From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bloom’s 2 sigma problem refers to an educational phenomenon and associated problem observed by educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom and initially reported in 1984 in the journal Educational Researcher.[1][2][3] Bloom found that the average student tutored one-to-one using mastery learning techniques performed two standard deviations better than students educated in a classroom environment with one teacher to 30 students, with or without mastery learning. As quoted by Bloom: “the average tutored student was above 98% of the students in the control class”.[1]: 4  Additionally, the variation of the students’ achievement changed: “about 90% of the tutored students … attained the level of summative achievement reached by only the highest 20%” of the control class.[1]: 4 

The phenomenon was described by Bloom as illustrative of the importance of the problem to “find methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring”.[1] The phenomenon has also been used to illustrate that factors outside of a teachers’ control influences student education outcomes, motivating research in alternative teaching methods,[4] in some cases reporting larger standard deviation improvements than those predicted by the phenomenon.[5][6] The phenomenon has also motivated developments in human-computer interaction for education in education, including cognitive tutors[6] and learning management systems.[7]

Mastery learning[edit]

Mastery learning is an educational philosophy first proposed by Bloom in 1968[8] based on the premise that students must achieve a level of mastery (e.g., 90% on a knowledge test) in prerequisite knowledge before moving forward to learn subsequent information on a topic.[9] Mastery is determined with regular tests, and students who do not yet achieve mastery on the test are given additional educational support before another test. This cycle continues until the learner accomplishes mastery, and they may then move on to the next stage. Failure for a student to achieve mastery is viewed, differently from conventional educational testing, as due to instruction rather than lack of student ability. Another key element of mastery learning is that it requires attention to individual students as opposed to assessing group performance. There is good evidence to suggest the effectiveness of mastery learning for improving student educational outcomes.[9]

Two of the three groups in the original study by Bloom conducted mastery learning, with one control group that did not.[1]


Though Bloom concluded that one-to-one tutoring is “too costly for most societies to bear on a large scale”, Bloom conjectured that a combination of two or three altered variables may result in a similar performance improvement. Bloom thus challenged researchers and teachers to “find methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring”.[1]: 15  Bloom’s graduate students Joanne Anania and Arthur J. Burke conducted studies of the effect at different grade levels and in different schools, observing students with “great differences in cognitive achievement, attitudes, and academic self-concept”.[1]: 15 

Bloom classified alterable variables that may have, in combination, a 2 sigma effect as the following “objects of change process”:

  1. Learner
  2. Instructional material
  3. Home environment or peer group
  4. Teacher

Bloom and his graduate students considered and tested various combinations of these variables, focusing only on those variables that individually had a 0.5 or higher effect size. These included:

Effect of selected alterable variables on student achievement,[1]: 6  data from [10]
Object of change process Alterable variable Effect size Percentile equivalent
Teacher Tutorial instruction 2.00 98
Teacher Reinforcement 1.2
Learner Feedback-corrective (mastery learning) 1.00 84
Teacher Cues and explanations 1.00
Teacher, Learner Student classroom participation 1.00
Learner Student time on task 1.00
Learner Improved reading/study skills 1.00
Home environment / peer group Cooperative learning 0.80 79
Teacher Homework (graded) 0.80
Teacher Classroom morale 0.60 73
Learner Initial cognitive prerequisites 0.60
Home environment / peer group Home environment intervention 0.50 69

Further reading[edit]

  • Anania, Joanne (1981). The effects of quality of instruction on the cognitive and affective learning of students (Thesis). The University of Chicago.
  • Burke, Arthur Joseph (August 1983). Students’ potential for learning contrasted under tutorial and group approaches to instruction (Thesis). OCLC 1194704545. ProQuest 252076952.

External links[edit]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Bloom, Benjamin S (June–July 1984). “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring” (PDF). Educational Researcher. 13 (6): 4–16. doi:10.3102/0013189×013006004. S2CID 1714225. Retrieved 9 June 2018.
  2. ^ Guskey, Thomas R (2005), Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and Implications, p. 12, ERIC ED490412
  3. ^ Guskey, Thomas R. (2007), “All Our Children Learning: New Views on the Work of Benjamin S. Bloom”, Engaging Every Learner, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, pp. 101–118, doi:10.4135/9781483329383.n6, ISBN 9781412938549, retrieved 2022-04-27
  4. ^ Wood, William B.; Tanner, Kimberly D. (March 2012). “The Role of the Lecturer as Tutor: Doing What Effective Tutors Do in a Large Lecture Class”. CBE: Life Sciences Education. 11 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1187/cbe.11-12-0110. ISSN 1931-7913. PMC 3292071. PMID 22383611.
  5. ^
  6. ^ a b Corbett, Albert (2001), “Cognitive Computer Tutors: Solving the Two-Sigma Problem”, User Modeling 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, vol. 2109, pp. 137–147, doi:10.1007/3-540-44566-8_14, ISBN 978-3-540-42325-6, retrieved 2022-04-27
  7. ^ Mott, Jon; Wiley, David (2013-01-03). “Open for Learning: The CMS and the Open Learning Network”. In Education. 15 (2). doi:10.37119/ojs2009.v15i2.53. ISSN 1927-6117.
  8. ^ Bloom, Benjamin S. (March 1973). “Recent developments in mastery learning”. Educational Psychologist. 10 (2): 53–57. doi:10.1080/00461527309529091. ISSN 0046-1520.
  9. ^ a b Winget, Marshall; Persky, Adam M. (2022-01-13). “A Practical Review of Mastery Learning”. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 86 (10): 8906. doi:10.5688/ajpe8906. ISSN 0002-9459. PMID 35027359. S2CID 245946166.
  10. ^ Walberg, Herbert J (May 1984). “Improving the productivity of America’s schools”. Educational Leadership. 41 (8): 19–27.

Read More