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.
Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers
Countries citing papers authored by Mark Windschitl
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Mark Windschitl'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 Mark Windschitl with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark Windschitl more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark Windschitl. 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 Mark Windschitl. The network helps show where Mark Windschitl may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark Windschitl
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark Windschitl.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark Windschitl 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 Mark Windschitl. Mark Windschitl is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Windschitl, Mark, et al.. (2020). A Layered Approach to Scientific Models: Creating Scaffolds That Allow All Students to Show More of What They Know. The Science Teacher. 88(1). 24–26.
Thompson, Jessica, et al.. (2009). Examining Student Work: Evidence-Based Learning for Students and Teachers. The Science Teacher. 76(8). 48.5 indexed citations
9.
Windschitl, Mark, Jessica Thompson, & Melissa Braaten. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education. 92(5). 941–967.613 indexed citations breakdown →
Windschitl, Mark. (2006). Sparking the Debate over Science Education Reform.. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review. 71(8). 20–31.2 indexed citations
12.
Windschitl, Mark. (2006). Why We Can't Talk to One Another about Science Education Reform: Even Though Science Teachers and Other Stakeholders All Want Students to Be Instructed in the Most Effective Way Possible, Discussions about What That Way Might Be Are Seldom Productive. the Problem, as Mr. Windschitl Sees It, Is That the Participants Automatically Revert to the "Scripts" of Two Warring Factions. He Suggests a Way to Move the Conversation Forward. Phi Delta Kappan. 87(5). 348.8 indexed citations
Winn, William & Mark Windschitl. (2001). Towards an explanatory framework for learning in artificial environments.. Cybernetics & human knowing. 8. 5–23.14 indexed citations
Windschitl, Mark, et al.. (2000). Teachers Learning To Use Technology within the Context of a Laptop Learning Initiative: The Interplay of Personal Histories, Social Dynamics and Institutional Culture. 2000(1).1 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.