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.
Countries citing papers authored by David R. Krathwohl
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of David R. Krathwohl'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 David R. Krathwohl with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David R. Krathwohl more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by David R. Krathwohl
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David R. Krathwohl. 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 David R. Krathwohl. The network helps show where David R. Krathwohl may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David R. Krathwohl
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David R. Krathwohl.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David R. Krathwohl 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 David R. Krathwohl. David R. Krathwohl is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Krathwohl, David R.. (2002). A REVISION OF BLOOMS TAXONOMY: AN OVERVIEW. DergiPark (Istanbul University). 41(3). 1–264.109 indexed citations
Krathwohl, David R.. (1998). Methods of Educational & Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach. Second Edition..4 indexed citations
4.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1994). Reflections on the Taxonomy: Its Past, Present, and Future. Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 95(6). 181–202.16 indexed citations
5.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1994). A Slice of Advice. Educational Researcher. 23(1). 29–42.4 indexed citations
6.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1988). How To Prepare A Research Proposal : Guidelines for Funding and Dissertations in The Social and Behavioral Science.8 indexed citations
7.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1983). The NTE and Professional Standards.. Educational leadership. 41(2). 74–77.2 indexed citations
8.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1980). The Myth of Value-Free Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2(1). 37–37.2 indexed citations
9.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1978). An Accreditation Proposal. Journal of Teacher Education. 29(1). 28–32.2 indexed citations
10.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1977). How to prepare a research proposal. 78(37). 1636–7.15 indexed citations
Krathwohl, David R.. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The Classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain / David R. Krathwohl, Benyamin S. Bloom, Bertram B. Masia. 1964(1964). 1–99.60 indexed citations
18.
Krathwohl, David R.. (1964). Experimental Design in Educational Research. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).2 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.