I have recently become aware of a growing trend in the field of training and workforce development called Microlearning; short, concise, on-demand small chunks of learning content that are quick and easy to access and process with any type of device. (Hug, 2012)

I work in faculty development at a multi-cultural language school in California, where more than 30 different languages are taught. In addition to the usual lack of time for training that challenges most teachers, we have the added hurdle of dealing with a wide range of English proficiency among our faculty. Our instructors come from over 90 different countries, and have a variety of educational, professional and cultural backgrounds.

The reality for most teachers is that the work day never seems to have enough hours to allow for all the work that needs to be done. Divided between classroom hours, lesson planning and preparation of materials, homework correction and student feedback, plus a variety of other administrative tasks, teachers always complain that they don’t have time for any additional professional development.

Since microlearning only requires a short time commitment for each lesson or session, it appears promising for use in faculty training. Each microlesson or session only takes a few minutes at a time and it can be accessed from a variety of devices, making it available any time, any place. Although the notion of chunking content into short bytes has existed for a long time, we now see an increased interest and focus on microlearning as an integral part of organizational development programs.

Because only one single topic is covered in each microlesson, teachers would not get overwhelmed with too much information. And in the particular case of foreign teachers, making the content shorter, could also facilitate its assimilation by those with less linguistic proficiency. In addition, having only one topic covered, would make it less demanding in terms of attention and, perhaps, well suited for busy adult learners.

Much of the literature and the providers of microlearning content, point to a supposed common knowledge that learners’ attention span nowadays are shorter than that of a goldfish. Thus, Microlearning is offered as a solution to the supposedly diminishing attention span we see today. (Hug, 2010; Bersin, 2014; Complete Guide to Microlearning, Khurgin 2017).

Human attention span shorter than a goldfish

Based on my own experience doing faculty development in a school with an extremely diverse faculty population, the notion of microlearning does seem to intuitively make sense and it appears promising. For this reason, I chose to further investigate the theoretical underpinnings of microlearning and investigate its usefulness and potential pitfalls for teacher training in faculty development in a setting such as the school where I work.

In this work, I will first look at what is microlearning; then look at some of its benefits and how it can be applied to faculty training; and finally, what might be some of the drawbacks or shortcomings of microlearning for training and faculty development.

Microlearning is relatively new as a learning concept and theory; and the literature on microlearning is somewhat scarce. Microlearning is still a loosely defined term; and one is hard pressed to find a common, uniform definition in the literature and in the field of training and workforce development.

Bruck, Motiwalla & Foester (2012) explain microlearning in the following terms: “Micro-learning combines microcontent delivery with a sequence of micro interactions which enable users to learn without information overload.”

In Bekmurza, Nussipbakov & Zhaparov (2012) the following description of microlearning is provided:

“The main principle of this method is to divide huge complex information into many small pieces and try to make it as easy as possible. Leave only the main parts, only what is necessary and try to give more examples. This makes work very easy. You can learn a small part of information in less than 15 minutes and then practice it.”

For Buchem & Hamelmann (2010), “Microlearning refers to short forms of learning and consists of short, fine-grained, inter-connected and loosely-coupled learning activities with microcontent.” The authors go on to state that microlearning is closely related to the concepts of microcontent; Web 2.0; Social software; Informal Learning; and Personal Learning Environments.

Microcontent are text bits produced and circulated in new, loosely coupled formats and structures. “They make up the new bases of eLearning, knowledge management, and information acquisition in corporate and educational environments” (Bruck, 2006). The way people communicate is changing drastically. We no longer write long papers and exchange essays, but instead design multimedia presentations, video and podcasts. We now communicate not through letters but through text messages, Twitter and other social media. “The emerging new digital micromedia ecology delivers and calls for the design of innovative experiences, processes and technologies: personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, complex and effective” (Bruck, 2006).

“Microcontent is a new phase in the development of Internet. After sites and web-pages, Microcontent defines an even smaller content fragment. Microcontent Items are content fragments that focused, self-contained, indivisible, structured and addressable. These attributes allow a new phenomenon on Internet: mixing and mashing. There are multiple ways how microcontent can be combined into larger macrocontent containers, such as web-pages, applications, DVD’s, etc. Although we are at the very early stages of this development several mashing parameters can be described. Microcontent mashing allows the audience to become the producer and will have impact on many content usages, such as learning.” (Leene, 2006)

Although different authors may vary greatly in how they define microlearning, most of the articles, websites and content regarding microlearning contain some common elements. Microlearning is a way of teaching and delivering content to learners in small, very specific bursts. In microlearning, the learner is in control of the content as well as the time and place where the learning takes place.

Microlearning is a short, focused learning tidbit (3 to 5 minutes) that is designed to meet a specific learning outcome. Microlearning is typically designed and delivered in rich media formats, it is a learner-centric approach that provides just-in-time training that is available on multiple devices (tablets and smartphones, in addition to laptops and desktops). All these aspects ensure that the content can be easily accessed, quickly completed, and is ready to be applied by the learners.

The following video provides a quick and easy introduction to microlearning:

Microlearning has been offered as a response to the changing needs of the modern learner (Hug, 2012). Bersin (2014) provides a detailed graph that shows some of what he sees as the characteristics of young learners today. 

Meet the Modern Learner

Microlearning is often associated with video content, but Hug (2005) argues that microlearning can have many different forms and be offered through different platforms. He provides a few examples of the different formats and practices of microlearning through the mindmap below:

Versions of Microlearning

In the following table, Bersin (2014) shows what he sees as the evolution of digital learning and the emergence of microlearning. We can see the evolution of the content format, the philosophy behind each phase, how the user interacts with the material, and the platforms used to deliver the material. Bersin also makes a prediction about the direction learning will go in the near future.

The Evolution of e-Learning

The basic premise of microlearning is that people can learn better and more effectively when the content is broken down into digestible parts and learning thus takes the form of small steps. This is based on human cognition theory which places the limits of processing information in short-term memory. This temporal dimension, learning in small steps better fits into the human processor model of receiving information or knowledge in small homogeneous chunks and fits well in the small screen size of mobile devices. Microlearning does not demand separate learning sessions but is integrated into other activities of the learner. Also, microlearning is good for some types of learning environment where content can be designed in smaller objects, just-in-time learning, and Web 2.0 learning. It may not be appropriate for all forms of learning and therefore, it compliments (does not replace) other forms of learning. (Bruck, 2006).

The popularity of microlearning isn’t limited to the United States. In Austria, a group of scholars and practitioners have been studying and focusing on microlearning and they have been organizing a conference dedicated exclusively to microlearning since 2003. To learn more about their organization, their work, and this year’s conference, you can visit their website:

https://microlearning.org/

“This conference is the only conference world-wide which focuses on micro-content and learning as a singular area of technology enhanced learning.”

In the following video, Jamie Good makes a compelling argument for the why and how of microlearning:

Microlearning seems to offer benefits to both the learner, as well as the trainer. Here are some of the benefits presented in the Complete Guide to Microlearning (2017):

Benefits of Microlearning for Learners:

1. Learner-centric - Microlearning nuggets may appeal to learners as they give the individual a higher control in defining a personalized and flexible learning path. Because of the varied formats used to create these nuggets, learners are also more likely to find something that matches their individual learning style.
2. Just-in-time - This is probably one of the biggest benefits of microlearning. These microlessons are available to the learner precisely at the moment of their learning need. They are also available on demand (learners decide when to engage, rather than being pushed into going through an entire course or workshop).
3. Accessible - Microlearning is usually designed for multi-device delivery (from desktops and laptops to tablets and smartphones) thereby providing higher flexibility to learners to learn when they need and on the device of their choice.
4. Rich media - The design of microlearning include multimedia and a variety of formats to suit the needs of a diverse population.
5. Less time consuming - Microlearning is ideal for the modern learner with a shorter attention span; or adult workers with little time to spare.

Benefits of Microlearning For Trainers:

1. Affordable and agile - Due to short training duration, the microlearning costs are lower than traditional eLearning. They can be created and deployed much quicker than traditional eLearning.
2. Shorter development cycle - On account of the run length and the typical formats used to develop microlearning, these assets have a much shorter development cycle.
3. Easy to update - Microlearning nuggets can be updated and corrected quickly to enhance their impact.
4. Wider application - Microlearning can be applied for formal learning or as Performance Support Tools (PSTs). You can use these nuggets as stand-alone assets or they could be part a series of microlearning courses.
5. High impact - By definition, microlearning nuggets are designed to meet a narrow but specific outcome. This has a positive impact on learning and application. They can be used very effectively to bring about behavioral change.

