Informed by the science of how we learn
Bloom supports students in developing understanding and independence through appropriate instructional guidance, informed by learning science and shaped by educators.
Core principles
We've built Bloom using what scientists know about how people learn best. These are some of the principles guiding us today, and we adapt as new research emerges.
Start with the learner's prior knowledge
What a learner already knows shapes the support they need. Someone new to a topic may need an explanation or demonstration before they can make a meaningful attempt.
Putting this into practice
- Find a useful starting point. Use a brief question, a learner's explanation or earlier work to explore understanding where helpful. An attempt need not be a prerequisite for instruction.
- Respond to gaps and misconceptions. Clarify missing knowledge and explain mistaken ideas, then invite the learner to use the explanation.
Build understanding through active learning
Active learning means thinking about meaning: explaining a worked example, connecting ideas, applying knowledge and using feedback. It can happen during explicit instruction as well as independent practice.
Putting this into practice
- Connect explanations and questions. Pair a clear explanation with prompts such as “Why does this step work?” Socratic questioning is one option when it serves the learning goal.
- Practise applying ideas. Follow instruction with a related task and feedback. Vary examples to explore when a concept or method applies.
Scaffolding
Scaffolding supports learners within their zone of proximal development, helping them do with guidance what they cannot yet do independently.
Putting this into practice
- Fade support as learners become ready. Educators can allow full worked solutions, partial working or hints using Bloom's teaching controls. Choose support based on demonstrated understanding.
- Add guidance when it is needed. If a learner is missing a method or prerequisite, an explanation or another example may help more than another hint. Independence is the goal to work towards.
Develop metacognition and self-regulation
Learners benefit from planning their approach, checking what they understand and adjusting their strategy. These habits can be modelled and practised with support.
Putting this into practice
- Make thinking visible. Invite learners to explain a step in an example or their own reasoning, identify uncertainty and decide what to practise next.
- Check confidence against performance. Pair reflection with a task the learner attempts independently and feedback, so a feeling of familiarity is not mistaken for understanding.
Manage cognitive load
Working memory is limited when dealing with unfamiliar information. Cognitive Load Theory highlights how prior knowledge, task complexity and the design of instruction affect learning.
Putting this into practice
- Explain and demonstrate. For novices learning complex tasks, explicit instruction and worked examples can reduce unproductive search and make the reasoning visible.
- Make explanations clear and complete. Break complex material into meaningful steps and keep related information together. Brevity helps only if the learner still has the explanation they need.
- Adjust as expertise grows. Guidance that helps a novice can become redundant or hinder a more experienced learner. This “expertise reversal effect” supports fading guidance as knowledge develops.
Strengthen memory through practice
Revisiting ideas over time and recalling them from memory are examples of desirable difficulties that can strengthen long-term retention.
Putting this into practice
- Space practice over time. Revisit key ideas across several sessions, with time between reviews.
- Recall, then check. Practise recalling previously taught ideas, then use feedback to correct errors and fill gaps.
- Match challenge to readiness. Provide explanations and worked examples when needed, and adjust practice to the learner's prior knowledge and the task's complexity.
Selected References
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). Worth Publishers. View source: Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). Worth Publishers.
Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2018). Undesirable difficulty effects in the learning of high-element interactivity materials. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1483. View source: Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2018). Undesirable difficulty effects in the learning of high-element interactivity materials. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1483.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. View source: Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. View source: Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. View source: Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. View source: Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187-194. View source: Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187-194.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press. View source: National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22. View source: Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89. View source: Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. View source: Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292. View source: Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. View source: Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. View source: Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. View source: Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
