Learn through trial and error

Trial and Error Learning

Learning begins when the organism faces a new and difficult situation – a problem. Most learning organism counters errors, and with repeated trials, errors reduce. The phenomenon is called Trial and Error Learning in a simple sense.

Trial and Error Learning is only one of many theories of learning in Behavioral Psychology. Some other forms of learning include

The first miniature Trial and Error learning system of the method was provided by Thorndike’s research on Animal Intelligence in 1898. This form of learning falls under S-R learning theory and also known as Connectionism.

Classic Experiment on Trial and Error Learning

Thorndike placed a hungry cat inside a puzzle box, and a plate of fish was kept outside the box. It was impossible for the cat to get to the plate, unless it could open the door and get out. Thorndike had arranged the puzzle box such that, the cat either had to pull a loop or press a lever in order to open the door.

Initially, the cat moved randomly inside the box; biting and clawing at the bars, thrusting its paws and trying to squeeze out of the box. After several minutes of trying these ineffective responses, the cat accidentally pulled the loop. Having hit the correct response, the cat managed to get out and it was awarded with a small piece of fish.

The cat was placed inside the box again. This time around, the cat took less time to pull the loop. The exercise was continued repeatedly. It was seen that as the number of trials increased, the time taken to pull the loop decreased. As the response latency decreased, the cat finally learned the trick; it then pulled the loop as soon as it was put in the box and managed to get out.

The term “Trial and Error Learning” was then introduced as the number of trials resulted in decreased number of errors.

Basic Conditions for Trial and Error Learning

Drive is an essential factor that triggers the various conditions for this phenomenon. If we look at the experiment above, hunger was the cat’s drive which stimulated it into trying out various responses until it finally learned the trick. Drive motivates to learn and make organism active to learn.

Blockade/barrier in satisfaction of drive

Trial and Errors occur only when there is barrier or blockade in between hunger and food. In the above experiment, satisfaction of hunger was only possible through consumption of food, but there was barrier in achieving the food. The barrier was the problem which needed to be solved in order to receive food. The attempts to solve the problem led to trial and error activities.

Random Activities

Accidental Success

The first time an organism gets something right after repeated trials is always accidental, hence the term, accidental success. For instance, the first time the cat managed to pull the lever was accidental success.

Selection of Right Response

Accidental success is not the ultimate solution to any problem. The organism keeps trying out its previously tried out random attempts until it stumbles upon the right response. With repeated trial, the solution can be isolated.

Fixation of the Right Response

It’s the final stage of learning. The organism having identified the right response stays fixed on it, which lets the organism to act immediately when presented with the same situation. For instance, the cat managed to pull the loop immediately once it had, say, mastered the trick, or reached the final stage of Trial and Error Learning.

Laws of Trial and Error Learning

Law of Exercise

Law of exercise is a fundamental basis of trial and error learning since organism learns as a result of repeated trials/practice/exercise. The law can be subdivided into two parts:

Law of Use: If any action is repeated by an organism in certain condition, learning occurs.

Law of Disuse: If the action is not repeated by an organism, there will be no learning.

Law of Effect

Simply put, law of effect states that satisfaction lead to the repetition of the action. Reward causes satisfaction. Thorndike stated that satisfying state of affairs is a key to learning, defining it as

One which the animal does nothing to avoid, often doing such things as to attain and preserve it.

If the reward satisfies, the exercise then strengthens the connection, and the connection is weakened when the exercise leads to undesirable outcomes. The reward must satisfy, and the greater reward has greater effect on learning.

Law of Readiness

Readiness is the function of motivation, which is guided more by law of reward. The law states that when conduction cells are prepared for particular action, this will lead to satisfaction.

Источник

Is learning through trial and error “science”?

This question came up when I was thinking about Māori and other indigenous “ways of knowing”, and I realized that this kind of knowledge is acquired mostly through trial and error. Now that doesn’t mean it isn’t science, for it is “science construed broadly” as I discuss in Faith versus Fact. And before we had the scientific toolkit now used by professional scientists, this is pretty much all we had. In his new book, Rationality, Steve Pinker begins with a long and absorbing disquisition on how the San people of Africa have developed a sophisticated way of tracking animals, and accomplishing other feats, through trial and error over the centuries. And sometimes it’s based on hypotheses, like “Wildebeests are bigger than other grazing animals, and would leave deeper tracks.”

So yes, “trial and error” is science, but it seems to me that modern science involves far more than trial and error, but rests more frequently on testing a priori hypotheses. We didn’t use trial and error to get the Webb Space Telescope to its position, for if we made one error, the mirror wouldn’t open. We also used the known laws of physics, which aren’t used in “indigenous knowledge.” Darwin didn’t develop the theory of evolution by natural selection using trial and error, but had an epiphany from reading Malthus and then worked out the consequences, including checking the results of breeders. Avery et al. didn’t discover that DNA was the hereditary material by trial and error, but by knowing that the constituents of bacteria were mostly proteins and nucleic acids, and seeing which of them, via lab experiments, could “transform” other bacteria. This kind of science, more than does indigenous knowledge, builds on itself, so that as hypotheses are confirmed, one after the other, they ultimately lead to an immensely sophisticated body of knowledge.

I came to these thoughts when I was thinking about the ability to navigate between islands used by ancient Polynesians. This is often touted as a form of indigenous “science”. Now this couldn’t have developed, I think, as an a priori set of hypotheses used to get from place A to place B. Rather, we must remember all the voyagers who didn’t make it compared to those who did. Those who did may have used methods that enabled them to succeed: keeping stars in one position, looking for seabirds, and so on. Over time, the successful voyagers incorporated one method after another so voyages became ever more successful. The methods” of those who died attempting the voyages were lost. This was trial and error, and it was a form of scientific knowledge, but it involved enormous wastage. It was the result of one successful trial piled atop another, with the methods that produced successful voyages incorporated into lore.

A similar method could be used to suss out a way through a bifurcating maze. Imagine that there is a Y maze, with each branch bifurcating. After three bifurcations you have 8 separate destinations. Further assume that all the destinations save one—for example, taking the left branch, then the right, and then the left—conclude in a pitfall trap with spikes at the bottome, while that one successful trio of choices leads to a cache of food. Your job is to get the food. You send 1000 people into the maze, and only about 125 (one out of eight) will emerge at the other end. You then ask them how they got there. They’ll all say, “Go left, right, and then right.” Everyone else would be dead. And so you have “knowledge” of how to solve this problem.

It must have been something like this that was the nucleus of Polynesian navigation—and much other indigenous knowledge. It seems to me—and I may be wrong—that modern science is far more than trial and error, and far more than the kinds of “knowledge” that advocates of, say mātauranga Māori tout as coequal to modern science. But teaching how modern science approaches problems is far more sophisticated than trial and error, even though indigenous knowledge is indeed sometimes “knowledge” or “truth.” Teaching mātauranga Māori in science classes is not possible so long as that method incorporates philosophy, mythology, legend, and morality, but its empirical methods—trial and error—could be taught. That would take one hour at best. But could you use trial and error as a way of understanding the cosmos that is coequal to the entire toolkit of modern science, which includes trial and error, but so much more?

I am not yet convinced that there’s a good reason to teach indigenous “ways of knowing” as coequal to science, though there is a rationale for teaching the methods that our predecessors used to gain knowledge. It’s just that this is not coequal to modern science.

When knowledge was based on trial and error, progress was slow and tedious, and sometimes didn’t happen. It took centuries of failed trial and error to figure out how bubonic plague or malaria was caused, and how to deal with it. The solutions came from hypotheses that were tested, not willy-nilly guesses that weren’t tested, but merely enacted—and failed, one after another. (A lot of my ancestors were burned as supposed remedies for the plague.)

These are just some random thoughts to inspire others to think about the issue of indigenous knowledge versus modern science

Источник

Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory | Learning | Psychology

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Meaning of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory 2. Experimental Evidences of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory 3. Educational Implications 4. Some Objections.

Meaning of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Edward Lee Thorndike (1874-1949) is generally considered to have been the foremost educational psychologist not only of the United States but of the world. He contributed to research and theory in the field of learning and genetic psychology, testing and social psychology, testing and social psychology.

Thorndike first stated the elements of his theory of learning in 1913 that connections are formed in the nervous system between stimuli and response. These connections formed are illustrated by the symbols S-R. Another word used to describe these connections is the word ‘bond’ and hence,’ this theory is sometimes called a ‘Bond Theory of learning’. Thorndike has written- “Learning is connecting. The mind is man’s connection system.”

According to Thorndike learning takes place by trial and error. Some people call it, “Learning by selection of the successful variant,” accordingly when no ready-made solution of a problem is available to the learner, he adopts the method of trial and error. He first, tries one solution. If it does not help him, he rejects it, then, he tries another and so on. In this way he eliminates errors or irrelevant responses which do not serve the purpose and finally discovers the correct solution.

Thus, in trial and error method, the learner makes random activities and finally reaches the goal accidently. Here, one thing should be remembered that in trial and error also, there are often systematic and relevant responses. Activities are not wholly random. All these activities, though apparently random are suggested to him by the situation and the learner proceeds on accordingly. The stages through which the learner has to pass are Goal, Block (hinderances), Random Movements or multiple response, chance success, selection and Fixation.

When and how the connection is accomplished was stated first in the following three laws:

First primary law of learning, according to him, is the ‘Law or Readiness’ or the ‘Law of Action Tendency’, which means that learning takes place when an action tendency’ is aroused through preparatory adjustment, set or attitude. Readiness means a preparation for action. If one is not prepared to learn, learning cannot be automatically instilled in him, for example, unless the typist, in order to learn typing prepares himself to start, he would not make much progress in a lethargic and unprepared manner.

The second law of learning is the ‘Law of Exercise’, which means that drill, or practice helps in increasing efficiency and durability of learning and according to Thorndike’s S-R Bond Theory, the connections are strengthened with trail or practice and the connections are weakened when trial or practice is discontinued.

The ‘law of exercise’, therefore, is also understood as the ‘law of use and disuse’ in which case connections or bonds made in the brain cortex are weakened or loosened. Many examples of this are found in case of human learning. Learning to drive a motor-car, typewriting, singing or memorizing a poem or a mathematical table, and music etc. need exercise and repetition of various movements and actions May times.

3. Law of Effect:

The third law is the ‘Law of Effect’, according to which the trial or steps leading to satisfaction stamps in the bond or connection. Satisfying states lead to consolidation and strengthening of the connection, whereas dis-satisfaction, annoyance or pain leads to the weakening or stamping out of the connections.

In fact, the ‘law or effect’ signifies that if the responses satisfy the subject, they are learnt and selected. While those which are not satisfying are eliminated. Teaching, therefore, must be pleasing. The educator must obey the tastes and interests of his pupils. In other words, greater the satisfaction stronger will be the motive to learn. Thus, intensity is an important condition of the ‘law of effect’.

Besides these three basic laws, Thorndike also refers to five sub-ordinate laws which further help to explain the learning process.

1. Law of Multiple-Response:

According to it the organism varies or changes its responses till an appropriate behaviour is hit upon. Without varying the responses, the correct response for the solution might never be elicited. If the individual wants to solve a puzzle, he is trying in different ways rather than mechanically persisting in the same way. Thorndike’s cat in the puzzle box moved about and tried many ways to come out till finally it hit the latch with her paw which opened the door and it jumped out.

