Learning by doing, not by being told.
Most eLearning courses start by defining things. They explain what a relay call is, describe how it works, list the steps, and then quiz the learner on what they just read. Your audience passes the quiz. Whether they retain the material is another question entirely.
This prototype takes a different approach, one grounded in how adults actually learn.
Your audience already knows how to answer a phone. They already know how to communicate with a tenant. They have years of professional experience they bring to every interaction. A course that starts by defining terms they already know wastes that experience, and signals to the learner that the course was not designed for them.
A better method: put them in the situation and let them work through it. Their existing knowledge becomes the foundation. The course adds the layer that is actually new, in this case, what it means to communicate effectively when a tenant reaches them through a relay service.
In this demo, the learner receives a relay call. We do not define what a relay call is. We do not explain the 711 system before they pick up. We put them on the phone and let them experience it, because that is the closest thing to what actually happens when a relay call comes in on an average Tuesday morning.
Some will find it disorienting at first. That is the point. That disorientation is the learning. By the time they reach the debrief, they understand relay calls not because someone explained it, but because they lived it. That understanding sticks.
One scenario. Significant depth.
This prototype covers a single scenario: a relay call from Maria Gonzalez, Unit 304, reporting that her air conditioning has not worked for two days during a heat wave. She is elderly and concerned about her health.
What happens from there depends entirely on the choices the learner makes.
To put that in perspective: most branching scenarios in corporate eLearning offer three or four paths. They are designed to be completed quickly, with little consequence for the choices made. A learner can work through all paths in a single sitting and arrive at the right answer by process of elimination rather than genuine decision-making.
At 2,451 possible paths through 24 decision points, this scenario does not lend itself to that approach. The choices compound. A misstep at the opening changes what Maria says next. A poor close on an otherwise well-handled call changes the ending. The learner's experience is genuinely their own.
A note on this prototype: This demo was built to demonstrate the methodology and scale of what is possible, not as a finished product. The relay call simulation is based on our best understanding of how the 711 system works. Some details may not reflect exactly how a live relay call sounds or behaves. What you are evaluating here is the instructional architecture, the depth of branching, and the coaching quality. Those are what this demo is built to show.
A realistic call environment, with real stakes.
The scenario opens with a phone ringing. The learner answers, or does not. From there, every choice they make shapes the call in real time.
- — The relay format is embedded in the experience. The automated 711 system introduction, the operator, the pauses while Maria types, these are part of the simulation. The learner is not told how a relay call sounds. They hear it.
- — No options float in your head during a real call. A response timer is built into the scenario. It creates realistic pressure: in an actual call, you have seconds to respond, not minutes. The timer keeps learners engaged and prevents the experience from becoming a multiple-choice quiz. For this demo, the timer is turned off by default. It can be toggled on at any point using the switch in the lower right corner.
- — No on-screen feedback during the call. Learners will not see "Correct" or "Incorrect" after each choice. That would break the simulation. Instead, each choice affects Maria's confidence in real time, visible as a bar in the upper right corner. The full coaching comes in the debrief.
- — The call can end in many ways. Some learners will handle the call cleanly. Others will hang up, offer inaccessible follow-up methods, or fail to recognize the health emergency for what it is. Every ending is a valid learning outcome, including the failures.
Where the real learning lands.
When the call ends, the learner receives a detailed debrief across five panels. This is where the coaching happens, specific to the choices they made, in the order they made them.
- 1Take away. The core principle the call illustrated, a score (0 to 100), a pass/not passing indicator, and Maria's caller confidence at the end of the call, along with a plain-language description of what that confidence level reflects.
- 2Summary. A decision-by-decision arc of the call: what the learner faced, what they chose, and how it rated (Good, Almost, or Poor).
- 3What worked. Specific moments where the learner communicated effectively, drawn from their actual choices, not a generic list.
- 4What to improve. Specific gaps, with context. Not "you should have been more careful," but an explanation of why the choice created friction and what the better path looked like.
- 5Decision breakdown. Every decision point in the call: the situation, the choice made, the rating, and the full coaching explanation for that specific choice.
The debrief is specific to the learner's path. Two learners who reach the same ending via different choices will see different coaching in their decision breakdown. The feedback is earned, not generic.
Five outcomes. One is the standard.
Every path through the scenario leads to one of five outcome categories. These are not arbitrary. They reflect the quality of the overall call and its impact on Maria.
Failing safely in a simulation is not a bad outcome. A learner who reaches Critical Failure and reads the debrief understands the consequences of their choices in a way no lecture could produce. That's the method working.
This is one scenario. Any scenario is possible.
The relay call was chosen because it is a specific, high-stakes situation that your staff actually encounters. But the methodology is not specific to relay calls.
Any interaction a housing department staff member might face can be built this way: a difficult in-person conversation with a tenant, a fair housing complaint call, a reasonable accommodation request, a language access situation. The scenario changes. The learning architecture, put them in it, let them work through it, debrief them on what they did, stays the same.
For learners who handle the call well, this is a confidence builder. They confirm to themselves that they communicate effectively. They walk away knowing they would do the right thing. For learners who struggle, the coaching is specific and immediate. They understand not just what they got wrong, but why it mattered to Maria, the actual person on the other end of the call.
A narrated lecture with a quiz at the end will not produce either of those outcomes at the same depth. This does.