An official website of the United States government
Standard learning assessments like multiple-choice questions measure what students know but not how their knowledge is organized. Recent advances in cognitive network science provide quantitative tools for modeling the structure of semantic memory, revealing key learning mechanisms. In two studies, we examined the semantic memory networks of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course. In Study 1, we administered a cumulative multiple-choice test of psychology knowledge, the Intro Psych Test, at the end of the course. To estimate semantic memory networks, we administered two verbal fluency tasks: domain-specific fluency (naming psychology concepts) and domain-general fluency (naming animals). Based on their performance on the Intro Psych Test, we categorized students into a high-knowledge or low-knowledge group, and compared their semantic memory networks. Study 1 (N = 213) found that the high-knowledge group had semantic memory networks that were more clustered, with shorter distances between concepts—across both the domain-specific (psychology) and domain-general (animal) categories—compared to the low-knowledge group. In Study 2 (N = 145), we replicated and extended these findings in a longitudinal study, collecting data near the start and end of the semester. In addition to replicating Study 1, we found the semantic memory networks of high-knowledge students became more interconnected over time, across both domain-general and domain-specific categories. These findings suggest that successful learners show a distinct semantic memory organization—characterized by high connectivity and short path distances between concepts—highlighting the utility of cognitive network science for studying variation in student learning.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on September 4, 2025
What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary
Tulving characterized semantic memory as a vast repository of meaning that underlies language and many other cognitive processes. This perspective on lexical and conceptual knowledge galvanized a new era of research undertaken by numerous fields, each with their own idiosyncratic methods and terminology. For example, “concept” has different meanings in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. As such, many fundamental constructs used to delineate semantic theories remain underspecified and/or opaque. Weak construct specificity is among the leading causes of the replication crisis now facing psychology and related fields. Term ambiguity hinders cross-disciplinary communication, falsifiability, and incremental theory-building. Numerous cognitive subdisciplines (e.g., vision, affective neuroscience) have recently addressed these limitations via the development of consensus-based guidelines and definitions. The project to follow represents our effort to produce a multidisciplinary semantic glossary consisting of succinct definitions, background, principled dissenting views, ratings of agreement, and subjective confidence for 17 target constructs (e.g., abstractness, abstraction, concreteness, concept, embodied cognition, event semantics, lexical-semantic, modality, representation, semantic control, semantic feature, simulation, semantic distance, semantic dimension).We discuss potential benefits and pitfalls (e.g., implicit bias, prescriptiveness) of these efforts to specify a common nomenclature that other researchers might index in specifying their own theoretical perspectives (e.g., They said X, but I mean Y).
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2020969
- PAR ID:
- 10547755
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- ISSN:
- 1069-9384
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Human reasoning goes beyond knowledge about individual entities, extending to inferences based on relations between entities. Here we focus on the use of relations in verbal analogical mapping, sketching a general approach based on assessing similarity between patterns of semantic relations between words. This approach combines research in artificial intelligence with work in psychology and cognitive science, with the aim of minimizing hand coding of text inputs for reasoning tasks. The computational framework takes as inputs vector representations of individual word meanings, coupled with semantic representations of the relations between words, and uses these inputs to form semantic-relation networks for individual analogues. Analogical mapping is operationalized as graph matching under cognitive and computational constraints. The approach highlights the central role of semantics in analogical mapping.more » « less
-
This study employed the N400 event-related potential (ERP) to investigate how observing different types of gestures at learning affects the subsequent processing of L2 Mandarin words differing in lexical tone by L1 English speakers. The effects of pitch gestures conveying lexical tones (e.g., upwards diagonal movements for rising tone), semantic gestures conveying word meanings (e.g., waving goodbye for to wave), and no gesture were compared. In a lexical tone discrimination task, larger N400s for Mandarin target words mismatching vs. matching Mandarin prime words in lexical tone were observed for words learned with pitch gesture. In a meaning discrimination task, larger N400s for English target words mismatching vs. matching Mandarin prime words in meaning were observed for words learned with pitch and semantic gesture. These findings provide the first neural evidence that observing gestures during L2 word learning enhances subsequent phonological and semantic processing of learned L2 words.more » « less
-
Empathy is an important skill and disposition in engineering education but measuring and assessing empathy in specific engineering contexts is a novel domain of research. In this study, we iterated on a measure of empathy in engineering design. In this refined instrument, we measured and compared responses to the same set of survey items in different configurations. In the first configuration, we measured Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy across three design phases. In the second configuration, we retained the focus on Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy and variation across three design phases, but we also differentiated between self- and other- orientated empathy. An example construct in this second configuration is Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding. To provide evidence of the trustworthiness of constructs, we computed Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability and identified Spearman correlations with four extant empathy constructs as a means of external validity. All constructs in the first configuration were reliable but several constructs in the second configuration were unreliable. However, many constructs in both configurations exhibited moderate to large correlations with four existing constructs. We found students exhibited significant changes in Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding, but students did not exhibit changes in affective or cognitive empathy in other design phases. However, by employing the second configuration, we found that students demonstrated significant and positive changes in Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in two design phases (Concept Generation and Solution Evaluation) while exhibiting no changes in Imagine-Self Cognitive Empathy. We also analyzed students’ written responses to an open-ended question pre/post-course. This analysis revealed that, after participating in this course, students: (1) situated users as the primary rationale for design work, (2) understood addressing users’ needs as critical to design work, and (3) exhibited broadened definitions about who (or what) constitutes a user. This work provides instructors with a means to assess students’ empathy with and for users in design and to more purposefully target students’ empathic development whilst accounting for engineering design phases.more » « less
-
Empathy is an important skill and disposition in engineering education but measuring and assessing empathy in specific engineering contexts is a novel domain of research. In this study, we iterated on a measure of empathy in engineering design. In this refined instrument, we measured and compared responses to the same set of survey items in different configurations. In the first configuration, we measured Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy across three design phases. In the second configuration, we retained the focus on Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy and variation across three design phases, but we also differentiated between self- and other- orientated empathy. An example construct in this second configuration is Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding. To provide evidence of the trustworthiness of constructs, we computed Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability and identified Spearman correlations with four extant empathy constructs as a means of external validity. All constructs in the first configuration were reliable but several constructs in the second configuration were unreliable. However, many constructs in both configurations exhibited moderate to large correlations with four existing constructs. We found students exhibited significant changes in Cognitive Empathy in Needfinding, but students did not exhibit changes in affective or cognitive empathy in other design phases. However, by employing the second configuration, we found that students demonstrated significant and positive changes in Imagine-Other Cognitive Empathy in two design phases (Concept Generation and Solution Evaluation) while exhibiting no changes in Imagine-Self Cognitive Empathy. We also analyzed students’ written responses to an open-ended question pre/post-course. This analysis revealed that, after participating in this course, students: (1) situated users as the primary rationale for design work, (2) understood addressing users’ needs as critical to design work, and (3) exhibited broadened definitions about who (or what) constitutes a user. This work provides instructors with a means to assess students’ empathy with and for users in design and to more purposefully target students’ empathic development whilst accounting for engineering design phases.more » « less
