Cited by 1,508Teacher Education and Leadership StudiesInnovative Education and Learning PracticesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Teaching Practice: A Cross-Professional Perspective

Grossman, Pam, Compton, Christa, Igra, Danielle, Ronfeldt, Matthew, Shahan, Emily, Williamson, Peter W.·2009·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

Abstract

Background/Context This study investigates how people are prepared for professional practice in the clergy, teaching, and clinical psychology. The work is located within research on professional education, and research on the teaching and learning of practice. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study The purpose of the study is to develop a framework to describe and analyze the teaching of practice in professional education programs, specifically preparation for relational practices. Setting The research took place in eight professional education programs located in seminaries, schools of professional psychology, and universities across the country. Population/Participants/Subjects Our research participants include faculty members, students, and administrators at each of these eight programs. Research Design This research is a comparative case study of professional education across three different professions—the clergy, clinical psychology, and teaching. Our data include qualitative case studies of eight preparation programs: two teacher education programs, three seminaries, and three clinical psychology programs. Data Collection and Analysis For each institution, we conducted site visits that included interviews with administrators, faculty, and staff; observations of multiple classes and field-work; and focus groups with students who were either at the midpoint or at the end of their programs. Conclusions/Recommendations We have identified three key concepts for…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016146810911100905

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Published
2009-09
Volume
111
Issue
9
Pages
2055-2100
ISSN
  • 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 0161-4681
  • 1467-9620
OpenAlex
W2160053845
Cited by
1,508
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 119 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 42
FWCI
151.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
teaching practice, professional education, clergy education, clinical psychology training, teacher professional development, relational practice, fieldwork, seminaries

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