№ lp_2_3_01174
File format: docx
Character count: 2888
File size: 21 KB
This research paper examines the professional identities of Irish Further Education and Training (FET) practitioners, discussing how sectoral changes and personal narratives shape their roles and experiences in the evolving education landscape.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
South East Ireland
Theme:
Professional Identity, Education
Document Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Researchers, Educators, FET Practitioners
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Australia
Theme:
Education
Document Type:
Subject Outline
Organ / institution:
SACE Board
Author:
SACE Board
Target audience:
Educational institutions, teachers, students
Period of validity:
From 2024 for pilot schools, from 2025 for all schools
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
The document outlines the Stage 2 subject "Activating Identities and Futures:
Modified" as accredited by the SACE Board, including curriculum requirements and pathways for students eligible for modified subjects.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
South Australia
Topic:
Education, Senior Secondary Curriculum
Document Type:
FAQ
Institution:
SACE Board
Author:
SACE Board
Target Audience:
Teachers, School Administrators
Period of Validity:
2025
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
Academic Manuscript Submission Guidelines
Document Type:
Journal Submission Guidelines
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Authors submitting academic papers
Effective Period:
Indefinite
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
Metagenomic analysis, virus identification
Document type:
Scientific research article
Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Researchers, virologists
Effective period:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Modification date:
N/A
Stage:
Stage 2
Subject:
Activating Identities and Futures: Modified (2AFM10)
Document Type:
Assessment record form
Assessment Design Criteria:
Exploring Agency and/or Futures and/or Connections (AIF1); Planning and Implementing Action (AIF2); Communicating Evidence of Learning (AIF3)
Purpose:
Recording and validating natural evidence of student learning progress
Student Information:
Student name; SACE ID number
Assessment Decision Options:
Completed; Not completed
Evidence Requirements:
3–5 samples of natural evidence of learning with annotations
Annotation Guidelines:
Maximum 80 words or 2 minutes oral/multimodal equivalent per sample
Adjustments:
Inclusion of reasonable adjustments appropriate to the individual student
Format:
Multimodal evidence presentation permitted
Assessment record form outlining criteria, evidence requirements, and decision options for documenting student learning progress in Stage 2 Activating Identities and Futures:
Modified.
Course Code:
FYSM 1106
Course Title:
Intersections of Identities in the Ancient Mediterranean
Type of Document:
Course description
Academic Level:
First-Year Seminar
Duration:
Full-year course
Semester Focus:
Fall semester
Geographical Scope:
Ancient Mediterranean
Regions Covered:
Ancient Greek city states; Phoenicia; Asia Minor; Ancient Roman Empire
Primary Sources:
Ancient Greek texts and artefacts; Phoenician material culture
Authors Studied:
Homer; Euripides; Sophocles
Themes:
Identity; Intersectionality; Social class; Race; Gender; Sexuality; Diplomacy; Trade
Educational Activity:
Seminar with textual and artefactual analysis
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Mathematics / Trigonometry
Document Type:
Educational Activity / Worksheet
Institution:
Educational Setting / Classroom
Target Audience:
High School or IB Mathematics Students
Period of Activity:
0 ≤ x < 2π
Tools Required:
Calculator or handheld device for verification
Skills Practiced:
Solving trig equations analytically and graphically, using trig identities, applying to real-world scenarios
Year:
2012
Region / City:
New Delhi, India
Industry:
Automotive Components
Document Type:
Press Release
Organization:
NK Minda Group, Ashok Minda Group
Authors:
Mr. Nirmal K. Minda, Mr. Ashok Minda
Target Audience:
Stakeholders, Automotive Industry Professionals
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2 January 2012
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2014
Region / City:
Scotland, United Kingdom
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Scottish Independence, National Identity
Document Type:
Article
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Politicians, Scholars, Public interested in Scottish Independence and Nuclear Disarmament
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2000
Region / city:
Newcastle upon Tyne
Theme:
National Identities, Football Journalism, Television
Document Type:
Conference Paper
Organization / Institution:
Newcastle upon Tyne University, University of Liverpool, Manchester Metropolitan University
