Michael Timms

1.4k total citations
35 papers, 875 citations indexed

About

Michael Timms is a scholar working on Education, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Computer Science Applications. According to data from OpenAlex, Michael Timms has authored 35 papers receiving a total of 875 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 20 papers in Education, 15 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology and 6 papers in Computer Science Applications. Recurrent topics in Michael Timms's work include Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (10 papers), Science Education and Pedagogy (8 papers) and Educational Strategies and Epistemologies (5 papers). Michael Timms is often cited by papers focused on Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (10 papers), Science Education and Pedagogy (8 papers) and Educational Strategies and Epistemologies (5 papers). Michael Timms collaborates with scholars based in United States, Australia and Ireland. Michael Timms's co-authors include Edys Quellmalz, Barbara C. Buckley, Mark Wilson, Nathaniel J. Brown, Kathleen Scalise, Kathryn Moyle, Paul R Weldon, Joan L. Herman, Erin Marie Furtak and Steven Schneider and has published in prestigious journals such as Journal of Educational Psychology, Computers & Education and Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

In The Last Decade

Michael Timms

31 papers receiving 768 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

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

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Michael Timms United States 14 486 327 195 161 117 35 875
Young Hoan Cho South Korea 13 501 1.0× 307 0.9× 249 1.3× 129 0.8× 143 1.2× 50 945
Kathleen Scalise United States 14 500 1.0× 240 0.7× 132 0.7× 82 0.5× 127 1.1× 38 795
Roland Hübscher United States 10 416 0.9× 530 1.6× 190 1.0× 120 0.7× 125 1.1× 28 932
Michelle Hoda Wilkerson United States 16 279 0.6× 256 0.8× 281 1.4× 68 0.4× 145 1.2× 48 767
Barbara Wasson Norway 20 425 0.9× 414 1.3× 349 1.8× 145 0.9× 178 1.5× 76 1.0k
Tufan Adıgüzel Türkiye 11 392 0.8× 177 0.5× 270 1.4× 219 1.4× 158 1.4× 36 983
Daner Sun Hong Kong 17 433 0.9× 310 0.9× 338 1.7× 119 0.7× 271 2.3× 86 929
Barbara C. Buckley United States 11 547 1.1× 455 1.4× 146 0.7× 87 0.5× 62 0.5× 17 814
Glenn Smith United States 17 589 1.2× 319 1.0× 204 1.0× 64 0.4× 113 1.0× 48 892
Edys Quellmalz United States 13 452 0.9× 283 0.9× 109 0.6× 75 0.5× 106 0.9× 34 705

Countries citing papers authored by Michael Timms

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Michael Timms

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Michael Timms

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Michael Timms. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Michael Timms 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 Michael Timms. Michael Timms 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.
Timms, Michael, et al.. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools: Literature and policy review. ACEReSearch (Australian Council for Educational Research). 56 indexed citations
2.
Brenner, Daniel G., et al.. (2017). Modeling Student Learning Behavior Patterns in an Online Science Inquiry Environment. Technology Knowledge and Learning. 22(3). 405–425. 14 indexed citations
3.
Timms, Michael. (2016). Letting Artificial Intelligence in Education Out of the Box: Educational Cobots and Smart Classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 26(2). 701–712. 214 indexed citations
4.
Herman, Joan L., et al.. (2015). Investigating the dynamics of formative assessment: relationships between teacher knowledge, assessment practice and learning. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice. 22(3). 344–367. 38 indexed citations
5.
Timms, Michael. (2015). Big data in education : a guide for educators. 4 indexed citations
6.
DeBoer, George E., Edys Quellmalz, Jodi L. Davenport, et al.. (2014). Comparing three online testing modalities: Using static, active, and interactive online testing modalities to assess middle school students' understanding of fundamental ideas and use of inquiry skills related to ecosystems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 51(4). 523–554. 22 indexed citations
7.
Quellmalz, Edys, Jodi L. Davenport, Michael Timms, et al.. (2013). Next-generation environments for assessing and promoting complex science learning.. Journal of Educational Psychology. 105(4). 1100–1114. 27 indexed citations
8.
Davenport, Jodi L., Anna N. Rafferty, Michael Timms, David Yaron, & Michael Karabinos. (2012). ChemVLab+ : evaluating a virtual lab tutor for high school chemistry. ICLS. 2. 10 indexed citations
9.
Timms, Michael, Douglas H. Clements, Janice D. Gobert, et al.. (2012). New measurement paradigms. ACEReSearch (Australian Council for Educational Research). 7 indexed citations
10.
Brown, Nathaniel J., et al.. (2010). The Evidence-Based Reasoning Framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning. Educational Assessment. 15(3-4). 123–141. 71 indexed citations
11.
Brown, Nathaniel J., et al.. (2010). A Framework for Analyzing Scientific Reasoning in Assessments. Educational Assessment. 15(3-4). 142–174. 39 indexed citations
12.
Timms, Michael. (2010). Calipers II: Using Simulations to Assess Complex Science Learning. 1 indexed citations
13.
Quellmalz, Edys & Michael Timms. (2010). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment and Item Specifications for the 2014 NAEP. 6 indexed citations
14.
Scalise, Kathleen, et al.. (2009). Student Learning in Science Simulations. What Makes a Difference. 2 indexed citations
15.
Timms, Michael, Steven Schneider, Cindy M. Lee, & Eric Rolfhus. (2007). Aligning science assessment standards: Texas and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
16.
Timms, Michael, et al.. (2007). A Framework for Designing and Evaluating Interactive E-Learning Products. 2 indexed citations
17.
Herman, Joan L., et al.. (2005). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices. 35 indexed citations
18.
Aronson, J. Richard & Michael Timms. (2003). Net choices, net gains: Supplementing the high school curriculum with online courses. Issue Lab (Candid). 6 indexed citations
19.
Solano‐Flores, Guillermo, et al.. (1999). Management of scoring sessions in alternative assessment: the computer-assisted scoring approach. Computers & Education. 33(1). 47–63. 4 indexed citations
20.
Timms, Michael, et al.. (1997). Assessing impact of disability awareness training using the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP – Form 0). International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 20(3). 319–324. 13 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

Rankless by CCL
2026