№ lp_2_1_30044
File format: docx
Character count: 19007
File size: 39 KB
This document contains examples of course submissions meeting General Education (GE) criteria and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) from 2018-2019, aimed at guiding faculty in designing effective courses that fulfill GE requirements.
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
EWU
Subject:
General Education, Higher Education
Document Type:
Course Submission Examples
Institution:
Eastern Washington University
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Faculty
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
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:
2020
Region / City:
China, United Kingdom
Theme:
Second language acquisition; reading comprehension
Document type:
Research article
Institution:
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; University of Cambridge
Author:
Chen Chen; Yongcan Liu
Target audience:
Second language educators and researchers
Methodology:
Correlational and multiple regression analysis
Test focus:
IELTS Academic Reading
Keywords:
vocabulary breadth; vocabulary depth; reading comprehension; IELTS examination
Date accepted:
8 April 2020
Course:
PHIL 2050
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Utah Valley University
Subject:
Ethics and Philosophy
Document Type:
Course Syllabus
Institution:
Utah Valley University
Instructor:
Not specified
Target Audience:
High school seniors and college students
Prerequisites:
High school senior status, completion of English 1010 or equivalent
Period of Validity:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas
Topic:
Graduate Education
Document Type:
Catalog
Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
UNLV Graduate College
Target Audience:
Graduate students, prospective students in Civil and Environmental Engineering
Period of validity:
Academic year 2018-2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Description:
Graduate catalog detailing the requirements and plan of study for the Master of Science in Engineering with a focus on Civil and Environmental Engineering, specifically for students pursuing the Project Track.
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas, NV
Subject:
Social Work
Document Type:
Catalog
Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
Graduate College
Target Audience:
Graduate Students in Social Work
Period of Validity:
2018-2019 Academic Year
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas, NV
Topic:
Education, Healthcare
Document Type:
Catalog
Organization / Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
UNLV Graduate College
Target Audience:
Graduate students in Nursing
Period of validity:
2018-2019 academic year
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas
Topic:
Education / Graduate Program
Document Type:
Academic Catalog
Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
Author:
Graduate College, UNLV
Target Audience:
Graduate Students
Period of Validity:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Year:
2018-2019
Region / School Board:
Thames Valley District School Board
School:
Oakridge Secondary School
Course Name:
Functions Grade 11
Course Code:
MCR 3U
Course Type:
Grade 11 University Preparation
Credit Value:
1.0
Teacher(s):
Whiting, Marr, Lynch
Prerequisite:
Principles of Mathematics, Grade 10, Academic (minimum 70% recommended)
Curriculum Link:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math1112currb.pdf
Assessment Policy:
TVDSB Assessment & Evaluation Policy, September 2011; Growing Success, 2010
Target Audience:
Grade 11 students preparing for university
Learning Skills Assessed:
Responsibility, Organization, Independent Work, Collaboration, Initiative, Self-Regulation
Evaluation Breakdown:
Term Evaluation 70%, Final Exam 30%
Achievement Categories:
Knowledge/Understanding 35%, Thinking/Inquiry 15%, Communication 15%, Application 35%
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Tusculum University
Subject:
Peer Tutoring, Student Support Services
Document Type:
Handbook
Organization / Institution:
Tusculum University
Author:
Keima S. Talley, Leeann Smith, Rachael Barnett
Target Audience:
Peer Tutors
Effective Period:
Academic year 2018-2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas, NV
Topic:
Education, Curriculum and Instruction
Document Type:
Catalog
Organization / Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
UNLV Graduate College
Target Audience:
Graduate students
Period of Action:
2018-2019 academic year
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas, NV
Field:
Education, Curriculum & Instruction
Document Type:
Academic Catalog
Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
UNLV Graduate College
Target Audience:
Prospective graduate students in education
Period of Validity:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Las Vegas
Topic:
Graduate Degree Requirements
Document Type:
Catalog
Institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Author:
Graduate College
Target Audience:
Graduate students
Period of Validity:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Integrated Model States
Topic:
Test Administration
Document Type:
Manual
Organization / Institution:
Dynamic Learning Maps® Consortium
Author:
Dynamic Learning Maps® Consortium
Target Audience:
Test Administrators
Effective Period:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
08/01/2018
Revision Date:
N/A
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Dover, DE / Wilmington, DE
Topic:
Social Work Program
Document Type:
Handbook
Institution:
Delaware State University
Author:
Eleanor M. Kiesel, Ph.D., MSW, Esquire
Target Audience:
MSW students
Period of Validity:
2018-2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Thames Valley
Topic:
Locally Developed Credit Course, Mathematics
Document Type:
Course Outline
Institution:
Thames Valley District School Board
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Grade 9 students
Prerequisite:
None
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Utah, United States
Theme:
Aviation, Pilot Training
Document Type:
Course Syllabus
Organization / Institution:
Utah Valley University
Note:
Instructor
Target Audience:
High school students, entry-level student pilots
Duration:
One academic year
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2018-2019
Region / City:
Thames Valley District School Board
Subject:
Mathematics
Document Type:
Course Outline
Institution:
Oakridge Secondary School
Teacher:
Caporicci
Target Audience:
Grade 10 students
Prerequisite:
A Grade 9 Mathematics credit
Evaluation Methods:
Quizzes, performance tasks, assignments, projects, portfolio, journals, unit tests, final exam
Assessment Categories:
Knowledge/Understanding, Thinking/Inquiry, Communication, Application
Period of Validity:
2018-2019 academic year
Approval Date:
September 2011
Date of Changes:
September 2011
Note:
Year
Contextual Description:
A document providing detailed examples of the classification of programme and support costs for humanitarian projects.
Year:
2004
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
Marine Warranty, Offshore Construction
Document Type:
Code of Practice
Organization:
Joint Rig Committee
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Marine Warranty Surveyors, Underwriters, Assured
Effective Period:
2004–ongoing
Approval Date:
15 July 2004
Amendment Date:
3 September 2019
) 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