Advertisement

Experiences in Implementing Constraint-Based Modeling in SQL-Tutor

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1452)

Abstract

The problem with most student modeling approaches is their insistence on complete and cognitively valid models of student’s knowledge. Ohlsson [10] proposes Constraint-Based Modeling (CBM) as a way to overcome intractability of student modeling, by generating models that are precise enough to guide instruction, and are computationally tractable at the same time. The paper presents our experiences in building SQL-Tutor, an ITS built upon CBM. CBM is extremely computationally efficient. State constraints, which form the basis of CBM, are very expressive; we have encountered no situations where constraints were unable to diagnose student answers. The time needed to acquire, implement and test a constraint is less than times reported for the acquisition of production rules. The initial evaluation of SQL-Tutor proved the validity of design and appropriateness of CBM.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Jeffries, R.: Novice LISP Errors: Undetected Losses of Information from Working Memory. Human-Computer Interaction 22 (1985) 403–423 416Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.R.: Rules of the Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1993) 414Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J.R, Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(2) (1995) 167–207 419, 422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of database systems. 2nd edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood (1994) 419zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forgy, C.L.: Rete: a Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object Pattern Match Problem. Artificial Intelligence 19, (1982) 17–37 416, 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franz Inc. Allegro Common Lisp (1996) 417Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holt, P., Dubs, S., Jones, M., Greer, J.E.: The State of Student Modelling. In: Greer, J.E., McCalla, G.I. (eds.): Student Modeling: the Key to Individualized Knowledge-based Instruction. NATO ASI Series, Vol. 125. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1994) 3–35 414, 414Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitrović, A. SQL-Tutor: a Preliminary Report. Technical Report TR-COSC 08/97, Computer Science Department, University of Canterbury (1997) 417, 420, 421Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitrović, A. Learning SQL with a Cimputerized Tutor. Proc. 29th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. (1998) 307–311 417Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ohlsson, S.: Constraint-based Student Modeling. In: Greer, J.E., McCalla, G.I. (eds.): Student Modeling: the Key to Individualized Knowledge-based Instruction. NATO ASI Series, Vol. 125. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1994) 167–189 414, 414, 414, 415, 415, 421, 422Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohlsson, S.: Learning from Performance Errors. Psychological Review 103(2) (1996) 241–262. 415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Self, J.A.: Bypassing the Intractable Problem of Student Modeling. In: Frasson, C., Gauthier, G. (eds.): Intelligent Tutoring Systems: at the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education. Ablex, Norwood (1990) 107–123 414, 414, 414Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations