GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING

OF SEAMEO QITEP IN LANGUAGE

RESEARCH GRANTS (SEAQIL REGRANTS)
BATCH V - 2020

Jalan Gardu, Srengseng Sawah, Jagakarsa, Jakarta 12640, INDONESIA

Tel. 62-21 – 78884106, 78884140, 78884142
Facsimile 62-21 – 78884073
Email: info@qiteplanguage.org website www.qiteplanguage.org
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................................. .. i

A. Introduction ................................................................................. 1
B. Objectives ................................................................................... 1
C. Research Criteria........................................................................... 1
D. Target ......................................................................................... 2
E. Eligibility of Applicants .................................................................. 2
F. Output ......................................................................................... 2
G. Timeline ...................................................................................... 2
H. Systematic Proposal Writing ........................................................... 3
I. Mechanism of Funding................................................................... 4
J. Registration ................................................................................. 5
K. Steps of Selection ......................................................................... 5
L. Reporting .................................................................................... 5
M. Intellectual Property Rights ............................................................ 5
N. Terms and Conditions ................................................................... 6
O. Contact Persons ............................................................................ 6
P. Attachment................................................................................... 6

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 i

A. Introduction
SEAMEO QITEP in Language Research Grants (SEAQIL REGRANTS) is a biennial
programme that provides research grants for language teachers (Arabic, English,
French, German, Indonesian, Japanese and Mandarin) in Southeast Asia. This year,
SEAQIL REGRANTS has entered the fifth batch.

SEAMEO QITEP in Language takes "Mapping Reading Literacy to Face Industrial Era
4.0" as the theme of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020. Reading literacy is one of the basic
competencies that should be mastered by students to have a better quality of life. In
addition, reading literacy is an element of PISA (Program for International Student
Assessment) test. In 2018, of 11 countries in Southeast Asia, there have only been six
countries participating in the PISA test conducted by OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development), namely Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Based on the results of the PISA test, there are
significant differences among the aforementioned countries concerning the results of
students’ literacy tests, i.e., Singapore ranked in the 2 nd position, Malaysia ranked in
the 56th position, Brunei Darussalam ranked in the 59th position, Thailand ranked in the
67th position, Indonesia ranked in the 72nd position, and the Philippines ranked in the
77th position. Of the data, Singapore, which is as one of the countries in Southeast Asia,
achieves the highest score in reading literacy, whereas the other five countries, that
have taken part in the PISA test, are ranked in the 50th position below.

The selection of the theme is expected to produce researches that provide an overview
of problems and disparities in the quality of students' reading literacy in Southeast Asia.
Therefore, to produce researches in accordance with the expected quality, it is
necessary to prepare guidelines for writing research proposal of SEAQIL REGRANTS.
This handbook is a technical guide for language teachers in writing research proposals
to participate in the selection process of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020. Thus, the applicants
should follow all the rules contained in this guide.

B. Objectives
The objectives of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 programme are
1. to improve teachers’ competence and the quality of research of language teachers
(Arabic, English, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese and Mandarin),
2. to map the problems in reading literacy in Southeast Asia,
3. to reveal the characteristics of strategies, materials, and assessment of reading in
Southeast Asia,
4. to reveal good practices of reading literacy in Southeast Asia.

C. Research Criteria
The research activities are carried out under the following conditions:
1. The methods of the submitted research proposal are survey, case study and
content analysis.
2. Sources of data are schools with high, medium, or low reading achievement.
3. The options of the topics and subtopics are as follows. Choose one of the topics
and subtopics below.

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 1

 Topics Subtopics Methods

1. Learning Strategies 1.1. Learning strategies in reading Survey

1.2. Habits of Reading Survey
2. Learning Methods 2.1. Teaching and learning activities in the Case study
classroom
2.2. Using learning media in reading Case study
3. Teaching Materials 3.1. Relevance and content of teaching Content analysis
materials for reading (Lower Order
Thinking-Higher Order Thinking)
3.2. Variety and authenticity of teaching Content analysis
materials
4. Assessment 4.1. Process in non-test assessment Case study
(portfolio)
4.2. Assessment instruments (Lower Order Content analysis
Thinking-Higher Order Thinking)

D. Target
The target of this research grant is language teachers (Arabic, English, French,
German, Indonesian, Japanese and Mandarin) in upper secondary or vocational
schools in Southeast Asia.

E. Eligibility of Applicants
The applicants of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 should fulfil the requirements as follows.
1. Applicants can be an individual teacher or a team consisting of no more than three
persons.
2. The team leader of the research is language teacher (Arabic, English, French,
German, Indonesian, Japanese and Mandarin) in upper secondary or vocational
schools.
3. The research members are teachers/ lecturers/researchers in the area of language.
4. Applicants can send a maximum of two research proposals.
5. Applicants should agree to the terms and condition of the grants scheme.

F. Output
The output of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 is a scientific article.

G. Timeline
The research will be conducted in the period of four months starting from July to
October 2020. The timeline of SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 is as follows.

No. Name of Activity Date

1. Registration and Upload Research Proposal 28 February-3 April 2020
2. Research Proposal Selection 4-23 April 2020
3. Announcement of Grantees 24 April 2020
4. Signing of Contract Letter 6 May-12 June 2020
5. Logbook and Progress Report Submission 24-31 August 2020
6. Final Report Submission 2-6 November 2020

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 2

H. Systematic Proposal Writing
1. General requirements
 The length of the research proposal is no more than 1500 words or seven pages
excluding the cover, declaration of originality and references.
 The proposal uses an A4-size paper; 12 font size; Times New Roman; 1.5 lines
spacing; 2.54 cm margin (top and left side), 2 cm margin (bottom and right
side); in the form of MS Word (.doc).
 Proposal should be written in Indonesian or English language.
2. Systematics for SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 proposals as follows.

a) Cover page
The cover page includes the SEAQIL logo, title, name of the team leader and members,
school/institution that the applicants belong to and the year of submission of the
SEAQIL REGRANTS proposal.

In addition, the code of the topic should be written in the upper right corner as follows.

No. Topics Code

1. Learning strategies A
2. Learning methods B
3. Teaching materials C
4. Assessment D

b) Title
The title describes the entire content of the research proposal with no more than
13 words.

c) Background
The background presents empirical arguments (student/learning conditions) and
academic arguments (data/literature) which form the basis of research. The
background also includes problems and trends of literacy reading phenomenon
discovered by the teachers. This section is comprised of no more than 200 words.

d) Research Objectives
Research objectives explain the specific objectives of conducting research.

e) Conceptual Framework
This section explains the theoretical studies from literature taken from books/
journals/research results related to the issues discussed in the research proposal.
Furthermore, it also describes some of the titles as well as results of the previous
studies and mentions things that have not been discussed in the study. Next, this
section also describes things offered as contribution which have never been
discussed in the previous researches. In this section, it is recommended to use
references in the last ten years. Conceptual framework should be written no more
than 200 words.

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 3

 f) Research Targets
Research targets describe the results or outcomes that will be achieved after the
implementation of the research.

g) Achievement Indicators
This section presents indicators of success that will be achieved in the research.
The indicator description should be written in numbers.

h) Research Methodology
The research methodology includes the research methods being used (survey, case
study and content analysis). In addition, it describes the data, sources of the data,
data collection techniques/procedures and data analysis. The methodology also
presents flow of the research illustrating the planned activities during the proposed
schedule. The format of the flow chart should be in the form of JPG/PNG file. The
flowchart of the research is presented clearly starting from the beginning of the
research processes and its outcomes.

i) Research Schedule
This sections presents details of the schedule for each of the activity carried out (4
months) and displayed in tabular form.

j) Reference
This section contains a list of books, journals, etc, used as references. The list of
references should be compiled and written in alphabetical orders. It should also
include books/journals/scientific reports (for the last 10 years) as well as other
materials from the internet and follow the 6th Edition of the American Psychological
Association (APA) system.

k) Declaration of Originality
This letter declares that research proposal has never been or not being funded by
any parties and describes the originality of research.

