The Development of a Checklist for Microlearning Video Design: A Design-Based Research Study

Introduction

Due to the ever-evolving nature of knowledge and skills required in the workplace, emphasis has been given to formulating new models of flexible and self-regulated professional development to meet the needs of today’s professionals (Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020; Zhang & West, 2020). In this regard, the usefulness of microlearning, which refers to short learning units in various formats (Major & Calandrino, 2018), has been recognized by industry managers for professional development of their employees (Hanshaw & Hanson, 2018; Jahnke et al., 2020). Microlearning can be utilized beyond industry contexts as well. Hug (2010) positioned microlearning as “a useful relational crossover concept” (para. 6). According to Hug (2010), microlearning is not limited to one approach, but it is a perspective that can be applied in multiple contexts.

The empirical research on the design, development, and implementation of microlearning is limited (Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020; Zhang & West, 2020). Although only a few models (e.g., Alqurashi, 2017; Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020) and frameworks (Hug, 2007) and theories (Bal et al., 2023), exist in the literature; they primarily focus on the big picture without providing details for the design and development considerations of specific microlearning resources. Thus, it is challenging for novice and expert designers alike to create microlearning resources without guidance on the microlearning design and development process. The purpose of this study is to bridge the gap by presenting a microlearning video checklist and describing the process of creating the checklist following Design-based Research (DBR). This paper will dive into microlearning, including the existing theories and frameworks, and into novice and expert design to introduce a microlearning checklist that can be utilized by novice and expert designers alike.

Literature Review

Microlearning

Microlearning refers to bite-size chunks of information for learning purposes that are designed and developed in a variety of formats (Major & Calandrino, 2018). The examples of microlearning include “short” videos, infographics, memes, or images. The specificity of shortness depends upon the nature of products and learning objectives (Tipton, 2018; 2020). Microlearning differs from chunking material as microlearning has a beginning, middle, and end where the learner can perform the skill or concept at the end of the learning resource (Tipton, 2020).

Existing Microlearning Theories and Frameworks

Microlearning design research has focused on the types of resources or on activities (Alqurashi, 2017; Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020; Javorcik & Polasek, 2019; Major & Calandrino, 2018; Zhang & West, 2020), presenting a big picture view of insights into selecting and chunking content. Alqurashi’s (2017) microlearning model focuses on the content, pedagogy, and technology aspects of designing microlearning, supporting the designer in drilling down to the necessary content, choosing the appropriate pedagogical and theoretical design principles in the design of that content, and how the choice in the technological platform further impacts content design. Dolasinski and Reynolds’ (2020) microlearning model more closely follows ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) by continuing the design process to learner use (implementation) and evaluation of skill and knowledge acquisition. Dolasinski and Reynolds’ model focuses on the selection of content utilizing various types of media. Content selection is based on the delivery method, and the length of the microlearning session. Hug’s (2006) framework also includes the length, selection of content, media type, and expands to learning type, exploring behaviorist, pragmatist, and action learning. Tufan (2021) connected microlearning to Mayer’s (2017) and Mayer’s et al. (2020) design principles for effective instructional videos, providing useful design tips for microlearning and considerations for microlearning videos.

However, there is still a gap in our understanding on what to consider while designing and developing specific microlearning resources. The authors argue, for practitioners and other instructional stakeholders, these big picture ideals are not specific enough to create quality microlearning resources.

Novice and Expert Differences in Designing ID Products

Defining or measuring instructional design (ID) skills is complex as they are often implicit and depend on a particular context where the skills are applied (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005; Winn, 1990). Although expert designers utilize general guidelines from ID models, they mostly focus on prior experience in solving design problems (Lawson, 2004, 2019). Whereas novice designers are short of experience and need ancillary support to guide them throughout the design and development process (Ertmer et al., 2009). Novice designers benefit from using checklists as the checklists guide them through each step of the design and development process, while being adaptable to support more seasoned designers (Altavilla et al., 2021; Becattini & Cascini, 2014). Altavilla et al. (2021) further found that designers who utilized checklists with too many details/examples performed worse than novice designers who used more general checklists. The balance of enough details to guide novice designers without impeding performance became the focus, specifically on informal microlearning design.

Few empirically created microlearning checklists exist (Bal, 2024), but microlearning checklists can be found in online writings such as blogs and websites. The microlearning checklists in these resources are primarily focused around asking reflective questions after the design work is already completed to determine if the product is microlearning (AllenComm, n.d.; Chakraborty, 2021; Commlab India, 2023; Peterson, 2023). Brew (n.d.) and SPEACH (n.d.) created checklists that can be used throughout the design process, with Brew giving designers a list of considerations to utilize while creating the product and SPEACH outlining a prescriptive process for designing and building a microlearning product. Disha’s (2021) checklist stands out as it includes evaluation on the success of the microlearning product after implementation. Although these checklists can be helpful, they were not developed based on empirical data and no one checklist includes the breadth needed for the design, development, and implementation of microlearning.

Development of the Checklist and Conceptual Framework

To bridge the need for more specific microlearning design considerations and to support novice, and experienced designers, an empirically-based checklist was developed for informal microlearning videos using DBR. The Theory of Learning in Micro (Bal et al., 2023) was used as the theoretical framework for the development of the checklist for microlearning video design. Founded on beliefs of knowledge and design, this theory emphasizes that learning is a continual process best supported by concise focused resources and activities. This Microlearning Video Design Checklist (MVDC) was created after exploring practical applications of established theories: Cognitive Theory for Multimedia Learning (CTML; Mayer, 2017; Mayer et al., 2020), Self-Regulated Learning (SRL; Zimmerman, 2002), and Cognitive Load Theory (CLT; Paas et al., 2010), and microlearning concepts (Hug, 2006, 2007, 2010). In future iterations of the checklist, other guidelines and standards were added: the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (W3C WAI, 2019), Revised Section 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines (U.S. Access Board, 2018), the Framework for Analyzing any U.S. Copyright Problem (Smith & Macklin, 2014), and guidelines for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI; Jackson, n.d.), into practical statements to support designers in developing microlearning videos.

Focusing on the theories that started version one (V1) of the checklist, the inclusion of SRL focused on the learners’ self-awareness of their learning goals and reflective practices in learning and was selected to incorporate goal setting, self-observation, and self-reflection components into the learning environment (Zimmerman, 2002). The CTML inclusion focused on design aspects of multimedia products, how those design aspects can support learning, and was chosen for the design components of our microlearning resources (Mayer, 2017; Mayer et al., 2020). The CLT inclusion focused on the amount of information someone can learn and the process of moving new learning into long-term memory. CLT was chosen to ensure learners are not overwhelmed with the new information presented within the microlearning resource and are supported as they construct their own knowledge and connect new information to prior knowledge to support long-term memory (Paas et al., 2010). See Table 1 for a concise description.

Table 1

Rationale behind SRL, CTML, and CLT’s Inclusion in the V1 of the Checklist

The researchers utilized these three theories along with microlearning concepts presented by Hug (2006, 2007, 2010) to develop V1 of the checklist: 18 unique statements for microlearning design (Table 2). This checklist was utilized to answer the overarching research question: How does novice feedback support the improvement of an MVDC? with three sub-questions used over three groups and three versions of the MVDC:

1. (RQ1) What were the perceptions of the participants when using the checklist for analyzing and designing video microlearning products?

2. (RQ2) What changes were suggested by the participants for their version of the checklist?

3. (RQ3) What updates were made to the checklist based on the suggested changes of the participants?

Table 2

Version 1 of the MVDC

Note. In V1 of the MVDC, no periods were included at the end of the statements.

Methods

Design-Based Research

DBR is a continual process of designing, implementing, and evaluating over multiple iterations with the goal to make improvements on a design (Hoadley & Campos, 2022; McKenney & Reeves, 2018; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). This study utilized three iterations of DBR with three different groups of participants starting with MVDC V1. Between the groups, the MVDC was updated with Group 1 participants using MVDC V1, Group 2 participants using version two (V2), and Group 3 participants using version three (V3). This study employed a multi-method approach utilizing (a) qualitative methods for each DBR group (n = 3) and (b) convergent mixed methods for the overarching research question (see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1

Qualitative methods for each DBR group

Figure 1

Qualitative methods for each DBR group

Figure 2

Convergent mixed methods for the overarching research question

Participants

Three groups of participants were included in this study. Participants (N = 51) were recruited with a purposive, convenience sample (Andrade, 2021) from an 8-week, graduate education multimedia design courses during the Spring 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters. All participants were PK-12th grade teachers. Group 1 participants (n = 11) were enrolled from January to March 2021. Group 2 participants (n = 16) were enrolled from March to May 2021, and group 3 participants (n = 24) were enrolled from March to May 2022.

The sample size aligns with methodological recommendations for convergent mixed-methods research, where study complexity determines the approach and qualitative insights complement statistical findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Guest, 2013). According to Cohen's (1988) power analysis , sample sizes of 11-24 per group are generally adequate for detecting medium effect sizes in ANOVA, providing sufficient statistical power while supporting in-depth qualitative exploration and enhancing the study's understanding of the overarching research question.

Course Design

The 8-week, graduate education multimedia design courses focused on multimedia design with an emphasis on microlearning products, were taught by the same instructor, who is also the lead author. The courses included content on microlearning, cognitive load theory (CLT), cognitive theory for multimedia learning (CTML), self-regulated learning (SRL), U.S. copyright, and accessibility. The courses were identical in content and facilitation except that Group 1 did not have explicit content on SRL as it was still being developed. Participants created multiple products in the course, utilizing their version of the MVDC.

Data Collection

This multi-method study included both qualitative methods and convergent mixed methods. Data was collected between January 2021 to May 2022. Group 1 data was collected from January to March 2021 with MVDC V1. Group 2 data was collected from March to May 2021 with MVDC V2. Group 3 data was collected from March to May 2022 with MVDC V3. Within each group (n = 3), qualitative methods were used to update the MVDC from V1 to Version 4 (V4) and answer the three sub-research questions. Surveys were used with similar Likert-scale questions (descriptive data) and open-response questions focusing on the use of the checklist and suggested updates to the checklist.

For the overarching research question, a convergent mixed method was utilized with both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data included six-point Likert-scale questions for each group, focusing on the participants’ perceptions of the checklist in both analyzing a microlearning product and designing a microlearning video. The qualitative data included the themes from each group based on the open-responses from the surveys. The authors reviewed the similarities and differences between each group, and the updates made to the checklists across each group.

Data Analysis

Likert-scale questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics for each group, and the open-response questions were analyzed per group by the same three researchers utilizing a two-cycle coding method with In-vivo coding used first and Holistic coding used second (Saldaña, 2021). To support intercoder agreement, the researchers analyzed the qualitative data separately, meeting to compare and finalize codes and themes, and created a codebook that was utilized during the analysis of each group. Notes were also taken during the coder meetings to ensure accurate descriptions of the changes, and any researcher bias was identified and clarified. The checklists were updated between groups based on the qualitative data and the updated checklists were utilized with the next group of participants.

For the convergent mixed method, the quantitative data was analyzed with descriptive statistics per group and ANOVA between the three groups for any differences in perceptions by group. The themes from the qualitative data, previously analyzed for each group, were compared for similarities and differences. The updates to the checklists were also compared across V1 to V4.

