MYP Design Unit Planner — CBCI × Structure of Process × Paul-Elder

Start here

How the three frameworks fit together

A one-screen mental model before you start planning.

The three frameworks, in one breath each

1. CBCI — Erickson & Lanning. Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction. Curriculum is three-dimensional: facts and skills and transferable conceptual understanding. Students look through a conceptual lens (e.g. empathy, system, constraint) and arrive at generalizations — short, transferable sentences that outlast the unit. Erickson's Structure of Knowledge governs knowledge-based disciplines.

2. Structure of Process — Lanning. Lanning's complement for process-heavy disciplines like Design, ELA, the arts, languages. Instead of facts-up, it reads top-down from Processes (the big moves students perform — e.g. the design cycle) → Strategies (systematic adaptable plans — e.g. empathy interviewing) → Skills (discrete operations — e.g. isometric sketching). Concepts still sit on top, but they're drawn out of what students do, not out of a body of knowledge. This is the primary lens for MYP Design.

3. Paul-Elder Critical Thinking. Three parts: Elements of Thought (8 components of any reasoning — purpose, question, information, inference, concepts, assumptions, implications, point of view), Intellectual Standards (9 criteria — clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, fairness) and Intellectual Traits (8 dispositions cultivated over time — humility, courage, empathy, autonomy, integrity, perseverance, confidence in reason, fairmindedness). You apply standards to elements to produce rigorous thinking, and traits emerge over time as a disposition.

How they interlock in a Design unit

Each framework answers a different question:

CBCI asks	Structure of Process asks	Paul-Elder asks	Together, they produce
What ideas should transfer beyond this unit?	What processes, strategies and skills will students actually perform?	How will students reason rigorously about their choices?	A unit where doing builds understanding that is defensible.
Conceptual lens → Generalizations → Guiding questions.	Processes → Strategies → Skills, each tied back to a concept.	Elements × Standards applied at decision points; traits cultivated over the arc.	Alignment between WHY, WHAT, HOW, and HOW WELL.

How to use this planner

Use the sidebar to move between sections. Start with Unit setup (MYP wrapper + SOI + ATL).
Work through Big ideas then Design work. Together they tell you what to teach and what students do.
Layer on Thinking moves. Choose 3–4 elements, 4–5 standards, 2–3 traits to actively cultivate. Don't try to do all 25 at once.
Use Lesson plan to plan 4–8 learning experiences where the three braids meet.
Map Assessment to MYP criteria A–D. Write your Reflection prompts last.
Click a chip to fill a field. Click + custom to add your own. Click Load worked example above to see the planner filled in for Designing for Dignity.

Expected time: 45–90 minutes for a first full pass with a known topic. Plan to iterate — generalizations in particular usually need 2–3 rewrites before they transfer cleanly.

Step 1 · The basics

Basics

The lightest possible start. Describe the unit in plain language; the MYP wrapper is generated at the end.

Unit title

Year / Grade

Duration

Weeks 8

Periods / week 3

Period length

—

Subject / Strand

Unit premise the foundation AI suggestions work from

Describe in plain language what this unit is about. Who is it for? What are students making or investigating? What's the interesting tension or problem? 2–4 sentences is plenty.

Step 2 · What should transfer

Big ideas

Conceptual lens, concept web, scaffolded generalizations, guiding questions.

Framework: CBCI (Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction) — Erickson & Lanning. This section decides what ideas should outlive this unit.

Reference: Erickson's Structure of Knowledge, synergistic thinking, generalization levels

The problem CBCI solves

Traditional "2D" curriculum teaches facts and skills. Students can name the parts of a cell or execute a cutting technique, but struggle to transfer. CBCI adds a third dimension — conceptual understanding — that sits above facts and skills and is transferable across contexts.

Structure of Knowledge (top → bottom)

Theory — a supposition about a phenomenon (e.g. human-centred design theory).
Principles / Generalizations — sentences that transfer across examples. A generalization names a relationship between two or more concepts and holds across time and place.
Concepts — mental constructs that are timeless, universal, abstract, represented by one or two words (e.g. empathy, system, constraint, form).
Topics — specific, time/place-bound (e.g. "designing a jar opener"). Topics are where facts live; concepts are where transfer lives.
Facts — locked to a specific example.