Authors:
Hugh DAUNCEY, Geoof HARE, David Hand, Liz Crolley, Isabelle Veyrat-Masson, Joseph McGonagle, Jean-François Polo
Target Audience:
Academics, Researchers in Media and Cultural Studies
Period of Action:
Post-War
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Montreal, Canada
Subject:
Personality assessment, Dark Tetrad traits
Document Type:
Psychological questionnaire and research data
Institution / Organization:
University of Winnipeg
Authors:
D. L. Paulhus, E. E. Buckels, P. D. Trapnell, D. N. Jones
Target Audience:
Researchers, psychologists, students
Sample Size:
637 students
Sample Characteristics:
73% female, mean age 20.0 (SD = 4.34)
Variables Measured:
Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, Sadism
Scoring Method:
5-point Likert scale
Data Type:
Item means, subscale inter-correlations, alpha reliabilities
Publication:
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, online, open access
Note:
Year
Subject:
Personal and Public Identities
Document Type:
Educational Unit
Target Audience:
Students, Teachers
Period of Validity:
6 weeks
Year:
2021
Region / City:
-
Topic:
Microsoft 365 Identity and Services
Document Type:
Question / Scenario
Organization / Institution:
-
Author:
Admin
Target Audience:
Microsoft 365 Administrators
Period of validity:
-
Approval Date:
2021-11-05
Modification Date:
-
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2026
Region:
Metropolitan Area
Topic:
Transportation Planning and Project Evaluation
Document Type:
Guidance / Instruction
Organization:
Regional Transportation Authority
Intended Audience:
Project Applicants
Reference Document:
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) pages 22-24
Evaluation Criteria:
Project Selection Committee Rubric
Document type:
Guidelines
Subject:
Faculty salary equity adjustment narratives
Organization:
AAUP-AFT Faculty Equity Program
Authors:
Cyndi Daniels; Dana Britton
Author roles:
Co-Directors, Faculty Equity Program
Intended audience:
Faculty applying for equity adjustments
Institutional context:
University faculty salary review
Required length:
2–3 pages
Core requirement:
Identification of individual salary comparators
Key evaluation areas:
Research; Service; Teaching; Other professional categories
Comparator data elements:
Rank; years of service; salary; campus; department
Referenced institution:
Rutgers University
Purpose:
Preparation of equity adjustment narrative
Procedural structure:
Summary; comparator table; comparative accomplishments; contextual factors; conclusion
Year:
2017
Region / city:
Southern Denmark
Subject:
Biographical narratives, discourse analysis, cultural narratives
Document type:
Research paper
Organization / institution:
University of Southern Denmark
Author:
Professor Emerita Dr. Marianne Horsdal
Target audience:
Researchers, educators, scholars in cultural and narrative studies
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Great Zimbabwe
Subject:
Archaeology, Colonial History, African Heritage
Document Type:
Scholarly Analysis
Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Scholars, Researchers, Students
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Moscow, Russia
Subject:
Political Science, Developmental States, Narrative Governance
Document Type:
Academic Article
Institution:
HSE University, International Center for the Study of Institutions and Development
Author:
Jinhai Wang
Position:
Associate Fellow; PhD Candidate, Doctoral School of Political Science
Keywords:
Narrative Governance, Developmental State, Symbolic Power, State Capacity, Political Legitimacy, Discursive Institutionalism, State–Capital Relations, Institutional Reproduction, Comparative Political Economy
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
18 Myasnitskaya Str., bldg. 1, Moscow, Russia
Intended Audience:
Scholars and researchers in political science and comparative political economy
Methodology:
Theoretical analysis with comparative framework
Framework Scope:
East Asian developmental states, contemporary China, post-socialist cases, late-developing countries
Abstract Summary:
Explores narrative governance as an institutional practice shaping state capacity and legitimacy
Fiscal Year:
2024
Program Name:
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Document Type:
Grant Application Template
Administering Authority:
Federal Grant Program
Program Area:
Hiring of Firefighters
Primary Applicant:
Fire Department
Funding Source:
Federal Assistance
Sections:
Operating Budget; Applicant and Community Trends; Community Description; Grant Request Details; Narrative Statements; Impact on Daily Operations; Cost Benefit; Additional Information
Evaluation Criteria:
Financial Need (30%); Project Description (30%); Impact on Daily Operations (30%); Cost Benefit (10%)
Character Limits:
500–4,000 characters per section as specified
Intended Applicants:
Fire departments seeking federal funding for staffing