Trends in Training

By Tim Bollig, Certified Firearms Instructor, published in ASLET Trainer Magazine, Winter 2005

In recent years, our knowledge of adult learning and application of increasingly relevant training techniques to law enforcement training has increased significantly. Understanding which information delivery and measurement techniques are more successful than others has resulted in training programs with dramatically increased effectiveness. Many of these improved instructional techniques may seem obvious to the student sitting in a classroom lecture or going through a training exercise, but in many cases the improvements in training delivery have been enabled by phenomenal leaps in technology.

I think back to my first experience in the academy as a recruit in 1984, I recall mostly four-hour lecture blocks. There was an occasional film that always seemed to have been produced in the early seventies, but had some relevance to the lecture that was being presented. The manuals were copied hand typed manuals; no images other than in the traffic section and those were line art images of intersections and cars. Our role-play sessions utilized our unloaded issued equipment, but that was the extent of the exercise. That being said, the staff and instructors were professional, committed, direct and clearly great role models.

Introduction of Realism to Training Methods

My last five and a half years in law enforcement were spent assigned to the training division. On the range, I saw the installation of pneumatic presenting targets combined with computer controlled moving targets. During this time, I also saw the building of live-fire shoot houses, multi-level force-on-force structures and firearm simulators expanded to the role of force option simulators. In the classroom, the lecture blocks almost always utilize PowerPoint with imbedded imagery and films that looked fitting for the big screen. I witnessed the introduction of “distance learning”, topics of instruction, like “computer crimes”, and networked training evaluations, all of which did not exist in past years. These changes were developed to make the training more realistic and more engaging, not only in an attempt to improve retention of the information on the part of the student, but to provide the student with more of the experiences they were likely to encounter in the real world.

It is clear that in the last twenty years technology has not just found a home in law enforcement; it is demanded as a standard. Technology supported the shift from the “square range” firearms training environment to one where the dynamics of movement would be included. This shift was a step forward, but still didn’t require the trainee to experience and respond to a realistic critical incident. Slide shows and video projections which could be shot at were early efforts toward realism in training as well. Today's technology has brought increasingly interactive simulation to driving, crisis resolution, force options as well as major incident command training. Technology has brought the pursuit, the dispute, decision-making, and the fire, flood and earthquake to the officer before the officer goes to the incident. When looking at trends in today’s training, it is the area of force option simulation that has the greatest ability to safely make a change in the outcome of tomorrow’s problem solving and critical incidents. The development and evolution of simulation is ongoing, only limited by the abilities of today’s technology, our creative imagination and the instructor’s ability to apply the means.

Simulation Technology as a Training Tool

The intent of simulation is to immerse the participant in life-like events to solicit a probable response. For law enforcement simulation, the purpose of this is for training or evaluation of the participant’s knowledge and/or skill when presented with those events and conditions. The scope of the simulation can be very wide. It is the role of the presenter to focus this scope and to use this tool to augment a lesson plan with set learning or evaluation standards. The simulation should be clear and direct, creating a positive learning environment.

Today’s force option simulators offer a tremendous variety of training tools that allow for a high degree of realism in training. All levels of the force continuum can be addressed from physical presence and voice commands through non-lethal and less-lethal means such as PepperBall™, chemical agent spray and TASER™ to a wide variety of lethal force options. ShootBack® devices can also be deployed and in some cases are integrated with the system so that nylon balls can be fired at the trainee exactly when the threat engages the officer, as the scenario unfolds. Properly applied, these training tools offer the instructor a consistent, repeatable and documented means of training and evaluation while providing training participants with the real world experience of critical incidents as case law requires. More important to officer and community safety is the physiological manifestations created during simulation. Simulator participants encounter tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, instinctive reactions and reduced hearing that can be a surprise when experienced under stress. If the participant can still demonstrate a proper response under these conditions, proper critical training for the officer and added community safety and risk management have occurred.

Force option sessions are most effective when both the technology and the instructor created the realism. The events need to be realistic to the participant. The participant should be able to use the lethal, less-lethal, and non-lethal options that are normally available to them. The focus should be not only the outcome, but also the means and the justification of the outcome…which brings us to another trend currently encountered in many training programs – letting technology get in the way of the training objectives.

Keep Technology In Line with Training Objectives

At one time, “Shoot, Don’t Shoot” simulators were available which provided immediate feedback to the trainee at the end of the scenario as to whether their judgment was good or poor. The instructor was not involved in the delivery of this feedback, and, the system did not offer the instructor time to debrief a participant as to their reasoning for the action taken prior to the “Good” or “Poor” judgment feedback being given. Discussions of policies and procedures were not required to deliver this feedback. Without a proactive instructor in the loop and a discussion of the participant’s reasoning behind the decision to apply deadly force (or was it a misfire?), the technology did not lend itself to properly preparing officers in the wide scope of a critical incident. An objective of the training should have been the requirement that the trainee justify their actions and articulate what they learned of policies, procedures and case law in earlier classroom sessions or in-service updates, but the technology was unfit for this task. If instructors relied on the system to do their job for them, the trainee would be ill prepared to face a real-world critical incident. Be cautious of letting technological abilities divert us away from proper and effective training.

Another tool that may have some limited application, but must be used cautiously is technology’s ability to attempt to record the training participant’s view in order to review proper marksmanship skills. The most effective method of ensuring proper marksmanship skills is instructor interaction. A skilled firearms instructor’s guidance and interaction can not be replaced. If you feel that technology in this particular area will add value to your training, use it cautiously. Avoid using this to replace traditional and proven methods of instruction. Remember that the technology is a tool, not a replacement for good instruction.

The trends we are seeing today are to maximize the benefit, while minimizing the time and cost. We are able to present a more comprehensive training session then ever before, thanks to today’s abundant technology and level of creativity. The critical factor is to understand the technology, be open to creative applications and most of all demand realism. Clearly identify the objectives of your program and make sure that the technology you are using does not diminish the effectiveness of your program. Be smart, be safe, and be trained.