assignment instuction:tracking down three citations from within one of the chapter's paragraphs and compare the author's treatment of the citations with what appears in the original sources.
The three citations I choose are as follows: first is "Research further suggests that the quality of early childhood programs is related to outcomes for children (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team [CQCO], 1995; Dunn, 1993; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999)." The second one is "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network, 1996; Whitebook, Howes, & Philips, 1990)." Lastly, I choose "teachers' qualifications make a difference in the students' achievement outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2000)." as the third citation. I will elaborate my questions and thoughts on these three citations in following paragraphs.
For the first citation "Research further suggests that the quality of early childhood programs is related to outcomes for children", it can be considered accurately cited from Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team (1995) and Peisner-Feinberg et al., (1999) for this statement positively made by these two research.
However, I do not think Saracho & Spodek (2006) treated Dunn's (1993) research properly. In my opinion, in stead of saying this review chapter cited from Dunn (1993), it is better to consider this citation was from those citations cited in Dunn's (1993) piece. In other words, this review chapter actually cited ideas from second-hand references. The secondary citation might be dangerous for the concern of not tracking down these references again to see whether or not they were cited properly.
I come up with a question to the way Saracho & Spodek (2006) employed Dunn's (1993) research; that is, how detailed should the author present in his or her article when citing? For example, in Dunn (1993), the findings indeed showed that day care quality play a role in children and their families' life (p.188), yet Dunn did not directly conclude the quality of early childhood program is related to the outcomes for children. Dunn's (1993) findings also reminded readers of the influence on determining children's developmental outcomes come from both family and day care. Furthermore, the outcome for children stated in Dunn's (1993) paper laid specific emphasis on children's social development. There are also issues regarding how to interpret statistic meaning. Thus, to what degree does an author need to describe when deciding to cite the idea from one research?
All above are also the reasons that I think Dunn's (1993) research cannot be viewed as the same idea as those showed in another two research (i.e. Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study Team, 1995 & Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999). Hence, I do not think it is proper to use one simple sentence such as the one used in this review chapter to conclude several different papers for they have different research designs as well as the ways of how the authors interpret findings in their papers.
Additionally, I notice that Dunn (1993) particularly noted "it should be noted that no matter how quality was measured in this study, the percentage of variance explained in children's development was relatively small. This suggests that in spite of the long hours children spend in day care, the quality of the environment is only one of the many factors playing a significant role in their development. (p.190)" Thus, as researchers, we need to be more cautious about citing ideas or findings from other research. In this review chapter, the way it cited might make readers ignore other important factors relate to outcomes for children beyond the quality of early childhood programs.
Nevertheless, having the awareness of being careful seems not enough. After reading this review chapter, my question is: "what can be regarded as a proper citation?" Are there any strategies for helping us to avoid improperly or wrongly citing? Also, what exactly is the function of citation? Does a researcher cite others' findings or ideas only for supporting his/her arguments? If so, the attempt to support one's own arguments might make the researcher to choose what he/her wants to write and avoid a discussion of other parts. For instance, Saracho & Spodek's (2006) cited from Dunn (1993) to support their main point "early childhood teacher's professional development affects the quality of early childhood programs in which they are employed and predicts the developmental outcomes of the children in their classes (p.424)", yet other specifics in Dunn (1993) was ignored.
The second citation stated "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs". In CQCO study (1995), the results not only show the relation between teachers with higher level education and the quality of their programs; more importantly, CQCO study specifically mentioned teachers in these quality programs had higher degrees in early childhood education in stead of merely having higher degrees in any field. I think Saracho & Spodek (2006) should point out this characteristic for not all early childhood teachers have specialized training in early childhood education even they have higher degrees.
As for the part of NICHD study and Whitebook, Howes, & Philips (1990), these two pieces both brought up the idea of "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs". Nevertheless, another question I want to propose here is that sometimes it seems authors infer an idea from other research instead of "citing" the concept or statement. Hence, I am confused about the difference between "citation" and "inference". How do we really know that we are doing citations rather than inferring some thoughts from others' papers?
As to the third citation, "teachers' qualifications make a difference in the students' achievement outcomes", this was stated clearly in Darling-Hammond (2000). However, since Darling-Hammond's (2000) research used the data from a 50-state survey of policies, state case study analyses, the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the findings basically based on the review of existing data. Also, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were involved in this research to examine the ways in which teacher qualifications and other school inputs are related to student achievement across states. The idea of the third citation is actually the conclusion of Darling-Hammond's (2000) research. Thus, my suggestion is, when citing from review research such as Darling-Hammond's (2000) research, authors might need be more careful of how the conclusions was generated instead of directly using its conclusions.
The three citations I choose are as follows: first is "Research further suggests that the quality of early childhood programs is related to outcomes for children (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team [CQCO], 1995; Dunn, 1993; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999)." The second one is "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network, 1996; Whitebook, Howes, & Philips, 1990)." Lastly, I choose "teachers' qualifications make a difference in the students' achievement outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2000)." as the third citation. I will elaborate my questions and thoughts on these three citations in following paragraphs.
For the first citation "Research further suggests that the quality of early childhood programs is related to outcomes for children", it can be considered accurately cited from Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team (1995) and Peisner-Feinberg et al., (1999) for this statement positively made by these two research.
However, I do not think Saracho & Spodek (2006) treated Dunn's (1993) research properly. In my opinion, in stead of saying this review chapter cited from Dunn (1993), it is better to consider this citation was from those citations cited in Dunn's (1993) piece. In other words, this review chapter actually cited ideas from second-hand references. The secondary citation might be dangerous for the concern of not tracking down these references again to see whether or not they were cited properly.
I come up with a question to the way Saracho & Spodek (2006) employed Dunn's (1993) research; that is, how detailed should the author present in his or her article when citing? For example, in Dunn (1993), the findings indeed showed that day care quality play a role in children and their families' life (p.188), yet Dunn did not directly conclude the quality of early childhood program is related to the outcomes for children. Dunn's (1993) findings also reminded readers of the influence on determining children's developmental outcomes come from both family and day care. Furthermore, the outcome for children stated in Dunn's (1993) paper laid specific emphasis on children's social development. There are also issues regarding how to interpret statistic meaning. Thus, to what degree does an author need to describe when deciding to cite the idea from one research?
All above are also the reasons that I think Dunn's (1993) research cannot be viewed as the same idea as those showed in another two research (i.e. Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study Team, 1995 & Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999). Hence, I do not think it is proper to use one simple sentence such as the one used in this review chapter to conclude several different papers for they have different research designs as well as the ways of how the authors interpret findings in their papers.
Additionally, I notice that Dunn (1993) particularly noted "it should be noted that no matter how quality was measured in this study, the percentage of variance explained in children's development was relatively small. This suggests that in spite of the long hours children spend in day care, the quality of the environment is only one of the many factors playing a significant role in their development. (p.190)" Thus, as researchers, we need to be more cautious about citing ideas or findings from other research. In this review chapter, the way it cited might make readers ignore other important factors relate to outcomes for children beyond the quality of early childhood programs.
Nevertheless, having the awareness of being careful seems not enough. After reading this review chapter, my question is: "what can be regarded as a proper citation?" Are there any strategies for helping us to avoid improperly or wrongly citing? Also, what exactly is the function of citation? Does a researcher cite others' findings or ideas only for supporting his/her arguments? If so, the attempt to support one's own arguments might make the researcher to choose what he/her wants to write and avoid a discussion of other parts. For instance, Saracho & Spodek's (2006) cited from Dunn (1993) to support their main point "early childhood teacher's professional development affects the quality of early childhood programs in which they are employed and predicts the developmental outcomes of the children in their classes (p.424)", yet other specifics in Dunn (1993) was ignored.
The second citation stated "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs". In CQCO study (1995), the results not only show the relation between teachers with higher level education and the quality of their programs; more importantly, CQCO study specifically mentioned teachers in these quality programs had higher degrees in early childhood education in stead of merely having higher degrees in any field. I think Saracho & Spodek (2006) should point out this characteristic for not all early childhood teachers have specialized training in early childhood education even they have higher degrees.
As for the part of NICHD study and Whitebook, Howes, & Philips (1990), these two pieces both brought up the idea of "the level of education attained by early childhood education teachers is positively related to the quality of their programs". Nevertheless, another question I want to propose here is that sometimes it seems authors infer an idea from other research instead of "citing" the concept or statement. Hence, I am confused about the difference between "citation" and "inference". How do we really know that we are doing citations rather than inferring some thoughts from others' papers?
As to the third citation, "teachers' qualifications make a difference in the students' achievement outcomes", this was stated clearly in Darling-Hammond (2000). However, since Darling-Hammond's (2000) research used the data from a 50-state survey of policies, state case study analyses, the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the findings basically based on the review of existing data. Also, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were involved in this research to examine the ways in which teacher qualifications and other school inputs are related to student achievement across states. The idea of the third citation is actually the conclusion of Darling-Hammond's (2000) research. Thus, my suggestion is, when citing from review research such as Darling-Hammond's (2000) research, authors might need be more careful of how the conclusions was generated instead of directly using its conclusions.