I. Mechanism of Funding
The successful applicants will be awarded grants of IDR7.500.000.00. The amount of
the grants will be subjected to 5% of the government tax for Indonesian citizens who
hold NPWP number (registered taxpayers) or 6% of the government tax for those who
do not hold NPWP number. For foreign citizens, the grants will be subjected to 20% of
the government tax.

The grants will only be awarded in one term (100%) after SEAQIL receives the final
research reports

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 4

J. Registration
The flow of the SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 registration is as follows.

K. Step of Selection
The submitted research proposals should follow the three selection stages below;

Awardee of Grants
Administration Content
Selection Selection •25 research
proposals will be
•Completion of •Proposal content selected as
documents grantees of SEAQIL
•Appropriate writing REGRANTS Batch V
format -2020

L. Reporting
The SEAQIL REGRANTS reports consist of four types, namely the progress report,
monthly logbook, final report and scientific article.

M. Intellectual Property Rights

All the documents of proposals and results in SEAQIL REGRANTS 2020 (both softcopy
and hardcopy) belong to the property of SEAMEO QITEP in Language and are part of
the development of the Centre’s data. SEAQIL reserves the rights to use and publish

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 5

 the available data from research results with/without the grantees’ permission, but will
include the grantees’ name.

N. Terms and Conditions

If the grantee submits the progress report, logbook, final report and scientific article
after the due date, he/she shall be subject to sanction in the form of fine 1 per mil
(1/1000) per day and maximum of 5% from the contract value. SEAQIL shall terminate
the research contract due to delay in the completion of the progress report, logbook,
final report and scientific article.

O. Contact Persons
Should you need more information, please contact Ms Hasanatul Hamidah
(081220736396), Ms Reni Anggraeni (081384201403), SEAMEO QITEP in Language in
number (021) 78884106, or by email to seaqilregrants@gmail.com.

P. Attachments
a. Sample Cover of the Research Proposal
b. Sample of Declaration of Originality
c. Guidelines for References Writing
d. Guidelines for Citation Writing

GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING OF SEAQIL REGRANTS BATCH V – 2020 6

Appendix 1. Sample Cover of the Research Proposal
Code of the Subtheme

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

RESEARCH TITLE
………………………………………………………..

By:
(Name of Writer Team Leader and Member)
(Name of Writer’s Institution)

Funded By:
SEAMEO QITEP in Language RESEARCH GRANTS
2020
Appendix 2. Sample of Declaration of Originality

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned below:

name : _________________________________________________________
institution : _________________________________________________________
address : _________________________________________________________

hereby certify that the research entitled:

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
authored by

1. _______________________________________
2. _______________________________________
3. _______________________________________

has never been funded or has not been submitted for any type of grants and has never been published. This
scientific work is original of the writer’s intellectual work. Any source served as references is explicitly
acknowledged in accordance with the standard academic writing rules.

..…...…..,…...…....….... 2020
Signature,

(Writer Team Leader)

Appendix 3. Guidelines for References Writing

References (12 pt, bold)

References writing should be in accordance with APA (American Psychological Association) format utilizing
the font of Times New Roman 12 pt. The sample of references writing using APA format is as follows:

1) Book written by one writer

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

2) Book written by two writers

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

3) Book of which the name of the writer is the same as the name of the publication
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the american psychological
association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

4) Electronic book
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2005). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and
school. Retrieved 18 March 2016, from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-
brain-mind-experience-and-school-expanded-edition.

5) Book edited by two editors

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY:
Routledge.

6) Book edited by four editors

Ritter, F. E., Nerb, J., Lehtinen, E., & O'Shea, T. M. (Eds.). (2007). In order to learn: How the sequence
of topics influences learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

7) A chapter in an edited book

Dyson, A. (2006). Beyond the school gates: Context, disadvantage and ‘urban schools’. In M. Ainscow &
M. West (Eds.), Improving urban schools: Leadership and collaboration (pp. 117-129).
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

8) Journal article written by one writer

Nurgiyantoro, B. (2012). Kebermaknaan soal ujian nasional bahasa indonesia SMA/MA 2012. Litera Jurnal
Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 11(2), 167-179.

