Extending Domain Theories: Two Case Studies in Student Modeling

By its very nature, artificial intelligence is concerned with investigating topics that are ill-defined and ill-understood. This paper describes two approaches to expanding a good but incomplete theory of a domain. The first uses the domain theory as far as possible and fills in specific gaps in the reasoning process, generalizing the suggested missing steps and adding them to the domain theory. The second takes existing operators of the domain theory and applies perturbations to form new plausible operators for the theory. The specific domain to which these techniques have been applied is high-school algebra problems. The domain theory is represented as operators corresponding to algebraic manipulations, and the problem of expanding the domain theory becomes one of discovering new algebraic operators. The general framework used is one of generate and test—generating new operators for the domain and using tests to filter out unreasonable ones. The paper compares two algorithms, INFER and MALGEN, examining their performance on actual data collected in two Scottish schools and concluding with a critical discussion of the two methods.

[1]  Derek H. Sleeman,et al.  Some Challenges for Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 1987, IJCAI.

[2]  Steven Minton,et al.  Selectively Generalizing Plans for Problem-Solving , 1985, IJCAI.

[3]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Learning one Subprocedure per Lesson , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Derek H. Sleeman,et al.  Modelling Student's Problem Solving , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[5]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Diagnostic Models for Procedural Bugs in Basic Mathematical Skills , 1978, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  Automated Cognitive Modeling , 1984, AAAI.

[7]  Derek H. Sleeman.  Inferring (Mal) Rules from Pupil's Protocols , 1982, ECAI.

[8]  D. C. Wilkins,et al.  Apprenticeship Learning Techniques for Knowledge Based Systems , 1987 .

[9]  Derek H. Sleeman,et al.  An Attempt to Understand Students' Understanding of Basic Algebra , 1984, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Thomas G. Dietterich.  The Test Incorporation Hypothesis and the Weak Methods , 1986 .

[11]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge" in the psychology of computer vision , 1975 .

[12]  Robert J. Hall.  Learning by failing to explain: Using partial explanations to learn in incomplete or intractable domains , 1988, Machine Learning.

[13]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  Knowledge-based systems in artificial intelligence , 1981 .

[14]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[15]  John R. Anderson,et al.  MACHINE LEARNING An Artificial Intelligence Approach , 2009 .

[16]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[17]  Derek H. Sleeman.  Basic Algebra Revisited: A Study with 14-Year-Olds , 1985, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[18]  Glenn A. Iba,et al.  Learning by Discovering Macros in Puzzle Solving , 1985, IJCAI.

[19]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Inductive inference of VL decision rules , 1977, SGAR.

[20]  John McCarthy,et al.  Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning , 1980, Artif. Intell..

[21]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[22]  Glenn A. Iba,et al.  A heuristic approach to the discovery of macro-operators , 2004, Machine Learning.

[23]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  The Role of Heuristics in Learning by Discovery: Three Case Studies , 1983 .

[24]  Bruce G. Buchanan,et al.  Dendral and Meta-Dendral: Their Applications Dimension , 1978, Artif. Intell..