Collaborative Course Development for Online Courses
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?
Within the combination model, conflicts can arise about the roles of the instructional designer and the faculty member because both understand instructional processes and evaluation.
“Within the process, conflicts can arise about the roles of the instructional designer and the faculty member because both members of the partnership understand instructional processes and evaluation (Xu & Morris, 2007).”
From Students' Perceptions of Quality Across Four Course Development Models (2018) · cites this paper as Xu & Morris, 2007
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Xu, H., & Morris, L. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Xu, Haixia
- ORCID
- Xu, Haixia
- Venue
- Innovative Higher Education
- Published
- 2007-01-19
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-47
- ISSN
- 0742-5627 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1758
- OpenAlex
- W1997895025
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 20.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Innovative Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Education and E-Learning
- Keywords
- online course design, collaborative course design, online learning, asynchronous learning, humanities courses, instructional design
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
