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
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“It also supports the finding of Philipsen et al. (2019) that working with known colleagues in online or blended courses was preferred by teachers and enabled different kinds of peer support.”
From Using personalized support & school-based study groups to increase teachers’ participation in MOOCs: Findings from two European pilot projects (2021) · cites this paper as Philipsen et al. (2019)
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, Philipsen et al.'s findings show that learning in an online or blended environment with familiar colleagues present, was perceived to be of key importance to the participating teachers and enabled different support mechanisms, including peer support (Philipsen et al., 2019).”
From Using personalized support & school-based study groups to increase teachers’ participation in MOOCs: Findings from two European pilot projects (2021) · cites this paper as Philipsen et al., 2019
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Qualitative research & evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (2002) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 15,530
What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 · Cited by 5,047
Desimone, L. M. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x08331140 · Cited by 4,862
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,083
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001 · Cited by 3,539
Professional Development and Teacher Change
Guskey, T. R. (2002) · Teachers and Teaching · doi:10.1080/135406002100000512 · Cited by 3,403
An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative Data Analysis
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994) · Cited by 3,222
Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000062 · Cited by 2,456
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Becker, K. (2010). The Clark–Kozma debate in the 21st century. Heritage matters: Inspiring tomorrow: Proceedings from CNIE Conference. Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
- 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.
- Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual (2014th ed.). Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute.
- 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
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1 · Cited by 344
Self-citationExperts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education
Bruggeman, B., Tondeur, J., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., Garone, A., & Vanslambrouck, S. (2020) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100772 · Cited by 333
Self-citationStudent satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic
Fatani, T. H. (2020) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02310-2 · Cited by 262
Ready, set, go! Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching in secondary education
Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2020) · Technology Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2020.1839543 · Cited by 229
Self-citationAn, Y., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Yang, J., Conan, J. M., Kinard, W., & Daughrity, L. (2021) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-021-10008-5 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Philipsen, Brent
- Venue
- Educational Technology Research and Development
- Published
- 2019-01-28
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1145-1174
- ISSN
- 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-6501
- 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