Bruck, Motiwalla & Foester (2012), argue that the anytime and anyplace learning opportunity of mobile devices provides several benefits for the learning environment, such as allowing learners and instructors to utilize their spare time while traveling to finish their homework or lesson preparation. Another benefit proposed is the provision of just-in-time, for example assisting learners at the time they are solving a problem and need help. Microlearning can be the ideal solution when learners have limited time (e.g. while traveling from and to work, or taking care of children).

​There are currently several services and providers specializing in creating and delivering microlearning training services. They provide compelling arguments for the use of microlearning that appear to make sense and have a natural appeal to the busy professional who does not have time to devote to lengthy trainings. At a first glance, microlearning does seem to offer a promising solution to the trainee and the trainer alike. But, as mentioned before, the literature on microlearning is still limited and many of the studies being conducted have been done by the providers themselves and often present a one-sided view of the application of microlearning, where the benefits are highlighted and no drawbacks are mentioned. More studies should be conducted to show what has worked well and what has not worked so well.

According to Neelen and Kirschner (2017), the message many trainers are getting from the new microlearning trend is that today’s workers, the “modern learners,” have only 1% of their workweek to devote to professional development and learning. That would equate to 24 minutes per week in a 40-hour work week; which equals 4.8 minutes per day to focus on learning. The authors criticize the notion, based on the above assumptions, that we should limit all of our learning initiatives to fit within this 4.8 minutes per day. They argue: Not All Training Fits the Microlearning Model!

Some critics feel that the microlearning model tries to cover too much. It looks like microlearning is basically everything … “microlearning isn’t a specific thing; it’s everything! It’s a term that: 1) nobody agrees on what it means, 2) doesn’t explain what it generally covers and at the same time, 3) seems to cover everything in an ‘organizational learning ecosystem’. In other words, it’s – to say it euphemistically – not helpful at all.” (Neelen and Kirschner, 2017)

In the following video, Jeffrey Staso warns of some potential drawbacks of Microlearning:

In the video, Staso points to the follwoing potential drawbacks of microlearning:

• It does not leave time for deeper theoretical analysis.
• It does not allow for connections to other knowledge.
• Microlearning lessons lack a means of evaluation.
• A microlearning module by itself is a step away from holistic learning.
• It’s only suitable for specific steps of a larger process or specific skills.
• It can make learners “lazy” by not having to commit information to memory (so it can be suitable for some content, but not all).
• It requires a high comfort with the use of technology by the learner.

And the next video, by Jeff Cobb, provides a brief overview of what he considers to be the pros and cons of microlearning:

Here are some of the cons expressed by Cobb:

• Microlearning may be just “creating noise” – microlearning content creators must be mindful of how this content relates to and fits within the larger curriculum.
• May be too brief to support learning goals – it may not provide adequate opportunity for in depth analysis and discussion of larger topics.
• May require significant context effort – if taken in isolation, the units may not allow for the understanding of the bigger picture and the overall framework of the content being delivered.

Cutler (2014) argues that microlearning can and should be used as another tool, but not as a replacement for any type of formal instruction. The author contends that students too quickly turn to the Internet for answers, rather than use their own deductive reasoning powers to solve their own problems. With the future development of microlearning platforms, teachers may have to work even harder to help students develop their own abilities, without the aid of computers.

Cutler (2014) expresses some additional concerns:

“The problem becomes over reliance on, and misunderstanding of how to use microlearning, and not having a theoretical perspective or a teaching philosophy from which you’re using it.”

As promising as microlearning may appear to be, there are also intensive discussions about the difficulties in integrating microlearning into the daily practice of organizations, institutions, and lifelong learners (Bruck, 2006). Microlearning is being promoted as the miracle solution to all training problems of organizations, but much remains to be defined in terms of how microlearning may fit into existing training programs and additional studies and more experiments need to be conducted to further explore all aspects of microlearning and to form a cohesive, complete theory that trainers and educators can rely on to make informed decisions.

Another possible concern of microlearning might be the sources of microcontent; especially when the learner begins to interact with the content and as described by Leene (2006), when learners start to use various production tools and begin to co-create; and become co-producers of the content, how can we guarantee the quality and source of this content being created and shared?

Yet another possible concern with the use of microlearning is that some schools may not have adequate funding for laptops, tablets, etc. for their students and faculty. Most microlearning content is created and delivered electronically; so low income students at under-funded public schools would be at a disadvantage if microlearning were to be applied to public school curriculum and standards.

Let's now look at what microlearning looks like when used for training and workforce development; and the characteristics of a microlesson and microlearning program. 

Glahn (2017) provides a framework for analyzing microlearning in the form of five questions to be used as guides in developing microlearning content.

1. How long is an average learning activity? 3 to 5 minutes is considered the average.
2. How do learners demonstrate their understanding in the activities? Consider what will be the measurable learning outcomes (not just views or clicks).
3. Is immediate feedback available after each learning activity and does it relate to the learners' performance? There should be automated assessments and learning analytics.
4. How long does it take to start the first learning activity? All learning activities should be easily located and accessible.
5. Can learning activities be completed without external interruption? The answer here should be "yes" or at least "in most cases".

Glahn (2017) also proposes that another important element to be incorporated into microlearning is the use of Minimal Independent Feedback Loops. Minimizing learning activities and providing feedback at the end of each lesson or segment should be an integral part of all microcontent. Learner actions are at the center of all microlearning activities and direct, immediate feedback at the end of each lesson provide the needed guidance to the learner. An additional, principle for microlearning activities is the independence of activities. This means that activities do not have to be presented or accessed in any particular order. Therefore, learners can interrupt their learning after completing each activity. This implies the ability for entering the learning process without having to repeat other activities. (Glahn 2017)

Hug (2005) offers the following dimensions to be used to design microlearning activities:

• Time: relatively short effort, operating expense, degree of time consumption, measurable time, available all the time.
• Content: small or very small units, narrow topics, rather simple issues.
• Curriculum: small part of curricular setting, parts of modules, elements of informal learning.
• Form: fragments, facets, episodes, "knowledge nuggets", skill elements.
• Process: separate, concomitant or actual, situated or integrated activities, iterative method, awareness (getting into or being in a process).
• Media: print media, electronic media, multi-media, (inter-)mediated forms.
• Learning type: repetitive, activist, reflective, pragmatist, constructivist, connectivist, behaviorist; action learning, corporate learning.

The following video helps to explain microlearning, by describing what microlearning is not; and talks about some of the Myths of Microlearning:

 While the above principles and guidelines do not provide a complete guide, or foundation for designing a complete microlearning program, they offer a starting point. Much variation exists among micorlearning providers and care should be taken when looking for solutions or content on the Internet. 

I agree with Glahn (2017), when he states that microlearning is not the be-all end-all solution that will replace all other forms of learning as it has its own share of shortcomings and disadvantages. With its emphasis on small isolated chunks of learning, it may not be ideal when it’s essential for learners to have a holistic view of a larger topic, or complex content; or when it is necessary to compare and contrast different alternatives; and it may lack the ability to connect distinct elements into one coherent picture. So, while microlearning could work well to learn short, isolated and simple concepts; it may have limitations in studying deeper connections, analyzing processes, or to get the big picture. Microlearning may be limited in how it would affect learners' ability to draw larger conclusions and develop opinions on larger subject matters.

Also, it should be noted that while microlearning appears to be very trendy in 2017, this popularity creates additional difficulties, making it harder to tell genuine microlearning solutions apart from those that try to use the label without a complete adherence to the principles of microlearning.

Microlearning does, however, seem to offer some promising advantages over traditional training methods:

• It can be fun and engaging - by keeping it short and taking advantage of various forms of multimedia.
• It can work for some topics and types of content - by making it short and simple; it is easy to process and digest.
• It’s casual, simple and available on demand - can be done anywhere and it doesn’t demand too much time.

Another potential advantage of the short and simple format of microlearning, although not mentioned in the literature, is that it might be easier to understand for non-native English speakers. This makes microlearning an intriguing and promising alternative to faculty training; especially at an international school in the United States, where training is conducted in English, but faculty has a wide range of linguistic ability in the language. These teachers may have the background knowledge in their native language, but may be hindered by the delivery of lengthy materials in English. Microlearning could offer an advantage in such setting.

In the end, I would say that there are no easy answers, and microlearning is not the end solution to all learning and faculty training needs; but it does seem to have some promising, and compelling evidence to warrant further investigation. Microlearning does seem to have a specific place in a broader range of learning methodologies; and I would like to continue exploring and would like to experiment with microlearning at my organization.