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.
The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education.
1993816 citationsHarold W. Stevenson, James W. Stigler et al.profile →
Response Style and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Rating Scales Among East Asian and North American Students
1995622 citationsChuansheng Chen, Shin-Ying Lee et al.profile →
Countries citing papers authored by Harold W. Stevenson
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Harold W. Stevenson'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 Harold W. Stevenson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Harold W. Stevenson more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Harold W. Stevenson
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Harold W. Stevenson. 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 Harold W. Stevenson. The network helps show where Harold W. Stevenson may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Harold W. Stevenson
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Harold W. Stevenson.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Harold W. Stevenson 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 Harold W. Stevenson. Harold W. Stevenson 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.
Stevenson, Harold W. & James W. Stigler. (1999). POR QUÉ LOS ESCOLARES DE ASIA ORIENTAL TIENEN ALTO RENDIMIENTO ACADÉMICO. Estudios Públicos. 297–357.4 indexed citations
2.
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1998). A Study of Three Cultures: Germany, Japan and the United States--An Overview of the TIMSS Case Study Project.. Phi Delta Kappan. 79(7). 524.10 indexed citations
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1993). Why Asian Students Still Outdistance Americans.. Educational leadership. 50(5). 63–65.18 indexed citations
7.
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1993). Bracey's Broadsides Are Unfounded.. Educational leadership. 50(5). 68.3 indexed citations
8.
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1992). Con: Don't Deceive Children through a Feel-Good Approach. What's behind Self-Esteem Programs: Truth or Trickery?.. The School Administrator. 49(4).3 indexed citations
9.
Stigler, James W. & Harold W. Stevenson. (1991). How Asian Teachers Polish Each Lesson to Perfection.. 15(1).103 indexed citations
10.
Stevenson, Harold W., et al.. (1990). TO ACHIEVE. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 55(1-2). 116–119.
11.
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1987). The Asian Advantage: The Case of Mathematics.. 11(2). 26.21 indexed citations
12.
Stevenson, Harold W.. (1987). America's Math Problems.. Educational leadership. 45(2). 4–10.16 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.