Instruction for Assignment
Note: First share comments about the Kubow and Fossum “frameworks” chapter for this unit (Attached). Also add comments about the Zurcher “four factor framework” introduced in the unit and to be employed in the Writing Component 1 assignment. (About one page). Both Kubow and Fossum are attached. Please send me this part as soon as you finish it.
Instruction for Writing Component One.
For this assignment, set your document up for double spacing and with one inch margins all around; also, number the pages of your work before submitting. Use a conventional font and font size such as 11 pt Arial or Georgia (versus a stylized font/size such as Bernard MT). Employ of outside scholarly or other sources is not a requirement in this assignment but is welcome; if using outside sources, use APA reference/citation form. Assignment in overview. Later (i.e., after the pertinent deadline/submission) you will be assigned to work with one other classmate for purposes of interacting about and further processing this initial assignment. This major writing component will have two parts. Please label each part on your submission. Each of the parts is described below.
Part One. For this part, please generate three lists, one for each of these three factors per the Zurcher “four factor model” (refer to the relevant handout and additional key terms from Unit 2) (files Attached): – student characteristics, – teacher characteristics, and – instructional aims. Note that Part One consists simply of three lists, so a narrative is not required in this part. But, as you generate the lists, keep these things in mind: – Make sure each list is clearly headed/ labeled and is coherently organized (bullets or other easily understandable presentation/organization). – Refer back to the Zurcher handout from Unit 2, and look at the “examples” for guidance; remember that these are “examples”—that is, some but not all possible considerations in each factor group that is or might be a characteristic to consider. Your job here is to try to be as exhaustive as you can in listing other possible considerations, factor-by-factor. – Do not begin to unpack or analyze a specific instructional setting in terms of these potential traits per factor yet: that will come later.
Part Two. Now, in this part, you are to think about your lists and apply them in reference to a specific instructional context as you write: what are some of the relevant student traits, instructor traits, and instructional aims that have shaped instructional method in a specific setting? Since familiarity with this specific context will be helpful, you are encouraged to use your own classroom, school, institution, or other instructional realm if at all possible. (If this is for some reason difficult, try to use another context with which you are familiar or about which you can gain adequate familiarity—e.g., a friend or relative’s class, a recently-concluded clinical/field placement you have had in an instructional setting, etc.). Shoot for a length of about 1000 words for this part (circa 3-1/2 to 4 pp.). You may use first person and/or third person voice as you write, as you wish. But be candid throughout, please, and write about all of the following specific things: – The Zurcher model (see Unit 2 handout and features such as the arrows in particular) holds that a fourth factor, instructional method, should be shaped by the other three factors. As you stand back and look at your lists from Part One, think about how specific student traits, instructor traits (probably re yourself) from the lists brainstormed seem to have consciously influenced instructional method. Offer specific examples: describe some ways in which instructional methods/approaches used in the specific setting seem to respond to one or more things from each list. Which things on your list for each factor group seemed to receive the most attention and response in terms of the way instructional method is shaped? Which receive less attention? Offer some reflections and reasons why attentions are more or less intense in these ways. – Provide some critique of the specific instruction/instructional setting in terms of the model. What things might be altered regarding instructional method in light of things included on your lists…yet aren’t altered? Does the model reveal any dissonance between how the teacher (probably you) does or does not alter instructional approaches versus how the model and your lists suggest instruction might be or even perhaps should be altered? – Provide some critique of model in terms of the setting. What strengths do you see in the four-factor model after having elaborated on it (Part One) and applied it (earlier in Part Two)? What major limits or weaknesses did you observe regarding the model? How might you alter the model and/or graphic depiction supplied on the relevant “four factor model handout” (adding, removing, or revising factors, changing labels or features on the graphic image, etc.)? Why? Feel free to provide an alternate graphic if you’re inclined.