2. The Law of Set or Attitude:

Learning is guided by a total set or attitude of the organism, which determines not only what the person will do but what will satisfy or annoy him. For instance, unless the cricketer sets himself to make a century, he will not be able to score more runs. A student, similarly, unless he sets to get first position and has the attitude of being at the top, would while away the time and would not learn much. Hence, learning is affected more in the individual if he is set to learn more or to excel.

3. Pre-Potency of Elements:

According to this law, the learner reacts selectively to the important or essential element in the situation and neglects the other features or elements which may be irrelevant or non-essential. The ability to deal with the essential or the relevant part of the situation makes analytical and insightful learning possible. In this law of pre-potency of elements, Thorndike is really anticipating insight in learning which was more emphasised by the Gestations.

4. Law of Response by Analogy:

According to this law, the individual makes use of old experiences or acquisitions while learning a new situation. There is a tendency to utilize common elements in the new situation as existed in a similar past situation. The learning of driving a car, for instance, is facilitated by the earlier acquired skill of driving a motor-cycle or even riding a bicycle, because the perspective or maintaining a balance and controlling the handle helps in steering the car.

5. The Law of Associative Shifting:

According to this law we may get any response, of which a learner is capable, associated with any other situation to which he is sensitive. Thorndike illustrated this by the act of teaching a cat to stand up at a command. A fish was dangled before the vat while he said ‘stand up’. After a number of trials by presenting the fish after uttering the command ‘stand up’, he later ousted the fish and the overall command of ‘stand up’ was found sufficient to evoke the response to the cat by standing up on her hind legs.

Experimental Evidences of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Various experiments have been performed on men as well as animals to study this method. Thorndike made several experiments on rats and cats. Two important experiments are mentioned here.

Thorndike’s most widely quoted experiment was with the cat placed in a puzzle box. The hungry cat was put in the puzzle box and a fish, as an incentive, was put out-side the cage a little beyond its reach. The box was designed in such a way that the door of the cage can be released by some simple act like depressing a lever inside the cage.

At first, the cat made a great deal of varied attempts to reach the food in a trial and error fashion such as jumping up and down, clawing at the bars, scratching the cage, whaling around trying to push the bars, pawing and shaking movable parts of the cage etc., but all attempts proved to vain.

Ultimately by chance her paw fell on the loop of the rope and the door opened. The cat jumped out immediately and ate the fish. When next day, the cat was put in the box again, this time she took less time in coming out and in the subsequent trials the time decreased further so much so that the stage reached when the cat came out soon after being put inside by directly striking the latch with her paw without any random movement. This is how she learnt to reach its goal.

Expt. 2 (Experiment with Human Subjects):

Gopalaswamy demonstrated trial and error in human beings through Mirror-Drawing Experiment. This is a classical experiment in the psychology of learning. In this experiment the subject is asked to trace a star-shaped drawing, not looking at it directly, but as it is reflected in a mirror, the subject’s hand movements are visible in the mirror only and not directly. The experimenter observes the movements of the hands and thus, records the time of tracing in successive trials and the number of errors committed in each trial.

In first six trials the subject traces the star with the right hand and then in the next six trials he traces it by the left hand. Two graphs-the Time Curve and the Error Curve are then drawn, which show the general characteristics of trial and error learning. In the original experiment Gopalaswamy arranged his apparatus so that a record was automatically made of all the movements of the styles of the subject as it traced out the pattern. In this way the successive times of tracings and a record of errors was obtained.

Gopalaswamy analyzed the errors into two groups-lower level errors and higher level errors. Those errors which do not involve any noble process on the part of the subject in tracing the star are lower-level errors and those which involve higher process of mind on the perceptual and conceptual level are higher-level errors.

He discovered that improvement in the higher-level responses correlated highly with intelligence and that the improvement in the responses of the lower-level errors did not show much correlation with intelligence. This clears the respective share of trial and error and of higher learning.

For Fundulus fishes Thorndike got a glass tub with a dividing wall of glass in the middle. In the dividing wall there was a hole through which the fish could go from one part to another. By nature Fundulus fish like to remain in shade. The glass tub was filled with water and it was put under such a situation that half of its part remained under shade and the other half was in the sunshine. The fishes were kept in the sunny portion.

They began to try to coming over to the shady portion. By trying again and again the fishes succeeded in tracing the hole of the dividing wall and reached the shady portion one by one. But, at first the fishes took more time in reaching the shady portion, then in the second attempt they took less time and in the third attempt they took the least time. Trying it again finally a stage came when the fishes happened to come one after another in a row to the shady portion immediately in the very first attempt i.e., the number of errors of their wandering here and there amounted to a zero.

Educational Implications of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Thorndike’s theory of Trial and Error and his three basic laws of learning have direct educational implications. The ‘Law of Readiness’ lays emphasis on motivation while the ‘Law of Exercise’ compels us to accept a well-known fact ‘Practice makes a man perfect’, and the third one i.e., ‘Law of Effect’ opens fairly a large scope to discuss the role of reward and punishment as an incentive in the child’s learning.

Actually, motivation and learning are inter-related concepts. No motivation; No learning. Here we can remember a proverb, ‘the one man can take horse to the pool of water but twenty cannot make him drink’. This statement clearly shows the impact of motivation on learning. Clearly speaking motive is a force that compels an individual to act or to behave in a particular direction. And, hence the success of a teacher lies in motivating the roomfuls of energy. His prime duty is to produce ‘thirst’ (a motive to drink water) in the horses. Then and only then he may succeed in making the process of learning easier and interesting.

