6 Replies
Ned Whiteley

Hi Aaron,

You have my sympathy trying to make complex legal jargon interesting, but, as an engineer myself, I understand the issues of training people in regulatory compliance and it's not an easy job.

However much people may think that there is a need to be able to quote every rule in the book, the reality is that nobody can realistically achieve that and nor should they be expected to. In my view, it is far more important that the workforce understand the reason behind the rules and legal requirements, the basic standards they have to adhere to and, more importantly, where to find the information if they need it.

If you put pages of legal jargon in the course, few people, if any, will read it, which defeats the object of the training. What I would suggest is to pick out the key topics and provide them along with a suitable image, such as a cartoon, that will not only make it more readable, but also more memorable (i.e. the image is what makes the content stick in people's minds).

Hope this helps.

Daniel Brigham

Hi, Aaron: Sounds like a real challenge. Anyway to put a simplified version of the complex language in a conversation between two reps? Most complicated language really just points to a fairly simple idea. 

Maybe you could simulate a conversation between the two reps and they have a way of learner accessing/pulling the compex legal jargon, if necessary. 

Ulises Musseb

Oh, no, Compliance!!!

Now that that's out of my system, a good scenario-based course goes a long way when designing for retention and engagement.

In my experience, however, sometimes it's difficult to apply a lot of ID to compliance courses because those are part of audits. The content owners care more for making sure that the content of the course passes the audit and, well, complies with state regulations, than learners being engaged. They prefer to use course quiz scores as proof of knowledge acquisition than ensuring that the course is designed for retention.

Also, sometimes auditors and regulators want to see things in a specific way, and they are not exactly learner-centered.

The compromise that I do is maintaining the portions of the course that auditors look at as intact, and then apply some good ID to the rest.