Frederick Poole

528 citations
32 papers · 268 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

Frederick Poole

30 papers receiving 246 citations

Peers

Frederick Poole
Comparison fields: 5 of 44
  • Computer Science Applications 94
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology 120
  • Language and Linguistics 56
  • Gender Studies 48
  • Literature and Literary Theory 46
Replace Robin Jocius with:
Robin Jocius United States
María del Rosario Neira Piñeiro Spain
Boris Vázquez-Calvo Spain
Alecia Marie Magnifico United States
H Boulton United Kingdom
Ben DeVane United States
Weimin Toh Singapore
Yiren Kong United States
Jayne C. Lammers United States
C. Candace Chou United States
Frederick Poole relative to Robin Jocius United States Robin Jocius's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.1×
Robin Jocius · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Frederick Poole

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Frederick Poole'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 Frederick Poole with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frederick Poole more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Frederick Poole

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Frederick Poole. 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 Frederick Poole. The network helps show where Frederick Poole may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 9 scholars most cited alongside Frederick Poole, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Frederick Poole Line = papers co-authored together Frederick Poole links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 32 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201831
2 201729
3 202027
4 201826
5 201922
6 201922
7 201716
8 201715
9 202112
10 20158
11 20208
12 20188
13 20218
14 20187
15
Open Educational Resources and ESL Education: Insights from US Educators.
20185
16 20223
17 20173
18 20172
19 20232
20 20162

About Frederick Poole

Frederick Poole is a scholar working on Developmental and Educational Psychology, Computer Science Applications, Language and Linguistics, Education and Literature and Literary Theory, having authored 32 papers that have together received 268 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning (10 papers), Second Language Acquisition and Learning (7 papers), Educational Games and Gamification (7 papers), Teaching and Learning Programming (7 papers), Gender and Technology in Education (4 papers), Digital Games and Media (3 papers), Digital Communication and Language (3 papers) and Career Development and Diversity (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Computer Science Applications (94 citations), Developmental and Educational Psychology (120 citations), Language and Linguistics (56 citations), Gender Studies (48 citations) and Literature and Literary Theory (46 citations). Frederick Poole has collaborated with scholars based in United States and Japan. Frequent co-authors include Jody Clarke‐Midura, Joshua J. Thoms, Vicki H. Allan, Kyle Lam, Jonathan deHaan, Victor R. Lee, Mimi Recker, Charlene Polio and Donald S. Zagoria. Their work appears in journals such as Language learning & technology, The JALT CALL Journal, Foreign Language Annals, Computer Science Education and Teaching Sociology.

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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact