Published Issues

Volume 14 (2019)
Volume 14 Issue 9

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 8

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 7

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 6

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 5

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 4

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 3

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 2

(2019)
Volume 14 Issue 1

(2019)
Volume 13 (2018)
Volume 13 Issue 10

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 9

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 8

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 7

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 6

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 5

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 4

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 3

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 2

(2018)
Volume 13 Issue 1

(2018)
Volume 12 (2017)
Volume 12 Issue 10

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 9

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 8

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 7

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 6

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 5

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 4

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 3

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 2

(2017)
Volume 12 Issue 1

(2017)
Volume 11 (2016)
Volume 11 Issue 18

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 17

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 16

Special Issue - (2016)
Volume 11 Issue 15

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 14

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 13

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 12

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 11

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 10

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 9

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 8

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 7

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 6

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 5

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 4

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 3

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 2

(2016)
Volume 11 Issue 1

(2016)
Volume 10 (2015)
Volume 10 Issue 6

(2015)
Volume 10 Issue 5

(2015)
Volume 10 Issue 4

Special Issue - (2015)
Volume 10 Issue 3

(2015)
Volume 10 Issue 2

(2015)
Volume 10 Issue 1

(2015)
Volume 9 (2014)
Volume 9 Issue 4

(2014)
Volume 9 Issue 3

(2014)
Volume 9 Issue 2

(2014)
Volume 9 Issue 1

(2014)
Volume 8 (2013)
Volume 8 Issue 4

(2013)
Volume 8 Issue 3

(2013)
Volume 8 Issue 2

(2013)
Volume 8 Issue 1

(2013)
Volume 7 (2012)
Volume 7 Issue 4

(2012)
Volume 7 Issue 3

(2012)
Volume 7 Issue 2

(2012)
Volume 7 Issue 1

Special Issue - (2012)
Volume 6 (2011)
Volume 6 Issue 4

(2011)
Volume 6 Issue 3

(2011)
Volume 6 Issue 2

(2011)
Volume 6 Issue 1

(2011)
Volume 5 (2010)
Volume 5 Issue 4

(2010)
Volume 5 Issue 3

(2010)
Volume 5 Issue 2

(2010)
Volume 5 Issue 1

(2010)
Volume 4 (2009)
Volume 4 Issue 4

(2009)
Volume 4 Issue 3

(2009)
Volume 4 Issue 2

(2009)
Volume 4 Issue 1

(2009)
Volume 3 (2008)
Volume 3 Issue 4

(2008)
Volume 3 Issue 3

(2008)
Volume 3 Issue 2

(2008)
Volume 3 Issue 1

(2008)
Volume 2 (2007)
Volume 2 Issue 4

(2007)
Volume 2 Issue 3

(2007)
Volume 2 Issue 2

(2007)
Volume 2 Issue 1

(2007)
Volume 1 (2006)
Volume 1 Issue 2

(2006)
Volume 1 Issue 1

(2006)

Volume 4 Issue 4 (2009)

The Effect of Sociocognitive Conflict on Students' Dialogic Argumentation about Floating and Sinking

Michael Skoumios

pp. 381-399   |  Article Number: ijese.2009.028
Published Online: October 10, 2009

Full text PDF Citation
APA 6th edition
In-text: (Skoumios, 2009)
Your Bibliography: Skoumios, M. (2009). The Effect of Sociocognitive Conflict on Students' Dialogic Argumentation about Floating and Sinking . International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(4), 381-399.
Harvard
In-text: (Skoumios, 2009)
Your Bibliography: Skoumios, M. (2009). The Effect of Sociocognitive Conflict on Students' Dialogic Argumentation about Floating and Sinking . International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(4), pp. 381-399.
Chicago 16th edition
In-text: (Skoumios 2009)
Your Bibliography: Skoumios, Michael (2009). "The Effect of Sociocognitive Conflict on Students' Dialogic Argumentation about Floating and Sinking ". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 4 (4):381-399.

Abstract

Sociocognitive conflict has been used as a teaching strategy which may contribute to change students’ conceptions about science concepts. The present paper aims at investigating the structure of the dialogic argumentation developed by students, when they are involved in science teaching sequence that have been designed to change their conceptions through sociocognitive conflict strategy. For this purpose, teaching sequence targeted at the elaboration of students’ conceptions about floating and sinking -based on sociocognitive conflict processes- were prepared and implemented among 14 years old students. Next, the dialogues which the students had during the teaching sequence were analysed with the help of the framework for assessing the structure of the dialogic argumentation of Clark and Sampson (2008). The results of data analysis demonstrate that the sociocognitive conflict strategy promotes the structure of students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking.

Keywords: sociocognitive conflict, dialogic argumentation, students’ conceptions, floating and sinking, science education

References