Novice to Expert: An Exploration of How Professionals Learn
Abstract
Although researchers have recently focused on the nature of expertise, the link between learning and the development of expertise remains to be more fully explored. The purpose of this study was to analyze the different learning processes undertaken by novices and experts. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with novice and expert nurses for the purpose of analyzing and comparing how their learning developed in clinical practice. Results indicated that novice learning is contingent on concept formation and assimilation. Novice learning is also framed by the feelings novices experience in the context of practice. Expert learning, on the other hand, was identified as a constructivist process using active concept integration and self-initiated strategies. Additionally, novices and experts identified different organizational factors that facilitated or hindered their learning. Experts were able to articulate systemic issues that affected their learning, whereas novices identified disparate individual issues. Implications for research and practice of continuing professional education are examined.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A study by Daley (1999) reported that novice nurses primarily learn through formal training content, whereas expert nurses supplement formal learning with a mature knowledge base developed over years.
“A study by Daley (1999) reported that novice nurses tend to primarily learn through the content delivered in formal training, whereas in contrast, expert nurses supplement formal learning with a mature knowledge base that they have developed over a period of years.”
From Reducing nurses' stress: A randomized controlled trial of a web-based stress management program for nurses (2016) · cites this paper as Daley (1999)
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449 · see citing works
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Kahle, J. B. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173469 · Cited by 5,199 · see citing works
Self-Directed Learning: Toward a Comprehensive Model
Garrison, D. R. (1997) · Adult Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/074171369704800103 · Cited by 1,578 · see citing works
A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980) · doi:10.21236/ada084551 · Cited by 1,572 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hersch, R. K., Cook, R. F., Deitz, D. K., Kaplan, S., Hughes, D., Friesen, M. A., & Vezina, M. (2016) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2016.04.003 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
“A study by Daley (1999) reported that novice nurses tend to primarily learn through the content delivered in formal training, whereas in contrast, expert nurses supplement formal learning with a mature knowledge base that they have developed over a period of years.”
BackgroundThe Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Expertise Development: Implications for HRD
Ardichvili, A. (2022) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/15234223221077304 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
- Authors
- Daley, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
- Corresponding author
- Daley, Barbara J.
- ORCID
- Daley, Barbara J.
- Venue
- Adult Education Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 133-147
- ISSN
- 0741-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3047
- OpenAlex
- W2162406671
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 5.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Adult Education Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Adult and Continuing Education Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- expert-novice differences, professional learning, nursing education, clinical practice, concept formation, assimilation, conceptual blending, constructivism, continuing professional development, expertise development
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