World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
70
Citations
58341
World Ranking
2213
National Ranking
1288

Michelene T. H. Chi publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Michelene T. H. Chi sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 136 publications — 42nd percentile

42% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Michelene T. H. Chi D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Michelene T. H. Chi sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 70 D-Index — 81st percentile

81% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2019 - David E. Rumelhart Prize for Contributions to the Theoretical Foundations of Human Cognition
  • 2016 - Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award, American Educational Research Association
  • 2016 - Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • 2015 - E. L. Thorndike Award, American Psychological Association
  • 2013 - Fellow of the American Educational Research Association

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Artificial intelligence
  • Cognitive psychology
  • Statistics

His primary scientific interests are in Cognitive psychology, Cognitive science, Social psychology, Comprehension and Conceptual change. His work on Self explanation as part of general Cognitive psychology research is often related to Mental model, thus linking different fields of science. His research investigates the connection between Cognitive science and topics such as Cognitive development that intersect with problems in Childhood development, Child development and Control.

His study looks at the intersection of Social psychology and topics like Active learning with Note-taking. He interconnects Variation, Categorization, Artificial intelligence, Mathematics education and Knowledge building in the investigation of issues within Comprehension. His Categorization research is multidisciplinary, incorporating elements of Matching, Perception and Literal.

His most cited work include:

  • Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices (4193 citations)
  • Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems (2233 citations)
  • The Nature of Expertise (2070 citations)

What are the main themes of his work throughout his whole career to date?

His scientific interests lie mostly in Mathematics education, Cognitive psychology, Cognitive science, Pedagogy and Social psychology. Collaborative learning is closely connected to Context in his research, which is encompassed under the umbrella topic of Mathematics education. His Cognitive psychology research includes elements of Conceptual change and Reading.

His study on Cognitive science also encompasses disciplines like

  • Cognitive development which connect with Child development and Knowledge base,
  • Knowledge level that connect with fields like Descriptive knowledge. His Self explanation research integrates issues from Concept learning, Cognitive style and Comprehension. His Representation research is multidisciplinary, relying on both Developmental psychology and Categorization.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Mathematics education (27.64%)
  • Cognitive psychology (21.95%)
  • Cognitive science (12.20%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2008-2021)?

  • Mathematics education (27.64%)
  • Constructive (9.76%)
  • Cognitive psychology (21.95%)

In recent papers he was focusing on the following fields of study:

Mathematics education, Constructive, Cognitive psychology, Active learning and Pedagogy are his primary areas of study. His Mathematics education study deals with Context intersecting with Generative grammar and Educational measurement. His Self explanation study, which is part of a larger body of work in Cognitive psychology, is frequently linked to Mental model and Structure, bridging the gap between disciplines.

His work in Self explanation addresses issues such as Semantic similarity, which are connected to fields such as Formative assessment and Comprehension. His Comprehension research integrates issues from Mental calculation and Artificial intelligence. His Active learning research incorporates elements of Social psychology, Flexibility, Learning theory, Experiential learning and Collaborative learning.

Between 2008 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • The Nature of Expertise (2070 citations)
  • Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities (749 citations)
  • The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes (572 citations)

In his most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Artificial intelligence
  • Cognitive psychology
  • Statistics

His primary areas of investigation include Cognitive psychology, Active learning, Experiential learning, Constructive and Mathematics education. His research in Cognitive psychology intersects with topics in Conceptual change and Communication. His work on Learning sciences as part of general Experiential learning research is frequently linked to Domain, bridging the gap between disciplines.

His research integrates issues of Mental calculation and Artificial intelligence in his study of Mathematics education. His work in Self explanation covers topics such as Test which are related to areas like Concept learning. His biological study spans a wide range of topics, including Attribution, Comprehension, Teaching method, Cognitive science and Schema.

Best Publications

  • Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices

    Michelene T. H. Chi;Paul J. Feltovich;Robert Glaser

  • Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems

    Michelene T.H. Chi;Miriam Bassok;Matthew W. Lewis;Peter Reimann

  • The Nature of Expertise

    Michelene T.H. Chi;Robert Glaser;Marshall J. Farr

  • Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding

    Michelene T.H. Chi;Nicholas De Leeuw;Mei Hung Chiu;Christian Lavancher

  • The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.

    Michelene T. H. Chi;Ruth Wylie

  • Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide

    Michelene T.H. Chi

  • Expertise in Problem Solving.

    Michelene T H Chi;Robert Glaser;Ernest Rees

  • Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities

    Michelene T. H. Chi

  • From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts

    Michelene T.H. Chi;James D. Slotta;Nicholas De Leeuw

  • Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems

    Unknown

  • Learning from human tutoring

    Michelene T.H. Chi;Stephanie A. Siler;Heisawn Jeong;Takashi Yamauchi

  • Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust.

    Michelene T. H. Chi

  • Two Approaches to the Study of Experts' Characteristics

    Michelene T. H. Chi

  • Three Types of Conceptual Change: Belief Revision, Mental Model Transformation, and Categorical Shift

    Michelene T. H. Chi

  • Knowledge structures and memory development.

    Michelene T. H. Chi

  • Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions:

    Rod D. Roscoe;Michelene T. H. Chi

  • Network representation of a child's dinosaur knowledge

    Michelene T. H. Chi;Randi Daimon Koeske

  • THE PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

    Michelene T. H. Chi;Rod D. Roscoe

  • Conceptual Change within and across Ontological Categories: Examples from Learning and Discovery in Science

    M. T. H. Chi

  • Content knowledge: its role, representation, and restructuring in memory development.

    Michelene T.H. Chi;Stephen J. Ceci

  • Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning To Solve Problems. Technical Report No. 9.

    Michelene T. H. Chi

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert Glaser
Robert Glaser University of Pittsburgh
Kurt VanLehn
Kurt VanLehn Arizona State University
Sara E. Brownell
Sara E. Brownell Arizona State University
Paul J. Feltovich
Paul J. Feltovich Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Marti A. Hearst
Marti A. Hearst University of California, Berkeley
Armando Fox
Armando Fox University of California, Berkeley
Stellan Ohlsson
Stellan Ohlsson University of Illinois at Chicago
Stephen J. Ceci
Stephen J. Ceci Cornell University
Robert Kail
Robert Kail Purdue University West Lafayette
Tania Lombrozo
Tania Lombrozo Princeton University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Pursuing a degree in psychology opens up a range of fulfilling online career paths, including roles in counseling, therapy, and social services. One increasingly popular path is becoming a substance abuse counselor, a role in high demand across the United States.

Certification and licensure requirements for substance abuse counselors can vary widely by state and even by city. For instance, Lubbock substance abuse counselor certification requirements detail specific educational and supervised experience needs. Similarly, understanding Madison substance abuse counselor certification requirements is crucial for those planning to work in Wisconsin.

If you are considering work in Tennessee, be sure to review the substance abuse counselor requirements in Memphis. Meanwhile, those drawn to Arizona should check out the process for becoming a substance abuse counselor in Mesa.

By researching local requirements, psychology graduates can identify the best fit for online degrees and pursue a rewarding path in counseling or mental health advocacy.

Best Scientists Citing Michelene T. H. Chi

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles