Why convenience is not a learning strategy
Microlearning is perfect for busy people. That’s probably not what you came here for, but it’s a good starting point. The strongest argument against microlearning is its convenience. But can and should it all fit into such bite-sized pieces of content? This is a question that more and more organizations are struggling with. We don’t have the time (or budget allocation) for long training sessions that can address all the many learning gaps. There is also a lack of direction from executives to truly focus on non-essential training given the many concerns around the world.
If this widespread negative corporate environment wasn’t bad enough, attention spans are further hampered by the emergence of social media platforms like YouTube Shorts and TikTok. A frequently cited argument is that human attention spans have declined to just 8 seconds and that the post-training forgetfulness curve is between 50% and 80%.
So why not give up and just launch as many microlearning elements as possible? If the data shows us that we’re not actively engaged and that we forget quickly, then surely the best thing we can do is package the information into the shortest possible format. I hope it keeps us involved in some way. And don’t get me wrong. I love microlearning. These are great tools that every L&D professional should absolutely use. But perhaps instead of accepting that your learners will get lost beyond the point where they click on the latest training and then return 8 seconds later, you could consider when to use microlearning and when to never use it.
For busy people, there are few reinforcement tools more useful than microlearning.
Notice the subtle word usage in this heading. I think this makes all the difference. The word is “reinforcement.” If you’re not looking to teach someone a completely new concept or framework, microlearning is often a great tool to reach for.
While I’m not completely convinced that the average L&D team has 300% less bandwidth, I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it takes a lot less time and effort. More importantly, while it may not be a 300% reduction, that extra time can give your L&D team the time and energy they need to do longer training sessions with the same level of commitment as microlearning.
Another very good argument is that many people simply don’t like lengthy compliance training. It was stripped of all personality, fun, and charm, as it was something that had to be vetted by a legal team. Many people, especially those working in large organizations, think of such content when they talk about corporate e-learning modules. And for such learners, microlearning is a breath of fresh air that reminds them that learning can really be fun and easy.
And it’s not just fun and games. If you urgently need to address compliance mistakes occurring across various departments, it may make more sense to implement simple microlearning that respects skill-based principles rather than spending time building longer-form content. The urgency justifies content expediting, allowing more stakeholders to participate and quickly QA the material.
We’ve all seen companies facing potential lawsuits over the fact that employees frequently forgot to follow simple redaction protocols after handling sensitive PII (Personally Identifiable Information). In such a scenario, it’s hard to argue against simple announcements and microlearning. It’s not that employees didn’t know the underlying facts and procedures, they just needed to be reminded of the importance of this and the compliance implications the organization could face if these were not respected. In cases like this, there are few things better than microlearning.
Microlearning as an alternative to meaningful long-form content
With that in mind, let’s go back to the data we shared at the beginning. This is where the microlearning case starts to get a little shaky. And to be honest (please bear with me here), I didn’t write this article all at once. Like most people, I was interrupted from checking my email, looking at my phone, or changing my music. From that experience, it’s very easy to conclude that human attention spans are getting shorter, so only short content is effective.
Following that logic, the best format for what I’m writing now would be a two-sentence paragraph. This is really quick and easy to take and doesn’t take up much of your time. But that argument is just a textbook logical fallacy. We take two related observations, frequent distractions and short attention spans, and stretch them to draw false conclusions about how people learn. But this is exactly the reasoning often cited to justify replacing long-form content with microlearning.
Does your L&D team have enough time? You don’t know. Next, build a business case to prove that your L&D team needs to spend more time building engaging, high-quality learning modules. Show them that retention rates can improve, and that this increased retention rate can measurably increase efficiency, improve employee satisfaction and reduce turnover, and free up your organization’s funds for more fun training content (we can dream, though).
Do people lose interest in your training after 8 seconds? Find a way to hook them and get them involved, and do this all the time. This is especially important for compliance and new skill development, as well as AI training, where learning nuances and new skills does not fit into the microlearning format. Or worse, if you need to combine AI and compliance to devise lengthy EU AI law training.
In these cases, it is absolutely critical to find ways to increase engagement and build meaningful skills throughout the training process. You can’t just accept, “Well, I’m here for eight seconds and that’s it.”
Interpreting the forgetfulness curve and the role of microlearning within it
And coming back to perhaps the most shocking data point, if long-form content was forgotten at a rate of 50% to 80%, what was the immediate next step after seeing such data?
Don’t get me wrong, people scroll on TikTok, but their attention spans are decreasing. But people are still being trained for very demanding jobs. With the right training program, you can earn complex cybersecurity certifications such as CISSP, become a lawyer or a doctor, all of which require complex and detailed knowledge. There’s nothing stopping people from learning this new information, other than the fact that the training content was too dry or they couldn’t process the information well enough.
So how is splitting a 60-minute compliance module into 3-4 minute microlearning a viable solution? Unless the underlying initial module contains so much fluff or “good to know” content that 90% or more of the content can be reasonably removed, the math doesn’t seem to add up. So before you look at all this data suggesting that you can only train based on microlearning, consider the following:
If retention data is bad, is there a good argument to rethink your long-form content engagement and approach? If that’s plausible, microlearning may be necessary. However, it should not be used as a substitute for long-form content, but rather as a reinforcement tool to support the original learning.
And perhaps now is the best time to revisit my original argument. Microlearning is a good reinforcement tool for busy people and helps them deal with the forgetfulness curve. And most people are busy and need to be targeted through long-form content, microlearning, social learning, and whatever tools are available. There is definitely a training gap, and microlearning will likely target and solve it. Additionally, some content requires more skill development or longer-form content, in which case you need to prove that engaging long-form content is worth your organization’s time and investment if done right.
Instead of thinking of microlearning as a replacement, you should think of it as part of a system. Each format plays a role in how people initially learn, construct, and retain knowledge. And our goal is never to learn less. It should result in a better, more optimized learning architecture.
