CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 391Online and Blended LearningTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEducational Technology and E-Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: a systematic meta-aggregative review

Philipsen, Brent, Tondeur, Jo, Pareja Roblin, Natalie, Vanslambrouck, Silke, Zhu, Chang·2019·Educational Technology Research and Development
DOI 10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Becker, K. (2010). The Clark–Kozma debate in the 21st century. Heritage matters: Inspiring tomorrow: Proceedings from CNIE Conference. Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
  2. Hallas, J. (2006). Professional development for online teaching practices. In Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), Who’s learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of the ascilite conference (pp. 303–311). Sydney.
  3. Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual (2014th ed.). Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute.
  4. Kurilovas, E., Dvareckiené, V., Jevsikova, T. (2016). Augmented Reality-Based Learning Systems: Personalisation Framework. In J. Novotná, & A. Jancarik (Eds.) Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on E-learning, (pp. 391–398). Prague: Charles University, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–330 of 330

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Philipsen, Brent
ORCID
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-01-28
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1145-1174
ISSN
  • 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6501
DOI
10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8
OpenAlex
W2914212718
Cited by
391
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 7
FWCI
83.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Educational Technology Research and Development (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (140029)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
teacher professional development, online learning, blended learning, teaching methods, in-service teachers, teacher educators, visual framework, action recommendations

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