

4. 


How to Put 
Microlearning Into
Action

Chapter Questions

At the end of this chapter, you should be able

to answer these questions:

• What research supports how and when to

use microlearning?

• What is the difference between spaced prac-

tice and spaced retrieval?

• Can microlearning change a person’s behav-

ior?

• What’s the optimal length for a microlearn-

ing lesson?

In chapter 2, we discussed learning de-

sign, supporting our claims with applica-
ble learning theories and domain princi-
ples. Then in chapter 3, we used our dis-
cussions of how we learn (theories),
what we learn (domains), and why we
learn (classification) from chapter 2 to
help us select the appropriate use case
for microlearning.

Now it’s time to decide how to put mi-

crolearning into action. What provides
the best effect? This chapter focuses on
taking that use case and incorporating it
in a manner that maximizes the out-
comes. And we’ll share research that can
help you understand how to do just that!

To be successful, you need to make sure

research and evidence is on your side
when you embark on a training or learn-
ing initiative. Learning professionals un-
derstand that the right application of the
right techniques at the right time is what
makes a learning program work—not
the technique itself. Remember that mi-
crolearning is not a panacea in terms of
learning design. Without this under-
standing, you risk wasting organization-
al resources, not to mention your own
time and effort. Use the research and re-
sults from the studies in this chapter to
inform your implementation of mi-
crolearning and to make key decisions
about when microlearning will be effec-
tive—and when it won’t.

Microlearning
Research

How far back does microlearning go?

The term microlearning is typically be-
lieved to date back to 2002 (Friesens and
Hug 2007). However, even before mi-
crolearning entered the lexicon, many
organizations, teachers, and trainers
talked and wrote about chunking learn-
ing into small pieces, creating small bites
of content, or some other terminology to
describe the presentation of small
amounts of content to learners. Re-
searchers have studied the presentation
of small pieces of content for decades,
and there is evidence that the concept of
microlearning traces back more than
100 years. There is a large body of re-
search to examine as we describe the ap-
plication and usefulness of microlearn-
ing.

This chapter focuses on a select group of

empirical studies and documented re-
search that was approached using sound
scientific practices. Our goal was to
leverage clear, supported evidence to
validate the use of microlearning. Nar-
rowing the body of knowledge to articles
that take a scientific approach to mi-
crolearning meant that there were fewer
resources from which we could draw,
but it also removed the “noise” or aspira-
tions for microlearning. Our intent was
not to review every study on the subject;
rather this chapter aims to provide sci-
entific evidence for the use of mi-
crolearning as a tool to deliver instruc-
tion.

The Forgetting
Curve

In the late 1870s, Hermann Ebbinghaus

began to study human memory and,
shortly thereafter, the concept of forget-
ting. Using himself as the subject,
Ebbinghaus tirelessly and rigorously ex-
perimented with his memory. In 1885 he
published a book on the subject titled
Über das Gedächtnis, which was then
translated into English and published as
Memory. A Contribution to Experimental
Psychology in 1913. His study and the
publication of his findings was a huge
contribution to the study of memory and
humankind’s understanding of how to
improve memory.

The lasting feature of his work is the

Ebbinghaus forgetting curve (Figure 4-
1), which portrays a plot of memory loss
over time. Ebbinghaus found that memo-
ries decayed over time. However, he
found that when he reintroduced con-
tent at certain prescribed intervals, he
could diminish the forgetting process.

Ebbinghaus’ research has been replicat-

ed many times. Researchers Radossawl-
jewitsch (1907) and Finkenbinder (1913)
conducted studies similar to Ebbinghaus
and found similar results in terms of
memory and forgetting. Heller and col-
leagues (1991) conducted a replication
study of Ebbinghaus’s work in Germany
in the early 1990s. In 2015, Jaap M. J.
Murre and Joeri Dros (2015), researchers
at the University of Amsterdam, discov-
ered similar results by replicating
Ebbinghaus’s work as closely as possible,
thus rendering the curve valid.

Figure 4-1. Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve

Having stood the test of time (so far), the

findings and conclusions of Ebbinghaus
clearly indicate that while memory de-
cays over time, that decay can be re-
duced by reintroducing the items to be
learned at specific intervals.

When it comes to using the Ebbinghaus

forgetting curve as justification for mi-
crolearning, we do have a word of cau-
tion: The experiments, even the replicat-
ed experiments mentioned here, were
all conducted using nonsense syllables
as the content to be “learned.” Other re-
search has shown that words with spe-
cific meanings tend to have more dura-
bility than nonsense syllables. So, while
the forgetting curve is real, it might not
be as applicable to content that has a
deeper meaning than nonsense syllables.
When the information is more meaning-
ful, the decay or forgetting process
should occur more slowly than the
Ebbinghaus forgetting curve would indi-
cate. For example, if you needed to learn
a series of acronyms at a new job, the
forgetting curve would likely not be as
steep because those acronyms are relat-
ed to your job and thus have meaning to
you.

