Cited by 275Innovative Education and Learning PracticesAdult and Continuing Education TopicsInnovations in Medical Education

Novice to Expert: An Exploration of How Professionals Learn

Daley, Barbara J.·1999·Adult Education Quarterly

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

Crossref · 10.1177/074171369904900401

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daley, B. J.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Corresponding author
Daley, Barbara J.
Venue
Adult Education Quarterly
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