DOCUMENT RESUME ED 371 812 JC 940 421 AUTHOR Leitzel .
DOCUMENT RESUMEJC 940 421ED 371 812AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPELeitzel, Thomas C.; Vogler, Daniel E.Curriculum Alignment: Theory to Practice.May 9451p.Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120)EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSMF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Community Colleges; *Course Evaluation; *CurriculumDevelopment; *Evaluation Methods; Inservice TeacherEducation; *Instructional Development; *StudentEvaluation; *Teaching Methods; Two Year Colleges*Curriculum AlignmentABSTRACTCurriculum alignment is the conscious congruence ofthree educational elements: curriculum, instruction, and assessment.Alignment is rooted in the belief that instructional plans areestablished through outcomes-based content goals and the goal ofassuring that delivery and assessment are congruent. Platform unity,based on the Principles of Performance Instruction, is a way touphold curriculum alignment. The integration of planning andevaluating is often neglected in traditional approaches toinstruction. Performance Instruction holds that course content shouldbe planned, delivered, and evaluated consistently to assure unity.Test creation, for example, needs to be related to content planningdecisions. The domain-level at which content is planned becomes thebasis for creating test items, with content planning and testing atthe same domain level to assure unity. In the theoretical literature,considerable attention is given to faculty's inability to plan andtest content consistently. These are arguably important and necessaryfaculty tasks, and should be the focus of staff development.Unfortunately, even the literature on planning and testing treatsthem as separate, independent activities. Many faculty have had noformal coursework or in-service training in assessment. As a result,classroom tests are usually short, objective, and of poor technicalquality and usually call for the memorization of facts. There islittle research in the assessment field regarding practical tools tohelp faculty evaluate criterion-referenced tests. By looking at thetheoretical literature on planning and evaluation, one sees the needto move to practical implications for the benefit of aligning theplanned and tested curricula, thus achieving efficiency,effectiveness, and overall unity of instruction. (Contains 104references.) **************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original ******************************
CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT:THEORY TO PRACTICEbyU S DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOHceEd9CA,C.,41 Arcr. andoerEDUCATIONAL RESOUPCES tNTOSIMATIONCENTER .ERtc,Ims Document has Deer ,eCttocluce0 asorgan.zet.onWsortecetre0 uorrvgmettncl't14.r.or changes hare Deer maCte 50 mnoro,ete0r0Ductton DulutyPo Ints Of 4- 0, OP.,Ces staledinenl oneceSaitoyOE PI poct.co, o. oohcyThomas C. LeitzelDean of Business, Health and TechnologiesCentral Piedmont Community CollegeCharlotte, North CarolinaandDaniel E. VoglerAssociate ProfessorCommunity College Program AreaVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburg, VirginiaI ha CICC-stitc,a,PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYT. LeitzelTO THE EDUCAONAL RESOL,RCESINFORMATION CENTER ERIC.May, 1994BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Table of Contents1OverviewPart I:Curriculum Alignment Theory:The Basis for A.ignment.Alignment Terminology4.Curriculum Alignment ImplicationsPlatform UnityMisalignmentPlanning.6.7.78.4.Taxonomy of Educational Objectives8.Criticisms of the Classification SchemeThe Cognitive DomainGoals.Objectives.11.12.15.16.17.Purposes of Classroom TestsPlanning the Test.18.Teacher-Constructed TestsClassroom Testing.Test Categories.Selecting Appropriate Test Types.20.23.2426.Integrating Planning and TestingPart II:.Simplifying Faculty Course Planning.10.Stating Instructional ObjectivesTesting.27.28Curriculum Alignment Practice:Principles of Performance InstructionContent Goals.3.30.32
Building an Exam.Table of Test Type SpecificationsSummaryReferences.34.35.37.40
THEORY TO PRACTICECURRICULUM ALIGNMENT:OverviewThe most fundamental responsibility of an instructor is todetermine what should be learned,course.taught in aand therefore,This responsibility is moot, however, if the instructorfails to deliver or evaluate what was planned.Planning, delivery,and evaluation are three elements of instruction.The situationthat exists when planned content is delivered and then evaluated isalignment.Curriculum alignment, according to Savard and Cotton(1982), is a term used to denote the conscious congruence of threecurriculum, instruction, and assessmeleducational elements:This suggests that incongruence occurs when faculty fail to deliveror c.valuate planned content.In a recent study in communitycolleges, institutions heralded for their attention to teaching,Leitzel and Vogler (1993) analyzed alignment and found evidence talprinciple.Curriculum alignment is not a well recognized term in theliterature.An ERIC search revealed onltwo citations when"curriculum-alignment" was cross referenced with "research" from a19661981 ERIC database and 11 citations using a 1982 - December,1993 ERIC database.Despite the slight increase of citations,Crowell and Tissott.(1986) rightfully observed a general lack ofattention to alignment.They concluded, very little practicalresearch exists to guide the efforts of schools and advocated theimplementation of practical procednres to aid in understanding anddetermining alignment.
