Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Alternatives to rules for knowledge-based modelling

  • 35 Accesses

Abstract

The technology of knowledge-based systems undoubtedly offers potential for educational modelling, yet its practical impact on today's school classrooms is very limited. To an extent this is because the tools presently used in schools are mostly rule-based expert system shells, which lack usability. We developed three alternative tools, using ideas from knowledge acquisition research, and compared their effectiveness to that of an established rule-based shell. Children working with the new tools produced higher quality models and developed more positive attitudes. We relate these findings to the forms of representation provided by the new tools and present evidence that modelling increases children's representational skill. We conclude that knowledge acquisition systems and alternative forms of representation can contribute to improved forms of knowledge-based modelling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Birmingham, W. and Klinker, G. (1993). Knowledge-acquisition tools with explicit problemsolving models.The Knowledge Engineering Review 8(1): 5–25.

  2. Boose, J. (1989). A survey of knowledge acquisition techniques and tools.Knowledge Acquisition 1: 3–37.

  3. Briggs, J. (1987).Learning with Expert Systems: A Starter Pack. Hertfordshire: The Advisory Unit for Microtechnology in Education.

  4. Clancey, W. (1988). The Knowledge engineer as student. In H. Mandl and A. Lesgold, eds,Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer-Verlag.

  5. Conlon, T. and Bowman, N. (1995). Expert systems, shells, and schools: Present practice, future prospects.Instructional Science 23(1–3): 111–131.

  6. Conlon, T. (1997). Beyond rules: The development and evaluation of knowledge acquisition systems for educational knowledge-based modelling. PhD Thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.

  7. Conlon, T. and Pain, H. (1997). Persistent collaboration: A methodology for applied AIED.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 7(3/4): 219–252.

  8. Cooke, N. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques.J. Human-Computer Studies 41: 801–849.

  9. Cox, R. and Brna, P. (1993). Analytical Reasoning with External Representations: The relationship between prior knowledge and performance. In R. Cox, M. Petre, P. Brna and J. Lee, eds,Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication. AIED 93: World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Edinburgh.

  10. Cox, R. and Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 6(2/3): 239–302.

  11. Cumming, G. and Self, J. (1990). Intelligent educational systems: identifying and decoupling the conversational levels.Instructional Science 19: 11–27.

  12. Evans, J. (1982).The Psychology of Deductive Reasoning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  13. Fullan, M. (1991).The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.

  14. Galpin, B. (1989). Expert systems in primary schools. British Library Research Paper 73, British Library Research and Development Department.

  15. Greene, T. (1989). Children's understanding of class inclusion hierarchies: The relationship between external representation and task performance.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 48: 62–89.

  16. Hinkle, D. (1965). The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ohio State University.

  17. Kahn, G., Nowlan, S. and McDermott, J. (1985). MORE: an intelligent knowledge acquisition tool.Proceedings of the 9th Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Angeles, CA, August, pp. 581–584.

  18. Karmillof-Smith, A. (1996). Internal representations and external notations: A developmental perspective. In D. Peterson, ed.,Forms of Representation. Intellect Books.

  19. Marcus, S. (1987). Taking backtracking with a grain of SALT. In J. Boose and B. Gaines, eds,Knowledge-Based Systems: Knowledge Acquisition Tools for Expert Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 211–226. New York: Academic Press.

  20. Michie, D. (1990). The superarticulacy phenomenon in the context of software manufacture. In D. Partridge and Y. Wilks, eds,The Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

  21. Moss, C. (1994).Prolog++: The Power of Object-Oriented and Logic Programming. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.

  22. Murray, T. (1993). Formative Qualitative Evaluation for “Exploratory” ITS Research.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 4(2/3).

  23. Musen, M., Fagan, L., Combs, D. and Shortliffe, E. (1988). Use of a domain model to drive an interactive knowledge-editing tool. In J. Boose and B. Gaines, eds,Knowledge-Based Systems: Knowledge Acquisition Tools for Expert Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 257–274. New York: Academic Press.

  24. O'Keefe, R. and O'Leary, D. (1989). Expert system verification and validation: a survey and tutorial.Artificial Intelligence Review 7: 3–42.

  25. Petre, M. (1993). Using graphical representations requires skill, and graphical readership is an acquired skill. In R. Cox, M. Petre, P. Brna and J. Lee, eds,Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication. AIED 93: World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Edinburgh.

  26. Quinlan, J. (1979). Discovering rules from large collections of examples: A case study. In D. Michie, ed.,Expert Systems in the Microelectronic Age, pp. 168–201. Edinburgh University Press.

  27. Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology.Communications Research 17(1): 26–44.

  28. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. In S. Lajoie and S. Derry, eds,Computers as Cognitive Tools. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

  29. Self, J. (1990). Bypassing the intractable problem of student modelling. AAI/AI-ED Technical Report No. 41, Computing Department, Lancaster University.

  30. Touretzky, D. (1986).The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. San Francisco: Morgan-Kaufmann.

  31. Trollip, S. and Lippert R. (1987). Constructing knowledge bases: A promising instructional tool.Journal of Computer-Eased Instruction 14(2): 44–88.

  32. Twidale, M. (1993). Redressing the balance: The advantages of informal evaluation techniques for intelligent learning environments.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 4(2/3).

  33. Valley, K. (1992). Explanation, exploration and learning: The use of expert system shells in education.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 3(3): 255–273.

  34. Webb, M. (1992). Learning by building rule-based models.Computers in Education 18(1–3): 89–100.

  35. Webb, M. (1994). Learning by building expert system models. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn and C. Tompsett, eds,Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer Based Modelling in the Curriculum, Falmer Press.

  36. Wideman, H. and Owston, R. (1993). Knowledge base construction as a pedagogical activity.Journal of Educational Computing Research 9(2): 165–196.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Conlon, T. Alternatives to rules for knowledge-based modelling. Instr Sci 27, 403–430 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00891972

Download citation

Keywords

  • knowledge-based systems
  • modelling
  • representations