The underlying structure behind these transfer questions is quite basic.
It is divided into two strands A) Making Meaning (how we get to our ideas and perspectives) and B) Taking Action (how we make change in a particular area).
That is obvious and explicit. Implicitly each strand looks at three areas of interaction.
1) understanding and changing ourselves and others
2) figuring out the parts of the world that we are observing and deciding what to do
3) appreciating that most things are interconnected and that the impact of changes can spread
This results in the following matrix:
The astute among us will recognise that these boundaries are highly porous. Our view of ourselves influences the views we hold of whatever we study (and vice versa). Our understanding of the system influences what we view of the world and ourselves etc etc.
Throw different disciplinary perspectives into this mix and you have a rich ground for conceptual exploration. The transfer questions essentially create a web of interactions and by exploring this web is where the transfer happens and rich ideas form.
And to those that have asked, yes this also works as a trojan horse for TOK, surely MYP is the perfect seed bed for such ideas!
Please join in the discussion on this way of organising understanding - it is simple enough to implement yet encompassing enough to be valuable?
Would it help your practice?
Share thoughts and comments please.