Why Does Reality Based Training Work?
An Introduction to the training theory that you are already using.
Reality-Based Training (RBT), particularly force-on-force training, is often identified as the gold standard because of its realism. But why does realism matter? We also train in ways that don’t resemble the real thing, like shooting at paper targets or hitting heavy bags, and we think those are valuable too. But are they as effective as RBT? After all, RBT requires a lot of effort to conduct. These are the kinds of questions that the ALERRT research staff and I think about all the time.
Then one day, I came across the book How We Learn to Move by Rob Gray, and I had an epiphany. It provided a clear theoretical framework for what we had already been doing. This framework is called Ecological Dynamics (EcoD). And like any useful theory, it also presented some new and exciting directions we could pursue.
Let me illustrate by starting with the purpose of training. What is the point of all the training that we do? Seriously, what is your answer? Assuming that you are not just doing training to cover yourself from liability, you probably came up with something like, “We want our people to get better at their job.” In the training literature, this is referred to as transfer. We want what we teach people in training to transfer into what they do on the job.
Research shows that transfer is highly context-dependent. If you want a skill to go from the training room to the field, what you do in the training room needs to have key elements of what happens in the field. For example, practicing control techniques on a compliant training partner often doesn’t transfer when dealing with a resisting suspect. Resistance is one of those key elements that must be present in the training room if you want techniques to transfer to the street. This shows why RBT works—it usually captures key elements, so there is a better chance it will transfer.
So what makes transfer so context-dependent? It has to do with how we perceive things and operate in the world. EcoD introduces the powerful concept of affordances. This is just a technical term for “opportunities for action.” Opportunities for action are always an interaction between the person and the environment. Different people have different characteristics and capabilities (these are called action capacities), which affect affordances. This means that not everyone has the same affordances. For example, a stronger person may have the affordance to pick something up that a weaker person does not. Different environments also affect affordances—dealing with two suspects creates different affordances than dealing with one suspect.
When we place a person in an RBT training environment that is similar to the one they will be operating in when they go into the field, we are letting them experience how their action capacities interact with the environment to create affordances. As they do this, they learn to detect and use these affordances. On the other hand, when we do training activities that are not situated in a realistic environment (such as hitting a heavy bag or doing any skill in isolation), we are not teaching them to detect “real” affordances. For example, hitting a heavy bag allows the person to learn the affordance of hitting a heavy bag. This might include how to move your body to generate power and how to hold your wrist so you don’t hurt yourself, but on the street, the affordance is an interaction between you and the suspect. When you hit the heavy bag, you aren’t dealing with a moving target that is trying to hit you back, so the affordances are different. At the very least, you will have to learn to integrate what you learned on the heavy bag into dealing with a live opponent, meaning you must adapt your skills again for a live opponent (and the literature also shows that you will not use the same physical motions either). This is another reason that RBT is better: it teaches you the affordances you need for the field.
Another important aspect of RBT is decision-making. Officers must not only decide what to do, but also when and how to do it. RBT provides these opportunities, unlike hitting a heavy bag.
So now I have identified some reasons why RBT seems to be a better training method, but RBT is challenging to conduct. You need a relatively large and secure space, instructors, role-players, equipment, and so on. If you are doing force-on-force, you have all the safety protocols and limitations involved in that. Also, you can’t just drop a new cadet into a fully involved scenario and say, “Go!”
What if I told you there was a system that allowed you to keep the good transfer and decision-making effects of RBT without having to do full-blown RBT sessions all the time?
There is! This system is called the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA). It scales RBT down to manageable tasks while preserving key elements of realism.
This system is quite different from the traditional training system that most of us grew up with. I will contrast a few of these differences below, but in following posts, I will take a much deeper dive.
The Model You Grew Up With
If you have participated in sports, you’ve likely experienced the traditional model. This model relies on three key assumptions that produce a particular type of training regimen. The assumptions are:
There is an optimal technique for players to learn.
The coach is the expert who must explicitly teach you this technique.
You must practice this technique a lot with feedback from the coach to eliminate any deviation.
These assumptions produce training that looks like this:
Tell: The coach explicitly states or demonstrates what you should do.
Watch: The coach observes you attempting to perform the demonstrated technique.
Inform: The coach identifies your deviations from the optimal technique.
Try Again: You utilize the coach's feedback to refine your technique.
This approach often leads to practices where you repeatedly drill the same motion to develop mastery, sometimes numbering in the hundreds or thousands of repetitions.
Furthermore, the traditional model assumes that a skill can be dissected into parts and then reassembled into a more complex action. To learn to hit a baseball, for example, you might practice your swing by hitting off a tee. Once you have that technique mastered, you can start learning to hit from a pitching machine, then you can learn to hit real pitches.
You might be thinking, "That's how I was taught, and I was pretty good at my sport, so what's the problem?" The short answer is that humans are naturally good at learning, but effective methods make the most of training time. The longer answer is that if we want to make the most of our limited training time, we should use the most effective methods available. How often have you seen someone excel in training, only to struggle when it really matters in the field? An officer who nails every control technique in class but loses control of a suspect in an alleyway didn't fail because they weren't paying attention—they failed because the training didn’t reflect the realities of the alley. These are potentially life-and-death situations. Don’t we owe it to our officers to provide the best training possible?
The Ecological Dynamics Approach
The Ecological Dynamics approach contrasts sharply with the traditional model:
There Is No Optimal Technique: You are assigned a goal, with success gauged by goal achievement, not the specific movement employed. Remember, we want the trainee to learn to spot affordances. Because everyone has different action capacities and environments change, we can’t just teach one ideal technique.
Exploration: The coach helps you investigate the environment in which you must perform. Instead of demonstrating a technique to copy, the coach creates a task or game with a specific objective and constraints, allowing you to discover what works best for you.
Simplification, Not Dissection: Skills are often simplified, but they are not dissected and recombined. To hit a baseball, the coach might start by throwing the ball slowly or using an oversized ball. As you improve, he can throw faster or reduce the ball size.
Frequent Changes: The coach will regularly vary the exercises, avoiding repetitive, identical movements. Unconventional tasks may be introduced to help you explore available movement options.
A practice following an Ecological Dynamics approach does not look like one following the traditional model. The coach does very little talking or demonstrating. The players are constantly engaged in tasks where they try to pursue a goal. For those familiar with grappling, these tasks often look like position wrestling. For those familiar with team sports, the games often look like small-sided games—where some number of players, less than a full team, play on a reduced-size court. The games change constantly. The coach does not give a lot of feedback when the players are playing; he relies on the task to provide relevant feedback as much as possible.
This approach may seem unconventional and likely differs significantly from what you are used to. So, why employ it? First, this technique has already been widely adopted across various sports domains, from novice to professional levels. Evaluations show that it nurtures adaptive problem-solvers and creative decision-makers—qualities that are crucial for police officers dealing with complex, fast-evolving situations. Traditional training focuses on what to do; Ecological Dynamics helps you understand when, where, and why to do it. Policing is incredibly complex, and we need officers who can think on their feet and adapt—not simply follow a preset script. If we want our officers to be ready for real-world challenges, we must shift our training methods to approaches that truly foster adaptability and problem-solving under stress. It’s time to move beyond the old drills and embrace methods that genuinely prepare our people for what they’ll face in the field.
In the next post, I’ll touch on your intuitions again and then bridge those into the EcoD model.