<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P84-1090">
  <Title>Correcting Object-Related Misconceptions: How Should The System Respond? t</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="444" end_page="445" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Superordinate Misconceptions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Si.,.e the information ttmt human experts include in their respon~l. Co a gal.,r.rdinate misc.ncepti,m seems to hinge on the exl..rl's l,ere~.ption &lt;,f ~ tiw misconception occurred or what informati(,n may h:tve bt.cn supporting the misconception, I have sub-cat,'g,,rized s,qwrordinate misconct, ptions according to the kind of support they hate. F.r each type (~ub-category) of sup,,r(udinat(, mis,.(,m:,,iJtion, 1 have identified information thal. would I.&amp;quot; relevant u, the correction.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In this analysis t,f supf.rordinate misconceptieus, I am assulning that the user's knowledge al)out the snperordinate concept is correct. The user therefore arrives at the misconception because of his/her incomplete understanding of the object. 1 am also, for I he moment, ignoring misconceptions that occur because two objects have similar names.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Given these restrictions, 1 found three major correction strategies used by human experts. These correspond to three reasons why u user might misclassify an object: TYPE ONE - Object Shares Many Properties with Posited Supe~ordinate - This may cause the user wrongly to c.nclude that these shared attributes are inherited from the superordinate. This type of misconc,.ption is illustrated by an example involving a student and a teacher: 4 U. \] thoughl a whale w.~s a fish.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> E. No, it's a mammal. Ahhou~h it has fins and li~e~ in the water, it's a mamntal s~nce it is warm blooded and feeds its young with milk.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Nc, tice the expert not only specifi~ the correct s0perordinate, but also gives additional inf.rn=ati,~n tt, justify the c~)rre, :i,~n. She do~.s this by acknowledging that there are some pr6per~ies that whales .d/are with fish which m:O' lead the student to conclude th8% a whah: is a fish. At the same time she indicates that these pc.pectins are not sufficient, h,r inclusion in the cla.~s of fish. The whale, in fact, lia.s other properties which define it to be a mamm:d.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Thus, the strategy the expert uses when s/he perceives the misc,,J,ct,ption tu be of TYPE ONE may be characterized as: (I) l)e,y the posited superordinate and iudk:ate the correct one, (2) State at tributes (prol&gt;,'rties) that the obj+ct has in common with the posited super&lt;~rdin:tte, (at State defining attributes of the real super-r&lt;thmte, thus giviug evidence/justification for the correct ch,~+:ifi,'~ti.n. The sy,lem may hdlow this strategy when the user mod~l indicates that the itser thinks the p++sited suFerordinate and the .hi\]el are simih\]r bee:ruse they share man)' common properties {n,,t held by the real SUl~.rordinate).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> TYPE TWO - Objt,ct Shares Properties with Auother Object which is a Member of Pos:ited Superordinate - In this c:rse the lAhho,Jgh the analysis given hero wa~ d~:rived through ,t~,lying xr~uLI human interactions, the exarapDs given ire simply illustrative and have not been extrs,,-t~d frorn a real interaetiJn.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7">  misclassified object and the &amp;quot;other object&amp;quot; are similar because they have some other common superordinate. The properties that they share arc no_..~t those inherited from the posited superordinate; but those inherited from this other common superordhlate. Figure 3-1 shows a representation of this situation. OBJECT and OTIIEIi-LIBJEC'E have many common properties because they slt:.t.re a CtHltllton superordinate (COMMON-St !I'E|2OI2DINATE). Hence. if the user knows that OTIIEI1-OBJECT is a tnember of the POSrFED SUPEROllDINATE, ~/J|e inay wr~mgly conclude that OBJECT is also a member of POSITED :SUI&gt;ERORD1NATE.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Figure 3-1: TYPE TWO Superordinate Misconeeptio.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> For example, imagine the following exchange taking place i't a junior high sch.-I bioh,gy ela_,~s (here U is a st,d,.nt, E a teacher): U. I thought a tomato was a vegetable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> E. No it's a fruit. You may think it's a vegetable since you grow tomatoes in your vegetal',\]e garden :?h)ug with the lettuce and green beans. However. it's a fruit because it's really the ripened ovary of a seed plant.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Here it is intportant for the student to understand about plants. Thus, the teacher denies the posited superordinate, vegetable, and gives the corr,-ct one, fruit. She backs this up by refuting evidence that the student may I)e using to support the misconception. In this ca...e, the stl.h nt may wrongly believe that tomatoes are vegetables becau~.e lh~'y are like some other objects which are vegetables, lettuce and green beans, in that all three share the common super.rdln:tte: I,l:mts grown in vegetable garden. The teacher acknowledges this similarity but refutes the conclusion that tomatoes are vegetables by giving the property of tomatoes which define them to be fruits.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> The correction strategy used in this case was: (I) Deny the chk, csification posited by the user attd indicate the correct ela:.,.ifieation. (2) Cite the -tiler memb~.rs of the posited sup*,rordinale that the user may be either confusing with the object being discu.'.sed (Dr makhtg a b:td an:dogy from. (,3) Give the features which disling~Jl.h the correct and p~sited superordinates thus justifying the classlfi(':ttion. A system may f.llow lt.;s strategy if a structure like that ht figure ;3-1 is f(~und in the user model.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> TYPE THREE - Wrong Information - The user either has been told wrying informali.n and h.'