Where were you? I’m sure you heard this phrase where someone said, “Where were you when ABC happened?” “What was your reaction?”
The same can be applied to the first time you heard of whateverX.
I remember sitting on a bench in Mexico City, where I saw three teens lip-synching to a song and posting it on TikTok. That is what TikTok was about all those years ago. I recognized it; others, I’m sure, didn’t.
They went about their day, maybe took a quick glance, and perhaps wondered why these people were lip-syncing and recording themselves. How many people knew of this new form of social media prior to it becoming what it is today?
Where were you when you first heard the word ABXD? (uh, stick a word there) What were you doing? Did it catch your eye or your ear immediately? Did you think right away that there was something to this? That it could be big. OR did you think this is a fad?
“Or this is something I couldn’t care less about. I still have no idea what it is, why it is being mentioned, or why I should care.”
Each response was an outcome of something, whatever it might be. Each person would think differently because each person is different. Sure, there would be some similarities in retorts on, let’s say, a famous leader being assassinated or the death of a celebrity or well-known individual.
When the term’ World Wide Web’ first emerged, it sparked a wave of excitement and anticipation for the future. Some saw it as a passing fad, but others recognized its potential to revolutionize the way we connect and share information.
In the early 90s, I taught at what was called an inner-city high school (for that area). I had read about a guy in Baltimore who was at an inner-city high school and ran into the issue of the kids bolting when the bell would ring.
I had the same problem. He mentioned that if the kids were in groups, picked their nicknames, and had a leaderboard and a few other items, when the bell would ring, they stayed. They wanted to figure it out, to solve it.
For me, a bell went off (not the school bell). I saw the possibilities and went about it with similarities: the groups, students picking their own nickname, the leaderboard, the information presented, and them working together in each group to solve it and score points.
Then, I went multiple steps forward. They would receive the information on day one (in this case, Tuesday).
Then on a Thursday they would be presented with a scenario – based upon what they received the previous class day (on the Tuesday). The scenario wouldn’t be hypothetical, it would be real-world, with real life application and a real-life situation, that existed at that time.
They were provided with all the variables that they needed. Not the answer, because the scenario didn’t seek that. What I wanted to see was the outcome of that scenario based on the variables provided to them.
They didn’t have to use all the variables; they could pick what they believed would be needed for their outcome.
I want to stress their outcome. Each group thought differently but worked together. Each group picked some of the same variables, but equally not all the same. Each group, put together a plan before selecting the variables they needed – based on the scenario – then modified the plan to execute it.
If a student in the group, wasn’t prepared, the other group members worked with that person to get them up to speed, or put a bit of pressure if you will, to make sure that person would study and prep.
Then with the outcomes decided – they would vote on which one they saw as the best fit. They couldn’t pick their own. I didn’t say this is right or wrong. I said nothing.
What I did see though, was something totally unexpected. When the exam on the material was presented – and no it wasn’t right after the scenario, nor the next week.
What I saw was the students who received what I called Scenario-Based Learning (SBL) scored higher than those who did not have the SBL approach.
I took this same approach to the university level, applied it to two different classes on the same subject matter and let them go at it. The results though, again, surprised me. Sure, enough those who were provided the SBL scored higher on the exam (overall avg), than those who didn’t.
Each time tweaks were made, after all, you are at a different level of education, and challenges. I brought SBL with me, when I went to run corporate training.
When it came to blended learning with the ILT piece (at that time), nicknames and leaderboards didn’t exist, but real world did.
The SBL was kicked in – and the results from those who attended the seminar. The loved it because it wasn’t about groupthink, nor hypotheticals – it was real-world, what they were facing or would be facing.
Everyone worked together – nobody was left out, and the whole let’s put stuff on a pad of paper so others can see it – wasn’t the goal. It wasn’t about the outcome; it was about something far different.
The knowledge application to real-world.
Thinking. Considering. Examining all those variables and then executing on a plan, devising a strategy with an output. No right or wrong answers here, that wasn’t the outcome goal.
It was understanding. Ponderance and information they could utilize when they went back to work.
SBL was incorporated into any WBT (online course) that I created or had someone create for me – to use – i.e. 3rd party boutique shop that created the course.
How SBL works
a. Create a scenario based on the information you are presenting, regardless of format – for me it was e-learning courses.
b. Provide a set of variables – it could be anything that opened up different avenues of thought, yet still offered the pieces someone would leverage that would exist in that scenario, depending on what they extracted from the information presented prior to.
c. Outcome – Variance depending on what they chose and what they saw would be the response for that scenario, tapping into the variables of their own choice. Made a mistake? That’s fine. Have to go back and re-learn what they sought – no problem. Wanted to select other variables and see a different outcome – okay, that is thinking.
In the real world, people make decisions all the time, based on the information provided to them. Not enough info – presents a different response, than all the info.
Different outcomes are based on different perspectives, backgrounds, and life experiences. Not everyone is going to provide the same response to the problem (in our case, scenario) at hand. Nor would you want them to.
They were required to think. Plan. Execute. If it didn’t work on the execution, okay, why?
What could they have done differently? What were they missing or what didn’t they consider? The variables provide the backbone and get them on their way, the outcome is based on perception and information.
A good leader will hire people who complement that person’s skills they are lacking or missing. A bad leader thinks they know it all, and thus hire people who are yes folks.
A scenario that is presented in the real-world, aligns to the real-world. WIFM is at play here.
What isn’t working? The Shove.
Shoving information to the learner expecting them to acquire it, retain it, and comprehend it. The outcome? Move to the next course (micro isn’t a factor here, in fact it doesn’t matter). The path is all about completion. Recommended learning? Based on your skills or those you want to learn?
Here you go. Here is the path. Here is how to gain the information you need to know that skill. To be able to apply it to your job or your role.
Go here. Do this. Do that. Tada – completion – oh wait, I forgot.
Have an assignment – or not. Assessment time! After all, we need to test you to see whether or not you are able to memorize what you just learned. Or feel free to look at your notes, when you take the assessment. Scored high?
Congrats – you clearly know the information. You must know the skill – the system says so, based on the test and “completion”. Next!
Where is the thinking? Where are the variables to consider? Where is the idea that people learn differently (I know plenty of people think this doesn’t exist)?
What is the outcome – you as the person who created this learning path or journey or oversees L&D or Training or HR seeking? Completion is clear.
Passing an assessment is relevant. Even if you remove the assessment part, it is all about completion. Then, you can point to someone and say, “We have 94% completion, ergo they know.”
Honestly, you have zero idea if they really know it or not.
I mean sure you can view the analytics, but data is for you – how many times they went, what did they look at – etc. – and this assuming your system offers such details. (nevertheless, it doesn’t tell you – whether they tapped into thinking about it)
LinkedIn Learning (and there are other content publishers/providers – I just used LL because they are well-known, and popular) seems to believe that by having someone blabbering about some topic, and then someone is taking a look at how it works, and seeing it in action in many cases, others are just blabbering, a quick cure for insomnia.
There isn’t any real thinking here. This is a page turner done via the net, under the guise of whatever they believe the goal should be or perceive it to be.
There aren’t any variables to consider. Not a scenario that someone sees right away. Not exploration based on that person’s background, education, skills – what they see, versus perhaps what it is, location, socioeconomic, real-world experience – none of that.
It presumes really that as we start, we are so much alike. Sure, we will learn or not learn what is presented, but hey, thinking is not a requirement here.
Bottom Line
When did we lose the thinking?
It wasn’t due to 2024 and the AI age. Nor the computing age.
One says it happened post industrial revolution.
I remember reading a book (yes, I have read books before), and it talked about when we changed as a society, from an agrarian to industrial. Its argument was that by doing so, we lost so much that we once had without even realizing it.
I made me think. To consider.
I read that book, several years ago – and yet, that little bit of insight stuck with me.
I couldn’t recall anything else from the book, let alone the title.
Because that isn’t what is relevant here.
Real-World. Real-Life is.
The presentation of such information identified that – bringing together a then and now cycle, one of which we can apply even today.
A scenario that opens up the possibilities without having every bit of information provided – just enough to have me in this case, think.
If done correctly, it opens up the windows, not just the front door.
It isn’t cursory.
Not a shove the information in your face, here you go, you pass go – get your completion – and tada – You now have the skill.
How do I know that?
I gave you a test.
You passed.
Here is your score to prove it.
What is the next skill you need to learn?
I have a playlist for it.
E-Learning 24/7
Please note that requiring a certification, does require a specific outcome, based on what is presented to the learner. One vendor who I think does the best job on this is Skillable. They provide a scenario, give the variables, tap into the real-world, with a Show Me, Tell Me, let me do it (the three key pieces you want in any online course) and let the learner go at it. It is tech related – and yes, it works quite well, for just learning a tech skill – by placing people into a real-life scenario – with a lab.