Results

The results are presented by group, then by research question (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3).

Participants Demographics

Overall, the participants (N = 51) were primarily female (74.51%) between the ages of 25-39 (54.90%), not Hispanic (94.12%) and White or Caucasian (49.02%). Participants were asked about their video development knowledge with rating selection of beginner, competent, and expert, and previous experience in designing videos with rating selection of very little, some, and quite a bit. Over half the participants identified as a beginner (58.82%) in their video development knowledge and reported some (50.98%) previous experience in designing videos (see Appendix A, Table A1 for the participant demographics for each group).

Group 1

Group 1 RQ1

For RQ1, What were the perceptions of the participants when using the checklist for analyzing and designing video microlearning products?, the Group 1 participants found the checklist easy to use in the analysis and design of a microlearning video. This ease of use, illustrated in Table 3 Statement 1, was further supported with participants disagreeing with the statement suggesting the checklist was not clear (Table 3, Statement 3). Overall, participants disagreed with Statement 5, I would not use this checklist to create future microlearning videos, indicating they would continue to use the checklist in future microlearning video designs (Table 3).

Table 3

Group 1 Perceptions of MVDC V1

Note. The order of Likert questions in this table differs from how they were presented to participants. The order has been rearranged to group similar items. Likert = six-point scale

Group 1 RQ2

For RQ2, What changes were suggested by the participants for their version of the checklist?, two main updates were suggested by the Group 1 participants: (a) pull apart double-barreled statements and (b) separate the CTML principles (shown with corresponding participant quotes in Table 4).

Pulling apart the double-barreled statements was suggested as sometimes part of the statement was included in the participants’ design, but the other part was not included as exemplified by Participant 7 (Table 4). Although Participant 7 was indicating more choice within the utilized survey, the idea of a “partial option” led to a review of the double-barreled statements and a discussion amongst the researchers on if they should be separated.

The separation of the CTML principles was suggested as participants indicated that some of the CTML statements were included, and others were not. With only one checklist item encompassing multiple CTML aspects (see bullet 15 in Table 2), it was difficult for participants to say if CTML principles were included or not included. Participant 7 indicated the need for separation while Participants 9 and 5 were less explicit in the need of separating the CTML principles but supported this need through their want of certain CTML items included in the checklist (Table 4).

Table 4

Revision Items and Corresponding Quotes from Group 1 Participants

Group 1 RQ3

Overall, for Group 1 RQ3, What updates were made to the checklist based on the suggested changes of the participants?, four updates were made from MVDC V1 to MVDC V2 with four statements not changed:

1. seven statements were updated due to double-barreled items;

2. one statement was separated for CTML;

3. five statements were updated to reduce wordiness and for more novice-friendly language; and

4. one statement was updated to a full sentence.

Seven double-barreled statements in MVDC V1 were updated (see Table 5 for examples, and Appendix A, Table A2 for all double-barreled changes from V1 to V2). The updates in these seven statements included:

• Two statements were separated into four distinct statements.

• Two statements, which originally included the words visuals and graphs, and graphics and videos, were updated with visual media as that encompasses both visuals and graphs.

• One statement was separated into two statements with extraneous words removed. After separating the statements, the researchers agreed the statements were very similar, so they combined the separated statements into one non-double-barreled statement.

• Two statements included the words skill and knowledge which were updated to skills, as microlearning should be supporting the acquisition and application of knowledge (Emerson & Berge, 2018; Manning et al., 2021; Polasek & Javorcik, 2019).

Table 5

MVDC V1 to V2 update examples for double-barreled statements

When separating the one CTML statement in MVDC V1, the researchers reviewed the CTML principles from Mayer (2017) and listed them separately for the checklist (see Table 6 for examples and Appendix A, Table A3 for the full list). Each statement was aligned to a CTML principle (Mayer, 2017) but written to support novice designers who may not know Mayer’s principles. A few of the CTML principles were not included as they were similar to other statements already included in the checklist (e.g., Segmenting and Pre-Training).

Table 6

MVDC V1 to V2 update examples for CTML statements

A few other updates to the MVDC V1 were completed. These updates included:

• updating five statements to reduce wordiness and support more novice-friendly language;

• updating one statement for more novice-friendly language and changing the word information to content; and

• adding periods to the end of each statement (see Table 7 for examples and Appendix A, Table A4 for the full list).

These updates moved the MVDC V1 from 18 statements to 27 statements in the MVDC V2 (Table 8).

Table 7

Examples of other updates to the MVDC V1 to V2

Table 8

Version 2 of the MVDC

Group 2

Group 2 RQ1

For RQ1, What were the perceptions of the participants when using the checklist for analyzing and designing video microlearning products?, the Group 2 participants found the V2 checklist easy to use in the analysis and design of a microlearning video (Table 9, Statements 1 and 2). This ease of use was further supported with participants disagreeing with the statement on the lack of clarity of the checklist (Table 9, Statement 3). Overall, participants disagreed with Statement 5, I would not use this checklist to create future microlearning videos, indicating they would continue to use the checklist in future microlearning video designs (Table 9).

Table 9

Group 2 Perceptions of MVDC V2

Note. The order of Likert questions in this table differs from how they were presented to participants. The order has been rearranged to group like items.

Group 2 RQ2

For RQ2, What changes were suggested by the participants for their version of the checklist?, six updates to V2 were suggested by the Group 2 participants:

1. Statement terminology was clarified.

2. The use of if/then statements.

3. Updates to the word expert.

4. Chunking the checklist to make it shorter.

5. Include DEI statements.

6. Question: Does the checklist apply to learners of all ages?

The first four of the six updates were completed for V3, shown with corresponding participant quotes in Table 10. The remaining two items suggested by the participants, but not included due to time constraints, are presented in Table 11.

For the use of if/then statements, some participants questioned if all the checklist items were needed. They also stated they did not see some of the checklist items in the provided example they analyzed. Due to this, some statements were shifted to if/then, creating them as optional statements. The term expert was also updated, and some of the statements in V2 that included the term expert were rewritten as if/then statements.

To chunk the statements (fourth update), the researchers began with organizing the checklist statements in order by beginning, middle, and end for multimedia design. This proved quite difficult, so the researchers then began organizing the statements into content and design categories. This also did not work as many statements overlapped in content and design. Finally, the researchers utilized the Double ED Model (Bal & Duha, 2022) as a framework for the statements and were able to easily place the statements into each phase, establish, examine, design, and deliver, chunking the statements into four distinct phases of microlearning design.

Table 10

G2 RQ2 Revisions and Corresponding Participant Quotes

Due to time limitations, the last two updates were not completed for V3. Although the inclusion of DEI statements was not completed for V3, it was revisited and statements for DEI were created for V4. The researchers discussed the use of the MVDC for various learner ages but determined this should be something tested in the future instead of updated in the checklist.

Table 11

G2 RQ2 Suggested Revisions and Corresponding Participant Quotes Not Completed

Group 2 RQ3

Overall, for Group 2 RQ3 - What updates were made to the checklist based on the suggested changes of the participants?, six updates were made from MVDC V2 to MVDC V3, with 10 statements not changed:

1. three statements were changed for clarity;

2. four statements from V2 were updated to if/then statements which resulted in three V3 if/then statements;

3. five expert statements from V2 were updated in terminology or removed which resulted in three V3 expert statements;

4. 15 statements were added for copyright and accessibility;

5. nine V2 statements were updated for other updates such as anthropomorphism, redundancy, and consistency which resulted in seven V3 statements; and

6. the checklist was chunked into four phases based on the Double ED Model (Bal & Duha, 2022).

The three statements updated for clarity from V2 to V3 were changed by removing ambiguous words such as intrinsically interesting and clarifying the reflection questions (see Table 12 for examples and Appendix A, Table A5 for all clarity updates from V2 to V3).

Table 12

MVDC V2 to V3 update examples for clarity of statements

For if/then statements, four V2 statements, which focused on experts and movement of characters, were moved to optional checklist items with if/then statements (see Table 13 for examples, and Appendix A, Table A6 for all if/then updates from V2 to V3). Two of the V2 statements were very similar when reviewed together, so the researchers combined them into one V3 statement.

Table 13

MVDC V2 to V3 update examples for if/then statements

For the removal of the term experts, five V2 statements were reviewed resulting in three expert statements in V3. The updates included:

• One of the V2 statements was reworded from the word experts to the phrase credible sources, shifting the inclusion of an expert to content from credible sources (Table 14).

• One expert statement was removed from V2 to V3 as it was redundant with another expert statement (Table 14).

• One V2 statement was reworded to an optional if/then statement (Table 13).

• Two V2 statements were combined to one statement and created as an optional if/then statement (Table 13).

Table 14

MVDC V2 to V3 updates for expert removal statements

Although copyright and accessibility were not suggested by participants, the researchers believed including statements on accessibility and copyright would support novice designers and should be included in an MVDC. This was also supported by observations from the course instructor. The Framework for Analyzing any U.S. Copyright Problem (Smith & Macklin, 2014) was selected to incorporate statements related to copyright. WCAG 2.1 (W3C WAI, 2019) and the Revised Section 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines (U.S. Access Board, 2018) were chosen to reflect accessibility and usability standards in the checklist.

For copyright, two statements were added based on Smith and Macklin’s (2014) framework for analyzing U.S. copyright to support novice designers in reducing copyright infringement based on United States laws. These two statements were developed to match the other updates in V3.

For accessibility, 13 statements were added based on W3C WAI (2019) WCAG guidelines and the U.S. Access Board (2018) 508 standards. These two resources are United States based but support inclusive practices for learners who need accessible content and for everyone accessing content on the internet. The researchers reviewed the WCAG guidelines and the 508 standards for inclusion in the checklist considering what guidelines and standards support videos resulting in 13 statements (see Table 15 for examples, and Appendix A, Table A7 for all copyright and accessibility updates to V3).

Table 15

MVDC V2 to V3 update examples for copyright and accessibility statements

A few other updates to the MVDC V2 were completed (see Table 16 for examples, and Appendix A, Table A8 for all changes of the other updates from V2 to V3). These updates included:

• Revising three statements due to redundancy.

• Revising two statements for anthropomorphism.

• Reducing the wordiness of two statements.

• Updating two statements for consistency with the other V3 statements.

• Removing statements due to redundancy.

Table 16

MVDC V2 to V3 other statement update examples

Finally, the statements were chunked based on the Double ED Model developed by the Bal and Duha (2022). The Double ED Model includes four phases: establish, examine, design, and deliver. The statements were organized within those four phases and then ranked from first to last within each of the phases based on designing a multimedia product. This resulted in 39 statements, chunked into four phases for MVDC V3 (Table 17).

Table 17

Version 3 of the MVDC

Group 3

Group 3 RQ1

For RQ1, what were the perceptions of the participants when using the checklist for analyzing and designing video microlearning products?, the Group 3 participants found the V3 checklist easy to use in the analysis and design of a microlearning video (Table 18, Statements 1 and 2). This ease of use was further supported with participants disagreeing with Statement 3, It was not clear how these checklist items should be used in my video. Overall, participants disagreed with Statement 5, I would not use this checklist to create future microlearning videos, indicating they would continue to use the checklist in future microlearning video designs (Table 18).

Table 18

Group 3 Perceptions of MVDC V3

Note. The order of Likert questions in this table differs from how they were presented to participants. The order has been rearranged to group like items.

Group 3 RQ2

For RQ2, what changes were suggested by the participants for their version of the checklist?, six updates to V3 were suggested by the Group 3 participants:

1. Adding more information on copyright and accessibility.

2. Adding DEI statements.

3. Starting all statements with an action verb.

4. Removing repetitive statements.

5. Create interactive checklist with check boxes.

6. Reduce the number of items in the checklist.

Five of the six updates were completed for V4, shown with corresponding participant quotes in Table 19.

Within the course, the participants received explicit information about copyright and accessibility outside of the checklist, but the participants were still unsure and confused by copyright and accessibility, questioning if designers should already know this information prior to using the checklist. As this checklist was developed for novice and non-novice designers, the authors agreed that more support was needed in the checklist on copyright and accessibility for designers without prior knowledge of these topics.

The inclusion of DEI statements was also suggested from a Group 2 participant but was unable to be completed for V3 due to timing. In Group 3, another participant suggested DEI statements, so the authors took time to create and include DEI specific statements for V4.

Table 19

G3 RQ2 Revisions and Corresponding Participant Quotes

One update suggested by Participant 32 to reduce the number of items in the checklist, as indicated in their comment, “The checklist is a little bulky and at times hard to identify the parts…,” was not completed in this V4 MVDC. The researchers discussed this comment but decided more feedback from participants on the other updates were needed before the removal of statements occurred.

Group 3 RQ3

Overall, for Group 3 RQ3 - What updates were made to the checklist based on the suggested changes of the participants?, five updates were made from MVDC V3 to V4 with eight statements not updated:

1. six statements were updated with more information on copyright and accessibility;

2. four statements were added for DEI design considerations;

3. 25 statements were updated to begin with an action verb;

4. two statements were updated for repetition; and

5. four statements were updated for clarity.

No updates were made to the chunking of the checklist or where items were located within the four phases.

For the six statements that were updated with more information on copyright and accessibility, the researchers reviewed the copyright and accessibility statements in the MVDC V3 and identified statements that may need more information for novice designers (see Table 20 for examples and Appendix A, Table A9 for all copyright and accessibility information changes from V3 to V4). Resources were then curated and reviewed for inclusion in the statements. In the curation of the resources, the authors chose to use content that was open access, public domain, or creative commons. The researchers decided to link and cite the resources within the statements, so the resources open in a new online window or tab, though discussions on creating content that appears when selected or the cursor hovers over the text was discussed.

Table 20

MVDC V3 to V4 copyright and accessibility information examples

Four DEI statements were added to the checklist based on Jackson’s (n.d.) DEI framework. Finding an established framework on DEI considerations for multimedia design proved to be difficult for the researchers. The authors reviewed various frameworks, peer-reviewed articles, and blog posts about designing for DEI, finally selecting Jackson’s as the guiding resource. The four added DEI statements were:

1. Challenge stereotypes and dominant narratives (e.g., gender, race, economic, power, position).

2. Include representation of the learner population (e.g., gender, race, body size, ability, age).

3. Include diverse individuals/characters (e.g., body size, race, hair styles, ability, age).

4. Include diverse voices for the narration.

When adding these DEI statements to V4, the researchers discussed where within the four phases of the Double ED Model they should land. DEI Statement 1 was added to the examine section of the MVDC and DEI Statements 2 - 4 were added to the design section of the MVDC.

Twenty-five statements were updated to begin with action verbs (see Table 21 for examples and Appendix A, Table A10 for all action verb changes from V3 to V4). During the rewrite of these statements, the researchers also reviewed the statements through length and redundancy, ensuring the V4 statements were not wordier and not repetitive due to the revision to an action verb. If/then statements were kept with a starting frame of If…, with the action verbs added after the if/then sequence.

Table 21

MVDC V3 to V4 action verbs update examples

Two statements were updated for repetition to reduce wordiness (Table 22). Within this update, V3 statement, Include questions that support reflection in the application of the learning in professional or personal environments, was further refined from questions that support reflection to reflection opportunities. The researchers discussed the Group 2 comments in the update of this statement from V3 to V4 specifically focusing on the statements from Participant 23,“I feel the checklist needs to be a little bit more clear of what I exactly need to be looking for,” and Participant 24 specifically asked for clarity on the reflection questions. The researchers believed the change from questions that support reflection to reflection opportunities also supports the comment from Participant 19 in Group 2, “I am having a hard time thinking of how to have third-graders assess themselves to determine what they still need to know,” as the term opportunities expands the types of assessments that can be included than just questions.

Table 22

MVDC V3 to V4 repetition updates

A few other updates to the MVDC V3 were completed (see Table 23 for examples, and Appendix A, Table A11 for all other updates from V3 to V4). These updates included:

• Revising two statements for consistency and adding the term platform to two statements for clarity.

• For consistency, in MVDC V3, one of the statements included knowledge and/or skills while a similar statement just included the word skills, thus, the second statement was updated to knowledge and/or skills. The researchers discussed if the addition of knowledge and/or skills created a double-barreled statement but determined that the use of and/or allowed flexibility and was not double-barreled.

Table 23

MVDC V3 to V4 other statement update examples

Finally, the checklist, once updated, was formatted to include check boxes so participants could check off the statements as they designed. These updates resulted in 43 statements to support designers in creating microlearning products. Table 24 showcases the final 43 statements with alignment to the theories, principles, frameworks, guidelines, and standards that were used to create the statements. The checklist provided to participants does not include the alignment of theories (see Discussion section).

Table 24

Version 4 of the MVDC

Key.

⊕ Accessibility

⌺ Cognitive Load

⏅ Cognitive Theory for Multimedia Learning

+ Copyright

* Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

⊚ Microlearning

⍕ Self-regulated Learning

Phase of the Double ED Model

Overarching Research Question

ANOVA Results

A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the participants’ perceptions of different versions of the checklist. Comparisons were made between Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3. The main effect of the group is statistically significant, and the effect size was large for the item Video Design: It was not clear how these checklist items should be used in my video (F(2, 46) = 22.88, p < .001; η2 = 0.50). The item, Video Design: Implementing the components in my video was easy, was statistically significant with a medium effect size (F(2, 46) = 3.17, p = 0.050; η2 = 0.12; see Table 25). There was no significant difference among the groups for the rest of the perception items. Tukey HSD post hoc test results indicated that Group 2 (M = 2.44, SD = 1.15) and Group 3 (M = 2.25, SD = 0.97) found the checklist significantly clearer about how the checklist items should be used in the microlearning video compared to Group 1 (M = 2.90, SD = 0.57). Additionally, post hoc tests revealed that Group 2 (M = 4.81, SD = 0.54) found implementing the checklist statements in their video product easier as compared to Group 1 (M = 4.20, SD = 0.92).

Table 25

ANOVA results for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 Likert items

**p < 0.001

*p < 0.05

Comparison of Themes

The themes that lead to updates between the three groups were different but fell into three main categories: clarity, adding more information, and layout of the checklist. For clarity, the separation of double-barreled statements from Group 1, the clarification of terminology, addition of if/then statements, and updates to expert statements from Group 2, and the removal of repetitive statements from Group 3 were completed. For adding more information, the separation of the CTML principles from Group 1, and the addition of more information on copyright and addition of DEI statements from Groups 2 and 3 were completed. For checklist layout, the chunking of the checklist from Group 2 and the rewriting of the statements to action verbs and making the checklist interactive from Group 3 were completed.

Updates from V1 to V4 of the Checklist

The updates from V1 to V4 of the checklist resulted in more clarity for each statement, the addition of 25 statements (V1 = 18; V4 = 43) focused on CTML, accessibility, copyright, and DEI design considerations, and a more user-friendly layout of the checklist. These updates supported the ANOVA results, with specific emphasis on the statistically significant findings. For the statement, Video Design: It was not clear how these checklist items should be used in my video, Group 2 and Group 3 found the checklist clearer in how the statements should be used in video design than Group 1. This indicates the updates from Group 1 to Group 2 and Group 3 were clearer for participants. The Group 2 participants also found that implementing the checklist statements in their video design was easier than Group 1. This further supports that separating the double-barreled statements and the CTML principles made the checklist easier to use in video design than previously. Table A12 in Appendix A showcases the V1 to V3 checklist updates before V3 was chunked with the Double ED Model (Bal & Duha, 2022) and Table A13 in Appendix A includes the V3 to V4 checklist updates after chunking the statements.

Discussion

In this study, an MVDC was developed and utilized with three groups of participants who analyzed and designed informal microlearning videos with the checklist. Feedback and suggested updates on the checklist were collected during this analysis and design. Through this three-iteration DBR study, the checklist was updated from V1 to V4 resulting in 43 statements with more clarity, more information, and a layout to support designing informal microlearning videos.

Seven theories and concepts were utilized in the development and updates to the checklist: microlearning, CTML, SRL, CLT, accessibility, copyright, and DEI, with each statement aligning to these theories and concepts (see Table 24 for alignment). The purpose of this checklist is two-fold. First, to support the reduction of content for microlearning videos, only focusing on what is necessary, supporting microlearning and CLT. Second, to support the creation of informal microlearning videos that utilize researched principles of multimedia design (CTML), include contributions, presence, and perspectives of different groups (DEI), comply to U.S. copyright law, promote learners’ reflections and metacognition (SRL), and can be accessed by and support everyone (accessibility).

This study expands the current research available on microlearning design (see Alqurashi, 2017; Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020; Javorcik & Polasek, 2019; Major & Calandrino, 2018; Zhang & West, 2020) by moving beyond the big picture ideals of developing microlearning resources such as selecting and chunking information to design considerations when developing an informal microlearning video. Although experience, over models and checklists, is what expert designers use in designing products (Lawson, 2004, 2019). Novice and intermediate designers benefit from the scaffolds provided by checklists and models (Becattini & Cascini, 2014; Ertmer et al., 2009). This research supports the notion of novice designers benefiting from checklists and showcases novice contribution to the development of a checklist for microlearning design.

Overall, the participants, who primarily identified as novices, thought the checklist was easy to use, both in the analysis and design of a microlearning video. Group 2 and Group 3 found the checklist clearer than Group 1, and Group 2 thought implementing the checklist in the design of their video was easier than Group 1 (see Table 25). Although there were no statistically significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3, the differences between Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3 showcase the updates made to the checklist supported easier design of a microlearning video than in previous versions. Although not statistically significant, all three groups of participants disagreed with the statement, I would not use this checklist to create future microlearning videos, indicating they would use the checklist to create future microlearning products. The participants’ use of the checklist supports Becattini and Cascini (2014) and Altavilla et al. (2021) research that checklists benefit novice designers, but a question remains if novices can distinguish between some of the nuances of design (Tracey & Boling, 2014).

Within this study, suggestions for removing repetitive statements were consistently provided across the three groups. Some of the statements identified as redundant by the participants included differences in design that the researchers believed were distinctly different. This conflict between the participants' identification and suggestion for removal of redundant statements and the researchers’ beliefs that the statements were not redundant showcases the arguments made in the research on the need for experiences over supports and scaffolds for design (Ertmer et al., 2008; Ertmer et al., 2009).

To provide a clear framework for the practical use of the checklist, the authors propose utilizing the Theory of Learning in Micro (Bal et al., 2023) as a guiding framework. The Theory of Learning in Micro offers a foundation for understanding how microlearning can best support learners through smaller, more focused learning resources. By embedding this theory into the design and application of the MVDC, designers can utilize the checklist more effectively in aligning the design of microlearning videos with essential principles, such as the segmentation of content, the promotion of reflection (SRL), and cognitive load management (CLT).

When providing this checklist to users, the authors suggest a vertical version (as opposed to the horizontal presentation in Table 24) without the alignment of theories (key in Table 24). A vertical version allows users to go through each step in a more linear fashion, while also allowing them to move between steps as needed. Although the alignment of theories is important to know, it can create extraneous load on the user by providing more information than is needed in the moment of use. Table 26 showcases the MVDC V4 in a vertical format, with checkboxes, without the alignment of theories. This format of V4 has been used by the instructor with students since creation.

Table 26

MVDC V4 as Presented to Users (Vertical Format, Checkboxes, No Theory Alignment)

In future research, the authors suggest exploring how the Theory of Learning in Micro (Bal et al., 2023) can be further integrated into the iterative development and practical application of the checklist. Specifically, researchers could examine how the theory's focus on continual learning processes and micro-level engagement supports both novice and experienced designers in creating high-impact microlearning videos.

Limitations

This study included several limitations. First, the participants only included K-12 teachers. Therefore, data was not collected from professionals in various fields. Second, the checklist updates were made quickly between version 1 and 2 to facilitate the second iteration process. A longer time period may have provided more reflective opportunities for the updates. Finally, more than half of the participants identified themselves as a beginner (58.82%) in their video development knowledge and reported some (50.98%) previous experience in designing videos (see Appendix A, Table A1). Although this study focused on novice users, some concerns could be raised about the accuracy of their feedback on the checklist.

Conclusion

Since the start of this study, the MVDC has gone through four versions expanding from 18 statements to 43 statements. Within these iterations, statements have been removed, clarified, and added to support copyright, accessibility, and DEI design considerations. The MVDC was developed to bridge the gap for novice and expert designers in creating informal microlearning resources and was adapted from V1 to V4 to specifically support informal video microlearning products. The MVDC differs from other microlearning design guides (see Kasenberg, 2016; Tufan, 2021) as it includes start-to-finish considerations, providing a one-stop resource for the design and development of informal microlearning videos.

Due to the evolving nature of design, a checklist of design considerations cannot be stagnant and must continually be refined. This study showcases the DBR updates from V1 to V4 of an MVDC, but more research is needed on how a checklist can support microlearning designers. The participants suggested updates to the MVDC that should continue to be researched such as if the MVDC is appropriate for learners of all grades and age groups (suggested by Group 1 and Group 2), and if the MVDC can be further reduced (suggested by Group 3). Further research should also be conducted on the use and usefulness of the MVDC between novice and expert designers. Continued research on how checklists for other types of products can be developed, refined, and support designers in microlearning is needed as more microlearning products are created for learning.

