Learning objectives and content

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to write observable and assessable learning objectives. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. Training must help people make actual decisions. KPK guidelines define relevant integrity-plan training and familiarisation roles. Teaching methods are adapted to responsibilities, risks and accessibility.

Knowing integrity is too broad an objective for one video. Identifying a conflict and selecting a declaration procedure is observable. The objective guides content, example and assessment. Proposed duration supports learning. This catalogue does not claim national law requires twenty courses, five videos or a fixed duration per unit.

Apply the following rule: ZZPri covers information about breaches of rules applicable in Slovenia obtained in a work-related context. Protection requires reasonable grounds for believing the information true at the time of reporting and use of a route under the Act. Article 5 excludes protection where the report is made two years or more after the breach ceased. This is not a retention period. Relevant previous and developing relationships, facilitators and connected persons are covered under statutory conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Use an action verb for the objective. Select necessary concepts, one case and an aligned exercise. Define an adequate answer. Separate information to remember from resources available at work. Do not test an unexplained legal detail or one unrelated to the intended decision. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A participant knows the law’s date but selects the wrong recipient in a case. The assessment needs practical decision-making. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Which better demonstrates competence: a date or a reasoned reporting-route decision? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

A reasoned case decision. Legal information must be applied and checked in sources when needed.

One mistake to avoid is: confusing the amount of information presented with demonstrated learning.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report protected because it contains the word corruption. What has it not checked?

Assess facts, the work-related context, reasonable grounds at reporting, the chosen route and statutory conditions, including time since the breach ceased. The label does not determine protection. Clarify missing information safely and proportionately.