№ lp_1_2_68946
File format: docx
Character count: 2941
File size: 20 KB
The document provides an outline of the core values, behaviors, and Common Good Attributes defined by GCU, detailing how these are integrated into the curriculum and student activities.
Note:
Year
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:
2022
Region / City:
Glasgow
Topic:
Mentoring, Personal Safety
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization:
Glasgow Caledonian University
Author:
People Services, The Graduate School, Academic Development & Student Learning (ADSL)
Target Audience:
Mentors and Mentees
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
March 2022
Date of Changes:
None
Note:
Year
Topic:
Academic writing, plagiarism, referencing
Document Type:
Guide
Organization / Institution:
Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU)
Target Audience:
GCU students
Year:
2020
Institution:
Glasgow Caledonian University
Type of document:
Guide
Target audience:
Academic staff
Scope:
University-wide curriculum integration
Key topics:
Common Good Curriculum, Core Values, Graduate Attributes, Programme Approval and Review, Curriculum Mapping
Related strategy:
Strategy for Learning 2015–2020
Accreditation:
Ashoka U Changemaker Campus
Format:
Online and print handbook
Year:
2022
Region / city:
Lao PDR
Theme:
Informal economy, social security coverage
Document type:
Terms of Reference
Organization:
ILO Country Office for Lao PDR
Author:
ILO Country Office for Lao PDR
Target audience:
Researchers, policymakers, consultants, social security stakeholders
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Contextual description:
A terms of reference document for a study on informality and expanding social security coverage in Lao PDR, focusing on the informal economy, worker needs, and potential policy changes.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Global
Theme:
Mental health therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy
Document Type:
Evaluation rubric
Institution:
Unspecified
Author:
Unspecified
Target Audience:
Mental health professionals, therapists
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Unspecified
Revision Date:
Unspecified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
South Yorkshire
Topic:
Fire safety, youth intervention
Document Type:
Privacy Notice
Organization:
South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue (SYFR)
Author:
South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue
Target Audience:
Parents, guardians, children and young people
Period of Action:
Ongoing since 1995
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Note:
Contextual Description
Note:
Year
Document Type:
Risk Assessment
Organization / Institution:
North Yorkshire CYPS
Contextual Description:
A risk assessment document for managing challenging behaviours in early years, outlining risk identification, assessment, and management strategies for children.
Note:
Year
Contextual description:
A compilation of useful resources aimed at supporting discussions about sexual harm, sexualised behaviours, and online safety for children, young people, and parents.
Year:
2016
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Safety seeking behaviours, psychosis, anxiety
Document type:
Research article
Institution:
The University of Manchester, The Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Author:
Sarah Tully, Adrian Wells, Anthony P. Morrison
Target audience:
Researchers, mental health professionals
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Language:
English
Topic:
Children’s eating behaviours and family mealtime dynamics
Document Type:
Pre-workshop questionnaire
Organ / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Parents attending a mealtime workshop
Purpose:
Self-assessment prior to workshop participation
Format:
Rating scale questionnaire (1–10) with reflective questions
Related Event:
Mealtime workshop
Period Covered:
Lifetime and current family mealtime experiences
Year:
1983
Region / city:
Not specified
Topic:
Psychological theory, Transactional Analysis
Document type:
Article
Organization / institution:
Not specified
Author:
Thomson
Target audience:
Professionals in psychology, therapists, individuals studying transactional analysis
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Location:
Southampton, UK
Topic:
Maternal health, pregnancy, lifestyle interventions
Document type:
Research article
Institution:
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre
Authors:
T. Morris, S. Strömmer, C. Vogel, N. C. Harvey, C. Cooper, H. Inskip, K. Woods-Townsend, J. Baird, M. Barker, W. Lawrence
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, researchers in maternal and child health
Study period:
During pregnancy, specific to trial participants
Trial registration:
ISRCTN07227232
Methodology:
Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews
Key focus:
Diet, physical activity, health identity, engagement with lifestyle interventions
Qualification:
Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management / Organisational Learning and Development
Unit code:
5CO03
Unit title:
Professional behaviours and valuing people
Assessment ID:
CIPD_5CO03_22_01
Document type:
Learner assessment brief
Organisation:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)
Centre number:
1171
Centre name:
City Skills
Learner surname:
Worsfold
Learner given names:
Alison Diana
Learner number:
8780346
Assessor:
Jim Blythe
Assessment start date:
11 May 2023
Assessment submission date:
29 June 2023
Declared word count:
3322
Subject area:
Human resource management and people practice
Topics:
professional behaviours, ethical practice, inclusivity, employee voice, continuing professional development
Target audience:
learners enrolled in CIPD Level 5 programmes
Geographical context:
United Kingdom and Ireland professional practice context
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Shepparton
Theme:
Road Safety, Traffic Programs
Document Type:
Official Transcript
Institution:
Legislative Assembly
Author:
Economy and Infrastructure Committee
Target Audience:
General public, young drivers, local communities, policymakers
Action Period:
13 September 2023
Approval Date:
13 September 2023
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2024
Region:
Queensland, Australia
Topic:
Early childhood education, literacy development
Document type:
Educational resource / Video reflection guide
Institution:
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (QCAA)
Audience:
Kindergarten educators
Key focus:
Communicating, building literacy in personally meaningful ways
Significant learning:
Develops writing behaviours
Linked standards:
National Quality Standard QA1 — Educational program and practice
Licence:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Copyright:
© State of Queensland (QCAA) 2025
URL:
www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/copyright
Content format:
Video and reflective activity
) 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
Note:
Year
Topic:
Curriculum Development
Document Type:
Template
Target Audience:
Programme Teams
Note:
Year