To contradict is human

Student modeling of inconsistency
  • Yasuyuki Kono
  • Mitsuru Ikeda
  • Riichiro Mizoguchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 608)


Students cannot avoid misunderstanding when they learn new topics. Furthermore they often have contradictory knowledge and show inconsistent behavior, which requires ITSs to deal with contradiction. In this paper, we investigate two types of “contradictions” encountered in the course of tutoring. One is the change of mind of student and the other is the student's contradictory knowledge. We discuss human inconsistent behavior and formalize the process in terms of multi-world logic. A modeling methodology applicable to inconsistent cases is presented in detail.


Reasoning Process Belief Revision Inductive Inference Student Model Reasoning Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    CESP Language Guide, AI Language Research Institute, Ltd., Sakurai Build. 15-15, Shiba 3, Minato, TOKYO 105,Japan, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    de Kleer, J., “An Assumption-based Truth Maintenance System”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 28, pp. 127–162, Mar. 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Huang, X., McCalla, G. I., Greer, J. E. and Neufeld, E., “Revising Deductive Knowledge and Stereotypical Knowledge in a Student Model”, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, Vol. 1, pp. 87–115, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R. and Kakusho, O., “Design of a General Framework for ITS”, Proc. of ITS-88, pp. 82–89, Jun. 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R. and Kakusho, O., “A Hypothetical Model Inference System”, Trans, of IEICE, Vol. J71-D, No.9, pp. 1761–1771, Sep. 1988 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R. and Kakusho, O., “Student Model Description Language SMDL and Student Model Inference System SMIS”, Trans. of IEICE, Vol. J72-D, No.1, pp. 112–120, Jan. 1989 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Martins, J. P. and Shapiro, S. C., “A Model for Belief Revision”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, pp. 25–79, May 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mizoguchi, R., Ikeda, M. and Kakusho, O., “An Innovative Framework for Intelligent Tutoring Systems”, Proc. of the IFIP TC3 Working Conference on Artificial Intelligence Tools in Education, pp. 105–120, May 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Mizoguchi, R. and Ikeda, M., “A Generic Framework for ITS And Its Evaluation”, In Lewis, R. and Otsuki, S., editors, Advanced Research on Computers in Education, pp. 63–72, North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Shapiro, E. Y., Algorithmic Program Debugging, MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Stevens, A. L. and Collins, A., “The Goal Structure of a Socratic Tutor”, BBN Rep. 3518, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Wenger, E., Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, California, Jan. 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuyuki Kono
    • 1
  • Mitsuru Ikeda
    • 1
  • Riichiro Mizoguchi
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka UniversityIbaiakiJapan

Personalised recommendations