Bloom’s Taxonomy isn’t a staircase
Remember. Understand. Apply. Analyze. Evaluate. Create.
Six levels, stacked neatly in a pyramid. Start at the bottom, work your way up, and aim for the top.
Except that’s not quite how it works.
Bloom’s original taxonomy was meant to classify educational goals. It wasn’t a step-by-step guide for designing every lesson. And creating something isn’t always better than remembering something.
If someone is learning an emergency procedure, I’d much rather they recall the right steps than get creative under pressure.
Try this instead: Start with what people need to do. Then choose the right learning goals, activities, and assessments. Don’t let a pyramid make those choices for you.
The 70-20-10 rule isn’t a recipe
Imagine someone telling you that your next training program must include exactly 70% hands-on experience, 20% social learning, and 10% formal instruction.
Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
There’s just one problem. Those numbers weren’t meant to be a universal formula.
They grew out of reports from managers reflecting on how they’d developed during their careers. They weren’t the result of an experiment proving that everyone learns in those exact ratios.
Experience matters. Coaching matters. Formal learning matters, too. But the right mix depends on what people are trying to learn.
Try this instead: Use 70-20-10 as a reminder to look beyond courses, not as a recipe you have to follow. Your learners don’t come with measuring cups.
Engagement isn’t proof of learning
Picture a training session where the chat is flying, the polls are buzzing, and everyone gives it five stars.
Success!
Well, maybe.
We’ve all attended sessions we loved but couldn’t recall much about a week later. And sometimes the activities that help us learn, like trying to recall something without looking it up, feel harder than the ones we enjoy.
That doesn’t mean engagement is bad. Far from it. Attention and motivation matter. But a packed chat window or a glowing survey doesn’t prove anyone learned something useful.
Try this instead: Ask people to apply what they’ve learned. Give them a realistic challenge. Then look for evidence that they can do the job better, not just that they enjoyed the training.
Want to question a few more L&D favorites?
These are just three examples. I found seven more worth revisiting, including that famous retention statistic, the eight-second attention span, and a few popular training design habits.
Some might surprise you. Others might make you wonder why we believed them in the first place.
Explore all 10 L&D ideas worth revisiting