~ not done any rea;tming to justify it, or has tttisclassified the object in response to some cotnpl*.x rea.soniug process that the system can't duplicate. In this kind of situation, the system, just like a human expert, can only c.rtect the wrong information, give the corresponding true information, at.t possibly give some defining features distinguishing the posited and actual superordiuates. ;f this cnrrection does not satisfy the user. it is up to him/her to continue the interaction until the underlying misconception is ch.ared up (see \[.J'eff~rson 72\]).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> The iuformation included in this kind of response is similar to that which McKeown's TEXT system, which answers questions about database structure \[McKeown 82 l, would include if the user had asked about the diff~.rence between two entities. In her case, the information included would depend on how' similar the two objects were according to the system KB, not on a model of what the user knows or why the user might be asking the question. 5 U. Is a debenture a secured bond? S. No it's an unsecured bond - it has nothing backing it should the issuing company default.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="445" end_page="445" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
AND
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> U. Is the whiskey a missile? S. No. it's a submarine which is an underwater vehicle (not a destructive device).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The strategy folh;wed in these ca..,es can be characterized as: (1} Deny posited supev,rdinate and give correct one. (2) Give additional iuformathm as lleeded. Tills .xtra inform:ttion may include defining features of the correct, superordinate or information ab.ut the highest superordinate that distinguishes the object from the posited superordinate. This strategy may be followed by the system when there is insufficient evidence in the user Ioodel for concI.Jding that either a TYPE ONE or a TYPE TWO mlsconcepti(m has occurred.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="445" end_page="446" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Attribute Misconceptions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A second class of nlisconception occurs when a person wrongly attributes a properly to an object. There are at least three reasons wl v thi~, kind of ntisc~mception :nay occur.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> TYPE ()NE - Wren!.; Object - The user is either confusing the obj,ct being discussed with :Hmther object that has the specified property, or s/he is making a b~.t analogy using a similar object. In either c.'~e the second object should be included in the correfti.:lu SO the problem does not f:,~ulinuC/*.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> \[u the foll,)wing example the ,'xpert assume.,~ the user is confusiug the object with asimilar object.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> U. I have my money in a money market certificate so I can get to it right away.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> E. But you can't! Your money is tied up in a eertit'icate - do you mean a money market fund? The strategy followed in this situation can be characterized ~.s: (l)Deny the wrong information. (2) (;ire the corresp.mling correct information. (3) Mention the object of confusion or possible analogical reas.ning. This s rategy can I)e followed by a .sy~tenl v.'hPit there is at}other obj,'ct which is &amp;quot;cio~e in con, eel = to Ihe object being discussed and zhi,:h ha.- the property involved in the inisconceptiou. Or course, the perception of h(,w &amp;quot;cl(.:~e in cant'clot = two objects are chan'~.es with conte.\t. This may be because some attributes are highlighted in SOlile contexts and hidden in others. };'or this reason it is anticipated that a el':sette'~s  measure such as that described in \[Tversky 77\], which takes into account the salience of various attributes, will be useful.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> TYPE TWO - Wrong Attribute - The user has confused the attribute being discussed with another attribute. In this case the correct attribute should be included in the response along with additional information concerning the confused attributes (e.g., their similarities and differences). In the following example the similarity of the two attributes, in this case a common function, is mentioned in the response: U. Where are the gills on the whale? S. Whales don't have gills, they breathe through lungs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> The strategy followed was: (1) Deny attribute given, (2) Give correct attrihutc, (3) Bring in similarities/differences of the attributes which may have led to the confusion. A system may follow this strategy when a similar attribute can be found.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> There may be some difficulty in distinguishing between a TYPE ONE and a TYPE TWO attribute misconception. In some situations the user model alone will not be enough to distinguish the two cases. The use of past immediate focus (see \[Sidner 83\]) looks to be promising in this case. Heuristics are currently being worked out for determining the most likely misconception type based on what kinds of things {e.g., sets of attributes or objects) have been focused on in the recent past.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> TYPE THREE - The user w~s simply given bad information or has done some complicated reasoning which can not be duplicated by the system. Just as in the TYPE TI~IREE superordinate misconception, the system can only respond in a limited way.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> U. 1 am not working now and my husband has opened a spousal IRA for us. 1 understand that if 1 start working again, and want to contribute to my own IRA, that we will have to pay a penalty on anything that had been in our spousal account.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> E. No - There is no penalty. You can split that spousal one any way you wish* You can have 2000 in each.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Here the strategy is: (1) Deny attribute given, (2) Give correct attribute. This strategy can be followed by the system when there is not enough evidence in the user model to conclude that either a TYPE ONE or a TYPE TWO attribute misconception has occurred.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>