4.2 Article

Investigating the network structure of domain-specific knowledge using the semantic fluency task

期刊

MEMORY & COGNITION
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 623-646

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-022-01314-1

关键词

Knowledge representation; Semantic fluency task; Semantic networks; Expertise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, cognitive scientists used the semantic fluency task and network analysis to explore the differences in knowledge structures between experts and novices in academic subjects. The results revealed that experts had more efficient and less modular semantic networks. This suggests that the semantic fluency task can be used to study the representation of specific domains of knowledge.
Cognitive scientists have a long-standing interest in quantifying the structure of semantic memory. Here, we investigate whether a commonly used paradigm to study the structure of semantic memory, the semantic fluency task, as well as computational methods from network science could be leveraged to explore the underlying knowledge structures of academic disciplines such as psychology or biology. To compare the knowledge representations of individuals with relatively different levels of expertise in academic subjects, undergraduate students (i.e., experts) and preuniversity high school students (i.e., novices) completed a semantic fluency task with cue words corresponding to general semantic categories (i.e., animals, fruits) and specific academic domains (e.g., psychology, biology). Network analyses of their fluency networks found that both domain-general and domain-specific semantic networks of undergraduates were more efficiently connected and less modular than the semantic networks of high school students. Our results provide an initial proof-of-concept that the semantic fluency task could be used by educators and cognitive scientists to study the representation of more specific domains of knowledge, potentially providing new ways of quantifying the nature of expert cognitive representations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据