To quote with the experiment to Tolman and Honzik (1930) which they performed in rats will be of interest and situational here. In this experiment the rats were taught to follow a complex pattern of runs and turns through a maze to reach the food. The rats were divided in three groups. First group of rats was neither hungry nor given any food at the end or trial. The second group was hungry but was not given food. The third one was hungry and given food at the end of a trial.

It was concluded that only the third group learned appreciably i.e., the number of errors went on decreasing in each attempt. The logic is simple. To be motivated and unrewarded leaves to you only frustration instead a notable amount of learning. Also nor is it worthwhile to work for a prize you do not want. Thus, it is the motive that gives the reward its value and the satisfaction of reward that fixes the learning of which it is the effect.

Briefly speaking, without motivation or drive learning is impossible, as firstly, it prods the learner into action and secondly, it introduces light and shadow into an otherwise different field. So, teacher’s concern primarily shall be the motivating of goals and releasing tensions which signalise success. Above all he should have a psychological involvement in reaching and has to be charged with values and therefore, naturally motivated himself. The advice of an old principal of a school is very pertinent here.

“Teachers, you are going to be emulated in your talk and walk by your students, but a little less. If you run, your students will walk. If you walk, your students will stand. If you stand, your students will lie down. If you lie down, your students will sleep. And if you sleep in the class, your students will die”. But, one has to admit here that the organism’s level of performance can’t be beyond a physiological limit, whatever incentive we provide to him. For instance, higher bonus to factory workers, more praise to students may lead to a better performance, but no athlete can jump over the Chinese wall, whatever the intensity of motivation is provided.

Another significant aspect of this theory is that to master a complex situation or to elaborate task, practice is must. It is not possible to handle each difficult situation in a single trial, no matter what the degree of motivation or reward is. One cannot blame the entire constitution of India in one reading even if the reward is a crore of Rupees or the threat is to be shot dead otherwise. Each task initially seems to be difficult and fatiguing but as practice continues, it becomes smoother and requires less effort.

Finally, we say that habit or S-R is established. An expert driver, for instance, goes on driving, listening to the radio and taking to his friend sitting by. In the light of class room teaching blundering is a natural phenomenon associated with student learning. But, the teacher should not regard this as a symptom of inefficient teaching, because this is the way the pupils learn. He should not be at all worried when blundering appears.

Insights will emerge as the blundering progresses from simpler associations to higher units. There is not royal road to success. Kennedy-Fraser, the Psychologist concludes, “The teachers who are responsible for the beginning of any new subject should be the best available, since at the point, the pupils have no defensive system of properly formed habits to protect them from the evil effects of bad teaching.”

Actually, we learn by doing. The teachers’ duty should be to arrange situations in which the student has chance to discover for himself what is significant. The blundering must be directed and methods that are wholly futile must be eliminated. But at the same time the teacher must exercise, constant restraint in his supervision.

Further, both punishment and reward may play a significant role in the process of learning. But, experiments go to show that motivation is successfully handled when it is kept in the positive phase. Drastic forms of inhibition tend to spread their effects over the whole learning situation. Sometimes, the teachers impress upon the negative processes. The false response is effectively inhibited when the correct reaction is fixated and the emphasis should be on the latter process. The fixating rewards are most effective when they afford immediate and complete release.

A delay introduced between the successful performance and the releasing reward has a considerable effect on their rate of learning and co-ordination. In school, the satisfactions should be closely coupled with the activity itself otherwise the likelihood of permanent effects is small. Another aspect of motivating problem is simpler than the manipulations of tensions and releases and can be mastered by all. This is that the learner should be kept informed of his progress and promptly.

Finally, though the theory is not widely accepted for its educational significance, yet, there are certain subjects such as mathematics, tables of mathematics, memorising poetry, rules of grammar etc. in which learning by Trial and Error cannot be avoided. All reasoning subjects afford the greatest opportunity for the application of the Trial and Error method.

In Brief, the implications of the theory are:

1. According to his theory the task can be started from the easier aspect towards its difficult side. This approach will benefit the weaker and backward children.

2. A small child learns some skills through trial and error method only such as sitting, standing, walking, running etc. In teaching also the child rectifies the writing after committing mistakes.

3. In this theory more emphasis has been laid on motivation. Thus, before starting teaching in the classroom the students should be properly motivated.

4. Practice leads a man towards maturity. Practice is the main feature of trial and error method. Practice helps in reducing the errors committed by the child in learning any concept.

5. Habits are formed as a result of repetition. With the help of this theory the wrong habits of the children can be modified and the good habits strengthened.

6. The effects of rewards and punishment also affect the learning of the child. Thus, the theory lays emphasis on the use of reward and punishment in the class by the teacher.

7. The theory may be found quite helpful in changing the behaviour of the delinquent children. The teacher should cure such children making use of this theory.

8. With the help of this theory the teacher can control the negative emotions of the children such as anger, jealousy etc.

9. The teacher can improve his teaching methods making use of this theory. He must observe the effects of his teaching methods on the students and should not hesitate to make necessary changes in them, if required.

10. The theory pays more emphasis on oral drill work. Thus, a teacher should conduct oral drill of the taught contents. This helps in strengthening the learning more.

Some Objections to Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

The theory has been criticised by various psychologists on the following grounds. Firstly, the theory is mechanical, for it leaves no room for an end or purpose in any sense whatsoever. On the contrary psychologist Mc Dougall maintained that even the behaviour of the amoeba or the paramecia consists in learning to face novel conditions to serve some unknown purpose Even repeated trials are of no avail if the tendency to learn is not there.

Again, if the tendency is there, even one trial may be fruitful. Mc Dougall and Woodworth insist on readiness for reaching a goal in learning and Lloyd Morgan lays stress on persistency with varied efforts till the goal of learning is achieved. The hungry cat confined in the puzzle-box with food in front of it goes on persistently trying various means until it gets out of it and has food. So, its trials are not blind and mechanical. In fact, they are guided by perceptual attention and feelings of pleasure and pain. Yet, Thorndike pays no attention to these higher order mental processes.

Secondly, in course or repeated trials the numbers of errors are not corrected of themselves or mechanically. The effects of Trial and Error depend to a great extent upon the psycho-physical state of the animal or man. In the absence of any purpose in view the animal is so puzzled, rather than enlightened by the errors committed that it goes on blindly repeating them without end.

Thirdly, Thorndike assumes that learning consists only in the association of several separate movements. But, learning is a whole process related to a whole situation. The hungry cat confined in a puzzle-box with food placed near it does not perceive the situation in a piece-meal fashion but as a whole of hunger food-puzzle box-confinement.

Finally, the laws of learning formulated by Thorndike appear to be unjustified. For instance, the ‘law of effect’ seems to be in consistent with his mechanical point of view. Satisfaction in or the sense of being rewarded by success and dissatisfaction in or the sense of being punished by failure seen to ascribe higher mental processes to animals like cats and rats than are psychologically ascribable to them. Or, it violates Lloyd Morgans’s law.

Similarly, the ‘Law of Exercise’ has been severely criticised on the grounds that it does not regard other factors like motives, interests, special training etc. Mechanical repetition without motive, interest, significance or understanding does not make anyone learn anything and remember it. One rupee-currency note passes hundred times through the hand of a person, but hardly anyone is able to tell the size, the colour and other details of it.

A boy was asked to write hundred times ‘I have gone’ after school. He wrote it mechanically and correctly all the times. But, when he left the school in the absence of the teacher, he wrote “I have written,” ‘I have gone’ correctly one hundred times and since you are not here “I have went home”. After repeating one correct thing so many times he again committed the same mistake. This shows that repetition without motive, interest or understanding is of no avail.

Thus, learning by Trial and Error is not of very much use and should not be resorted to by the teacher as it lays a stress on cramming. Also, there is much wastage of time and energy by this method.

Источник

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving^[1] characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,^[2] or until the practicer stops trying.

According to W.H. Thorpe, the term was devised by C. Lloyd Morgan (1852–1936) after trying out similar phrases «trial and failure» and «trial and practice».^[3] Under Morgan’s Canon, animal behaviour should be explained in the simplest possible way. Where behavior seems to imply higher mental processes, it might be explained by trial-and-error learning. An example is a skillful way in which his terrier Tony opened the garden gate, easily misunderstood as an insightful act by someone seeing the final behavior. Lloyd Morgan, however, had watched and recorded the series of approximations by which the dog had gradually learned the response, and could demonstrate that no insight was required to explain it.

Edward Lee Thorndike was the initiator of the theory of trial and error learning based on the findings he showed how to manage a trial-and-error experiment in the laboratory. In his famous experiment, a cat was placed in a series of puzzle boxes in order to study the law of effect in learning.^[4] He plotted to learn curves which recorded the timing for each trial. Thorndike’s key observation was that learning was promoted by positive results, which was later refined and extended by B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning.

Trial and error is also a method of problem solving, repair, tuning, or obtaining knowledge. In the field of computer science, the method is called generate and test (Brute force). In elementary algebra, when solving equations, it is guess and check.

This approach can be seen as one of the two basic approaches to problem-solving, contrasted with an approach using insight and theory. However, there are intermediate methods which for example, use theory to guide the method, an approach known as guided empiricism.

This way of thinking has become a mainstay of Karl Popper’s critical rationalism.

Methodology[edit]

The trial and error approach is used most successfully with simple problems and in games, and it is often the last resort when no apparent rule applies. This does not mean that the approach is inherently careless, for an individual can be methodical in manipulating the variables in an attempt to sort through possibilities that could result in success. Nevertheless, this method is often used by people who have little knowledge in the problem area. The trial-and-error approach has been studied from its natural computational point of view ^[5]

Simplest applications[edit]

Ashby (1960, section 11/5) offers three simple strategies for dealing with the same basic exercise-problem, which have very different efficiencies. Suppose a collection of 1000 on/off switches have to be set to a particular combination by random-based testing, where each test is expected to take one second. [This is also discussed in Traill (1978–2006, section C1.2]. The strategies are:

• the perfectionist all-or-nothing method, with no attempt at holding partial successes. This would be expected to take more than 10^301 seconds, [i.e., 2^1000 seconds, or 3·5×(10^291) centuries]
• a serial-test of switches, holding on to the partial successes (assuming that these are manifest), which would take 500 seconds on average
• parallel-but-individual testing of all switches simultaneously, which would take only one second

Note the tacit assumption here that no intelligence or insight is brought to bear on the problem. However, the existence of different available strategies allows us to consider a separate («superior») domain of processing — a «meta-level» above the mechanics of switch handling — where the various available strategies can be randomly chosen. Once again this is «trial and error», but of a different type.

Hierarchies[edit]

Ashby’s book develops this «meta-level» idea, and extends it into a whole recursive sequence of levels, successively above each other in a systematic hierarchy. On this basis, he argues that human intelligence emerges from such organization: relying heavily on trial-and-error (at least initially at each new stage), but emerging with what we would call «intelligence» at the end of it all. Thus presumably the topmost level of the hierarchy (at any stage) will still depend on simple trial-and-error.

