Image courtesy of MILO.
A new era of scrutiny and public demand for police transparency has put agencies and officers in the white-hot heat of a spotlight in search of reform.1 Police can no longer look at threats as rapid “shoot/don’t shoot” situations; rather, they must look at every contact as an opportunity for in-depth evaluation and crisis management, with the objective of neutralizing the crisis and mitigating long-term social effects. Time for this kind of advanced mental processing might be available when sitting in a workshop, but it is rarely available in the moment-to-moment work of law enforcement—especially in crisis situations. Officers are operating in a complex game of chess where they must assess the potential outcome of their actions from far more than just the immediately present perspective, with split-second moments in which to make these decisions.
Solving this problem requires training police to move from procedural-based convergent thinking where past experience produces one result, to divergent thinking, which considers experiential knowledge in an attempt to consider multiple possible results.2 This shift requires a different cognitive process, one that involves pushing the learner’s brain toward creative solutions. The focused emphasis on creative thinking in curriculum design is at the heart of 21st century education and accomplishing this move toward creative thinking in law enforcement means drastically changing the manner in which police personnel are trained.3
In short, it is time to take training from the antiquated idea that the field can get by with simply making officers better marksmen in a reactionary force to making them, instead, masters of crisis management through creative de-escalation.4
Current Training Methods
Training methods among law enforcement agencies vary based on factors such as agency size, budget, mission, and available training resources. Officers may be trained using tools ranging from dry-erase boards to integrated multiuser simulators, depending on the context. Simulators with multiple interactive learning objectives provide an easy way to conduct limitless, repetitive training tasks in a controlled environment. When used frequently, consistently, and with competent instructors, they improve agency readiness through development of motor and cognitive skills.5
The key component in any training is the skill and effectiveness of the trainer using the technology, and this is where current methods vary most significantly. In smaller agencies, additional duties pile onto one or two officers every time new requirements emerge. They are “voluntold” of new responsibilities with little to no additional development of their expertise. In some agencies, the training department is where officers are placed due to physical limitations or political decisions. Elsewhere, contract trainers are brought in for their expertise, but only officers available at the time are able to participate, which leaves training gaps within the department.
None of these methods are ideal, and none offer the comprehensive requirements to effectively develop officers on a deeper cognitive level.
Change Starts with Research
If there is a silver lining surrounding the events of the last few years, it is that leaders have begun thoughtful discussions about how to take the best aspects of existing training methods and enhance them with research-based curricula that can evolve with societal needs. This discussion is necessary, but it is only a start—there is a rapid need for more in-depth research in law enforcement training, specifically as it pertains to developing the officer’s ability to think creatively in crisis situations. This is no small task, as the milliseconds available in any crisis situation are very difficult to measure, let alone analyze. Moreover, time for training has dwindled as police forces are faced with scheduling challenges and limited access to qualified trainers.6
To gain a better understanding of how to approach reform, it’s vital to study training efforts at a deeper level. Specific components in research must include a thorough evaluation of use-of-force training. Additionally, the research must first include a definition of “creative thinking” in terms of being an educational end-goal for the development of the officer in training. There are many different definitions among educational theorists but one that applies in this specific context is to define creativity as novel, effective, and whole.7 The creative thought process does not necessarily require a novel result, just a novel behavior that leads to an effective result. In the law enforcement context, where threat reduction is the ultimate goal, the goal of effectiveness is de-escalation, wherever possible.
Finally, there must be an established theoretical framework within which discoveries can be made, and, in learning environments, that means educational theory. In this context of building the capacity for calm creativity within an ill-defined and chaotic environment, Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) offers insights into this new paradigm for de-escalation training.8 Applying this theory to instructional design will provide guiding factors to find ways to affect the creative thought process without overloading the cognitive capacity of the participants.
