A traditional ‘classroom model’, which has been a cornerstone of education for centuries, emphasises learning and performing skills in a neutral setting. In fields like conflict management and physical restraint training, this model may not be the most effective for your people.
Here we evaluate some strengths and weaknesses of the classroom model before contrasting it with a scenario-based training model, which emphasizes the fluid nature of real-world conflict and decision-making.
We argue that, despite some challenges, the scenario-based model is a more realistic and efficient model for training your people in effective conflict management and physical interventions.
What are the strengths of the classroom model in physical intervention training?
One common reason for using the classroom model is the promise of a controlled environment for learners, where they can ‘grasp the basics’ of skills and techniques without interference from other demands.
This skills-first approach seems useful, particularly for beginners. It’s argued that learners need to understand the foundational elements of a skill without the additional challenges of making decisions, understanding context, talking to subjects or working with team-mates. Applying skills in-context with all the ‘messy bits’ takes place later in the training process, when ‘the basics’ have been mastered.
In physical intervention training, for example, learners will practice individual techniques end-on-end (one-by-one) in a safe, controlled environment. They move to the next skill on the curriculum list once the instructor considers the skill to be performed adequately enough.
This allows for a lot of control by the instructor, detailed feedback on technical details, minute correction of foot and hand placement, and reinforcement of skills, helping to solidify a technical foundation.
What weaknesses are then when using the classroom model in conflict management training?
Weaknesses of the classroom model include disadvantages for the learner as well as the instructor.
A significant disadvantage for learners is that real incidents of conflict and violence are rarely as straightforward as the scenarios presented in the classroom. Rather, violence happens in risky, non-linear, chaotic and intense circumstances. A significant number of decision-making components come together, at a moment when the learner’s cognitive functions may be overloaded or degraded by stress.
The classroom model often neglects the importance of decision-making. In a real-world conflict, making the right decision at the right time can often be just as important, if not more so, than having the ‘correct’ classroom-model skills.
The classroom model does not reflect the complexity and unpredictability of the real world and can lead to a false sense of confidence. Learners believe they are fully prepared for real-world situations because they have learned to apply a technique in a static scenario. This can lead to disastrous consequences when they find themselves in actual conflict situations, where they must deal with fast-moving and unpredictable compound assaults.
For instructors who may be certified on a course which emphasises a classroom model approach, there could be significant deficits in how their knowledge, understanding and skill are being developed.
The level of understanding and knowledge required to design, develop and execute on violence-reduction programmes goes beyond being able to deliver a training company’s classroom model scripts.
When instructors say the same words to describe exactly the same responses to prescribed, static physical-contact situations, they may be developing their surface-level ability to ‘teach’ a response to a specific contact.
However in avoiding the unpredictable, complicated context that surrounds any interaction, the instructor risks the skills becoming meaningless in practice and useless in real life. Training becomes ‘same old, same old’ and trainer development stalls.
An effective conflict management trainer will always be looking to incorporate context into their learners’ training experiences. The simplest contextual questions that should be used to shape conflict training scenarios are ‘what happened before the contact?’ and ‘what will happen after it?’
With the classroom model’s focus on skills, vital contextual questions like these are omitted. Opportunities to enrich the learners’ practice are missed and with it the possibility of more efficient and effective transfer of knowledge and skills into real-world situations.
Until a trainer can bring operational interactions to life, linking clearly to the context in which they will need to transfer into, effectiveness in terms of learning and development may be limited.
What are the strengths of the scenario-based model in conflict management training
1. Evidence
There is a growing body of evidence that supports the effectiveness of scenario-based training models in the wider context of learning and occupational competence.
Studies have found that scenario-based training and its related disciplines resulted in better decision-making skills among police officers compared to traditional classroom training. Similar results have been found in the context of medical training.
These findings highlight the potential of scenario-based training to enhance the practical application of skills and decision-making abilities. The UK College of Policing has comprehensively adopted Scenario-Based Training for officer safety training and the World Health Organisation has supported the use of simulation in nursing and midwifery training programmes.
2. Realism and flexibility of the model
Scenario-based training in the context of Prevention and Management of Violence and Aggression (PMVA) presents situations that closely mimic real-world conflicts on wards, in outpatient clinics and in the community. This provides more realistic and complex behavioural environments for learners to develop their skills and decision-making abilities. They can be exposed to the nuances and unpredictability of real-life situations, allowing them to better understand and manage the dynamics of conflict.
But then, how does the novice find a moment of calm within realistic training to focus on technical details, hand and foot and body placement, specific verbal formula, and to get the significant number of repetitions needed to properly install a new psychomotor skill in their body-mind system?
Well, there is room within a scenario driven model for different practice types, and a properly skilled coach-educator will recognise moments where reality or scenario fidelity will have to be dialled-down in order to create space for blocked practice. Building confidence and competence in these blocked or variable practice moments becomes, then, a part of the training, instead of the focus of the training.
3. What weaknesses are associated with scenario-based model?
Scenario-based training also has its challenges.
It requires highly skilled facilitators and wherever possible, realistic training environments: props, scenery and safety equipment are desirable for higher fidelity.
Considerable inertia can exist around adopting the scenario-based model. There can be a strong preference for maintaining the status-quo in favour of outdated and less-effective methods of training which require less effort. Trainers who are wedded to end-on-end Explain-Demonstrate-Imitate-Practice (EDIP) simplifications, or NLP-based instructional practices, ‘Learning Styles’ or other scientifically empty concepts, may resist change.
Undoubtedly, scenario-based training can increase the level of professional and personal risk for learners, as it places them in situations that closely mimic real-world conflicts, even when practiced at slow speed and at low intensity. Learners who have past trauma related to interpersonal conflict or whose disposition limits their effectiveness in real-world conflict encounters are exposed by the training.
Organisations must take a view as to when they wish to learn about the true competencies of their teams – in the training room, or in the operational environment? Where staff suffer adverse outcomes in conflict encounters – would it be better to have discovered and supported weaknesses in staff skills before (in scenario training), or after, an event?
Which model does Dynamis recommend for efficient and effective management and physical interventions training?
When procuring conflict management or physical interventions training, we recommend you seek out scenario-based models over classroom models.
The effectiveness of scenario-based training is supported by evidence from law enforcement and healthcare. It better prepares staff for real-world conflicts through realistic simulations and enhanced practical applications of skills. It also improves decision-making abilities.
Although there may be potential for increased risks during training, these will be carefully managed by a skilled instructor. Staff will ultimately be better prepared for the complexity and unpredictability of real-world conflict situations and more confident in their roles.
To find out more about the benefits of scenario-driven training for your staff, or the specific evidence-based, research-informed methodology taught on the SCENA Instructor CPD course taught by Professor Chris Cushion from Loughborough University and Gerard O’Dea, Training Director at Dynamis, schedule a call with us.
