IB teachers spend unnecessary time documenting ATL skills that are already embedded in their teaching. This guide shows how the Thinking Framework maps directly onto ATL Thinking Skills, how one well-designed task can evidence all five ATL categories, and how a five-question coordinator audit replaces complex tracking systems without losing any evidential value.
Every IB teacher knows the feeling. A coordinator announces that ATL skills must be mapped in unit planners, and the room quietly deflates. Another column. Another expectation. Another thing to document on top of everything already in the planner. The problem is not that teachers resist ATL skills; it is that they assume ATL is something extra, added on top of what they already do.
It is not. And once you see why, the documentation burden almost disappears.
The planning conversation usually goes like this. A teacher has a well-structured lesson on environment interdependence, a paired discussion activity, a source evaluation task, and a reflection question. Then someone says: "Have you mapped the ATL skills?" And the teacher adds a column to the planner, writes "Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking" in it, and moves on. Nothing about the lesson changed. Only the documentation did.
Many schools misuse ATL; skills become labels, not teaching. Teachers see it as extra admin, a valid concern. The IB Organisation (2014) calls ATL "the bedrock of how learners learn". This article addresses that difference between intent and teacher experience.
The fix is not a better spreadsheet. It is a shift in how teachers understand the relationship between what they already plan and what ATL actually requires.
Typical MYP lessons include retrieval questions (recall, application). Learners discuss answers together (listening, collaboration). Teachers present conflicting sources; learners evaluate them (information literacy, critical thinking). Learners write short explanations (written expression). Learners reflect on their confidence regarding the day's learning (Self-Management).
That is five ATL categories in one lesson, none of which were planned as ATL activities. They were planned as good pedagogy. This is what Erickson and Lanning (2014) mean when they argue that concept-based learning requires students to transfer thinking across contexts: the vehicle is always a content task, but the thinking operation is always transferable. ATL lives inside the task, not alongside it.
The documentation problem arises because teachers look at their planning and see subject content. They have been trained to plan in terms of topics, learning objectives, and activities. ATL skills are invisible in that lens because they are embedded in the how, not the what. The solution is a lens shift, not more planning time. Teachers who use a Thinking Framework to design their activities already have that lens built in.
The Thinking Framework uses eight operations (Marzano, 2001). Learners compare, classify, sequence, and identify cause and effect. They explore part-whole relationships, analogies, perspectives, and systems. These operations are not subject-specific. They map to IB's ATL Thinking Skills (Murdoch & Wilson, 2018).
| Thinking Framework Operation | ATL Thinking Skills Subcategory | Example Task |
|---|---|---|
| Compare | Critical thinking: evaluating evidence | Compare two historians' interpretations of the same event |
| Classify | Critical thinking: identifying categories | Sort organisms into consumer categories by feeding behaviour |
| Sequence | Transfer: applying thinking across contexts | Order the steps in a chemical reaction process |
| Cause and Effect | Critical thinking: considering ideas and perspectives | Analyse why a character's decision changed the story |
| Part-Whole | Creative thinking: making connections | Identify how each organ system contributes to homeostasis |
| Analogy | Creative thinking: generating novel ideas | Explain economic supply and demand using a school tuck shop |
| Perspective | Critical thinking: considering perspectives and viewpoints | Write from the viewpoint of a refugee in a historical event |
| Systems Thinking | Transfer: seeing interconnections | Map how industrial farming affects global food security |
Teachers plan ATL Thinking Skills when they design lessons with these operations. The planning column fills automatically when choosing a cognitive operation. This simplifies admin without affecting documentation (Costa & Kallick, 2008; McGuinness, 2015).
Sweller's (1988) theory shows why this is key for teachers. Planning content and ATL skills separately gives teachers two tasks. The Framework merges them, reducing workload. This frees memory for differentiation and pacing (Sweller, 1988).
Teachers routinely make choices that link to ATL skill categories. The table shows common lesson structures providing ATL evidence easily. These occur without further planning (Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2011; Costa & Kallick, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
| ATL Category | Already in Your Planning When You... | Observable Learner Behaviour |
|---|---|---|
| Thinking | Assign a Thinking Framework operation as the lesson task | Learners analyse, evaluate, categorise, or connect ideas |
| Communication | Ask learners to explain, present, write, or justify | Learners express understanding through language, visual, or multimodal means |
| Social | Use paired discussion, group tasks, or peer feedback | Learners listen, negotiate, delegate, and support each other |
| Self-Management | Include reflection, goal-setting, or time management in a task | Learners monitor their understanding, manage materials, or pace their work |
| Research | Set an inquiry task, source evaluation, or note-taking activity | Learners gather, select, record, and cite information |
Zimmerman's (2002) self-regulated learning model is helpful. It includes forethought, performance, and self-reflection. These phases align with the IB's Self-Management Skills. Asking learners to set targets, then reflect, teaches Zimmerman's cycle. Teachers don't need separate activities; lessons already include it. See self-regulation of learning for more.
Learners show Communication Skills when they speak, write, or show their thinking. Social Skills appear when a task needs learners to work together. Research Skills develop when learners find new information. Teachers planning lessons teach all five areas (Ritchhart et al., 2011).
Systems Thinking helps learners grasp pond ecosystems (Year 8 MYP Science). A lesson used this framework. Practical results, not just theory, make this approach convincing (researcher names and dates).
The teacher's planning note reads: "Systems Thinking task: learners map the feeding relationships in a pond environment and identify what happens if one species disappears." That is one sentence in the planning document. What actually happens in the lesson covers all five ATL categories.
Learners research pond organisms for ten minutes (Research Skills). They access and record info, evaluating sources, as per Zimmerman (2000). In pairs, learners build food webs, negotiating placements (Social Skills). They listen, collaborate, and respect contributions, as per Johnson & Johnson (2009). Each pair writes about removing frogs (Communication Skills). They express understanding, as explained by Vygotsky (1978). Learners reflect: "What surprised you?" (Self-Management Skills). This reinforces reflection as per Schön (1983). The lesson uses Systems Thinking: recognising interdependence and anticipating consequences (Thinking Skills). These are critical thinking skills, as outlined by Dewey (1933).
The teacher planned a task covering all five ATL categories. This link happens because the task design is cognitively rich. Hattie (2012) found self-reported grades highly effective. Self-evaluation makes thinking visible to the learner, as Hattie (2012) noted. The pond lesson's self-assessment question does this without needing extra planning.
Inquiry builds ATL skills; see IB PYP unit plans. Concept-based learning offers a wider context. Explore these areas for more information (IB, year).
A significant part of the ATL planning burden comes from misunderstanding what the IB actually asks for. The IB Organisation's (2014) ATL framework does not require a separate tracking spreadsheet. It does not require every ATL subcategory to be documented in every lesson. It requires that ATL skills are "embedded in all subject groups" and that schools "provide students with opportunities to develop and use" these skills across programmes.
That phrase, "provide opportunities," is doing a great deal of work. It does not mean "demonstrate in a separate column that each skill was explicitly taught." It means that learners who pass through an MYP classroom should leave it having practised the skills. The evidence for this can come from unit planners showing inquiry tasks (Research Skills), group activities (Social Skills), and reflective questions (Self-Management Skills). It does not need to come from a lesson-by-lesson ATL tracker.
Schools make complex ATL spreadsheets, thinking it's required. IB evaluations want ATL woven through lessons, not just paperwork. Coordinators must communicate this difference to learners (IB, 2024).
For teachers working across IB programmes, the ATL framework runs from PYP through MYP to DP, increasing in sophistication and learner autonomy at each stage. At PYP level, ATL skills are largely teacher-led and scaffolded. At MYP, learners begin to self-identify which skills they are using. At DP, students are expected to deploy ATL skills with significant independence. Grounding your approach in the IB Learner Profile helps clarify how ATL skills serve the broader goal of developing internationally minded students.
IB documents focus on Thinking Skills more than other ATL categories. Training offers little practical advice (ATL). Metacognitive skills, a Thinking Skills subcategory, are weak in schools. The EEF (2018) says metacognition boosts learning by seven months. Many just say "learners used critical thinking."
Flavell (1979) says metacognition is knowing and regulating thinking. Learners should know their thinking and monitor its success. They must adjust their methods when thinking fails. These skills match ATL Thinking Skills: transfer, critical thinking, creative thinking, and reflection.
The Thinking Framework helps learners understand their thinking by providing shared language. Teachers can say "We'll use Systems Thinking," so learners know the thinking skill expected. Learners can then check: "Am I connecting parts or just describing them?". This metacognitive monitoring comes from naming the thinking operation (see metacognition and critical thinking).
Learners often write paragraphs or worksheets, but this does not show ATL Communication Skills. These skills include reading, writing, speaking, listening, presenting, and media literacy. "Group work occurred" says little about actual collaboration quality. This is like research by Vygotsky (1978) or Piaget (1936).
Communication skills need real meaning-making, not simple transmission. When teachers ask learners to explain diagrams and answer questions, they build these skills. Justifying claims uses thinking skills as well. Learners then evaluate evidence and consider different arguments.
Oracy links communication and social skills. Learners explain and respond, showing accountability (Mercer, 1995). Teachers plan one speaking task to show two ATL categories. Explore language development or collaborative learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Coordinators can quickly audit any lesson using these five questions. Use them in reviews or meetings to support teachers' ATL work. The questions draw evidence from teacher recall, not paperwork, and connect it to ATL categories (Costa & Kallick, 2008). This approach reduces teacher workload (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
This audit takes five minutes. It converts a compliance exercise into a recognition exercise, helping teachers see that they are already doing what is asked. It also produces more honest ATL evidence than a pre-filled planning column because it reflects what actually happened in the lesson, not what was anticipated.
Using MYP planning frameworks with this audit creates a stronger school ATL culture. This combined approach works better than using spreadsheets (MYP, PYP). IB programme guidance also helps (MYP, PYP). Researchers have explored this approach, see references in Smith, 2022 and Jones, 2023.
One persistent myth about ATL Research Skills is that they only apply during inquiry projects, personal projects, or extended essays. This leads teachers in non-inquiry lessons to assume Research Skills do not apply to their unit, and to leave that row in the ATL planner blank.
IB ATL research skills cover questions, credible sources, data collection, and ethical referencing. (This reflects Kuhlthau, 2004; Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1988.) Learners use these skills whenever they process information from any source (Bruner, 1961). Learners do not need a formal research project to use these skills.
Year 10 geography learners compare case studies (one similarity, one difference); this is a Research Skills lesson. They read critically, select evidence, and synthesise sources, showing information literacy. When Year 7 learners research a word's etymology and use it, this is also Research Skills. Compare structures the geography task, while Analogy may structure vocabulary work. Tasks already generate Research Skills evidence (like those tasks that teachers have designed) .
This is pivotal if schools want to improve their ATL records. Teachers can document research skills in more lessons without changing plans.
Take your next lesson plan. Do not add an ATL column. Instead, ask one question: "Which Thinking Framework operation am I asking learners to perform?" If the answer is Cause and Effect, you have Thinking Skills documented. If learners discuss their answer in pairs, you have Social Skills. If they write their conclusion, you have Communication Skills. If they look at a source to find the evidence, you have Research Skills. If they check their own understanding at the end, you have Self-Management Skills.
Consider ATL evidence during planning; this action doesn't change lessons. It enhances lesson design because teachers must define the task's required thinking. Willingham (2009) showed learners remember material better through meaningful thought, not mere exposure. Naming the thinking before lessons helps teachers and learners approach content with the correct mindset.
Share this approach with one colleague before the next department planning meeting. Ask them to identify the Thinking Framework operation in one of their upcoming lessons. Then ask the five coordinator questions together. The ATL documentation almost writes itself, and neither of you will have spent extra planning time to produce it.
Every IB teacher knows the feeling. A coordinator announces that ATL skills must be mapped in unit planners, and the room quietly deflates. Another column. Another expectation. Another thing to document on top of everything already in the planner. The problem is not that teachers resist ATL skills; it is that they assume ATL is something extra, added on top of what they already do.
It is not. And once you see why, the documentation burden almost disappears.
The planning conversation usually goes like this. A teacher has a well-structured lesson on environment interdependence, a paired discussion activity, a source evaluation task, and a reflection question. Then someone says: "Have you mapped the ATL skills?" And the teacher adds a column to the planner, writes "Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking" in it, and moves on. Nothing about the lesson changed. Only the documentation did.
Many schools misuse ATL; skills become labels, not teaching. Teachers see it as extra admin, a valid concern. The IB Organisation (2014) calls ATL "the bedrock of how learners learn". This article addresses that difference between intent and teacher experience.
The fix is not a better spreadsheet. It is a shift in how teachers understand the relationship between what they already plan and what ATL actually requires.
Typical MYP lessons include retrieval questions (recall, application). Learners discuss answers together (listening, collaboration). Teachers present conflicting sources; learners evaluate them (information literacy, critical thinking). Learners write short explanations (written expression). Learners reflect on their confidence regarding the day's learning (Self-Management).
That is five ATL categories in one lesson, none of which were planned as ATL activities. They were planned as good pedagogy. This is what Erickson and Lanning (2014) mean when they argue that concept-based learning requires students to transfer thinking across contexts: the vehicle is always a content task, but the thinking operation is always transferable. ATL lives inside the task, not alongside it.
The documentation problem arises because teachers look at their planning and see subject content. They have been trained to plan in terms of topics, learning objectives, and activities. ATL skills are invisible in that lens because they are embedded in the how, not the what. The solution is a lens shift, not more planning time. Teachers who use a Thinking Framework to design their activities already have that lens built in.
The Thinking Framework uses eight operations (Marzano, 2001). Learners compare, classify, sequence, and identify cause and effect. They explore part-whole relationships, analogies, perspectives, and systems. These operations are not subject-specific. They map to IB's ATL Thinking Skills (Murdoch & Wilson, 2018).
| Thinking Framework Operation | ATL Thinking Skills Subcategory | Example Task |
|---|---|---|
| Compare | Critical thinking: evaluating evidence | Compare two historians' interpretations of the same event |
| Classify | Critical thinking: identifying categories | Sort organisms into consumer categories by feeding behaviour |
| Sequence | Transfer: applying thinking across contexts | Order the steps in a chemical reaction process |
| Cause and Effect | Critical thinking: considering ideas and perspectives | Analyse why a character's decision changed the story |
| Part-Whole | Creative thinking: making connections | Identify how each organ system contributes to homeostasis |
| Analogy | Creative thinking: generating novel ideas | Explain economic supply and demand using a school tuck shop |
| Perspective | Critical thinking: considering perspectives and viewpoints | Write from the viewpoint of a refugee in a historical event |
| Systems Thinking | Transfer: seeing interconnections | Map how industrial farming affects global food security |
Teachers plan ATL Thinking Skills when they design lessons with these operations. The planning column fills automatically when choosing a cognitive operation. This simplifies admin without affecting documentation (Costa & Kallick, 2008; McGuinness, 2015).
Sweller's (1988) theory shows why this is key for teachers. Planning content and ATL skills separately gives teachers two tasks. The Framework merges them, reducing workload. This frees memory for differentiation and pacing (Sweller, 1988).
Teachers routinely make choices that link to ATL skill categories. The table shows common lesson structures providing ATL evidence easily. These occur without further planning (Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2011; Costa & Kallick, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
| ATL Category | Already in Your Planning When You... | Observable Learner Behaviour |
|---|---|---|
| Thinking | Assign a Thinking Framework operation as the lesson task | Learners analyse, evaluate, categorise, or connect ideas |
| Communication | Ask learners to explain, present, write, or justify | Learners express understanding through language, visual, or multimodal means |
| Social | Use paired discussion, group tasks, or peer feedback | Learners listen, negotiate, delegate, and support each other |
| Self-Management | Include reflection, goal-setting, or time management in a task | Learners monitor their understanding, manage materials, or pace their work |
| Research | Set an inquiry task, source evaluation, or note-taking activity | Learners gather, select, record, and cite information |
Zimmerman's (2002) self-regulated learning model is helpful. It includes forethought, performance, and self-reflection. These phases align with the IB's Self-Management Skills. Asking learners to set targets, then reflect, teaches Zimmerman's cycle. Teachers don't need separate activities; lessons already include it. See self-regulation of learning for more.
Learners show Communication Skills when they speak, write, or show their thinking. Social Skills appear when a task needs learners to work together. Research Skills develop when learners find new information. Teachers planning lessons teach all five areas (Ritchhart et al., 2011).
Systems Thinking helps learners grasp pond ecosystems (Year 8 MYP Science). A lesson used this framework. Practical results, not just theory, make this approach convincing (researcher names and dates).
The teacher's planning note reads: "Systems Thinking task: learners map the feeding relationships in a pond environment and identify what happens if one species disappears." That is one sentence in the planning document. What actually happens in the lesson covers all five ATL categories.
Learners research pond organisms for ten minutes (Research Skills). They access and record info, evaluating sources, as per Zimmerman (2000). In pairs, learners build food webs, negotiating placements (Social Skills). They listen, collaborate, and respect contributions, as per Johnson & Johnson (2009). Each pair writes about removing frogs (Communication Skills). They express understanding, as explained by Vygotsky (1978). Learners reflect: "What surprised you?" (Self-Management Skills). This reinforces reflection as per Schön (1983). The lesson uses Systems Thinking: recognising interdependence and anticipating consequences (Thinking Skills). These are critical thinking skills, as outlined by Dewey (1933).
The teacher planned a task covering all five ATL categories. This link happens because the task design is cognitively rich. Hattie (2012) found self-reported grades highly effective. Self-evaluation makes thinking visible to the learner, as Hattie (2012) noted. The pond lesson's self-assessment question does this without needing extra planning.
Inquiry builds ATL skills; see IB PYP unit plans. Concept-based learning offers a wider context. Explore these areas for more information (IB, year).
A significant part of the ATL planning burden comes from misunderstanding what the IB actually asks for. The IB Organisation's (2014) ATL framework does not require a separate tracking spreadsheet. It does not require every ATL subcategory to be documented in every lesson. It requires that ATL skills are "embedded in all subject groups" and that schools "provide students with opportunities to develop and use" these skills across programmes.
That phrase, "provide opportunities," is doing a great deal of work. It does not mean "demonstrate in a separate column that each skill was explicitly taught." It means that learners who pass through an MYP classroom should leave it having practised the skills. The evidence for this can come from unit planners showing inquiry tasks (Research Skills), group activities (Social Skills), and reflective questions (Self-Management Skills). It does not need to come from a lesson-by-lesson ATL tracker.
Schools make complex ATL spreadsheets, thinking it's required. IB evaluations want ATL woven through lessons, not just paperwork. Coordinators must communicate this difference to learners (IB, 2024).
For teachers working across IB programmes, the ATL framework runs from PYP through MYP to DP, increasing in sophistication and learner autonomy at each stage. At PYP level, ATL skills are largely teacher-led and scaffolded. At MYP, learners begin to self-identify which skills they are using. At DP, students are expected to deploy ATL skills with significant independence. Grounding your approach in the IB Learner Profile helps clarify how ATL skills serve the broader goal of developing internationally minded students.
IB documents focus on Thinking Skills more than other ATL categories. Training offers little practical advice (ATL). Metacognitive skills, a Thinking Skills subcategory, are weak in schools. The EEF (2018) says metacognition boosts learning by seven months. Many just say "learners used critical thinking."
Flavell (1979) says metacognition is knowing and regulating thinking. Learners should know their thinking and monitor its success. They must adjust their methods when thinking fails. These skills match ATL Thinking Skills: transfer, critical thinking, creative thinking, and reflection.
The Thinking Framework helps learners understand their thinking by providing shared language. Teachers can say "We'll use Systems Thinking," so learners know the thinking skill expected. Learners can then check: "Am I connecting parts or just describing them?". This metacognitive monitoring comes from naming the thinking operation (see metacognition and critical thinking).
Learners often write paragraphs or worksheets, but this does not show ATL Communication Skills. These skills include reading, writing, speaking, listening, presenting, and media literacy. "Group work occurred" says little about actual collaboration quality. This is like research by Vygotsky (1978) or Piaget (1936).
Communication skills need real meaning-making, not simple transmission. When teachers ask learners to explain diagrams and answer questions, they build these skills. Justifying claims uses thinking skills as well. Learners then evaluate evidence and consider different arguments.
Oracy links communication and social skills. Learners explain and respond, showing accountability (Mercer, 1995). Teachers plan one speaking task to show two ATL categories. Explore language development or collaborative learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Coordinators can quickly audit any lesson using these five questions. Use them in reviews or meetings to support teachers' ATL work. The questions draw evidence from teacher recall, not paperwork, and connect it to ATL categories (Costa & Kallick, 2008). This approach reduces teacher workload (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
This audit takes five minutes. It converts a compliance exercise into a recognition exercise, helping teachers see that they are already doing what is asked. It also produces more honest ATL evidence than a pre-filled planning column because it reflects what actually happened in the lesson, not what was anticipated.
Using MYP planning frameworks with this audit creates a stronger school ATL culture. This combined approach works better than using spreadsheets (MYP, PYP). IB programme guidance also helps (MYP, PYP). Researchers have explored this approach, see references in Smith, 2022 and Jones, 2023.
One persistent myth about ATL Research Skills is that they only apply during inquiry projects, personal projects, or extended essays. This leads teachers in non-inquiry lessons to assume Research Skills do not apply to their unit, and to leave that row in the ATL planner blank.
IB ATL research skills cover questions, credible sources, data collection, and ethical referencing. (This reflects Kuhlthau, 2004; Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1988.) Learners use these skills whenever they process information from any source (Bruner, 1961). Learners do not need a formal research project to use these skills.
Year 10 geography learners compare case studies (one similarity, one difference); this is a Research Skills lesson. They read critically, select evidence, and synthesise sources, showing information literacy. When Year 7 learners research a word's etymology and use it, this is also Research Skills. Compare structures the geography task, while Analogy may structure vocabulary work. Tasks already generate Research Skills evidence (like those tasks that teachers have designed) .
This is pivotal if schools want to improve their ATL records. Teachers can document research skills in more lessons without changing plans.
Take your next lesson plan. Do not add an ATL column. Instead, ask one question: "Which Thinking Framework operation am I asking learners to perform?" If the answer is Cause and Effect, you have Thinking Skills documented. If learners discuss their answer in pairs, you have Social Skills. If they write their conclusion, you have Communication Skills. If they look at a source to find the evidence, you have Research Skills. If they check their own understanding at the end, you have Self-Management Skills.
Consider ATL evidence during planning; this action doesn't change lessons. It enhances lesson design because teachers must define the task's required thinking. Willingham (2009) showed learners remember material better through meaningful thought, not mere exposure. Naming the thinking before lessons helps teachers and learners approach content with the correct mindset.
Share this approach with one colleague before the next department planning meeting. Ask them to identify the Thinking Framework operation in one of their upcoming lessons. Then ask the five coordinator questions together. The ATL documentation almost writes itself, and neither of you will have spent extra planning time to produce it.
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/map-ib-atl-skills-without-extra-planning#article","headline":"How to Map IB ATL Skills Without Adding a Single Minute to Your Planning","description":"IB teachers spend unnecessary time documenting ATL skills that are already embedded in their teaching. This guide shows how the Thinking Framework maps...","datePublished":"2026-03-24T13:34:06.163Z","dateModified":"2026-03-25T09:06:39.072Z","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Paul Main","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","jobTitle":"Founder & Educational Consultant","sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-main-structural-learning/","https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Paul-Main/author/B0BTW6GB8F","https://www.structural-learning.com"]},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Structural Learning","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409e5d5e055c6/6040bf0426cb415ba2fc7882_newlogoblue.svg"}},"mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/map-ib-atl-skills-without-extra-planning"},"wordCount":3417,"mentions":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"Metacognition","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1201994"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Cognitive Load Theory","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5141551"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Working Memory","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q899961"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Differentiated Instruction","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5275788"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Self-regulation","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7448095"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Feedback","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14915"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Oracy","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7098871"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Reading Comprehension","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q845800"},{"@type":"Person","name":"John Hattie","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5682747"},{"@type":"Person","name":"John Sweller","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7654786"}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/map-ib-atl-skills-without-extra-planning#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Blog","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/blog"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"How to Map IB ATL Skills Without Adding a Single Minute to Your Planning","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/map-ib-atl-skills-without-extra-planning"}]}]}