It’s important to remember that humans

do not store information by making a
literal copy of that information. Instead,
we learn by encoding and storing new
information based on how it relates to
what we already know. We map new in-
formation to current information and
link our new information with existing
information (Bjork 2012). The introduc-
tion of stimuli after an item has been
learned will spark memory and aid with
retention and recall. In fact, if combined
with deeper meaning than nonsense syl-
lables, we can safely assume the forget-
ting curve will be slowed even more dra-
matically than Ebbinghaus’s work sug-
gests.

In addition to adding meaning, two oth-

er types of methodologies can be used to
help learners recall information and
both can be useful tools as you design
microlearning programs. One is called
the spacing effect and the other is called
the testing effective.

Retrieval: Spaced,
Practiced, and
Changed Behavior

Much of this chapter is intended to help

you determine when and how often to
provide learning moments, especially
when using microlearning. A little too
much information may inundate, demo-
tivate, and even desensitize the learners,
and then all your effort would be lost.
The research we have pulled together
here highlights the best method to use
given the use case selected.

As we noted when discussing the forget-

ting curve, microlearning is great for en-
suring our memory is in top condition!
So how do we know when to retrieve?
Let’s look at three different ways we can
benefit from retrieval. In the first classi-
fication we look at spacing, we then look
at opportunities to practice, and, finally,
we examine retrieval for impact on be-
havior.

Spacing

The spacing effect, or spaced retrieval, is

an instructional concept that involves
providing learners with content spaced
over time and has been shown to be an
effective tool for aiding retention (Car-
penter and DeLosh 2005). It helps to
combat learner fatigue, as well as the
potential to mix up the preceding and
succeeding information they are trying
to learn, and typically results in more
efficient learning and improved reten-
tion (Pashler et. al 2007)

A good way to understand the spacing

effect is by focusing on its opposite con-
cept, mass practice. Mass practice is
when you study a large body of content
all at once, like cramming for a test. Re-
member doing that? You studied the
night before and did really well on the
test, but two weeks later you can’t re-
member any of it.

Mass practice or cramming presents two

major problems. First is that the succes-
sive and preceding content interferes
with your ability to learn the new con-
tent—concepts will become jumbled and
words and definitions won’t seem to
align. Your brain simply cannot com-
pletely understand, memorize, or com-
prehend the current information before
you introduce new information into
your memory. The second problem with
cramming is simply fatigue. We bet
you’ve studied for a test or tried to learn
a great deal of information in one sitting
(such as a training workshop or a two-
hour webinar), only to find your brain
actually “hurting” from trying to absorb
too much information. We’ve certainly
felt it.

In short, the spacing effect is based on

the fact that memory is enhanced on a
delayed test when learning events are
distributed in time, rather than massed
in immediate succession. The effect
works because the act of retrieving in-
formation is itself a potent learning
event. Retrieved information, rather
than being left in the same state it was in
prior to being recalled, becomes more
recallable in the future; furthermore,
competing information associated with
the same cues can become less re-
callable. Using our memories alters our
memories (Bjork 2012).

Spaced retrieval is most effective when

engaging learners with content over an
extended time and when reinforcement
of the content is important for learning
and application. Research has shown
that the greater the amount of spacing
between retrieval events, the greater the
potential benefit to retention (Dobson
2013). Ideally, you would let more than
24 hours pass between the learning
events, but shorter times have also been
found to be effective. Learners whose
practices were spaced showed better re-
tention even eight years later than those
who practiced in a more concentrated
time period (Clark and Mayer 2011).

An optimal schedule for spacing content

would reactivate information at the ex-
act moment before the information was
about to be forgotten by the learner.
Since this is virtually impossible to
know, it’s best to set up a schedule to
reintroduce the information. There are
two types of schedules associated with
the spacing effect (Dobson 2013):

• The uniform approach. The informa-

tion is presented on spaced schedules
with an equal amount of time set be-
tween learning events. Thus, it’s a uni-
formed spacing approach with a set
amount of time between each encounter
with the content (Vlach, Sandhofer, and
Bjork 2014).

• An expanding schedule. The amount

of time between learning events gets
larger with every presentation of the
content (Landauer and Bjork 1978;
Vlach, Sandhofer, and Bjork 2014). The
spacing interval becomes increasingly
longer over the course of the learning
period.