References

1. Abou-Zahra, S. (Ed.). (2017, May 15). Interaction navigating and finding. W3C WAI. Retrieved on September 27, 2022, from https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/tools-techniques/#interaction
2. AllenCom. (n.d.). The microlearning checklist: What you need to get started. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.allencomm.com/2015/12/the-microlearning-checklist-what-you-need-to-get-started/
3. Alqurashi, E. (2017). Microlearning: A pedagogical approach for technology integration [special issue]. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 942–947.
4. Altavilla, S., Becattini, N., Fiorineschi, L., & Rotini, F. (2022). Effectiveness of different requirements checklists for novice designers. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/jid-210015
5. Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000
6. Bal, I. A. (2024). Design considerations for developing informal professional microlearning for PK-12 teachers (Unpublished dissertation). Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
7. Bal, I. A., & Duha, M. S. U. (2022, October 24-28). Microlearning for Informal Learning Environments: A New Instructional Design Model [Concurrent]. Association for Educational Communication and Technology Convention, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
8. Bal, I. A., Duha, M. S. U., Arslan, O., Collier, J., Marcelle, P., Dolowitz, A., Bernhardt, J., Swanson, M., & Dash, M. (2023). The theory of learning in micro: Context & explanation. EdTech Books. https://doi.org/10.59668/534.11963
9. Becattini, N., & Cascini, G. (2014). General-purpose requirements checklist for improving the completeness of a design specification. In DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference (pp. 111-120).
10. Brew, M. (n.d.). Microlearning under the microscope: Part II - do’s and don'ts of microlearning. Retrieved on November 20, 2024, from https://www.edume.com/blog/microlearning-under-the-microscope-part-ii-dos-and-donts-of-microlearning
11. Chakraborty, P. (2021, March 10). Microlearning solutions: 8 questions to ask. CommLab India. https://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning-design/microlearning-solutions-checklist
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.
13. Commlab India. (2023, April 26). Microlearning design: Is your checklist complete? [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/tLhQIR1l8_U?si=OWAXKasPNLGyzjCF
14. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed). SAGE.
15. Disha. (2024, May 24). 5 point checklist to measure the success of microlearning & gamification on your business. Master-O. https://www.masteroapp.com/blog/5-point-checklist-to-measure-the-success-of-microlearning-gamification-on-your-business/
16. Dolasinski, M. J., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Microlearning: A new learning model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 44(3), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020901579
17. Eggert, E., & Abou-Zahra, S. (Eds.). (2017, May 4). Headings. W3C WAI. Retrieved on September 28, 2022, from https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/headings/#headings-that-reflect-the-page-organization
18. Emerson, L. C., & Berge, Z. L. (2018). Microlearning: Knowledge management applications and competency-based training in the workplace. Knowledge Management & E-learning, 10(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.008
19. Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429251
20. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill‐structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.
21. Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429640
22. Ferullo, D. (2018). Copyright and fair use guidelines for educators. Retrieved on September 28, 2022, from https://www.purdue.edu/innovativelearning/download/copyright/?wpdmdl=2022&refresh=63227afddd5101663204093
23. Grimmet, K., & Duha, M. S. U. (2018). Accessibility 101. Purdue repository for online teaching and learning. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.purdue.edu/innovativelearning/download/accessibility-101/?wpdmdl=4038&refresh=63227afde72ff1663204093
24. Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179
25. Hanshaw, G., & Hanson, J. (2018). A mixed methods study of leaders’ perceptions of microlearning for professional development on the job. International Journal of Learning and Development, 8(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v8i3.13198
26. Harper, G. (2022, August 17). Finding owners and getting permission. Copyright Crash Course. Retrieved on September 27, 2022, from https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/copyright/permission
27. Hoadley, C., & Campos, F. C. (2022). Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning. Educational Psychologist, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2079128
28. Hug, T. (2006). Microlearning: A new pedagogical challenge (Introductory Note). In T. Hug, M. Lindber, P. A. Bruck (Eds.), Microlearning: Emerging Concepts, Practices and Technologies after e-Learning (pp. 7–12). Innsbruck University Press.
29. Hug, T. (2007). Outline of a microlearning agenda. In T. Hug (Ed.), Didactics of Microlearning (pp. 15–31). Waxmann.
30. Hug, T. (2010). Mobile learning as’ microlearning’: Conceptual considerations towards enhancements of didactic thinking. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 2(4), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2010100104
31. Jackson, J. (n.d.). Designing for inclusion: A checklist. The Learning Guild. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.learningguild.com/publications/165/designing-for-inclusion-a-checklist/?utm_campaign=checklist-di22&utm_medium=link&utm_source=lspub
32. 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
33. Javorcik, T., & Polasek, R. (2019, November). Comparing the effectiveness of microlearning and eLearning courses in the education of future teachers. Proceedings of the 2019 17th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Slovakia, 309-314.
34. Kasenberg, T. (2016). Just one thing – Microlearning a practitioners guide. Raptivity. https://knowledgebase.raptivity.com/microlearning-a-practitioners-guide/
35. Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 24(5), 443–457.
36. Lawson, B. (2019). The design student’s journey: Understanding how designers think. Routledge.
37. Major, A., & Calandrino, T. (2018). Beyond chunking: Micro-learning secrets for effective online design. FDLA Journal, 3(13), 1-5. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fdla-journal/vol3/iss1/13
38. Manning, K. D., Spicer, J. O., Golub L., Akbashev, M., & Klein, R. (2021). The micro revolution: Effect of Bite-Sized Teaching (BST) on learner engagement and learning in postgraduate medical education. BMC Medical Education, 21(69), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02496-z
39. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
40. Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research Development, 68, 837-852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
41. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
42. Paas, F., Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
43. Peterson, D. (2023, October 30). 3 questions to guide microlearning development. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/questions-to-guide-microlearning-development
44. Polasek, R., & Javorcik, T. (2019). Results of pilot study into the application of MicroLearning in teaching the subject computer architecture and operating system basics. In 2019 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 196–201). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISET.2019.00048
45. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
46. Smith, K., & Macklin, L. (2014). A Framework for analyzing any U.S. Copyright problem.
47. SPEACH. (n.d.). Create effective microlearning courses with our essential checklist. Retrieved on November 20, 2024, from https://speach.me/white-papers/microlearning-creation-checklist
48. Tipton, S. (2018, April 25). 7 misleading myths about microlearning. Learning Rebels. https://learningrebels.com/2018/04/25/7-deadly-myths-of-microlearning/
49. Tipton, S. (2020). Microlearning As a Framework. In J. Brusino (Ed.). ATD's 2020 Trends in Learning Technology. ATD Press. https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/atds-2020-trends/9781947308916/OEBPS/c01.htm
50. Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, M. & Bishop (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 653-660). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_52
51. Tufan, D. (2021). Multimedia design principles for microlearning. In J. R. Corbeil, B. H. Khan, & M. E. Corbeil (Eds.), Microlearning in the digital age: The design and delivery of learning in snippets. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821623-6
52. U.S. Access Board. (2018, January 22). Revised 508 standards and 255 guidelines. https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#
53. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
54. Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00377985
55. W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). (2019, October 4). How to meet WCAG (Quick reference). https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/
56. Zhang, J., & West, R. E. (2020). Designing microlearning instruction for professional development through a competency based approach. TechTrends, 64(2), 310-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00449-4
57. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Appendix A

Table A1

Participant Demographics for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3

aParticipants could choose more than one. One participant in Group 3 selected both White or Caucasian and Other.

Table A2

MVDC V1 to V2 updates for double-barreled statements

Table A3

MVDC V1 to V2 updates for CTML statements

Table A4

Other updates to the MVDC V1 to V2

Table A5

MVDC V2 to V3 updates for clarity of statements

Table A6

MVDC V2 to V3 updates for if/then statements

Table A7

MVDC V2 to V3 updates for copyright and accessibility statements

Table A8

MVDC V2 to V3 other statement updates

Table A9

MVDC V3 to V4 copyright and accessibility information

Table A10

MVDC V3 to V4 action verbs updates

Table A11

MVDC V3 to V4 other statement updates

Table A12

MVDC Version 1 to Version 3 before chunking

Table A13

MVDC Version 3 to Version 4 with chunking