Signature Pedagogies in Police Education: Teaching Recruits to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity (SpringerBriefs in Criminology) [1st ed. 2023] 3031423895, 9783031423895

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Criminology Policing Brett Shipton

Signature Pedagogies in Police Education Teaching Recruits to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity

SpringerBriefs in Criminology SpringerBriefs in Policing Series Editor M. R. Haberfeld, John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York New York, NY, USA

SpringerBriefs in Criminology present concise summaries of cutting edge research across the fields of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It publishes small but impactful volumes of between 50-125 pages, with a clearly defined focus. The series covers a broad range of Criminology research from experimental design and methods, to brief reports and regional studies, to policy-related applications. The scope of the series spans the whole field of Criminology and Criminal Justice, with an aim to be on the leading edge and continue to advance research. The series will be international and cross-disciplinary, including a broad array of topics, including juvenile delinquency, policing, crime prevention, terrorism research, crime and place, quantitative methods, experimental research in criminology, research design and analysis, forensic science, crime prevention, victimology, criminal justice systems, psychology of law, and explanations for criminal behavior. SpringerBriefs in Criminology will be of interest to a broad range of researchers and practitioners working in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and in related academic fields such as Sociology, Psychology, Public Health, Economics and Political Science. SpringerBriefs in Policing presents concise summaries of cutting edge research in Police Science, across the fields of Criminology, Criminal Justice, Psychology, Forensic Science, and Corrections with implications for the study of police and police work. It publishes small but impactful volumes of between 50-125 pages, with a clearly defined focus. The series covers a broad range of Policing research: from experimental design and methods, to brief reports and regional case studies, to policy-related applications. The scope of the series spans the subfield of Policing, with an aim to be on the leading edge and continue to advance research. The series is international and cross-disciplinary, including a broad array of topics. The main goal of the series is to present innovations in Policing, in order to further the field as a research and evidence-based profession rather than a vocational occupation. It will showcase how Policing confronts problems and challenges that transcend cultures and borders and can be addressed from a global rather than local perspective. SpringerBriefs in Policing is aimed at a broad range of researchers and practitioners working in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and in related academic fields such as Public Policy, Sociology, Psychology, Public Health, Economics, Policy Analysis, Terrorism and Political Science.

Brett Shipton

Signature Pedagogies in Police Education Teaching Recruits to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity

Brett Shipton Centre for Law and Justice Studies Charles Sturt University Bathurst, NSW, Australia

ISSN 2192-8533     ISSN 2192-8541 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Criminology ISSN 2194-6213     ISSN 2194-6221 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Policing ISBN 978-3-031-42389-5    ISBN 978-3-031-42387-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

This book is dedicated to Penny Shipton, a police officer and educator but most of all, a loving mum to our kids. We miss you every single day … may you rest in peace.

Preface

The aim of this book is to explore signature police pedagogies within recruit education and training as a means of addressing the traditional transmission model of teaching that falls short of addressing student, organisational and community needs. My work on this task is informed by 37 years of experience in policing and police education, including my doctoral research into the teaching and teaching development experiences of academy educators. After gaining operational policing experience in general duties and highway patrol, I started my teaching career as a police driver trainer, before moving into classroom-based teaching of both specialised police and recruits. During this time, I acquired a passion for teaching and sought to further develop my knowledge and skills through undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications in adult education. As my awareness of educational theory and practice expanded during this time, it became increasingly obvious how problematic learning and teaching practices in policing were, from both my personal experience and commentary in the global literature. My frustrations, shared by colleagues also attaining teaching qualifications, were made worse by constant misunderstandings and misapplications of partially understood or misinterpreted educational concepts by managers and many practitioners. This resistance to change was bolstered by false cultural assumptions and an adherence to outdated traditional practices. I came to the conclusion that substantive change required a long-term effort in addressing cultural inertia and expanding police educators’ awareness and confidence in learner-centred practice. More recently, my work in designing a facilitator development course for police educators led me to the concept of signature pedagogies, which having been explored across a range of professions is yet to be examined in the field of police education. Lee Shulman’s seminal work on signature pedagogies described how professions adapt learning methods to suit unique professional demands, particularly in relation to how students should think, perform and act with integrity. The opportunity to examine police education through the lens of a signature pedagogy framework allows for critical evaluation of key methods that are often underutilized as they sit in the shadow of a dominant lecture method. Through this book, I seek to share a range of insights learnt through experience and informed by ongoing vii

viii

Preface

scholarly research into better ways of preparing students for their challenging role as police officers. More specifically, this evaluation examines the four pedagogies of scenario-­ based learning, problem-based learning, simulation training and field training. These pedagogies are often used in police education; however, their application tends to lack impact due to limited awareness of effective learning design and facilitation at multiple levels of police organisations. Accordingly, this evaluation outlines best practice in their facilitation, utilising straightforward models to detail lesson structures, facilitator actions and student expectations based on educational research. An academy curriculum structure incorporating the first three pedagogies is outlined to synergise the strengths of each pedagogy and provide authentic learning situations that assists students in transferring theory to practical applications of learning. Further recommendations highlight the importance of linking academy and field programmes, the crucial influence of assessment on learning, staff development and curriculum evaluation. Finally, I welcome further discussion and debate around the signature pedagogies proposed in this book and I hope it can inspire positive change in learning and teaching practices. Bathurst, NSW, Australia

Brett Shipton

Acknowledgements

I would firstly like to thank Dr Anna Corbo Crehan, who has been a fantastic mentor, first as my PhD supervisor and beyond into my academic career. Your guidance and feedback have provided invaluable tools in allowing me to undertake this task. Thanks also to Catherine Winnem for providing a police educator’s eye as part of your proofreading and feedback on my chapters. I would especially like to thank my children, Thomas, Hugh, Connor and Hannah, for their support and understanding whilst completing this task. I hope this book inspires each of you to follow your own goals in life.

ix

Contents

1

The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies��������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Organisation of Book������������������������������������������������������������������������    4 1.3 Key Definitions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    6 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    7

2

 Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts ����������������������    9 2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 2.2 Signature Pedagogies in the Professions������������������������������������������    9 2.3 An Educational Hierarchy Defining Theory and Practice����������������   13 2.4 Educational Concepts������������������������������������������������������������������������   16 2.4.1 Teacher-Centred vs Learner-Centred Approaches����������������   17 2.4.2 Surface, Deep and Transfer Learning ����������������������������������   17 2.4.3 Bloom’s Taxonomy ��������������������������������������������������������������   19 2.4.4 Constructive Alignment��������������������������������������������������������   20 2.4.5 Active vs Passive Learning ��������������������������������������������������   21 2.4.6 Zone of Proximal Development��������������������������������������������   21 2.4.7 Telling ≠ Teaching ≠ Learning��������������������������������������������   22 2.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23

3

 What Is Problematic with Police Education?����������������������������������������   25 3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 3.2 A Background to Police Recruit Education and Training����������������   25 3.2.1 Traditional Assumptions Influencing Police Education��������   27 3.2.2 Constructivist Approaches in Police Education��������������������   28 3.2.3 The Adverse Influence of Police Educators��������������������������   29 3.2.4 Lecture as the Dominant Method in Police Education ��������   31 3.3 Is the Lecture Method a Signature Pedagogy? ��������������������������������   32 3.3.1 Structure of Lecture Method������������������������������������������������   32 3.3.2 Characteristics of Lecture Method����������������������������������������   34 xi

xii

Contents

3.3.3 Does Lecture Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?����������������������������������������������������������   35 3.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   36 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   36 4

Scenario-Based Learning������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 4.2 Differentiating SBL and Other Signature Pedagogies����������������������   39 4.3 The SBL Lesson Model��������������������������������������������������������������������   41 4.4 SBL Topic Examples������������������������������������������������������������������������   42 4.5 Evaluation of SBL as a Signature Pedagogy������������������������������������   44 4.5.1 Surface Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   44 4.5.2 Deep Structure����������������������������������������������������������������������   45 4.5.3 Implicit Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   46 4.5.4 Pervasive and Routine����������������������������������������������������������   47 4.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance ������������������������������   48 4.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere������������������������������������   48 4.6 Does SBL Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?����������������������������������������������������������������������   49 4.6.1 SBL 1: Constructing a Fact Sheet����������������������������������������   49 4.6.2 SBL 2: Use of Police Discretion������������������������������������������   50 4.6.3 SBL3: Drug Possession Alternatives������������������������������������   50 4.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   52

5

Problem-Based Learning������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 5.2 Defining PBL������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 5.3 PBL Process and Lesson Model ������������������������������������������������������   54 5.4 PBL Topic Example��������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 5.5 Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy������������������������������������   57 5.5.1 Surface Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   57 5.5.2 Deep Structure����������������������������������������������������������������������   60 5.5.3 Implicit Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   61 5.5.4 Pervasive and Routine����������������������������������������������������������   62 5.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance ������������������������������   63 5.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere������������������������������������   64 5.6 Does PBL Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?����������������������������������������������������������������������   64 5.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   65 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   66

6

Simulation Training ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 6.2 Defining ST��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 6.3 ST Structure��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   71

Contents

xiii

6.4 ST Topic Examples ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   71 6.5 Evaluation of ST as a Signature Pedagogy ��������������������������������������   73 6.5.1 Surface Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   73 6.5.2 Deep Structure����������������������������������������������������������������������   74 6.5.3 Implicit Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   76 6.5.4 Pervasive and Routine����������������������������������������������������������   77 6.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance ������������������������������   77 6.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere������������������������������������   78 6.6 Does ST Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?����������������������������������������������������������������������   78 6.6.1 ST 1: Failure to Quit Licensed Premises������������������������������   79 6.6.2 ST 2: Domestic Violence Incident����������������������������������������   80 6.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81 7

Field Training ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 7.2 Defining FT��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 7.3 FT Model for Learning ��������������������������������������������������������������������   84 7.4 FT Task Example������������������������������������������������������������������������������   86 7.5 Evaluation of FT as a Signature Pedagogy ��������������������������������������   86 7.5.1 Surface Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   86 7.5.2 Deep Structure����������������������������������������������������������������������   88 7.5.3 Implicit Structure������������������������������������������������������������������   90 7.5.4 Pervasive and Routine����������������������������������������������������������   91 7.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance ������������������������������   92 7.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere������������������������������������   93 7.6 Does FT Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?����������������������������������������������������������������������   93 7.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   94 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95

8

 Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum ����������   97 8.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 8.2 Building a Bridge Between Theory and Practice������������������������������   97 8.3 Academy Curriculum Structure��������������������������������������������������������   99 8.3.1 Length of Program����������������������������������������������������������������   99 8.3.2 Rationale for a Two-Phase Structure������������������������������������  100 8.3.3 Foundational Subjects’ Structure������������������������������������������  102 8.4 Experiential Cycle/Integrated Module Structure������������������������������  103 8.5 FT Role in a Continuous Curriculum Structure��������������������������������  106 8.6 Assessment and Learning Backwash������������������������������������������������  107 8.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  110 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  110

xiv

9

Contents

Conclusions and Recommendations������������������������������������������������������  113 9.1 The Road So Far ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 9.2 The Road Ahead��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 9.3 Recommendations����������������������������������������������������������������������������  116 9.4 Final Thoughts����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  118 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Signature pedagogy framework��������������������������������������������������������   10 Fig. 2.2 Hierarchy of teaching approaches�����������������������������������������������������   14 Fig. 2.3 Relationship between teacher- and learner-centred approaches�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 Fig. 2.4 Simplified surface, deep and transfer learning model�����������������������   18 Fig. 2.5 Staged representation of Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development������������������������������������������������������������������   22 Fig. 2.6 Telling ≠ Teaching ≠ Learning����������������������������������������������������������   23 Fig. 3.1 Police educators’ ways of experiencing teaching�����������������������������   30 Fig. 4.1 SBL lesson structure�������������������������������������������������������������������������   42 Fig. 5.1 PBL process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   55 Fig. 5.2 Police PBL lesson model������������������������������������������������������������������   56 Fig. 6.1 ST structural model���������������������������������������������������������������������������   72 Fig. 7.1 FT learning process modified from cognitive apprentice model�������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85 Fig. 8.1 Building a bridge from theory to practice across academy and field phases������������������������������������������������������������������   98 Fig. 8.2 Academy curriculum structure����������������������������������������������������������  100 Fig. 8.3 Inner structure of experiential cycle��������������������������������������������������  103

xv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) applied to a policing context�����������������������������������������������������������������������   19 Table 2.2 Example of constructive alignment������������������������������������������������   20 Table 4.1 Comparison and distinction of signature police pedagogy types�������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40 Table 6.1 Elements of situated learning���������������������������������������������������������   75 Table 6.2 Integration of topics in ST as represented by the POLICE mnemonic�������������������������������������������������������������   80 Table 8.1 Comparison of summative assessment examples in policing curriculum��������������������������������������������������������������������  108

xvii

About the Author

Brett  Shipton is a police educator and academic, who lives in Crookwell or Gundangurra country as described by First Nations Peoples. Prior to his academic career, Brett worked as a police officer in general and highway patrol duties. He also spent time as a police educator in uniform, an education officer in corrections and as a college teacher. During the past 16 years as an academic, he has taught face-toface, online and distance modes of learning and teaching, along with key roles in learning and assessment design and management within police academies. During this time, Brett has regularly published his scholarly work in relation to police education, including his PhD, which examined the teaching and teaching development experiences of police educators from across five Australian police academies. Brett currently designs and delivers criminal justice and policing subjects in an undergraduate program and supervises doctoral students in policing research. He plans to conduct further research in the area of policing and police education.

