---
name: pedagogy-bloom-andragogy
description: Evidence-based methodology for designing adult professional workshops — Bloom's Revised Taxonomy levels with action verbs and time calibration, Knowles' andragogical principles, behavioral change frameworks, and transfer-optimized outcome writing
agent: nw-workshopper
---

---
## North Star: Behavioral Change

**C-05 Constraint**: This skill serves one goal — workshop designs that produce observable behavioral change in the workplace, not knowledge accumulation.

"Participants can recall X" or "Participants understand Y" are INSUFFICIENT outcomes.
The goal is: "Participants DO Z differently after the workshop."

Every decision in this skill — outcome level, activity type, assessment, transfer artifact — is evaluated against this standard. Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create are the target Bloom's levels. Remember and Understand are STEPPING STONES, not terminal outcomes.

---

# Pedagogy, Bloom's Taxonomy, and Andragogy for Workshop Design

## Part 1: Bloom's Revised Taxonomy

### The Six Cognitive Levels

| Level | Definition | Strong Verbs | Weak/Banned Verbs |
|-------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
| **L1 Remember** | Retrieve from memory | cite, define, identify, list, name, recall, state | (none — this level is valid) |
| **L2 Understand** | Demonstrate comprehension | categorize, classify, compare, contrast, explain, illustrate, interpret, paraphrase, summarize, translate | **understand, know, learn, appreciate, be familiar with, comprehend** |
| **L3 Apply** | Use skill/knowledge in a new situation | apply, calculate, demonstrate, execute, implement, solve, use, carry out | **understand, know** |
| **L4 Analyze** | Break into parts, find relationships | analyze, compare, deconstruct, differentiate, distinguish, organize, relate, separate | **understand** |
| **L5 Evaluate** | Judge against criteria and standards | appraise, assess, critique, defend, evaluate, judge, justify, recommend, validate | **think critically about** (too vague) |
| **L6 Create** | Produce new coherent whole from parts | assemble, build, compose, construct, design, develop, devise, formulate, generate, plan, produce | (none specific — must produce something new and observable) |

**Rule**: Verbs like "understand," "know," "learn," "appreciate," "be familiar with," and "comprehend" describe invisible internal states. They are unmeasurable. Never use them as learning outcome verbs.

### Session Duration — Cognitive Level Ceiling

| Session Length | Maximum Realistic Level | Rationale |
|----------------|------------------------|-----------|
| 30 minutes | L2 Understand | Instruction + brief check; no time for practice |
| 60 minutes | L3 Apply (single skill) | ~20 min instruction + ~30 min practice + ~10 min debrief |
| 90 minutes | L3 Apply (solid) / L4 Analyze (entry) | ~25 min instruction + ~45 min practice + ~20 min reflection |
| Half-day (3h) | L4 Analyze (comfortable) | Multiple practice cycles + feedback + peer critique |
| Full-day (6h+) | L5 Evaluate (with L3-L4 scaffolding) | Requires prior knowledge at L3 |
| Multi-session series | L6 Create | Requires between-session application + spaced practice |

**Design rule**: Writing a Create-level outcome for a 90-minute workshop is a design error. Calibrate outcome ambition to session duration.

> **Note**: These are evidence-informed estimates. No peer-reviewed study establishes exact duration thresholds for Bloom's levels. Treat as strong guidance, not a hard ceiling.

### Sequencing Within a Single Session

Use this arc for any 60-120 minute workshop:
1. **Activate prior experience** (5-10 min) — connect to what participants already know (Kolb entry point + Knowles Principle 3)
2. **Frame the why** (3-5 min) — explicit problem statement and WIIFM (Knowles Principle 1)
3. **New content — Remember/Understand level** (10-20% of time) — direct instruction, minimal theory
4. **Guided practice — Apply level** (30-50% of time) — realistic scenarios, cases, role-plays
5. **Structured reflection — toward Analyze** (15-25% of time) — what patterns did you notice? what would you do differently?
6. **Transfer planning — implementation intentions** (10-15% of time) — written if-then commitment

Across a series (3+ sessions): Session 1 = L1-L2, Session 2 = L3, Sessions 3-4 = L4-L5, Capstone = L6.

### Workshop Series: Arc-Level vs. Session-Level Outcomes

**Arc-Level Outcomes** (for the full series):
- Target: Bloom's L5 (Evaluate) or L6 (Create)
- Format: "After completing this [N]-session series, participants will [observable behavior change] when [real-world trigger]"
- Typically 2-4 arc-level outcomes per series

**Session-Level Outcomes** (for each session):
- Target: Bloom's L2-L4 (sessions 1-4), L4-L5 (sessions 4-6 for a 6-session series)
- Build toward arc-level outcomes
- Include behavioral transfer statement per session

**Arc Blueprint Templates**:

6-session series (4h each):

| Session | Bloom's Ceiling | Focus |
|---------|----------------|-------|
| 1 | L2 Understand | Foundation concepts, mental models |
| 2 | L3 Apply | First application, guided practice |
| 3 | L3-L4 Apply/Analyze | Apply in varied contexts |
| 4 | L4 Analyze | Diagnose, compare, evaluate trade-offs |
| 5 | L4-L5 Analyze/Evaluate | Evaluate approaches, make decisions |
| 6 (Capstone) | L5-L6 Evaluate/Create | Design original solution |

12-session series (2h each):

| Sessions | Bloom's Ceiling | Pattern |
|----------|----------------|---------|
| 1-3 | L2 Understand | Foundation building |
| 4-6 | L3 Apply | First applications |
| 7-9 | L4 Analyze | Analysis and comparison |
| 10-11 | L5 Evaluate | Judgment and decision-making |
| 12 (Capstone) | L6 Create | Synthesis and original design |

**Inter-session Transfer**:
- Assign a concrete work-based task between sessions (not homework — an actual work task)
- Opening of next session: participants share what happened when they applied it
- This is the real Kirkpatrick L3 measurement window

---

## Part 2: Knowles' Six Andragogical Principles

| Principle | Adult Learner Characteristic | Workshop Design Action |
|-----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|
| **1. Need to Know (Why)** | Adults require reason before engaging | Open with: "Here's the problem this session solves for you. Here's what you'll be able to DO by the end." Never start with theory. |
| **2. Self-Concept** | Adults are self-directed, resist being told what to do | Offer activity choices; invite participant input on pacing; avoid infantilizing over-prescription |
| **3. Role of Experience** | Accumulated experience = richest learning resource | Begin with experience activation; use participants' own cases and war stories as teaching material |
| **4. Readiness to Learn** | Adults learn what is immediately relevant to current role | Frame all content as solutions to problems they face now; avoid "you'll need this someday" |
| **5. Orientation to Learning** | Problem-centered, not subject-centered | Deliver content as solutions to authentic problems, not as topics in a syllabus |
| **6. Motivation** | Internal motivators dominate (competence, identity, autonomy) | Connect to professional identity and growth; avoid pure compliance framing |

**Evidence**: ~85% of adult learner feedback from professional workshops connects to at least one Knowles principle (PMC 11008574).

### Activating Prior Experience (Principle 3 — Practical Tools)

- **Challenge question**: "Think of a time when [problem scenario]. What did you do? What would you change?"
- **Rapid case share**: Pairs exchange a 2-minute story of a relevant experience before instruction begins
- **Self-assessment survey**: Pre-session reflection on current practice level (1-5 scale on target behaviors)
- **Prediction exercise**: "Before we cover X, predict: what do you think the three biggest challenges are?"

### Kolb Integration

Kolb's cycle maps directly onto session structure:
- **Concrete Experience** → use existing experience as entry point (aligns with Knowles Principle 3)
- **Reflective Observation** → structured debrief questions after practice
- **Abstract Conceptualization** → model/framework delivery (after experience, not before)
- **Active Experimentation** → application exercise + implementation intention writing

---

## Part 3: Behavioral Change Frameworks

### COM-B Diagnostic — Before Writing Outcomes

| Component | Subtype | Implication for Training |
|-----------|---------|-------------------------|
| **Capability (C)** — psychological/physical capacity | Psychological = knowledge, cognitive skills | Training directly addresses this |
| **Capability (C)** | Physical = physical skills | Training can address this |
| **Opportunity (O)** — external factors | Physical = resources, environment, time | Training CANNOT fix this — document the gap |
| **Opportunity (O)** | Social = culture, norms, peer behavior | Requires organizational change, not training |
| **Motivation (M)** | Reflective = plans, intentions, goals | Training + commitment artifacts can help |
| **Motivation (M)** | Automatic = habits, emotions, impulses | Requires repeated practice + habit formation |

**Design gate question**: "Is the blocker Capability (training helps), Opportunity (training cannot fix this), or Motivation (different intervention needed)?" If Opportunity, surface this explicitly in workshop scope.

### Fogg Behavior Model — Designing the Transfer Moment

B = MAP: Behavior occurs when Motivation, Ability, and Prompt converge.

| Element | Professional Training Application |
|---------|----------------------------------|
| **Motivation** | Ensure WIIFM is explicit; connect to intrinsic motivators (competence, autonomy, belonging) |
| **Ability** | Reduce barriers to first application: simplify the initial action, provide job aids, assign manageable first step |
| **Prompt** | Design explicit triggers: calendar reminder at day 3, manager check-in, peer accountability pair, visual cue at workstation |

**Prompt types**: Use a **Facilitator** when motivation is high but the behavior is hard. Use a **Spark** when the behavior is easy but motivation is low. Use a **Signal** when both are high.

### Guskey's Change Sequence

Traditional (wrong): Convince → beliefs change → behavior changes
Evidence-based: Enable early practice → participant sees results → beliefs change

**Design implication**: Spend the majority of a workshop enabling a low-stakes first application, not convincing participants the approach is right.

---

## Part 4: Writing Outcomes and Behavioral Transfer Statements

### The Outcome-Level Decision Tree

```
What is the session duration?
  ├── 30 min → max L2 (Understand) → knowledge outcome
  ├── 60 min → max L3 (Apply) → behavioral outcome possible
  ├── 90 min → L3 solid, L4 entry → behavioral outcome required
  └── 3h+ → L4-L5 → behavioral outcome required + COM-B diagnostic

Is the blocker Capability, Opportunity, or Motivation?
  ├── Capability → training outcome is appropriate
  ├── Opportunity → scope note required
  └── Motivation → pair with commitment artifact (Fogg prompt design)
```

### Mager's Behavioral Objective Format

**Structure**: Given [Condition/Trigger], the participant will [Action Verb] [Object], [Criterion].

### Behavioral Transfer Statement — Template

```
After this workshop, participants will [BEHAVIOR VERB + OBJECT]
when [REAL-WORLD TRIGGER SITUATION],
[meeting the standard of CRITERION].
```

**Examples by domain**:

| Domain | Knowledge Outcome (L2 — weaker) | Behavioral Transfer Statement (L3 — stronger) |
|--------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Feedback | "Explain the SBI feedback framework" | "When a direct report makes a mistake, deliver feedback using SBI within 48 hours, covering all three components" |
| Conflict | "Describe active listening techniques" | "When two team members conflict, apply active listening (paraphrase before responding) and ask at least one clarifying question before asserting a view" |
| Facilitation | "Identify divergent/convergent facilitation modes" | "When a group discussion becomes circular, switch to a structured convergence technique within 5 minutes" |

### Vague-Verb Replacement Reference

| Replace | With (pick appropriate level) |
|---------|-------------------------------|
| understand | describe (L2), explain (L2), apply (L3), analyze (L4) |
| know | identify (L1), list (L1), explain (L2) |
| learn | recall (L1), demonstrate (L3), use (L3) |
| appreciate | recognize (L1), evaluate (L5), argue for (L5) |
| be familiar with | describe (L2), identify (L1) |
| think critically | analyze (L4), evaluate (L5), critique (L5) |
| be aware of | identify (L1), describe (L2) |

---

## Part 5: Making Training Stick — Transfer Architecture

### Baldwin & Ford's Three Transfer Levers

For every workshop, design must address all three:

1. **Trainee characteristics**: Ensure participants have prerequisite knowledge; build self-efficacy through early wins; make utility explicit
2. **Training design**: Use behavioral modeling (show-then-practice), realistic scenarios matching actual work context, at least 30% time in active practice
3. **Work environment**: Brief managers before the session; identify at least one post-workshop opportunity to apply within 7 days; provide job aids

**The 10% transfer baseline**: Without explicit transfer design, only ~10% of training transfers to workplace behavior (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).

### Implementation Intentions — The 30-Day Commitment Artifact

**Evidence**: If-then planning produces d = 0.65 effect on goal attainment across 94 studies (n > 8,000).

**Format** (written, specific, completed before leaving the workshop):
```
When I [specific situation — include time, place, or trigger],
I will [specific behavior from workshop — action verb + object].
[Optional: I will tell [accountability partner] about this commitment.]
```

**Design specification**:
- **Commitment card**: participants write 1-3 if-then statements
- **Day-3 prompt**: brief self-check ("Did you try X?")
- **Day-7 peer check-in**: optional brief accountability conversation
- **Day-30 reflection**: "How many times did you apply [target behavior] this month?"

**Kirkpatrick timing**: Level 3 measurement window is 30-90 days post-workshop.

### Transfer Design Checklist

- [ ] Each L3+ outcome has a behavioral transfer statement with trigger + behavior + standard
- [ ] At least 30% of session time is active practice (not passive instruction)
- [ ] At least 10-15% of session time is dedicated to transfer planning
- [ ] Each participant leaves with at least one written if-then implementation intention
- [ ] A post-workshop prompt mechanism is designed (email, calendar, peer pair, manager check-in)
- [ ] COM-B diagnosis confirms barriers are Capability (not Opportunity — if Opportunity, document the scope note)
- [ ] Outcomes are calibrated to session duration (see time ceiling table)

---

## Quick Reference: Outcome Quality Check

1. **Verb check**: Is the verb observable? (If you cannot watch someone doing it, replace it.)
2. **Level check**: Does the level match session duration? (See time ceiling table.)
3. **Transfer check**: For L3+, does the outcome specify the real-world trigger situation?
4. **Standard check**: Is there a criterion that defines "good enough" performance?
5. **COM-B check**: Is the barrier actually Capability, or is it Opportunity/Motivation?
6. **Commitment check**: Is there a corresponding implementation intention slot in the session plan?
7. **AHA check**: Is there at least one activity with `aha_moment_trigger`, `aha_moment_indicator`, and `aha_lo` fields? (C-04 compliance — see `gamification-mda-wow-aha.md` for full AHA design methodology)
