Advertisement

Machine Learning

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 11–36 | Cite as

Acquisition of children's addition strategies: A model of impasse-free, knowledge-level learning

  • Randolph M. Jones
  • Kurt Vanlehn
Article

Abstract

When children learn to add, they count on their fingers, beginning with the simpleSum Strategy and gradually developing the more sophisticated and efficientMin strategy. The shift fromSum toMin provides an ideal domain for the study of naturally occurring discovery processes in cognitive skill acquisition. TheSum-to-Min transition poses a number of challenges for machine-learning systems that would model the phenomenon. First, in addition to theSum andMin strategies, Siegler and Jenkins (1989) found that children exhibit two transitional strategies, but not a strategy proposed by an earlier model. Second, they found that children do not invent theMin strategy in response to impasses, or gaps in their knowledge. Rather,Min develops spontaneously and gradually replaces earlier strategies. Third, intricate structural differences between theSum andMin strategies make it difficult, if not impossible, for standard, symbol-level machine-learning algorithms to model the transition. We present a computer model, calledGips, that meets these challenges.Gips combines a relatively simple algorithm for problem solving with a probabilistic learning algorithm that performs symbol-level and knowledge-level learning, both in the presence and absence of impasses. In addition,Gips makes psychologically plausible demands on local processing and memory. Most importantly, the system successfully models the shift fromSum toMin, as well as the two transitional strategies found by Siegler and Jenkins.

Keywords

cognitive simulation impasse-free learning probabilistic learning induction problem-solving strategies 

References

  1. Anderson, J.R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, M.H. (1982). The development of mental arithmetic: A chronometric approach.Developmental Review, 2 213–236.Google Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, M.H. (1987). Children's knowledge of simple arithmetic: A developmental model and simulation. In C.J. Brainerd, R. Kail, and J. Bisanz (Eds.),Formal methods in developmental psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R. (1985).The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dietterich, T.G. (1986). Learning at the knowledge level.Machine Learning, 1 287–316.Google Scholar
  6. Fikes, R.E., and Nilsson, N.J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving.Artificial Intelligence, 2 189–208.Google Scholar
  7. Gelman, R., and Gallistel, C.R. (1978).The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Groen, G.J., and Parkman, J.M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of simple addition.Psychological Review, 79 329–343.Google Scholar
  9. Groen, G.J., and Resnick, L.B. (1977). Can preschool children invent addition algorithms?Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 645–652.Google Scholar
  10. Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E., and Thagard, P.R. (1986).Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Iba, G.A. (1989). A heuristic approach to the discovery of macro-operators.Machine Learning, 3 285–317.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, R.M. (1993). Problem solving via analogical retrieval and analogical search control. In A. L. Meyrowitz and S. Chipman (Eds.),Foundations of knowledge acquisition: Machine learning. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Kaye, D.B., Post, T.A., Hall, V.C., and Dineen, J.T. (1986). The emergence of information retrieval strategies in numerical cognition: A development study.Cognition and Instruction, 3, 137–166.Google Scholar
  14. Korf, R.E. (1985). Macro-operators: A weak method for learning.Artificial Intelligence, 26, 35–77.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., and O'Laughlin, M. (1988).The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Langley, P. (1985). Learning to search: From weak methods to domain-specific heuristics.Cognitive Science, 9, 217–260.Google Scholar
  17. Langley, P. and Allen, J.A. (1991). The acquisition of human planning expertise. In L.A. Birnbaum and G.C. Collins (Eds.),Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop (pp. 80–84). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  18. Minton, S. (1988).Learning effective search control knowledge: An explanation-based approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell, T.M., Utgoff, P.E., and Banerji, R. (1983). Learning by experimentation: Acquiring and refining problem-solving heuristics. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  20. Neches, R. (1987). Learning through incremental refinement of procedures. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, and R. Neches (Eds.),Production system models of learning and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Newell, A. (1990).Unified theories of cognition: The William James lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ohlsson, S. and Rees, E. (1991). The function of conceptual understanding in learning of arithmetic procedures.Cognition and Instruction, 8, 103–179.Google Scholar
  23. Pazzani, M., Dyer, M., and Flowers, M. (1986). The role of prior causal theories in generalization.Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 545–550). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  24. Schank, R. (1986).Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Schlimmer, J.C. (1987). Incremental adjustment of representations for learning.Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 79–90), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. Schlimmer, J.C. and Granger, R.H., Jr. (1986a). Beyond incremental processing: Tracking concept drift.Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 502–507). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  27. Schlimmer, J.C. and Granger, R.H., Jr. (1986b). Incremental learning from noisy data.Machine Learning, 1, 317–354.Google Scholar
  28. Siegler, R.S. and Jenkins, E. (1989).How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Svenson, O. (1975). Analysis of time required by children for simple additions.Acta Psychologica, 39, 289–302.Google Scholar
  30. VanLehn, K. (1990).Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem solving strategies.Cognitive Science, 15, 1–47.Google Scholar
  32. VanLehn, K., and Jones, R.M. (1993). Integration of explanation-based learning of correctness and analogical search control. In S. Minton and P. Langley (Eds.),Planning, scheduling and learning. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. VanLehn, K., Jones, R.M., and Chi, M.T.H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1, 1–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randolph M. Jones
    • 1
  • Kurt Vanlehn
    • 2
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor
  2. 2.Learning Research and Development Center, and Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations