Edu 280 activity plan rubric df unsatisfactory

EDU 280 Activity Plan Rubric
D/F Unsatisfactory
C- Average
B - Good
A – Very Good
Assignment Component
NAEYC Standard or Supportive Skill
Key Elements
Basic Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Synthesis
Comments
1. Develop-mentally Appropriate, Title and age
Standard 1 Promoting Child Development and Learning
Standard 5
Using Content Knowledge to Build Meaningful Curriculum
1b) Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on
development and learning
No title listed, no age of children participating, activity is not

age, culturally, or individually appropriate
0 - 7 points
Title of the activity is listed, age of children participating is
given, activity is not age, culturally, or individually appropriate
8 points
given, activity more appropriate for a younger or older age
group. Activity is individually and culturally appropriate
9 points
given, activity is appropriate for the age of the individual
children participating and is culturally appropriate
10 points
2. Area of Develop-ment
Standard 1:
Promoting Child Development and Learning
1c) Using developmental knowledge to create healthy,
respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments
Area of development is not given
0 -11 points
Area of development is listed, but is not related to the activity
12 points
Area of development is listed, but is not a primary area of
development for this activity
13 points

Area of Development is listed and is appropriate for the activity
14 points
3. Standard Addressed by the activity
Standard 5:
Skills in Identifying and Using Professional Resources
5a)Understanding content knowledge and resources in academic
disciplines
A subdomain, goal or developmental indicator from a source
other than the standard course of study is listed or no standard
is listed
0 -11 points
A subdomain, goal or developmental indicator is listed, but it is
from the incorrect standard course of study
12 points
2-3 subdomains, goals or developmental indicators from the
appropriate standard course of study is listed, but it is not
related to the activity
13 points
At least 4 subdomains, goals or developmental indicators from
the appropriate standard course of study is listed. The standard
is related to the area of develop-ment and the activity
14 points
4. Materials
Standard 4:
Using Developmen-tally Effective Approaches to Connect with

Children/Family
4c) Using a broad repertoire of develop-mentally appropriate
teaching/
learning approaches
No materials are listed
0 -11 points
Materials list includes materials that are not safe for use by
children of this age
12 points
Materials are listed, but the list is incomplete, all materials
listed are safe for use by children of this age
13 points
All materials needed to complete the activity are listed; all
materials are safe for use by children of this age
14 points
5. Procedures
Standard 5: Teaching and Learning
5c) Using their own knowledge, appropriate early learning
standards, and other resources to design, implement, and
evaluate meaningful, challenging curricula for each child
Activity is designed for a large group, procedures for
completing the activity are not included
0 - 11 points
Activity is designed for small group of children, procedures for
completing the activity are vague, the
activity is teacher directed, no open-ended questions are

included
12 points
Activity is designed for individual or small group of children,
procedures for completing the activity are clear, the activity is
child directed, no open-ended questions are included
13 points
Activity is designed for individual or small group of children,
procedures for completing the activity are clear, the activity is
child directed, open-ended questions are included to encourage
children’s thinking about the activity
20 points
6.Assess-ment of children’s progress
Standard 3 Observing, Documenting and Assessing to Support
young Children and Families
3a)Understanding the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment
Method of documenting children’s progress is not given
0 - 11 points
The method of documenting children’s progress is not
developmentally appropriate
12 points
Method of documenting children’s progress is listed and
develop-mentally appropriate. The method for document-ing
children’s progress does not measure the standard addressed in
the activity
13 points

Method of documenting children’s progress is listed and
develop-mentally appropriate, an appropriate method for
measuring the standard chosen
14 points
7. Family Involvement and Assessment Partnership
Standard 3: Observing, documenting and Assessing to Support
Young Children and Families
3b) Knowing about assessment partnerships with families and
with professional colleagues
No family involvement information included
0 - 11 points
Meaningful family involvement information included, no
suggestions for families to observe their children’s progress
toward meeting this standard, no method for sharing family’s
assessment with teacher
12 points
Meaningful family involvement information included, fewer
than 3 suggestions for families to observe their children’s
progress toward meeting this standard, no method for sharing
family’s assessment with teacher
13 points
Meaningful family involvement information included, 3
suggestions for families to observe their children’s progress
toward meeting this standard, method for sharing family’s
assessment with the teacher
14 points
Name __ _________________ Date:___
_____________ TOTAL POINTS ______________

Grainger: Re-Engineering an International Supply Chain
case W90C84
December 8, 2010
Published by WDI Publishing, a division of the William
Davidson Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan.
©2010 Gary Scalzitti and Amitabh Sinha. Gary Scalzitti from
Grainger and Amitabh Sinha, Assistant Professor at the
University of
Michigan’s Ross School of Business, developed this case.
Acknowledgements go to Sung Hwan Cho, Lisa VanLanduyt and
Aditya
Vedantam, whose internal report from a Tauber Institute for
Global Operations project contributed to the case.
Historically, Grainger had been a US-centric business.
However, between 2000 and 2010, its focus
expanded significantly and Grainger was in the process of
establishing a world-class global supply chain.
In 2009, a strategic initiative was created to re-engineer the
Grainger global supply chain. The initiative
paired a team of three graduate students from the University of
Michigan with an internal team of supply
chain leaders and subject-matter experts focused on taking both
time and cost out of the global supply
chain and creating a more robust global infrastructure. The
student team proposed two primary supply chain
re-engineering options, and the company had to make a decision
about which, if either, of those options to
pursue.

Company Background
Grainger, with 2008 sales of $6.9 billion, was a leading broad-
line supplier of facilities maintenance
products serving businesses and institutions in the United
States, Canada, Mexico, China, Panama, and other
countries. Through a highly integrated network including more
than 600 branches, 18 distribution centers
and multiple Web sites, Grainger’s employees helped their
nearly 2 million customers, as the company’s
motto touted, to “get it done.” Details of Grainger’s business
profile are provided in Exhibit 1.
When a customer needed one of the products that Grainger sold,
the customer often needed it right
away. A Grainger box carried more than just the products that
came inside it, since Grainger differentiated
itself from its competition in many ways. The company prided
itself on outstanding customer service, easy
ways for customers to do business, and high levels of inventory
availability. Grainger offered almost 900,000
products, from safety supplies to pumps and motors to electrical
supplies and fasteners—products that
helped keep customers’ businesses running. Whether a valve
broke on a water pipe, an electrical fuse blew,
causing lights to go out in a hospital, or a drill bit broke off
during a job, these issues had to be resolved
quickly. Customers also depended on Grainger for everyday
supplies such as air filters and cleaning supplies.
Just offering customers a wide range of products, however, was
not enough. Grainger provided 24/7 customer
service, a network of local branches, a team of dedicated sellers
who understood their customers’ businesses,
easy online ordering, and same- and next-day delivery.
This document is authorized for use only in Daniel Suarez's

GOMBA_OCt2019_O3 - Global Supply Chain Management at
IE Business School from Feb 2021 to Jul 2021.
2
W90C84
Customers relied on Grainger to help them save time and money
by consolidating their purchases of
maintenance, repair, and operating supplies.
In the late 2000s, Grainger was growing in terms of revenue,
product offerings, and geographical reach.
(Exhibit 2 provides financial details for the years 2006 through
2008.) At the corporate level, Grainger’s
strategic growth objectives were as follows:
1. Grow market share by being the indispensable partner to
those who keep workplaces safe,
efficient, and functioning. Operationally, this placed the focus
on:
• Product breadth and high availability
• Being easy to do business with
• Leveraging regional and global scale for cost and service
advantage
2. Enhance gross profit through expansion of private label
products which are sourced globally.
• Grainger sourced products from manufacturers around the

globe under various private labels.
Grainger sourced products from 21 countries in 2008, and those
products carried gross margins
that were about 60 percent higher than the company average. As
of the end of 2008, the
company globally sourced 22,000 stock keeping units (SKUs),
which represented about 8
percent of company sales. In 2008, the company continued to
expand and grow all of its
private label products to 24 percent of overall sales. Brands
such as Dayton® motors met
customers’ needs while improving Grainger’s margins.
3. Grow international share through expansion across Latin
America and Asia.
Grainger US and Grainger Global Sourcing Supply
Grainger United States (GUS) operated through a highly
integrated network of over 400 branches, 14
distribution centers, and multiple Web sites in order to serve
customers in the United States. In 2008,
Grainger’s US business served some 1.7 million customers, who
primarily represented industrial, commercial,
and government maintenance departments. The MRO
(maintenance, repair, and operations) market size in
the US was estimated to be $125 billion, of which Grainger’s
market share in 2008 was approximately 5
percent. (For the purpose of this case, only nine of the GUS
distribution centers are to be considered.)
Additionally, Grainger operated internationally. In North
America, Acklands-Grainger (AGI) was Canada’s
largest broad-line supplier of industrial, safety, and fastener
products. The company served approximately
43,000 customers across Canada through 154 branches and five

distribution centers. The MRO market size
in Canada was estimated to be $13 billion, of which Grainger’s
market share in 2008 was approximately 6
percent. Grainger also operated in Mexico, as Grainger, S.A. de
C.V. In 2008, the company served approximately
35,000 customers through 22 branches, a distribution center, a
Spanish-language catalog, and grainger.com.
mx. The MRO market size in Mexico was estimated to be $12
billion, of which Grainger’s market share in 2008
was approximately 1 percent. International expansion in other
parts of the world was of sustained interest at
Grainger, with much of the revenue growth over the next decade
expected to come from outside North America.
Many products sold by Grainger were nationally branded
products (e.g. General Electric, 3M, Bosch),
which were purchased from the respective vendors and made
available to end customers via Grainger’s
distribution network. Increasingly, Grainger had also been
selling its private label products, because these
offered an opportunity for increased profit margins and they met
customers’ growing needs for low cost, high
quality products.
3
W90C84
Until 1997, both nationally branded and private label products

in the GUS catalog were sourced
exclusively domestically. In 1997, the Grainger Global Sourcing
(GGS) business unit was formed to develop
an international, lower-cost supplier base for private-label items
offered through the GUS catalog. Although
GGS was a division of Grainger, its sole purpose was to act as a
supplier to GUS. GGS was the largest supplier
to GUS, and GGS-sourced private label products made up
approximately half of GUS’s total private label sales.
GGS offered 22,000 private label SKUs (products) in 10 of the
17 GUS catalog categories.
GGS sourced products from over 300 suppliers in 21 countries
including China, Taiwan, Mexico, Indonesia,
India, and South Korea. Seventy-one percent of these suppliers
were in China. All products sourced by GGS
were shipped to and processed in a single distribution center
(DC) in Kansas City, Missouri. GUS placed orders
with GGS for its products. GGS shipped products to the nine
GUS DCs daily based on these orders. Thus,
the GGS network in the US consisted of a single distribution
center in Kansas City supplying the nine GUS
distribution centers as its customers.
Although Grainger sourced from manufacturers around the
world, China and Taiwan comprised
approximately 80% of all globally sourced products.
Current State of the Grainger Global Sourcing Supply Chain
This section describes the status of GGS and identifies the key
levers with respect to this product flow.
GGS China/Taiwan to US Supply Chain
Product Flow

Figure 1 outlines the flow of products from China and Taiwan
to the GGS DC and out to the nine
domestic customers and some international customers.
GGS had over 300 suppliers in China and Taiwan (71% of its
entire supplier base and 80% of the volume).
Because Grainger’s specifications for its products were unique,
there was, in many cases, only one supplier for
a product line, and GGS had to work with that supplier to
develop new manufacturing programs specifically
for GGS. For example, GGS could have found a supplier that
produced a limited line of quality work gloves
but did not produce the breadth or variety that Grainger
required. GGS would work with the supplier to
create specifications and manufacturing recommendations for
the complete line. The unique specifications
and variety in the product line often resulted in high minimum
order quantities (MOQs) because the supplier
incurred setup costs to switch the manufacturing lines to GGS
products. High MOQs, in turn, sometimes led
to excess GGS inventory of slow-moving items, which were
stocked for completeness rather than for true
demand.
4
W90C84

Figure 1
Product Flow: China/Taiwan to US
All contracts with GGS suppliers were Free on Board (FOB)
port. The supplier owned the products
until they were placed on an ocean vessel and was responsible
for all costs incurred to transport finished
products to the port. International logistics were coordinated for
GGS by a third-party freight forwarder,
which managed container transport and ship bookings for all
suppliers’ cargo. Suppliers whose cargo filled
an ocean freight container received a container from the freight
forwarder, filled it, and sealed it at the
factory (these were factory-direct containers). All cargo was
floor-loaded (packed directly on the floor
without the use of pallets). The freight forwarder transported
the sealed containers to the proper shipping
vessel, and they were not opened again until they reached
Kansas City. Factory-direct containers represented
89% of all containers shipped to GGS from China and Taiwan.
Suppliers whose cargo did not fill an ocean
freight container delivered their cargo to one of the freight
forwarder’s five consolidation centers. The
freight forwarder built containers by combining one supplier’s
products with products from other small GGS
suppliers. GGS products were never combined with non-GGS
cargo. These consolidated containers represented
11% of all containers that were shipped to GGS from China and
Taiwan.
GGS cargo was transported in four container sizes, measured by
their length in feet: 20’, 40’, 40’ high
cube, and 45’. The relative proportion of each container size
used by GGS in 2008 is listed in Table 1 below.
It should be noted that all numbers in the case and in the
exhibits are artificial and illustrative, and should

not be considered primary data.
Table 1
GGS Container Mix in 2008
Container Size Proportion of Factory-
Direct Containers
Proportion of Consolidated
Containers
20’ 21% 27%
40’ 50% 60%
40’ High Cube 28% 11%
45’ 3% 3%
5
W90C84
It was most cost-effective to use 40’ or 40’ high cube containers
rather than 20’ containers because they
had a significantly lower cost per cubic meter (cbm) of cargo.
The cost of a 20’ container was 80% of the cost
of a 40’ container, resulting in a 165% cost per cubic meter
premium for a 20’ container over a 40’ container.

GGS’s consolidated containers skewed toward the smaller sizes,
primarily due to the limited volume of cargo
that was consolidated (only 11%) and the dispersion of
consolidation centers. The freight forwarder operated
five consolidation centers in China, and cargo was sent to the
nearest one. GGS placed a minimum container
utilization requirement and a dwell time limit on all containers.
Containers had to be at least 83% full by
either weight or volume, and cargo could not wait more than
seven days in the consolidation center for
additional cargo to arrive. As a result, on average, all containers
were utilized to 85%, and consolidated
cargo was shipped in smaller containers than was factory-direct
cargo.
Both factory-direct and consolidated containers from China and
Taiwan flowed primarily through five
major ports (Shanghai, Ningbo, Yantian, Qingdao, and
Kaohsiung). This flow represented approximately 80%
of all GGS purchases in 2008. The distribution of this volume is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Proportion of GGS Shipments Passing Through Ports in China
and Taiwan in 2008
Port Center Volume Percentage
Shanghai/Ningbo (China) 36%
Yantian/Hong Kong (China) 33%
Kaohsiung (Taiwan) 9%
Qingdao (China) 5%

All containers entered the US at either the Seattle, Washington,
port (40% of containers) or the Los
Angeles, California, port (60% of containers). For the future, it
was proposed that all containers would
enter exclusively through ports in California. From there, the
containers were transported to Kansas City
by rail, and then transferred to the Kansas City DC by truck. In
Kansas City, GGS utilized an offsite storage
facility because it had reached capacity in the DC building
itself. At the DC, the containers were unloaded.
Representative items from every SKU in the container were
processed through a quality assurance check
before the products were stocked in the storage racks. Any SKU
whose items did not pass the quality check
were quarantined. These products were reworked (corrected) by
the GGS warehouse staff when possible or
sent back to the supplier for correction. In 2008, 3% of all
SKU’s inspected required rework.
When GUS placed an order with GGS, the order was processed
and picking/packing instructions were
generated. Some products required additional assembly. To
improve the efficiency of ocean transport, products
that would be too bulky if shipped fully assembled (such as
hand carts with wheels) were shipped in a
partially assembled state. When these products were ordered by
GUS, GGS performed final assembly before
shipping the products to GUS. All items in the order were then
packed on pallets and loaded onto 53’ trucks.
In 2008, 73% of shipments were to GUS DCs that were either
south or east of Kansas City. Nineteen percent
went to the GUS Kansas City DC, where products were simply
shifted from the GGS side to the GUS side of
the warehouse. The remaining eight percent was sent to the west
coast. By 2012, the west coast volume
was expected to be 18%. That meant that fully 18% of GGS

outbound shipments would be transported into
Kansas City and back to the west coast.
A very small percentage of GGS products was purchased by the
Canada, Mexico, and China Grainger
divisions. The quantities were often limited due to the relative
sizes of the MOQs compared to the existing
demand for these products within these other business units.
However, when there was need for these GGS
6
W90C84
products in the other business units, the products first came to
Kansas City, as described above, and were
re-exported to the Canada, Mexico, and China divisions from
there. Further, Grainger also had newer divisions
and joint ventures in India, South Korea, and Japan, which had
no access to the GGS products at all.
Lead Time
In aggregate, the GGS products flowed from the time the order
was placed with the GGS supplier to
the time the product was stocked in the Kansas City DC. GGS
order-to-stock lead time was approximately
three months. Exhibit 3 and Figures 2 and 3 are schematic
drawings of this aggregate lead time broken

down by phase. (Note that there is a difference in lead time
between products that are consolidated and
products that are shipped factory-direct. This difference is due
to the potential for additional dwell time at
the consolidation center.)
Figure 2
Lead Time Breakdown in China and Taiwan
Order Manufacture Consol Ocean
LT (consol) 4 d 57 d 7 d 14 d
LT (direct) 4 d 57 d 0 d 14 d
Figure 3
GGS Operating Expense and Lead Time Breakdown in the US
Rail Transfer Stock PO to Ship Ship to GUS
Lead Time 7 d 2 d 2 d 3 d 3 d
7
W90C84
Operating Expense and Overall Metrics
For this discussion, the supply chain operating expense is made

up of all expenses to transport products
from China and Taiwan to the GGS DC, process them, and
transport them to the nine GUS DCs. GGS measured
the efficiency of its supply chain by viewing the operating
expense as a percent of the cost of goods sold
(COGS), as well as by overall inventory position and service
level. These metrics for the GGS supply chain in
2008 are listed in Table 3.
Table 3
GGS Supply Chain Overall Metrics in 2008
Category Current State
Operating Expense
Expense $28.3 M
Operating Expense as % of COGS 14.3%
Lead Time
GGS Order to Stock 90 days
GUS In-Transit 1-6 days
GUS In-Transit Distance (avg.) 776 miles
Service Level
Mature Items 96%
New Items 84%
Other

Container Utilization 85%
Average Inventory Position $85 M
Summary
With respect to Grainger’s global distribution and operational
efficiency goals, the company experienced
the following issues:
• Most suppliers were following their own procedures, or
“doing their own thing.” They were
loading containers with only their products and sending them
directly to Kansas City. GGS did not
have control of the products until they reached its DC in the US.
• All GUS DCs were served from a single GGS DC in
Kansas City. The distance traveled to many of
these DCs was long, and products going to the west coast
actually traveled over the same route
twice (on the inbound trip to Kansas City and again on the
outbound trip to the west coast GUS
DC).
• GGS’s ability to sell its products to Grainger’s
international divisions in a cost-effective or lead-
time-efficient manner was limited due to transfer pricing,
incremental processing costs, and time
associated with bringing the products all the way into the US,
then exporting them back out to
those divisions.
Network Optimization
As Grainger looked toward its future and considered the
company’s strategic growth objectives, it

became clear that a major redesign of the GGS supply chain was
needed. Furthermore, this redesign would
create a rare opportunity to fix some of the inefficiencies that
existed in the supply chain’s current state.
8
W90C84
When the team of students arrived at Grainger in May 2009,
they quickly realized that a project of
this scope and magnitude offered many levers that could be
worked to meet Grainger’s strategic growth
objectives as well as eliminate inefficiencies. After significant
brainstorming with the executive team and
domain specialists within Grainger, the team converged on three
alternatives that appeared to be most
promising. The three alternatives are described below.
1. Increased consolidation in China: As mentioned earlier, most
of the containers coming from
China were “factory-direct” in that the suppliers manufactured
and shipped the containers
straight from their facilities to Kansas City. Given that there
were over 300 such suppliers, some
sending just a handful of containers per year, Grainger
suspected that there was an opportunity
for significant savings by consolidation in China.

Specifically, it was proposed that Grainger operate
consolidation centers in China at the same
port locations used in the existing network: Shanghai-Ningbo,
Yantian, Kaohsiung, and Qingdao.
Suppliers would then send their products only to their assi gned
consolidation centers. Grainger
(or a third party operating on behalf of Grainger) would take
ownership of the products at
the consolidation centers and consolidate the products from
different suppliers as well as for
different destinations. These consolidated containers would then
be shipped overseas under
Grainger’s existing shipping arrangements.
This re-engineering offered significant opportunities for cost
reduction. Transportation costs
could decrease in two ways. First, there would be more efficient
use of container space. Second,
consolidation would allow for a reduction in the number of 20’
containers used, which were
highly cost-inefficient. Because each manufacturer would not
need to wait to fill a full container
by itself, the average order size would also decrease, which
would reduce inventory costs. Also,
non-US Grainger businesses, which typically have lower
volumes, could now be served directly
from the consolidation centers in quantities consistent with their
sales volumes.
However, opening consolidation centers in China carried
significant risks, and it would represent
a major new presence in China by Grainger. Although the
consolidation decision had many
components, it was felt that a pilot study would demonstrably
generate enough savings to justify
consolidation. As a pilot study, the team was advised to

consider opening a consolidation center
at Yantian. At the time, Yantian shipped out approximately
62,700 cbm of material annually,
using a mix of 40’ and 20’ containers as described in Exhibit 4.
A reasonable target would be to
assume that 85% of the material would be consolidated, and a
container utilization level of 96%
would be achievable on consolidation. Of course, consolidation
would enable reducing the use of
the inefficient 20’ containers; for the pilot study, it was
believed that if 85% of the material were
consolidated, then the remaining 15% of unconsolidated
material would all be from high-volume
suppliers who would use only 40’ containers. All other rel evant
data are provided in Exhibit 5.
Can the consolidation investment in Yantian be justified?
2. More primary DCs in the US: A large quantity of GGS
products came from Asia, with the majority
entering the US via the port of Los Angeles. Grainger already
had a GUS DC at LA, but this DC
received products from Kansas City and distributed them to the
stores in its operating area.
Would it be possible to set up a new primary import DC
operated by GGS in addition to a GUS DC
serving the southwestern US? In this scenario, some of the
containers coming from Asia would
be offloaded at the port of entry and directed to the new primary
import DC for distribution in
the western United States, while the remainder would be routed
to Kansas City.

9
W90C84
A similar change could be made in the East Coast, by
converting the DC at Greenville, SC, into an
import warehouse operated by GGS as well. Containers would
arrive from Asia to Greenville and
would then be dispatched from Greenville to the four GUS DCs
serving the East Coast: Greenville,
Jacksonville, New Jersey and Cleveland. Any goods not
destined for these four DCs would be sent
to Kansas City for further distribution and processing.
Although creating these two primary DCs offered substantial
savings in transportation costs,
there were several other activities that would need to be
examined carefully so that there would
be no net increase in costs. The Kansas City DC, being the only
primary DC for the entire country,
allowed for maximum pooling of demand uncertainty, thus
allowing for very low levels of safety
stock to be maintained. If more primary DCs were opened in the
US, would the safety stocks that
needed to be maintained at each of the primary DCs result in an
overall increase in inventory
costs? Were there other ways to mitigate this possible inventory
cost increase?
Additionally, the Kansas City DC performed other activities on
the goods once they were
unpacked from the containers. These included quality assurance,
assembly, and kitting. Opening

more primary DCs would mean these activities would have to be
replicated at the other primary
DCs, potentially increasing labor and equipment costs.
As a pilot study, the team was advised to consider whether
opening a new GGS DC in the West
Coast (WCDC) could be justified. If a GGS DC were opened in
the West Coast, would Los Angeles
be the only GUS DC served by it? The Dallas GUS DC was also
close enough that it could make
sense to supply it from the WCDC as well. Exhibit 5 displays
the demand information at each
of the nine GUS DCs, their distances from KC, and a tentative
site for the WCDC, while Exhibit
6 provides a cost breakdown of items that would impact the
WCDC opening decision. For this
calculation, assume that pipeline inventory costs are ignored,
but cycle and safety inventory
costs are incurred at the primary DCs. When freight and
inventory costs are considered, does it
make sense to set up and operate the WCDC?
3. Retain existing supply chain: The third alternative was to
avoid the major re-engineering
activities, because of their risks, and to incrementally improve
the processes within the existing
supply chain so as to achieve Grainger’s objectives. For
instance, the relationship with Grainger’s
suppliers in China could be managed so that they were
encouraged to consolidate products on
their own, reducing shipping costs.
Given the significant risks of the two major redesign initiatives,
there was significant push-
back within Grainger against the major changes. An executive
in GGS stated that the current

supply chain was, in fact, optimal when all the costs and risks
were considered, and the redesign
initiatives were being considered only out of a “myopic focus
on transportation costs.” With
the economy going into recession in 2009, fuel and
transportation costs were already dropping
dramatically, removing some of the impetus for a major
redesign.
As the student team concluded its presentation to the executive
steering committee, it came
away with conflicting opinions on what to recommend. For each
of the three alternatives
presented, there were some executives who thought that the idea
was great, while others
downplayed the benefits and emphasized the risks. The students
realized that the only way
to get everyone on board (and convince themselves) on an
appropriate redesign would be
to conduct a thorough quantitative analysis of the scenarios. In
the words of the steering
committee at Grainger, “Show us the numbers!”
10
W90C84
Exhibits

Exhibit 1
Key Facts about Grainger
2008 sales $6.9 billion ($1.5 billion via e-commerce)
Employees 18,000
Branches 617
Distribution centers 18
Customers 1.8 million in 153 countries
Products offered: 900,000
Suppliers 3,000
Large, diverse customer base
Broad and deep product portfolio
Power Tools, 4%
Power Transmission, 3%
Material Handling, 16% Safety & Security, 14%
Pumps/Plumbing, 9%
Cleaning &
Maintenance, 9%
Lighting, 7%
Ventilation, 6%
Electrical, 7%

Hand Tools, 7%
Fluid Power, 5%
HACR, 4%
Metal Working, 5%
Motors, 3%
Government, 19%
Other, 4%
Commercial, 19%
Resellers, 6%
Agriculture & Mining, 2%
Heavy Mfg, 19%
Light Mfg, 10%
Retail, 7%
Contractors, 14%
11

W90C84
12
W90C84
Exhibit 2
Grainger 2006-2008 …
North Carolina
Foundations for
Early Learning
and Development
North Carolina Foundations Task Force
North Carolina
Foundations for
Early Learning
and Development
North Carolina Foundations Task Force

ii
North Carolina Foundations for Early Learning and
Development
North Carolina Foundations for
Early Learning and Development
© 2013. North Carolina Foundations
Task Force.
Writers
Catherine Scott-Little
Human Development and Family Studies Department
UNC-Greensboro
Glyn Brown
SERVE Center
UNC-Greensboro
Edna Collins
Division of Child Development and Early Education
NC Department of Health and Human Services
Editors
Lindsey Alexander
Lindsey Alexander Editorial
Katie Hume
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
UNC-Chapel Hill
Designer

Gina Harrison
UNC-Chapel Hill
Photography
Pages:
60 and 143 courtesy of
UNC-Greensboro, Child Care Education Program.
36, 54, 135, 136, front cover (group shot), and
back cover (infant) courtesy of
NC Department of Health and Human Services,
Division of Child Development and Early Education.
All others:
Don Trull, John Cotter
UNC-Chapel Hill
The North Carolina Foundations for Early
Learning and Development may be freely
reproduced without permission for non-profit,
educational purposes.
Electronic versions of this report are available
from the following websites:
http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/earlylearning
Suggested citation: North Carolina
Foundations Task Force. (2013). North
Carolina foundations for early learning and
development. Raleigh: Author.

Funding for this document was provided by
the North Carolina Early Childhood Advisory
Council using funds received from a federal
State Advisory Council grant from the
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.ncpublicschools.ort/earlylearning
http://www.ncpublicschools.ort/earlylearning
iii
Development
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How to Use Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Domains, Subdomains, and Goals Overview . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 8
Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Effective Use of Foundations with All Children . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 15
Foundations and Children’s Success in School . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 17
Helping Children Make Progress on Foundations Goals:
It Takes Everyone Working Together . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .20
Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Approaches to Play and Learning (APL) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 26
Curiosity, Information-Seeking, and Eagerness . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .30
Play and Imagination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Risk-Taking, Problem-Solving, and Flexibility . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 38
Attentiveness, Effort, and Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 42
Emotional and Social Development (ESD) . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 48
Developing a Sense of Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Developing a Sense of Self With Others . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 56
Learning About Feelings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
iv
Development
Health and Physical Development (HPD) . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 66
Physical Health and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Motor Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Self-Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Safety Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Language Development and Communication (LDC) . . . . . .
88
Learning to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Foundations for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Foundations for Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Cognitive Development (CD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 116
Construction of Knowledge: Thinking and Reasoning . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 121
Creative Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Social Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Mathematical Thinking and Expression . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 137
Scientific Exploration and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .144
Supporting Dual Language Learners (DLL) . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 149
Defining Dual Language Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 149
The Dual Language Learning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 149
DLL and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
The Importance of Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

DLL and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Selected Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
v
Development
Acknowledgments
I
n 2011, the North Carolina Early Childhood
Advisory Council (ECAC) launched and
funded the important project of revising
the Infant-Toddler Foundations and
Preschool Foundations to create the North
Carolina Foundations for Early Learning and
Development—a single document that describes
children’s development and learning from birth
to age five. Leaders from the Division of Child
Development and Early Education as well as
the Office of Early Learning in the Department
of Public Instruction provided critical advice,
oversight, and vision on the Foundations and its

implementation. As listed below, many individuals
from across the state devoted their time and
expertise to this task force. We are grateful to
everyone’s work on this important resource for
our state.
This publication is dedicated to North Carolina’s
early childhood professionals, teachers, and
caregivers who nurture and support the
development of many young children while their
families work or are in school.
Expert Reviewers
Laura Berk
Professor Emeritus, Psychology Department
Illinois State University
Sharon Glover
Cultural Competence Consultant
Glover and Associates
Melissa Johnson
Pediatric Psychologist
WakeMed Health and Hospitals
Patsy Pierce
Speech Language Pathologist
Legislative Analyst
NC General Assembly Research Division
NC Foundations Task Force
Inter-Agency Leadership Team

Deb Cassidy
Anna Carter
Edna Collins
Jani Kozlowski
Lorie Pugh
Office of Early Learning
NC Department of Public Instruction
John Pruette
Jody Koon
Human Development and Family Studies Department
UNC-Greensboro
Catherine Scott-Little, Co-Facilitator
Sheresa Boone Blanchard
UNC-Chapel Hill
Kelly Maxwell, Co-Facilitator
vi
Development
NC Foundations Task Force (cont .)
Foundations Revisions Expert
Workgroup
Norm Allard

Pre-K Exceptional Children Consultant
Joe Appleton
Kindergarten Teacher
Sandy Ridge Elementary School
Cindy Bagwell
Co-Chair of Cognitive Development Workgroup
Early Childhood Education Consultant
Harriette Bailey
Assistant Professor
Birth-Kindergarten Program Coordinator
Department of Education, Shaw University
Sheila Bazemore
Education Consultant
Bonnie Beam
Director
Office of School Readiness, Cleveland County Schools
Gwen Brown
Regulatory Supervisor
Paula Cancro
Preschool Director
Our Lady of Mercy Catholic School

Deborah Carroll
Branch Head
Early Intervention, Division of Public Health
Kathryn Clark
Professor, Child Development Program Coordinator
Child Development, Meredith College
Renee Cockrell
Pediatrician
Rocky Mount Children’s Developmental Services Agenc y
Lanier DeGrella
Infant Toddler Enhancement Project Manager
Child Care Services Association
Sherry Franklin
Quality Improvement Unit Manager
Division of Public Health
Kate Gallagher
Child Care Program Director
UNC-Chapel Hill
Khari Garvin
Director, Head Start State Collaboration Office
Cristina Gillanders
Scientist

