Feedback: Phil Race's Learning Model

Feedback on Phil Races' 'wanting', 'doing', 'feedback', 'digesting' Model of Learning

• What do you think of the "wanting, doing, feedback, digesting" model of learning?
• Do you think it's a better basis for planning teaching and learning than the 'cycle' models (e.g. Kolb) using longer words?
• Are there any further steps we need to be building into any of the models?

Use the form below to send us your responses - just keywords please - or see some typical replies below.

Deliberations retains the right to edit any material received.
Copyright of material created for the magazine is vested in the editorial board.

Previous Replies

Date: Thurs, 1 Dec 2005
From: Peter Main <peter@main.net.au>

Phil's model in my view may be missing a "perception" of a need - probably before "wanting": we need perception(of something - information, pain, hunger, etc).

Wanting arises from needs.

Is then the outcome of learning a changed behaviour?

Hence I tend to think of learning as repeated cycles of a perception-wanting-doing process that adapts the individual to respond to "wanting", more effectively.

If we model a group of individuals that can learn, we observe different effects to a group with instinctive behaviours only.

One test for a good model is if it provides a complete template to construct a working simulation, that then exhibits good "fidelity" with observable real world behaviours.

If "wanting" can arise from a diversity of instincts (eg ambition, curiosity), we can model this as a dependant sum of the difference between needs and perceived status for each need.

If there exists a diversity in instincts of different strengths in different students, we may have a useful handle on different student learning "personalities".

Misperception can cause the best-planned lessons to fail, so for me it is central to any model of communicable learning.

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:36:13 GMT
From: Maritza Valpais <seeking12344@aol.com>

I agree more with the Model of learning than the cycle models (Kolb). Wanting, doing, feedback, digesting is the best way to learn. Using longer words normally, just confuses me.

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:54:53 GMT
From: Maritza Valpais <seeking12344@aol.com>

I think the wanting, doing, feedback, digesting model of learning is great. First the words are short and easy to remember and second I don't need to keep looking in the dictionary for big words I don't understand. I think this model is fine.

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:54:22 +0100 (BST)
From: Doug Nicoll <D.Z.Nicoll@dundee.ac.uk>

As a newcomer to all this 'academic stuff' I have aquired a need for further information on learning models and how appropriate they are to my teaching and learning. I liked the user friendly terms used in Phil's Model of Learning and can relate more to them.

In my hazy recollection I remember a model called the 'Wheel of Learning' which went something like: I dont know what I dont know; I know what I dont know; I know what I know; I've forgotten what I know.

Can anybody shed any light on this or should I just go back in the corner and shut up?!

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:29:18 +0100 (BST)
From: saly <liveez@hotmail.com>

Just to say hello and thank you for this fruitful piece of information.

I think Feedback on Phil Races' 'wanting', 'doing', feedback', 'digesting' Model of Learning is a better basis for planning teaching and learning than the 'cycle' models (e.g. Kolb) using longer words.

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:07:23 +0100 (BST)
From: Fiona Boyd <fiona.boyd@thurso.uhi.ac.uk>

I too liked the Ripples model, but like another respondent don't think it fits completely with what you yourself claimed for it. But that's the annoying thing about analogies - they rarely fit all the way through. The plus side however, is that thinking the analogy through against the process/theory is useful in itself. It's only when trying this out do we notice the mismatched bits (ripples go outward, but feedback needs to go inward too) - and the learning becomes a little deeper as we
check our understanding again of the process/theory, and the mind is sparked to search for a better fitting analogy.

(Would make a good interactive formative assessment for learning dry theories to ask students to find a best-fit analogy, and to explain/defend it with peers. Definitely need to understand theory in order to challenge the analogy.)

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:40:22 GMT
From: Mark Weston <markandlaura@hereford24.fsnet.co.uk>

I like this theory and the 'ripple' schematic. I'm just not sure about the wanting element though. Your theory suggests that learners come to teaching with an innate desire to learn when clearly this is not always the case. How do you initiate your theory for a class who have unwilling learners? How does the ripple get going. My own feeling about learning theories is that they can not exist independent of teaching input. As learning is part of an interactive process between teacher and learner, one side can not be separated from the other and allocated its own theory. I'd be interested to hear your comments on this. Thanks

Date: 02/11/2003 18:13
From: delaneym@grimsby.ac.uk

I have had to research Learning Styles for the first part of my degree course I have undertaken. Quite frankly I found Kolb's theory confusing, very hard to understand and outdated. I came across your theory while accessing the internet and thought it was brilliant. Easy to understand, simple and more plausible. I have incorporated this into my module on new ways of learning. Thank you. I thought at first I was going to be some 'super academic' to complete the degree, but I'm just a normal human being who likes plain 'talk'. Thanks.

Date: 04/05/2003 11:48
From: susan.byrne@hotkey.net.au

I work with farmers in an educational role, the ripples model makes sense to me and I think at the moment it is the best model for describing how farmers learn.

Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003
From: eyrson@hotmail.com (Eydun)

I'm writing the last of my thesis on 'the development of e-learning systems', and after reading and searching for theories on learning I've at last found a learning model which satisfies me. Thank you. Seems odd that I haven't heard or read about it in any of the books and other material about learning theory.

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003
From: d3evans@ccn.ac.uk (Diane Evans)

Like the ripples, but doesn't feedback need to 'feed' 'back' into wanting - ripples just keep moving out. Can't think of alternative at the moment.

Date: 20 Dec 2002
From: e.pugh@trinity-cm.ac.uk (elin pugh)

I'm one of the disability administrators in Trinity College, Carmarthen, and am looking at updating our Study Support library.

I find your work to be very clear cut, simple to read and understand, and relevant.

Date: 18 Dec 2002
From: dcorey@marjon.ac.uk (Derry Corey)

Phil, I do like the digesting model of learning but...

Getting students to respond to feedback is quite difficult. A group of colleagues have recently been pro active in getting students to respond to feed back by getting the students to submit an assignment which is returned with only the feedback and no grade. They then have the opportunity to re-work the assignment as a response to the feedback comments.

What are your views on this?

Derry

Date: 12 Oct 2002
From: i.j.finlay@strath.ac.uk (Ian Finlay)

I think your plain English approach is valuable, particularly when helping those who want to teach or learn but don't 'want' to become specialists in learning theory. I was also interested by your critique of Kolb although Kolb's position is more sophisticated than the representation of the cycle with which he is most commonly associated. However, I think your model has one of the same problems that Kolb's has in that it provides a simplistic representation of how our brains may work. I'm not sure that the concentric circles approach captures what you yourself say about the relationships between wanting, doing, feedback and digesting. I'm not sure, however what would be a better representation. Perhaps overlapping shapes rather than nested circles?

I am currently doing some research on the importance of what you call digesting, particularly the role of being exposed to new situations (e.g. a new job) in learning and the way that learners in such situations are almost forced to make sense of their new situation. It is in such situations, I propose, that big leaps forward in our understandings are often made. The big words version of this is the expansive learning arising out of dialectics resulting from boundary crossing activity systems or communities of practice. Thanks for making me think of plain English ways of expressing this.

Kind regards

Ian

Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002
From: priti (priti_sachdev@vsnl.com)

The model is excellent in that it obviates the use of long terminology when used in induction workshops for new entrants to teaching (this is where I have used it -- with due acknowledgement!!)

However it could do with concrete examples to illustrate each stage, specially for those with no background in pedagogy or education!!

Much can be built around this model!!

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2000
From: Tim Gray (timothy.gray@blueyonder.co.uk)

What a relief! I have just struggled through about 100 pages of Kolb's "Experiential Learning" - all very interesting, but DENSE. And reading theory seems very far from 'experiential learning'!

So, for what it is worth, I like your model. It's simple and succinct. Thank you.

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000
From: anora withe (Withe@mdx.ac.uk)

I think that wanting is most important however, doing may be difficult if you dont know how to. Similarly with digesting-this also depends on what you want to digest-based on doing and wanting. Feedback is always important and may not be what you want to hear feel from the previous. There may be some reconciling to do in order to "want" again

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000
From: Joseph Buczek (learnmath@netscape.com)

When I was in the 6th grade the teacher once told me: 'Joseph, you are very stubborn.' I looked upon that statement like I had something seriously wrong with me. When I was 18 I opened my own TV service shop. As on of my first repair jobs, the landlord whom I rented the store from asked me if I would repair his TV. I said yes and took in the TV set only to find that it had a mean fading out of the picture whenever it decided to to so. I worked on that TV set for days and couldn't find the cause of the problem, but I never gave up! One night, after about two weeks, as I was going to sleep it finally came to me as a vision: The fading picture had to be a small capacitor that was arcing internally. The next day I substituted a new capacitor and the problems was solved - the picture on the TV never Faded out again. When I brought the TV back to my landlord he said "I didn't think you were going to fix this TV. I had four differeent repairmen from big department stores trying to fix this set and they told me it couldn't be fixed!"

This taught me a lesson: Stubborness and perseverance are powerful traits from God. Stubborness is not a sickness. It is determination because of something found to be true in a person's mind. But, stubborness possessed by some people who want to be right because they want to overpower you is stubborness of a boor and not in the category of calculated stubborness.

Conclusion

Stubborn students won't go on to the 2nd page of an algebra book if they don't understand the first page. Smart kids don't care if they don't understand the concepts behind the algebra. They just learn by rote and do the mechanical operations the teacher wants. Smart kids get the A's. The stubborn one's get the D's. But really the dumb kids are the smart one's and the smart one's are the dumb ones.

Lesson to be learned:The school grading system has been topsy turvey the last 100 years, giving accolades to students who don't deserve them and telling the stubborn ones they are dumb.

That what one of the things that I am good at (stubborness) showed me!

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
Ian Mitchell (ijccmitchell@bigpond.com.au)

Refreshing to hear some dissension in the ranks.
This model has potential as it is written in plain english and utilises a strong visual.
With linkage to application in adult learning this could be a practical tool for educators, corporate trainers and facilitators.
Incorporate - "Deep Learning" , synapses and recall (visual could be of your circles on plastic with paint being splashed repeatedly to represent synapses gained through recall) Link it to the principles of Adult Learning.

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:25:03 GMT
From: Florence Rozier (rozier@acsu.buffalo.edu)

I like your model very much. What I read touches me because of the simplicity of language which I agree is important to processing. I can agree with the basis of what you have presented. I do think that we have to look at how we use the learning. What will we use the learning for? When we have an answer for that and then do it, apply the learning, the learning stays with us. We also have to examine how we feel about what we are learning because we are a 'feeling' spiecies. I relate to the pond visual. The ripples on the pond is a good visual for the process. Thankyou.

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997
From: L.S.Myers@uel.ac.uk (Lea Myers)

I am so pleased and relieved to find this model. I am teaching a range of first year undergraduate courses which focus on teaching and learning. I tell students about the cycles of learning, and feel such a fraud because I am not a bit comfortable with them. As a sociologist, rather than a psychologist, I have felt rather at a loss as to how to challenge these models.

The future starts here!

Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997
From: j.x.wilson@dundee.ac.uk (Jennifer Wilson)

I think you could add a further few rings to the model. I find that if you do not apply what you have learned then you quickly forget it, so you could add a ring application and then retention? In the case of an examination then sometimes the application ring would be a thin ring where the students only retain what they need for the examination and then very quickly forget it!!

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996
From: gill.young@tvu.ac.uk (Gill Young)

I agree in principal with your model. I don't agree with the 'cycle' approach. However, I've been looking at your model as a concept to link the activies of teaching, learning, research and practice and therefore I think feedback needs to be both incoming and outgoing. I'm trying to see whether using the idea of 'wanting to learn' as the centre for students', teachers', researchers' and practitioners' activities can be used as a link. The reasons for wanting to learn varying with someones role and responsibilities and the connection being through feedback.My reason for trying to find connections is that I am working with colleagues to develop criteria to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in my particular school of the university.Hope these somewhat muddled comments are of some interest!