B-R-G Model (week one)

by megantaylor05

As I discussed in my previous post reflecting on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s “Flipping the Classroom” article, increased student engagement is one of the great benefits of a flipped classroom. This week I read several articles including the paper “An Approach to Designing and Evaluating Blended Courses”.  While not dealing specifically with flipped learning, but blended instruction, the ideas presented can be used as I design my instruction.

The authors present a combined learning taxonomy that takes elements from three distinct models to create a new “mapping model”. The model, called the B-R-G Model, borrows from Bloom’s Taxonomy, Redeker Taxonomy, and Guerra scale. The Guerra scale rates (1-good to 10-best) online media based on “increased interactivity, complexity of development and functionality” (El-Ghalayini & El-Khalili, 2012, p.420). Bloom’s levels consider the content and thinking and range from “lower order thinking skills” to “higher order thinking skills.” Redeker taxonomy classifies objectives based on activity and students’ interaction with the information- receptive, internally, and cooperative. The B-R-G Model aligns the taxonomy levels with the technology rating (from Guerra). This information can then be utilized in course design to select appropriate technology, correlating them with the learning objectives.

In the first draft of my design I utilized taxonomy when writing my goals/objectives, classifying them as cognitive, affective, or psychomotor, based on the performance of the student. I am interested, however, in analyzing my objectives and using the B-R-G mapping model to guide instruction and content used in the course. In particular I would like to refer to the dimensions of Redeker. The receptive dimension aligns with Bloom’s lower levels, but the authors also state that students receive information best with multimedia content as opposed to text alone. The interactive dimensions relates to the apply and analyze levels of Bloom’s and uses content such as quizzes, virtual reality, and interactive games. The collaborative dimension utilizes the idea that students learn from interaction and collaboration with one another; technology may include Wikis, discussion forums, and simulation games.

El-Ghalayini, H., & El-Khalili, N. (2012). An approach to designing and evaluating blended courses. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 417-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007.s10639-011-9167-7

Advertisements