Unfortunately, the research does not

provide a definitive answer as to the
best spacing approach. Some studies in-
dicate uniform is better; others advocate
expanded. However, there is a growing
body of evidence suggesting that ex-
panding schedules might be superior for
individuals or materials that are subject
to rapid forgetting (Vlach, Sandhofer,
and Bjork 2014). For example, University
of Nevada researcher Frank Dempster
(1987) found that students retained a
higher number of vocabulary definitions
when a term and definition were repeat-
ed approximately every five minutes,
compared with consecutively repeating
the same term and definition. There also
appears to be a benefit to using spacing
within the confines of a single instruc-
tional setting.

Recall

Spacing tells how learners interact with

content; retrieval practice is a type of
spacing activity. Because there are dif-
ferent use cases, retrieval practice may
not always be part of the mix. However,
if we are attempting to practice, rein-
force, or remediate, we are inevitably
going to need to recall something.

It turns out that retrieving information

from memory can be a powerful memo-
ry modifier. In other words, recalling in-
formation (or testing yourself) modifies
the memory trace in a way that increas-
es its accessibility in the future—in other
words, it makes it stronger. Quizzing or
testing yourself improves learning more
than some other forms of encoding, such
as restudying (Dobson 2013; Roediger
and Karpicke 2006). Thus, while few in-
dividuals like them, tests are actually a
good way to learn and can play a key
role in microlearning.

According to Henry L. Roediger III and

Jeffrey D. Karpicke (2006), researchers at
Washington University in St. Louis, we
can trace the use of testing to aid recall
back to at least the 16th century. In a pa-
per titled “The Power of Testing Memo-
ry: Basic Research and Implications for
Educational Practice,” they cite the fol-
lowing from Sir Francis Bacon, the Eng-
lish philosopher and statesman who
served as both Attorney General and as
Lord Chancellor of England:

If you read a piece of text through twen-

ty times, you will not learn it by heart so
easily as if you read it ten times while
attempting to recite from time to time
and consulting the text when your mem-
ory fails. (F. Bacon 1620/2000, 143; cited
in Roediger and Karpicke 2006)

Moving up a few centuries and taking a

more scientific approach, Arthur I. Gates
(1917) conducted memory experiments
at the Psychological Laboratory of the
University of California in spring 1916.
When studying children from a public
school in Oakland, California, and adults
who participated at the Psychological
Laboratory of Columbia University
(Roediger and Karpicke 2006), Gates
found that retention was greatly en-
hanced by testing. His and similar stud-
ies have since been replicated, reporting
similar results for a variety of learning
materials and ages across diverse exper-
imental designs.

Behavior

The spacing effect not only improves re-

call, it has also been shown to influence
a person’s behavior. We saw this play
out in our example of diabetic patients
receiving daily text messages.

In another example, a study titled “Im-

pact on Clinical Behavior of Face-to-Face
Continuing Medical Education Blended
with Online Spaced Education” found
that online spaced education following a
live continuing medical education (CME)
course significantly increased the impact
of the face-to-face course on self-report-
ed global clinical behaviors (Shaw et. al
2011). The randomized controlled trial
provided post-instruction microlearning
that consisted of quizzing the learner on
four clinical topics. Questions were
asked every eight and 16 days, based on
correct and incorrect responses (spaced
retrieval), but the control group wasn’t
asked any questions until week 18. Both
groups were then given a behavior
change survey at week 18; those who re-
ceived the spaced education (mi-
crolearning) reported significantly
greater change in their global clinical
behaviors as a result of the program.

These two examples indicate that the act

of spacing information over time and
reminding leaners of suggested behav-
iors and content can have a positive im-
pact on a person’s behavior. Thus, when
properly employed in a training session,
spaced behavioral messages can be used
to guide and shape a person’s behavior.

This all helps to provide perspective on

whether the topic (or topics) you have in
mind are well suited for microlearning.
Right now, you are probably refining the
idea of your microlearning project fur-
ther by thinking about how you will im-
plement it. But it’s probably making you
think about the design as well. The big-
gest question people always have is how
long the microlearning should be. Well,
there is research to support that as well.

Microlearning
Duration

In the definition of microlearning we

presented in chapter 1, we purposely
avoided assigning a duration because we
did not want to artificially constrain the
concept of microlearning to a length of
time. However, “How long is the right
length of time for microlearning?” con-
tinues to be a perpetual question we
hear.

It should be noted that there is a great

deal we don’t know about optimal
length, such as the relationship between
content complexity and length and the
relationship between relevancy and the
amount of time a person is willing to
spend to learn meaningful content. How-
ever, there are some research studies


that provide insight into the optimal

time period for microlearning.

Ralph Burns (1985) conducted research

related to the attention span of chem-