Birutė Jatkauskienė, Sigute Norkiene, Modestas Nugaras


This article is aimed to analyse socio-cognitive conflict as an educational factor in the context of learning and education. For a long time, socio-cognitive conflict had been recognised as a negative factor in a learning or study process. Actually, a positive attitude toward the phenomenon was formed as late as in recent decades – thenceforth, socio-cognitive conflict is claimed to be a positive phenomenon provided that a teacher is able to and knows how to control it, so that to make it a learning incentive, an epistemological source of new knowledge and social representations. The analysis of socio-cognitive conflict and a study of students’ and teachers’ attitudes might help to provide a more comprehensive answer to the following problematic questions: how to perceive and explain the idea of socio-cognitive conflict, its educational importance in the context of learning and education? What are the conditions for a positive solution of socio-cognitive conflict? What is the role of socio-cognitive conflict in a learning or study process? Thus, a goal of the article is to reveal the essence of socio-cognitive conflict and aspects of control thereof in the learning situation from the point of view of students and teachers. The article consists of two parts: the first part addresses a theoretical discourse of the concept of socio-cognitive conflict, and the second part is dedicated to empirical research, i.e., study of an attitude of teachers and students toward the socio-cognitive conflict as a source of new knowledge and social representations.



socio-cognitive conflict; cognitive conflict; adult learning; social interaction

Full Text:



Asterhan, C.S.C. et. al. (2010). Motivation and affect in peer argumentation and socio-cognitive conflict. ICLS, 2, 211-218. Retrieved from:

Belbase, S. (2014). Radical versus social constructivism: An epistemological-pedagogical dilemma. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 1(2), 98-112. Retrieved from:

Berthiaume, D. (2008). Teaching in the disciplines. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, S. Marshall (Eds.). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (3 ed.). London: Routledge, 215–225.

Bourgeois, E., & Frenay, M. (2001). Apprendre en groupe: rôle de l'asymétrie et de l'argumentation. In C. Solar (Éd.). Le groupe en formation d'adultes. Bruxelles: De Boeck, 99–114.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict Elaboration and Cognitive Outcomes. Theory into Practice, 43 (1), 23–30 Retrieved from:].

Butera, F., & Buchs, C. (2005). Reasoning together: from focusing to decentring. In V. Girotto, P. N. Johnson-Laird (Eds.). The shape of reason. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 193–203.

Cahn, S. (2011). Moral Problems in Higher Education. Publisher: Temple University Press.

Charlier, B., Nizet, J., & Van Dam, D. (2005). Voyage au pays de la formation des adultes. Dynamiques identitaires et trajectoires sociales. Défi-Formation. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Daele, A. (2009). Débattre pour apprendre. Pédagogie Universitaire-Enseigner et Apprendre en Enseignement Supérieur [accessed on 2018-12-10]. Retrieved from:

Darnon, C., Doll, S., & Butera, F. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXII (3), 227–242.

Davis, A., & Winstone, N. (2011). Educational Implications. In A. Slater & G. Bremner (Eds.), An Introduction to Developmental Psychology (2nd ed; 587-612). Chichester, UK: BPS Blackwell.

Galbraith, M. W. (2015). Adult Learning Methods: A Guide for Effective Instruction (3 ed). Publisher: Krieger Pub Co.

Jatkauskienė, B., & Trakšelys, K. (2015). Andragogy: Adult Educational Contexts (Monograph). Scholarʼs Press: Saarbrücken.

Jatkauskienė, B. (2013). Andragogų profesionalizacijos sistemos procesionali raiška. (Monograph). Klaipėda: KU leidykla.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing Learning: The Instructional Power of Conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.

Joiţa, E. (2005). Constructivism and constructionism in the formation of the design of the training. In E. Joiţa (coord.), Constructivist strategies in the initial formation of the students. Craiova: Publishing House Universitaria, 239-274.

Kardelis, K. (2002). Mokslinių tyrimų metodologija ir metodai. 2nd ed, Šiauliai.

Nugaras, M. (2017). Sociokognityvinis konfliktas kaip ugdantysis veiksnys suaugusiųjų mokymosi situacijoje. Andragogika. Mokslo darbai. Klaipėda: KU l-kla; 2017/1(8), 131-143.

Pjažė, J. (2011). Vaiko pasaulėvoka. Vilnius: Žara.

Sacco, K., & Bucciarelli, M. (2008). The role of cognitive and socio-cognitive conflict in learning to reason. Mind & Society, 7(1), 1–19.

Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. New Delhi: Pearson.

Skoumios, M. (2008). Socio-cognitive conflict processes in science learning: benefits and limits. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 165-174.

Skoumios, M. (2009). The Effect of Socio-cognitive Conflict on Students' Dialogic Argumentation about Floating and Sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 381-399. Retrieved from:

Thievenaz, J. (2017). De l’étonnement à l’apprentissage. Enquéter pour mieux comprendre. Duvain – la - Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Kindle edition).

Zaharia, I. (2013). On didactic management of socio-cognitive conflict. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 13(1), 457-464. Retrieved from:



  • There are currently no refbacks.