User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 87–115 | Cite as

Revising deductive knowledge and stereotypical knowledge in a student model

  • Xueming Huang
  • Gordon I. McCalla
  • Jim E. Greer
  • Eric Neufeld
Article

Abstract

A user/student model must be revised when new information about the user/student is obtained. But a sophisticated user/student model is a complex structure that contains different types of knowledge. Different techniques may be needed for revising different types of knowledge. This paper presents a student model maintenance system (SMMS) which deals with revision of two important types of knowledge in student models: deductive knowledge and stereotypical knowledge. In the SMMS, deductive knowledge is represented by justified beliefs. Its revision is accomplished by a combination of techniques involving reason maintenance and formal diagnosis. Stereotypical knowledge is represented in the Default Package Network (DPN). The DPN is a knowledge partitioning hierarchy in which each node contains concepts in a sub-domain. Revision of stereotypical knowledge is realized by propagating new information through the DPN to change default packages (stereotypes) of the nodes in the DPN. A revision of deductive knowledge may trigger a revision of stereotypical knowledge, which results in a desirable student model in which the two types of knowledge exist harmoniously.

Key words

user/student model revision deductive knowledge stereotypical knowledge reason maintenance diagnosis default package network 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourron, C. and D. Makinson: 1982, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Functions and Their Associated Revision Functions’. Theoria 48, 14–37.Google Scholar
  2. Alchourron, C. P. Gardenfors, and D. Makinson: 1985, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meeting Contraction and Revision Functions’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530.Google Scholar
  3. Burton, R. R. and J. S. Brown: 1982, ‘An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities’. In: D. Sleeman and J. S. Brown (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 79–98.Google Scholar
  4. Chin, D. N.: 1989, ‘KNOME: Modeling What the User Knows in UC’. In: A. Kobsa and W. Wahlster (eds.), User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp. 74–107.Google Scholar
  5. Clancey, W. J.: 1986, ‘Qualitative Student Models’. In: J. F. Traub (ed.), Annual Review of Computer Science 1, pp. 381–450.Google Scholar
  6. Clancey, W. J.: 1987, Knowledge-Based Tutoring: The GUIDON Program, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dalal, M.: 1988, Investigation into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision: Preliminary Report. Proceedings AAAI-88, Saint Paul, MN, pp. 475–479.Google Scholar
  8. de Kleer, J.: 1986, ‘An Assumption-Based TMS’. Artificial Intelligence 28(2), 127–162.Google Scholar
  9. de Kleer, J. and B. C. Williams: 1987, ‘Diagnosing Multiple Faults’. Artificial Intelligence 32, 97–130.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, J.: 1979, ‘A Truth Maintenance System’. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272.Google Scholar
  11. Fagin, R. J. D. Ullman, and M. Y. Vardi: 1983, ‘On the Semantics of Updates in Databases’. Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Atlanta, pp. 352–365.Google Scholar
  12. Finin, T.: 1989, ‘GUMS—A General User Modeling Shell’. In: A. Kobsa and W. Wahlster (eds.), User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp. 411–430.Google Scholar
  13. Finin, T. and D. Drager: 1986, GUMS1: A General User Modelling System. Proceedings CSCSI-86, Montreal, Canada, pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
  14. Gardenfors, P.: 1984, ‘Epistemic Importance and Minimal Changes of Belief’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62(2), 136–157.Google Scholar
  15. Gardenfors, P.: 1990, ‘The Dynamics of Belief Systems: Foundations vs. Coherence Theories’. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, to appear.Google Scholar
  16. Gardenfors, P. and D. Makinson: 1988, ‘Revision of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment’. In: M. Y. Vardi (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Conferences on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,Inc., pp. 83–95.Google Scholar
  17. Garey, M. R. and D. S. Johnson: 1979, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, I. P.: 1979, ‘The Genetic Graph: A Representation for the Evolution of Procedural Knowledge’. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 11, 51–77.Google Scholar
  19. Greer, J. E. and G. I. McCalla: 1989, A Computational Framework for Granularity and Its Application to Educational Diagnosis. Proceedings IJCAI-89, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 477–482.Google Scholar
  20. Harman, G.: 1986, Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Huang, X.: 1989, ‘A Study of the Hitting Set Problem’. Manuscript, Department of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, X. G. I. McCalla and E. Neufeld: 1991, ‘Using Attention in Belief Revision’. proceedings AAAI-91, Anaheim, California (to appear).Google Scholar
  23. Kass, R.: 1990, ‘Building a User Model Implicitly from a Cooperative Advisory Dialog’. Advance Papers of the 2nd International Workshop on User Modeling, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  24. Kass, R. and T. Finin: 1987, Rules for the Implicit Acquisition of Knowledge about the User. Proceedings AAAI-87, Seattle, pp. 295–300.Google Scholar
  25. Kimball, R.: 1982, ‘A Self-Improving Tutor for Symbolic Integration’. In: D. Sleeman and J. S. Brown (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  26. Kobsa, A.: 1990, ‘Modeling the User's Conceptual Knowledge in BGP-MS, a User Modeling Shell System’. Computational Intelligence 6(4).Google Scholar
  27. Makinson, D.: 1985, ‘How to Give It Up: A Survey of Some Formal Aspects of the Logic of Theory Change’. Synthese 62, 347–363.Google Scholar
  28. Martins, J. P. and S. C. Shapiro: 1988, ‘A Model for Belief Revision’. Artificial Intelligence 35(1), 25–79.Google Scholar
  29. McCalla, G. I. J. E. Greer, and the SCENT Research Team: 1988, Intelligent Advising in Problem Solving Domains: The SCENT-3 Architecture. Proceedings ITS-88, Montreal, pp. 124–131.Google Scholar
  30. Reiter, R.: 1980, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.Google Scholar
  31. Reiter, R.: 1987, ‘The Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles’. Artificial Intelligence 32(1), 57–95.Google Scholar
  32. Rich, E.: 1979, ‘User Modelling via Stereotypes’. Cognitive Science 3, 329–354.Google Scholar
  33. Rich, E.: 1989, ‘Stereotypes and User Modeling’. In: A. Kobsa and W. Wahlster (eds.), User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp. 35–51.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, L. and C. A. Anderson: 1982, ‘Shortcomings in the Attribution Process: on the Origins and Maintenance of Erroneous Social Assessments’. In: D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129–152.Google Scholar
  35. Sedgewick, R.: 1988, Algorithm. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Sleeman, D.: 1985, ‘UMFE: A User Modelling Front-End Subsystem’. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 23, 71–88.Google Scholar
  37. Sleeman, D. and J. S. Brown (eds.): 1982, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  38. van Arragon, P.: 1990a, Nested Default Reasoning with Priority Levels. Proceedings CSCSI-90, Ottawa, pp. 77–83.Google Scholar
  39. van Arragon, P.: 1990b, Nested Default Reasoning for User Modeling. Research Report CS-90-25, Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
  40. Wahlster, W. and A. Kobsa: 1989, ‘User Models in Dialog Systems’. In: A. Kobsa and W. Wahlster (eds.), User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp. 5–34.Google Scholar
  41. Wenger, E.: 1987, Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xueming Huang
    • 1
  • Gordon I. McCalla
    • 1
  • Jim E. Greer
    • 1
  • Eric Neufeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computational ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations