The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Kahle, J. B. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173469 · Cited by 5,199
Arrow, K. J. (1973) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/0047-2727(73)90013-3 · Cited by 5,121
Learning to Teach in Higher Education
Ramsden, P., & Ramsden, P. (2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203507711 · Cited by 5,106
The visual display of quantitative information
(1985) · General Pharmacology: The Vascular System · doi:10.1016/0306-3623(85)90230-7 · Cited by 5,070
ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS*
MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x · Cited by 4,608
Paivio, A. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315798868 · Cited by 4,142
Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(87)80026-5 · Cited by 3,733
Mezei, A., & Paivio, A. (1972) · Leonardo · doi:10.2307/1572599 · Cited by 3,246
Cited by
Lozano, R., Merrill, M., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F. (2017) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su9101889 · Cited by 904
Lee, H.-P. (., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713778 · Cited by 490
“Despite concerns about whether critical thinking can be taught [138], research in education has developed a number of approaches to teaching critical thinking [104, 139], such as structured argumentation exercises [25, 70, 72, 133].”
Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job
Voinov, A., Jenni, K., Gray, S., Kolagani, N., Glynn, P. D., Bommel, P., Prell, C., Zellner, M., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., et al. (2018) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028 · Cited by 428
Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0
Watson, R. T., & Webster, J. (2020) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1798591 · Cited by 258
Stokhof, H., de Vries, B., Bastiaens, T., & Martens, R. (2020) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9686-3 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Davies, M.
- Venue
- Higher Education
- Published
- 2010-11-27
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 279-301
- ISSN
- 0018-1560 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2159611455
- Cited by
- 771
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 40.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
- The paper
- Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
