Mary Peat

937 total citations
40 papers, 633 citations indexed

About

Mary Peat is a scholar working on Education, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Media Technology. According to data from OpenAlex, Mary Peat has authored 40 papers receiving a total of 633 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 30 papers in Education, 16 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology and 4 papers in Media Technology. Recurrent topics in Mary Peat's work include Online and Blended Learning (15 papers), Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (14 papers) and Innovative Teaching Methods (11 papers). Mary Peat is often cited by papers focused on Online and Blended Learning (15 papers), Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (14 papers) and Innovative Teaching Methods (11 papers). Mary Peat collaborates with scholars based in Australia, Canada and United Kingdom. Mary Peat's co-authors include Sue Franklin, Alison Lewis, James Dalziel, Anthony M. Grant, Charlotte Taylor, Mary Jane Mahony, Robert A. Ellis, Rosanne Quinnell, Rod Sims and Marcia Devlin and has published in prestigious journals such as International Journal of Science Education, British Journal of Educational Technology and Higher Education Research & Development.

In The Last Decade

Mary Peat

33 papers receiving 511 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Mary Peat Australia 14 469 182 83 76 57 40 633
Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke Netherlands 14 411 0.9× 150 0.8× 82 1.0× 76 1.0× 37 0.6× 40 591
Carol Twigg United States 13 514 1.1× 150 0.8× 131 1.6× 79 1.0× 61 1.1× 24 653
Ngar-Fun Liu Hong Kong 3 713 1.5× 205 1.1× 68 0.8× 68 0.9× 35 0.6× 5 962
Serkan Şendağ Türkiye 8 443 0.9× 115 0.6× 80 1.0× 90 1.2× 38 0.7× 25 700
John R. Mergendoller United States 15 707 1.5× 238 1.3× 91 1.1× 68 0.9× 83 1.5× 38 870
Jann E. Freed United States 5 502 1.1× 87 0.5× 47 0.6× 58 0.8× 105 1.8× 11 718
R. Scott Grabinger United States 11 307 0.7× 149 0.8× 62 0.7× 66 0.9× 40 0.7× 34 510
Rhona Sharpe United Kingdom 10 477 1.0× 124 0.7× 131 1.6× 109 1.4× 40 0.7× 23 612
Philip G. Cottell United States 6 368 0.8× 186 1.0× 52 0.6× 43 0.6× 89 1.6× 13 599
Donald A. Stepich United States 12 369 0.8× 212 1.2× 65 0.8× 51 0.7× 34 0.6× 23 530

Countries citing papers authored by Mary Peat

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Mary Peat

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mary Peat

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mary Peat. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mary Peat 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 Mary Peat. Mary Peat 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.
Peat, Mary, Sue Franklin, Marcia Devlin, & Margaret Charles. (2024). Revisiting associations between student performance outcomes and formative assessment opportunities: is there any impact on student learning?. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology). 760–769.
2.
Quinnell, Rosanne, et al.. (2018). Profiling our Students’ Learning Orchestrations to Evaluate the Biology Curriculum. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 26(3). 2 indexed citations
3.
Taylor, Charlotte, et al.. (2012). An application of student learner profiling: comparison of students in different degree programs. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference).
4.
Peat, Mary. (2012). Virtual Communication for Lab-based Science Teaching: A Case Study. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 4(1).
5.
Johnston, Ian & Mary Peat. (2012). Scholarly inquiry and flexibility. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference). 8.
6.
Peat, Mary & Charlotte Taylor. (2012). Virtual biology: how well can it replace authentic activities?. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 13(1). 10 indexed citations
7.
Peat, Mary, et al.. (2012). Blogging in science and science education. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference). 11. 1 indexed citations
8.
Peat, Mary, et al.. (2012). Creating a reliable instrument to assess students’ conceptions of studying biology at tertiary level. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference). 11. 5 indexed citations
9.
Peat, Mary. (2012). Why am I evaluating this thingummygig. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference). 6.
10.
Lilje, Osu & Mary Peat. (2012). Use of traditional and elearning components in a blended learning environment. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference). 5 indexed citations
11.
Peat, Mary. (2011). Online self-assessment materials: do these make a difference to student learning?. Research in Learning Technology. 8(2). 1 indexed citations
12.
West, Sandra, et al.. (2010). Making It Real: Project Managing Strategic e-Learning Development Processes in a Large, Campus-Based University.. International journal of e-learning & distance education. 24(1). 21–42. 9 indexed citations
13.
Lilje, Osu & Mary Peat. (2010). Teaching Human Biology to Large First Year Classes: an eLearning Journey for Students and Staff. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 18(2). 1 indexed citations
14.
Peat, Mary, Charlotte Taylor, & Sue Franklin. (2005). Re‐engineering of undergraduate science curricula to emphasise development of lifelong learning skills. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 42(2). 135–146. 43 indexed citations
15.
Peat, Mary & Sue Franklin. (2002). Use of online and offline formative and summative assessment opportunities: have they had any impact on student learning?. 505–513. 5 indexed citations
16.
Peat, Mary & Sue Franklin. (2002). Supporting student learning: the use of computer–based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology. 33(5). 515–523. 130 indexed citations
17.
Peat, Mary, et al.. (2001). From Informational Technology in Biology Teaching to Inspirational Technology: Where Have We Come from and Where Are We Going?. Australian science teachers journal. 2001(1). 6–11. 1 indexed citations
18.
Franklin, Sue, Mary Peat, Alison Lewis, & Rod Sims. (2001). Technology at the Cutting Edge: A Large Scale Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Educational Resources. Deakin Research Online (Deakin University). 2001(1). 1473–1474. 6 indexed citations
19.
Peat, Mary. (2000). Towards First Year Biology online: a virtual learning environment.. Educational Technology & Society. 3(1-2). 396–403. 13 indexed citations
20.
Peat, Mary, James Dalziel, & Anthony M. Grant. (2000). Enhancing the Transition to University by Facilitating Social and Study Networks: Results of a One-day Workshop. Innovations in Education and Training International. 37(4). 293–303. 14 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Carol Twigg Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Ngar-Fun Liu Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Serkan Şendağ Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by John R. Mergendoller Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Jann E. Freed Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by R. Scott Grabinger Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Rhona Sharpe Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Philip G. Cottell Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Donald A. Stepich
Rankless by CCL
2026