We Are Learning review

What it does

We Are Learning provides a framework for creating branching narratives and immersive learning modules. At its core, the tool functions as a bridge between static instructional design and interactive game mechanics. Users create digital scenarios where learners must make decisions, experience the consequences of those choices, and navigate through a storyline that adapts to their inputs. It moves away from the traditional passive slide deck model by forcing the learner to act as a protagonist within a specific context, such as a sales negotiation or a safety protocol simulation.

How people actually use it

Instructors typically use the platform to build high-stakes simulations that would be too dangerous or expensive to replicate in a real-world environment. A corporate trainer might design a module where a manager practices delivering difficult performance reviews. By creating multiple paths for the conversation, the trainer forces the learner to consider how tone, phrasing, and empathy impact outcomes. In a classroom setting, teachers use it to turn history lessons into interactive investigations where students must piece together information to solve a problem. Users spend most of their time in the editor, mapping out flows, writing dialogue, and defining the variables that determine success or failure within the simulation.

Where it falls short

While the platform is user-friendly, the creative burden remains entirely on the author. Many users underestimate the amount of writing required to create a truly branching narrative that feels coherent and non-linear. Because the quality of the learning depends on the depth of the scenarios, a poorly written simulation results in a frustrating or confusing experience for the learner. Additionally, the tool does not provide built-in pedagogical coaching. It offers the medium, but it does not tell you if your instructional design is effective or if your learning objectives are clear. Users are often left to iterate on their own trial and error processes when their scenarios fail to teach the intended concept.

Whether it builds skill

This tool supports the growth of critical thinking and decision-making skills in the end learner by providing a low-risk environment to test theories. However, the impact on the creator is more mixed. While it forces the instructor to think more structurally about cause and effect in their curriculum, it does not necessarily turn a novice teacher into an expert designer. It automates the technical delivery of the story, but the creator must still invest significant effort into cognitive design. The tool increases capability by removing the barrier of custom software development, but it does not replace the fundamental need for human-led instructional strategy and high-quality narrative writing.