagrams

• State
Newton's
second
law
of
motion:
Acceleration

• Define
net
force

• Distinguish
between
balanced
forces
(equiibrium)
and

unbalanced
forces
on
an
object

• Explain
the
effect
of
balanced
or
unbalanced
forces
on
an

object

Summative
assessment
tasks

Criterion
A:
One
World
Article:
dangers
of
sudden
acceleration,
topics

Criterion
B:
Communication
in
Science
based
on
student
interest.

Criterion
C:
Knowledge
&
Understanding
Unit
test,

Criterion
D:
Scientific
Inquiry
Can
a
regular
spring
be
used
to
measure
force?

Criterion
E:
Processing
Data
Student-‐designed
investigation.

Criterion
F:
Attitudes
in
Science
Self,
peer
and
teacher-‐assessed
in
lab
work.

18


Unit
3:
Energy,
Work
and
Power

Unit
Question
Selected
Assessment
Statements
(content)

How
does
energy
transfer
produce
• Define
energy

change?
• Identify
the
form(s)
of
energy
possessed
by
an
object
or

system

Enduring
Understanding(s)
• Distinguish
between
kinetic
and
potential
energy

All
physical
processes
can
be
• Compare
the
relative
quantities
of
a
form
of
energy

possessed
by
a
set
of
objects.

explained
through
the
transfer
of

conserved
energy.

• Define
work

• Outline
how
work
affects
the
quantity
of
energy
in
an
object

• Define
power

• Outline
power
to
the
time
and
work
needed
to
complete
a

task.

• State
the
SI
and
commonly
used
units
for
work,
energy
and

power

• Define
efficiency

• Apply
efficiency
to
the
energy
or
power
needed
to
complete

a
task

Summative
assessment
tasks

Criterion
A:
One
World
Not
assessed
here.

Criterion
B:
Communication
in
Science
Assessed
in
the
lab
report
below.

Criterion
C:
Knowledge
&
Understanding
Unit
test,

Criterion
D:
Scientific
Inquiry
Student-‐designed
investigation
to
determine
the

Criterion
E:
Processing
Data
energy
in
a
rubber
band
or
bouncy
ball.

Criterion
F:
Attitudes
in
Science
Self,
peer
and
teacher-‐assessed
in
lab
work.

Unit
4:
Electricity

Unit
Question
Assessment
Statements
(content)

How
can
we
power
a
community?

Enduring
Understanding(s)

• State
that
there
are
two
types
of
electric
charge
carried
by

Electricity
can
be
harnessed
for
the
particles
such
as
the
electron
and
proton

benefit
of
humankind.

• State
and
apply
the
conservation
of
charge

• Describe
the
difference
in
electrical
properties
of
conductors

and
insulators

• Explain
how
objects
obtain
a
net
charge
through
friction

(triboelectric
effect),
contact
and
induction.

• Draw
charge
distributions
and
explain
electrostatic

phenomena

• Define
electrical
power
including
the
relationship

to
voltage
and
current

• Describe
how
electricity
can
be
produced
using

electromagnetic
induction

• Distinguish
between
alternating
current
and
direct
current

Summative
assessment
tasks

Criterion
A:
One
World
Not
assessed

Criterion
B:
Communication
in
Science
Safety
with
electricity

Criterion
C:
Knowledge
&
Understanding
Unit
test,

Criterion
D:
Scientific
Inquiry
Modeling
the
laws
of
electricity.

Criterion
E:
Processing
Data

Criterion
F:
Attitudes
in
Science
Self,
peer
and
teacher-‐assessed
in
lab
work.

19


Unit
5:
Atomic
Science

Unit
Question
Assessment
Statements
(content)

How
can
we
use
power
responsibly?
• Describe
the
structure
of
the
atom,
especially
the
nucleus.

Define
the
nuclear
terms:
Nuclide,
Nucleon
and
Isotope

Enduring
Understanding(s)
•
• Determine
the
atomic
number,
mass
number
and
neutron

Atomic
energy
is
one
of
many
sources
number
for
a
nuclide
using
a
periodic
table

of
sustainable
electricity,
yet
has
• Describe
the
strong
and
electrostatic
forces
in
the
nucleus.

significant
risks.

• Explain
why
some
nuclei
are
stable
while
others
are

unstable.

• Describe
the
properties
of
alpha,
beta
and
gamma
radiation

• Define
the
term
radioactive
half-‐life

• Outline
the
basic
biological
effects
of
nuclear
radiation.

• Describe
the
process
of
nuclear
fission
and
nuclear
fusion

• Construct
and
complete
nuclear
decay
and
fission
equations

• State
some
uses
for
nuclear
radiation.

• Describe
the
basic
operation
of
nuclear
power
plants

Summative
assessment
tasks

Criterion
A:
One
World
Powering
the
planet
–
student
investigations
into

Criterion
B:
Communication
in
Science
energy
sources
for
sustainability.

