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 microlearning, 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.