xix

Abbreviations

EI FT FTO PBL PERF PTO SBL ST ZCD ZPD

Emotional intelligence Field training Field training officer Problem-based learning Police executive research forum Police training officer Scenario-based learning Simulation training Zone of current development Zone of proximal development

xxi

Chapter 1

The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. Nelson Mandela (1990)

1.1 Introduction The profession1 of policing has been subjected to significant critical attention and particularly so in recent years as the most fundamental aspects of policing are questioned in light of human rights breaches, public dissatisfaction and questions around the policing role. These growing criticisms occur within a global context as policing becomes increasingly complex and challenging, with variables such as technology and organised crime providing new challenges. All the whilst, scrutiny of police by internal measures and sousveillance increase avenues of accountability and throw further light on a traditionally insular profession. These trends highlight a need for reform to traditional policing practices and attitudes, with the education and training of police recruits being viewed as a key element of change within this context. Historical criticisms of police education highlight outdated and authority-driven approaches to teaching that have been highly resistant to change. This book aims to inform contemporary learner-centred practices within police recruit programs, which have been long dominated by outdated teacher-centred approaches. This evidence-­based discussion identifies four learning methods currently underutilised in policing and evaluates their potential as signature pedagogies. A key demand of policing organisations in recent decades has been to expand their fundamental work role from one that is overly reactive and based solely on police initiatives to one that is more proactive in addressing community needs through consultation, problem-solving and partnerships. Addressing this challenge is part of the promise of community policing, which although advocated and superficially applied by police organisations across the globe, has yet to be fully embraced  It should also be noted that whilst there is a contemporary debate about whether policing should be strictly considered a profession, most academics agree policing is essentially a profession, with the building of a relevant body of knowledge and substantive education programs an ongoing development (Lumsden, 2017). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_1

1

2

1  The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies

or consistently applied (Prenzler & Sarre, 2021). Rising to this challenge and responding to broader criticisms require addressing ineffective traditional policing practices and encouraging more effective collaboration and problem-solving skills to interact with communities (Peak & Glensor, 2008). However, this evolution of policing has been hindered by a reluctant police subculture and defensive management structures that often resists change. Police education2 for new recruits can be viewed as a microcosm of the general challenges around reform in policing. Like policing generally, police education has been slow to modify traditional practices and adopt evidence-based strategies (Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), 2022). Reviews of police education have consistently criticised an overemphasis on teacher-centred approaches, which focus on knowledge transmission at the expense of active learning and problem-­ solving skills (Belur et al., 2020). This reluctance to embrace change is hindered by a subculture at all organisational levels that clings to traditional and authority-based teaching approaches and eschews practices more reflective of contemporary adult education (Blumberg et al., 2019). In spite of this resistance to change, reform to police education is fundamental in underpinning broader changes within policing (PERF, 2022; Blumberg et al., 2019). Improvements to the preparation of police recruits has time and again been highlighted as a central aspect of encouraging community policing, developing new ways of reducing crime and providing recruits with the resiliency to cope in a dynamic and changing environment (Birch et al., 2020). The inclusion of more substantive content into recruit preparation programs can assist in improving the community policing focus, but there is also a crucial need to change how we deliver these programs. Essentially, change requires a reduced emphasis upon traditional police academy and field teaching methods and the acceptance of learning processes that align more effectively with the needs of community policing and professional practice demanded by communities (Cleveland & Saville, 2007). This challenge is not to be underestimated given the internal cultural inertia already described and the reality of police organisations’ overwhelming focus on operational matters in comparison to what is viewed as the peripheral function of educating and training recruits. In light of this need for reform, the purpose of this book is to inform positive change in police education by examining its current learning and teaching approaches through the lens of Shulman’s (2005) framework of signature pedagogies in the professions. Shulman and his team of researchers undertook extensive studies of how certain professions prepared their students for professional practice. Through this process, researchers established, ‘… characteristic forms of teaching and learning …’ that informed how students should ‘… think, perform and act with  From this point, the term police education will be used in reference to all education, training and development activities for police recruits but with a specific focus on academy and field training programs for recruits. In reality, police academy programs do more than simply train students, as they also provide education around a range of key concepts that provide a basis for longer-term practice and development. 2

1.1 Introduction

3

integrity’ in their new professional roles (Shulman, 2005, p. 52, emphasis in original quote). Shulman (ibid.) believed that understanding how professions prepare students for practice can provide critical insights into the broader development of the profession and its culture. Since this initial research, these dimensions and their structures have been applied to a range of professions; however, there has yet been no specific application in the field of policing, which opens an opportunity to discuss and debate the proposed signature pedagogies described in this book. Whilst there has been considerable academic discussion of how police recruits should be prepared for their new role, much of this work has centred on the inclusion of higher degrees or the specific content of education and training programs, with limited discussion around how these programs should be delivered. There has also been a significant focus on the use of force (UOF) training, mainly due to its high public profile around controversial UOF incidents. A small subset of authors who have critically examined learning and teaching methods across academy programs have highlighted various shortcomings of the dominant lecture method and advocate the adoption of evidence-based learner-centred methods as a way forward to improve policing practice (Belur et al., 2020; Blumberg et al., 2019). However, whilst these discussions of methods have certainly identified what is problematic with educational practice, there have been limited examples of their application within this context or how they might coalesce as part of a functional curriculum. Importantly, this book considers both academy and field training programs for recruits, where differing aspects of socialisation into their new profession take place. Utilising Shulman’s (2005) framework to critically examine the way we teach police recruits contributes to the evolution of pedagogical practice in policing because it asks us to consider the very essence of how certain teaching methods and techniques contribute to improved learning and ultimately professional practice. This framework is initially used to evaluate the dominant lecture method and consider the implications of what is problematic in the broader context of police education. Next, four proposed signature policing pedagogies of scenario-based learning, problem-based learning, simulation training and field training are evaluated against the framework, and their specific application within a policing context is discussed. This evaluation against Shulman’s (ibid.) framework allows academics, managers and police educators3 to consider how these pedagogies can contribute to more effective practices that can bridge the gap between theory and practice and thus assist the transition from academy to operational field. More specifically, this evaluation assists in illuminating facilitation processes, which are undefined and problematic for police educators with limited awareness of educational theory. Each of these signature pedagogies are then integrated into a broader curriculum structure in a way that maximises their strengths and limits potential weaknesses. In this respect, it is advocated that each pedagogy can be synergised, rather than identifying one single best pedagogy for all applications.

 The term police educators is inclusive of both police and non-police teaching and training staff located in police academies and in field training and education roles.

3

4

1  The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies

Whilst this book is evidence-based and written broadly in an academic format, it also makes occasional reference to my personal experiences as a police officer and educator over the past 37 years with a range of organisations. These experiences allow me to provide context and background; however, they will not identify specific locations or organisations, as the problematic practices and false assumptions described are almost certainly repeated across police academies and jurisdictions globally. A similar point can be made for the research conducted in this field. Whilst most police education research is United States centric, the problematic issues identified there are replicated globally.

1.2 Organisation of Book Chapter 2 begins with a detailed outline of Shulman’s (2005) framework of signature pedagogies that are applied to specific learning methods for clarity. The framework’s dimensions, structure and characteristics are discussed in light of contextual examples from both Shulman’s (ibid.) research and the police education sphere. This chapter also outlines some key educational concepts that are essential to understanding what is problematic in police education. These concepts also provide a foundation for police educators to further expand their awareness of contemporary educational practice and maximise their application of signature police pedagogies. Chapter 3 outlines what is problematic in police education, beginning with a background of police education and historical criticisms of its traditional approaches. This discussion includes an examination of the underlying behaviourist assumptions in traditional police academy programs and the limited awareness of learner-­ centred methods by police educators as key impediments to change. More specifically, the dominant lecture method in policing is examined against the signature pedagogy framework, with its shortcomings being contrasted with the requirements for effective policing practice. Chapter 4 explores the proposed signature pedagogy of scenario-based learning (SBL). It initially defines what SBL is within a policing context, particularly given its broad definition that may, at face value, encompass key aspects of the other signature pedagogies discussed in this book. SBL has a long history of use in police education, although often in an informal and sometimes dysfunctional way via what are termed war stories. Regardless, the use of scenarios has increased over time, although not always in a way that can be described as being a signature pedagogy as discussed in the evaluation against Shulman’s (2005) framework. The second part of this chapter outlines specific applications of SBL in a policing context, discussing effective learning design and facilitation to promote student understanding and the application of knowledge to policing situations. Chapter 5 examines the proposed signature pedagogy of problem-based learning (PBL). As with SBL, this chapter defines what PBL is and how it differentiates from

1.2  Organisation of Book

5

other signature pedagogies. PBL has a shorter history and is the least widespread of the signature pedagogies under evaluation; however, its relatively high profile is highlighted as part of the need to improve police problem-solving skills. In particular, there is a discussion of how PBL assists police students’ critical thinking processes, from the most basic of tasks to problem-solving of complex policing issues. Discussion then turns to the application of PBL within a policing context to highlight its relevance as a signature pedagogy and provide insights for police educators to assist effective facilitation. Chapter 6 discusses the proposed signature pedagogy of simulation training (ST). This signature pedagogy is defined as something distinct from SBL and PBL, providing a real-time authentic learning experience within an academy setting. The use of ST in police academy programs has grown in recent decades; however, its potential has been limited by behaviourist learning assumptions that leave it underutilised. A proposed model of ST is evaluated against Shulman’s (2005) framework, with discussion of ways to assist police educators in designing and facilitating effective ST. Chapter 7 evaluates the proposed signature pedagogy of field training (FT). This signature pedagogy is distinct from the previous three as it is based in the operational field rather than a police academy. FT is the oldest police pedagogy, given its use before the advent of academy-based programs. Whilst FT is a logical and longstanding method for preparing policing students, historically, there are a range of issues that have made its implementation problematic. A proposed model of FT centred on cognitive apprenticeship theory is evaluated in relation to Shulman’s (2005) framework. The evaluation discusses how the proposed model builds on current practices to enhance a range of problem-solving skills and improve student resiliency within their challenging early months as police officers. Chapter 8 synthesises each of the four signature police pedagogies into a proposed recruit education program. Rather than attempting to consider which of the signature pedagogies is the most appropriate or comparing them to each other, the discussion highlights how each of these methods can complement each other in a dynamic program that promotes active learning and encourages students to think, perform and act with integrity as part of building a bridge between theory and practice. Whilst Shulman’s framework is not specifically meant for application to a broader curriculum, its principles continue to guide the discussion within this chapter. The final part of this chapter discusses the important role of assessment, particularly in relation to constructive alignment across a curriculum to support the proposed signature pedagogies. Chapter 9 summarises the salient evaluation outcomes and outlines considerations for decision-makers attempting to reform policing programs and for police educators striving to expand their awareness of evidence-based teaching practices. These considerations are then distilled into four key recommendations as a platform for implementing the signature police pedagogies described in this book.

6

1  The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies

1.3 Key Definitions Whilst the definitions of each signature pedagogy and related terms are elaborated within the relevant chapters, a range of key educational terms are initially defined below to assist understanding and give context. Active Learning Active learning refers to students being cognitively active and using higher-order thinking skills, e.g., analysing or applying knowledge to practice-based activities. Being active is opposed to being passive, where students are simply listening or taking superficial notes. Facilitation This is where a teacher guides students’ thinking during a learning activity. The teacher or facilitator should initially evaluate student’s progress before providing only enough support through a range of techniques to engage students’ active thinking around the task to achieve their learning outcomes. Hidden Curriculum Hidden curriculum describes implicit academic, social and cultural messages that are communicated to students as opposed to learning objectives, content and assessment outlined in the formal curriculum (Sambell & McDowell, 1998). These messages may have the effect of undermining the formal curriculum and reinforcing negative cultural values. Learner-Centred Education Learner-centred education is the use of educational methods that shift the focus of learning activity from the teacher to the student(s). On a superficial level, this can be seen through support and encouragement of learners, but on a deeper level, it encourages a specific focus on active learning. Learning Method Learning method or simply method is a broad teaching strategy with defined principles and techniques used to encourage student learning. The terms method and pedagogy are often used interchangeably, but method is more strictly used in reference to the practice of teaching, where pedagogy is used more in reference to the study or theory of teaching methods. Pedagogy Originally, this term was used as a reference to the teaching of children, as opposed to the term andragogy, which referred to the teaching of adults. Nowadays, pedagogy is generally used as a reference to all forms of teaching, particularly when referring to academic subjects on teaching or as a theoretical concept, which is the context in which Shulman (2005) uses this term. Teacher-Centred Education This term is representative of a more traditional teaching approach, where the teacher has near or full control of activity in the classroom, which often relates to

References

7

the transmission of information to students via a lecture method. However, it is accepted that even in a learner-centred environment, there are times when a teacher requires control of the classroom at certain stages of a learning activity. Scaffolding and Zone of Proximal Development Scaffolding is a term that originated through the work of Vygotsky (1978) as a metaphor to describe the guidance a facilitator uses to support students’ higher-level thinking in relation to a learning task. This term is often used in conjunction with the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), where students are sufficiently challenged just beyond their current stage of development to maximise learning. Signature Pedagogy Characteristic forms of teaching are used by certain professions to prepare their students for practice (Shulman, 2005). These types of teaching may be distinctive to a given profession or may simply be the adaption of widely used methods. For example, simulation training is a widely used method adapted into police education. War Stories War stories is the use of policing incidents by police educators, most often from their direct experience, as a teaching tool. Whilst in many instances, the use of war stories can be beneficial for learning by demonstrating the application of knowledge, it can also negatively convey dysfunctional cultural messages that are part of a hidden curriculum.

References Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Birch, P., Kennedy, M., & Kruger, E. (Eds.). (2020). Australian policing: Critical issues in 21st century police practice. Routledge. Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., & Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4941. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Lumsden, K. (2017). ‘It’s a profession, it isn’t a job’: Police officers’ views on the professionalisation of policing in England. Sociological Research Online, 22(3), 4–20. Mandela, N. (1990). Speech, Madison Park High School, Boston, MA, 23 June 1990; reported in various forms. Peak, K. J., & Glensor, R. W. (2008). Community policing and problem solving: Strategies and practices (6th ed.). Pearson. Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum. Prenzler, T. & Sarre, R. (2021). Community safety, crime prevention, and 21st century policing. Australian Policing: Critical Issues in 21st Century Police Practice, 17, 283–297.

8

1  The Need for Change in Policing and the Promise of Signature Pedagogies

Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 391–402. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 2

Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

The correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting. Plutarch (1927)

2.1 Introduction This chapter begins with an overview of the signature pedagogy framework that will underpin the evaluation of four proposed signature police pedagogies. To assist in contextualising the framework, examples from both Shulman’s (2005) research and policing are used. The framework itself highlights dimensions, structures and distinctive characteristics that require clarification prior to examining learning and teaching practices through this lens. The second part of this chapter continues to lay the educational foundation of this book by discussing several key learning and teaching concepts, allowing insights into what is problematic in police education and providing important theoretical perspectives around the application of signature pedagogies. An understanding of these concepts is also crucial for police educators in expanding their awareness of effective learner-centred practice beyond a limited teacher-centred approach.

2.2 Signature Pedagogies in the Professions Around 20  years ago, Lee Shulman led a team of researchers via the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to investigate the forms of teaching that characterise preparation for professional practice. Whilst these studies examined both professional and theory-based fields, Shulman (2005) interestingly noted that professions were more likely to develop unique and interesting pedagogies due to the demands of those professions. It is these characteristic forms of teaching that Shulman came to call signature pedagogies, as he saw them as being critical, ‘… in shaping the character of future practice and in symbolising the values and hopes of the professions’ (2005, p.  53). This objective is particularly relevant to policing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_2

9

10

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

given the contemporary challenges it faces. Any attempt to reform and improve how police approach their role should begin with challenging how to initially prepare police recruits. Shulman (ibid.) refers to these preparation programs as professions’ nurseries, and understanding them tells us much about professions and their culture. Therefore, understanding the nursery of policing and identifying its signature pedagogies is a logical starting point in any change process. As a reminder, the three fundamental dimensions of a signature pedagogy for professional work are ‘… to think, to perform and to act with integrity’ (2005, p. 52). Importantly, Shulman (ibid.) notes these dimensions are not always considered or addressed equally across the professions, which will become evident in relation to policing. For example, he highlights how medical schools often place a strong emphasis on how their students should perform but place less emphasis on how they should act with integrity, particularly in relation to caring for patients. In contrast, he describes the strong focus in legal education on helping students to think like a lawyer but with limited focus on how they should perform in practice. Looking deeper into the signature pedagogy framework, in addition to the three fundamental dimensions, there is both a layered structure of three elements and three common features or characteristics. The total framework can be seen in Fig. 2.1. Turning first to the dimensions outlined in Fig. 2.1, these are the fundamental measures of any signature pedagogy and reflect the basic objectives of a

Signature pedagogy dimensions: To think, to perform and to act with integrity

Signature pedagogy structure: Surface structure – concrete acts of teaching & learning

Signature pedagogy distinctive characteristics:

Deep structure – assumptions about learning a body of knowledge and skills for practice

Pervasive & routine

Implicit structure – a moral dimension about professional attitudes/ethics

Entails a public student performance Creates an atmosphere of risk taking

Fig. 2.1  Signature pedagogy framework. (Adapted from Shulman (2005), permission to reprint obtained from MIT Press)

2.2  Signature Pedagogies in the Professions

11

professions’ learning program. In considering how this framework would relate to a policing context, the term think would encompass various cognitive processes police engage with on an everyday basis. In their practice, police need to constantly problem-­solve on a variety of levels from the most mundane jobs, to more highly complex crimes, problems and community issues. For example, they may need to apply decision-making or risk management and engage investigative skills such as cognitive interviewing. In relation to perform, this is a reference to a wide range of knowledge and skills that must be applied within a varied work context, which in policing can range from station duties, patrol duties, court processes and community engagement. A key consideration in encouraging police students to perform is the transfer of learning from academic settings to the real-world application of knowledge and skills. In relation to the aspect of act with integrity, Shulman (2005) takes a broader interpretation of this word than what might be sometimes applied in the context of policing in terms of ethical practice. When applied here, integrity additionally means reference to professional practices, which are often represented in policing codes of conduct and may include attributes such as effective communication, reasonable use of force, fairness, diligence and respect. The next part of the framework in Fig. 2.1 is the three structural aspects, which help differentiate signature pedagogies. The surface structure is most obvious, but interestingly teachers are not always aware of deep and implied structures within teaching methods generally. The level of surface structure represents obvious or concrete teaching acts. For example, a teacher may provide a class with a written scenario before breaking students into groups and providing instructions to guide them through a task. There might then be further acts around facilitating discussion and leading groups through a summary of answers from the task. Also explicit in this exercise would be reference to subject content highlighted by the teacher. Shulman (2005) uses the example of the case-dialogue method from legal education, with the surface structure being represented by a teacher-led question and answer process that is randomly directed to individual students within the classroom. The next level of deep structure is not as explicit as surface structure because it is based on a range of assumptions about how to learn and use a body of knowledge. In policing at least, these assumptions are often not made obvious. For example, with the use of simulated role plays, the underlying teaching assumption is that students are learning by doing the basic steps of an everyday job, which is essentially transferring theory to practice through experiential learning; however, this educational reasoning is rarely spelt out, which can limit its effectiveness. Returning to the previous example of the legal case-dialogue method, Shulman (2005) describes the underlying teaching assumption of students needing to learn the theory of law by experientially applying this theory under public pressure, which is a demanding and active process that drives the construction of functional knowledge. For the purpose of this book, discussion of the deep structure will explicitly synthesise relevant educational theories, some of which are highlighted later in this chapter. The third level or implicit structure of a signature pedagogy represents, ‘… beliefs about professional attitudes, values and dispositions’ (Shulman, 2005, p. 55). Being labelled implicit highlights how certain assumptions are not written into a

12

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

formal curriculum but are transferred by teachers based on their experience or opinion, which is often shaped by culture. Shulman (ibid.) gives the example of legal educators reminding their students that legal judgements are not about what is fair or moral but what is legally correct. This hard-nosed approach to the law is in turn reflected in the uncompromising adversarial approach used within the case-dialogue method. In a policing context, whilst undertaking field training, policing students are often told in slang to ‘cover their arse’ in terms of ensuring all appropriate procedures are recorded so they reflect proper practice, even if the practice did not exactly unfold that way. This approach is reflective of a paranoid attitude or belief within an insular policing culture. Whilst the formal curriculum may state the importance of proper record keeping and accountability, the implicit structure provides a darker or more cynical view that may be re-enforced by a field training officer. This example represents the hidden curriculum in police education (Belur et al., 2020), which is a term acknowledged by Shulman (2005) as being linked to the implicit structure. The third part of the framework details three distinctive characteristics that are common to signature pedagogies. Shulman states these features may explain the success of certain teaching methods over time, ‘… because they facilitate student learning of professionally valued understandings, skills, and dispositions’ (2005, p. 56). The first of these characteristics is their ability to be pervasive and routine. Being pervasive is a reference to the flexible use of a method across a range of topic areas and courses. In relation to police education for recruits, as is the focus of this book, it is a reference to police academy and field training programs, which incorporates a wide variety of topics. In terms of routine, each signature pedagogy has a routine or process that is clear and can be repeated without teachers and students having to constantly revisit to explain that mechanism. Essentially, the routine is a tool and learning scaffold that can be readily applied to new and increasingly complex learning situations as a program progresses. An example of such a routine in police education is the PBL problem-solving process, which is applied to a range of policing problems or situations, with students readily adapting to and repeating the process over time. In this context, the PBL process is pervasive as it is readily adaptable to a full range of contexts, and routine as once familiarised by teachers and learners, it can be used regularly. The next distinctive characteristic of a signature pedagogy is a public student performance. Shulman emphasises the importance of this performance in making students active in their thinking and interactive with peers, overcoming the impediment of student, ‘… passivity, invisibility, anonymity and lack of accountability’ (2005, p. 57). The legal case-dialogue method is an example where any student may be called upon to participate in a classroom engagement in front of their peers. In police education, the need for students to engage in this kind of public activity is obvious, particularly given the real-world demands for police to engage with peers, with members of the public, and in procedural situations such as court. As such, it is vital that teaching situations in police education provide opportunities for students to participate in public performances that require them to explain, evaluate and justify policing concepts that are reflective of the best practice.

2.3  An Educational Hierarchy Defining Theory and Practice

13

The third distinctive characteristic of creates an atmosphere of risk taking stems from the public performance characteristic but can also be a consequence of any student group decisions within learning activities. Shulman suggests the uncertainty and accountability of learning situations with and in front of peers and teachers can create an emotional response, which should be acknowledged and managed within the students’ zone of proximal development (ZPD) to achieve effective learning rather than, ‘… paralysing the participants with terror’ (2005, p. 57). In policing, creating this atmosphere of risk taking is an important preparation in developing students’ professional practice given the high level of delegated decision-making police make in their everyday jobs, particularly around the use of powers that place limitations on citizens’ rights. Importantly, any risk or stress placed on students should be valid in terms of their future professional practice and not used as an opportunity to place unnecessary stress on students that may reduce the effectiveness of learning (Cleveland & Saville, 2007; PERF, 2022).

2.3 An Educational Hierarchy Defining Theory and Practice To further underpin the use of this framework as an evaluative tool, a range of other educational concepts require elaboration to understand why some learning methods in police education are not used to their full potential. Examining these educational concepts also provides police educators with an important rationale that justifies and explains their use. First, it is important to provide some perspective and clarification around the differences between theoretical and practice-based terms. Figure 2.2 displays a hierarchy of educational terms relevant to this book and educational practice generally. These terms are structured in levels that move from the more abstract or theoretical and descend to the more concrete and specific. This hierarchy or framework is inspired by a similar structure of organising research approaches developed by Crotty1 (1998). The labels and their positionings within this hierarchy could certainly be subject to debate and are not meant to be prescriptive or definitive, as they are applied within the context of this book and that of police education more generally. Each list in the lowest three levels is not exhaustive, and additionally some of those techniques mentioned could also be considered as a method in a given context. Importantly, this hierarchy assists police educators in understanding the underlying philosophy and theories that inform their teaching method(s) and how specific learning and teaching techniques support broader methods. The first level of Fig. 2.2, discussed in further detail in the next chapter, highlights underlying philosophies or assumptions about how humans learn. Constructivism is the fundamental philosophy that underpins educational theory,

 Crotty’s framework allows researchers to use the more abstract perspectives and theories to rationalise and justify their chosen methodology and specific research methods. 1

14

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

Learning &Teaching Philosophy Constructivism

Learning &Teaching Theories Experiential learning, situated learning, critical pedagogy, adult learning, sociocultural theory (including the ZPD) & cognitive apprenticeships

Learning &Teaching Methods Problem-based learning (PBL), scenario-based learning (SBL), simulation training (ST) & field training (FT)

Learning & Teaching Techniques Cooperative learning (group work), facilitation, case analysis, problem solving, online study guides, self-directed learning, reflective practice, debriefing, lecturing, direct instruction, digital presentations, digital scenarios, simulation programs, role plays and workplace learning (including modelling & coaching). Fig. 2.2  Hierarchy of teaching approaches

building upon the preceding philosophies of behaviourism and cognitivism. Fundamentally, constructivism rejects the notion of learning as passively absorbing information; rather, it describes learning as a social process of constructing learning, particularly as we reflect on our experiences and interpret them based on existing understandings (Palinscar, 1998; Mergel, 1998; Kolb & Kolb, 2018). Constructivism was derived from a range of scholars, including Piaget (Palinscar, 1998), Dewey (2007) and Vygotsky (1978) who highlighted the social nature of learning. Constructivism suggests a very different learning environment and teaching role than proposed by a behaviourist philosophy that has dominated traditional police academy programs (Birzer, 2003; White, 2006; Cox, 2011).

2.3  An Educational Hierarchy Defining Theory and Practice

15

Constructivism has underpinned both the development of a range of learning theories that have been applied to both child and adult education. Some of the more prominent identified in the second level of Fig. 2.2 are as follows: adult learning (Knowles, 1973), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and the sociocultural theory and ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). Each of these theories places the learner and their needs at the centre of a learning situation and encourages them to be active and increasingly self-directed in this process whilst being guided by peers and a teacher who acts mostly as a ‘guide on the side’ rather than limiting themselves to only being a ‘sage on the stage’ (King, 1993, p. 30). It is important for police educators to understand at least some of the key learning theories that underpin and justify the educational methods and techniques they use; just as policing students need to understand the laws that underpin and justify their use of arrest or search powers on the street. These theories are not necessarily distinctive from each other, and to help understand this concept, the metaphor of a house is used to represent the practice of learning and teaching. In this metaphor, each of the theories mentioned above are a window into the house, with each theory providing a distinctive perspective or view of learning and teaching. For example, experiential learning has a focus on learning and reflecting on authentic experiences, whilst situated learning has a focus on an individual’s learning within a community of practice. Each concept is relevant in different ways to educational practice, and understanding them assists police educators in effectively utilising signature pedagogies. In relation to learning theories, there is one aspect of Knowles (1973) theory of adult learning that should be clarified within the context of educational theory in policing. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant use of the term andragogy and its theory of adult learning as the prime theory in police education literature. As such, andragogy was made distinct from the term pedagogy, which was described as representing the theory of teaching children. Increasingly though, there are arguments this distinction is a false dichotomy (Holmes & Abington-­ Cooper, 2000; Davenport & Davenport, 1985). The key argument for this assertion is that learning for children and adults is not as fundamentally different as first suggested by Knowles (1973), which was later acknowledged by Knowles himself when he stated: I am at the point now of seeing that andragogy is simply another model of assumptions about learners to be used alongside the pedagogical model of assumptions … the models are probably most useful when seen not as dichotomous but rather as two ends of a spectrum, with a realistic assumption in a given situation falling in between the two ends. (1980, p. 43)

Additionally, when Knowles initially described pedagogy, it was a reference to traditional pedagogy or what is now understood as teacher-centred approaches. In school classrooms today, there is a widespread use of learner-centred methods, similar to those linked to andragogy, because they work for both adults and children if the teacher appropriately applies and scaffolds the method depending on the learners’ abilities, life experience and the relevant context (Biggs et  al., 2022). For

16

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

example, the approach to teaching police recruits, mostly aged in their early 20s, would be very similar to teaching students in their last years of high school, whilst the context for kindergarten children would be less similar. In contemporary educational literature, pedagogy references the theoretical aspects or study of teaching methods across all forms of child and adult education, as evident in the use of the term for the title of this book and by a range of other adult education scholars (e.g., Shulman, 2005; Freire, 1970). The term andragogy has become less widespread, whilst the terms adult education and adult learning are now used more as a reference to applying learner-centred methods to the varied contexts in which adults learn, rather than suggesting fundamental differences between adult and child learning. However, it is important to note adult learning principles and methods described under the heading of andragogy in policing by authors such as Birzer (2003) and Vodde (2008) are still entirely relevant and appropriate, even with the term’s relevance being questioned. What remains is that in any formal learning situation, the teacher can apply learner-centred methods in consideration of the context and learner readiness. Therefore, rather than drawing an artificial divide between adult and child learning, Knowles theory can be considered as just one of a number of theories informing police education. The bottom two levels of Fig. 2.2 highlight the more concrete applications of learning and teaching theory. The methods in level 3 are the four proposed signature pedagogies evaluated in detail within their own chapters of this book. Importantly, the application of each resting on different combinations of the techniques is described in level 4. Defining and detailing the use of these techniques in Chaps. 4, 5, 6, and 7 can assist police educators in further understanding their role in facilitating learning at specific stages of the process.

2.4 Educational Concepts My experience has highlighted problems with police educators’ understanding and use of key educational concepts, often due to the limited teaching development they receive. The focus in this section is on defining key concepts that can rationalise and inform the effective use of signature pedagogies outlined in this book. However, limited or partial awareness of these concepts can also result in poor application or even complete rejection of learner-centred approaches. I have often seen police educators complain about educational definitions or jargon, without then making the effort to understand the meaning of these terms. If their own police students displayed such an attitude towards the meanings of policing definitions and jargon, they would be rightly aghast and disappointed with them. A basic awareness of the following concepts therefore allows for a starting point in teaching development for police educators, particularly in relation to why they should teach in certain ways and to assist in maximising learning from these methods.

2.4  Educational Concepts

17

2.4.1 Teacher-Centred vs Learner-Centred Approaches Perhaps the most fundamental concept and a good starting point for understanding the variation in police educators’ teaching practices is the continuum of teacher- and learner-centred practice. Essentially, being teacher-centred is a reference to a teacher being the central focus of attention in the classroom, maintaining control over discussion and often delivering information in one-way transmission to students (Ramsden, 2003; Kember, 1997). In contrast, being learner-centred means facilitating students in higher-order thinking around concepts and professional practice, particularly via discussions among peers and teachers (Ramsden, 2003; Kember, 1997). However, it is not always helpful to consider these approaches as being diametrically opposed; rather, being teacher-centred can be seen as a subset of being leaner-centred as highlighted in Fig. 2.3. In this respect, during a learning activity, a teacher moves between these two approaches, as indicated by the arrow. In almost any form of learner-centred practice, the teacher will need to have some control to direct activity, perhaps to give instruction on an upcoming activity, to guide reflection or to clarify a key learning point. As such, being teacher-centred means more than just lecturing content. Thus, even for the most learner-centred teacher or method, there are times teacher-centred actions are necessary. However, the problem within police education is that many teachers are overly or even exclusively teacher-centred, usually due to their conception that teaching is about knowledge transmission. The key to effective teaching is therefore awareness of movement between these approaches, with the goal being the development of students’ learning skills so they can be a functional and independent learner.

2.4.2 Surface, Deep and Transfer Learning The concept of surface and deep learning by students was developed over a range of studies from the mid-1970s that examined variation in approaches to learning (Biggs et al., 2022; Trigwell et al., 1999). Biggs (1999) described a surface learner as someone who resorts to the memorisation of disjointed facts for later recall in assessment tasks, in the hope of just doing enough to pass. This approach was

Teacher-centred

Learner-centred

Fig. 2.3  Relationship between teacher- and learner-centred approaches

18

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

contrasted with a deep learner who looks for meanings in key concepts being taught, linking these concepts together and trying to problem-solve and apply this knowledge to new situations. This idea is not suggesting surface learning is necessarily bad, as it is often an important first step in progressing to deeper learning and establishing foundational knowledge points. Biggs et al. (2022) encourage educators to support deeper learning, which is important for functional knowledge2 in professional settings. My own experience in police education aligns with this view, although the teaching and learning practices in academies tend to reinforce a surface approach, as will be discussed in the next chapter. Hattie and Donoghue (2016) have built on this concept by adding the step of transfer learning, with a simplified version of this refinement highlighted in Fig. 2.4. The original model from these authors is more detailed, including consolidation steps (ibid.), but a simplified version is adequate for further discussion in relation to signature police pedagogies. In this model, the idea of surface and deep learning remains the same but with the further step of transferring deeper learning to new contexts, which is particularly important for students preparing for professional practice such as policing. When students adhere to only or predominantly surface learning, much of their knowledge is simply declarative rather than functional, making it difficult to fully understand key concepts and transfer them to the workplace (Biggs et al., 2022). Ideally, an effective police education program should encourage deeper learning processes beyond initial surface learning approaches and provide activities for effective consolidation and transfer of learning.

Ideal direction of learning as program progresses

Surface Learning

Deep Learning

Transfer Learning

Fig. 2.4 Simplified surface, deep and transfer learning model. (Adapted from Hattie & Donoghue, 2016)

 A related concept from Biggs et  al. (2022) is that of declarative and functional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is simply being able to state information, for example, recalling a rote learnt power to search a person. Functional knowledge refers to using certain knowledge in a practical way. For example, having a deep enough understanding of the same search power to explain how it might be used or demonstrating its use in a practical situation. 2

2.4  Educational Concepts

19

2.4.3 Bloom’s Taxonomy Bloom’s Taxonomy is a well-known concept in education that was originally constructed by Benjamin Bloom and his team over 60  years ago and more recently updated by Krathwohl (2002). It is one of several taxonomies, another being Biggs (1999) SOLO taxonomy, but is perhaps the simplest and best known. It outlines a hierarchy of six learning outcomes that represent increasingly complex levels of thinking as outlined in Table 2.1. The cognitive domain levels begin at the basic level of remembering and extend through to the higher and more complex levels up to creating. The second column outlines a range of potential learning activities relevant to each level, whilst the third column provides a contextual example of how a student may approach the learning of a police search power within the confines of each level. When considering the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in a practical learning situation, it is important to understand its levels are an inclusive hierarchy, which means each higher level utilises and builds upon the lower levels. For example, the level of analysing in relation to learning about the police search power in Table 2.1 also makes use of application, understanding and remembering described in the lower levels. When teaching this concept to police educators, it is contextualised into policing to demonstrate how police use these levels of thinking in real-world practice.

Table 2.1  Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) applied to a policing context Cognitive domain Remembering

Learning activity examples Memorise, list, label, define, match, recall or recite Understanding Interpret, describe, provide examples, summarise or paraphrase Applying Demonstrate, illustrate, practice, utilise, implement or modify Analysing Categorise, compare, critique, explore relationships, differentiate or investigate Evaluating Assess, conclude, contrast, defend, justify, recommend or reflect Creating Construct, design, generate, plan, propose or synthesise

Example for learning a police search power Recite a section from legislation Explaining what the search power allows police to do in certain circumstances Demonstrating the practical use of power through words and/or actions Investigating a broad scenario before categorising and using information relevant to legal application of the search power Justifying the legal use of this search power under cross-examination in a mock court simulation Constructing a detailed scenario of a police search that demonstrates appropriate legal justification and police best practice in the conduct of searching

20

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

Bloom’s Taxonomy allows educational designers to set appropriate learning outcomes or objectives that in turn guide effective lesson planning and assessment tasks for both teachers and students. When designing a whole curriculum, it is also crucial to match these outcomes to the level or readiness of students. This idea is contrary to the practice in many police academies of maintaining the use of lecture method and surface learning, which inhibits their ability to consolidate and transfer their knowledge into the workplace.

2.4.4 Constructive Alignment The concept of constructive alignment, created by Biggs (1999), extends on the idea of Bloom’s Taxonomy by advocating the alignment of learning outcomes, teaching activities and assessment tasks to ensure learning meets the appropriate levels required for a subject or program, with teaching and assessment reinforcing each other. In Table 2.2, there is an ideal example of alignment one might expect around the midpoint of a police academy program. This task might require students to analyse a scenario activity to establish reasonable suspicion for a search, with this task being aligned with an exam question that would require a similar level of thinking. Biggs et al. (2022) explain that when parts of this model do not properly align, lower-order outcomes can be expected. Even when outcomes and teaching activities are aligned but assessment tasks are lower order, this can strongly influence student learning approaches to achieve what is required to achieve the bare minimum for assessment tasks. For example, as is often the case in police education, setting exams relying on multiple choice and simplistic recall questions will influence students to memorise lists and isolated content but with the downside that much of this information will not be retained and there will be limited deep and transfer learning crucial to professional practice.

Table 2.2  Example of constructive alignment LEARNING OUTCOME

TEACHING ACTIVITY

ASSESSMENT TASK

REMEMBERING UNDERSTANDING APPLYING ANALYSING EVALUATING CREATING

Drug possession SBL activity

Exam scenario question

2.4  Educational Concepts

21

2.4.5 Active vs Passive Learning Active learning is a reference to students being activity engaged in learning tasks to stimulate deeper and potentially transfer learning. More specifically, the term active is a reference to exhibiting higher-order levels of thinking (Biggs et al., 2022), particularly those levels beyond remembering as outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy. As such, it is important to understand that being active is not necessarily about being physically active in practical activities such as role plays or what police might colloquially refer to as ‘hands on’3 learning. Working through a role play or simulation task can indeed promote active learning; however, similar levels of active thinking can also be demonstrated in appropriate classroom or online activities. In contrast, passive learning is demonstrated by learning situations where students are not engaging in higher-order thinking processes, usually in situations where they are listening to a lecture or memorising information. Whilst students may have the opportunity to engage4 in active learning during a lecture on their own initiative, opportunities for this are discouraged due to the need to listen and take surface notes whilst keeping pace with the transmission of information.

2.4.6 Zone of Proximal Development The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is one of several theoretical concepts developed by Vygotsky to inform learning and teaching practice (Loftus & Higgs, 2005). The ZPD is chosen here because it provides a very specific and usable theory that underpins the teaching facilitation process that is crucial to fully exploiting signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005). The ZPD is the ideal space in learning that is ahead of current development levels or the zone of current development (ZCD) but not so difficult or complex that it is beyond their ZPD (see Fig. 2.5). Student learning activities within their ZCD are lecturing or repetitive tasks that are superficial in terms of memorisation and behavioural skills. Providing learning activities that are ahead of current development push students into their ZPD, making the learning situation potentially uncomfortable or challenging for students; however, it is here that deeper and more effective learning happens and is a common feature of signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005). To support students in the ZPD, teachers need to scaffold their learning via a range of techniques such as peer learning in cooperative groups, guided facilitation, assessment rubrics, metacognitive strategies and problem-solving frameworks. Across all these techniques, a student works with their peers and facilitator to make sense of concepts in advance of their  The term hands on is a broad colloquial term to described being involved or participating in something. Based on his research, McCoy (2006) suggests police educators often use this term in reference to active learning tasks because they are not aware of appropriate educational terms. 4  The implication is engaging in active learning. 3

22

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

Zone of current development

• A learning situation not assisting development as the student already possesses relevant knowledge and/or can complete task on their own.

Zone of proximal development

• An ideal learning situation where a student can engage in and problem solve with scaffolding from facilitator, peers and learning design.

Beyond ZPD

• The learning situation is too far beyond students' development level and/or pre requesit knowledge, even with scaffolding.

Fig. 2.5  Staged representation of Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development

development; otherwise they would struggle with on their own (Loftus & Higgs, 2005).

2.4.7 Telling ≠ Teaching ≠ Learning The final concept described is less of a formal educational concept and more of an idea or guidance described by an esteemed professor in my Master of Adult Education course (J.A. Athanasou, personal communication, March, 2002). Similar to what was outlined in Fig. 2.3 around teacher- and learner-centred practice and given more perspective in Fig. 2.6, telling, which may be giving direction to students or transmitting information via lectures, is only part of our total teaching practice. In turn, what teachers do in terms of their teaching is only part of what students do as part of their learning. This idea highlights the importance of being learner- and learning-centred, highlighting that simply talking to our students has only a limited overall impact on their learning. As such, police educators should see talking to students as just part of a range of teaching techniques supplemented by effective design, facilitation, interaction with peers and self-study. In turn, the teaching methods and activities used will assist students and guide their learning; however, their needs to be recognition that learning is a messy and gradual process that occurs within and outside the classroom. For example, whilst a teacher may deliver an excellent 1-hour lecture on arrest powers, it is only the beginning of a student’s journey in understanding and utilising these powers in the coming months through self-study, peer discussions and practical exercises. Grasping this idea or concept will assist police educators in placing their own actions into perspective and begin to understand what being learner-centred means.

References

23

Telling

Teaching

Learning

Fig. 2.6 Telling ≠ Teaching ≠ Learning

2.5 Conclusion The educational frameworks and concepts outlined in this chapter are instrumental in understanding what is problematic with police education and implementing the proposed signature pedagogies into policing programs. Given the historical problems in police education, change must be evidence-based and informed by theoretical underpinnings that allows police educators and academy managers to appreciate the reasoning behind effective learner-centred practice. The following chapter provides a deeper evaluation of police education as an important step in justifying change towards learning and teaching approach that can assist policing students in bridging theory and practice.

References Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-­ Hill Education. Birzer, M. L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(1), 29–42. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Cox, D. (2011). Educating police for uncertain times: The Australian experience and the case for a ‘normative’ approach. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 6(1), 3–22. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research, meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications. Davenport, J., & Davenport, J.  A. (1985). A chronology and analysis of the andragogy debate. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 152–159. Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education (The Kappa Delta Pi lecture series). Free Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13.

24

2  Underpinning Educational Frameworks and Concepts

Holmes, G., & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? Pedagogy, 26(2), 50–55. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Cambridge the Adult Education Company. Kolb, D. A. (1984). The process of experiential learning. In Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (pp. 20–38). Prentice-Hall. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8–14. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press. Loftus, S.  F., & Higgs, J. (2005). Reconceptualising problem-based learning in a Vygotskian framework. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 7(1), 1–14. McCoy, M. (2006). Teaching style and the application of adult learning principles by police instructors. Policing: An International Journal of Policing Strategies & Management, 29(1), 77–91. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory (Occasional papers in educational technology). University of Saskatchewan. Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375. Plutarch. (1927). Moralia, Volume I: The Education of Children. How the Young Man Should Study Poetry. On Listening to Lectures. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb Classical Library 197. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70. Vodde, R. F. (2008). The efficacy of an andragogical instructional methodology in basic police training and education (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leicester. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. White, D. (2006). A conceptual analysis of the hidden curriculum of police training in England and Wales. Police and Society, 16(4), 386–404.

Chapter 3

What Is Problematic with Police Education?

Education is expensive but ignorance is more so. Unknown author

3.1 Introduction Education and training for police recruits has a long history of neglect, as witnessed in the latest US PERF (2022) report, which highlights a need to improve the delivery of police academy programs as a key strategy in addressing a range of problematic issues in policing. This critique is, unfortunately, a repeat of regular criticisms over the past half a century from various academics, reports and inquiries. This chapter examines what is problematic in police education as a basis for recommended changes in learning and teaching approaches centred on four proposed signature police pedagogies. This discussion initially examines the traditional assumptions underpinning teaching practices in police education, as they provide insights into why poor practices persist. Further critique is made of the dominant lecture method, including testing its viability through Shulman’s (2005) signature pedagogy framework.

3.2 A Background to Police Recruit Education and Training Education and training programs for police recruits have evolved haphazardly in terms of length and content since the advent of modern policing. When modern police organisations first began forming in the nineteenth century, new recruits simply learnt on the job from more experienced police, with little or nothing in the way of structured induction or training (Chappell, 2008; Fielding, 2018). Early in the twentieth century, police academies were gradually set up to meet regulatory, organisational and individual demands for basic education and training before hitting the street, although these courses only extended to a few weeks. Fielding’s (2018) description of the London Metropolitan Police recruit program in the 1930s

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_3

25

26

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

exemplifies what was problematic with early police training and the inadequate attributes that would be carried forward for decades. This program consisted of, ‘… two-­thirds legal/procedural rote instruction, one third drill, self-defence and first aid’ (Fielding, 2018, p. 101). The scene in this setting was one of significant military like discipline encouraging submissive behaviour, with a pedagogical emphasis centred on rote learning legal definitions in a teacher-centred environment. This example is telling, as the London Metropolitan Police instigated Peel’s principles of modern policing in the early nineteenth century, among which advocated a less militarised police and harmonious community relations. In stark contrast to these principles, a militaristic and authority-driven academy model was narrow in its legalistic focus, with a regressive teaching culture that ensured passive students and a lack of critical thinking. As the twentieth century progressed, the culture of authority-driven teacher-­ centredness remained, even, whilst the length and additional content of programs gradually increased. In the USA, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) identified barely adequate preparation for recruits to undertake only the basic mechanics of police work, thus recommending significant improvements in the quantity and quality of education. However, these aspirations remained unmet, with criticisms of the narrow and inadequate focus of police education continuing into the late twentieth century (Birzer, 2003; Bradford & Pynes, 1999), including a scathing assessment by Herman Goldstein, the father of problem-oriented policing, who described recruit training, ‘… as having no relevance to the job’ (1990, p. 168). In spite of criticisms over many decades, police education programs remained teacher-centred and lacked the wider application of adult learning principles to promote critical thinking skills within authentic learning contexts (Belur et al., 2020; McGinley et al., 2020). Also evident is a substantial militaristic or command and control culture that has limited effective educational practice (Blumberg et  al., 2019; Chan et  al., 2003; Cleveland & Saville, 2007; White, 2006; Ryan, 2010). These widespread claims across the academic literature have been echoed by the recent PERF (2022) report, which surveyed police agencies in the USA to investigate their academy and field training. The report highlighted inadequate preparation for police recruits when compared to other professions. More specifically, it continued the criticism of narrow curricula, heavy in legislation and use of force training, but with a limited focus on everyday policing skills such as communications and ethical decision-making. In relation to learning and teaching methods, the report identified the continued dominance of lecturing and inadequate use of adult learning techniques to engage recruits in cooperative learning, knowledge application and problem-solving. Whilst these findings are specific to the USA, similar problematic issues have been identified across a range of other countries (Blumberg et al., 2019; Belur et al., 2020; White, 2006). Underlying these problems is an outdated behaviourist educational philosophy that has historically influenced police education (Birzer, 2003; White, 2006; Basham, 2014). Understanding this philosophy and its underlying assumptions can assist us in understanding why change is needed and how it might be instigated.

3.2  A Background to Police Recruit Education and Training

27

3.2.1 Traditional Assumptions Influencing Police Education Behaviourism is an educational philosophy that equates humans to machines, suggesting learning is based on new behavioural patterns being repeated until they become automatic (Mergel, 1998). This kind of teaching approach is typical of police academies, where traditional teaching processes are mechanistic and uniform (Birzer, 2003), assuming that if students demonstrate an external action or repeat certain knowledge, then learning is complete, and they can move to the next topic. Examples of behaviourist teaching in police education include the memorisation of legislation for exams, skill drills in weapons training and demonstrating sequential steps in simulation training ticked off on checklists (Birzer & Tannehill, 2001; Cushion, 2022). This is not to say that behavioural learning strategies are never appropriate; they can be beneficial in some circumstances requiring basic cognitive processing or automatic responses; however, it remains a weak foundation on its own for comprehensive education programs, particularly when students need to transfer learning to new and challenging situations (Mergel, 1998; Palinscar, 1998). The weaknesses of behaviourism led to the learning philosophy of cognitive psychology, which instead compared humans with computers rather than machines. This new analogy assumed the human brain stored and processed information through specific schema or cognitive structures (Palinscar, 1998). Its influence on instructional design was not entirely different to behaviourism because it still viewed knowledge as objective, which required the transmission of knowledge to the learner via lectures by subject matter experts (Mergel, 1998). Cognitive psychology has provided a range of useful strategies, for example, mnemonics, structures to organise learning or management of students’ cognitive load during problem-solving. However, teaching only from behaviourist and/or cognitive psychology perspectives still favoured mechanical skills and procedural knowledge rather than encouraging knowledge construction (Mergel, 1998; Palinscar, 1998; Pearce, 2006). The predominance of behavioural and cognitive psychology assumptions has significantly limited the effectiveness of academy programs, with attempts at reform being limited by a hidden curriculum that has perpetuated traditional practices (Chan et al., 2003; Ryan, 2010; Basham, 2014). White (2006), examining the influence of behaviourist perspectives and policing subculture on police education in the UK, suggested this influence has encouraged the overuse of lecturing, with its focus on knowledge transmission and a failure to engage on social issues. White states: The rhetoric (from police management) is that of adult learning, but the actuality is a traditional transmission model of teaching … We seek to engender creative problem solvers, but the hidden curriculum values teach compliance and conformity, and a reliance on experts to do the thinking (for students). (2006, p. 396)

This analysis of police education laments a continuation of the dominant traditional teacher-centred approach focused upon law and procedures at the expense of problem-solving and the higher-order skills required for policing. The quote also highlights the practice of police organisations promoting the use of adult learning

28

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

methods as a public relations exercise, whilst in reality, practices remain teacher-­ centred. As an example, from my experience, I worked within an institution that described its curriculum as integrated, implying the integration of learning topics in an authentic way that consistently applied learning to practice. In reality, topics remained in siloed or isolated lessons, without achieving the integration or widespread use of adult learning methods as described. As such, the true extent of outdated practices in police academies often remains opaque without effective transparency and external evaluation (Ryan, 2010).

3.2.2 Constructivist Approaches in Police Education Constructivism is a learning philosophy that builds on behaviourism and cognitive psychology; however, it rejects the linear transmission of knowledge and instead promotes a more open-ended learning experience where teachers facilitate students’ construction of meaning based on prior learning (Palinscar, 1998; Mergel, 1998). This stance is based on an understanding of how the human brain works when learning, because humans cannot effectively store and learn all the information spoken to us by others. Crucially for learning, policing students must have time and space to elaborate information based on prior learning through rephrasing, peer discussions and applications to real-world problems in a constructive process (Schmidt et al., 2015). In the footsteps of other professions and learning institutions worldwide, police education has albeit slowly and inconsistently begun to adopt aspects of constructivism to assist the construction of knowledge within contextual situations, but much work remains to be done (Belur et al., 2020; Blumberg et al., 2019). Whilst some police educators seek to expand their awareness of teaching beyond the confines of behaviourist assumptions, achieving this in traditional academies with their insular cultures is difficult. A growing number of police organisations have experimented with and implemented learning approaches and programs with versions of PBL and SBL (Werth, 2009). However, the uptake of constructivism and its learner-centred methods within the broader field of police education has remained limited, despite the clear benefits these approaches have demonstrated in various domains of learning (Belur et al., 2020; Makin, 2016; McGinley et al., 2020; PERF, 2022). The situation is similar in the field training context, where the innovative Police Training Officer (PTO) version of field training, utilising reflective practice and a version of PBL, has achieved only limited penetration within North American policing (Cleveland & Saville, 2007; G.  Saville, personal communication, July 2022). Another potentially constructivist method is simulation training, usually undertaken within purposely constructed scenario villages1, which have become  A scenario village is an area within a police academy where a mock police station, shops and other localities are used to provide realistic settings for simulation training of basic policing tasks or jobs. 1

3.2  A Background to Police Recruit Education and Training

29

increasingly common in police academies (Basham, 2014). This method is becoming more prevalent than classroom applications of constructivist methods; however, there is a concern that its effectiveness is limited by behaviourist assumptions. For example, instead of being used in a way to promote active and deeper learning, particularly as part of a reflective process, it is often applied in a mechanistic way that simply ticks off set behaviours (Pearce, 2006; Cleveland & Saville, 2007; Cushion, 2022).

3.2.3 The Adverse Influence of Police Educators Because many individual police educators have a limited perception of themselves as content experts who merely transmit information, they contribute significantly to the problem of excessive lecturing and the poor application of learner-centred methods (Cox, 2011; Cushion, 2022). Ryan (2010) and Ryan and Ollis (2019) also make the point that pedagogical choices of teaching staff within police academies are not necessarily neutral and are often used to regulate the behaviour of students. These authors argue that traditional teaching practices in police academies favour doctrinal values of the organisation over contemporary educational values, limiting the application of learner-centred methods. These arguments make sense given many police educators propensity to maintain strict control over the classroom, just as they would in a policing situation on the street (Cleveland & Saville, 2007). My own research (Shipton, 2019) supports this notion, describing teacher-­ centred police educators who tend to focus solely on their experiences and policing knowledge, rather than on their students’ thinking and actions around effective learning. This research highlighted four distinct categories of police educators in relation to how they experience2 their teaching. These categories, in Fig. 3.1, represent hierarchically inclusive categories, meaning each subsequent or more complex category builds on the previous category rather than fully replacing it. The arrow highlights the potential of expanding awareness and development from less to more sophisticated practices of teaching. Novice police educators tend to start at Category 1 or Presenter, where the focus of teaching is on accumulating content knowledge and effectively presenting or transmitting this content in lectures. Category 2 or Conversationalist builds on a lecture approach by using a question-and-answer process of checking students’ recall of content, in an attempt to encourage at least a basic level of interaction. These first two categories are teacher-centred, given almost exclusive teacher control and lecturing. Category 3 or Guide makes increasing use of cooperative teaching activities that engages students in discussions with their peers around authentic policing situations. Category 4 or Problem-Solver looks similar to Guide but with  The term experiences of teaching include both police educators’ conceptions (what they think about teaching or what it is) and approaches (relevant teaching actions) described in the study (Shipton, 2019). 2

30

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

Presenter

Conversationalist

Guide

Problem Solver

Fig. 3.1  Police educators’ ways of experiencing teaching. (Adapted from Shipton (2022, p. 64). The previous version of this figure is published in Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(1), 56–75, with approval given to use prior published work, with copyright to AJAL)

the added emphasis of utilising and encouraging underlying critical thinking skills that students can use beyond the classroom. These last two learner-centred categories make use of teaching actions from the lower categories such as lecturing but in a more limited and targeted way. Figure 3.1 represents a developmental pathway that police educators may progress through, although most do not progress substantially beyond Category 2 without concerted development and a willingness to move outside their teaching comfort zone. The key insight drawn from Fig.  3.1 is the contrast between Presenter and Problem-Solver categories and what prevents development along this pathway. The Presenter category relies on lecturing, where presentation skills have been developed to the point of being effortless or comfortable stepping through set routines, delivering familiar PowerPoint slides, including rehearsed jokes and war stories designed to colour the presentation. Unfortunately, many police educators do not develop, or are not required to develop, beyond this comfort zone where they are the authority figure and centre of attention for passive students. Whilst my research did not define quantitative values to these categories, Gonzalez (2011) indicates that without effective staff development, teacher-centred categories tend to dominate in educational settings. Adherence to this teacher-centred approach by a significant number of police educators works against each of the educational concepts described in Chap. 2 and poses a significant barrier to maximising the signature pedagogies described in this book. As a consequence, even when curriculum documents outline learner-centred methods and techniques, police educators often undermine these by defaulting to teacher-centred approaches. This situation is exacerbated by a traditional culture that often rejects contemporary adult learning and the development of critical thinking skills (Chan et al., 2003; Ryan & Ollis, 2019). This attitude is also inclusive of the false assumption by many police educators; their experience and knowledge, along with a few presentation skills, are the only attributes required to teach recruits (O’Shea & Bartkowiak-Théron, 2019). This attitude can manifest in a number of ways such as the ‘abstracting’ of learner-centred methods in academies, where

3.2  A Background to Police Recruit Education and Training

31

teaching staff only use the parts of a method that conform with their traditional beliefs of what learning and teaching should be (Cushion, 2022, p. 4). For example, rather than using ST as a holistic experience that integrates a range of authentic knowledge and skills, it may only be used as an assessment at the end of a linear and teacher-centred sequence, where actions are simply checked off. Therefore, when attempting to introduce more effective learning methods into a policing environment, it may be futile to launch a top-down prescription of new teaching methods and expect staff to wholeheartedly engage. Trigwell et al. (1999) stress that teachers will avoid using methods that are beyond the awareness of their conceptions. In other words, a police educator who is teacher-centred will view the notion of active learning and facilitation to construct knowledge as a foreign concept and not what they, in their limited awareness, would describe as ‘common-­ sense’ teaching (Ryan, 2022). This notion of teacher-centredness is reinforced by the unfortunate reality that many police educators simply replicate the way they were taught when they were recruits (Lettic, 2015). As such, successfully applying and maximising the methods described in this book require well-planned implementations of change that assist police educators in expanding their awareness of why and how learner-centred approaches work.

3.2.4 Lecture as the Dominant Method in Police Education The most obvious manifestation of an authority-based and teacher-centred approach to police education has been the overwhelming resort to lecturing3 as the prime learning and teaching method. The overuse of this method has been criticised by a range of authors over recent decades (Belur et al., 2020; Blumberg et al., 2019) and is highlighted in the recent PERF report, which quantified the broad range of methods being used in US police academies, which included classroom lectures (57%), practical applications/scenarios (31%) and small group discussions only (13%) (2022, p. 23). The remainder of time was designated as e-learning or unknown. These survey results provide an interesting insight into the use of police academy teaching methods, but some potential limitations are highlighted. First, the sample represents only the jurisdictions that responded to the PERF (2022) survey, so more traditional academies with less inclination to share their lack of progress educational reform may not have participated. Second, police academies can overstate their true application of learner-centred methods as previously highlighted. Third, even when learner-centred methods are outlined in lesson plans, teaching staff can subvert these by defaulting to lecturing. I have seen this default to lecture many times in my experience, with police educators often ignoring guidance on  Other terms for lecturing include didactic teaching or even chalk and talk. A contemporary term sometimes confused with lecture is direct instruction; however, direct instruction supplements lecturing with modelling, practice and feedback that suggests a more active role for students than provided by traditional lecturing. 3

32

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

scenario-­based or group work and instead lecturing to PowerPoint slides. These factors would suggest the figure of 57% likely represents a minimum amount of lecturing in police academies, with other authors concurring that police students spent most of their learning time in a passive mode that did not adequately prepare them for practice (Koerner & Staller, 2021; Cushion, 2022). Even when taken at face value, these figures confirm the dominance of a teacher-centred approaches described in the policing literature. Looking at other methods cited by PERF (2022), the use of practical applications and scenarios is encouraging at 31%; however, the same limitations apply in terms of their true extent and the possibility they may be applied in a behaviourist fashion without maximising their potential as a learning method (Pearce, 2006; Cleveland & Saville, 2007). The use of small group discussions is disappointingly low and highlights the limited use of cooperative techniques so important for active learning. The effective use of group work is discussed further in Chaps. 4 and 5; however, it is important to highlight the reluctance of police educators and, to some extent their students, to engage in group or cooperative learning. For teacher-centred educators, it means stepping out of their comfort zone of lecturing to instead facilitate their students thinking, which is a more challenging skill. For some students, it means stepping out of their comfort zone of listening and taking notes, to engaging in active learning with their peers. So, whilst active learning is more challenging, it is ultimately more effective in developing higher-order thinking skills and functional knowledge (Biggs et al., 2022).

3.3 Is the Lecture Method a Signature Pedagogy? Whilst lecture has not been advocated as a signature pedagogy in police education, it is certainly the most common and arguably dominant method and as such should be evaluated against the same framework as proposed signature pedagogies in this book. This examination begins with discussion of structural aspects and characteristics, followed by a summary of how lecture addressed the three fundamental dimensions of how police students should think, perform and act with integrity.

3.3.1 Structure of Lecture Method When examining the surface structure of lectures, a starting point is the obvious physical setting of a room, usually with seats placed in rows facing the front of the room. This seating structure places a focus on the teacher and, aside from limited discussion in pairs, inhibits effective cooperative discussion among students. When looking to the teacher’s position, they remain mostly stationed at the front, maybe behind a lectern with notes. Here, some teachers might read from notes or PowerPoint slides and elaborate on these points. The technique of reading from slides is

3.3  Is the Lecture Method a Signature Pedagogy?

33

ineffective, particularly as policing students can in fact read for themselves. Novice police educators usually progress from simply reading slides to elaborating on points with greater depth as they gain more experience at presenting (Shipton, 2020); however, what remains is a steady transmission of information by the teacher,4 which may be punctuated by humour, with the aim of providing some interest and maintaining students’ attention. The students in this situation remain passive in terms of higher-­order thinking as they simply listen and/or take notes. Of course, some students may take notes as the starting point to engage in deeper learning in their study time; however, many students will likely engage in memorisation strategies that are superficial at best (Biggs et  al., 2022). As highlighted in the Conversationalist category of police educators in Fig.  3.1, some attempt may be made to ask random questions to encourage attention; however, these often encourage the recall of surface information rather than encourage deeper engagement with content. These actions result in superficial learning, particularly given limited student attention spans in lectures (Bradbury, 2016) and the inability to retain much of this content knowledge without the opportunity of transfer to a new context (Dean & Kuhn, 2007). The deep structure exemplifies assumptions about how students should come to know and use the content taught (Shulman, 2005). From this perspective, lecturers expect students to accumulate transmitted information in a quantitative manner as teachers attempt to ‘cover’ subject content. How students might use this knowledge is rarely made explicit; with assumptions it will automatically transfer into real-­ world application. The first of these two naïve assumptions that knowledge from lecturing will simply pour into students’ heads is behaviourist and discredited by research (Freeman et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2015; Bradbury, 2016). The second assumption that students will automatically transfer this learning displays a misunderstanding of how humans learn by constructing knowledge (Biggs et al., 2022), with active learning required to maximise deep and transfer learning beyond the surface learning initially encouraged in lectures (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016; Schmidt et  al., 2015). Traditional lecture-based programs limit opportunities for deeper understanding and learning transfer into practice until students enter their profession, by which time they have likely forgotten much of what they remembered in the first place (Bradbury, 2016; Dean & Kuhn, 2007). In one particular example from my experience, students arrived for a tutorial lesson on police entry powers just after a detailed 60-slide lecture on the same topic to their larger cohort. I began the lesson by asking a few questions about some key police powers I knew were delivered in the lecture and yet my students struggled to articulate any understanding of this legislation beyond acknowledging they were lectured about it. This example was a stark reminder to me that simply lecturing large quantities of content represents a serious misunderstanding of how policing students can learn and use the content we teach.  Finkel and Monk (1997) refer to this dysfunctional teaching situation as the atlas complex, where the teacher carries almost all classroom actions, performing with limited student input or no student-­to-student interaction. 4

34

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

Turning to the implicit structure, which represents professional attitudes and values, lectures essentially portray the teacher as the authority handing over the knowledge in an unquestioned manner. This is not to suggest police educators should not be a legitimate and valuable source of information and even inspiration for students. However, the use of lectures over emphasises a traditional and cultural notion of policing students shutting up and listening to an authority figure without critical questioning or discussion of content (Ryan & Ollis, 2019). This expectation is part of the cultural conformity required of students in both academy and field training stages, with learning limited to being quiet, listening and mimicking actions of their superior (Karp & Stenmark, 2011). The stage is set for this expectation during lectures in their formal setting, although there are other aspects of the hidden curriculum that influence this situation. For example, lectures are ideal places for war stories to be told. Rather than relating relevant scenarios that may assist understanding, lecturers might relate a story from their policing experience to describe ways in which police might circumvent certain legislation or procedures or help them guard against unwanted accountability. These types of messages are often not part of or perhaps contort the formal curriculum, with lectures providing a useful space in which an authority figure can send underlying cultural messages of what they think policing is really about (Chan et al., 2003).

3.3.2 Characteristics of Lecture Method A signature pedagogy is characterised from other methods by the distinctive characteristics of being pervasive and routine, entailing student performance and creating a risk-taking atmosphere (Shulman, 2005). Lecture is certainly pervasive, as it is used across policing topics, modules and courses, again because it is relatively simple and suited to police educators with limited teaching development. However, in relation to being routine, Shulman (2005) is referring to pedagogical routines encouraging higher-order thinking to bridge the gap between theory and practice. This is not the case with lecturing, given the only routine expected of students is to listen and take notes, with limited means for active learning. The practice of some lecturers asking basic recall questions of students to check they are listening does nothing to extend students’ thinking beyond memorisation, nor does it push them into their ZPD. In relation to entailing a student performance and creating a risk-taking atmosphere, both of these characteristics are extremely limited in a lecture setting. Returning to the question-and-answer technique sometimes used in lectures, simply recalling disjointed pieces of information presented earlier is hardly a substantive performance and is not a signature of professional practice, because police need to do far more than recall memorised information in an operational setting. Nor is it particularly risk taking, especially as memorisation tasks do little to encourage deeper engagement with content? Usually with this technique, if a student does not

3.3  Is the Lecture Method a Signature Pedagogy?

35

provide an adequate answer for these questions, the lecturer moves on to their next target until a satisfactory response is found. Regardless, given the majority of time is spent with the teacher talking, there is almost no opportunity for the occasional student, let alone the whole class, to be engaged and challenged within their ZPD, which is so vital for deeper and transfer learning needed to develop students for professional practice (Biggs et al., 2022; Shulman, 2005; Wood et al., 1976).

3.3.3 Does Lecture Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity? As Shulman (2005) suggests, some professions have a mixed record in balancing the three dimensions of practice, noting that legal education does a poor job of preparing students to perform, whilst medical education likewise underperforms in relation to acting with integrity. For police education, its reliance on lecture method has limited the ability of students in relation to all three dimensions and most obviously so in relation to their ability to think. Certainly, lecture maintains passivity, without opportunities to think within mid- or higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy that demonstrate the transfer or application of knowledge. A similar problem exists in terms of acting with integrity, particularly as students have little or no opportunity to act whilst being passive in a lecture setting, which is essential when learning and applying the principles of communication, customer service, ethics and other aspects of professional practice. Shulman (2005) describes a similar situation of lecturing within the profession of engineering, indicating there is no clear signature of professional practice being developed within students through the use of this method. Essentially, a signature pedagogy must bridge theory and practice, which is never a simple practice and particularly so with lecturing (ibid.). The very ease and simplicity of lecturing, leaving all the talking and action to the teacher who commands attention, is a barrier that prevents this bridge from theory to practice being built. The problem with lecture in addressing these dimensions can be seen in decades of educational research that highlight its problematic nature. When examining educational research on specific methods, it is useful to consult meta-review or meta-­ analysis research that brings together a large range of educational studies to distil key themes and results. One oft-quoted study in this regard is Freeman et al. (2014), which analysed 225 individual studies and found a clear advantage for active learning methods over lecturing when it came to assessment scores and failure rates. Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, who has turned his prodigious achievements in physics towards improving education, highlights the impact of studies in establishing the clear superiority of active learning methods over lecture methods. Wieman (2014) also suggests that further comparisons with lecture methods are now pointless given its inadequacies have been clearly established and, instead, advocates further

36

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

studies comparing various active learning methods and examining how they work as a way forward for better teaching.

3.4 Conclusion The most remarkable thing about police education is not so much its adherence to traditional and discredited learning and teaching practices but the fact that after a half century of sustained criticism around these practices, there has been limited change from most police organisations and educators. Whilst there have been some advances in the use active learning approaches, their effectiveness is limited by the general persistence of behaviourist assumptions and minimal teaching development. What remains is a broad adherence to lecture method, which has been discredited in the educational literature as lacking the means to encourage higher-order thinking and active learning. The following chapters will examine four proposed signature pedagogies that hold potential in police education for bridging the gap between theory and practice by providing students the capability in academy programs to more effectively adapt to the rigors of field training and develop lifelong learning skills. This evaluation first considers whether these methods can be regarded signatures of policing practice through the learning processes they provide, before describing how these methods can be effectively facilitated in a policing context. Whilst providing a picture of the best practice in using these methods is important, it is still recognised that more effective development of police educators’ teaching abilities is required in conjunction with improved curriculum design.

References Basham, B. R. (2014). Police instructor or police educator? Salus Journal, 2(1), 99–109. Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Birzer, M. L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(1), 29–42. Birzer, M. L., & Tannehill, R. (2001). A more effective training approach for contemporary policing. Police Quarterly, 4(2), 233–252. Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., & Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4941. Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 509–513. Bradford, D., & Pynes, J. (1999). Police academy training: Why hasn’t it kept up with practice? Police Quarterly, 2(3), 283–301.

References

37

Chan, J., Devery, C., & Dorn, S. (2003). Fair cop: Learning the art of policing. University of Toronto Press. Chappell, A.  T. (2008). Police academy training: Comparing across curricula. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management., 31, 36. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Cox, D. (2011). Educating police for uncertain times: The Australian experience and the case for a ‘normative’ approach. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 6(1), 3–22. Cushion, C. (2022, January). Changing police personal safety training using scenario-based-­ training: A critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 6, p. 548). Frontiers. Dean, D., Jr., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397. Fielding, N.  G. (2018). Professionalizing the police: The unfulfilled promise of police training. Oxford University Press. Finkel, D. L., & Monk, G. S. (1997). Teachers and learning groups: Dissolution of the Atlas complex. MAA Notes, 5–12. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. Temple University Press. Gonzalez, C. (2011). Extending on ‘conceptions of teaching’: Commonalities and differences in recent investigations. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 65–80. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. Karp, S., & Stenmark, H. (2011). Learning to be a police officer. Tradition and change in the training and professional lives of police officers. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 12(1), 4–15. Koerner, S., & Staller, M. S. (2021). Police training revisited—Meeting the demands of conflict training in police with an alternative pedagogical approach. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 927–938. Lettic, S. (2015). Problem based learning (PBL) in police training: An evaluation of the recruit experience (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University. Makin, D.  A. (2016). A descriptive analysis of a problem-based learning police academy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1). https://doi. org/10.7771/1541-­5015.1544 McGinley, B., Agnew-Pauley, W., Tompson, L., & Belur, J. (2020). Police recruit training programmes: A systematic map of research literature. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 52–75. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design & learning theory. In Educational communications and technology. University of Saskatchewan. O’Shea, B., & Bartkowiak-Théron, I. (2019). “Being a topic expert is not sufficient”: A mixed-­ method analysis of teaching dynamics at the Tasmania police academy. Police Practice and Research, 20(3), 288–299. Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375. Pearce, R. J. (2006). Probationer training for neighbourhood policing in England and Wales: Fit for the purpose? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29(2), 335–342. Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum.

38

3  What Is Problematic with Police Education?

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). Task force report: The police. Government Printing Office. Ryan, C. (2010). Dry your eyes princess: An analysis of gender and ‘other’ based discourses in police organisations. In AARE 2006: Conference papers, abstracts and symposia (pp. 1–14). Coldstream, Vic. Ryan, C. (2022). Common sense and police practice: It goes without saying. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(2), 139–166. Ryan, C., & Ollis, T. (2019). Disembodied police practice: “Keep a lid on it so you can function”. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 266–283. Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A., Keemink, L. M., & van Der Molen, H. T. (2015). On the use and misuse of lectures in higher education. Health Professions Education, 1(1), 12–18. Shipton, B. (2019). Police educators’ experiences of teaching: Detailing differences between teacher- and learner-centred approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 232–249. Shipton, B. (2020). Moving outside the comfort zone: teacher’s experiences of development in a police academy context. Studies in Continuing Education, 44(1), 70–86. Shipton, B. (2022). Maximising PBL in police education: Why understanding the facilitator role is a key factor in developing learning for police problem solving. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(1), 56–75. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70. Werth, E. P. (2009). Student perception of learning through a problem‐based learning exercise: an exploratory study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32(1), 21–37. White, D. (2006). A conceptual analysis of the hidden curriculum of police training in England and Wales. Police and Society, 16(4), 386–404. Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

Chapter 4

Scenario-Based Learning

Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn. Xunzi (Lai & Xin, 2009)

4.1 Introduction Scenario-based learning (SBL) is the first of four proposed signature pedagogies in policing to be discussed and evaluated. This chapter begins with a definition of what SBL is and is not, particularly in comparison to the proposed signature pedagogies of problem-based learning (PBL) and simulation training (ST), both of which are broadly scenario based but different and more specific in key respects. To illustrate some variations in the use of SBL within police academy programs, three examples are described and analysed in conjunction with a generic lesson structure. Evaluation of this structure through the signature pedagogy framework is synthesised with key educational theories and commentary around ways to improve learning and teaching practice in police education.

4.2 Differentiating SBL and Other Signature Pedagogies Defining what SBL is and differentiating it from other signature pedagogies described in this book is an important first step before evaluating each in detail. Across the police education literature and in discourse among police educators themselves, terms like scenario-based, case-based, problem-based, simulation, role-play, practical or even hands-on learning are often used inconsistently and interchangeably to describe a range of practical or active learning methods and techniques (McCoy, 2006). Within the broader educational literature, there tends to be more precise use of these terms; however, degrees of overlap and inconsistencies in their definition and use remain. For this discussion, the definition from Seren Smith, Warnes and Vanhoestenberghe is used to describe SBL:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_4

39

4  Scenario-Based Learning

40

Table 4.1  Comparison and distinction of signature police pedagogy types

Purpose

Period

Pacing Student role

Facilitator actions

Scenario type

Scenario-based learning (SBL) Uses a topic-based scenario to deepen understanding and transfer knowledge of selected concepts

Problem-based learning (PBL) Uses an ill-structured scenario to integrate curriculum-wide content and problem-solve to deepen understanding and transfer knowledge Short – usually within Extended over module and/or one lesson, with potential several lessons, with potential post-lesson tasks post-lesson tasks Slow time Slow time Usually engage in Engage in cooperative group, cooperative group complete self-directed activity, with opportunity research tasks and contribute to justify work/actions as to team presentation spokesperson explaining and justifying actions Facilitating learning in Facilitating problem-solving, cooperative groups with scaffolding critical reflection some targeted lecturing and managing cooperative or other techniques groups Complete or partial and is often narrow in scope

Partial, ill-structured and holistic in scope

Simulation training (ST) Uses a physically simulated policing task to investigate and resolve the task as an operational individual or pair Short – within one lesson but with pre-task preparation Real time Prepare for and complete policing simulation task, usually with operational partner and justify actions Scaffolding knowledge application, debriefing simulated activity and encouraging critical reflection Partial and holistic in scope

… as a vehicle for the teaching and learning process, providing students with the opportunity to learn from and apply their learning to realistic experiences. (2018, p. 144)

This definition is intentionally broad and essentially incorporates PBL and ST, with each of these being viewed as subsets or types of SBL. As such, references to SBL in this book will focus on a range of physical or perhaps virtual classroom learning activities that happen outside the stricter definitions given to PBL and ST in their respective chapters. The key differences between these methods are outlined in Table 4.1. The fourth signature pedagogy of field training (FT) is not included as it is sufficiently distinctive as a workplace learning method rather than an academy-­ based method. The comparison in Table 4.1 uses a range of criteria to demonstrate key differences in how each method is applied in a policing context. The most obvious differences between SBL and PBL come down to time and complexity. SBL is used within a specific topic area, for example, an activity may ask students to analyse a scenario with police searching options for an individual. The focus of this scenario would be around legal aspects, with some relevant communication concepts also being considered. This focus contrasts with a PBL activity which is ill-­ structured, where the focus is wider, incorporating broader community problems, potential offences, investigative considerations and ethical dilemmas, which students would integrate from a range of curriculum topics.

4.3  The SBL Lesson Model

41

In turn, SBL is differentiated from ST as a classroom group activity with a focus on specific concepts, as opposed to an ST focus on students working in pairs or individually to role-play a task or job similar to operational duties. In particular, SBL, like PBL, is a slow-time activity that provides students with time to explore, research and explain concepts, whilst simulation training is in real time, which emphasises immediate application of concepts and decision-making. As such, the timeframe for SBL is shorter, and unlike PBL and ST, SBL might also use complete scenarios.1 From a theoretical point of view, each of these methods is informed Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning. They are experiential because students are engaged in activities that represent at least some aspect of workplace practice, whilst their specific learning experience is one of applying theory in practical contexts and reflecting on and consolidating learning prior to their next experience. This experiential process is a fundamental aspect of how the human brain constructs learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2018). It also aligns with the theory of situated learning that highlights learning as a process of transferring our abstract ideas into social and authentic situations that represent the community of practitioners that students strive to be part of (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Errington (2005) points to evidence around the use of scenarios, similar in ways to all three methods in Table 4.1, in enabling critical thinking and decision-making skills that can be taken forward into professional practice.

4.3 The SBL Lesson Model SBL has become an increasing feature in police education, although its full potential is often not exploited due to poor learning design and limited facilitator skill and confidence. Some police educators might suggest the use of war stories is a legitimate form of SBL; however, its use has often been inconsistent and often dysfunctional (Belur et al., 2020). Even when war stories are appropriate, the mere repeating of a story within a lecture situation provides only fleeting spoken words that provide limited context and nothing in the way of active student engagement of substantive content. In other words, the story may be interesting or even funny for students, but without the mechanisms to explore the scenario, there is a limited opportunity to deepen understanding or transfer knowledge to practice. This situation contrasts with the forms of SBL discussed here, which are purposely designed scenarios, either in a written or digital form, with specific instructions and scaffolding to assist in meeting learning outcomes that promote application to practice.

