Having the freedom and mental space to reflect is a luxury that we don't often have time for when we're in the thick of it. Lately I've been thinking about some of the many lessons I learned during my time as MYP Coordinator -- particularly about the difference between coordination as a finished product and coordination as an ongoing process.

When I first stepped into the coordinator role, I had a clear vision of what successful curriculum coordination would look like: perfectly aligned units across departments, seamless interdisciplinary connections, assessment practices that spoke to each other in harmonious consistency. I imagined my job was to create these systems once, document them thoroughly, and then maintain them.

I was thinking about coordination all wrong.

Early in my coordination work, I operated from what I now recognise as a "product mindset." I believed that successful coordination meant creating polished, finished systems that would function smoothly with minimal ongoing adjustment. I spent enormous energy developing comprehensive planning documents, detailed assessment frameworks, and elaborate interdisciplinary mapping exercises. The underlying assumption was that if I could just design the right structures, coordination would become automatic. But curriculum coordination isn't a product you complete -- it's a process you facilitate. It's a verb, not a noun.

Curricula evolve constantly. New standards emerge, student populations shift and teachers develop new expertise. Teacher collaboration is dynamic, depending on relationships and shared understandings that develop over time. External pressures -- administrative priorities, budget constraints, staffing changes -- constantly affect how curriculum can be coordinated.

The product mindset treats these realities as problems to be solved once. The process mindset treats them as ongoing conditions that coordination needs to accommodate.

Effective coordination is fundamentally relational, not transactional. It can't be reduced to completed documents or perfectly aligned systems. It requires ongoing relationship-building, trust development and a collective sense of purpose that emerges through sustained collaboration.

Through trial and error, (mostly error) I now see three essential elements for sustainable curriculum coordination:

1. Regular rhythms over perfect plans: Sustainable coordination depends more on consistent meeting schedules and established communication patterns than on comprehensive planning documents. Teachers need predictable spaces to connect, collaborate and problem-solve together.
2. Flexible frameworks over rigid systems: The most useful coordination tools are adaptable templates rather than detailed requirements. Teachers need structures that support their planning process without dictating their approach. Agency is as important to adults (if not more so) than it is to students.
3. Responsive adjustment over static implementation: Effective coordination includes built-in mechanisms for feedback and adaptation. The system needs to expect that changes will be necessary and make those changes manageable rather than disruptive.

As you think about coordination in your own context, consider where you might be operating from a product mindset when a process mindset would serve you better:

• Are you spending more energy perfecting planning documents than establishing regular planning conversations?
• Are you focused on creating comprehensive systems or sustainable practices?
• Are you measuring success by the elegance of your frameworks or by the quality of ongoing teacher collaboration?

The shift from product to process thinking doesn't make coordination easier -- it makes it more realistic and ultimately more effective. It acknowledges that curriculum coordination, like teaching itself, is ongoing work that gets better with practice, reflection and adaptation. When coordination becomes an ongoing process, the coordinator's role shifts from designer to facilitator, from implementer to supporter, from maintainer to responder.

The most important lesson from my coordination experience is that sustainability comes from building capacity for change, not from preventing the need to change.

The post Embracing the process: rethinking curriculum coordination appeared first on ASJ Learning.

The post Synergising IB ATT & ATL appeared first on ASJ Learning.

So what defines IB teaching? Luckily, the IB has developed 6 Approaches to Teaching (ATT) to guide us:

• Teaching is based on inquiry
• Teaching is focused on conceptual understanding
• Teaching is developed in local and global contexts
• Teaching is focused on effective teamwork and collaboration
• Teaching is designed to remove barriers to learning
• Teaching is informed by assessment

IB teachers and schools spend a lot of time on ATL. But how often do we pause and reflect on the ATT -- either individually or as a school community?

After my last post, in which I shared a suggested progression for ATL skills, I wondered if I could create something similar for the ATT. I was inspired by Dr Lynn Erickson and Dr Lois Lanning's rubrics for the developing concept-based teacher. I did consider using the IBEN descriptors of Emerging, Capable, Skilful, and Leading, but three seemed like the magic number so I have used Novice, Emerging and Master instead. In addition to the descriptors for each level, I have included recommended books 📖, podcasts 🎙️ and online courses 💻 to deepen one's understanding of each ATT. Most of these are resources that I have personally used and would endorse, but there are a few that I have not read or listened to myself yet -- they are on my never-ending "to read" or "to listen" to list.

If you are a teacher or a leader in an IB school and you find this reflective tool useful, please comment on the post or send me a private message -- I would love to hear from you!

You can download the free self-reflection tool here.

The post What about ATT (Approaches to Teaching)? appeared first on ASJ Learning.

The post Approaches to Learning (ATL) skills progression appeared first on ASJ Learning.

I like a good generalization. It makes abstract ideas concrete. However, as my own understanding of conceptual learning has evolved over the years, I have also started to reconsider whether the process of understanding always results in such a concrete generalization.

A generalization is, in essence, an "answer" to a conceptual question. For example:

❓What effect do elements such as lighting, sound and camera angles have on a film audience?

🙋‍♀️ Film directors make decisions about lighting, sound and camera angles to elicit fear from the audience.

❓How do presenters engage an audience?

🙋‍♀️ Presenters use speaking conventions and non-verbal communication techniques to engage an audience.

❓Why is it important for readers to evaluate a text’s origin and purpose?

🙋‍♀️ Evaluating a text’s origin and purpose helps readers judge its credibility.

But not all questions result in a definitive answer. Sometimes, the inquiry process leads to more questions. And in one of the workshops I was facilitating earlier this year, one of the English teachers posed an interesting question to me: "Isn't creating a generalization imposing a specific interpretation [of literature] onto students?" Hmm... I hadn't considered that before, but there is perhaps some truth to that. After all, (one of) my understanding(s) of Macbeth might be Ambition and a desire for power can drive a person to commit morally questionable actions, but that is fairly subjective and not necessarily the same understanding that my colleagues (or students) might have of the same text.

I still enjoy the process of crafting a generalization. It clarifies my thinking and gives me something concrete, relevant and meaningful to frame a unit or lesson (as opposed to an old-fashioned learning objective or an impersonal standard). But I don't think that generalizing is the end goal of the conceptual thinking process. The thinking itself is the goal.

The post Reflecting on the process of understanding appeared first on ASJ Learning.

Earlier this term, I shared a scaffold for the MYP Projects; I aligned the Projects objectives with one or two specific ATL skills and developed understandings and guiding questions that could be used to move students beyond just doing to a deeper understanding of why they do what they do, particularly in areas such as goal-setting. I started to wonder if this might work elsewhere in the programme and developed another resource which conceptualises the Language & Literature (Year 5) objectives. I have also aligned the objectives and understandings with what I think are the most appropriate ATL skills. You can download the resource here.

So how -- and when -- might you use these understandings? They are not meant to replace the statement of inquiry. However, they can be used to develop more disciplinary expertise. They are generic understandings that can be utilized within any unit, depending on the key objectives that teachers might prioritise. For example, in the context of a unit entitled Villainous Characters (focus text: Macbeth) in my English Language & Literature class (MYP 4), where our key concept is connections and the related concepts are character and intertextuality, we explore Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as archetypal characters and consider how they have been portrayed in different performances. Throughout this exploration, we examine various adaptations and interpretations, looking closely at how different contexts influence the portrayal of these characters and their motivations. We pay particular attention to non-verbal language, a critical element that often enriches the textual analysis and character understanding. Since this is one of the key objectives of the unit, and we explicitly teach how to analyse and use non-verbal language, I might want to weave in this understanding: Non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and gestures determine how spoken communication is perceived and understood by conveying emotions and intentions that words alone may not fully express. This nuanced understanding can deepen students’ analyses, enabling them to appreciate the complexity of character interactions and the subtlety of performance, ultimately fostering a richer engagement with the text and its themes.

The post Moving beyond verb-driven objectives in the MYP appeared first on ASJ Learning.

The post Project-based learning in the MYP appeared first on ASJ Learning.

Monday morning, I accompanied my eldest daughter on her first commute into central London for a week of work experience at an architecture company.

And this is where the personal and the professional converge, because on the way home all I could think about were the interdisciplinary skills and concepts she would be using and acquiring this week. Without wanting to seem reductionist, I think these are the top 3:

1. Planning, organisation and time management: This started even before she stepped foot in the office. From the moment the alarm went off, to navigating the train timetable and considering whether it was more efficient to take the direct train or opt for a more indirect route via Tube -- not to mention the planning and organisation needed to execute tasks on the job -- these are key skills that everyone needs to master.
2. Communication and interpersonal skills: She is negotiating within a totally new social environment, learning to communicate with people from various backgrounds and levels of expertise -- all of whom are at least 15 years older than she is. It's no doubt pushing her out of her comfort zone, but looking back on my own experience as a teenager (during which I simply jumped into a retail job at age 16 without any training wheels), any discomfort she experiences now will pay dividends later on.
3. Problem-solving and decision-making: The decisions she will need to make will be fairly well managed at this stage, but even something as simple as deciding when to go for a cup of tea can feel huge when you've spent the last 10 years asking for permission to use the toilet. Gaining agency can be exciting… but also intimidating.

She will have to draw on subject-specific knowledge and skills she has gained from Art, Design, Computer Science, Mathematics, and English. Because even a job that may be rooted in one discipline is interdisciplinary in nature -- the world of work is not siloed like a classroom.

Reused from a LinkedIn post

The post On the job: interdisciplinary learning in action appeared first on ASJ Learning.

Back in August, I wrote about a modification to our Wednesday timetable, aimed to provide more time for the MYP Core elements (e.g., the Approaches to Learning, Service Learning, IDUs, and MYP Projects). Now, as the school year comes to an end, I'll share our reflections and plans for refining the programme next year.

What has worked well?

• Many students have commented on how much they have enjoyed a "break" from the heavy academic work of the rest of the week. Having a bit of breathing space mid-week has reduced cognitive load and allowed for students to refocus their energy.
• Students (and parents) have really valued the Supervised Study sessions, so we intend to keep these, but they will not be officially timetabled in Grades 6-8; instead, we will use one of the Wednesday subject lessons on an alternating system (so Week 1 might be English, Week 2 Maths, Week 3 Science, and so on).
• Dedicated time for MYP Projects has helped students focus explicitly on the project objectives and achieve more balance, especially in Grade 10. It will be interesting to compare our results with previous years', when we had to "steal" time from advisory sessions and subject lessons and students had to complete the projects almost entirely outside of school. An improvement in results was never the main priority (our results have always been well above the world average), but I am curious to see if an increase in results is a by-product of a more structured approach.
• Although it has taken time to pick up speed, dedicating Wednesdays to "trip days" has helped reduce the impact on lost subject time.

What has NOT worked so well?

• IDUs in Grades 6-8 have worked well due to the project-based nature of the units, but it has been challenging for teachers who are not subject-specialists to deliver disciplinary content. Our Heads of Faculty have done their best to work around this by arranging for internal swaps of teachers, but this has, at best, relied on the good will of teachers and, at worst, placed a burden on the cover system. In Grades 9 & 10, where the emphasis has been on the four disciplines included on the Interdisciplinary eAssessment (Language & Literature, Individuals & Societies, Maths, and Sciences), it has proven much more challenging to deliver the IDUs outside of subject time by non-specialist teachers.
• Whilst well-intentioned, Service Learning as a stand-alone lesson has not worked as effectively as we had hoped. Students have benefitted from some structured time for planning and reflection, but we haven't needed as much time as we had anticipated. We have run some really meaningful grade-level "legacy projects", but ideally Service as Action would be integrated more meaningfully within the curriculum; setting it apart has not allowed for a consistent faculty commitment to developing service within MYP units.

What's next?

• Subject time on alternate Wednesdays will be brought back next year.
• The “Core” (ATLs, Service Learning, Projects) will be consolidated into one lesson, with an aim to be more project-based. We will use the Projects aims and objectives (Community Project for Grades 6-8, Personal Project for Grades 9 & 10) to structure the core projects. As our brilliant Personal Project Coordinator pointed out, all of the subject criteria remains the same throughout the MYP; even though the command terms increase in sophistication, the criteria itself does not change. However, students only become familiar with the Projects objectives when they encounter them, so by introducing these objectives earlier in the programme, and actually using them to structure inquiries, we can better scaffold students towards the independent inquiries required in the projects. (Incidentally, independent inquiry is a focus of our Programme Development Plan, so there is a nice cohesion with the Core.)
• IDUs will be reabsorbed by the subjects. Teaching teams will have agency and flexibility in determining when and for how long they occur – as long as there are at least two IDUs per grade per year.
• We will maintain the flexible philosophy of the Wednesdays and look to this day first when scheduling trips and events.

It's always a risk to implement any kind of change, but being open-minded and reflective means that we can lean into what has worked and improve on what hasn't to ensure that our students have the best experience.

The post Core 2.0: reflections and refinements appeared first on ASJ Learning.

I've been reflecting on how my own views of PD have grown and evolved over the years. These reflections led me to pose the following questions:

What defines "professional development" (Factual)

How can individuals develop within systems? (Conceptual)

How can systems support individual development? (Conceptual)

I recently stumbled upon The PD Book: 7 Habits That Transform Professional Development by Elena Aguilar and Lori Cohen and their definition of PD affirmed the shift in my own understanding. According to them:

Professional development IS "a transformative process in which learners are actively engaged and for which the aim is to explore and expand behaviors, beliefs, and ways of being; a learning process that results in a change of practice." Professional developing ISN'T "a transactional process in which learners are passive subjects who are asked to simply change their behaviours." (Aguilar, 2022)

Unfortunately, a lot of school-based PD is transactional -- or it is outsourced to external providers. Many schools purport to offer "generous professional development opportunities" as a way to entice candidates, and whilst it is great if a school will pay to send you on a 3-day course to Barcelona or Budapest, these experiences are only effective if they are sustained post-event. And schools that don't have the means to fund these kinds of external activities can still be environments ripe for professional development.

Relying on approval for a PD event, rather than support for a PD goal, can be stifling. This kind of thinking can perhaps make teachers feel like they lack agency, consequently preventing them from taking part in activities that promote personal growth and progression. Some examples of professional development that are within an individual teacher's control and do not rely on the "approval" of the school (although they will be more successful with the support of the school) might include:

• Reading professional articles or books
• Engaging in a professional learning community (PLC). Since COVID forced a lot of professional development online, opportunities have arisen for global collaborations, making it possible to connect outside of your immediate school context.
• Peer observations or lesson studies
• Action research projects
• Unit planning and curriculum development
• Cross-disciplinary collaboration, including interdisciplinary teaching and learning

Whatever the activity, it is important to consider our individual goals (and values) within the context of the goals and values of the systems that we work in.

I'll sign off this post with one last (debatable) question:

Is it the responsibility of individual educators or the systems they operate within to primarily drive and facilitate professional development?

The post On professional development: individual agency within systems appeared first on ASJ Learning.