Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Deeper than Wordplay: A Systematic Review of Critical Quantitative Approaches in Education Research (2007–2021)
This map shows the geographic impact of Amanda Thomas's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Amanda Thomas with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Amanda Thomas more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Amanda Thomas. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Amanda Thomas. The network helps show where Amanda Thomas may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Amanda Thomas
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Amanda Thomas.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Amanda Thomas based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Amanda Thomas. Amanda Thomas is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2020). Robotics and Coding within Integrated STEM Coursework for Elementary Pre-service Teachers. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 1905–1912.1 indexed citations
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2019). Rural Elementary Teachers’ Access to and Use of Technology Resources in STEM Classrooms. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 2549–2553.1 indexed citations
10.
Gekara, Victor, Darryn Snell, Alemayehu Molla, Stan Karanasios, & Amanda Thomas. (2019). Skilling the Australian Workforce for the Digital Economy. Research Report.. National Centre for Vocational Education Research.2 indexed citations
11.
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2019). A Framework for Teachers’ Evaluation of Digital Instructional Materials: Integrating Mathematics Teaching Practices With Technology Use in K-8 Classrooms. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education. 19(3). 351–372.6 indexed citations
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2017). A Framework for Mathematics Teachers' Evaluation of Digital Instructional Materials: Integrating Mathematics Teaching Practices with Technology Use in K-8 Classrooms. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 11–18.
14.
Thomas, Amanda & Karen McInnes. (2017). Teaching Early Years: Theory and Practice.3 indexed citations
15.
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2016). An Introduction to the Foundation Phase: Early Years Curriculum in Wales. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University).1 indexed citations
16.
Shih, Jeffrey C., et al.. (2015). Exploring 1:1 Tablet Technology Settings: A Case Study Of The First Year Of Implementation In Middle School Mathematics Classrooms. Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno). 2015(1). 2736–2742.2 indexed citations
17.
Thomas, Amanda, et al.. (2014). How Common Is the Common Core?. Mathematics Teacher Learning and Teaching PK-12. 108(5). 382–386.1 indexed citations
Reys, Bárbara J., et al.. (2013). State-level actions following adoption of common core state standards for mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education. 14(2). 5–13.4 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.