Abstract
Most student modelling systems seek to develop a model of the internal operation of the cognitive system. In contrast, Input-Output Agent Modelling (IOAM) models an agent in terms of relationships between the inputs and outputs of the cognitive system. Previous IOAM systems have demonstrated high predictive accuracy in the domain of elementary subtraction. These systems use zeroth-order induction. Many of the predicates used, however, represent relations. This suggests that first-order induction might perform well in this domain. This paper reports a study in which zeroth-order and first-order induction engines were used to build models of student subtraction skills. Comparative evaluation shows that zeroth-order induction performs better than first-order in detecting regularities indicating misconceptions while first-order induction leads zeroth-order in detecting regularities indicating correct concepts and inducing a more comprehensible student model. This suggests there exists a trade-off between these factors and that there is still scope for improvement.
We thank Ross Quinlan for providing ftp access to the FFOIL program. Thanks to Zijian Zheng for his helpful suggestions and comments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., and Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228:456–462.
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., Corbett, A. T., and Lewis, M. W. (1990). Cognitive modelling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial Intelligence 42:7–49.
Baffes, P., and Mooney, R. (1996). Refinement-based student modelling and automated bug library construction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 7(1):75–117.
Brown, J. S., and VanLehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science 4:379–426.
Brown, J. S., and Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science 2:155–192.
Burton, R. R., and Brown, J. S. (1976). A tutoring and student modelling paradigm for gaming environments. Computer Science and Education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 8(l):236–246.
Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial intelligence approach to computer-assisted instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems 11(4): 190–202.
Corbett, A. T., and Anderson, J. R. (1992). Student modelling and mastery learning in a computer-based programming tutor. In Frasson, C., Gauthier, G., and McCalla, G. I., eds., Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 413–420.
Desmoulins, G., and Van Labeke, N. (1996). Towards student modelling in geometry with inductive logic programming. In Brna, P., Paiva, A., and Self, J., eds., Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Giangrandi, P., and Tasso, G. (1995). Truth maintenance techniques for modelling students’ behaviour. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 6(2/3): 153–202.
Gilmore, D., and Self, J. (1988). The application of machine learning to intelligent tutoring systems. In Self, J., ed., Artificial Intelligence and Human Learning: Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction. London: Chapman and Hall. 179–196.
Goldstein, I. P. (1979). The genetic graph: A representation for the evolution of procedural knowledge. International Journal of Man-machine Studies 11:51–77.
Hoppe, H. U. (1994). Deductive error diagnosis and inductive error generalization for intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 5(l):27–49.
Ikeda, M., Kono, Y., and Mizoguchi, R. (1993). Nonmonotonic model inference: A formalization of student modelling. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI’93, 461–413.
Kuzmycz, M. (1994). A dynamic vocabulary for student modelling. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on User Modeling, 185–190.
Langley, P., and Ohlsson, S. (1984). Automated cognitive modeling. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 193–197.
Langley, P., Wogulis, J., and Ohlsson, S. (1990). Rules and principles in cognitive diagnosis. In Diagnostic Monitoring of Skill and Knowledge Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 217–250.
Martin, J., and VanLehn, K. (1995). Student assessment using Bayesian nets. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 42:575–591.
Ohlsson, S., and Langley, P. (1985). Identifying solution paths in cognitive diagnosis. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-85–2, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Quinlan, J. R. (1990). Learning logical definition from relations. Machine Learning 5:239–266.
Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Quinlan, J. R. (1996). Learning first-order definitions of functions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 5:139–161.
Sleeman, D. (1982). Assessing aspects of competence in basic algebra. In Sleeman, D. H., and Brown, J. S., eds., Intelligent Tutoring Systems. London: Academic Press. 185–199.
Sleeman, D., Ward, R. D., Kelly, E., Martinak, R., and Moore, J. (1991). An overview of recent studies with Pixie. In Goodyear, P., ed., Teaching Knowledge and Intelligent Tutoring. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 173–185.
Webb, G. I., Chiu, B., and Kuzmycz, M. (1997). A comparative evaluation of the use of C4.5 and Feature Based Modelling as induction engines for Input/Output Agent Modelling. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Webb, G. I., and Kuzmycz, M. (1996). Feature Based Modelling: A methodology for producing coherent, dynamically changing models of agents’ competencies. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 5(2): 117–150.
Young, R., and O’Shea, T. (1981). Errors in children’s subtraction. Cognitive Science 5:153–177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Wien
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chiu, B.C., Webb, G.I., Kuzmycz, M. (1997). A Comparison of First-Order and Zeroth-Order Induction for Input-Output Agent Modelling. In: Jameson, A., Paris, C., Tasso, C. (eds) User Modeling. International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, vol 383. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2670-7_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2670-7_35
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-82906-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-2670-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive