The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reflective Practitioner
Abstract
The reflection that accompanies the evidence a candidate presents in the performance-based product is a critical part of the candidate's development. Through reflection the candidate begins the ongoing process of blending the art and science of good teaching practice. Reflection requires thoughtful and careful reporting and analysis of teaching practice, philosophy, and experience. Understanding why an activity or practice was productive or nonproductive in the classroom is a key element in the progression from novice to master teacher. The reflection cycle and the guiding questions included in this packet are designed to assist licensure candidates in the reflection process. They will enable candidates to better understand the reflection process and address the question; How does this piece of evidence demonstrate my knowledge and skill level in this activity?. The following reflection cycle offers a prescriptive structure while allowing the flexibility necessary for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge, skill, and ability in the unique context of their area and environment. The reflections of the novice teacher are also vital to the assessors charged with the responsibility for judging whether the teacher has met the required level of performance for each standard based activity. Through their responses to the guiding questions, candidates will better be able to put evidence into perspective for the review team members by explaining how the evidence or artifact addresses the standard through the activity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604
SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(99)00115-6 · Cited by 4,135
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Metadata
- Venue
- The Reflective Practitioner in Professional Education
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan
- Published
- 2014-04-23
- OpenAlex
- W31045409
- Cited by
- 8,325
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1472.76
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reflective Practitioner. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/9781137399595.0007
- The paper
- Reflective Practitioner. (2014). The Reflective Practitioner in Professional Education. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137399595.0007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.