UNC-Chapel Hill
Pamela Hauser
Child Care Licensing Consultant
Ronda Hawkins
Chair of Emotional and Social Development Workgroup
Early Childhood Program Coordinator
Sandhills Community College
Patricia Hearron
Chair of Approaches to Learning Workgroup
Professor, Family and Consumer Sciences
Appalachian State University
Staci Herman-Drauss
Infant Toddler Education Specialist
Vivian James
619 Coordinator
Pre-K Exceptional Children, Office of Early Learning
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
LaTonya Kennedy
Teacher
Mountain Area Child and Family Center
Doré LaForett
Investigator
UNC-Chapel Hill
Beth Leiro

Physical Therapist
Beth Leiro Pediatric Physical Therapy
Gerri Mattson
Pediatric Medical Consultant
Division of Public Health
Janet McGinnis
vii
Development
Margaret Mobley
Manager, Promoting Healthy Social Behavior in
Child Care Settings
Child Care Resources, Inc.
Judy Neimeyer
Professor Emerita
Specialized Education Services
UNC-Greensboro
Eva Phillips
Instructor, Birth-Kindergarten Education
Winston-Salem State University
Jackie Quirk

Chair of Health and Physical Development Workgroup
Project Coordinator
NC Child Care Health and Safety Resource Center
UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health
Amy Scrinzi
Co-Chair of Cognitive Development Workgroup
Early Mathematics Consultant
Curriculum and Instruction Division
Janet Singerman
President
Child Care Resources, Inc.
Diane Strangis
Assistant Professor
Child Development, Meredith College
Dan Tetreault
Chair of Language and Communication Workgroup
K–2 English Language Arts Consultant
Curriculum and Instruction Division
Brenda Williamson
Assistant Professor, Birth-Kindergarten Teacher Education
Program Coordinator
NC Central University
Gale Wilson
Regional Specialist
NC Partnership for Children
Catherine Woodall

Doyle Woodall
Preschool Teacher
Johnston County Schools
Dual Language Learners Advisory
Team
Catherine Scott-Little, Chair
Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Studies
UNC-Greensboro
Tanya Dennis
Telamon Corporation
Shari Funkhouser
Pre-K Lead Teacher
Asheboro City Schools
Cristina Gillanders
Scientist
UNC-Chapel Hill
Belinda J. Hardin
Associate Professor, Specialized Education Services
UNC-Greensboro
Norma A. Hinderliter
Special Education Expert
Adriana Martinez
Director
Spanish for Fun Academy

Tasha Owens-Green
Child Care and Development Fund Coordinator
Gexenia E. Pardilla
Latino Outreach Specialist
Child Care Resources Inc.
Jeanne Wakefield
Executive Director
The University Child Care Center
Strategies Workgroup
Sheresa Boone Blanchard, Chair
Child Development and Family Studies
UNC-Greensboro
Patsy Brown
Exceptional Children Preschool Coordinator
Yadkin County Schools
Kristine Earl
Assistant Director
Exceptional Children’s Department
Iredell-Statesville Schools
Cristina Gillanders
Scientist
UNC-Chapel Hill
Wendy H-G Gray

Pitt County School System
viii
Development
Patricia Hearron
Professor, Family and Consumer Sciences
Appalachian State University
Staci Herman-Drauss
Infant Toddler Education Specialist
Tami Holtzmann
Preschool Coordinator
Thomasville City Schools
Renee Johnson
Edgecombe County Public School
Jenny Kurzer
Burke County Public Schools
Brenda Little
Stokes County Schools
Karen J. Long
Infant Toddler Specialist

Child Care Resources, Inc
Jackie Quirk
Project Coordinator
NC Child Care Health and Safety Resource Center
UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health
Brenda Sigmon
Catawba County/Newton Conover Preschool Program
Teresa Smith
Beaufort County Schools
Susan Travers
Exceptional Children Curriculum Manager and
Buncombe County Schools
Rhonda Wiggins
Wayne County Public Schools
1
Development
Introduction
North Carolina’s young children. This document,
North Carolina Foundations for Early Learning
and Development (referred to as Foundations),
serves as a shared vision for what we want for our

state’s children and answers the question “What
should we be helping children learn before
kindergarten?” By providing a common set of
Goals and Developmental Indicators for children
from birth through kindergarten entry, our
hope is that parents, educators, administrators,
and policy makers can together do the best job
possible to provide experiences that help children
be well prepared for success in school and life.
This Introduction provides important
information that adults need in order to
use Foundations effectively. We discuss the
purpose of the document, how it should be
used, and what’s included. We’ve also tried
to answer questions that you might have, all
in an effort to help readers understand and
use Foundations as a guide for what we want
children to learn during their earliest years.
Foundations
can be used to:
• Improve teachers’ knowledge of child
development;
• Guide teachers’ plans for implementing
curricula;
• Establish goals for children’s
development and learning that are
shared across programs and services;
and
• Inform parents and other family
members on age-appropriate

expectations for children’s development
and learning.
C
hildren’s experiences before they
enter school matter—research
shows that children who experience
high-quality care and education,
and who enter school well prepared,
are more successful in school and later in
their lives. Recognizing the importance of the
early childhood period, North Carolina has
been a national leader in the effort to provide
high-quality care and education for young
children. Programs and services such as Smart
Start, NC Pre-K, early literacy initiatives, Nurse
Family Partnerships and other home visiting
programs, and numerous other initiatives
promote children’s learning and development.
Quality improvement initiatives such as our
Star Rated License, Child Care Resource and
Referral (CCR&R) agencies, T.E.A.C.H. Early
Childhood® Scholarship Project, and the Child
Care W.A.G.E.S.® Project are designed to improve
the quality of programs and services and, in turn,
benefit children. Although the approaches are
different, these programs and initiatives share a
similar goal—to promote better outcomes for
2
Development

Purpose of
Foundations
North Carolina’s Early Childhood Advisory
Committee, Division of Child Development and
Early Education, and Department of Public
Instruction Office of Early Learning worked
together to develop Foundations to provide
a resource for all programs in the state.
Foundations describes Goals for all children’s
development and learning, no matter what
program they may be served in, what language
they speak, what disabilities they may have,
or what family circumstances they are
growing up in. Teachers and caregivers can
turn to Foundations to learn about child
development because the document provides
age-appropriate Goals and Developmental
Indicators for each age level—infant, toddler,
and preschooler. Foundations is also intended
to be a guide for teaching–not a curriculum
or checklist that is used to assess children’s
development and learning, but a resource
to define the skills and abilities we want
to support in the learning experiences we
provide for children. The Goals for children
can be used by teachers, caregivers, early
interventionists, home visitors, and other
professionals who support and promote
children’s development and learning. It is,
A Note About Terminology
Foundations is designed to be useful
to a broad range of professionals who
work with children. In this document we

refer to “teachers and caregivers.” This
terminology includes anyone who works
with children—teachers, caregivers, early
educators, early interventionists, home
visitors, etc. The document also refers to
“children” generically, which is intended
to include infants, toddlers, and preschool
children.
however, important to remember that while
Foundations can help you determine what
is “typical” for children in an age group, the
Developmental Indicators may not always
describe a particular child’s development.
When a child’s development and learning
does not seem to fit what is included in the
continuum under his/her age level, look at the
Developmental Indicators for younger or older
age groups to see if they are a better fit for the
child. Your goal is to learn what developmental
steps the child is taking now, and to meet the
individual needs of that child on a daily basis.
Foundations can also be used as a resource
for parents and other family members. All
parents wonder if their child is learning what’s
needed in order to be successful in school.
Parents will find it helpful to review the Goals
and Developmental Indicators to learn what
most early educators in North Carolina feel are
appropriate goals for young children.
Finally, Foundations is a useful document
for individuals who do not work directly
with children, but who support teachers
and caregivers in their work. It is important

to take stock to see if a program’s learning
environment, teaching materials, learning
activities, and interactions are supporting
children’s development in the areas described
3
Development
in Foundations. Administrators can use
Foundations as a guide to evaluate the types
of learning experiences provided in their
program. Foundations can also be a resource
to identify areas where teachers and caregivers
need to improve their practices and as a
basis for professional development. Training
and technical assistance providers should
evaluate the support they provide to teachers
and caregivers to ensure that the professional
development is consistent with the Goals and
Developmental Indicators. Furthermore,
Foundations can be used as a textbook in
higher education courses and a training manual
for in-service professional development. In
summary, Foundations is designed to be a
resource for teachers, caregivers, parents,
administrators, and professional development
providers as we work together to support the
learning and development of North Carolina’s
youngest children.
Organization of
This Document
This document begins with this Introduction,

which provides background information
on the use of Foundations. Following the
Introduction, you will find the Goals and
Developmental Indicators, which describe
expectations for what children will learn prior
to kindergarten, starting with infancy and
covering all ages through kindergarten entry.
A glossary with definitions of key terms that
are used throughout Foundations is included
at the end of the document.
The Goals and Developmental Indicators are
divided into five domains:
• Approaches to Play and Learning (APL)
• Emotional and Social Development (ESD)
• Health and Physical Development (HPD)
• Language Development and
Communication (LDC)
• Cognitive Development (CD)
Because infants’, toddlers’, and preschool
children’s bodies, feelings, thinking skills,
language, social skills, love of learning, and
knowledge all develop together, it is essential
that we include all five of these domains in
Foundations. None of the domains is more
or less important than others, and there is
some overlap between what is covered in one
domain and what’s covered in other domains.
This is because children’s development
and learning is integrated or interrelated.
The progress that a child makes in one
domain is related to the progress he or she
makes in other domains. For example, as

a child interacts with adults (i.e., Social
Development), she/he learns new words
(i.e., Language Development) that help her/
him understand new concepts (i.e., Cognitive
Development). Therefore, it is essential that
Foundations address all five domains, and
that teachers and caregivers who are using
Foundations pay attention to all five domains.
At the beginning of each domain section,
you will find a domain introduction that
describes some of the most important ideas
related to the domain. This introductory
information helps you understand what
aspects of children’s learning and development
are included in the domain. The introduction
is followed by the Goal and Developmental
Indicator Continuum (sometimes called a
“Continuum” for short in this document) for
each domain. The Continuum for each domain
is a chart that shows the Goals for the domain,
and the Developmental Indicators related to
each Goal for each age level. As the sample
chart on the next page shows, North Carolina
has elected to arrange our Developmental
Indicators along a continuum so that all of
the Developmental Indicators for the age
levels between birth and kindergarten entry
are included on the same row. This format
allows teachers and caregivers to easily look
across the age levels to see the progression
that a child might make toward the Goal.

4
Development
The Goals are organized in subdomains
or subtopics that fall within the domain.
Goals are statements that describe a general
area or aspect of development that children
make progress on through birth through
age five. The Developmental Indicators
are more specific statements of expectations
for children’s learning and development
that are tied to particular age levels. A Goal
and Developmental Indicator Continuum is
provided for each Goal.
28
Development
Approaches to Play and Learning (APL)
Curiosity, Information-Seeking, and Eagerness
Goal APL-1: …

Edu 280 activity plan rubric df unsatisfactory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Edu 280 activity plan rubric df unsatisfactory

Similar to Edu 280 activity plan rubric df unsatisfactory (20)

More from ANIL247048

More from ANIL247048 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Edu 280 activity plan rubric df unsatisfactory