Traill (1978–2006) suggests that this Ashby-hierarchy probably coincides with Piaget’s well-known theory of developmental stages. [This work also discusses Ashby’s 1000-switch example; see §C1.2]. After all, it is part of Piagetian doctrine that children learn first by actively doing in a more-or-less random way, and then hopefully learn from the consequences — which all has a certain resemblance to Ashby’s random «trial-and-error».

Application[edit]

Traill (2008, espec. Table «S» on p.31) follows Jerne and Popper in seeing this strategy as probably underlying all knowledge-gathering systems — at least in their initial phase.

Four such systems are identified:

• Natural selection which «educates» the DNA of the species,
• The brain of the individual (just discussed);
• The «brain» of society-as-such (including the publicly held body of science); and
• The adaptive immune system.

Features[edit]

Trial and error has a number of features:

• solution-oriented: trial and error makes no attempt to discover why a solution works, merely that it is a solution.
• problem-specific: trial and error makes no attempt to generalize a solution to other problems.
• non-optimal: trial and error is generally an attempt to find a solution, not all solutions, and not the best solution.
• needs little knowledge: trials and error can proceed where there is little or no knowledge of the subject.

It is possible to use trial and error to find all solutions or the best solution, when a testably finite number of possible solutions exist. To find all solutions, one simply makes a note and continues, rather than ending the process, when a solution is found, until all solutions have been tried. To find the best solution, one finds all solutions by the method just described and then comparatively evaluates them based upon some predefined set of criteria, the existence of which is a condition for the possibility of finding a best solution. (Also, when only one solution can exist, as in assembling a jigsaw puzzle, then any solution found is the only solution and so is necessarily the best.)

Examples[edit]

Trial and error has traditionally been the main method of finding new drugs, such as antibiotics. Chemists simply try chemicals at random until they find one with the desired effect. In a more sophisticated version, chemists select a narrow range of chemicals it is thought may have some effect using a technique called structure–activity relationship. (The latter case can be alternatively considered as a changing of the problem rather than of the solution strategy: instead of «What chemical will work well as an antibiotic?» the problem in the sophisticated approach is «Which, if any, of the chemicals in this narrow range will work well as an antibiotic?») The method is used widely in many disciplines, such as polymer technology to find new polymer types or families.

Trial and error is also commonly seen in player responses to video games — when faced with an obstacle or boss, players often form a number of strategies to surpass the obstacle or defeat the boss, with each strategy being carried out before the player either succeeds or quits the game.

Sports teams also make use of trial and error to qualify for and/or progress through the playoffs and win the championship, attempting different strategies, plays, lineups and formations in hopes of defeating each and every opponent along the way to victory. This is especially crucial in playoff series in which multiple wins are required to advance, where a team that loses a game will have the opportunity to try new tactics to find a way to win, if they are not eliminated yet.

The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error.

Biological evolution can be considered as a form of trial and error.^[6] Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error. Thus after a long time ‘knowledge’ of well-adapted genomes accumulates simply by virtue of them being able to reproduce.

Bogosort, a conceptual sorting algorithm (that is extremely inefficient and impractical), can be viewed as a trial and error approach to sorting a list. However, typical simple examples of bogosort do not track which orders of the list have been tried and may try the same order any number of times, which violates one of the basic principles of trial and error. Trial and error is actually more efficient and practical than bogosort; unlike bogosort, it is guaranteed to halt in finite time on a finite list, and might even be a reasonable way to sort extremely short lists under some conditions.

Jumping spiders of the genus Portia use trial and error to find new tactics against unfamiliar prey or in unusual situations, and remember the new tactics.^[7] Tests show that Portia fimbriata and Portia labiata can use trial and error in an artificial environment, where the spider’s objective is to cross a miniature lagoon that is too wide for a simple jump, and must either jump then swim or only swim.^[8][9]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Ashby, W. R. (1960: Second Edition). Design for a Brain. Chapman & Hall: London.
• Traill, R.R. (1978–2006). Molecular explanation for intelligence…, Brunel University Thesis, HDL.handle.net
• Traill, R.R. (2008). Thinking by Molecule, Synapse, or both? — From Piaget’s Schema, to the Selecting/Editing of ncRNA. Ondwelle: Melbourne. Ondwelle.com — or French version Ondwelle.com.
• Zippelius, R. (1991). Die experimentierende Methode im Recht (Trial and error in Jurisprudence), Academy of Science, Mainz, ISBN 3-515-05901-6

E.L Thorndike (1874-1949) was the chief exponent of the theory of Trial and Error. According to Thorndike the basis of learning is accepted in an association between the sense, impressions and impulses to action.

This Association came to be known as a “bond” or a ‘Connection, Since it is these bonds or connections which become strengthened or weakened in the making and breaking of habits, Thorndike’s system is sometimes called a ‘bond’ psychology or simple ‘connectionism,

As it believes in stimulus and response type of learning it is also called S.R Psychology of learning. Thorndike called it learning by selecting and connecting. It is also known as Trial and Error theory as learning takes place through random repetitions

Experiment of Thorndike’s -Trial and Error Theory

Once he locked a hungry cat in a puzzle box and showed a slice of meat outside. The ultimate aim of the hungry cat was to obtain the meat. The cat could come outside only when it opens the door by removing the latch, but it was unaware as to how to remove the latch.

The cat did not know how to remove the latch at first but was involved in random activities like scratching the box, trying to bend the bars and stretching the feet outside. At last in its random activities, it lift up the latch and obtained the meat. He repeated the experiments and found that the cat released the latch itself easily. The realized association between lifting the latch and opening the door. The random activities are called errors.

Finally, he concludes that the number of trials will reduce the wrong responses and finally correct response is found. Hence, the bond is established between stimulus and correct response through the elimination of wrong response.

Laws of Learning: Trial and Error

Thorndike gives three laws of learning

• Law of Readiness
• Law of Effect
• Law of Exercise

Law of Readiness:

This law refers that learning taking place only when the learner is ready to learn. If a learner has to learn an action or activity he should be mentally and physically fit for the action he desired. His mental set should have the capacity to do the work. A two-year boy cannot be admitted to the school since he is not mature enough. A child of one year cannot speak since his vocal cords, the larynx is not grown enough. Hence,  Child interest and maturity is essential

Law of Effect: 

This law states that learning takes place properly when it results in satisfaction and the learner drives pleasure out of it. In the situation when the child meets failure or is dissatisfied, the progress on the path of learning is blocked. All the pleasant experiences have lasting influences and are remembered for a long time, while the unpleasant ones are soon forgotten. Therefore, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction, pleasure or displeasure obtained as a result of some learning ensure the degree of effectiveness of that learning.

This law emphasizes the role of rewards and punishment in the process of learning. Geeting rewards as a result of some learning motivate and encourage the child to proceed on the same path with more intensity and enthusiasm while the punishment of any sort discourages him and create distaste and repulsion towards that learning.

Laws of Exercise:

This law states that “Practice makes a man perfect”. The bond of strength and response will get strengthened if it is repeated. This law of exercise  has been categorised into two  parts-law of use and law of disuse

Law of use: When a modifiable connection is made between a situation and responses that connection’s strength and things being equal, increase.

Law of Disuse: When a modifiable connection is not made between a situation and response, during a length of time, that connection decreased.

Thus the law of use refers to the strengthening of connection with practice while the law of disuse refers to the weakening of connection or forgetting when the practice is discontinued.

Thorndike’s Theory of trial and error and laws of learning have great educational significance. Thorndike’s findings have made the learning purposeful and goal-directed. Trial and error, coupled with insight will make the process of learning more effective, important educational implications are:

1. This theory substantiated that readiness is preparation for action which is very essential for learning. If the child is ready to learn, he learns more quickly, effectively and with greater stratification than if he is not ready to learn. He warns us not to make the child learn till he is ready to learn and also not to miss any opportunity of providing learning experiences if the child is, already prepared to learn. The right movements concerning the learning situation and the learner’s state of mind should be very well recognized and maximum use of this knowledge should be made by the teacher. He should also make an attempt to motivate the students by arousing their attention, interest and curiosity.
2. The law of effect emphasizes the role of rewards and punishment in the process of learning. Getting a reward as a result of some learning motivates and encourages the child to proceed on the same path with more intensity and enthusiasm while the punishment of any sort discourages him and creates distaste and distraction towards that learning.
3. In the teaching-learning process, the teacher tries to strengthen the bonds and connections between the stimuli and the responses those things which are to be remembered by the learners. This could be done through drill, repetition and reward. For forgetting he should make attempts to weaken the connections through disuse and annoying elements.
4. Repetitions in learning strengthen the connections in achieving the goal which could be achieved by rewarding the correct responses.
5. The child should be encouraged to do his work independently by the strengthening effect of rewards rather than the weakening effect of punishment.

Conclusion

We can conclude from the above points, Thorndike’s theory and laws of learning have contributed a lot to educational theory and practice. It has made learning purposeful and goal-directed and has brought motivation to the forefront. It has also given impetus to the work of practice, drill and repetition and realized the psychological importance of rewards and praise in the process of teaching and learning.

References:

• S.K, Mangal. (2007). Essentials of Education Psychology. Prentice-Hall India Learning Private Limited.
• Dharmaraj, D. (2021). Retrieved 22 November 2021, from https://www.bdu.ac.in/cde/docs/ebooks/B-Ed/I/LEARNING%20AND%20TEACHING.pdf

Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language |
Individual differences |
Personality |
Philosophy |
Social |
Methods |
Statistics |
Clinical |
Educational |
Industrial |
Professional items |
World psychology |

Philosophy Index:
Aesthetics ·
Epistemology ·
Ethics ·
Logic ·
Metaphysics ·
Consciousness ·
Philosophy of Language ·
Philosophy of Mind ·
Philosophy of Science ·
Social and Political philosophy ·
Philosophies ·
Philosophers ·
List of lists

This article is in need of attention from a psychologist/academic expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you are qualified.
This banner appears on articles that are weak and whose contents should be approached with academic caution.

Trial and error, or trial by error or try an error, is a general method of problem solving, fixing things, or for obtaining knowledge.
«Learning doesn’t happen from failure itself but rather from analyzing the failure, making a change, and then trying again.»^[1]

In the field of computer science, the method is called generate and test. In elementary algebra, when solving equations, it is «guess and check».

This approach can be seen as one of the two basic approaches to problem solving and is contrasted with an approach using insight and theory.

Process

Bricolage —
In trial and error, one selects a possible answer, applies it to the problem and, if it is not successful, selects (or generates) another possibility that is subsequently tried. The process ends when a possibility yields a solution.

In some versions of trial and error, the option that is a priori viewed as the most likely one should be tried first, followed by the next most likely, and so on until a solution is found, or all the options are exhausted. In other versions, options are simply tried at random.

Methodology

This approach is more successful with simple problems and in games, and is often resorted to when no apparent rule applies. This does not mean that the approach need be careless, for an individual can be methodical in manipulating the variables in an attempt to sort through possibilities that may result in success. Nevertheless, this method is often used by people who have little knowledge in the problem area.

Simplest applications

Ashby (1960, section 11/5) offers three simple strategies for dealing with the same basic exercise-problem; and they have very different efficiencies:
Suppose there are 1000 on/off switches which have to be set to a particular combination by random-based testing, each test to take one second. [This is also discussed in Traill (1978/2006, section C1.2]. The strategies are:

• the perfectionist all-or-nothing method, with no attempt at holding partial successes. This would be expected to take more than 10^301 seconds, [i.e. 2^1000 seconds, or 3·5×(10^291) centuries!];
• a serial-test of switches, holding on to the partial successes (assuming that these are manifest) would take 500 seconds; while
• a parallel-but-individual testing of all switches simultaneously would take only one second.

Note the tacit assumption here that no intelligence or insight is brought to bear on the problem. However, the existence of different available strategies allows us to consider a separate («superior») domain of processing — a «meta-level» above the mechanics of switch handling — where the various available strategies can be randomly chosen. Once again this is «trial and error», but of a different type. This leads us to:

Trial-and-error Hierarchies

Ashby’s book develops this «meta-level» idea, and extends it into a whole recursive sequence of levels, successively above each other in a systematic hierarchy. On this basis he argues that human intelligence emerges from such organization: relying heavily on trial-and-error (at least initially at each new stage), but emerging with what we would call «intelligence» at the end of it all. Thus presumably the topmost level of the hierarchy (at any stage) will still depend on simple trial-and-error.

Traill (1978/2006) suggests that this Ashby-hierarchy probably coincides with Piaget’s well-known theory of developmental stages. [This work also discusses Ashby’s 1000-switch example; see §C1.2]. After all, it is part of Piagetian doctrine that children learn by first actively doing in a more-or-less random way, and then hopefully learn from the consequences — which all has a certain resemblance to Ashby’s random «trial-and-error».

The basic strategy in many fields?

Traill (2008, espec. Table «S» on p.31) follows Jerne and Popper in seeing this strategy as probably underlying all knowledge-gathering systems — at least in their initial phase.

Four such systems are identified:

• Darwinian evolution which «educates» the DNA of the species!
• The brain of the individual (just discussed);
• The «brain» of society-as-such (including the publicly-held body of science); and
• The immune system.

An ambiguity: Can we have «intention» during a «trial»

In the Ashby-and-Cybernetics tradition, the word «trial» usually implies random-or-arbitrary, without any deliberate choice.
However amongst non-cyberneticians, «trial» will often imply a deliberate subjective act by some adult human agent; (e.g. in a court-room, or laboratory). So that has sometimes led to confusion.

Of course the situation becomes even more confusing if one accepts Ashby’s hierarchical explanation of intelligence, and its implied ability to be deliberate and to creatively design — all based ultimately on non-deliberate actions! The lesson here seems to be that one must simply be careful to clarify the meaning of one’s own words, and indeed the words of others. [Incidentally it seems that consciousness is not an essential ingredient for intelligence as discussed above.]

Features

Trial and error has a number of features:

• solution-oriented: trial and error makes no attempt to discover why a solution works, merely that it is a solution.
• problem-specific: trial and error makes no attempt to generalise a solution to other problems.
• non-optimal: trial and error is generally an attempt to find a solution, not all solutions, and not the best solution.
• needs little knowledge: trials and error can proceed where there is little or no knowledge of the subject.

It is possible to use trial and error to find all solutions or the best solution, when a testably finite number of possible solutions exist. To find all solutions, one simply makes a note and continues, rather than ending the process, when a solution is found, until all solutions have been tried. To find the best solution, one finds all solutions by the method just described and then comparatively evaluates them based upon some predefined set of criteria, the existence of which is a condition for the possibility of finding a best solution. (Also, when only one solution can exist, as in assembling a jigsaw puzzle, then any solution found is the only solution and so is necessarily the best.)

Examples

Trial and error has traditionally been the main method of finding new drugs, such as antibiotics. Chemists simply try chemicals at random until they find one with the desired effect. In a more sophisticated version, chemists select a narrow range of chemicals it is thought may have some effect. (The latter case can be alternatively considered as a changing of the problem rather than of the solution strategy: instead of «What chemical will work well as an antibiotic?» the problem in the sophisticated approach is «Which, if any, of the chemicals in this narrow range will work well as an antibiotic?») The method is used widely in many disciplines, such as polymer technology to find new polymer types or families.

The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning — all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error.

Biological evolution is also a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error. Thus after a long time ‘knowledge’ of well-adapted genomes accumulates simply by virtue of them being able to reproduce.

Bogosort, a conceptual sorting algorithm (that is extremely inefficient and impractical), can be viewed as a trial and error approach to sorting a list. However, typical simple examples of bogosort do not track which orders of the list have been tried and may try the same order any number of times, which violates one of the basic principles of trial and error. Trial and error is actually more efficient and practical than bogosort; unlike bogosort, it is guaranteed to halt in finite time on a finite list, and might even be a reasonable way to sort extremely short lists under some conditions.

Issues with trial and error

Trial and error is usually a last resort for a particular problem, as there are a number of problems with it. For one, trial and error is tedious and monotonous. Also, it is very time-consuming; chemical engineers must sift through millions of various potential chemicals before they find one that works. Fortunately, computers are best suited for trial and error; they do not succumb to the boredom that humans do, and can potentially do thousands of trial-and-error segments in the blink of an eye.

References

• Ashby, W. R. (1960: Second Edition). Design for a Brain. Chapman & Hall: London.
• Traill, R.R. (1978/2006). Molecular explanation for intelligence…, Brunel University Thesis, HDL.handle.net
• Traill, R.R. (2008). Thinking by Molecule, Synapse, or both? — From Piaget’s Schema, to the Selecting/Editing of ncRNA. Ondwelle: Melbourne. Ondwelle.com — or French version Ondwelle.com.

See also

• Brute force attack
• Brute-force search
• Empiricism

References