Microlearning: What It Is Not and What It Should Be

If you are a learning professional, it’s almost impossible notto have recently heard about the wonders of microlearning. Apart from being agenius marketing tagline used by many learning technology salespeople,microlearning has some aspects that can be useful in your organizationallearning strategies.

The key point to recognize is that microlearning is not atheory, nor a principle, but rather a learner-centered approach. What ismicrolearning? Well, it depends on whom you ask; according to the KnowledgePulse (see Behringer in References), the term microlearning was coined by the Research Studios Austria as “learningin small steps,” and it has been heavily popularized due to most of itsinterventions being Web 2.0 friendly. In this article, I discuss the theoreticalbackground supporting microlearning strategies, the pitfalls of blindlyadopting microlearning, and its potential benefits for workplace learning.

Cognitive load theory

There may not be any theory out there with a bigger case forthe support of a microlearning approach than cognitive load theory (CLT). CLTwas first described by John Sweller, and it proposes that “learning occurs intwo mechanisms: 1) schema acquisition, or forming a mental map, and 2) transferof knowledge into working memory” (see Laistner and Sweller articles inReferences). As we learn, our working memory can only take so much—it is like asink with a slow drain. If you “pour” too much knowledge or content in at once,you would experience a cognitive overload or that feeling you get after thefirst five yawns into a boring lecture. CLT also applies to highly relevantcontent: It can cause cognitive overloading through useless or inadequateinformation or knowledge related to tasks.

There are three types of cognitive load: intrinsic,extraneous, and germane. The intrinsic deals with the complexity of a task orconcept and its relation to the learner’s abilities. The extraneous load isdirectly influenced by instructional design, that is, how content is presentedand facilitated. The germane load affects a learner’s ability to build schemas.Sound familiar? Microlearning focuses on these, as it limits cognitive loadsand its application is meant to be highly relevant to tasks. The only reason wehear about microlearning instead of cognitive overload reduction is the former termis “sexier” and easy to sell.

Microlearning for micro results?

The biggest problem with microlearning being such aubiquitous marketing phenomenon in learning and development (L&D) circlesis when learning professionals blindly use it for every organizationalchallenge. “Micro-learning is NOT useful when people need to acquire and learncomplex skills, processes, or behaviors; people need relevant practice—andfeedback on performance” (see Jomah, et al, in References). For example, itwould be challenging to learn computer programming in a microlearning approach,as its intrinsic cognitive load demands more than just short bursts of “bite-size”learning chunks. A second questionable example of microlearning as a strategyis using it as a replacement for formal instruction. It’s important torecognize that formal instruction is necessary for core foundational knowledgewhere none exists or where there are perceived gaps in knowledge. An example ofmicrolearning as a substitute for formal instruction is the use of platforms thatprovide daily reminders or daily video links to users; these are rather passiveand may lack much context and/or relevance to tasks. Are they a great way todeliver content? Sure, but does that translate to meaningful learning?

Microcontent is king in microlearning rules

The notion of microcontent and microlearning can also beattributed to Christian Swertz, a professor at the University of Vienna,Austria, who proposed a “Web Didactics” approach for the micro-level content ofweb browser interfaces and individualized learning experiences (see Hug inReferences). This is a new concept that retains many of the traditionaldidactic models, but offers a way to assimilate to web and metadatadevelopments over recent years. The key advantages of microcontent are thatit’s malleable, interchangeable, and mobile. Microlearning has great potentialto serve mobile learners because microcontent goes to where the learner is andcan be accessed from any device. Therefore, microlearning can be highlyeffective and manageable when tracking it with xAPI. Lastly, microlearningtends to be learner-centered; it’s ideal for personal learning plans andongoing professional development. “Microcontents are very attractive becausethey are also individually addressed and referred to by sets of formalmetadata. The ‘metaweb’ itself is formed of microcontent” (see Jomah, et al, inReferences). This means microcontent can “live” anywhere and does not have tobe hidden behind the Learning Demilitarized Zone (LDZ), commonly called “theLMS.”

Conclusion

In summary, microlearning refers to learning experiencesthat happen in tiny bursts and short times. It has been an omnipresent force inrecent years around L&D circles due to its relation with learningtechnologies. Although most of its benefits are derived from the reduction ofcognitive overload, its marketing appeal has allowed many vendors and learningprofessionals to ignore its lack of theoretical foundation. Cognitive loadtheory is the closest framework supporting the use of microlearning, dependingon the cognitive loads involved. Microlearning is not a one-size-fits-allapproach, but rather a good companion for formal instruction. Microlearning maynot be an optimal solution for complex tasks in workplace learning, but itsnature seems well aligned with learner-centered models such as personallearning plans and professional development interests. Finally, like mostlearning strategies, microlearning fits well if you carefully consider thetasks involved and their cognitive loads.

References

Behringer, Reinhold. “Interoperability Standards for MicroLearning.” InternationalMicroLearning Conference. September 2013.

Hug, Theo. Microlearning: Didactics of Microlearning.New York: Waxmann Verlag, 2007.

Jomah, Omer, et al. “Micro Learning: A Modernized Education System.” BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, Vol.7, No. 1. March 2016.

Laistner, Marilyn. “Differentiation in Chemistry for Students with Various Levels of Cognitive Efficiency.” TheCollege at Brockport: State University of New York, 2016.

Sweller, John. “Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.” Learning and Instruction, Vol. 4, No. 4.1994.