The Framework—CLT
CLT, as initially developed by John Sweller in 1988, is applicable in all learning environments, but especially in a professional learning setting with adult trainees, who span across many ages, educational backgrounds, and experience. CLT is defined as a structure of memory categorizations that, when properly developed through effective learning processes, allows learners to create schemas and increase their capacity for problem-solving.9 This is especially relevant in immersive simulation technology because the complexity of the learning environment places extra demand on cognitive processes.10
In relation to use-of-force training, and based on the concept that the relative difficulty of tasks and human ability to learn is directly proportional to the cognitive capabilities of the individual, CLT acknowledges complexity in ways that other learning theories do not.11 Each person has a certain cognitive capacity—at any given time in any given context—that can affect their ability to learn, but this load limit can be increased or decreased with some manipulation of the delivery of information. The individual load capacity of a person is based on internal factors (such as functional memory) and on external factors (like the instructional design of the curriculum, broadly, and learning activity itself).
For instance, in typical use-of-force training using a simulator, trainees are presented with multiple opportunities for a bifurcated response. They can see a threat, evaluate a response, test their response, and experience the outcome in an emotionally immersive environment.12 If the outcome is less than favorable, they can continue to fine-tune their response until receiving a desired outcome. That problem-solving process and after-action review creates a knowledge base for future recall. The more frequently this process is performed, the more rooted the schema, thereby requiring a lesser cognitive burden to retrieve the information. Comparably, the more times a person retrieves a book from the same shelf in a library, the less thought they will have to put into finding it when asked.
Through the development of schemas in a person’s memory, combinations of new and existing knowledge become finely tuned, automated processes. Over time, these processes become deeply understood to the point that they require limited thought to accomplish with efficiency. Driving a car, for example, requires much more thought for a teenager first learning to drive than for a seasoned adult who has been driving most of their life. New drivers pay attention to insignificant details that may distract them from crucial reaction or response. Seasoned drivers, however, are able to filter out normal occurrences and file them as inconsequential, which reduces their cognitive burden for processing potential hazards.
When CLT is applied to a law enforcement training context, it is easy to see how a seasoned officer—one who has seen hundreds of thousands of distractions through thousands of interactions with suspects—can filter out moments that may be routine versus those moments that provide cause for heightened awareness and involvement. This increase in a person’s experiential memory bank makes the brain work more efficiently with less effort, which, in turn, increases their cognitive potential for more memories. This continuous cycle is part of a person’s lifelong cognitive evolution.
Put another way, when humans develop schemas effectively—and are then able to increase their automated processes—these schemas become helpful in reducing their cognitive burden, which will benefit them when they attempt to learn new skills or solve problems.
Therefore, when CLT is incorporated into the instructional design process for use-of-force simulations, with the goal of establishing less work requirements from the brain, the end result is that instructors can help trainees free up prime space in the working memory. These precious resources can then be used instead for more important functions, like creative thought processes.13
In use-of-force training and simulations, CLT can be the foundation for research in developing limitless brain content toward infinite results.
Instructional Design—Its Role in Police Training
While not yet widespread in implementation, there has been a call in the industry toward training police with adult learning instructional design principles in mind, such as andragogy and Bloom’s Taxonomy.14 Some agencies are incorporating educational technology in the form of online learning as a delivery mechanism for policy and procedure and simulation for use-of-force training.15 One directly relevant study in police training using educational technology has shown that CLT is applicable in police training; however, the research study was limited to a literature review on the theory and its applicability to law enforcement as a comparable learning environment—particularly within the context of online learning—and the results of the review were vague on the specific benefits or targeted approach for implementation of findings.16
Because of the varying complexity of the educational tools currently in use, a requirement for success in creating a new paradigm for use-of-force training, then, is that the educational technology be incorporated into training processes with foundations in educational theory. It is not merely enough to buy and begin to use the technology; it must be used often and consistently, and the instructional environment must be led by competent instructors.17 The simulator itself is a vehicle, transporting an integrated blend of policy, instructional design, and facilitator capability in each delivery. This blend is proprietary to each organization based upon their respective mission, geography, and personnel, but the content will be delivered effectively only if used with a thoughtful and comprehensive curriculum design.
