↓ Skip to main content

Grounded understanding of abstract concepts: The case of STEM learning

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Grounded understanding of abstract concepts: The case of STEM learning
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0046-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin C. Hayes, David J. M. Kraemer

Abstract

Characterizing the neural implementation of abstract conceptual representations has long been a contentious topic in cognitive science. At the heart of the debate is whether the "sensorimotor" machinery of the brain plays a central role in representing concepts, or whether the involvement of these perceptual and motor regions is merely peripheral or epiphenomenal. The domain of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning provides an important proving ground for sensorimotor (or grounded) theories of cognition, as concepts in science and engineering courses are often taught through laboratory-based and other hands-on methodologies. In this review of the literature, we examine evidence suggesting that sensorimotor processes strengthen learning associated with the abstract concepts central to STEM pedagogy. After considering how contemporary theories have defined abstraction in the context of semantic knowledge, we propose our own explanation for how body-centered information, as computed in sensorimotor brain regions and visuomotor association cortex, can form a useful foundation upon which to build an understanding of abstract scientific concepts, such as mechanical force. Drawing from theories in cognitive neuroscience, we then explore models elucidating the neural mechanisms involved in grounding intangible concepts, including Hebbian learning, predictive coding, and neuronal recycling. Empirical data on STEM learning through hands-on instruction are considered in light of these neural models. We conclude the review by proposing three distinct ways in which the field of cognitive neuroscience can contribute to STEM learning by bolstering our understanding of how the brain instantiates abstract concepts in an embodied fashion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Researcher 23 12%
Lecturer 15 8%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 62 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 14%
Social Sciences 24 13%
Mathematics 9 5%
Engineering 9 5%
Computer Science 9 5%
Other 46 24%
Unknown 67 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2022.
All research outputs
#16,384,522
of 24,137,435 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#277
of 343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,641
of 427,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#18
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,435 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.