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.
Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature
2021169 citationsLeicha A. Bragg, Christopher S. Walsh et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Leicha A. Bragg
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Leicha A. Bragg'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 Leicha A. Bragg with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Leicha A. Bragg more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Leicha A. Bragg. 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 Leicha A. Bragg. The network helps show where Leicha A. Bragg may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Leicha A. Bragg
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Leicha A. Bragg.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Leicha A. Bragg 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 Leicha A. Bragg. Leicha A. Bragg is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Bragg, Leicha A., Sandra Herbert, & Jill Brown. (2020). Successful Home-School Collaboration: Let's Talk about Maths at Home.. Australian primary mathematics classroom/Australian primary mathematics classroom (Online). 25(3). 18–22.1 indexed citations
4.
Muir, Tracey, Leicha A. Bragg, & Sharyn Livy. (2018). Engagement and Impact: A Focus on Mathematics Teacher Educators' Studies into Practice. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).1 indexed citations
5.
Russo, James, et al.. (2018). Five principles of educationally rich mathematical games. Own your potential (DEAKIN).10 indexed citations
6.
Bragg, Leicha A., et al.. (2018). Identifying, Promoting, and Assessing Reasoning Focused on Analysing.. Own your potential (DEAKIN). 23(2). 3–7.3 indexed citations
7.
Bragg, Leicha A. & Josephine Lang. (2018). Collaborative self-study and peer learning in teacher educator reflection as an approach to (re)designing a mathematics education assessment task. Mathematics teacher education and development. 20(3). 80–101.1 indexed citations
8.
Bragg, Leicha A., et al.. (2018). What can be learned from teachers assessing mathematical reasoning: a case study. Own your potential (DEAKIN). 178–185.6 indexed citations
9.
Bragg, Leicha A.. (2017). Action Research on the Application of Variation Theory in Mathematics Teacher Education. Mathematics teacher education and development. 19(1). 121–136.
10.
Vale, Colleen, et al.. (2017). Tracking change in primary teachers’ understanding of mathematical reasoning through demonstration lessons. Mathematics teacher education and development. 19(1). 5–29.19 indexed citations
11.
Bragg, Leicha A., et al.. (2017). Enhancing the development of statistical literacy through the robot bioglyph. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 22(2). 33–39.1 indexed citations
12.
Bragg, Leicha A., et al.. (2017). Peer Observation as Professional Learning about Mathematical Reasoning.. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 301–308.4 indexed citations
13.
Herbert, Sandra, et al.. (2016). Professional Learning in Mathematical Reasoning: Reflections of a Primary Teacher.. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 277–284.4 indexed citations
14.
White, Peta, et al.. (2016). Collaborative reflective experience and practice in education explored through self-study and arts-based research. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 9(1). 84–110.6 indexed citations
15.
Muir, Tracey, Leicha A. Bragg, & Sharyn Livy. (2015). Two of everything: developing functional thinking in the primary grades through children's literature. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).3 indexed citations
16.
Bragg, Leicha A., et al.. (2015). Promoting reasoning through the magic V task. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 20(2). 10–14.5 indexed citations
17.
Bragg, Leicha A.. (2014). Geocaching: Finding Mathematics in a Global Treasure Hunt.. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 19(4). 9–14.5 indexed citations
18.
Williams, Gaye, Leicha A. Bragg, & Colleen Vale. (2013). International Multi-perspective Analyses of Classroom Activity. Mathematics teacher education and development. 15(1). 1–4.2 indexed citations
19.
Vale, Colleen, et al.. (2013). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of mathematical reasoning. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 466–473.16 indexed citations
20.
Bragg, Leicha A. & Cynthia Nicol. (2011). Seeing Mathematics through a New Lens: Using Photos in the Mathematics Classroom.. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 67(3). 3–9.9 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.