GOOD & BAD EXAMPELS OF APA REFERENCING

BAD EXAMPLE OF APA REFERENCING Commented [DTTM1]: Please ensure you do not make
the same mistake as shown!

My view of existing gaps in monitoring quality standards in the early childhood (EC) field
are as follows:
Defining what exactly is “Quality Education” can be notoriously challenging especially
there is no current comprehensive tool that incorporates all relevant components of “quality” .
The association between quality programs and child outcomes are modest based on researches.
Specifically, the magnitude of the relationships between quality and child outcomes tended to be
small by statistical standards. Commented [DTTM2]: PLAGIARISM!
Direct copy and paste without in‐text referencing. (Source:
Burchinal et al., 2009)

Challenges faced in monitoring quality standards within the field

While family engagement is perceived as one of the best practices in early childhood (EC)
education however, many EC programs do not involve parents in the formal assessment process .

Another challenge involves the use of “non-experimental” and “quasi-experimental

designs” of assessment which do not provide valid data of a meaningful program evaluation.
Sometimes, instruments used are “not administered according to the instrument protocol”. For
example assessments designed to be completed by parents are completed by staff instead. .

The inappropriate use of collected data to support policy advocacy and/or high-stakes
decisions (e.g. program funding decisions) shifts the focus and resources away from supporting
real professional development needs in the field.

RULE OF THUMB!
If you use 6 references, you should have at least 6 in-text citations WITHIN the main content of
your work!
GOOD & BAD EXAMPELS OF APA REFERENCING

References: Commented [DTTM3]: Very messy referencing!

Halgunseth, L. (2009). Family Engagement, Diverse Families and Early Childhood Education ‐Should be arranged in alphabetical order
‐Skip lines in‐between different references
Programs. YC Young Children ‐Different font types used
The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool for All? Commented [DTTM4]: Missing volume no, issue no, and
nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/6.pdf page no. of the academic hournal
Burchinal, P., Kristen, K., Cai, K., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Martinez-Beck, I and Rathegeb, C.
(2009). Early Care and Education Quality and Child Outcomes.
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/early_ed_qual.pdf. Daniel, J. (2009). Intentionally Commented [DTTM5]: No accessed date?
Thoughtful Family Engagement in Early Childhood Education. YC Young Children, Vol. 64, No. Commented [DTTM6]: Two different references in one
5, pp. 10-14. single paragraph?

Shonkoff, J.P. (2004). Evaluating Early Childhood Services: What’s Really Behind the Curtain.
The Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family Research Project, Vol. X, No. 2, pp. 3-4.
www.unicef.org/ceecis/ECD_Framework_PART_II_june3.pdf. Commented [DTTM7]: No author, no date?

NOW, turn to the next page for proper example 

GOOD & BAD EXAMPELS OF APA REFERENCING

GOOD EXAMPLE OF APA REFERENCING Commented [DTTM8]: Please note that referencing has
been made within the content.

My view of existing gaps in monitoring quality standards in the early childhood (EC) field
are as follows:
Defining what exactly is “Quality Education” can be notoriously challenging especially
there is no current comprehensive tool that incorporates all relevant components of “quality”
(UNICEF, 2012). The association between quality programs and child outcomes are modest Commented [DTTM9]: The use of in‐text citation with
student paraphrase. This shows the reader the student
based on researches. Specifically, the “the magnitude of the relationships between quality and uses his/her own English to express other’s idea.

child outcomes tended to be small by statistical standards” (Burchinal et al., 2009). Commented [DTTM10]: The use of direct quote showing
the reader these are the “original” texts directly copied and
pasted from other source.

Challenges faced in monitoring quality standards within the field

While family engagement is perceived as one of the best practices in early childhood (EC)
education (Daniel 2009 and Halgunseth, 2009), however, many EC programs do not involve
parents in the formal assessment process (Allen, 2007).

Another challenge involves the use of “non-experimental” and “quasi-experimental

designs” of assessment which do not provide valid data of a meaningful program evaluation
(Shonkoff, 2004). Sometimes, instruments used are “not administered according to the
instrument protocol” (Allen, 2007). For example assessments designed to be completed by
parents are completed by staff instead. .

The inappropriate use of collected data to support policy advocacy and/or high-stakes
decisions (e.g. program funding decisions) shifts the focus and resources away from supporting
real professional development needs in the field (Shonkoff, 2004).

Universal standards in EC (benefits and potential drawbacks)

Barnett et al. (2004) identified three potential benefits of universal programs including 1)
better efficiency as larger number of children can be included; 2) better quality as universal
programs are not perceived as “charity programs” to the disadvantaged only and 3) higher
chance to receive public support and funding as the student population involved is larger.
GOOD & BAD EXAMPELS OF APA REFERENCING

In addition, setting a universal standard can allow service providers to strengthen quality
through setting minimum standards. This can replace the fragmented and sometimes, not up to
standard services providers.

On the other hand, setting universal standards may not provide the intensity and service
duration required by children with the greatest needs (Barnett et al., 2004). Targeted programs
that focused on much smaller number of disadvantaged children may not receive too much
public attention and support.

I think whether adopting universal standards in EC programs or not can be adjusted based
on the economic development of a country. For developing countries with the top priority of
transforming the society as a whole, building a large, knowledgeable workforce in the near future
is a must for economic growth and prosperity. As such, setting universal standards and
especially universal programs in education can be a solution to substantially increase the
educational attainment of the majority. On the other hand, for developed countries which are
more prosperous with fairer welfare systems, funding can be used to put up targeted programs
that focus those few who are badly in need of assistance.

References: Commented [DTTM11]: Good references made, with the

Allen, S.F. (2007). Assessing the Development of Young Children in Child Care: A Survey of proper indentation and references are arranged in
alphabetical order.
Formal Assessment Practices in One State. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34,
No. 6, pp.455-465.

Barnett, W.S., Brown, K. and Shore, R. (2004) The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the
United States Have Preschool for All? National Institute for Early Education Research,
Issue 6. Retrieved from nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/6.pdf. (Accessed date: July 02,
2016)

Burchinal, P., Kristen, K., Cai, K., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Martinez-Beck, I and Rathegeb, C.
(2009). Early Care and Education Quality and Child Outcomes. Retrieved from
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/early_ed_qual.pdf. (Accessed date: July 02, 2016)

Daniel, J. (2009). Intentionally Thoughtful Family Engagement in Early Childhood Education.

YC Young Children, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 10-14.
GOOD & BAD EXAMPELS OF APA REFERENCING

Halgunseth, L. (2009). Family Engagement, Diverse Families and Early Childhood Education
Programs. YC Young Children, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 56-58.

Shonkoff, J.P. (2004). Evaluating Early Childhood Services: What’s Really Behind the Curtain.
The Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family Research Project, Vol. X, No. 2, pp. 3-4.

UNICEF. (2012). A Framework and Tool Box for Monitoring and Improving Quality. Retrieved
from www.unicef.org/ceecis/ECD_Framework_PART_II_june3.pdf. (Accessed date: July
02, 2016)