9) Journal article written by three writers

Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who's really sharing? Effects of social and
expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464-477.
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.464.14425.
10) Journal article written by five writers
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of
collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139-154. doi 10.1007/s10648-010-9131-x.

11) Journal article written by more than six writers

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Hewlett, S. (2000). Effects
of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex
tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 183-212. doi.org/10.1086/499639.

12) Online journal article

Atayeva, M. (2019). Cultivating Junior High School Students’ Critical Thinking Skills by Using Short-Videos
in English Language Classroom. Journal of English Language and Education (JELE) , 5(1), 21–31.
Retrieved 12 March 2017, from https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.26486/jele.v5i1.830

13) Journal article on a book review

Marson, S. M. (2009). How big should we be? A Herculean task accomplished [Review of the book Human
body size and the laws of scaling: Physiological, performance, growth, longevity and ecological
ramification, by T. Samaras]. Public Health Nutrition, 12, 1299–1300.
doi:10.1017/S1368980009990656.

14) Online article taken from website of an organisation with the name of the writer (the name
of the organisation), but without the year of publication
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (n.d.). Reducing Australia’s greenhouse
emissions factsheet. Retrieved 17 June 2019, from http://www.csiro.au/ resources/ps282.html

15) Online article written without the name of the writer and the year of publication
Great debates in media literacy: Theory and practice of media literacy. (n.d.). In Wikiversity. Retrieved
19 June 2018, from http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Debates_in_Media_ Literacy

16) Online article taken from blog

Keim, B. (2009, November 18). ID error leaves fish at edge of extinction [Blog post]. Retrieved 28 August
2018, from http://www.wired.com/ wiredscience/2009/11/extinction-error/.

17) Online article taken from social media

Rudd, K. (2009, October 24). Australian civilian corps to help in crises [Facebook update]. Retrieved 22
April 2018, from http://www. facebook.com/note.php?note_id=200124043571&ref=mf

18) Newspaper article written with the name of the writer

Waterford, J. (2007, May 30). Bill of Rights gets it wrong. The Canberra Times, p. 11.

19) Newspaper article written without the name of the writer

Internet pioneer to oversee network redesign. (2007, May 28). The Canberra Times, p. 15.
20) Online newspaper article taken from website
Australians and the Western Front. (2009, November). Ozculture newsletter. Retrieved 16 July 2017,
from from http://www.cultureandrecreation. gov.au/ newsletter/

21) Document of guideline book/report taken from governmental institution/organisation

Department of Finance and Administration. (2006). Delivering Australian Government services: Managing
multiple channels. Canberra, Australia: Author.

22) Online document of guideline book/report taken from governmental

institution/organisation
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2008). Families in Australia: 2008. Retrieved 19 March
2014, from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/ publications/families/index.cfm#contact.

23) Document of legislation rules

Predential Regulation 2017 No.87, Strengthening of Character Education (PPK)l

24) Document of legislation rules taken from website

Trade Practices Act, Cth. (1974). Retrieved 18 September 2015, from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.

25) Book translated from a foreign language

Sparks, N. (2002). A walk to remember [Kan ku kenang selalu]. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT Gramedia Pustaka
Utama.

26) Thesis/dissertation
Duddle, M. (2009). Intraprofessional relations in nursing: A case study (Unpublished doctoral thesis),
University of Sydney, Australia.

27) Online thesis/dissertation taken from website

Lacey, D. (2011). The role of humiliation in collective political violence (Masters thesis, University of
Sydney, Australia). Retrieved 30 June 2019, from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7128.

28) Proceeding taken from a conference or a seminar

Edge, M. (1996). Lifetime prediction: Fact or fancy? In M. S. Koch, T. Padfield, J. S. Johnsen, & U. B.
Kejser (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Research Techniques in Photographic
Conservation (pp. 97-100). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts.

