Slightly Expanding and Expounding on my Reply to a Reply of a Post I Posted on LinkedIn
IMO Media Design takes 3rd place. 2nd place is Instructional Design. 1st place is Instructional Analysis.
Not that aesthetics isn’t important at all.
But first things first. And second things second. And third things third.
Achieving Engagement should be more of a function of Instructional Relevance first – and requires understanding the outputs to be produced, the required tasks, and the necessary knowledge & skills reflecting the authentic Performance Requirements back-on-the-job – as well as the incoming awareness, knowledge, and skills of the target audience(s) and their variances.
Engagement via media attractiveness w/o being informed by quality Instructional Design itself informed by quality Instructional Analysis may score high in Reaction (L1), and Mastery (L2); but won’t Transfer (L3) back-to-the-job, nor have a positive Impact (L4) on all the investments incurred.
As Evaluation is expensive I always would start with L4, and if needed look at L3, and if needed look at L2, and if needed … look at L1.
If the Learners need to be entertained to be engaged in learning how to do their jobs better, then the issue is really one for the Recruiting & Selection System to address; not for the Training & Development System to clean up.
Instruction (T&D/ L&D/ LXD) … is there to help people to learn how to perform their jobs – back-on-the-job – whether through Job Aids or Training. That reflects the Process’ Performance Context demand for a Memorized Performance Response or allowances for a Referenced Performance Response.
The ultimate measure is Measured Performance Results back-on-the-job – not Measured Learning Activities such as Engagement.
I’m sure that you can find the post on LinkedIn if you really wish to see the exchange.