The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
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
Cited by
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260208560187 · Cited by 1,161
The Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595
Patterns of Discourse in Two Kinds of Literature Discussion
Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.36.4.3 · Cited by 355
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338
Metadata
- Authors
- Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1993-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 365-395
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W4244257523
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.99
- 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: Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030
- The paper
- Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030
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.
