Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty
- Journal
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w65250591 →Countries where authors are citing Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty
This map shows the geographic impact of Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. 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 Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty
This network shows the impact of Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty.
About Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty
This paper, published in 2014, received 549 indexed citations . Written by Alison Cook‐Sather, Catherine Bovill, Peter Felten and Maryellen Weimer covering the research area of Education. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Education (477 citations), Developmental and Educational Psychology (35 citations) and Social Psychology (35 citations). Published in ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam).
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/w65250591.