The Intersection of Exemplar Professional Accreditation Standards and Quality Matters Rubric Standards for Best Practice in Distance Education
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?
The rubric itself does not evaluate the faculty expertise in the content area.
“Finally, the rubric itself does not evaluate the faculty expertise in the content area (Krusen, 2015).”
From Students' Perceptions of Quality Across Four Course Development Models (2018) · cites this paper as Krusen, 2015
Cites
Shattuck, K., Zimmerman, W. A., & Adair, D. (2014) · Internet Learning · doi:10.18278/il.3.1.3 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Students' Perceptions of Quality Across Four Course Development Models
Brown, V. S., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1213 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“With emphasis placed on the writing of objectives in the training course, it is possible the courses became disconnected, as described by Krusen (2015).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Krusen, N. E.
- Corresponding author
- Krusen, Nancy E.
- ORCID
- Krusen, Nancy E.
- Venue
- Internet Learning
- Publisher
- Policy Studies Organization
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2325-0577 (ISSN-L)
- 2325-0585
- OpenAlex
- W2338178754
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Internet learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Open Education and E-Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- Quality Matters rubric, distance education, best practices, online course quality
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