29) Online proceeding taken from a conference or a seminar

Tester, J. W. (2008). The future of geothermal energy as a major global energy supplier. In H. Gurgenci
& A. R. Budd (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sir Mark Oliphant International Frontiers of Science and
Technology Australian Geothermal Energy Conference, Canberra, Australia: Geoscience Australia.
Retrieved 27 October 2018, from http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/ GA11825.pdf.
30) Research report
Kyriacou, C., & Issitt, J. (2008). What characterises effective teacher-initiated teacher-pupil dialogue to
promote conceptual understanding in mathematics lessons in England in key stages 2 and 3? In
Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education, University of London.

31) Government report

Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. (1989). Discipline in schools (the elton
report). London: HMSO.

Reference
Namibia University of Science and Technology. (n.d.). Your guide to APA 6th style referencing. Retrieved 11
February 2020, from https://www.nust.na/sites/default/files/documents/
201806APACompletefinal190126.pdf.
Appendix 4. Guidelines for Citation Writing

Writing citation is a crucial part in the writing of research proposal in reference with previous studies that
have been conducted. In addition, writing citation functions to support academic argumentations of the
research through various ideas that go well together and are in accordance with the sources chosen to be
the references of the research. Samples of the citation writing using the 6th edition of APA (American
Psychological Association) format are as follows.

A. Indirect Citation
Indirect citation is a new idea written by the researcher based on a particular source as the reference of
the researcher’s academic argumentation. It comprises two types, namely 1) indirect citation of which
the name of the writer is mentioned in the academic argumentation and 2) indirect citation of which the
name of the writer is not mentioned in the academic argumentation, but is written inside the brackets.
Samples on the writing of indirect citation are as follows:
1. Indirect citation of which the name of the writer is mentioned in the academic
argumentation.
 Jones (1998) compares students’ cognition with....
 In 1998, Jones compared students’ cognition with....
2. Indirect citation of which the name of the writer is not mentioned in the academic
argumentation, but is written inside the brackets (…)
 A research which identified students’ cognition (Jones, 1998), claimed that....

B. Direct Citation
Direct citation is an academic argumentation taken from a source of which it is written according to the
original source without any changes. In order to write a direct citation, there are a few things that need
to be of concern, such as the name of the writer, the year of publication, and the page of the source
cited is written in the direct citation. Direct citation is comprised of two types, namely short direct citation
and long direct citation. Samples on the writing of direct citation are as follows:
1. Short direct citation, is comprised of less than 40 words. This citation is written or included in
the researcher’s academic argumentation marked with “…” in the beginning and end of the
sentence. In the short direct citation, the source of the reference is written in two ways, i.e., 1)
short direct citation of which the name of the writer is mentioned in the sentence, and 2) short
direct citation of which the name of the writer is not mentioned in the sentence, but is written
inside the brackets (…). Samples on the writing of short direct citation are as follows:
a. Short direct citation of which the name of the writer is mentioned in the sentence
─ An interesting view was expressed by Cochrane (2007) that “the connection of high profile
developments to their surrounding environment has increasingly been questioned” (p.
117).
─ Cochrane (2007) mentioned “the connection of high profile developments to their
surrounding environment has increasingly been questioned” (p. 117).
b. Short direct citation of which the name of the writer is not mentioned in the
sentence, but is written inside the brackets (…)
─ An interesting view was expressed that “the connection of high profile developments to
their surrounding environment has increasingly been questioned” (Cochrane, 2007, p.
117).
 2. Long direct citation, is comprised of 40 words or more. It consists of five long sentences or
more is written separately in the form of a paragraph, and is indebted from the left margin of the
document. Sample on the writing of long direct citation is as follows:
─ Much has been written about acute care. Finkelman (2006), for example, points out that:
There are many changes in acute care services occurring almost daily, and due to the
increasing use of outpatient surgery, surgical services have experienced major changes.
Hospitals are increasing the size of their outpatient or ambulatory surgery departments and
adjusting to the need of moving patients into and out of the surgical service in 1 day or even
a few hours (p. 184).

C. Samples on Citation Writing

This section elaborates the samples on citation writing taken from various studies written by one
researcher until six researchers in a research.
1. A research written by two writers
a. A research written by two writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation
─ When considering the Howard Government’s Indigenous health expenditure, Palmer and
Short (2010) maintain that….
b. A research written by two writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation, but is written inside the brackets (…)
─ When considering the Howard Government’s Indigenous health expenditure, there are
things need to be understood...(Palmer and Short, 2010).

2. A research written by five writers

a. A research written by five writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation
─ Seeley, VanPutte, Regan, Brad, & Russo (2011) stated that the soil located in Utah has
been greatly contaminated with….
b. A research written by five writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation, but is written inside the brackets (…)
─ Even if the US government has made certain efforts, the soil located in Utah is still being
contaminated with…(Seeley, VanPutte, Regan, Brad, & Russo, 2011).

3. A research written by six writers

a. A research written by six writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation
─ Bulliet et al., (2005) mentioned that the Russian Revolution may never have succeeded if
there hadn’t already been widespread discontent among the Russian populace.
b. A research written by six writers of which the names of the writer are mentioned
in the academic argumentation, but is written inside the brackets (…)
─ The Russian Revolution may never have succeeded if there hadn’t already been
widespread discontent among the Russian populace (Bulliet et al., 2005).

4. Two or more researches written by the same writer

To cite two or more researches which have the same writer, the years of the publication should
all be mentioned.
 ─ Smith (1972) in his study of the effects of alcohol on the ability to drive, Smith (1991)
showed that the reaction times of participating drivers were adversely affected by as little
as a twelve ounces can of beer.

5. Different researches written by the same writer with dissimilar years of publication
in a sentence
─ Studies of precautionary saving in response to earnings risk include Cantor (1985),
Skinner (1988), Kimbal (1990a, 1990b) and Caballero (1991), among others....
atau
─ The hemispheric division of the human brain has been studied from many different
perspectives; however, not all researchers agree on the exact functions of each
hemisphere (Ellison, 1973; Jaynes, 1979; Mick, 1978).

6. Different researches written by different writers as well as years of publication, but

the writers’ last names are the same in a sentence
─ D. M. Smith (1994) and P. W. Smith (1995) both reached the same conclusion about
parenting styles and child development.

7. Cite from citation

If the researcher is likely to cite a source of reference which is also cited from another source,
the original name of the writer is mentioned in the academic argumentation, and the name of
the writer who cited the original source is mentioned at the end of the sentence of the academic
argumentation. Citations taken from sources who also cited from other sources are divided into
two types, namely 1) to cite a source which also cited from another source directly, and 2) to
cite a source which also cited from another source indirectly, as follows:
a. to cite a source which also cited from another source directly
─ Behavior is affected by situation. As Wallace postulated in Individual and Group Behavior,
“a person who acts a certain way independently may act in an entirely different manner
while the member of a group” (cited in Barkin, 1992, p. 478).

b. to cite a source which also cited from another source indirectly

─ Behavior is affected by situation. As Wallace postulated in Individual and Group Behavior,
stating that...(paraphrase)...(cited in Barkin, 1992).

8. Article written by the name of writer without the year of publication

─ Some aspects of forensic science are more challenging than others (Browne, n.d.) and for
this reason….

9. Article written without the name of the writer and the year of publication
If there is an article only consisting of the title and the content of the article, but is written without
the name of the writer, the title of the article should be written in the citation.
─ In another study of students and research decisions, it was discovered that students
succeeded with tutoring (“Tutoring and APA,” n.d.).
 10. Article cited from website without the name of the writer and the year of publication
─ The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is designing
several energy-efficient electric machines to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CSIRO,
n.d.).

11. Research cited from a governmental institution

─ The standard performance measures were used in evaluating the system (United States
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1997).

12. Citation taken from Regulations, Government Policies, Presidential Regulations

(KEPPRES), Ministerial Regulations (PERMEN), etc.
─ Government Regulations in line with the study is as stated in the Presidential Regulation,
No. 87 of 2017 pertaining with the Strengthening of Character Education (PPK), mentions
that...(academic argumentation)….

Reference
Namibia University of Science and Technology. (n.d.). Your guide to APA 6th style referencing. Retrieved 11
February 2020, from https://www.nust.na/sites/default/files/documents/
201806APACompletefinal190126.pdf.