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.
Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.
2001729 citationsBethany Rittle‐Johnson et al.Journal of Educational Psychologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Bethany Rittle‐Johnson
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Bethany Rittle‐Johnson'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 Bethany Rittle‐Johnson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Bethany Rittle‐Johnson more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Bethany Rittle‐Johnson
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. 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 Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. The network helps show where Bethany Rittle‐Johnson may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Bethany Rittle‐Johnson
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Bethany Rittle‐Johnson.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Bethany Rittle‐Johnson 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 Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. Bethany Rittle‐Johnson is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Loehr, Abbey M., Lisa K. Fazio, & Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. (2018). The Role of Generating Versus Choosing an Error in Children's Later Error Correction.. Cognitive Science.2 indexed citations
DeCaro, Daniel A., Marci S. DeCaro, & Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. (2013). Achievement Motivation and Strategy Selection during Exploratory Learning. Cognitive Science. 35(35).1 indexed citations
14.
Durkin, Kelley, Courtney Pollack, Jon R. Star, & Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. (2012). Differences in fidelity of implementation measures: What videos and surveys reveal about algebra instruction. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.1 indexed citations
15.
McEldoon, Katherine L., Sun‐Joo Cho, & Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. (2012). Measuring Intervention Effectiveness: The Benefits of an Item Response Theory Approach. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.2 indexed citations
16.
Star, Jon R., et al.. (2010). Comparison helps students learn to be better estimators. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University).
17.
McEldoon, Katherine L., et al.. (2010). Effects of Problem Context on Strategy Use within Functional Thinking. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 32(32).1 indexed citations
Matthews, Percival G. & Bethany Rittle‐Johnson. (2007). To Teach by Concept or by Procedure? Making the Most of Self-Explanations. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 29(29).2 indexed citations
20.
Rittle‐Johnson, Bethany & Kenneth R. Koedinger. (2001). Using Cognitive Models to Guide Instructional Design: The Case of Fraction Division. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 23(23).11 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.