Criterion
C:
Knowledge
&
Understanding
Unit
test,

Criterion
D:
Scientific
Inquiry
Modeling
radioactive
decay.

Criterion
E:
Processing
Data

Criterion
F:
Attitudes
in
Science
Self,
peer
and
teacher-‐assessed
in
lab
work.

20


Appendix
II:
(complete)
Aims
and
objectives
of
the
MYP
sciences.
Taken
from
the

science
subject
guide
(IB,
2010a)

Aims

The
aims
of
any
MYP
subject
and
of
the
personal
project
state
in
a
general
way
what
the
teacher
may

expect
to
teach
or
do,
and
what
the
student
may
expect
to
experience
or
learn.
In
addition,
they
suggest

how
the
student
may
be
changed
by
the
learning
experience.

The
aims
of
the
teaching
and
study
of
MYP
sciences
are
to
encourage
and
enable
students
to:

1. develop
curiosity,
interest
and
enjoyment
towards
science
and
its
methods
of
inquiry

2. acquire
scientific
knowledge
and
understanding

3. communicate
scientific
ideas,
arguments
and
practical
experiences
effectively
in
a
variety
of
ways

4. develop
experimental
and
investigative
skills
to
design
and
carry
out
scientific
investigations
and

to
evaluate
evidence
to
draw
a
conclusion

5. develop
critical,
creative
and
inquiring
minds
that
pose
questions,
solve
problems,
construct

explanations,
judge
arguments
and
make
informed
decisions
in
scientific
and
other
contexts

6. develop
awareness
of
the
possibilities
and
limitations
of
science
and
appreciate
that
scientific

knowledge
is
evolving
through
collaborative
activity
locally
and
internationally

7. appreciate
the
relationship
between
science
and
technology
and
their
role
in
society

8. develop
awareness
of
the
moral,
ethical,
social,
economic,
political,
cultural
and
environmental

implications
of
the
practice
and
use
of
science
and
technology

9. observe
safety
rules
and
practices
to
ensure
a
safe
working
environment
during
scientific
activities

10. engender
an
awareness
of
the
need
for
and
the
value
of
effective
collaboration
during
scientific

activities.

Objectives

The
objectives
of
any
MYP
subject
and
of
the
personal
project
state
the
specific
targets
that
are
set
for

learning
in
the
subject.
They
define
what
the
student
will
be
able
to
accomplish
as
a
result
of
studying
the

subject.

These
objectives
relate
directly
to
the
assessment
criteria
found
in
the
“Sciences
assessment
criteria”

section.

A
One
world

This
objective
refers
to
enabling
students
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
role
of
science
in
society.

Students
should
be
aware
that
science
is
a
global
endeavour
and
that
its
development
and
applications

can
have
consequences
for
our
lives.

One
world
should
provide
students
with
the
opportunity
to
critically
assess
the
implications
of
scientific

developments
and
their
applications
to
local
and/or
global
issues.

At
the
end
of
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• explain
the
ways
in
which
science
is
applied
and
used
to
address
specific
problems
or
issues

• discuss
the
effectiveness
of
science
and
its
application
in
solving
problems
or
issues

• discuss
and
evaluate
the
moral,
ethical,
social,
economic,
political,
cultural
and
environmental

implications
of
the
use
of
science
and
its
application
in
solving
specific
problems
or
issues.

B
Communication
in
science

This
objective
refers
to
enabling
students
to
become
competent
and
confident
when
communicating

information
in
science.
Students
should
be
able
to
use
scientific
language
correctly
and
a
variety
of

communication
modes
and
formats
as
appropriate.
Students
should
be
aware
of
the
importance
of

acknowledging
and
appropriately
referencing
the
work
of
others
when
communicating
in
science.

At
the
end
of
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• use
scientific
language
correctly

• use
appropriate
communication
modes
such
as
verbal
(oral,
written),
visual
(graphic,
symbolic)

and
communication
formats
(laboratory
reports,
essays,
presentations)
to
effectively
communicate

theories,
ideas
and
findings
in
science

• acknowledge
the
work
of
others
and
the
sources
of
information
used
by
appropriately

documenting
them
using
a
recognized
referencing
system.

C
Knowledge
and
understanding
of
science

21


This
objective
refers
to
enabling
students
to
understand
scientific
knowledge
(facts,
ideas,
concepts,

processes,
laws,
principles,
models
and
theories)
and
to
apply
it
to
construct
scientific
explanations,
solve

problems
and
formulate
scientifically
supported
arguments.

At
the
end
of
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• recall
scientific
knowledge
and
use
scientific
understanding
to
construct
scientific
explanations

• apply
scientific
knowledge
and
understanding
to
solve
problems
set
in
familiar
and
unfamiliar

situations

• critically
analyse
and
evaluate
information
to
make
judgments
supported
by
scientific

understanding.

D
Scientific
inquiry

While
the
scientific
method
may
take
on
a
wide
variety
of
approaches,
it
is
the
emphasis
on
experimental

work
that
characterizes
MYP
scientific
inquiry.

This
objective
refers
to
enabling
students
to
develop
intellectual
and
practical
skills
to
design
and
carry

out
scientific
investigations
independently
and
to
evaluate
the
experimental
design
(method).

At
the
end
of
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• state
a
focused
problem
or
research
question
to
be
tested
by
a
scientific
investigation

• formulate
a
testable
hypothesis
and
explain
it
using
scientific
reasoning

• design
and
carry
out
scientific
investigations
that
include
variables
and
controls,
material
and/or

equipment
needed,
a
method
to
be
followed
and
the
way
in
which
the
data
is
to
be
collected
and

processed

• evaluate
the
validity
and
reliability
of
the
method

• judge
the
validity
of
a
hypothesis
based
on
the
outcome
of
the
investigation
suggest
improvements

to
the
method
or
further
inquiry,
when
relevant.

E

Processing
data

This
objective
refers
to
enabling
students
to
collect,
process
and
interpret
sufficient
qualitative
and/or

quantitative
data
to
draw
appropriate
conclusions.
Students
are
expected
to
develop
analytical
thinking

skills
to
interpret
data
and
judge
the
reliability
of
the
data.

At
the
end
of
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• collect
and
record
data
using
units
of
measurement
as
and
when
appropriate

• organize,
transform
and
present
data
using
numerical
and
visual
forms

• analyse
and
interpret
data

• draw
conclusions
consistent
with
the
data
and
supported
by
scientific
reasoning.

F
Attitudes
in
science

This
objective
refers
to
encouraging
students
to
develop
safe,
responsible
and
collaborative
working

practices
in
practical
science.

During
the
course,
students
should
be
able
to:

• work
safely
and
use
material
and
equipment
competently

• work
responsibly
with
regards
to
the
living
and
non-‐living
environment

• work
effectively
as
individuals
and
as
part
of
a
group
by
collaborating
with
others.

22


Appendix
III:
The
MYP
Curriculum
Framework

The
MYP
model,
like
the
PYP
and
DP,
places

the
fundamental
stakeholder,
the
Learner,
at

the
centre
of
an
octagon.
Central
to
student

learning
is
the
Learner
Profile,
a
series
of
ten

core
values
deemed
to
be
descriptors
of

traits
of
a
person
who
embodies
the
mission

of
the
IB.
This
is
surrounded
by
the
five

Areas
of
Interaction
(Health
and
social

education,
community
and
service,
human

ingenuity,
approaches
to
learning
and

The
current
MYP
model.
Taken
from
A
History
of
the
Middle
Years

environments),
which
act
as
lenses
to
focus
a
Programme
(Appendix)
(Nicolson
&
Hannah,
2010)

unit
of
inquiry
in
the
class.
Moving
outward
again,
we
see
the
eight
subject
areas,
which

are
to
be
offered
concurrently
during
a
student’s
educational
experience.
Each
of
these

subject
areas
has
its
own
subject
guide,
which
outlines
aims,
objectives,
key
concepts,

assessment
criteria
(all
assessment
is
criterion-‐based)
and
descriptors
for
achievement.

Units
of
inquiry
in
the
MYP
are
intended
to
be
planned
in
collaboration
with
another

teacher,
making
authentic
connections
between
subjects
where
possible.
Planning

should
begin
with
an
area
of
interaction
focus,
and
build
from
there
with
enduring

understandings
and
unit
questions,
based
on
a
backward-‐design
model.
Key
concepts
in

each
subject
area
are
stated
by
the
IB,
though
specific
factual
understandings
are
not,

and
these
are
to
be
addressed
in
curriculum
planning.
This
concept-‐based
curriculum
is

heavily
guided
by
the
work
of
H.
Lynn
Erickson.
Lacking
a
stipulated
syllabus
the
MYP

retains
the
ability
to
be
culturally
adaptive:
schools
can
use
the
content
of
local
systems

or
standards
as
the
foundation
of
their
‘what
to
teach’,
yet
implement
the
programme
as

intended
by
the
MYP.

23


Appendix
IV:
Two-‐dimensional
vs.
instruction,

(Erickson,
2012)

24


Appendix
V:
Command
Terms
in
the
MYP
(IB,
2010c)

This
is
a
small
selection
of
the
set
of
definitions
of
the
action
verbs
now
used
in
MYP

documents
as
a
common
language
of
assessment
between
subjects.

25

Curriculum Studies Assignment

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Curriculum Studies Assignment

More from Stephen Taylor

Curriculum Studies Assignment