№ files_lp_3_process_7_041181
File format: docx
Character count: 32724
File size: 136 KB
Graduate-level creative component presenting the design and rationale of a three-lesson educational program intended to expand existing hydroponics curriculum for adult learners within agricultural education.
Author:
Brooklynn Marie Williams
Degree:
Master of Science
Major:
Agricultural Education
Institution:
Iowa State University
Location:
Ames, Iowa
Year:
2025
Type of document:
Creative component submitted in partial fulfillment of graduate degree requirements
Academic Plan Committee:
Amber Rice (Major Professor)
Copyright:
© Brooklynn Marie Williams, 2025
Subject:
Adult education in home hydroponics and curriculum development
Focus:
Development of three instructional lessons to enhance Purdue Extension Master Gardeners curriculum
Educational level:
Graduate
Discipline:
Agricultural Education
Intended audience:
Adult learners and home gardeners
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.
Date:
11th December 2023
Region / city:
Visnagar, Gujarat
Theme:
Hydroponic farming, Startup policies
Document type:
Report
Organization:
Pratham - Student Startup and Innovation Cell of SSIP, M. N. College, Visnagar
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Students
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Country:
Nigeria
Type of document:
Technology concept submission form
Thematic focus:
Climate smart agriculture and food security
Technology focus:
Hydroponics, Aquaponics, Aeroponics (Soilless agriculture)
Geographical scope:
National
Applicant organisation:
Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Nigeria
Applicant contact person:
Dr Olufemi Oladunni
Applicant position:
Executive Director of ARMTI
Applicant email:
[email protected]
Applicant address:
Km 18, Ilorin-Ajase-Ipo Highway, PMB 1343, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria
National Designated Entity:
Department of Climate Change, Federal Ministry of Environment
NDE focal point:
Mr. Chukwuemeka Okebugwu
NDE email:
[email protected]
NDE address:
Plot 444, Aguiyi Irunsi Way, Maitama, Abuja
Related national policy:
Agricultural Promotion Policy (APP) “Green Alternatives”
Related frameworks:
National Adaptation Plan Framework (2020); National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change for Nigeria (NASP-CCN)
Submitting authority:
UNEP-CTCN (official submission upon NDE signature)
Subject matter:
Impacts of climate change on agriculture and proposed soilless technology solutions
Year:
2026
Region / City:
San Antonio, Texas
Theme:
Retinoblastoma, Fundraising, Medical Conferences
Document Type:
Crowdfunding Page Template
Organization:
WE C Hope USA
Author:
Marissa Gonzalez, Abby White
Target Audience:
Parents, Survivors, Medical Professionals, Supporters
Period of Action:
September 2026
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Document type:
Guidance document
Subject area:
Clinical research compliance
Topic:
Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA)
Applicable field:
Clinical trials
Responsible parties:
Sponsor, monitor, site personnel, principal investigator
Regulatory body referenced:
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Key components:
Root cause analysis, corrective action, preventive action, follow-up evaluation
Authorship requirements:
Responsible individual or organization
Approval requirements:
Author signature, IRB review
Record retention:
Site regulatory file
Intended use:
Documentation of discrepancies and corrective measures in clinical research
) 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:
2024
Region / City:
Middlesex University
Topic:
Research Ethics, Online Survey Tools
Document Type:
Guide
Institution:
Middlesex University
Author:
Middlesex University
Target Audience:
Staff and Students
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
August 2024
Date of Revisions:
August 2024
Year:
2025
Note:
Region / City
Theme:
Business Software / Presentation Software
Document Type:
Lesson Plan
Author:
Glenda Liddell-White
Target Audience:
Students
Period of Validity:
April 14 – 18, 2025
Contextual Description:
A lesson plan for teaching students how to create and manage professional presentations using Microsoft PowerPoint.
Year:
2024
Region / city:
United States
Topic:
Engineering Awards
Document Type:
Guide
Organization / Institution:
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Author:
Jane Moran Alspach
Target Audience:
Members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, potential nominators
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2022
Region / City:
-
Theme:
Production Resources/Tools Master Data Creation
Document Type:
Master Data Script
Organization / Institution:
SAP
Author:
-
Target Audience:
SAP system users, Production Engineers, Data Specialists, Maintenance Planners
Validity Period:
-
Approval Date:
-
Modification Date:
-
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Michigan
Topic:
Bleach Dilution for Disinfection
Document Type:
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Institution:
Michigan State University, Center for Research on Ingredient Safety
Author:
Anderson, E., and J. Li
Target Audience:
Laboratory Personnel
Effective Date:
5-14-2020
Revision Date:
5-14-2020
Note:
Year
Topic:
Onboarding, Personal Development, Workplace Integration
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
New employees, managers, HR professionals
Year:
2016
Region / City:
San Francisco, CA
Subject:
Construction, demolition, renovation, and installation at VA San Francisco Health Care System
Document Type:
Bid Request
Organ / Institution:
Department of Veterans Affairs, Network Contracting Office 21
Author:
Karen Smith, Contracting Officer
Target Audience:
Contractors holding MATOC contracts with VISN 21
Period of Action:
September 9, 2016
Approval Date:
September 7, 2016
Note:
Year
Year:
202x
Note:
Region / city
Document type:
Template
Institution:
Springer Nature
Target audience:
Researchers
Contextual description:
A guideline template for researchers preparing a research briefing.
Note:
Year
Topic:
Document Management
Document Type:
User Guide
Target Audience:
Users of SharePoint
Year:
2011
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Game Development, Tutorials
Document Type:
Tutorial
Author:
scoy
Target Audience:
Kodu users, game developers
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
2011-09-29
Modification Date:
Not specified
Description:
A detailed guide for creating tutorial levels in Kodu, explaining the use of modal and non-modal steps, and how to directly edit the world’s XML file to define tutorial sequences.
Year:
1918-1919
Region / City:
Canada, United Kingdom
Subject:
Contract Law, Legal Relations, Offer and Acceptance
Document Type:
Legal Case Summary
Organization / Institution:
None specified
Author:
None specified
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, law students
Effective Period:
Not specified
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified