Skip to main content
Log in

Training, stability and control

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a system-theoretic approach to the analysis of the problem of training formally relating it to the control of an abstract dynamic system, the “adaption automaton” of the trainee. The utility of this formulation and the possibility of basing real training strategies upon it are discussed, and it is argued that further constraints upon the automaton are both necessary, and available, in so far as the theory corresponds to practical reality. The minimal constraints generate an extended theory in which training is related to the stability of the adaption automaton. More practical constraints lead to theoretical foundations for strategies of “feedback” or “adaptive” training. Corresponding to each set of constraints a “training theorem” is proved which demonstrates that the constraint is adequate to lead to a simple universal training strategy.

Although this paper is highly theoretical it is argued that the formal concepts introduced correspond to intuitive models of the phenomena of learning and training which are implicit in the design of many training systems. It is hoped that the formal analysis will throw new light on these implicit assumptions and help to clarify discussion of practical approaches to training, including the possibility of “computer-aided instruction” given on our present level of knowledge of human cognitive skills or individual students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbib M. A. (1965). “A Common Framework for Automata Theory and Control Theory”. SIAM J. Contr., 3: 206–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbib M. A. (1966). “Automata Theory and Control Theory: a Rapprochement”, Automatica, 3: 161–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbib M. A. and Manes E. G. (1973). “Adjoint Machines, State-Behaviour Machines, and Duality”. COINS Tech. Rep. 73 B-1, University of Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1960). Design for a Brain. Chapman and Hall.

  • Bellman, R. (1957). Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press.

  • Clifford, A. H. and Preston, G. B. (1961). The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups, I. American Mathematical Society.

  • Gaines B. R. (1968). “Training the Human Adaptive Controller”. Proc. IEE, 115, (8): 1183–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, B. R. (1971). “Memory Minimisation in Control with Stochastic Automata”. Electronics Letters, 7 (24).

  • Gaines B. R. (1972a). “The Learning of Perceptual-Motor Skills by Men and Machines and its Relationship to Training”. Instructional Science, Vol 1(3) 263–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines B. R. (1972b). “Axioms for Adaptive Behaviour”. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4 (2): 169–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen J. A. (1973a). “Relisation is Universal”. Mathematical Systems Theory, 6 (4): 359–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goguen, J. A. (1973b). “Discrete-Time Machines in Closed Monoidal Categories, I”. Journal of Computer and System Sciences.

  • Gold E. M. (1971). “Universal Goal-Seekers”. Information and Control, 18: 395–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalman R. E. (1962). “Canonical Structure of Linear Dynamical Systems”. Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci. (USA), 48: 596–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilmer W. L. and Arbib M. A. (1973). “An Automaton Framework for Neural Networks that Learn”. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 5 (4): 577–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, R. B. (1964) “Phenomenology: A Challenge to Experimental Psychology. In: T. W. Wann (Ed.)., Behaviorism and Phenomenology. University of Chicago Press.

  • Macklin R. (1972). “Reasons vs. Causes in Explanation of Action”. Phil. and Phenom. Res., 33 (1):78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm, N. (1964). “Behaviorism as a Philosophy of Psychology”. In: T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behaviorism and Phenomenology. University of Chicago Press.

  • Pask G. (1960). “The Teaching Machine as a Control Mechanism”. Transactions of the Society for Instrument Technology, 12 (2): 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pask, G. (1965). “Teaching as a Control—engineering Process”. Control.

  • Pask, G. (1967). “Man as a System that Needs to Learn”. In D. J. Stewart (Ed.), Automaton Theory and Learning Systems. Academic Press.

  • Putnam H. (1964): “Robots: Machines or artificially Created Life?” J. Philos., 61 (21): 668–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R., (1972). “Functionalism, Machines and Incorrigibility”. J. Philos., 69 (8): 203–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher G. (1973). “Causal Explanation and the Vocabulary of Action”. Mind, 82 (325): 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum J. (1966). “ELIZA — A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine”. Comm. ACM, 9: 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler J. D. (1970). “A Teaching Program that Generates Simple Arithmetic Problems”. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 2: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaines, B.R. Training, stability and control. Instr Sci 3, 151–176 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053496

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053496

Keywords

Navigation