№ lp_1_2_66076
File format: docx
Character count: 2488
File size: 191 KB
Year:
2019
Category:
Self-Assessment
Tags:
#creativethinkingcc #communicationcc #criticalthinkingcc #socialresponsibilitycc #personalidentitycc #personalawarenesscc
Author:
Jakob Blessin
Target Audience:
General
Document Type:
Self-reflection
Organization:
None specified
Date of Publication:
January 15, 2019
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:
2023
Region / City:
New South Wales, Australia
Theme:
Education, Critical Thinking
Document Type:
Curriculum
Organ / Institution:
NSW Department of Education
Author:
NSW Department of Education
Target Audience:
Teachers, Stage 5 Students
Period of Application:
Stage 5
Approval Date:
2023
Date of Last Update:
N/A
Course Code:
BUSI 3100
Course Title:
Professional Development II-Critical Thinking and Decision Making in Business
Instructor:
Manjinder Kaur
Office hours:
Wednesdays, 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Course Type:
Online
Course Duration:
8 weeks (1/12/2026 – 3/6/2026)
Prerequisite(s):
Restricted to College of Business majors only. Must have completed all pre-business prerequisites.
Corequisite(s):
DSCI 3710 or DSCI 3870 depending on major requirement.
Technology Requirements:
Computer, laptop, Microsoft Excel 365, Internet access
Required Materials:
IAC ISBN 9780357882016 (one-term access)
Certification:
Microsoft Office Specialist: Excel Associate (Excel 365) Certification Exam
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Huntington, WV
Subject:
Critical Thinking, Financial Literacy
Document Type:
Course Syllabus
Institution:
Marshall University
Instructor:
Bravin Hughart
Target Audience:
Undergraduate students
Period of validity:
Spring 2025
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2009
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Curriculum policy, history education
Document type:
Research paper
Institution:
University of Southampton, University of London
Author:
Richard Harris, Katharine Burn
Target audience:
Educators, policymakers, researchers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Huntington, WV
Subject:
Critical Thinking, Education
Document Type:
Course Syllabus
Institution:
Marshall University
Author:
Dr. Andy Stringfellow
Target Audience:
Students enrolled in FYS 100
Period of Validity:
Fall 2023
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2022
Region / city:
New South Wales
Theme:
Mathematics, Education
Document type:
Curriculum Resource
Organ / institution:
NSW Department of Education
Author:
NSW Department of Education
Target audience:
Teachers in New South Wales
Period of validity:
2022
Approval date:
2022
Date of modifications:
Not specified
Framework:
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)
Age range:
0–5 years
Developmental focus:
Personal, Social and Emotional Development; Communication; Physical Development; Thinking
Assessment type:
Formative assessment
Time span covered:
0–50 months
Source references:
Development Matters 2021; Birth to 5 Matters; Practice Guide to the Early Years Developmental Journal 2013
Governing body:
Department for Education
Geographical context:
England
Intended users:
Early years practitioners
Related services:
Early Years Inclusion Team; Pre-School Forum
Publication context:
Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (March 2021)
Year:
2017
Region / City:
N/A
Theme:
Education, Critical Thinking
Document Type:
Assessment Advice
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Educators, Teachers
Period of Application:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Date:
June 12, 2022
Author:
Eun-Sae Choi
Competency Focus:
Communication, Thinking, Personal & Social
Year:
Not specified
Region / city:
Not specified
Topic:
Self-assessment, personal growth
Document Type:
Self-reflection
Organization / institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Not specified
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Theme:
Self-assessment, communication, thinking, personal & social competencies
Document Type:
Self-reflection
Author:
Patrick
Target audience:
Students, educators
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
Self-assessment, competencies development
Document Type:
Reflection
Author:
Lorraine Leyva
Target Audience:
Students, educators
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Name:
Leah Thomas
Date:
October 7, 2018
Document type:
Self-assessment reflection
Educational context:
School project presentation
Primary topics:
Communication competency; Thinking competencies; Personal and social competencies
Format:
Written reflective response for blog publication
Intended use:
Educational assessment
Tags:
creativethinkingcc; communicationcc; criticalthinkingcc; socialresponsibilitycc; personalidentitycc; personalawarenesscc
Authorship:
Student reflection
Temporal reference:
2018
Name:
Michael Binner
Date:
October 4th 2018
Type:
Self-Assessment
Topic:
Communication, Thinking, Personal & Social Competencies
Audience:
Student / Educator
Format:
Written Reflection
Activity Context:
Group Project and Pair Work
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Switzerland
Topic:
Clinical research, human research projects
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
Swiss Clinical Trial Organisation (SCTO)
Author:
Education Platform of the Swiss Clinical Trial Organisation (SCTO)
Target Audience:
Clinical research professionals, project leaders, and researchers
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Last Update:
Not specified
) 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 / city:
Global
Theme:
Education, Healthcare
Document Type:
Guideline
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Healthcare educators, trainers, facilitators
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / city:
United States
Topic:
MDS 2023 Updates, Training Plan Design
Document Type:
Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Author:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Target Audience:
Healthcare facilities, staff involved in resident care
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Revision Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Topic:
Competency assessment, audit, Corporations Act
Document type:
Logbook, guidance
Target audience:
Applicants for RCA registration, assessors
Period of validity:
3–5 years