Most references to alignment in the literature focused onThe most frequent references toalignment in secondary schools.alignment suggest it is used as a measure to compare curriculumdecisions created at a policy-making level with the actual contentdelivered in the schools or with determining how well textbooksalign with planned content.By way of contrast, an ERIC searchusing the 1982 - December, 1993 database on the word "pedagogy"yielded 1,492 hits;"curriculum" 50,477 hits;"instruction andplanning" 5,780 hits; "instruction and delivery" 1,471 hits; and,"instruction and evaluation" 15,953 hits.Alignment can be analyzed in three ways:planning to delivery(PD), delivery to evaluation (DE), and planning to evaluation (PE).This concept is illustrated in Figure 1 through a triad arrangementof the three elements of instruction.PlanningDeliveryFigure 1,Evaluation0 V Plow.The Platforms of AlignmentThis paper will track the progression of the literature onalignment from theory to practice.The paper will accent therelevant information needed to assess the planning/evaluation (PE)Application of the concept toplatform for cognitive content.2
incluue delivery as associated with planning and evaluation in anydomain is not the purview of this paper.This delimitation isprompted by logic considerations that suggest the cognitive domainand the PE platform are the prudent parameters for analysis ofalignment.The topic of analyzing alignment via planning and evaluationrepresents a challenge, albeit one that is possible.reasonable place to begin a study on alignment.itIt is aOn the other hand,is more difficult to analyze alignment using the deliveryconstruct.While planning and evaluation tend to have documentedinformation, delivery is instructor controlled.As it is oftensaid, once the classroom door closes, only the instructor controlswhat happens.It is not impossible to measure alignment using thedelivery construct, it is just more difficult.There is definitelya study in the waiting if one were to use the delivery construct inan alignment analysis.For now, we believe we have only begun toinfluence discussion on the importance of alignment through anumerical interpretation.As it is presented here, alignment ismanifested through Performance Instruction, a model conforming tothe congruence of planning, delivery and evaluation.3
Curriculum Alignment TheoryPart I:This section concentrates on the theory of alignment byproviding a point ofSeveralreference structured around terminology.suchdefinitions,asalignment,platform unity,andmisalignment, are offered to establish a basis which is fundamentalto the overall concept of curriculum alignment.Instructionalelements including planning and testing are detailed.The Basis for AlignmentAlignment TerminologyVarious terms are used in the literature to describe thecondition whereby three components of the curriculum, the written,the delivered, and the evaluated, have explicit relationships toone another.overlapAmong these terms are congruence (Brickell, 1976),(Leinhardt& Seewald,1981),curriculum test overlap(Hartzell, 1984), match, linking (Airasian & 3), andtheseterms,curriculum alignment, or just simply alignment, is most closelyrelated to the purpOse of this paper.A notable advocate of curriculum alignment has been Fenwick W.English.For English, alignment consists of the written,taught, and the tested curriculum.theIn his National Academy forSchool Executives, English (1992a) developed a thorough inquiryinto alignment elements.Among terms he used to describe thewritten element are curriculum and the work rdan.Terms used todescribe the taught element include delivered and the work.4The
tested element included such terms as the measured, evaluated, andthe work measurement.In developing an all-encompassing definition Crowell andTissot (1986) refer to alignment as the congruence of all elementsofaschoolcurriculum,instructional program,including the curriculum goals,theand the tests used to judge outcomes.Savard and Cotton (1982) view alignment as the congruence betweenstate curriculum guidelines and locally-developed instructionalpractices.Similar to Figure 1, English (1979, 1986-1987, 1988, 1992a,1992b) used a triangle to depict this concept and it became theSavarduniversal symbol to represent alignment in the literature.and Cotton (19EW referred to it as the alignment triangle, orners.Relating