Abstract
It is argued that current attempts to model human learning behavior commonly fail on one of two counts: either the model assumptions are artificially restricted so as to permit the application of mathematical techniques in deriving their consequences, or else the required complex assumptions are imbedded in computer programs whose technical details obscure the theoretical content of the model. The first failing is characteristic of so-called mathematical models of learning, while the second is characteristic of computer simulation models. An approach to model building which avoids both these failings is presented under the title of a black-box theory of learning. This method permits the statement of assumptions of any desired complexity in a language which clearly exhibits their theoretical content.
Section II of the paper is devoted to the problem of testing and comparing alternative learning theories. The policy advocated is to abandon attempts at hypothesis testing. It is argued that, in general, we not only lack sufficient data and sufficiently powerful techniques to test hypotheses, but that the ‘truth’ of a model is not really the issue of basic interest. A given model may be ‘true’ in the sense that on the basis of available evidence we cannot statistically reject it, but not ‘interesting’ in the sense that it provides little information about the processes underlying behavior. Rather, we should accept or reject models on the basis of how much ‘information’ they provide about the way in which subjects respond to environmental structure. This attitude toward model testing is made precise by introducing a formal measure of the ‘information content’ of a model. Finally, it is argued that the statistical concept of ‘degrees-of-freedom’ is misleading when used in the context of model testing and should be replaced by a measure of the ‘information absorbed from the data in estimating parameters’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Adams, E. W., Review of Sections VII–XI, Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 1962, in J. Philosophy 61 (1964) 89–94.
Atkinson, R. C. and Estes, W. K., ‘Stimulus Sampling Theory’ in Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 1963, pp. 121–268.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., and Austin, G. A., A Study of Thinking, Wiley, New York, 1956.
Bush, R. R. and Mosteller, F., ‘A Mathematical Model for Simple Learning’, Psychol. Rev. 58 (1951) 313–323.
Bush, R. R. and Mosteller, F., Stochastic Models for Learning, Wiley, New York, 1955.
Cramér, H., Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1946, pp. 416–434.
Edwards, W., ‘Probability Learning in 1,000 Trials’, J. Exp. Psychol. 62 (1961) 385–394.
Estes, W. K., ‘Toward a Statistical Theory of Learning’, Psychol. Rev. 57 (1950) 94–107.
Feigenbaum, E. A., ‘The Simulation of Verbal Learning Behavior’ in Feigenbaum, E. A. and Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 297–309.
Feigenbaum, E. A. and Feldman, J., Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
Feldman, J., ‘Simulation of Behavior in the Binary Choice Experiment’ in Feigenbaum, E. A. and Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 329–346.
Feldman, J. and Hanna, J. F., ‘The Structure of Responses to a Sequence of Binary Events’, J. Math. Psychol. 3 (1966) 371–388.
Goldman, S., Information Theory, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1953.
Gullahorn, J. T. and Gullahorn, J. E., ‘The Computer as a Tool for Theory Development’ in Hymes, D. (ed.), The Use of Computers in Anthropology, Mouton, The Hague, 1965, pp. 428–448.
Hanna, J. F., The Methodology of the Testing of Learning Models; with Applications to a new Stimulus Discrimination Model of Two-Choice Behavior (Technical Report No. 2, Measurement theory and Mathematical models reports, Univ. of Oregon), Eugene, Ore., 1965.
Hempel, P., ‘The Theoretician's Dilemma’ in Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1958, pp. 37–99.
Jarvik, M. E., ‘Probability Learning and a Negative Recency Effect in the Serial Anticipation of Alternating Symbols’, J. Exp. Psychol. 41 (1951) 291–297.
Kaplan, A., The Conduct of Inquiry, Chandler, San Francisco, 1964.
Minsky, M., ‘Steps toward artificial intelligence’ in Feigenbaum, E. A. and Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 406–450.
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A., ‘GPS, a Program that Simulates Human Thought’ in Feigenbaum, E. A. and Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 279–293.
Selfridge, O. G., ‘Pandemonium: a Paradigm for Learning’, in Blake, D. V. and Uttley, A. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation of Thought Processes, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, England, H.M. Stationary Office, London, 1959, pp. 511–529.
Sternberg, S. H., ‘Stochastic Learning Theory’ in Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, Wiley, New York, 1963, pp. 1–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I would like to express my indebtedness to Ernest W. Adams and Julian Feldman for their guidance and encouragement of the research reported here.
Much of the research reported here was conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, and incorporated in a Ph.D. dissertation in Logic and the Methodology of Science [15]. The research was supported in part by the Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hanna, J.F. A new approach to the formulation and testing of learning models. Synthese 16, 344–380 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485088
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485088