Synergistic thinking

The interaction between the factual level of mind (specifics) and the conceptual level of mind (generalizations). Students don't "get" a generalization until they've wrestled with enough specifics to earn it. This is why CBCI lessons scaffold up from examples to generalizations, not the other way round.

Conceptual lens

A broad integrating concept (often 1–2 words) that creates the cognitive pull of the unit. Different from a key concept — a lens is usually narrower, closer to the topic, and creates synergy with the content. For a design unit on ergonomic kitchen tools, a lens like empathy or accessibility focuses the thinking.

Scaffolded generalizations (Level 1 → 2 → 3)

Level 1 — the broad, often obvious generalization. Often uses weak verbs (affect, influence, are, have). This is your starting point; it's not the finish line.
Level 2 — more specific, more complex, usually revealing a how or a why. Stronger verbs.
Level 3 — the deepest, often qualified with often / sometimes / may to preserve accuracy. Reveals nuance, tension, or a contested relationship.

Guiding questions — three types

Factual — locked to the topic; have correct answers. Build the base of specifics.
Conceptual — transferable across topics; pull students from facts toward generalizations.
Debatable / Provocative — genuinely contested; no single "right" answer; exercise point-of-view.

Common pitfall: Writing "generalizations" that are really topic sentences. Test: rewrite with a different topic. If it still holds, it's a generalization. If it only works for this unit, it's a topic sentence.

Test for a strong generalization: It (1) names 2+ concepts, (2) uses a verb that isn't a weak cognate (no is, has, affect — use amplifies, constrains, privileges, reveals, obscures), (3) would still be true 20 years from now, (4) transfers outside the topic.

2A. Conceptual Lens

One broad, integrating concept that focuses the unit. Click the field for suggestions, or type your own.

Why this lens?

A sentence or two on why this lens produces the kind of thinking you want.

2B. Concept Web

Identify 3–4 conceptual strands under the lens. Each strand gathers 2–4 concepts.

Prompt: If your lens is the sun, your strands are planets, and each planet has 2–4 moons (concepts). Draw a picture first if helpful.

Strand 1 — Name

Strand 1 — Concepts

Strand 2 — Name

Strand 2 — Concepts

Strand 3 — Name

Strand 3 — Concepts

Strand 4 — Name (optional)

Strand 4 — Concepts (optional)

2C. Generalizations (scaffolded)

Write three generalizations that deepen across levels. Same conceptual territory, progressively more sophisticated relationships between concepts.

uses your lens, strand concepts, and premise

1Level 1

2Level 2

3Level 3

2D. Guiding Questions

Write 2–4 questions of each type. Use these to orient lessons and assessments.

Factual

Conceptual

Debatable

2E. Essential Content

The factual/topic-level content students must encounter. These specifics feed up into the generalizations. Keep this list honest — only what's load-bearing.

Step 3 · What students do

Design work

Processes, strategies, and skills — and how each action earns a concept.

Framework: Structure of Process — Lois Lanning. The primary lens for MYP Design, because Design is a doing discipline, not a knowing discipline.

Reference: Lanning's Structure of Process — why Design is process-driven, not knowledge-driven

Why a second structure?

Erickson's Structure of Knowledge was built for knowledge-driven disciplines (history, biology). It starts with topics/facts and works up. But in disciplines where doing is the point — Design, English Language Arts, the Arts, Languages, PE — the fact-base isn't the driver. Students don't primarily study about design; they do design. So Lanning proposed a parallel structure organized around process.

Structure of Process (top → bottom)

Theory — a supposition about the process (e.g. human-centred design as a theory of innovation).
Principles / Generalizations — the same kind of transferable sentences as in SoK. They emerge from reflection on what the doing revealed.
Concepts — same definition as SoK: timeless, transferable mental constructs.
Strategies — "systematic plans a learner consciously adapts and monitors to improve performance" (Lanning). Strategies are adaptable. E.g. empathy interviewing is a strategy — its shape changes with context.
Skills — smaller operations embedded in strategies. Skills are drilled and become automatic. E.g. isometric sketching is a skill.
Processes — the overarching what-one-does of the discipline. In Design, the Design Cycle.

Strategy vs. Skill — a crisp distinction

Skill: narrow, transferable within a domain, assessed by correctness. "Can the student sketch a three-view drawing?"

Strategy: broader, context-sensitive, assessed by appropriateness and adaptation. "Can the student design an empathy interview that fits this user?"

Many teachers conflate them, which is why "skills" lists end up being a mix of motor skills (cutting) and cognitive moves (critiquing precedents). SoP asks you to separate them. Strategies are where most design learning actually lives.

Concepts still sit on top

CBCI's innovation is that concepts don't disappear in a process discipline — they just emerge from the doing rather than from a body of content. Watching students do three user interviews teaches them perspective. The concept is earned, not delivered.

Common pitfall: Treating the Design Cycle as the whole unit and forgetting the concepts. Then students "complete the process" but don't understand anything transferable about design.

Test: For each strategy, ask — which concept does this strategy instantiate? If you can't answer, the strategy isn't earning its keep.

3A. Processes

The big moves students perform in this unit. Usually 1–2 for a single unit.

3B. Strategies (systematic, adaptable)

Strategies students will be taught, practised, and reflected on. For each, name the concept it instantiates (in parentheses).

3C. Skills (discrete, drilled)

Narrower, more automatic operations. These are the "teachable moments" inside lessons.

3D. Concepts → Strategies map

For each CBCI concept you identified, name the strategy that develops it. This is the crucial hinge between the two frameworks — what Lanning calls "concepts emerging from the process."

synthesizes strand concepts (2B) and strategies (3B)

3E. Process-level generalizations

1–2 generalizations that name how the process itself works. These sit alongside the CBCI generalizations and usually describe craft knowledge.

Step 4 · Rigorous reasoning

Thinking moves

Paul-Elder's three foundations of critical thinking, applied to the design work students are doing.

Framework: Paul-Elder Critical Thinking — Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Elements of Thought 8

The components of any reasoning

Purpose — goal of the reasoning
Question — problem addressed
Information — data, evidence
Interpretation — conclusions drawn
Concepts — theories in use
Assumptions — taken for granted
Implications — what follows
Point of view — frame of reference

Intellectual Standards 9

Criteria applied to the elements

Clarity — understandable?
Accuracy — true?
Precision — exact enough?
Relevance — bears on the question?
Depth — addresses complexity?
Breadth — other viewpoints?
Logic — does it follow?
Significance — what matters?
Fairness — free of bias?

Intellectual Virtues 8

Dispositions cultivated over time

Humility — awareness of limits
Courage — face challenging views
Empathy — reconstruct other frames
Autonomy — think for oneself
Integrity — same standards for self
Perseverance — persist through confusion
Confidence in reason — trust inquiry
Fairmindedness — equal treatment

How they work together: apply standards to elements to produce rigorous thinking at any decision point; cultivate virtues over time so students do this spontaneously. Pick 3–4 elements + 4–5 standards + 2–3 virtues for this unit — don't try to teach all 25 at once.

Reference: The full Paul-Elder framework — elements, standards, traits, and how they combine

Why this framework?

Paul and Elder (Foundation for Critical Thinking) argue that critical thinking isn't a vague virtue — it's a specific set of moves. Their framework names those moves so teachers can teach them directly, assess them, and cultivate the dispositions that make them habitual.

The framework has three parts that work together: apply standards to elements to produce rigorous thinking; cultivate traits over time so students do this spontaneously.

The 8 Elements of Thought (components of any reasoning)

Purpose — the goal or objective of the reasoning.
Question at issue — the specific problem being addressed.
Information — data, observations, evidence.
Interpretation / Inference — the conclusions or solutions drawn.
Concepts — the ideas, theories, definitions in use.
Assumptions — what is taken for granted, often unconsciously.
Implications / Consequences — what follows from the reasoning.
Point of view — the frame of reference or perspective.

The 9 Intellectual Standards (criteria applied to the elements)

Clarity — is the thinking understandable?
Accuracy — is the information true?
Precision — is it exact enough?
Relevance — does it bear on the question?
Depth — does it address complexity?
Breadth — are other viewpoints considered?
Logic — does it follow?
Significance — does it focus on what matters?
Fairness — is it free of bias or self-interest?

The 8 Intellectual Traits (dispositions cultivated over time)

Humility — awareness of the limits of one's knowledge.
Courage — willingness to consider views that challenge one's own.
Empathy — capacity to reconstruct others' viewpoints accurately.
Autonomy — independent thinking; taking responsibility for one's beliefs.
Integrity — holding oneself to the same standards as others.
Perseverance — persisting through difficulty and confusion.
Confidence in reason — belief that reasoned inquiry yields defensible conclusions.
Fairmindedness — treating all viewpoints alike without prejudice.

How to operationalise

The matrix approach: at a given decision point in the design work, pick an element and apply a standard. E.g., at the ideation gate: examine your point of view (element) for fairness (standard) — "Whose perspective shaped this idea, and whose is missing?"

Common pitfall: Trying to hit all 25 intersections. Don't. Pick 3–4 elements and 4–5 standards that are load-bearing for this unit, and make them visible.

Traits are cultivated, not taught: You don't teach humility in a lesson. You design experiences where students need to practise humility (e.g., a user test that proves their idea wrong), then name and celebrate the trait. Pick 2–3 traits per unit and design 2–3 cultivation moves for each.

4A. Elements of Thought (choose 3–4 for focus)

Click a chip to add the element with a prompt-stub. Write the specific question students will grapple with.

picks the 3–4 that matter most, with a specific question for each

4B. Intellectual Standards (choose 4–5 to emphasise)

For each standard, write the checkpoint question students will use to self-assess.

picks 4–5 and writes a checkpoint question for each

Clarity

Understandable; unambiguous.

Accuracy

True; verifiable.

Precision

Exact; sufficiently specific.

Relevance

Bears on the question.

Depth

Addresses complexity.

Breadth

Considers other viewpoints.

Logic

Coherent reasoning.

Significance

Focuses on what matters.

Fairness

Free of self-interest / bias.

4C. Intellectual Virtues (cultivate 2–3 over the unit arc)

Paul-Elder call these virtues or traits interchangeably. For each you'll cultivate, describe the specific experiences that will produce it — not the concept of the virtue, but the design of the opportunity to exercise it.

picks 2–3 virtues most load-bearing for this unit, with specific moves for each

Intellectual Humility

Awareness of what one does not know; reluctance to claim more than one knows.

Intellectual Courage

Willingness to consider views and evidence that threaten one's own.

Intellectual Empathy

Capacity to reconstruct another's frame of reference accurately.

Intellectual Autonomy

Thinking for oneself; not deferring to authority or crowd.

Intellectual Integrity

Holding oneself to the same standards one demands of others.

Intellectual Perseverance

Persistence through confusion and frustration.

Confidence in Reason

Trust that reasoned inquiry produces defensible conclusions.

Fairmindedness

Treating all viewpoints alike, without favoring one's own.

4D. Element × Standard matrix (2–4 crisp intersections)

Pick the intersections you will actually teach. Each produces a question students use at a specific decision point in the design process.

Element	× Standard	Question students will use at a design decision point	Where in the process?

Step 5 · Braiding the three frameworks

Lesson plan

4–8 learning experiences where the three frameworks meet. Each one tags a CBCI concept, a SoP strategy/skill, and a Paul-Elder move.

Reference: how to braid the three frameworks in a single lesson

The rule of three per learning experience

Every lesson should answer:

Which generalization / concept are students building toward? (CBCI)
Which strategy or skill are they practising? (SoP)
Which Paul-Elder element or standard is under active pressure?

If you can't answer one of the three, the experience is probably doing too much or too little.

Lesson-level rhythm (example pattern)

Enter the concept — open with a factual anchor that foreshadows the concept.
Execute the strategy — students do the disciplined work.
Apply the standard — explicit critical-thinking checkpoint (one element × one standard).
Exit toward the generalization — reflection prompt that pulls toward Level 2/3 generalization.

Activity arc

Step 6 · Auto-generated

MYP wrapper

Key concept, related concepts, global context, SOI and ATL — all derivable from your unit premise and filled-in sections. Generate, then edit anything you want.

Requires an Anthropic API key (set via ⚙ AI settings). Analyses title, premise, big ideas, design work and thinking moves — then fills key concept, related concepts, global context, exploration, SOI and ATL skills. Edit anything you want afterwards.

Reference: MYP Design key concepts, related concepts, global contexts, SOI

Key concepts (MYP Design — choose 1)

Communication · Communities · Development · Systems

Key concepts are broad, overarching, transdisciplinary. They sit at the highest level of abstraction.

Related concepts (MYP Design — choose 1–2)

Adaptation · Collaboration · Ergonomics · Evaluation · Form · Function · Innovation · Invention · Markets and trends · Perspective · Resources · Sustainability

Global contexts (choose 1)

Identities and Relationships — Who am I? Who are we?
Orientation in Space and Time — What is the meaning of "where" and "when"?
Personal and Cultural Expression — What is the nature and purpose of creative expression?
Scientific and Technical Innovation — How do we understand the world in which we live?
Globalization and Sustainability — How is everything connected?
Fairness and Development — What are the consequences of our common humanity?

Statement of Inquiry (SOI)

A single sentence fusing key concept + related concept(s) + global context exploration. A good SOI names what the unit is really about at a transferable level, not just the topic.

Common pitfall: SOIs that describe the topic ("Students will design a kitchen tool") rather than a transferable idea ("Designers amplify empathy when they redesign everyday objects through marginalised perspectives").

Key Concept

One of the four MYP Design key concepts.

Related Concepts (1–2)

From the MYP Design related-concept set. Click chips to add / remove.

Global Context

Exploration (within the Global Context)

The specific angle on the Global Context. Usually a phrase, not a full sentence.

Statement of Inquiry

One transferable sentence. Should read as a generalization — true beyond this unit.

ATL (Approaches to Learning) skills in focus

Choose 2–4 from the MYP ATL clusters. Clicking a chip appends to the list.

Step 6 · MYP criteria A–D

Assessment

For each criterion, name the evidence students will produce and which strand of the three frameworks it demonstrates.

Criterion A — Inquiring & Analysing

Strongest alignment: CBCI essential content + Paul-Elder Information, Point of view, Depth.

Evidence / task

Framework tags

Criterion B — Developing Ideas

Strongest alignment: SoP strategies (ideation, precedent analysis) + Paul-Elder Assumptions, Breadth.

Evidence / task

Framework tags

Criterion C — Creating the Solution

Strongest alignment: SoP skills (making, iterating) + Paul-Elder Perseverance, Precision.

Evidence / task

Framework tags

Criterion D — Evaluating

Strongest alignment: Paul-Elder Standards applied; CBCI return to generalization at Level 3.

Evidence / task

Framework tags

Step 7 · Stress-test

Reflection

Before you teach, stress-test the plan. After you teach, update for next year.

Does every generalization survive the "transfer test"?

Rewrite each generalization with a different topic. If it still holds, good. If it only works for this unit, rewrite.

Does every strategy map to a concept?

If a strategy exists only because "we always do it", reconsider. SoP says concepts emerge from strategies, so each strategy should earn one.

Where is critical thinking actually pressured?

Name the specific moments in the unit when students face a Paul-Elder checkpoint. If you can't name 3+, critical thinking is aspirational, not planned.

Equity / inclusion check

Whose perspective is built into the brief, and whose isn't? Any assumptions about prior experience, materials, resources, family context?

Risks to pedagogical integrity

What's most likely to derail this unit? (Over-scaffolding collapses conceptual work; under-scaffolding collapses the making.)

Post-unit: what transferred?

Fill in after teaching. Which generalizations can students articulate in new contexts? Which strategies did they reach for spontaneously?

Post-unit: what to change

Built for an MYP Design teacher. Frameworks: H. Lynn Erickson & Lois Lanning, Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction (Corwin, 2014); Lois Lanning, Designing a Concept-Based Curriculum for English Language Arts (Corwin, 2013); Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life (Foundation for Critical Thinking).