Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?

817 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1991, received 817 indexed citations. Written by David H. Jonassen covering the research area of Developmental and Educational Psychology and Education. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Education (518 citations), Developmental and Educational Psychology (348 citations) and Computer Science Applications (119 citations). Published in Educational Technology Research and Development.

Countries where authors are citing Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. 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 Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?.

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.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf02296434.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026