Cited by 125Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Teaching Based on Principles of Cognitive Apprenticeship: Views of Experienced Clinical Teachers

Open access

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore (1) whether an instructional model based on principles of cognitive apprenticeship fits with the practice of experienced clinical teachers and (2) which factors influence clinical teaching during clerkships from an environmental, teacher, and student level as perceived by the clinical teachers themselves. The model was designed to apply directly to teaching behaviors of clinical teachers and consists of three phases, advocating teaching behaviors such as modeling, creating a safe learning environment, coaching, knowledge articulation, and exploration. METHOD: A purposive sample of 17 experienced clinical teachers from five different disciplines and four different teaching hospitals took part in semistructured individual interviews. Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Coding was discussed within the research team until consensus was reached. RESULTS: All participants recognized the theoretical model as a structured picture of the practice of teaching activities during both regular and senior clerkships. According to participants, modeling and creating a safe learning environment were fundamental to the learning process of both regular and senior clerkship students. Division of teaching responsibilities, longer rotations, and proactive behavior of teachers and students ensured that teachers were able to apply all steps in the model. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical model can offer valuable guidance in structuring clinical teaching activities and offers suggestions for the design of effective clerkships.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31828fff12

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stalmeijer, R. E., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Snellen-Balendong, H. A. M., van Santen-Hoeufft, M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Stalmeijer, Renée E.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2013-06
Volume
88
Issue
6
Pages
861-865
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983763095
Cited by
124
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
cognitive apprenticeship, clinical teaching, clinical rotations, clinical instructors, modeling, safe learning environment, coaching, knowledge articulation, exploration, teaching responsibilities, medical education
MeSH terms
Clinical Clerkship, Cognition, Education, Medical, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Educational

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