The next step is clear. Examine use-of-force training that explores how the use of simulators can, potentially, reduce trainees’ cognitive burden and increase the capacity for creative thinking in crisis mitigation.
A Call to Action—Time to Get Creative
The end goal of preparing a police force who can use creative thinking is de-escalation, not only keeping officers and the populations they serve alive, but potentially also improving the public’s perception of police methods. Without new research on the possible linkage between cognitive burden and creative thinking, agencies will continue to create the same patterns of thinking that served law enforcement professionals in a past era, even though that era has passed. Consequently, without a new approach, training methods may be potentially limiting trainees’ creativity and ability ingenuity to deal with increasingly ill-defined scenarios, many of which may have alternate, less-than-lethal outcomes if only considered from a creative angle.
In summary, the profession’s current ways of process-driven training may have suited the environments in which the police once operated, but as those environments continue to evolve, so must the manners in which officers train. An ever-changing field requires empowered professionals, capable of and confident in their independent and thoughtful approach to crisis management. Instructional theory and focused cognitive research can guide the way. The paradigm shift starts with allotting seasoned, invested, senior law enforcement leaders and advisers time, effort, and support: more time for science-based training, more effort for cognitive research, more support for novel ideas. 🛡
Notes:
1 Kaitlyn Perez, “Social Media Has Become a Critical Part of Law Enforcement,” Medium, August 16, 2017.
2 Arthur Cropley, “In Praise of Convergent Thinking,” Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 3 (2006): 391–404.
3 Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda, Farideh Hamidi, Farhad Ghorbandordinejad, “The Impact of Constructivist and Cognitive Distance Instructional Design on the Learner’s Creativity,” Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011): 260–265.
4David Perkins, “New Era of Policing: Thinking Outside the Box” (paper, The Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas, October 20, 2016).
6Craig Bennell and Natalie J. Jones, The Effectiveness of Use of Force Simulation Training Final Report (Ottawa, ON: Carleton University, 2004).
7Scott Wolfe et al., “Social Interaction Training to Reduce Police Use of Force,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 687, no. 1 (January 2020): 124–145.
8Wolfe et al, “Social Interaction to Reduce Police Use of Force.”
9Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler, “Introducing TPCK” in Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (New York, NY: Routledge for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2008): 3–29.
10John Sweller, “Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,” Cognitive Science 12, no. 2 (April 1988): 257–285.
11Kristin L. Fraser, Paul Ayres, and John Sweller “Cognitive Load Theory for the Design of Medical Simulations,” Simulation in Healthcare 10, no. 5 (October 2015): 295–307.
12John Sweller, “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design,” Learning and Instruction 4, no. 4 (1994): 295–312.
13Joy VerPlanck, “The Effects of Simulator Training on the Development of Creative Thinking in Law Enforcement Officers,” Policing: An International Journal 44 no. 3 (2021): 455–468.
14Joy VerPlanck and Noël Lipana, “Train as You Fight: The Need for Real Faces in Immersive Training,” FAAC Blog, April 20, 2020.
15Rebecca Mugford, Shevaun Corey, and Craig Bennell, “Improving Police Training from a Cognitive Load Perspective,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 36, no. 2 (May 2013): 312–337.
16Craig Bennell, Natalie J. Jones, and Shevaun Corey, “Does Use-Of-Force Simulation Training in Canadian Police Agencies Incorporate Principles of Effective Training?,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 13, no. 1 (February 2007): 35–58.
17Mugford, Corey, and Bennell, “Improving Police Training from a Cognitive Load Perspective.”
Please cite as
Joy VerPlanck, “Reenvisioning Police Training: The Need for Creative Thinking and Instructional Design,” Police Chief Online, April 27, 2022.
