Skip to content
SALIHUYAHAYA

Debunked

I Thought Great Instructional Designers Made Engaging Content. I Was Wrong.

Worked out the difference between making learning engaging and making learning effective, and whether instructional designers should spend less time asking “How do I make this engaging?”

  • Salihu Yahaya
  • 1 August 2026
  1. Home
  2. Learning in public
  3. Debunked
  4. I Thought Great Instructional Designers Made Engaging Content. I Was Wrong.

🚧 DEBUNKED #1

I Thought Great Instructional Designers Made Engaging Content.

Then I learned that engagement isn't the goal—effective learning is.(hence, why i started reading "Learning Science")

Here I was thinking that when I entered the instructional design space, I'd become one of the most impactful instructional designers simply because I knew how to create engaging content.

Only to realize I'd unknowingly fallen into a trap. 🪤

A couple days ago, I stumbled across a YouTube video from Clark Quinn that had only 11 views... despite being three years old.

At first, I couldn't understand why.

Now, I'm not surprised.

While much of the industry's attention has been focused on ideas like brain-based learning and neurolearning, people like Clark Quinn,Matthew Richter, Guy W Wallace, Connie Malamed, Will Thalheimer, and Tom McDowall have consistently championed something much more valuable:

Always ask "Why?"—and let the evidence answer.

That simple mindset completely changed how I now think about instructional design.

One thing I've begun to appreciate is that the most valuable habit an instructional designer can develop isn't simply creating engaging learning experiences.

It's relentlessly asking why.

Why is e-learning the right modality?

Why did I include this interaction?

Why this assessment?

Why this amount of content?

Why should this be removed?

Why didn't learners transfer the skill back to the job?

Why do people forget what they learned?

Why do I believe this solution will actually work?

If I can't confidently answer those questions with evidence, then I probably don't understand the problem well enough.(the above question doesn't capture it all but i guess you get the point)

Coming from a background in education, where I was taught to value evidence and research, this way of thinking immediately resonated with me.

I'm still new to instructional design, but one thing has already become clear:

"The sooner I learn from people asking better questions, the fewer misconceptions I'll have to unlearn later."

If you're also trying to become better at this craft, I'll attach the YouTube video that sparked this shift in my thinking. I genuinely believe it's worth watching.

I'll leave you with one question that I've been asking myself lately:

We spend countless hours asking why performance problems exist.

But do we spend the same amount of time asking why people forget almost everything they learned just three to four weeks after training?

If not...

Maybe we're solving the wrong problem.

What do you think?

GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Day 25 of Instructional Design

#InstructionalDesign #InstructionalDesigner #LearningAndDevelopment #LearningDesign #LearningExperienceDesign #LXD #Elearning #ELearningDesign #CurriculumDesign #CurriculumDeveloper #LearningInPublic #BuildInPublic #SenseMakingNotes #MentalModels #TAWIQM #MyDebunkedThoughts


Where this comes from

  1. Learning Science by Clark Quinn — If you design learning, teach, or train people, you need to understand what is actually happening when someone learns. Learning happens at the neural level, but we design for it at the cognitive level. There’s a lot more in Clark Quinn’s book that I can’t share because of **intellectual property**. Get the book and experience the learning yourself. 📚You Would Love It!
  2. To Learn More Join the "Learning Development Accelerator" — Click the link to join the Amazing Learning Development Accelerator Group Where practice meets evidence