back to the.descriptors used in Figure 1, objectives referto the written or planned curriculum, instruction the deliveredcurriculum, and testing refers to the evaluated evelopedprimarily for use in secondary school management through a processhe termed an audit (English, 1988) , it is generic to instruction atall levels.For instance, Pautler (1989,using alignment in community colleges.institutions,regardlessimprovement of instruction.oflevel,are1990,He believed that allconcernedAccording to Pautler:"curriculum alignment should be in thevocabulary of community college facultyIn this day and ageand administrators.of so many part-time instructors being591992) advocatedwiththe
employed by community colleges, the needThefor alignment is even more critical.process of alignment is directly relatedto the d'welopment and use of a functionalcourse of study" (1989, p. curriculumofDesignand delivery alignment.design alignmentalignment is the relationship between the curriculum and the test.Delivery alignment is the relationship of what is taught to thetest and to the curriculum.curriculum Alignment ImplicationsEnglish (1987) believed curriculum alignment begins with theEnglish and Steffy (1983) called the writtenwritten curriculum.curriculum a prescription or a set of specifications.Ideally,planning comes first in a sequence of events that also includesdelivery and evaluation.English and Steffy (1983) observed that written curriculumproblems are usually design in nature that stem from errors made inplanning.For example,a design problem occurs when what isplanned is not linked to test construction.Consequently, studentsmay be tested on skills or knowledge for which they have not beentaught.A faulty design,no matter how capably or uniformlyimplemented, prevents optimization until it is corrected so thatplans and tests are congruent (English & Steffy, 1983).Pautler (1990)documentation ofbelieved that developing written curriculumcoursesofstudy may beoneunderstood activities within community colleges.Pautler(1990),most college-level courses60lackoftheleastAccording toaconsistent
The design offormat.curriculumalignmentfunctional courses of study eoftoeffortcollegeimprove(Pautler,1990).Pautler (1990) advocated instructional design principles to developcourses of study.He believed if community college staff weregiven more preparation in instructional design principles, thenAccordingly,improved institutional effectiveness would result.alignment should be an explicit part of the faculty developmentprocess and be implemented in the instructional design process(Pautler, 1990).Platform UnityFigure 1 showed the three elements of curriculum at threepoints in a triangle.If the three elements of the curriculum wereplaced at the three points on a triangle, along one plane,orplatform of the triangle, is the relationship between the plannedand tested curriculum; hence the origination of the term, "platformunity."Figure 1 depicts this relationship along the P-E Platform.This term was selected to simplify the analysis of these twoBy definition, platform unity is a curriculum-basedconstructs.estimate of congruence between planning and testing.MisalignmentMisalignment is a condition that occurs when content plans andtesting decisions are not congruent.disunity.Another term for this isThe importance of curriculum alignment is accented boutinstructors whose lectures did not follow the cour-7.: syllabus and7
whose final exam had nothing to do with either (Pautler, 1989).Nitko (1989) stated that tests created by classroom teachers ofteninadequately measure the teachers' espoused instructional goals.misalignmentWhenoccurs,written,thecurriculum function independently.taught,andtestedThe result is that what facultyplan exists apart frcn what students encounter on tests (Savard andCotton,1982).According to Nitko(1989),there are severalundesirable consequences of using tests that are inadequatelylinked to instruztional plans.These include th,-: following four:"(a) teachers and students might beinappropriately informed about students'learning progress and learning, difficulties;students' motivation for learning could(b)be reduced;(c) critical decisions aboutstudents (e.g., whether to award a studenta degree) might be made unfairly; and(d) the effectiveness of instruction may beevaluated incorrectly" (p. 447).Systematic planning, delivery and evaluation of course contentis a way to support the principles of curriculum alignment.PlanningPlanning instruction is a necessary faculty activity, thoughit is rarely given proper attention.According to Cross (1587),the processes involved in classroom teaching in higher educationshould be taken much more seriously than they have been in thepast.Recent advancesin cognitive psychology indicate thatstudents learn better if teachers clearly communicate course goals,8
and discipline structureobjectives,Lowther, Sossen &(Stark,Shaw, 1991).Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesA step toward recognizing the complexity ofeducationalobjectives and the difficulties involved in measuring studentEnglehart,achievement was taken when Bloom,worked to develop alThe main reason for developing the taxonomies was toobjectives.facilitate communication among educational researcher, curriculumdeveloper,and evaluator(Payne,The taxonomy matched1992).educational goals and test items in the cognitive domain.According to Bloom,Furst,Englehart,Hill,and Krathwohl(1956), learning occurs in three different domains:cognitive,psychomotor, and affective. There are six major classifications ofarranged in hierarchical order from simple tothis taxonomy,complex.(1) knowledge of factualThe classifications include:information;comprehension of knowledge;(2)(3)knowledge and understanding to specific situations;complexdisparateideasintoitemstheir componentintoconsequences of on of(4) analysis ofsynthesisevaluationofofthepromoted the taxonomy'susefulness for analyzing instruction, as in comparing the emphasesin course planning with those in test questions.9
Criticisms of the Classification SchemeThough Bloom's Taxonomy is certainly a noteworthy contributionto educational classification,generally supportResearchersis not without its problems.itthecognitive domaintaxonomy.Support tor the order of the more complex categories has largelyAccording to Stahl and Murphyfailed to develop.is being used even thoughtaxonomy has been and(1981),theisnotitconsistent with any presently accepted theory, model, or approachto human memory,thinking,Several researchersor learning.(Kropp, Stoker & Bashaw, 1966; Metfessel, Michael, & Kirsner, 1969;Stanley & Bolton,1957)have reported that persons frequentlydisagree on the taxonomy level represented by many items, exceptthose at the knowledge lev.l.In the taxonomy, the same term may be used at several levels.The verb"identify",for example,appearsatthe knowledge,understanding, application, and analysis levels. Although this maybe appropriate, the overlap of terms causes confusion.Diamond(1989) believed facUlty were turned off because many of the earlyadvocates of stating goals in performance terms focused on minutiaeandoncomplex classificationunderstand.systemsthatfaculty didnotAccording to Diamond (1989), faculty spend a greatdeal of time analyzing the type or level of their objectives.Hebelieved it is far more essential that efforts are made to ensurethat useful statements be written, that they include all of theelements that should be addressed, and that they be measurableNo matter how the objectives arewithin the context of the course.1014
conceived or categorized, if they are clearly stated, then it iseasier for the instructor to plan content, deliver content, and toprepare tests to assess the extent to which objectives are achieved(Diamond, 1989).The Cognitive DomainThe cognitive domain, which includes instructional objectivesthat deal with recall or recognition of learned material and thedevelopment of intellectual abilities, is at the core of curriculumtest development (Stanley and Hopkins, 1972).ofThe largest portioneducational objectives fall into this domain(Gaff,1975;Krathwohl, et al., 1964; Payne, 1992).Moving up the hierarchy, each category is assumed to includebehaviors at the lower level; higher-level skills utilize lowerlevel ones and demand greater intellect from the learner (Jacobs &Chase,1992).For example,comprehension includes knowledgebecause students must iLave to comprehend material before they canapply or analyze it.7.e application level includes knowledge andcomprehension, and so on.Evaluation is the most demanding of thecognitive skills because it requires judgments from all previouslevels.Two other domains in the taxonomy include the affective andpsychomotor.The affective domain includes those objectives thatemphasize feelings and emotions, such as interests,appreciation, and methods of adjustment.attitudes,The psychomotor domainincludes those objectives that emphasize motor skill,11such as
handwriting, typing, swimming, and operating machinery hicofeducation.Establishing goals for instruction is a common method of planning.Goal-referenced instructional models focus on desired, observablelearner behavior produced as th- result of instruction (Baker &Popham, 1970).Baker and Popham frame the basic planning decision.They suggest, instead of asking what shall I do, the instructorneeds to ask, what do I want my learners to become.By introducingthis question, the emphasis shifts to a student-oriented planningmodel.There is a shift occurring in education away from course-centered and content-centered approaches of course development tomore learner-centered approaches (Menges & Mathis, 1988).Diamond (1989) believed the process of determining whether ornot academic programs are successful begins by stating what dobjectives in performance terms and creating evaluation instrumentsthat assess the abilities of students to meet specific criteria.Developing a course plan that optimizes each aspect of instructionis a challenging faculty activity requiring expertise and edinmorepreciseandobservable form to give direction to the important tasks ofcurriculum development and evaluation (Stanley & Hopkins, 1972).According to Cook (1978), a clear, useful, verifiable statement of12IC
tainleastatthreeit should specify the learner; second,itshould describe an unambiguous and observable action; third, itshould specify the conditions under which these outcomes will beassessed.Others believe it should contain a description of theminimal level of acceptable response (Gagne, 1975; Gerhard, 1971;Mager, 1973; Popham, 1973).ObiectivesWhile goals communicate curricular intent,communication devices for students(Vogler,objectives are1991).Objectivesprovide instructors with a method of specifying instil ctional goalsThey are, by definition, intended outcomes ofin a curriculum.instruction.At the course level, objectives provide a frameworkand a guide for the specific instructional decisions that follow(Gunter,Estes&Schwab,Vogler1990)."objectives describe student outcomes,(1991)stated thatthe standards used tomeasure outcomes, and the conditions under which the outcomes willbe produced" (p. 29) .The terms "behavioral", "performance", and"measurable" objectives have been used interchangeably to denotethe end behaviors desired as a result of instruction (Gaff, 1975).Course objectives written in behavioral, observable and measurableterms state precisely what students will be able to do as theyinteract with specific course content; they specify what studentswill do or produce when the instructional goal has been met orafter completing the instructional unit (Bloom, Madaus & Hastings,1981;Copperud,1979;Gerhard,1971) .131'These statements also
describe how behavior will be measured (Gerhard, 1971).In theplanning process, faculty take their plans and make a communicationstatement to students, usually in the form of a course syllabus,which ccntains the course objectives.The syllabus paves the wayto student acceptance and understanding of the instructional system(Kibler, Cegala, Watson, Barker, & Miles, 1981).There has been considerable professional attention directedt-iward the nature of objectives, the way they should be formulated,and thefunctions they servein the design ofinstructionalsequences (Baker & Popham, 1970; Diamond, 1989; Gunter, Estes &Schwab, 1990; Kibler, Cegala, Watson, Barker, &Miles, 1981; Mager,1973;1962,1991).Popham,1973,1978; Salvia & Hughes,1990; VoglerAlthough the professional literature recommended thatobjectives should describe precisely what is expected of students,Diamond (1989) believed most faculty conceptualize their teachingin terms of their content area rather than with reference tostudent outcomes.Although they strive to plan and teach coursesin ways that help students learn effectively,faculty membersseldom have received specific training for these tasks(Stark,Lowther, Sossen, & Shaw, 1991).When planning a course, it is necessary to plan onsequently,itisimportant to focus planning statements on student performance froma student's point of view rather than on teacher performance(Feldhausen, 1980; Salvia & Hughes, 1990).For example, readingPlato's Republic and discussing portions of it in class describes14Is
It does not indicate what students area planned activity.supposed to gain from the activity.statethelearningtaskIt is more appropriate tobehavioralinterms,suchastheidentification of major features of Plato's theory.Mager(1975)and Diamondobjective has three elements:posited that(1989)a complete(a) an action or behavior that thestudent is to perform; (b) the conditions under which these actionsare to be performed; and (c) the criteria or standards for sayingwhether these actions have been performed satisfactorily.The mostimportant element is the behavior (Mager, 1975).Stating Instructional ObjectivesIn stating objectives, teachers "seek to clarify in their ownmind and to ht-for changethethataparticularunitinoreducational program should help a student realize" (Bloom, Madaus& Hastings, 1981, p.17).In preparing a list of instructionalobjectives for a course of study, there are two immediate goals.One is to obtain as complete a list of objectives as possible.Theother goal is to state objectives so that "they clearly indicatethe learning outcomes that one expects from instruction" (Gronlund,1981,p.45).Statements of specific learning clearly conveyinstructional intent if each statement begins with an action verbthatindicates definite observable resDonses(Copperud,Gronlund, 1981, 1985; Tuckman, 1975; Vogler, 1991).1979;Verbs thathave discrete, definite meanings should be used rather than thoseopen to many interpretations(Stanley & Hopkins,15ID1972).For
example, the words "to identify", "to solve", or "to construct" arepreferable to "to understand" and "to appreciate" (Mager, 1962).The first step in a systematic approach to instruction isspecifying objectives in operational terms (Baker & Popham, 1970).To formulate useful statements, educators must choose words thatare interpreted in the same sense by readersHastings, 1981).(Bloom, Madaus &Objectives th.)t are tied to performance levelsprovide a basis for evaluating a range of performance (Diamond,1989) .English and Steffy (1983) stated that objectives used inplanning instruction should focus on the knowledge, skills andattitudes a student should master, lend themselves to measurement,and reflect research knowledge elout the subject.Cognitive objectives specify that 2.Jarners will do somethingwith knowledge.differentkindsGunter, Estes, and Schwab (1990) specified twoofobjectives,cognitivedeclarativeandprocedural. Declarative objectives represent knowledge that can beexpressedin true or falsestatements.results from the reasoning process.Procedural knowledgeThe most common instructionalobjectives in postsecondary education are declarative, that is,they focus on information recall(Babbin, 1987).Simplifying Faculty Course PlanningAfter studying over eighty instructional projects, Bergquistand Armstrong (1986) reported that the inability to state coursegoals in performance terms was a major problem.According toDiamond (1989), faculty resent stating instruction in behavioralterms and deem the task a waste of time.1620Consequently, they write
objeCtives at a trivial level, which are probably the easiest towrite.Gaff (1975) believed that by stating objectives with a highdegree of specificity, it is possible for everyone involved t)recognize the behavior that meets or fails to meet them whenevaluating.With this structure, the specific objectives informinstructors what their tests should be like.becovered andConsidering thewith whatemphasisThey tell what will(Jacobs&Chase,1992).importance of planning and evaluation, Greeno(1976) believed the development of instructional objectives beginswith considering the kinds of tests used to assess whether studentshave acquired the knowledge intended as the outcome of learning.TestingTests are an integral part of college courses, typicallyconstructed to measure whether objectives have been met (Tuckman,1975) .Another purpose is to obtain valid, reliable, and usefulinformation concerning student achievement so that learning can beimproved (Gronlund, 1982).The instructor attempts to determine ifstudents can behave as intended when the instruction was planned.Lozak (1987) estimated that between one fourth to one third ofan instructor's time is spent on measurement. According to Stanleyand Hopkins (1972), constructing a test is one of the hardest jobsa teacher has to perform.It demands an understanding of theobjectives being assessed and of the examinees and their testtaking behavior.In constructing classroom tests, a major concern172
is that testitems call for particular types of performanceindicated in the specific learning outcomes pertinent to eachinstructional objective or content goal (Gentry, 1989; Gronlund,1988; Heywood, 1989; Popham, 1978; Vogler, 1991).Baker and Popham(1970) stated that objectives and evaluation should be identical;test items should be drawn from the class Df behavior specified inthe objectives.Test CategoriesTests are either criterion-referenced or norm-referenced.Criterion-referenced exams compare an individual's score to somespecified level of performance or criteria; norm-referenced examscompare the individual's score to those of individuals in a ferencedtestingthe meaningfulness of an individual score does notdepend on a comparison with other testees.One seeks to know whatthe individual can do, not how he or she stands in comparison toothers.When testing to a criterion, the score indicates withinerror limits exactly what an individual can and cannot do (Popham,1973).With crite- ion-referenced tests,specific standards.scores are compared withIn criterion-referenced testing situations,instructors are not concerned with how difficult the items are orhow well the items discriminate between students.The key elementis how well the items reflect the specific learning tasks (Jacobs& Chase, 1992).While Tuckman (1985)indicated that criterion-referenced tests in education are us
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 371 812 JC 940 421 AUTHOR Leitzel, Thomas C.; Vogler, Daniel E. TITLE Curriculum Alignment: Theory to Practice. PUB DATE May 94 NOTE 51p. PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Paper
812 002 0300 Gardener 812-002-0320 General Contractor . 812-002-0325 Good Cause . . Letter of Credit or Cash Deposit . 812-003-0175 Increased Bond, Letter of Credit or Cash Deposit Requirement, Past Unresolved . 812-004-1460 Agency Recommendation of Resolution .
Indiana Family Help Line (800) 433 -0746 211 or 800 -639 -9271 United Way: www.unitedwayswi.org 812 -547 -2577 . Perry County Council of Agencies 812 -547 -7780 Bread of Life Ministry 812 -922 -5339 . YMCA Ferdinand-parent day out 812 -367 -2323 Tumble bugs – play groups 812-482-4800 .
Jib Style lb (kg) lb (kg) lb (kg) lb (kg) 800J* 820 (371.9) 820 (371.9) 820 (371.9) 900J* 820 (371.9) 220º 360º Note: Jib styles marked with a * are available in floor-mount configuration only Jib Cranes Solutions for compact workstations Ingersoll Rand offers: 220 or 360 rotation Floor or wall mount Standard or low profile Capacities to .
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 371 844 PS 022 432 AUTHOR Ward, Christina D. TITLE Adult Intervention: Appropriate Strategies for. Enriching the Quality of Children's Play. PUB DATE 16 Apr 94 NOTE 14p.; Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the. Southern Early Childhood Association (45th, New Orleans, LA, April 11-16, 1994). PUB TYPE Guides - Non .
Dean, College of Liberal Arts LA3003 812/464-1853 jmbeeby@usi.edu Melinda Roberts, Ph.D. Assistant Dean, College of Liberal Arts LA3003 812/461-5475 mrroberts1@usi.edu Sakina Hughes, Ph.D. Assistant Dean, College of Liberal Arts LA3009 812/465-1093 shughes1@usi.edu C. Christy Baker, MSW Department Chai
IIL-812 Memorandum 91-33 rm121 04/25/91 Subject: Study L-812 - Independent Administration of Estates Act (Preliminary Distribution Without Court Supervision)
Chandler, AZ 85224 Chandler, AZ 85224 (480) 812-7630 (480) 812-7624 . Compliance officer for Section 504 . Dr. Kymberly Marshall, Director of Student Services 200 S. Hamilton Chandler, AZ 85225 (480) 812-7560 In addition, inquiries may be referred to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the US Department of Education.
Animal Fun Challenge Pack . Fold the paper plate in half. 2. Trace the elephant's outline on one side. 3. Colour or paint the elephant (not the tusk). 4. Cut out the elephant making sure not to cut the folded edge except for the shaping at each end. 5. Carefully cut out the paper plate section between the legs leaving the edge of the paper plate connecting the legs to make the rocker. (This .
