The cardboard city: an interdisciplinary unit in name only
Northgate's MYP year 3 team must run one interdisciplinary unit. This year's is "Sustainable Cities", taught in the last three weeks of the year. The design teacher planned it alone; the individuals and societies (I&S) teacher attended one 40-minute meeting and "sent some resources". Students spent two weeks building cardboard models of a sustainable neighbourhood and one week presenting. Only design criterion B (developing ideas) was assessed; the I&S teacher assessed nothing. The planner lists both subjects, but the interdisciplinary section contains the single sentence "students will learn about cities". Four lessons were lost to a sports day and a field trip, and the final presentations were cancelled because reports were due. Student feedback shows they enjoyed the making, but when asked what they had learned about urbanisation most wrote about glue and cardboard. The next programme evaluation is in 18 months.
1. Diagnose the unit against MYP requirements and the purpose of interdisciplinary learning. What is non-compliant, what is weak but permitted, and why does the distinction matter?
Read the worked answer
Non-compliant. The unit as delivered does not function as an interdisciplinary unit. Interdisciplinary learning requires disciplinary grounding in at least two subject groups, an explicit interdisciplinary question or purpose, and assessment against the interdisciplinary criteria (disciplinary grounding, synthesizing, communicating). Here one subject group planned and assessed; the other was nominal. The interdisciplinary section of the planner is a placeholder, which means there is no documented rationale for the connection. Scheduling an IDU in the final three weeks, where it can be cannibalised by reports and events, is a structural decision that predictably produces this outcome.
Weak but permitted. Building models and enjoying them is not a problem in itself; design criterion B is a legitimate MYP criterion. The difficulty is that it is the only evidence collected, so the unit cannot report on the other subject at all.
Why the distinction matters. A weak unit can be improved; a non-compliant one must be redesigned, because no amount of polishing will make a single-subject project interdisciplinary. The student feedback is the strongest evidence: "glue and cardboard" is what students remember because the conceptual work was never planned, taught or assessed. The 18-month horizon means this unit will be visible in the evaluation, so the team should redesign now and keep the evidence of the redesign.
2. Redesign the unit: state the interdisciplinary question and purpose, show how both disciplines are grounded, and explain how subject criteria and interdisciplinary criteria are assessed without over-assessing students.
Read the worked answer
Interdisciplinary question. "How should a city decide what to build, and for whom?"
Purpose. Students use I&S analysis of urbanisation, inequality and governance alongside design thinking to propose and justify an intervention in a real local site, then evaluate the trade-offs.
Disciplinary grounding.
- I&S: students analyse demographic and land-use data for the neighbourhood, identify stakeholders, and evaluate at least two competing priorities (housing density, green space, transport). Assessed against I&S criteria A (knowing and understanding) and C (thinking critically).
- Design: students develop and justify a design proposal against a specification derived from the I&S analysis, then evaluate it against user needs. Assessed against design criteria B (developing ideas) and C (creating the solution), or D (evaluating) if the making is de-emphasised.
Interdisciplinary assessment. Assess the synthesis separately - a short written or oral justification of how the I&S analysis shaped the design decisions and what was traded away (disciplinary grounding, synthesizing, communicating). One task can yield evidence for two sets of criteria if it is designed that way.
Avoiding over-assessment. Use three checkpoints, not three separate assignments: (1) stakeholder and data analysis (I&S), (2) design proposal with justification (design plus interdisciplinary grounding), (3) final evaluation and defence (interdisciplinary synthesizing and communicating). Plan the assessment on the planner before the teaching begins, and confirm that no criterion is assessed twice from the same evidence.
3. Address the structural causes: what changes to scheduling, planning and leadership would make a defensible IDU repeatable next year?
Read the worked answer
The unit failed because the system allowed it to fail: isolation, lateness and no accountability checkpoint.
Scheduling. Place the IDU in the middle of the year, not the final three weeks, and protect it from sports days and trips by agreeing the dates at timetable level. A three-week block is not required; a well-designed two-week unit is more defensible than a long one that collapses.
Planning. Replace the single meeting with a minimum structure: two co-taught planning sessions, both teachers named as unit authors, and a third sign-off meeting with the MYP coordinator before teaching begins. The planner section on interdisciplinary learning must contain the question, the purpose and the assessment plan - a sentence like "students will learn about cities" should fail review.
Leadership.
- The coordinator reviews every IDU planner before delivery and gives feedback against a short checklist.
- Heads of department are accountable for both subjects appearing as assessors.
- Preserve the evidence trail (planner, student work samples, feedback, teacher reflections) for the programme evaluation.
- Recognise the work: interdisciplinary planning is heavier than single-subject planning, and without time or credit it will always be the first thing dropped.