I get the analogy of riding a bike, but perhaps you could help me see this better by providing an example training scenario that shows this? Is it in the previous article you mentioned? I'm struggling to see how training by "baptism" is more effective. I remember scenarios that did not go well because I did not have the knowledge of state statutes to properly identify the elements of the crime and bring the scenario to a conclusion.
Hi Chris - Did you receive training in the law before the scenarios? That is the usual process - classroom - skills drills - scenarios. Did you fail to connect the law to the scenario because you had learned the law in class and the knowledge didn't transfer to the field?
What this proposes is embedding everything in the scenario. Everything is participatory.
Imagine teaching students traffic stops. The scenario would start with a reason for the stop - say something simple like speeding. Students assume the role of an officer and conduct the stop. Prompts could be given to help push them along, but you want to see what they do. You can pause at any point and ask why the student is doing something or back up to a decision point to discuss options, but you want to let them make choices. The initial scenarios are really simple - you are just going to write a ticket for a cooperative motorist and send the motorist on their way. The instructor can quiz on the points of the law or even give a mini-lecture to get those across. He can note how they approached the car and they can discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, then they can try different approaches. You can change the conditions on the roadway to encourage students to adapt their approach and so on. As students get competent at this you make it more complicated - maybe now there is something that is going to cause you to arrest the suspect. We work through scenarios with this where there is not resistance first - then we can add resistance.
Scenarios are usually used to validate that you learned what you were taught in the classroom or drills. Mistakes are considered failures. Here scenarios are used to teach things. Trainees will make mistakes. This is where the strongest learning occurs. Things are taught as needed in realistic situations in the hopes of making the training transfer to the field better.
It sounds like you are suggesting tgat learning by mistake for everything is going to improve memory retention for the skills, procedures, and knowledge?
It took a matter of times at bat to memorize the elements of different crimes. The academy can only get students started. I only missed things during more complex scenarios, but tgat was becausecI was learning to look for everything on a scene; definitely a skill to develop. Maybe I misheard you, but it seems you're advocating for zero classroom time and 100% scenario / trial-by-fire?
Chris, this is a fair concern, and I think part of the confusion is that “participatory” can sound like “figure it out the hard way.” That is not what I am arguing.
First, no. This is not about learning everything by mistake. And it is not about zero guidance, zero instruction, or throwing recruits into complex situations unprepared. Mistakes matter because they reveal gaps, but they are not the goal. The goal is learning through doing the job in context, with coaching.
Second, perspectival and participatory learning are always happening whether we plan for them or not. The question is what trainees are learning to perceive and what role they are learning to inhabit. Range training teaches what it is like to shoot on a range. Classroom instruction teaches what it is like to be a student who answers questions correctly. Those lessons stick very well. They are just not the lessons we most need on the street.
Third, your example about missing legal elements in complex scenarios actually supports the argument rather than contradicting it. You did learn the law in class. You knew the elements. What broke down was not memory, but integration under load. You were learning to scan scenes, manage people, and make decisions at the same time. That is a perspectival skill. If legal concepts are learned only propositionally, outside of action, they are fragile when attention is stretched.
What this approach suggests is not removing legal instruction, but relocating it. Instead of learning statutes in isolation and hoping they transfer later, the law is introduced and reinforced inside situations where it is needed. Sometimes that means a short briefing before a scenario. Sometimes it means pausing at a decision point. Sometimes it means debriefing immediately after and tying the statute directly to what just happened. The law is still taught. It is just taught when it has something real to attach to.
I also want to acknowledge that this represents a serious shift in how most of us were trained and how most academies are currently organized. It should feel uncomfortable. But this direction is not coming from theory alone. It is grounded in decades of research on learning and transfer and in the practical experience of instructors and agencies that are actively trying to improve field performance. When people move instruction closer to real action, integrate knowledge with decision-making, and allow trainees to participate earlier in constrained but realistic roles, transfer improves.
Finally, this is not an argument that academies should eliminate classrooms tomorrow. It is an argument about direction of travel. If we want better transfer, we should expect less front-loaded lecture and more instruction embedded in realistic action. Not because lectures are useless, but because experience is the structure that makes knowledge usable under pressure.
If anything, the claim is a conservative one. When the consequences matter, people learn best when knowledge, judgment, and action are developed together rather than stitched together later.
Ok, now I'm picking up what you're putting down. Thank you for clarifying! I do see the value in what you are suggesting. I suppose if this type of thing were to really take off, someone should start an organization (or an existing one should) to promote this method with an established training curriculum ready for adoption.
I get the analogy of riding a bike, but perhaps you could help me see this better by providing an example training scenario that shows this? Is it in the previous article you mentioned? I'm struggling to see how training by "baptism" is more effective. I remember scenarios that did not go well because I did not have the knowledge of state statutes to properly identify the elements of the crime and bring the scenario to a conclusion.
Hi Chris - Did you receive training in the law before the scenarios? That is the usual process - classroom - skills drills - scenarios. Did you fail to connect the law to the scenario because you had learned the law in class and the knowledge didn't transfer to the field?
What this proposes is embedding everything in the scenario. Everything is participatory.
Imagine teaching students traffic stops. The scenario would start with a reason for the stop - say something simple like speeding. Students assume the role of an officer and conduct the stop. Prompts could be given to help push them along, but you want to see what they do. You can pause at any point and ask why the student is doing something or back up to a decision point to discuss options, but you want to let them make choices. The initial scenarios are really simple - you are just going to write a ticket for a cooperative motorist and send the motorist on their way. The instructor can quiz on the points of the law or even give a mini-lecture to get those across. He can note how they approached the car and they can discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, then they can try different approaches. You can change the conditions on the roadway to encourage students to adapt their approach and so on. As students get competent at this you make it more complicated - maybe now there is something that is going to cause you to arrest the suspect. We work through scenarios with this where there is not resistance first - then we can add resistance.
Scenarios are usually used to validate that you learned what you were taught in the classroom or drills. Mistakes are considered failures. Here scenarios are used to teach things. Trainees will make mistakes. This is where the strongest learning occurs. Things are taught as needed in realistic situations in the hopes of making the training transfer to the field better.
It sounds like you are suggesting tgat learning by mistake for everything is going to improve memory retention for the skills, procedures, and knowledge?
It took a matter of times at bat to memorize the elements of different crimes. The academy can only get students started. I only missed things during more complex scenarios, but tgat was becausecI was learning to look for everything on a scene; definitely a skill to develop. Maybe I misheard you, but it seems you're advocating for zero classroom time and 100% scenario / trial-by-fire?
Chris, this is a fair concern, and I think part of the confusion is that “participatory” can sound like “figure it out the hard way.” That is not what I am arguing.
First, no. This is not about learning everything by mistake. And it is not about zero guidance, zero instruction, or throwing recruits into complex situations unprepared. Mistakes matter because they reveal gaps, but they are not the goal. The goal is learning through doing the job in context, with coaching.
Second, perspectival and participatory learning are always happening whether we plan for them or not. The question is what trainees are learning to perceive and what role they are learning to inhabit. Range training teaches what it is like to shoot on a range. Classroom instruction teaches what it is like to be a student who answers questions correctly. Those lessons stick very well. They are just not the lessons we most need on the street.
Third, your example about missing legal elements in complex scenarios actually supports the argument rather than contradicting it. You did learn the law in class. You knew the elements. What broke down was not memory, but integration under load. You were learning to scan scenes, manage people, and make decisions at the same time. That is a perspectival skill. If legal concepts are learned only propositionally, outside of action, they are fragile when attention is stretched.
What this approach suggests is not removing legal instruction, but relocating it. Instead of learning statutes in isolation and hoping they transfer later, the law is introduced and reinforced inside situations where it is needed. Sometimes that means a short briefing before a scenario. Sometimes it means pausing at a decision point. Sometimes it means debriefing immediately after and tying the statute directly to what just happened. The law is still taught. It is just taught when it has something real to attach to.
I also want to acknowledge that this represents a serious shift in how most of us were trained and how most academies are currently organized. It should feel uncomfortable. But this direction is not coming from theory alone. It is grounded in decades of research on learning and transfer and in the practical experience of instructors and agencies that are actively trying to improve field performance. When people move instruction closer to real action, integrate knowledge with decision-making, and allow trainees to participate earlier in constrained but realistic roles, transfer improves.
Finally, this is not an argument that academies should eliminate classrooms tomorrow. It is an argument about direction of travel. If we want better transfer, we should expect less front-loaded lecture and more instruction embedded in realistic action. Not because lectures are useless, but because experience is the structure that makes knowledge usable under pressure.
If anything, the claim is a conservative one. When the consequences matter, people learn best when knowledge, judgment, and action are developed together rather than stitched together later.
Ok, now I'm picking up what you're putting down. Thank you for clarifying! I do see the value in what you are suggesting. I suppose if this type of thing were to really take off, someone should start an organization (or an existing one should) to promote this method with an established training curriculum ready for adoption.
We are starting to head that way. It is obviously a big lift.