The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills
Open accessAbstract
A new diagnostic modeling system for automatically synthesizing a deep-structure model of a student's misconceptions or bugs in his basic mathematical skills provides a mechanism for explaining why a student is making a mistake as opposed to simply identifying the mistake. This report is divided into four sections: The first provides examples of the problems that must be handled by a diagnostic model. It then introduces procedural networks as a general framework for representing the knowledge underlying a skill. The challenge in designing this representation is to find one that facilitates the discovery of misconceptions or bugs existing in a particular student's encoding of this knowledge. The second section discusses some of the pedagogical issues that have emerged from the use of diagnostic models within an instructional system. This discussion is framed in the context of a computer-based tutoring/gaming system developed to teach students and student teachers how to diagnose bugs strategically as well as how to provide a better understanding of the underlying structure of arithmetic skills. The third section describes our uses of an executable network as a tool for automatically diagnosing student behavior, for automatically generating “diagnostic” tests, and for judging the diagnostic quality of a given exam. Included in this section is a discussion of the success of this system in diagnosing 1300 school students from a data base of 20.000 test items. The last section discusses future research directions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction*
Malone, T. W. (1981) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 · Cited by 2,197
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., Newman, S. E., & Montclair State University (1988) · Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children · doi:10.5840/thinking19888129 · Cited by 1,299
Self-citationThe 1987 Presidential Address Learning In School and Out
Resnick, L. B. (1987) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x016009013 · Cited by 1,035
Question Asking During Tutoring
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312031001104 · Cited by 900
Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037123 · Cited by 840
Metadata
- Authors
- BROWN, J., & BURTON, R.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1978-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 155-192
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998696323
- Cited by
- 1,145
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0364-0213(78)80004-4
- The paper
- BROWN, J., & BURTON, R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(78)80004-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.