Instructional Strategies Chart Part 1 Instructional Strategi

Instructional Strategies Chartpart 1 Instructional Strategies Charte

Develop a comprehensive instructional strategies chart for English Language Arts (Reading) and Math. For each subject, identify learning objectives, describe instructional strategies including anticipatory sets to engage students, and detail teacher-centered approaches such as direct instruction (modeling), as well as student-centered approaches like inquiry-based learning (guided/whole group practice) and cooperative learning (independent/individual learning).

Part 2: Reflection - Make salary increase recommendations for eight employees based on provided scenarios, considering factors such as performance, work difficulty, personal circumstances, and industry standards. Assign a percentage raise to each employee, keeping in mind the company's policies on fairness, equity, salary competitiveness, and cost control.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of an effective instructional strategies chart is vital for guiding educators in delivering content that is engaging and effective. In the context of English Language Arts (Reading) and Mathematics, it is essential to identify clear learning objectives and utilize a blend of instructional approaches that cater to diverse student needs.

For English Language Arts, particularly Reading, the learning objectives often focus on enhancing comprehension skills, vocabulary development, critical thinking, and fluency. An effective anticipatory set might involve asking provocative questions related to students' experiences with reading or presenting intriguing texts to spark interest. Teacher-centered approaches, such as direct instruction, are useful for modeling reading strategies like predicting, summarizing, and questioning. During the modeling phase, educators demonstrate these strategies explicitly, enabling students to observe and then imitate them in guided practice sessions.

Complementing this, student-centered strategies like inquiry-based learning foster autonomous exploration of texts. For example, students can work in guided groups to analyze literary elements, ask questions, and make predictions. This encourages deeper engagement and analytical thinking. Additionally, cooperative learning activities promote collaboration, where students work independently or in pairs to discuss texts, develop interpretations, or complete related assignments, thereby solidifying their understanding through peer interaction.

Similarly, in Mathematics instruction, clear learning objectives such as mastering problem-solving techniques, understanding key concepts like algebra or geometry, and developing computational fluency are central. Engagement can be created through activities like puzzles or real-world problems that relate to students' lives. Teacher-centered approaches involve demonstrations of problem-solving methods, think-alouds, and step-by-step guidance. These models help students grasp complex processes before applying them independently.

Student-centered inquiry approaches facilitate exploration and active learning. For example, students might investigate patterns, test hypotheses, and explore different solution methods within guided groups. Cooperative learning strategies further enhance understanding, as students collaborate to solve problems, share strategies, and critique each other's work, promoting peer learning and critical thinking skills.

Reflection on the teaching strategies involves assessing their effectiveness in meeting diverse student needs, promoting engagement, and achieving learning goals. Combining direct instruction with inquiry-based and cooperative approaches provides a balanced pedagogical framework that supports various learning styles. Such integration fosters a classroom environment where students are motivated, capable of critical thinking, and actively involved in their learning process.

Transitioning to the reflection on salary increases, it is crucial to evaluate each employee's performance, circumstances, and the company's strategic policies. The scenario presents eight engineers of similar backgrounds but differing performance and personal needs. The key considerations include maintaining equity, controlling costs, and ensuring competitive salaries aligned with industry standards.

Starting with Abraham Adams, who is not a high performer but manages a tough workgroup, suggests his value lies in his ability to retain stability within a challenging team. A modest raise, perhaps around 4-5%—matching inflation—might be appropriate, acknowledging his difficulties but not rewarding underperformance excessively.

Benjy Berger’s performance is below expectations, and his careless mood warrants a minimal increase, around 3-4%, to avoid incentivizing complacency while acknowledging he remains with the company.

Clyde Cohen, despite being considered one of the best subordinates, is perceived as less effective by others, possibly due to external perceptions. Since he is financially secure, a moderate increase of about 6-7% seems suitable—recognizing his contributions while maintaining cost control and fairness.

David Dudley, who is both a top performer and in personal need of more income, deserves a higher increase, around 10-12%, to reflect his performance and personal circumstances. This also aligns with industry standards for top performers reaching their potential.

Ellie Ellesberg’s success and financial needs indicate a raise of approximately 8-9%, both to reward her high performance and support her personal financial obligations, aligning with the company’s policy of fairness and competitiveness.

Fred Foster’s excellent performance and low material needs suggest a raise in the vicinity of 8-10%, rewarding his contributions while remaining within cost considerations.

Greta Goslow, who performs well but is not well-regarded internally, should receive an increase of about 5-6%, acknowledging external evaluations and her financial responsibilities.

Harry Hummer’s poor performance and personal spending habits suggest minimal or no increase, possibly around 2-3%, focusing on cost containment while considering future development potential.

In conclusion, the recommended salary increases balance internal equity, individual performance, market competitiveness, and fiscal responsibility. Setting these precedents carefully can foster motivation and fairness while supporting the company's strategic goals.

References

• Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation: Theory, Practice, and Evidence. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Strategic Compensation in the Real World (pp. 25-56). Prentice Hall.
• Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (2008). Compensation (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841-864.
• Kessler, R., & Purcal, N. (2019). Effective Teaching Strategies in the Classroom. Education Journal, 23(4), 215-229.
• Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Pearson.
• Schmidt, W. H., & Ricci, R. (2009). The Role of Cooperative Learning in Education. Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 379-388.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. World Publishing Company.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Fisher, C. D., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding Excellence: Pay Strategies for the High-Performance Organization. Jossey-Bass.