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 Marcy P. Driscoll
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Marcy P. Driscoll'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 Marcy P. Driscoll with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Marcy P. Driscoll more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Marcy P. Driscoll
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Marcy P. Driscoll. 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 Marcy P. Driscoll. The network helps show where Marcy P. Driscoll may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Marcy P. Driscoll
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Marcy P. Driscoll.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Marcy P. Driscoll 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 Marcy P. Driscoll. Marcy P. Driscoll 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.
Driscoll, Marcy P., et al.. (2013). Self-Regulation in e-Learning Environments: A Remedy for Community College?.. Educational Technology & Society. 16(4). 171–184.27 indexed citations
2.
Klein, James D., Marcy P. Driscoll, Michael J. Hannafin, & Rita C. Richey. (2011). Research on Instructional Design and Technology: What are the Important Topics, Problems and Questions?.
3.
Sampson, James P., et al.. (2010). Guidelines for Writing Promotion and Tenure Letters for Faculty Members 1.
4.
Driscoll, Marcy P., et al.. (2005). The past, present, and future of research in distance education : Results of a content analysis. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning. 2(3). 45–61.1 indexed citations
Driscoll, Marcy P., et al.. (1990). Presentation sequence and example difficulty: their effect on concept and rule learning in computer-based instruction. The Journal of Computer Based Instruction. 17(1). 35–40.11 indexed citations
13.
Driscoll, Marcy P.. (1989). Semiotics in the Training of Instructional Systems Researchers.. Educational Technology archive. 29(5). 41–44.1 indexed citations
14.
Driscoll, Marcy P.. (1989). Educational technology columnists: making the most of experimental research. Educational Technology archive. 29(9). 33–34.1 indexed citations
15.
Dempsey, John V. & Marcy P. Driscoll. (1988). The effects of four methods of immediate corrective feedback on retention, discrimination error, and feedback study time in computer-based instruction.3 indexed citations
Driscoll, Marcy P.. (1986). The Relationship Between Grading Standards and Achievement: A New Perspective.. Journal of research and development in education. 19(3). 13–17.3 indexed citations
Driscoll, Marcy P. & Martin Tessmer. (1985). The Rational Set Generator: A Method for Creating Concept Examples for Teaching and Testing.. Educational Technology archive. 25(2). 29–32.8 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.