Get started with MYP Design! If you have a science or STEAM background and are new to MYP Design, this post should help you understand how to develop MYP design project ideas from science. The information targets upper elementary and middle school teachers, but higher grade levels can benefit as well.

Many teachers who teach MYP Design for the first time, need ideas. If you inherit units from a previous teacher, you may want to use these MYP Design project ideas. If you want to feel more ownership and investment in the teaching, you may want to develop your own units, but it takes time to develop lessons. Science teachers can harness their knowledge of setting up experiments to teach MYP Design (e.g., engineering a paper water tank).

A background in science provides teachers with solid skills to teach MYP Design. Science teachers have lots of experience following a process (scientific method), gathering data, and evaluating results–these skills help with the design process. Although science and design are not the same, they share similarities.

What is MYP Design?

MYP stands for Middle Years Program and is part of the International Baccalaureate’s (IB) educational program. The IB’s goal is to foster curious, informed, self-confident, and caring students.

In the MYP Design Program, students have a chance to explore and learn more about design principles and design thinking. Through MYP Design lessons, students have the chance to use design thinking to develop their own projects.

To create a design project, students first target a problem and research it. They then brainstorm ideas by using a creative tool such as a brainstorming exercise or inspiration from things around them. Next, students choose their best idea and visualize their design concept on paper or digitally on a computer. Students also create a mockup or prototype of their designs to best determine how it could solve the problem and possibly how it would actually work in the real world. Finally, students evaluate the success of their solutions.

What are the 4 Steps of the MYP Design Cycle?

The MYP Design Cycle uses four logical steps (called “criterion”) to guide students through the entire design process. Each criterion has four parts called “strands.” The cycle can be repeated to improve upon the solution to the problem. The four MYP Design Cycle Criteria are:

• A – Inquiring and Analyzing – Define and research a design problem
• B – Developing Ideas – Brainstorm and develop ideas to solve the problem
• C – Creating the Solution – Plan and build a prototype 
• D – Evaluating – Test and evaluate the solution

How Do I Teach MYP Design?

The design projects for MYP are a great way to implement a variety of design skills. With these projects, students have the opportunity to apply what they have learned in the MYP curriculum. Students achieve a greater understanding of how design can be used as a tool to communicate ideas that solve problems.

Some student MYP Design project topics could be:

• a dream house plan for a grandparent
• an animated public service announcement to promote cyber safety at school
• a water tank prototype from simple materials
• a gift from upcycled plastic for a family member

Scientific Method vs Design Process

If you are using MYP Design project ideas from science, it’s important to compare and contrast the scientific method and the design process. The scientific method is a process of developing knowledge about our world. It is based on empirical evidence and involves testing hypotheses to come to conclusions. The design process, on the other hand, can be more like an art form than the scientific method. MYP Design includes coming up with all kinds of ideas and making prototypes of these ideas before deciding which ones are worth pursuing further.

Within the MYP Design Cycle steps, students and teachers can use different methods for designing products or services. These methods include but are not limited to: the scientific method, brainstorming, and rapid prototyping. Most designers would agree that there are pros and cons for each of these methods.

How is the Design Process Different from the Scientific Method?

Designers use a process that can be different from the scientific method. They are guided by the methods of design thinking (which parallels the steps in the MYP Design Cycle) in order to create solutions that are useful for an individual or group of people. Design could solve a problem for plants or animals too.

Designs are almost always subjective in nature. Maybe because what is considered a problem-to-be-solved is determined by the eye of the beholder! Designs need to be tested against design specifications and these requirements could be subjective as well. Scientists, using the scientific method, make great efforts to control certain variables to look for accurate cause and effect relationships between other variables.

How is the Design Process Similar to Scientific Inquiry?

MYP Design is a process of creating and exploring possibilities to solve a problem. It’s also a process of making decisions based on research and evidence and then testing those decisions to see if they work sufficiently.

Designers often leverage the scientific method as a metaphor for design. The scientific method is a set of steps that scientists take to explore and test their ideas about our physical world. They observe, hypothesize, experiment, analyze data, and then draw conclusions. These steps are not always followed in the same order or with the same emphasis when using design thinking.

MYP Design Project Idea from Science

An easy fit for an MYP design project developed from a science experiment would fall into the category of engineering design. This means the science experiment to reference should be in the area of physical science for a smooth connection to design.

A typical MYP unit lasts about six weeks. The KIS International School reports that their MYP units can span from four to ten weeks long. Unit length should be kept in mind if you’re going to conduct the scientific experiment within the steps of the MYP Design Cycle. Even if you’re not new to MYP Design, the process from beginning to end can seem long, especially for students new to design (e.g., grade 6).

A science experiment fits well into Criterion A – Inquiring and Analyzing. Specifically, in the second strand of this criterion, students in MYP Design identify and prioritize the research needed to solve the problem. Here, students can use the data from a physical science experiment as their research. If time allows, students can conduct the full experiment. Criterion A does benefit from hands-on experience, and a hands-on experiment here would probably improve student engagement in this inquiry and analysis phase.

Examples of a Physical Science Experiment

Physical science experiments can be expensive and time-consuming. But there are some low-budget, quick experiments that can yield valuable results. Easy-to-do, low-budget experiments can be done at home or in a classroom with simple materials and minimal equipment. They require very little cost and time to complete and they provide valuable information about how the world works in ways that may not have been thought about before.

The Paper Helicopter Experiment is a good example of a simple, inexpensive science experiment that can be done at home or school. In this example, the researcher is looking at the cause and effect relationship between the helicopter blade length and the time aloft. The specific scientific inquiry question is:

Does changing the blade-length-to-body-height ratio of a paper helicopter affect how long it stays in the air?

MYP Design Cycle Example

An MYP Design unit that can be most easily developed from a science experiment would be based around an engineering design problem. Many engineering scenarios center around efficiencies and tradeoffs. Tradeoffs involve giving up one desired quality in exchange for another desired quality. In other words, tradeoffs tend to offset each other, and a balance between competing and desired design characteristics should try to be achieved.

A typical engineering problem is to build something as strong as possible with the least amount of materials, such as a bridge. Ideally, successful engineering solutions solve problems completely (i.e., meet all the design specifications) with minimal resources.

The paper helicopter experiment tests blade length’s effect on drop time. An MYP Design unit should benefit from the knowledge gained in this experiment and extend naturally into an engineering design problem. The concept of tradeoffs can help frame the design problems.

MYP Design Problem

The MYP design scenario example developed from a science experiment should provide students with an authentic design experience and offer a productive struggle with tradeoffs. By requiring two design specifications that set targets for a paper helicopter’s flight time and drop accuracy, this experience can be achieved.

MYP Design projects center around a problem to be solved. The problem is essentially the goal. The engineering design problem for a paper helicopter would be to create a prototype that reliably:

• Stays aloft for as long as possible (i.e., drops slowly)

– AND –

• Descends as straight down as possible (i.e., lands accurately)

The key term here is “reliably.” Can these two goals be achieved over and over consistently? Multiple trials for each helicopter would be needed during the evaluation phase to ensure the data are truly representing the results.

Typically, some students will be able to create a helicopter that descends very slowly–probably with a design that tends to have longer blades and a shorter tail. This slow-descending model tends to be unpredictable and can veer off course during any trial. A longer-tailed and shorter-bladed paper helicopter will descend predictable straight down, but sacrifice time aloft to do so. Helicopters with more than two blades are sometimes explored as well.

MYP Design Scenario

A simple MYP Design project ideas for the paper helicopter tradeoff problem could look like this:

• Goal – To create a paper helicopter prototype that reliably: 1) Stays aloft for as long as possible (i.e., drops slowly); and 2) descends as straight down as possible (i.e., lands accurately).
• Role – You (the student) are training to be a junior aeronautical engineer at NASA working on terraforming Mars.
• Audience – Your NASA bosses are evaluating your helicopter engineering skills to help deliver important technology safely to Mars.
• Situation – Expensive, essential, and delicate technology is needed at a precise location on Mars to begin terraforming. Only a specially designed helicopter can complete this mission. One that both descends slowly and accurately.
• Product – A paper helicopter prototype shall be made from an entire one-half piece of letter paper. The paper to be used measures 5.5 by 8.5 inches (14 by 21.6 centimeters).
• Standards for Success – The paper helicopter prototype shall stay aloft as long as possible and descend as straight down as possible.

Download the illustrated version of the GRASPS as slides:

If you want flight data as a reference, download student trial data generated during Criterion A. These student-generated data come with paper helicopter activity questions:

MYP Design Lesson – An Introduction to the Design Cycle

If your class is just getting started with MYP Design, then consider spending one week going through the four criteria of the MYP Design Cycle as a warm-up to longer units. Here’s an outline of how to become familiar with the Paper Helicopter Design Tradeoff Problem:

• Criterion A – Discuss the who, what, and why of the GRASPS: What are you making? Who is it for? Why are you making it? There’s almost too much information online about paper helicopters, so consider making a curated set of links to focus students’ research on the design problem. Consider some hands-on investigation as well with paper helicopters.
• Criterion B – Brainstorm as many solutions as possible to meet the standards for success (essential design specifications). Sketch and annotate the best idea.
• Criterion C – Creating the Solution – In groups, have students choose the best idea and build one prototype per group for official testing.
• Criterion D – Test each group’s prototype as many times as possible. Gather drop-time data and target accuracy data for each trial. Summarize the data for each group (e.g., mean and standard deviation). Use the data to evaluate how each helicopter performed in terms of drop time and accuracy.

If possible, repeat the process, using the data from Criterion D to inform the inquiry and analysis in Criterion A.

Another short example of MYP Design with an engineering focus is the Paper Airplane Design, Data, and Discovery post. This mini-unit takes about one week to complete (three classes of about one hour).

MYP Design Testing Methods

The MYP Design Teacher Support Material resource was developed to assist with the 2014 MYP Design Guide. It classifies testing methods conducted in Criterion D into five areas:

• Expert Appraisal
• Field Trial
• Performance Testing
• User Observation
• User Trials

For the Paper Helicopter Design Tradeoff problem, performance testing is needed to properly evaluate the success of the solution. Set up the launching areas and calculate flight times as described in the Paper Helicopter Experiment. Accuracy can be measured with a centered target combined with a 1 cm grid overlay placed on the floor.

To accurately place the target below the launch point, hang a mass (e.g., paperclip) on a thread from the ceiling to directly above the floor, then mark the floor. This mark will be the center of your target. The eventual drop height of 200 cm works well to test for the optimal relationship between blade length and accuracy.

If you want to convert the time aloft and accuracy into one metric, make sure you’re not dividing by zero. For example, if we define the tradeoff metric to be flight time divided by accuracy, then accuracy can never be zero. In this case, accuracy should be defined as the furthest part of the helicopter to the target’s center. The higher the tradeoff metric, the more successful the design.

MYP Design Lesson – Full-length Unit

A full-length, six-week-long MYP design lesson is possible with the paper helicopter. Covering every strand will allow you to go deep into the process on a very low budget. A full-length design unit may feel process heavy and can seem to require a lot of writing. If you can find other forms of how students can show what they know (e.g., vlog) and your MYP program coordinator allows it, consider these options for students to communicate their thinking as you go through the design cycle.

One MYP Design example that is a full-length unit and is engineering-focused is the paper water tank. The paper water tank design problem requires students to build a water tank from a minimum amount of newspaper, Popsicle™ sticks, and tape to hold 200 mL of water for three minutes.

This MYP design unit covers each of the 16 strands of the MYP Design Cycle and is a model for a full-length MYP design unit. In addition, Criteria A, B, C, and D can serve as templates for an engineering-based MYP design lesson such as the paper water tank.

There are additional elements to a full MYP Design lesson that help students go deeper into understanding. Also, at some point, your school’s ​​MYP program coordinator will probably require you to create and document an MYP unit, which can be referred to as an MYP unit planner. These broader elements will probably need to be documented in the planner. Global contexts, key concepts, and a statement of inquiry are the interrelated specific elements to add relevance for students in an MYP unit.

Global Contexts

These contexts help teachers reference real-world examples outside of the classroom. The MYP Design Guide lists six global contexts:

• identities and relationships
• orientation in space and time
• personal and cultural expression
• scientific and technical innovation
• globalization and sustainability
• fairness and development

Key Concepts

In MYP Design, the key concepts are communication, communities, development, and systems. These four broad categories of concepts represent one-fourth (16 total) of all of the key concepts in the MYP Program. According to the MYP Design Guide, “Key concepts provide a framework for design, informing units of work and helping to organize teaching and learning.”

Statement of Inquiry

The statement of inquiry attempts to capture the importance of the lesson succinctly. The design problem is derived from the statement of inquiry and presents the essence of the project. The MYP Design Guide (2014-15) explains: “Statements of inquiry set conceptual understanding in a global context in order to frame classroom inquiry and direct purposeful learning.”

The statement of inquiry should come across as timeless and universally transferable. In other words, the concept put forward should feel essential for all learners and worth knowing in general. Factual, conceptual, and debatable questions help students explore and understand the statement of inquiry. These questions can be part of the inquiry and analysis in Criterion A.

Adding Context to the Paper Helicopter Design Tradeoff Problem

For the Paper Helicopter Design Tradeoff Problem, the MYP Design elements would be:

• Global Context – Scientific and Technical Innovation
• Key Concept – Systems (interacting components where a tradeoff must be found to achieve the goal)
• Statement of Inquiry – Engineers adjust a design’s characteristics to optimize performance

MYP Design Assessment Criteria

If you are new to MYP Design, assessment is not done on an A-F or 0-100 scale. The assessed curriculum in the MYP spans from an achievement level of one up to eight. Each criterion (A through D) has its own set of level descriptors. See the Assessment Criteria Overview section in the MYP Design Guide for more information.

