Subject: Starting the discussion
From: Ruddy Lelouche (lelouche@ift.ulaval.ca)
Date: Mon 13 Mar 2000 - 01:31:29 MET
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:31:29 -0500 From: Ruddy Lelouche <lelouche@ift.ulaval.ca> Subject: Starting the discussion
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear IFETS participants,
"Can abstraction be used as a unifying paradigm to design intelligent
educational systems?" That is the main question, or rather objective, that
I propose to you for this discussion. More precisely, I see various
"subquestions" that we can address.
0. WHY USE ABSTRACTION?
This is , at least partly, answered in the "Rationale" part of the
pre-discussion paper:
- because teaching itself is a complex process;
- because the domains actually taught vary considerably in range, from know
to know-how to know-how-to-be;
- because almost all teachable domains vary in complexity.
So, when a human tutor detects errors or misunderstandings, he usually
draws the learner's attention on "where he thinks the error is", i.e. a
small subset of the involved knowledge, so that the detected error and/or
misunderstanding can be corrected at the proper "abstraction" level. It
would be nice to have automated systems do likewise...
1. WHAT IS ABSTRACTION ?
Abstraction is a very broad term, which I do not intend to take in onl;y
one precise way here. Maybe the general idea to keep in mind is more that
of a top-down approach, or refinement. Indeed, depending on the context,
the concrete vs. abstract continuum can take different flavours, like:
- simple vs. complex,
- more precise vs. less precise;
- more details or attributes vs. fewer details or attributes;
- down-to-earth vs. elaborate;
- unique object vs. aggregation of objects;
- part of an object vs. the whole object;
- quantitative vs. qualitative;
and maybe some other ones as well.
The distinction "easy vs. difficult" could be seen as another flavour.
However, I am not sure that it is clearly going along the same lines for
this discussion. Indeed, we are oriented towards learning, and therefore
towards making things "easier" for the learner. But my dismissing it (this
is not an idea, but only a feeling) may be erroneous, and I accept to be
challenged...
Some examples of pairs that I would offer as examples of this continuum are
the following, in no particular order, but listing the less "abstract"
element first:
- a car wheel (or a carburetor) <--> an automobile;
- a computer instruction <--> a computer (sub)program;
- solving a problem step and solving the whole problem;
- an apple falling <--> the law of gravitation;
- simple interest <--> compound interest;
- a book chapter <--> a book;
- an article <--> a Ph. D. thesis;
- a mathematical proof <--> a qualitative explanation (of some fact);
- adequately computing a logarithm <--> adequately using a logarithm;
and you could probably imagine some other ones. All these pairs are
certainly not comparable on the same scale, but to me they precisely
illustrate various flavours of the notion of abstraction.
At any rate, a first trend of the discussion could tend to make these
various flavours more precise... Attempting to answer this "WHAT" question
is the "theoretical" approach mentioned in the pre-discussion paper, which
<< may consist in defining and formalizing some various facets [or
flavours] of abstraction, like generalization, complexity levels,
hierarchical organization of concepts, metalevel descriptions, etc., both
within an educational subject domain and in domain-independent studies. >>
2. HOW CAN ABSTRACTION BE USED IN THE DESIGN OF INTELLIGENT EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEMS?
I think this is more clearly addressed in the pre-discussion paper (in
section 5), by offering several directions, which I called steps, and which
I summarise here:
DIRECTION 1. We can use abstraction to better and further formalize each
one of the two TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE: the declarative domain knowledge (DK)
and the problem-solving knowledge (PSK).
DIRECTION 2. We can use abstraction to refine some (or all) of the four
generic OPERATING MODES. I claim that these modes (which, to unify our
terminology, I propose to name domain-presentation, domain-assessment,
demonstration, and exercising) are generic, because they are defined solely
on the learner's main goal for using the system (either to build his
learning, or to assess his learning), and on the underlying type of
knowledge (either DK or PSK). That direction may imply to deal with
abstraction levels in the system-student interactions as well.
DIRECTION 3. We can use abstraction to refine the foundations of the
TUTORING KNOWLEDGE (TK). If we view TK conceptually as a "society" of
pedagogical agents, we can attempt to make the abstraction paradigm on
these agents more precise (e.g. in relationship with the scope or the
granularity of the "domain region" in which that agent is to operate). With
or without pedagogical agents, we can use the abstraction scale(s) of
TUTORING GOALS, as well as of the student-system interactions, to guide the
operation of DK in the student-chosen operating mode and in occasional
(unplanned) system-initiated mode shifts.
DIRECTION 4. We can apply abstraction to the various TUTORING FUNCTIONS
that a given educational or training system is to perform, such as:
selecting a task, providing an explanation, varying the system-student
interaction, presenting a subject or topic, providing an example, etc.
DIRECTION 5. As far as IMPLEMENTATION is concerned, I am interested (and I
think you all are) in knowing how abstraction is used or has been used in
EXISTING SYSTEMS, and I welcome all inputs in that direction.
OTHER DIRECTIONS. They are open, of course... Feel free to complement this
list by choosing and naming another direction of your own, if you feel it
appropiate.
Attempting to answer any of these "HOW" or "WHAT FOR" questions is the
"practical" perspective mentioned in the pre-discussion paper, which << may
attempt to define and show how abstraction is or can be used in the design
and analysis of various modules or functions of educational systems. >>
Again, of course, it would be great if the two perspectives were to converge...
CONCLUSION
In no particular order, I offered you several other questions that I think
the general notion of abstraction could eventually contribute to answer, at
least partially (but probably not within the time frame of this
discussion...):
- How are defined the level(s) at which two modules interact?
- To what extent can educational computer modules be defined only by their
specifications, like electrical or electronic circuits are?
- How can be defined the level(s) at which a human teacher and a student
interact?
- Can such level(s) be simulated by a computer artefact? Under what conditions?
My inner belief is indeed that abstraction, in its broadest sense, may play
an important role, first to make knowledge modelling in an educational
system as simple and systematic as possible, and possibly later to guide
the description of a generic framework for designing such a system. In the
long run, abstraction could well contribute to reducing the work needed to
build and maintain an IES, thereby helping to make them economically
viable, ultimately increasing the number of IESs actually used in schools
and in the workplace.
Whichever approach or direction you choose, I look forward to having a
fruitful and challenging discussion with all of you! ;-)
Cheerful greetings to all of you! Ruddy Lelouche
Ruddy Lelouche Phone: (+1-418) 656 2131 (X 2597)
Departement d'Informatique Messages: (+1-418) 656 7979
Universite Laval Fax: (+1-418) 656 2324
Quebec G1K 7P4 Mailto:lelouche@ift.ulaval.ca
CANADA http://www.ift.ulaval.ca/~lelouche
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon 13 Mar 2000 - 03:04:18 MET