By Nidhi Sachdeva, PhD

Nidhi Sachdeva is an evidence-informed learning designer, researcher, an educational technology specialist and a post-secondary educator at the University of Toronto & York University. She is interested in designing and integrating evidence-informed instructional practices using a wide range of educational technology tools. Recently, she has been researching this through the notion of MicroLearning and cognitive science. With more than fifteen years of experience developing and facilitating learning content for both face-to-face and online courses at post-secondary institutions within Greater Toronto Area, Nidhi is extremely passionate about integrating the science of learning in her pedagogical practice. She has recently co-launched a blog called ‘The Science of Learning’ where she shares some of the latest educational research and its implications for instructional practice with the goal to reduce existing gap between educational research and classroom practice. Twitter/X: @nsachdeva2019

Nidhi lives in Toronto with her husband and their three children. She loves hiking, soap making and experimenting with smoothie recipes.

What is microlearning?

Microlearning is a relatively new term coined in 2002 by Dr. Theo Hug (1), a professor at the Institute of Educational Studies at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Hug (2,3) defined it as the delivery of learning sessions or activities of shorter duration than traditional teaching delivery. Initially, it was associated with blogs, wiki pages, RSS channels and Web 2.0 updates (4). Microlearning tends to involve informal learning contexts, compared to more formal or conventional learning opportunities (5). Since then, attempts to define microlearning have been ongoing. Learning processes that have been called microlearning can cover a span from some seconds (e.g., a tweet or TikTok) to 15 minutes (e.g., a video), however, there is no agreed upon specified timeframe for microlearning (5,6).

There are many more definitions proposed in the literature. This allows me to conclude that microlearning means different things to different people although a commonly occurring theme that connects most definitions is its short nature. It seems that its short nature is a differentiating factor, compared with macrolearning, a more conventional or traditional form of learning (7). But how short should it be? Is it under a minute, or should it be five minutes? Is a 15-minute microlesson so long that it can’t be categorized as microlearning anymore? The truth is there isn’t an evidence-informed consistent answer available in the existing literature on microlearning.

The following statement by Neelen and Kirschner (8) summarizes this situation nicely:

Microlearning isn’t a specific thing; it’s everything! It’s a term that a) nobody agrees on what it means, b) doesn’t explain what it generally covers and at the same time c) seems to cover everything in an ‘organisational learning ecosystem’. In other words, it’s – to say it euphemistically – not helpful at all.

So, what now?

I’ve come to realize that the term “microlearning” has become somewhat meaningless in the literature. Yet, there is something valuable about a well-designed microlesson that we need to identify and understand. Microlessons have tremendous appeal. They are ubiquitous on YouTube, TikTok and other platforms and they’re wonderful for informal, just-in-time learning applications. But how might they be adapted for formal learning contexts? Moreover, as learning designers, how can we methodically apply our understanding of evidence-based instructional practices to create powerful microlessons for our courses? These are some of the questions that I pursued during my doctoral research.

Let’s focus on ‘Learning’ in MicroLearning

To capture the qualities of pedagogically well-designed microlessons, I am proposing the introduction of a new term, “MicroLearning”, to distinguish it from the general term “microlearning’.

In this new term, I capitalize “Learning” to emphasize that the lesson is designed with certain evidence-based principles in mind. And I capitalize “Micro”, not to refer to time length (although MicroLearning lessons do tend to be short), but rather to refer to the mental complexity of the material taught.

MicroLearning lessons should focus on a very limited and well-defined body of content, so as to not cognitively overload the learner. As such, I propose the following six principles for designing, developing and integrating MicroLearning content. Note that these design principles were developed during a design-based study I conducted for my doctoral research.

1. Valuable Content: This is the ‘what’ of the microlesson – the actual topic. Instructors should ask themselves – what is it I want to teach my learners with a particular microlesson? Content should be relevant and useful, and it should be a part of something that will connect to learners’ existing knowledge. Content is a key starting point in planning to integrate a microlesson in the online course.

2. Clear Instructional Purpose: This is the ‘why’ of the microlesson – the reason. Instructors should ask themselves – why do I need this microlesson and what do I wish to achieve from it? Instructional purpose is the reason for someone to develop a microlesson on the chosen content. It can be understood in terms of providing summary, augmentation/enrichment or clarification of tricky concepts, or simply as a review.

3. Appropriate Length and Structure: This is the ‘how’ of the microlesson. While it is important to keep a microlesson short, sticking to a specific timeframe can be limiting and challenging in being able to present all the relevant content. Therefore, it’s better to think in terms of mental complexity. View length and structure through the lens of Sweller’s cognitive load theory (9,10) and design the microlesson using Rosenshine’s principles of instruction (click here for a microlesson on Rosenshine Principles of Instruction; 11). Instructors should be aware of the inherent complexity of the content as well as element interactivity (how complex and interconnected the components are) and how it might cognitively overload learners’ working memory. For example, think of a simple versus complex math problem. Simple math problem like 5+8 has low element interactivity but a problem from calculus would have a higher element interactivity. They should also keep in mind learners’ prior knowledge of the topic because element interactivity is highly dependent on what the learner already knows. Structure of the microlesson should be clear and concise without much irrelevant or unnecessary features, such as extra visuals or distracting animations (9,10). If there is a need for an advance organizer (an overview of the lesson prior to new material), the instructor should consider adding it to the microlesson. In sum, the length and structure of a microlesson should be informed by cognitive load theory and not by time frame.

4. Appropriate Timing: This is the ‘when’ of the microlesson. Instructors looking to integrate microlessons in their courses should carefully think about when it should be revealed so as to gain maximum benefit from it. Whether the goal is to achieve opportunities for spaced practice or to scaffold by presenting complex information in small steps, it is important to think through the notion of timing (12).

5. Contextually appropriate Format: Consider how the microlesson should be packaged and delivered. Instructors will be making multimedia related decisions at this point. Do I make a video, an infographic, or a text-based microlesson? The theories that can guide this design theme are dual coding theory (13) and cognitive theory of multimedia learning (14) which also provides us with a useful list of multimedia design principles (15; for example see this blog post). Instructors also need to consider, what platform do I use to develop and eventually host my microlesson? How can my learners access the platform? The chosen platform should be easily accessible (for example, using a link or something similar) and it should reduce as much as possible any logistical obstacles such as creating an account, login requirements, learning a new tech tool etc.

6. Choice of appropriate Interactivity: If developing a microlesson can be analogous to creating a dish following a recipe, interactivity would be the spices that can enhance the flavors of the finished product, i.e., enhance the learning. Instructors can spice-up a microlesson by providing learners with opportunities to test their understanding of the content. Consider adding retrieval practice (16) opportunities to the microlessons via zero or low stakes quizzes/self-tests. These can be in the form of multiple choice, true-false, drag and drop etc. Don’t forget to provide feedback as well to support learners’ metacognitive skills.

If we truly want to understand the role of MicroLearning within formal learning contexts (e.g., for university-level courses or for formal professional development) and capitalize on its claimed benefits for our learners, we cannot do so without connecting with the science of learning.

This post has been derived and modified from the author’s doctoral dissertation titled ‘Designing Evidence-informed Microlearning for Graduate-level Online Courses’ (17)

References:

(1)  Hug, T. (2007). Didactics of Microlearning. Münster: Waxmann Verlag Co.

(2) Hug, T. (2010). Mobile Learning as ’Microlearning’: Conceptual Considerations towards Enhancements of Didactic Thinking. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning Journal, 2(4), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2010100104

(3) Hug, T. (2005). Micro Learning and Narration Exploring possibilities of utilization of narrations and storytelling for the designing of “micro units” and didactical micro-learning arrangements. In: Online proceedings of the International Conference “Media in Transition 4: The Work of Stories” at the M.I.T. in Cambridge (MA), USA, May 6-8, 2005.

(4) Friesen, N. (2007). The Microlearning agenda in the age of educational media. Micromedia and Corporate Learning: Proceedings of the 3rd International Micro-Learning 2007 Conference. https://www.academia.edu/2817875/The_Microlearning_agenda_in_the_age_of_educational_media

(5) Jahnke, I., Lee, Y. M., Pham, M., He, H., & Austin, L. (2020). Unpacking the Inherent Design Principles of Mobile Microlearning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 585–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09413-w

(6) Rettger, E. (2017). Microlearning with Mobile Devices: Effects of Distributed Presentation Learning and the Testing Effect on Mobile Devices [Ph.D., Arizona State University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1901899014/abstract/4122AA6F8CF84AFAPQ/1

(7) Buchem, I., & Hamelmann, H. (2010). Microlearning: A strategy for ongoing professional development. eLearning Papers, 21(7), 1-15.

(8) Neelen, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017, June 13). Microlearning – A New Old Concept to Put Out to Pasture. 3-Star Learning Experiences. https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/microlearning-a-new-old-concept-to-put-out-to-pasture/

(9) Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

(10) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

(11) Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12.

(12) 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

(13) Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076

(14) Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005

(15) Tufan, D. (2021). Multimedia Design Principles for Microlearning. In J. R. Corbeil, B. H. Khan, & M. E. Corbeil (Eds.), Microlearning in the Digital Age (1st ed., pp. 58–79). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821623-6

(16) Agarwal, P. K., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2018). How to use retrieval practice to improve learning. https://pdf.retrievalpractice.org/RetrievalPracticeGuide.pdf

(17) Sachdeva, N. (2023). Designing evidence-informed microlearning for graduate-level online courses [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. University of Toronto T-Space Repository. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/127866