User Modeling pp 347-358 | Cite as

A Comparison of First-Order and Zeroth-Order Induction for Input-Output Agent Modelling

  • Bark Cheung Chiu
  • Geoffrey I. Webb
  • Mark Kuzmycz
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 383)


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.


Action Feature Context Feature Inductive Logic Programming Intelligent Tutoring System Student Model 
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. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., and Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228:456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., Corbett, A. T., and Lewis, M. W. (1990). Cognitive modelling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial Intelligence 42:7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., and VanLehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science 4:379–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., and Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science 2:155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Giangrandi, P., and Tasso, G. (1995). Truth maintenance techniques for modelling students’ behaviour. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 6(2/3): 153–202.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, I. P. (1979). The genetic graph: A representation for the evolution of procedural knowledge. International Journal of Man-machine Studies 11:51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Kuzmycz, M. (1994). A dynamic vocabulary for student modelling. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on User Modeling, 185–190.Google Scholar
  16. Langley, P., and Ohlsson, S. (1984). Automated cognitive modeling. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 193–197.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Martin, J., and VanLehn, K. (1995). Student assessment using Bayesian nets. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 42:575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ohlsson, S., and Langley, P. (1985). Identifying solution paths in cognitive diagnosis. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-85–2, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  20. Quinlan, J. R. (1990). Learning logical definition from relations. Machine Learning 5:239–266.Google Scholar
  21. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Quinlan, J. R. (1996). Learning first-order definitions of functions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 5:139–161.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young, R., and O’Shea, T. (1981). Errors in children’s subtraction. Cognitive Science 5:153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bark Cheung Chiu
    • 1
  • Geoffrey I. Webb
    • 1
  • Mark Kuzmycz
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsDeakin UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations