Cited by 10Teacher Education and Leadership StudiesTeacher Education and AssessmentsSchool Choice and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Initial Results of a New Clinical Practice Model: Impact on Learners at Risk

Abstract

The last several years have seen a dramatic increase in interest surrounding the role of clinical experiences in enhancing the learning of teacher candidates. Further, pressure has intensified to demonstrate the impact of teacher candidates on P–12 learners. With these goals in mind, a model alternative school/university partnership was created, based on Korthagen's “Realistic Teacher Education” framework. This article is an evaluation of the impact of this intervention on student outcomes from the program's first three years. A convergence of evidence reveals significant improvements in grade point average and credits earned; furthermore, significant improvements in total disciplinary incidents emerged in some of the analyses. These results suggest that this teacher education intervention has promise for documenting impact on P–12 learners. This outcome is significant for accreditation purposes, for bolstering the image of teacher education programs within the broader community, and for establishing a common research agenda.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08878730.2015.1041313

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education., 2010, The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief.
  2. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)., 2013, CAEP 2013 standards for the accreditation of educator preparation.
  3. Institute of Education Sciences (IES)., 2006, What works clearinghouse: Dropout prevention.
  4. Rosenberg M. S., 2009, Development and sustainability of school-university partnerships in special education teacher preparation: A critical review of the literature
  5. Wasburn-Moses L., 2014, Journal of Excellence on College Teaching, 25, 71
  6. Wasburn-Moses L., 2012, Techniques, 87, 9

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wasburn-Moses, L., Noltemeyer, A. L., & Schmitz, K. J.
Affiliations
Miami University (US)
Corresponding author
Wasburn-Moses, Leah
Venue
The Teacher Educator
Published
2015-07-03
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
203-214
ISSN
  • 0887-8730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-8101
OpenAlex
W2112815717
Cited by
10
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Teacher Educator (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
teacher professional development, clinical practice, pre-service teachers, university-school partnership, student outcomes, grade point average, disciplinary incidents, program evaluation, teacher education accreditation

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