My former school decided to modify the MYP assessment scale to be from one to seven. Check out my post, MYP Design Assessment Criteria Modified, to learn more and for a set of concise MYP Design Assessment rubrics.

MYP Design Project Ideas Summary

In conclusion, MYP Design project ideas from science can be an excellent starting point! MYP Design units center around the MYP Design Cycle and can focus on any problem. Quantifiable problems based on physical experiments naturally lend themselves to a design process and are a great place to start.

Teachers new to MYP Design can leverage their knowledge of physical science experiments to familiarize themselves with the design process. Both design and science seek to uncover knowledge through a deliberate process. Science uses controlled experiments to evaluate relationships between phenomena. Design aims to create solutions to problems from engineering to all aspects of society.

Final Thoughts on MYP Design Project Ideas from Science

MYP Design is easier to teach when you start with science. Simple experiments, such as a paper helicopter drop, can evolve into fun design challenges that help students learn to think, plan, build, and improve. These projects are ideal for upper elementary and middle school students, providing them with practical opportunities to apply the MYP Design Cycle and solve real-world problems.

Try These MYP Design Project Resources in Your Class

Try this STEM helicopter challenge!

These free downloads have everything you need to run the paper helicopter project:

Paper Helicopter GRASPS Challenge (PDF)

Student Trial Data for the Experiment (PDF)

Print them out, follow the steps, and launch a low-budget design unit your students will love!

Welcome to the last Criterion in the MYP Design Cycle, Criterion D – Evaluating. If you’ve been following my posts about the MYP Design criteria, I have been focusing on my teaching and learning experiences with Year 1 (grade 6) students in the IB’s MYP Design Program.

What is Criterion D in MYP Design?

After completing MYP Design Criterion C – Creating the Solution, students evaluate the success of the solution in Criterion D. For Year 1 students, by the end of the school year, they should be able to outline the following according to the MYP Design Guide:

• simple, relevant testing methods, which generate data, to measure the success of the solution
• the success of the solution against the design specification
• how the solution could be improved
• the impact of the solution on the client/target audience

The specific word the MYP Design guide uses is “outline”. Students need to be able to outline or summarize the above four bullet points to show optimal understanding in MYP Design Criterion D – Evaluating.

What is Criterion D in the Design Cycle Really?

For my Year 1 students, I used the MYP Design Cycle to organize my approach to completing Criterion D. I would go through each strand as deliberately as possible, given that this class was my students’ first in MYP Design.

Criterion D – Evaluating starts at about four to four and a half weeks after beginning the unit with Criterion A – Inquiring and Analyzing. So, Criterion D for my classes lasted about one and a half to two weeks (i.e., four to six classes, one hour long each).

The reflective strands of Criterion D (D.3 and D.4) were not at the top of the list in terms of my students’ favorites. Overall, we did a lot of writing in each criterion throughout the unit. Had I offered other options instead of writing (e.g., Patlet, Seesaw) maybe the reflective writing in these final strands would have been met with greater enthusiasm.

When we conducted an evaluation of a physical product (e.g., performance testing), Criterion D was very popular! It can be exciting and fun to see how designs hold up to testing, how they fail, and to enjoy a little friendly competition.

MYP Design Statement of Inquiry and the GRASPS Scenario

Before getting too deep into this criterion, it’s important to spend some time reviewing and discussing the “why” of the lesson. The last time the reason for solving the design problem was reviewed and discussed was probably at the start of Criterion A.

Go over the GRASPS again (example). This brief task scenario outlines the goal of the unit, the student’s role, and who will benefit from the solution. A review of the statement of inquiry (example) will reconnect students to the big-picture purpose of their learning as well.

MYP Design Criterion D – Getting Started

For each criterion in an MYP unit, I had students complete one Google Doc over multiple class periods. MYP Design can be taught in other ways, but this is how I framed it. Here’s an example of the Criterion D document for my first unit, the paper water tank.

I found it helpful for students to warm up to Criterion D with a “zero strand”. That is, before students started Strand D.1, they completed D.0, which was essentially a success-activity warm-up piece with fill-in-the-blank questions about information from previous criteria.

For example, in our third unit, we upcycled plastic into a gift for a specific audience. For this unit, Strand D.0 – Design Reference and Identification was created to “provide elements of the design to fully communicate the solution.” Students restate the gift recipient, the gift name, and the final sketch of the gift from Criterion B – Developing Ideas.

As I mentioned before, the overall amount of writing can be a turn-off in Criterion D. With this being the last criteria, fatigue can begin to set in as well. Even though Strand D.0 is a tiny bit of extra work, these first few easy steps in D.0 can help make Criterion D less disagreeable and more inviting.

Strand D.1 – Design Testing Methods

Specifically, at the end of Year 1, the MYP Design Guide states that for the highest achievement level (a 7-8 score), the student “outlines simple, relevant testing methods, which generate data, to measure the success of the solution.” At the 5-6 achievement level, the student “defines relevant testing methods, which generate data, to measure the success of the solution.” How does “outlining” show more of what a student knows and understands versus “defining”? This difference has not been clear to me.

Set up the testing methods to acquire accurate data. For engineering-based units, setting up testing to get good data is straightforward. For designs that are meant to influence an audience’s behavior (e.g., cyber safety public service announcement), devising a testing method to yield good data may not be as straightforward.

How do you Design Testing Methods?

The hard-to-find MYP Design Teacher Support Material (IB login required) resource which was developed to accompany the 2014 MYP Design Guide classifies testing methods into five areas:

• Expert Appraisal
• Field Trial
• Performance Testing
• User Observation
• User Trials

This resource also states that at the end of Year 1, students, with guidance, should be able to “design simple tests to evaluate the solution against the requirements of the design specification.”

I did try to address Strand D.1 – Design Testing Methods to honor its role as part of the MYP Design Cycle. However, I never felt like I had this strand figured out sufficiently, and I was too inconsistent across my MYP Design units. My correlation between the appropriate task and this strand could have used some improvement!

For example, for my first unit in the school year, the paper water tank, students noted their tank’s mass, created a hypothesis, tested their tanks, shared a video of their test, recorded test results, and curated observers’ notes. We conducted the test during this strand (okay) but had written the test plan with the tank building plan in Strand C.1 – Construct a Logical Plan (pdf; maybe less than okay).

For the second unit of the school year, students created an animated cybersafety PSA for the morning announcements. In this strand, students showed their final animated PSA to two classmates and asked each to identify the PSA’s strongest characteristic among these three: relevant, memorable, or persuasive. Students then needed to explain why they agreed or disagreed (or both) with their peer observations.

An engineering unit like the paper water tank would use performance testing to gather quantitative data. The cybersafety PSA might employ user trail focus groups (i.e., peer review) and/or a field trial for testing to gather qualitative data.

Simple, Relevant Testing Methods?

So, for these MYP units, I didn’t exactly have students outline “simple, relevant testing methods, which generate data, to measure the success of the solution.” This strand on its own is difficult to address. Regardless, the testing methods should reflect the design specifications developed in Criterion B. One could argue that some sort of testing method would be needed for each design specification if time allowed. The MYP Design Teacher Support Material (IB login required) does essentially state this as “the student has tested against every aspect of the design specification.”

One way to improve D.1 would be to start with a review of the five types of testing used in MYP Design. A discussion about which of the five testing methods best fits the current unit would deepen understanding of this strand. If possible, have students generate hypotheses before testing for a bit more analysis and to cultivate buy-in. Having a conversation around hypotheses can lead to connections to the appropriate testing methods to get at the best data to evaluate the solution. For Year 1 students especially, address the purpose of the strand as accurately as possible.

Strand D.2 – Evaluate the Success of the Solution

The MYP Design Guide calls out for Year 1 students to “outline the success of the solution against the design specification.” I interpreted this to mean that students evaluate their finished product against each of the design specifications established in Criterion B. How deep you go into examining the final design against each of the design specifications can depend on how much energy you want students to dedicate to the remaining strands. Regardless, the goal/problem, introduced in the GRASPS, should be among the design specifications studied to determine the success of the solution.

Canned descriptors can provide sufficient depth of evaluation. For the paper water tank unit in Criterion D (pdf), the evaluation of the design for each specification was in terms of these five descriptors:

• Exact – Your team’s tank exactly met the design specification.
• Close – Your team’s tank mostly met the design specification.
• Middle – Your team’s tank met some of the design specification.
• Far – Your team’s tank met none or very little of the design specification.
• NA – You are not sure how your team’s tank met the design specification (try to avoid using this).

Another way to evaluate the success of the solution is to rank how well each specification was met with a short explanation. This is more work. If you’re under a time constraint, ask students to identify which design specification was most fully met and which was most insufficiently met. Students can also explain and justify their choices when looking at these extremes as well.

Benefits of Data Collection in MYP Design

At this point in Criterion D, data have been gathered from evaluating the solution against the design specifications. These data should be collected and archived to establish authentic reference points for future classes.

For example, current classes can use the data generated from previous classes’ Criterion D work as credible and authoritative research material for Strand A.2 – Identify and Prioritize the Research.

Strand D.3 – Explain How the Solution Could Be Improved

If you are working with Year 1 students and want to distinctly address the design problem, note that the responses about improvement (Strand D.3) can naturally cross over into impact (Strand D.4). Also, be aware that some student energy can be lost at this point, and answers might be less detailed than a teacher would prefer.

The MYP Design Guide states Year 1 students “outline how the solution could be improved.” Year 5 students “explain how the solution could be improved”. Regardless, I have found that Year 1 students naturally go beyond “outline” and do explain how to improve the solution in D.3.

This strand is straightforward and one paragraph of writing should be enough for a student to show what they know. Flipgrid and Seesaw offer verbal, video-based choices for strands D.3 and D.4, but may require more time for the teacher to assess.

It’s best to be precise about the next steps to improve the solution. Therefore, students should explain how the solution can be improved in terms of the design specifications critical to the success of the solution. If there are many specifications to choose from, specify an essential few for students to address.

Strand D.4 – Explain the Impact of the Solution

MYP Design Criterion D – Evaluating ends the MYP Design Cycle for the unit of study. Review the GRASPS scenario for a final refocus on the why of the problem and the who–the client/target audience. A short, final discussion informed by the Statement of Inquiry Questions can reinvigorate purpose and meaning, and cultivate empathy as well.

Year 1 students’ responses might be speculative due to these scenarios tending to be more contrived than those for Year 5 students. Regardless, students should focus their explanation of the impact on the target audience–the benefit the client gains (or would gain) from the solution to the problem.

Repeat the MYP Design Cycle?

Should you repeat the cycle? After all, a design cycle or design process is meant to improve the solution each time the designer goes through the steps. The repetition is good! However, to repeat a full six-week lesson would not be logistically possible. Plus, students would probably and legitimately lose interest.

At the end of the semester or year, students could engage in an accelerated and abbreviated version of a previously completed entire unit to apply their knowledge, honor the design process, and hopefully have some fun. Engineering-based units are the easiest to repeat in this manner.

MYP Design Criterion D Evaluating Summary

MYP Design Criterion D depends heavily on evaluating the success of the solution against the design specifications. To do this effectively, students must establish testing methods to generate accurate data. A helpful and natural progression is to share testing data with future classes as research material for Criterion A.

Criterion D is about improving prototypes through an iterative design process. Students use data from testing methods they set up. They must think about how effective their solution is for the target audience.

In Criterion D, there are different testing methods students can use. These include expert appraisal, field trials, performance testing, user observation, and user trials. Each method gives different data types to help make the prototype better. For example, performance testing gives objective data to compare designs and choose the best one for the task.

Overall, MYP Design Criterion D is a crucial step in the design process, although students may see it differently! It helps students evaluate their solution’s effectiveness and improve using the best real-world data available. By the end of Criterion D, students will have tested their design systematically and evaluated its impact on the target audience.

The MYP Design Cycle’s Criterion C

In MYP Design Criterion C – Creating the Solution, students make their design to solve the problem defined in Criterion A. Criterion C is usually the favorite part because students actually make their designs. Their ideas and creativity come to life. The research in Criterion A and the idea development in Criterion B have prepared the students for this moment. The time to delay gratification is over!

In general, students first write a plan to build their chosen solution. Students then follow the plan and modify it as needed to create a prototype. This solution is built according to the design specifications. The design specifications were established in Criterion B.

Strand C.1 – Construct a Logical Plan

Students make a plan to build the prototype of their best idea–the solution to the problem. They develop this plan with their peers in mind. Can a peer follow my plans easily? They also consider any relevant design specifications in this planning strand. Efficient, clear, and precise communication is essential. The design specifications in Criterion B were written in a similar way. Informational/explanatory writing is needed in these areas.

The MYP Design Guide describes this plan-making strand requirement as follows:

• Year 1 (grade 6) – “Outline a plan, which considers the use of resources and time, sufficient for peers to be able to follow to create the solution.”
• Year 3 (grade 8) – “Construct a logical plan, which outlines the efficient use of time and resources, sufficient for peers to be able to follow to create the solution.”
• Year 5 (grade 10) – “Construct a logical plan, which describes the efficient use of time and resources, sufficient for peers to be able to follow to create the solution.”

What works to communicate a how-to the best way? The plan’s language can be a mixture of text, symbols, images, and sketches. Think about the instructions you’d receive to build a set of shelves. What about folding an origami crane or building a model airplane? Good plans are a coherent mix of step-by-step instructions with clear illustrations. A flow chart or a PERT chart could be used to show logical steps.

Be Specific Not General

As with the design specifications in Criterion B, if students are unsure about their building plan, they may try to generalize the building steps to make their product. Watch out for this! It is best to assume that there will be changes to the plan once the building starts. Forecasting changes to the plan are not an invitation to write vague steps in this strand so that the plan may be “correct” to fit the actual build.

If the building plan lacks details, identifying changes in Strand C.4 – Justify Changes Made to the Plan, will become more difficult. Based on all the good work the student has done up to this point, they should write a plan as specific as possible and not fret over possible future changes.

Strand C.2 – Demonstrate Excellent Technical Skills

For Years 1, 3, and 5 students, the MYP Design Guide states the same description for Strand C.2. In this part of the design cycle, students will “demonstrate excellent technical skills when making the solution.” What does this exactly mean? How can your students show excellent technical skills in Criterion C – Creating the Solution?

Safety First!

Safety should always be fundamental to creating physical products. Pointy scissors, hot glue guns, and hacksaws can be dangerous! Do technical skills relate to safety? Of course! However, unless you are assessing safety as part of Strand C.2 – Demonstrate Excellent Technical Skills, do not include it as an academic accountability component. Emphasize safety during Criterion C as part of your ATLs (Approaches to Learning) or under your classroom rules.

Photographic Documentation for Physical Product Designs

To the greatest extent possible in MYP Design Criterion C – Creating the Solution, have students photograph the sequence of building steps of their physical products/solutions (e.g., the newspaper water tank). It’s super helpful to take as many pictures as possible to document the process. Students need to document, document, and document! FYI: Some Criterion C documents can be over twenty pages sometimes because of the many photos.

Why take lots of photos throughout the building process? Because students will more easily know if they followed the plan to create the solution (Strand C.3 requirement). They will also be better set up to expertly and accurately justify any changes made to the plan (Strand C.4 requirement).

As early as possible in the school year, students should learn how to use the camera on their laptops. For this task, students will probably need a class or two to practice composing scenes and editing the photos for optimal lighting and clarity. You may need to do a mini-lesson on photo editing with the Windows Photo App, Preview in OS X, or something web-based like Pixlr for Chrome. Final note: The younger the student the less personal smartphones should be used as a camera option.

Photo Editing Choices

For a more comprehensive process capture of the excellent technical skills, chunk the photography sessions during the build. Do this by setting up the student document (usually a Google document) with sections in a table to insert the photos.

For example from the Engineering a Paper Water Tank unit, students needed to insert two different photos per building step (up to five per row). The five building steps were categorized into these areas:

1. Preparation (Materials, Resources, and Group Members)
2. The First Steps
3. The Middle Steps
4. The Finishing Steps
5. The Final Tank (Include a ruler in these photos)

This setup is essentially an advance organizer to provide students with organizational cues.

Screen Shot Documentation for Digital Designs

When creating digital designs to demonstrate excellent technical skills, students can submit screenshots of their work. For some projects, students take screenshots of a digital build over time to show a progression of development to demonstrate excellent technical skills.

Additionally, screenshots of how the project looks within the app or software can serve as a demonstration of excellent technical skills for digital designs. For example, when learning to animate with Adobe Photoshop, my students submitted screenshots of their Animation and Layers Windows. The animation frames show the timing and sequence decisions of the layers to be shown. The Layers Window nomenclature can reveal decisions about organization choices.

For presentations or graphic designs, you can consider technical skills in terms of the best practices in visual design. One idea I have used: When creating Google Slide presentations about community service robots, my students showcased one slide that best used the C.R.A.P. Model for optimal visual communication. Students also needed to explain why their chosen slide was effectively using contrast, repetition, alignment, and/or proximity.

Finally, Criterion B‘s design specifications may be calling out for requirements that require excellent technical skills. It does though depend on the focus of the unit. Regardless, make sure to keep in mind the design specifications when determining how you want your students to demonstrate excellent technical skills when making the solution.

Strand C.3 – Follow the Plan to Create the Solution

I have found for some units, combining strands is helpful. For example, it can make more sense for students when creating a physical product to combine Strands C.2 and C.3 or combine C.3 and C.4.

For the Water Tank Engineering with Newspaper unit, the students addressed C.2 and C.3 simultaneously. The step-by-step photographic evidence of the build offered direct evidence of technical skill level (Strand C.2). The photos also showed how the student followed the plan to create the solution (Strand C.3).

Honestly, most students do not reference their plan made in C.1 while building in C.2 and C.3. However, having a plan makes sense to be as prepared as possible. A written plan allows students to reflect on changes as well to deepen their understanding of problem-solving.

Strand C.4 – Justify Changes Made to the Plan

All plans change. It’s a fact of life. Reassure students that their plan could change. Even with adults working in fields such as construction changes occur. For example, a change order is a common document in the construction of homes and office buildings. Change orders officially record an amendment to the original construction contract.

Changes to plans that arise from an intent to better solve the design problem should happen in MYP Design. And these changes should be well documented. Unreasoned or drastic changes to plans should not be happening.

The C.1 to C.4 Connection

A common problem in Strand C.4 can arise from the lack of details in the step writing in Strand C.1. A plan that lacks specifics inevitably results in an inability to sufficiently identify changes to the plan. Students with a limited vocabulary and/or limited English may not generate sufficient details in C.1 and can suffer from the challenges of needing to be specific. With this in mind, try to give detailed formative feedback no later than the end of Strand C.1 to help ensure future success for students in Criterion C.

MYP Design Criterion C Wrap Up

After researching the problem in Criterion A and developing their ideas in Criterion B, students are eager to make their design in MYP Design Criterion C – Creating the Solution. They are as ready as ever to show what they know to be an effective solution to the problem.

Starting with a very specific written plan leads to success in Criterion C. It’s okay if a plan changes. It’s not okay if a plan is unclear.

Assessing Criterion C is done across all four strands. It’s important to provide feedback early so that any misconceptions can be cleared up to ensure future success. Strands C.2 and/or C.3 can wind up being a series of process photos for physical product designs. Ensure students know how to use their device cameras and have some skills in image editing.

Ready to wrap up the MYP Design Cycle with one final criterion? Then it’s time to check out Criterion D – Evaluating.

Introduction to MYP Design Criterion B

The focus of this post targets Year 1 (grade 6) designers. The MYP Design Criterion B information below can be applied to other grades as well. Year 1 students are those new to MYP Design. They start the school year as 11-year olds and finish as 12-year olds.

If you’re here and didn’t come from my Criterion A post, take a moment to look it over. In that post, I go into detail about each strand (or step). Additionally, I explain one way to start building lessons for MYP Design. This approach offers a helpful thought process for unit planning. After all, there are many moving parts in the IB!

For Year 1 students beginning Criterion B, the Middle Years Programme Design Guide (by the International Baccalaureate Organization, 2014-15) states that students first develop success criteria for the solution. The next strand would be to come up with ideas to solve the problem established in Criterion A. The third strand requires students to present their best idea in some form. This idea is usually what is created in Criterion C. Finally, to wrap up Criterion B, students create visual diagrams to identify their best idea’s essential characteristics.

Start with the MYP Design Guide

The guide states that the first strand of Criterion B calls out for the following:

• Year 1 (grade 6) – “Develop a list of success criteria for the solution.”
• Year 3 (grade 8) – “Develop a design specification, which outlines the success criteria for the design of a solution based on the data collected.”
• Year 5 (grade 10) – “Develop a design specification, which clearly states the success criteria for the design of a solution.”

I learned that writing the success criteria to start Criterion B was not helpful for the age group. After about two weeks of research to complete Criterion A (i.e., roughly six classes), my students were ready, willing, and bursting with ideas. Therefore, the time was ripe to capture as many ideas as possible regardless of their plausibility. It was not the time to add rules (specifications) and limit design ideas to begin Criterion B.

So, how do you solve this problem to honor students’ ideas? Basically, I switched the first two strands in the MYP Design Cycle. By developing ideas first and then developing design specifications next, engagement and enthusiasm grew, and more ideas became available.

Students started Criterion B with brainstorming activities to get as many ideas as possible ideas out on the table first. What a relief!

What is another benefit of generating ideas before establishing specifications? Students are willing to take more risks with their thinking. Fewer rules mean: Why not go for it? At this beginning point in Criterion B, any possible constraints (i.e. specifications) are those few listed under Standards and Criteria for Success in the GRASPS.

Strand B.1 – Develop Design Ideas

Brainstorming activities should not be limited to what you may find on educational websites. What’s great about teaching MYP Design is the applicability of Design Thinking resources and marketing resources freely available on the Internet. For example, check out this post by TechnologyAdvice about Brainstorming. How could a teacher modify or use this list of nine brainstorming activities to help their students generate ideas?

Here’s a low-budget technique that has worked for my design classes: Students anonymously and quickly generate as many idea sketches as possible. The teacher collects, randomizes, and redistributes the sketches (try to share sketches across different classes). Students identify which design ideas show promise. Finally, students justify their idea choices. This method can be seen in Water Tank Engineering with Newspaper, Criterion B.

At this point, a few students probably will have commented the following,” I already know what I am going to make.” Be ready for it. Here’s one technique that may help you help them: Ask the students to be open to new ideas. That is, to be open to change. If that doesn’t work, ask your students to pretend to be open to new ideas and see what happens. By just being open–or pretending to be open–they can better relax into the developing ideas process.

Strand B.2 – Develop Design Specifications

For this strand, the language of the MYP Design Guide states that for Year 3 and Year 5 students, they “develop a specification” which lists the success criteria. Why is “specification” singular? The MYP Design Cycle states “develop a design specification” as well for all students. This terminology can be a bit confusing.

The glossary defines a design specification like this: “A detailed description of the conditions, requirements, and restrictions with which a design must comply. This is a precise and accurate list of facts, such as conditions, dimensions, materials, process, and methods, that are important for the designer and for the user. All appropriate solutions will need to comply with the design specification.”

Similar to the glossary, the difficult-to-find and helpful MYP Design Teacher Support Material (IB login required) resource by the IB clarifies that, for all students, a (singular) design specification is “a set of considerations, constraints and requirements for a solution: what the solution must or must not have to be successful.”

Design Language

Possibly the plural-singular issue is due to the difference between American and British English, and maybe it’s no biggie. I think the plural “design specifications” is clearer, so I have used it. I have also found it helpful to not distinguish between “a list of success criteria” (i.e., what the MYP Design Guide states in this strand for Year 1 students) and “design specifications”. Year 1 students understand and benefit from defining and evaluating their designs in terms of design specifications (plural).

Finally, rather than use “must” and “will” for compliance verbs, I prefer “shall” since this term encourages a greater commitment to the specification. A greater commitment promotes increased specificity rather than less which is beneficial for evaluating the success of the solution in Criterion D.

How to Write Design Specifications for MYP Design Criterion B

For MYP Criterion B, I organized the design specifications into logical chunks. The ACCESSFM framework can also comprehensively guide the creation of product design specifications. Learn more about it under Strand A.3 in MYP Design Criterion A – Inquiring and Analyzing.

The MYP Design Teacher Support Material suggests the following categories to consider when creating design specifications:

• Aesthetics
• Cost
• Customer
• Environmental considerations
• Function
• Manufacturing
• Materials
• Safety

Generally, I would write a few specifications with my students, then ask them to complete the missing ones. Some completed design specifications were already written by me as well (these examples served as mentor text). I recommended that students finish the easiest first unless they had a better strategy. I do recall one of my students wanting to complete the most difficult specifications first, just because!

Overcoming Design Anxiety in MYP Design Criterion B

“What if I don’t meet the product design specifications? Will I fail?” This was a common concern, even during the last unit of the school year. I think this fear led to some specifications to be written in a vague manner.

Many of my students expressed concerns about not meeting the design specifications, and this “failure” would result in a poor grade. Students at this age (11- to 12-years old) need reassurance that designs that may not meet the design specifications do not necessarily equate to a failing grade. As long as each specification was as precise and relevant as possible, the learning would be evident; and the grade would take care of itself.

Live Long and Write like a Vulcan

Design specifications need to be written with precise, economical language. Ask your students: How would a Vulcan like Spock from Star Trek write a product design specification? What about an extremely logical robot? How would they write a design specification?

Optimal student design specification writing facilitates the testing to be completed in Criterion D. Students develop a complete list of design specifications for the solution that can be precisely and easily measured during testing.

Strand B.3 – Present and Justify the Chosen Design

At this point, most students have a solid idea of their design. They should know more or less what they will create to solve the problem introduced in Criterion A. But the idea still may change! In any event, the question at this point is: How will they present and justify their current best design idea?

From the IB Design Guide, Strand B.3 – Present and Justify the Chosen Design is defined as follows:

• Year 1 (grade 6) – “Present the chosen design.”
• Year 3 (grade 8) – “Present the chosen design and outline the reasons for its selection.”
• Year 5 (grade 10) – “Present the chosen design and justify its selection.”

It’s not clear from the IB Design Guide, what this presentation should look like. A poster? A slide show? An oral presentation? For my 11- and 12-year-old students, the presentation of the chosen design looked like this for the units I taught:

• Unit 1 – Engineering a Paper Water Tank – 3D sketch and justification paragraph
• Unit 2 – Cybersafety PSA (Animation) – 2D sketch of the animation frames
• Unit 3 – Upcycled Plastic Gift – Analysis of the best three ideas against the design specifications and a justification paragraph
• Unit 4 – 3D Digital Robot – Analysis of the best idea against the design specifications

I prefer technical sketching with pencils on paper. As such, students developed and refined their do-anywhere, fundamental visual communication skills. At relevant times in this strand as well, students “presented” their competing ideas against the design specifications. These internal “presentations” provided analytical insights into the best solution to solve the problem.

Presentation Considerations

In Strand B.3 – Present and Justify the Chosen Design, I avoided having students actually present to a small group, the class, or to parents. Why? With the rich array of digital tools available such as Flipgrid and Seesaw, why not showcase students’ creative and pragmatic problem-solving insights right now?

Two reasons: First of all, our academic class time was always tight. The middle school schedule provided three MYP Design classes a week for a total of 190 minutes. It felt like not enough time to honor traditional student presentation efforts.

The second and more important reason had to do with student stamina and lesson timing. By making the presentation of the idea highly showcased, this strand could feel like a final project. As such, students would run the risk of not developing their ideas fully.

For the age group in MYP Design, developing an idea–even during Criterion C –should be encouraged (within reason). Finally, a premature idea presentation in Criterion B also might lead to a loss of energy and enthusiasm for Criteria C and D.

Strand B.4 – Develop Planning Sketches

This MYP Design Criterion B – Developing Ideas strand ends with sketching the best idea. The requirement in this strand is generally the same for Year 1, 3, and 5 students. To the greatest extent possible, students create planning drawings/diagrams, which thoroughly and clearly communicate the main details for making the chosen solution.

If there’s already sketching to be done in Strand B.3, why require it again in Strand B.4? First of all, for the units I taught, Strand B.4’s planning sketches looked like this:

• Unit 1 – Engineering a Paper Water Tank – Top, front, and side sketches of the best tank idea.
• Unit 2 Cybersafety PSA (Animation) – Screenshots of basic elements of a cybersafety PSA animation in Photoshop. This work may or may not have continued into Criterion C – Creating the Solution.
• Unit 3 – Upcycled Plastic Gift – Top, front, and side sketches of the best gift idea.
• Unit 4 – 3D Digital Robot – Top, front, side, and 3D sketches of the best robot idea.

The sketching in Strand B.3 was in 3D and less technical, although students were gently encouraged to use isometric graph paper (i.e., 3D graphing paper). Many “fought” against the grid lines and preferred blank paper to sketch ideas in 3D.

In Strand B.4 – Develop Planning Sketches, the sketching of an object’s top, front, and side views (i.e., orthographic sketching) is more technical. Here, the idea that is sketched in 3D needs to be represented by three, 2D drawings that align.

Sketching Ideas and Timing

As I mentioned before, idea development throughout Criterion B should be encouraged. If an idea changed for a student from Strand B.3 to B.4 and there was sketching in both strands (e.g., the paper water tank), sometimes the sketches in B.3 compared to B.4 looked different. That was okay!

In both Strands B.3 and B.4, students sketched officially (i.e., for a summative grade). For this reason, there was frequent practice sketching during the Criteria A phase. At this point in the MYP Design Cycle as well, many of my students were reaching sketching burn-out and were eager and ready to create in Criterion C.

Pencil Sketching Alternative

The second unit of the year required learning animation software (to create a cybersafety PSA) which required quite a bit of practice. Students learned and used Adobe Photoshop to animate their public service announcements. The unit was a bit unusual in that the digital idea work developed in B.4 might have continued on as the solution created in Criterion C.

MYP Design Criterion B – Developing Ideas Wrap Up

Criterion B provides Year 1 student designers real opportunities to explore their creativity and develop analytical skills. By brainstorming ideas before developing design specifications, student creativity is prioritized, leveraged, and celebrated. Technical sketching skills go deep and showcase ideas in both two and three dimensions.

Ideas developed in Criterion B may still be developing in Criterion C. By encouraging the improvement of ideas, students learn that design is an evolving process.

Assessment should put a focus on all four strands, although Strand B.1 should be more lightly weighted. Download the grading rubric for MYP Design Criterion B. It is on a 0-7 scale and uses assessment language adjusted for the 11- to 12-year old age group.

Ready to learn about creating solutions to solve problems with Year 1 design students? Check out the next criterion: MYP Design Criterion C – Creating the Solution!

MYP Design Criterion A – Introduction

Before we take a look at MYP Design Criterion A (the first phase), a review of the most official perspective on MYP Design might be helpful. The Middle Years Programme Design Guide from the International Baccalaureate® (IB) Program is the resource for MYP Design teachers. For a slightly different perspective of MYP Design (with a focus on supporting beginning designers), check out my posts, MYP Design Basics – One Perspective, and MYP Design Assessment Criteria Modified.

I wanted to share my thoughts about teaching MYP Design by reflecting on each phase of the design process. Most of my MYP Design experience comes from teaching to 11- and 12-year old students. Your MYP Design project ideas start here!

MYP Design promotes thoughtful inquiry to solve meaningful problems through four cyclic criteria. These criteria serve to guide students to make pragmatic connections between the content of their learning and what happens in our world outside of school. These important relationships are intended to prepare students for further studies and for life.

Lesson Plan Design

MYP Design has many moving parts! To get things going, this method has worked for me: When I develop MYP units, I write the GRASPS first to get the concrete elements of the lesson established. Then I try to make relevant connections to promote deeper meaning: I consult the MYP global contexts to see which best applies and simultaneously write the statement of inquiry with the inquiry questions.

Once these three core ingredients of the MYP Design lesson are drafted, I edit each more or less simultaneously to have them inform and improve each other. When I am ready to communicate the content to students, the GRASPS, global contexts, and inquiry pieces have evolved into coherent curriculum elements for students.

Related concepts should naturally emerge and meaningfully relate to the content. In spite of the many moving parts, try to have a sense of what each curricular component is about before diving into MYP Design lesson planning.

Context and Audience

In Criterion A, Inquiring and Analyzing, students define and research a problem to be solved according to the needs of a specific audience. Before students conduct research, a scenario should be established to provide a context for learning and to set up the problem to be solved. The GRASPS model does this well (see examples by Understanding By Design coauthor Jay McTighe). It is simple and naturally sets the stage for authentic learning and assessment–hallmarks of MYP Design.

In this context as well, the statement of inquiry should be presented and discussed. It’s also worth noting that the MYP Design Cycle and four criteria do support students in their MYP Personal Project (maybe sometimes called the IB personal project). For example, global contexts are emphasized to promote relevance. Process focus, product creation, and reporting out are also key components in both MYP Design and in the MYP Personal Project.

Product Design Sketching Practice

One final note before getting into the strands deals with sketching. It’s a good idea to have students practice product sketching as much as possible during the Criterion A phase. I found it helpful for students to practice up to 20 minutes per one-hour class.

There are many free, short, and helpful product design drawing videos online. Check out YouTube for guidance. One technique is to do a search for “product design sketching” then filter the duration for under four minutes. After you review and choose one for helpfulness, play and loop the video for your class, and maybe change the speed accordingly. Turn the sound off in almost all most cases. We tended to sketch for accuracy and quantity with a focus on industrial design sketching of products.

Students made sketchbooks from recycled 8.5″ x 11″ paper. Standard number 2 pencils supplemented with 5B, 6B, and 7B drawing pencils produced favorable results.

Why so much sketching? To prepare for their official planning and drawing diagrams requirement in Criterion B, students practiced representing objects visually in nearly every class during Criterion A. I would ask students to be mindful of good sketching practices, but I did not grade each practice sketch. I eventually did include a sketchbook feedback grade that focused on accuracy and productivity.

Strand A.1 – Explain and Justify the Need

After reading, reviewing, and discussing the scenario for the problem to be solved, students typically explain and justify the need for a solution to a problem for the specified client/end-user. By empathizing with their audience, designers are more able to fully justify the need to solve the problem. To the greatest extent possible and as naturally as possible, empathy should be stressed to best help the audience.

Originally after reviewing and discussing the GRASPS, I would ask students to restate the problem and explain why we needed to solve it. Restating the problem required listening and reading comprehension–basically a straightforward task that made sense at the beginning of a unit of learning.

Explaining the “why” was the area that caused the most difficultly for students in this strand. The GRASPS essentially states the problem to be solved as the goal, but the “why” must be synthesized. When mistakes were made, many of the students would write a “what” (i.e., a possible solution) instead of a “why”.

Common Misconceptions – Breaking Down the Problem

Note: Although difficulties in understanding could have been attributable to most of my students being non-native English speakers, nearly all had been in English-speaking classrooms since early elementary school.

How did I try to help kids avoid the what-why mix-up error? Eventually, I made Strand A.1 – Explain and Justify the Need, into three parts:

• What is the problem to be solved?
• What is one possible solution to the problem?
• Why does the problem need to be solved?

By adding a “what” question, students began to better focus on the often-missed “why”. Sometimes I added a “who” question in addition to a “what” as a gentle disrupter as well and to put a focus on the audience. However, if you’re a purest, the “what” could be considered really part of Criterion B – Developing Ideas. I felt the trade-off was worth it to reduce the confusion.

To the greatest extent possible when you finish Strand A.1 – Explain and Justify the Need, make sure that your students know what the problem is, and why they are solving it. By establishing these fundamentals early, students are better set up for success later on in the design process.

Strand A.2 – Identify and Prioritize the Research

Students identify and prioritize the primary and secondary research needed to develop a solution to the problem. If this is your first unit or first unit after a big break, or if you are working with younger designers, it is well worth it to review what primary and secondary resources are.

I never developed my own materials to dig into the benefits of understanding research resources as primary or secondary. I did use the following short video frequently by Imagine Easy Solutions.

Newspapers offer both primary and secondary resources and are easy to access. Consider using them to learn about the benefits and differences between original and interpretive information.

I also used an activity sheet to help students learn about primary and secondary resources. I found it on the Idaho State Historical Society’s website. It originally came from Common Core Sheets. There are 15 source statements and students are asked to identify if the resource is primary or secondary. You might find that some of the responses produce a debate in your classes!

To the greatest extent possible, try to make a primary research experience happen for your students in this strand. If this experience is hands-on, engagement and interest will be even better. Why? Because Criterion A tended to be, at least in my experience, one of the least preferred of the four criteria. Grades tended to be the lowest in Criterion A too.

MYP Design Teaching Tip

For instance, when my students engineered a paper water tank, the official build took place in Criterion C. However, they made rapid prototypes with half the materials to get acquainted with the properties of the newspaper, Popsicle™ sticks, and masking tape as part of their research.

Depending on the nature of the unit and what the students already know, the inquiry questions can be answered here. These questions are factual, conceptual, and debatable in nature and work to establish connections to significant and enduring concepts, principles, and/or theories.

Strand A.3 – Analyze Existing Products

Here, students analyze a range of existing products that inspire a solution to the problem. If you have physical products in the classroom or at home for students to study and inspect, that would be ideal especially for English-language learners. Previously-made student designs inspire interest as well.

In many cases, however, Internet research will be useful and the primary option. Students would need to find and evaluate high-quality, relevant, and useful information about existing products. You may need to pair up with your media specialist to examine ways for help!

I vetted and communicated a set of helpful websites because I worked with 11- and 12-year olds and our academic time was limited. Students would check these resources out first, then maybe go on to perform their own Internet searches about products that inspire solutions.

ACCESS FM Meaning

I recently became aware of ACCESSFM which is a framework to guide product design. It was created by Design Technology guru Spencer Herbert. ACCESSFM can be used as well to focus students’ analyses into studying existing products.

The letters of the ACCESSFM acronym each represent a characteristic of a product to study. Note the questions that students could use while analyzing products to inspire a solution:

• A – Aesthetics – What should be the color, shape, texture, style?)
• C – Cost – What are the material costs, labor costs, time costs?)
• C – Customer – Reference the GRASPS: Who is the audience? What do they want/need?
• E – Environment – How reusable, recyclable, repairable is the product?
• S – Size – Does the size make sense for the context of use? What about similar products?
• S – Safety – How safe is the product to make, use, repair, store?
• F – Function – How well does the product do what it is supposed to do?
• M – Material – What is the product made from? How is this optimal? 

Strand A.4 – Develop a Design Brief

If you try internet searches for “examples of design briefs” and “what is a design brief” you encounter aspects of the GRASPS! Design briefs essentially outline the requirements of the project at hand. But what does that look like in MYP Design?

The official Middle Years Programme Design Guide states the following for Year 1 (grade 6): “Students should be able to present the main findings of relevant research.” For Year 3 (grade 8) we have: “Students should be able to develop a detailed design brief which summarizes the analysis of relevant research.”

I did try to have students write design briefs that inspired but did not constrain the designer, but that was too confusing. Trying to under-explain felt contrived, didn’t summarize their Criterion A research experience comfortably, and led to more dislike for Criterion A!

Design briefs for beginning designers are not recommended in the Middle Years Programme Design Guide and more importantly, concluding our research with a design brief didn’t help learning for the age group. Looking back, I was taking my cues primarily from the MYP Design Cycle rather than digging into the Middle Years Programme Design Guide.

A “Brief” Journey

I eventually developed the optimal requirement to be for students to summarize, and present in full detail, the main findings of their relevant research. The “full detail” part tended to be a retelling of much of what was already established in Strand A.1, Explain and Justify the Need unless the “what” for example had changed.

Essentially, students developed a general design summary from an analysis of the relevant information to guide and inspire the designer. Although again, we might have been getting into Criterion B – Developing Ideas a bit, students were required to state: what they were going to make, why they were going to make it, and who the design was for.

MYP Design Criterion A Wrap Up

With an authentic scenario established by the GRASPS and supported by a statement of inquiry, Criterion A can effectively set the stage for MYP Design students to solve problems with success. Both primary and secondary research prepare students well to develop ideas and create a solution.

Hands-on investigations are especially helpful to promote high-engagement learning in MYP Design projects. Summarizing this research at the end of Criterion A officially opens the door to focus on developing ideas in Criterion B.

If you need help with MYP grading, download and check out the grading rubric for MYP Design Criterion A. The language is modified to be more in tune with the needs of Year 1 students.

Do you want more insights into helping Year 1 MYP Design students develop ideas? Check out MYP Design Criterion B – Developing Ideas.