 A complete scenario is a full description of a policing situation, with analysis of the entire case providing lessons of the best practice or flawed actions. This is sometimes referred to as a case study method. A partial scenario takes students to a certain point, where they determine future actions. 1

42

Phase 1

•Introduce learning outcomes and link to practice •Highlight relevant prior learning, preferably through Q and A process emphasising understanding

4  Scenario-Based Learning

Phase 2

•Lecturing of content in preparation for task if required (maximum 20 minutes) •Provide clear instructions and/or questions for task (use slides for this purpose)

Phase 3

•Students engage in cooperative group activity with scenario. •Scaffold learning via facilitation by listening, watching & providing guidance where required.

Phase 4

•Individuals from groups present findings & justify actions (facilitator scaffolds this process & clarifies content) •Link back to learning outcomes & future learning

Fig. 4.1  SBL lesson structure

There are multiple variations of how SBL can be facilitated. A standard model is outlined in Fig. 4.1, highlighting the possible stages of an SBL task over the course of a scheduled lesson. Other cooperative techniques such as jigsaw or expert groups might also be used and may even be more appropriate when students become more adept at group work; however, a basic cooperative technique is used here for simplicity. In relation to the timing of these phases, there is flexibility, as there should be in any learning situation. Because the scenario and its guiding questions or task are required to challenge students within their ZPD, a substantive portion of the lesson should be allocated to the third and fourth phases. Note that there is a scope for limited lecture in Phase 2. Whether this is needed or not will depend on prior learning of the topic or what pre-readings or work students have completed. Regardless, a maximum of around 20 min is suggested for any lecturing given the potential drop off in student attention span (Bradbury, 2016). Whilst students will typically forget most content lectured to them over time, the advantage of this structure is that they get to immediately transfer that knowledge to a relevant context, which assists processing into their long-term memory (Errington, 2005). Finally, this lesson structure allows for pulse teaching, where teaching techniques or modalities are changed frequently in response to students’ attention spans or progress with tasks (Cleveland & Saville, 2007).

4.4 SBL Topic Examples Brief descriptions of the following examples illustrate variation in topic scope, scenario types and alternate scenarios that can be modified to maximise content coverage and learning effectiveness. Because SBL is limited to individual lessons of

4.4  SBL Topic Examples

43

around 2 h in this context, it will tend to focus on a particular topic or area of content; however, this should not prevent other relevant content areas being discussed or linked to assist learning. Regarding scenario types, both complete and partial scenarios are used, along with the use of both written and digital video types. Regarding alternate scenarios, the second example uses both bad and good practice alternatives, and the third example uses alternate scenarios to highlight wider topic reach. Aspects of each example are considered in the evaluation of SBL as a signature pedagogy. The first example or SBL 1 uses a complete scenario describing a policing incident of property damage to a victim’s letter box, resulting in the offender being taken to court. Supplementing the written scenario is an excerpt from the victim’s statement, detail captured from a CCTV camera across the street and other details relevant to the activity. From these scenario details, students are expected to complete a police fact sheet for court. Prior to this lesson, the students are directed to study several related documents, including their study guide and a brief preparation guide, which includes examples of fact sheets with structured diagrammatic explanations as a key scaffold. The class should be separated into sub-groups, with each group completing a fact sheet incorporating details of the offence. SBL 2 also uses a complete scenario; however, it is in a digital video format, depicting police undertaking a traffic stop of a vehicle which has just disobeyed a stop sign. The primary learning focus of this scenario is on police communication and use of discretion within the context of procedural justice. Other aspects of learning, particularly around officer safety and police procedures, should also be highlighted and acknowledged by the students, as it provides an opportunity for learning beyond the specific topic areas. Importantly, the video reveals actions and conversation both external to and internally within the police vehicle. Capturing the internal conversation between police is crucial to highlighting poor practice in determining their actions and the possible use or misuse of discretion. In this regard, rather than objectively considering all aspects of the situation, police form subjective judgements to inform their action and engage in unprofessional communication with the driver of the stopped vehicle. In their analysis of the video, the students identify inappropriate actions and indicate why it is wrong, referencing relevant concepts and policy, whilst suggesting more appropriate actions the police should take. Towards the end of this lesson, another video depicting the best practice is shown to provide a comparison for student remedies and to leave a final impression of what the best practice looks like. SBL 3 uses four partial scenarios centred around the topic of prohibited drug possession. Each scenario differs in terms of the person of interest circumstances, the drug type and/or quantity, which requires the four groups to consider different actions or remedies to the potential offence. The issue of determining reasonable suspicion for the search is already accounted for, so the students can focus specifically on both proving the offence and determining what action to take. In terms of proving the offence, the groups will utilise legal reasoning around offence elements, linking these to key information and investigative steps in the scenario. In terms of action taken, the students must choose from a range of options, including the use of

44

4  Scenario-Based Learning

harm reduction strategies in policy and legislation. Ultimately, each group will determine a different outcome due to scenario variations, with each group presentation being a learning opportunity and point of comparison with the other groups in the Phase 4 debriefing.

4.5 Evaluation of SBL as a Signature Pedagogy 4.5.1 Surface Structure Figure 4.1 provides a clear outline of the overall surface structure followed for each lesson. A good lesson plan should be clear about such structures, highlighting the teaching or facilitation process and offering guidance about how the lesson is conducted, including suggestions about student responses and examples of ways to prompt thinking. Unfortunately, many lesson plans from my experience focus overly on content at the expense of facilitator guidance, which has the undesired effect of encouraging lecturing. For each lesson, Phase 1 is used to clearly highlight learning outcomes and link these to future practice, which is an important motivator for adult learners. In the second part of Phase 1, relevant prior learning is briefly recapped via questions that stimulate students’ understanding of prior topics. For example, in SBL 1 prior learning around the elements of property damage offences should be activated. Phase 2 of the lesson structure provides for a review or discussion of content relevant to the activity in Phase 3. A lecture, if required, should be limited to 20 minutes and is supported by the students’ pre-reading of provided readings and resources in their study guide, allowing for the use of questions to the class to draw out their understanding of the content. For example, from SBL 2, the facilitator will review the elements of drug possession and, as part of this process, asks questions to elicit an understanding of knowledge and control as key sub-elements students will apply in the scenario. These questions are asking for more than just a recall of facts, having a focus on why police do certain things to establish evidence of an offence. For example, the facilitator should direct students thinking towards breaking down the offence elements as a key conceptual structure underpinning the task. As such, much of this phase becomes a discussion in which the teacher draws out students’ knowledge around prior learning and recent study resources rather than a strict one-­ way transmission of knowledge. Ultimately, the teacher fills in any blanks and provides a final summary that leads into the activity for Phase 3. Phase 3 sees an important shift in being more learner-centred, with students moving to an active process of working cooperatively in groups to complete their relevant tasks. From my experience, teachers often switch off at this stage and leave students to their own devices. Some of this issue may be attributed to laziness; however, I think much of it is a lack of awareness of what facilitation is (Shipton, 2020). Crucially, SBL requires attentive guidance as a key aspect of its surface structure.

4.5  Evaluation of SBL as a Signature Pedagogy

45

This means moving from group to group, listening and watching to determine engagement with the task and students’ learning. As part of this process, each group should outline their work via a word document, a whiteboard, flip chart, butcher’s paper or other media to record and share their work. If the group is progressing well, there is no need for intervention; however, students may enquire about their progress. Regardless, the facilitator should be constantly aware of progress and key issues being raised across all the groups. For example, with SBL 1, the groups might have incomplete narratives with their fact sheets, so feedback can prompt their thinking and keep their writing on track. Over a period of around 45 min (remembering time is flexible depending on learning progress), the facilitator would continue to circulate through the groups several times as they progress through their task. As part of pulse teaching, the facilitator evaluates progress and judges when enough had been achieved and/or student attention is flagging. These indicators signal a change in technique, and movement to the next phase is required. Phase 4 sees some shift in control of the room back to the teacher; however, the focus of facilitation should firmly remain with the students’ product and their reasoning around the task. The surface structure in this phase revolves around individual(s) from the groups presenting their work and importantly justifying their findings and decisions. For example, with SBL 2 an individual from a group might identify how police in the video made reference to the driver failing an ‘attitude test’ and indicate this was inappropriate and subjective. If they fail to relate this example to the concept of procedural justice, the facilitator might ask another group to provide further input, especially as the facilitator is aware of what each group has discussed and can use this knowledge to bounce students from one key point to another. As with the previous phases, the facilitator should only add comment beyond what the students are unable to contribute themselves. Often in this phase, there may not be time to examine each group product in detail, but every opportunity should be made to allow each group and/or student to contribute variations they think are important or ask clarifying questions. Time is then taken to wrap up the lesson by evaluating what the groups have achieved in comparison to the learning outcomes and what this means for future learning.

4.5.2 Deep Structure Turning to the deep structure of SBL, the fundamental learning and teaching assumptions here are around active and cooperative learning. Each SBL is designed to provide a challenging learning experience that allows for reflection within and after action (Kolb & Kolb, 2018), pushes students into their ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and is situated in an authentic task needed for their future community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The experiential nature of these examples accepts the need for students to develop the functional knowledge and practical skills they need for policing. Unlike a lecture option, the SBL structure provides opportunities for deeper understanding and the transfer of knowledge. An additional theoretical

46

4  Scenario-Based Learning

element is used in SBL 2 and 3 with the use of scenario variation that covers a wider range of content. This approach is informed by variation learning theory (Marton & Booth, 1997), which enhances broader awareness through comparisons of a wider range of policing options. The deep structure also assumes development of learning is assisted by placing students into intentionally challenging learning situations where their thinking is scaffolded within their ZPD. The scaffolding is provided through various resources and facilitation techniques that support the construction of new knowledge built on prior learning. Crucially, scaffolding is also provided to students via cooperative learning with peers, allowing them to master concepts that can be later applied individually (Daniels, 2007). Whilst the use of cooperative groups is often shunned or underutilised by police educators, their effectiveness over lecture methods, when implemented appropriately, has been demonstrated across multiple fields of education in a meta-analysis by Johnson et al. (2000). An additional aspect of the cooperative groups in each example is the presentation and discussion of learning from the group task, which provides further opportunity for sense making that encourages deeper and transfer learning (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016). From an operational policing perspective, these lessons develop a range of useful concepts and skills, including the preparation of a key court document, communication and professional practice when using discretion and understanding drug possession and harm minimisation strategies. These concepts are placed into an operational context by a curriculum that explicitly links them to prior learning, allowing students to build upon or transfer them into new contexts. This process exemplifies a spiralling curriculum theory (Harden, 1999) rather than a linear curriculum that isolates topics and concepts as so often seen in police academy programs. Finally, the pulse teaching structure provides an environment conducive to constructing learning around this task. This structure and its flexible nature are messier and less predictable than a traditional lecture; however, it is a process adapted to how humans are empowered by constructing their understandings, rather than a linear banking assumption based on lecturing (Freire, 1970). Importantly, the limited use of lecture in Fig. 4.1 exemplifies its use as a supplementary technique to support the broader method of SBL. The use of lecture in this way is more effective given its shorter and more specific focus, and the fact lectured content is immediately applied and transferred to practice in each example of SBL.

4.5.3 Implicit Structure There are several key points to note in relation to the implicit structure from these SBL examples. First, the fundamental teaching technique of cooperative groups emphasises collaboration and teamwork towards a common goal, which are key skills for professional policing practice. Working in teams of four to six students does not strictly replicate police working in pairs when on patrol duties; however,

4.5  Evaluation of SBL as a Signature Pedagogy

47

there are times when larger groups work together in operational policing, particularly on station duties or during larger operations. Regardless, each of these SBL examples emphasises the need to communicate and work with peers. From an educational perspective, learning groups are most effective in nurturing learning when students are incentivised to cooperate towards common goals (Johnson et al., 2000). Second, each of these SBL examples highlights different aspects of legal reasoning. Shulman (2005) highlighted a type of legal reasoning as part of the implicit structure in the case-dialogue method for the legal profession; however, in policing, there is a different type of legal reasoning stemming from an enforcement perspective. Legal reasoning in policing places less emphasis on the intricacies of case law and instead places a focus on breaking offence sections into elements that are aligned with key pieces of evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. SBL requires students to analyse situations and apply this reasoning framework just as they would in operational situations. A third aspect of the implicit structure which stems from the second is a combination of professional reasoning and customer service. In SBL 2 and 3 in particular, after establishing offences through their legal reasoning, the students then need to communicate their proposed actions, which include arrest or alternatives to placing the accused person before a court. It might instead require discretion through a professional/ethical decision-making process or applying harm minimisation strategies that consider broader societal issues beyond a narrow law enforcement approach. In the SBL classroom, students need to communicate and justify these actions to their facilitator and peers, just as police would similarly communicate actions to people who may hold them accountable.

4.5.4 Pervasive and Routine When considering the characteristics of being pervasive and routine, the use of scenarios in police education generally has become pervasive across academy programs. However, as cautioned earlier in this chapter, the quality of their application has been inconsistent, both at the design level and through their application by individual teachers, especially those reluctant to venture beyond lecturing. It could be suggested this version of SBL as a proposed signature pedagogy is yet to become pervasive but maintains potential to be so. In relation to being routine, Shulman (2005) recommended that by making complex learning processes routine, students can easily apply them on a regular basis so they can instead focus on complex content issues. In this way, the SBL process in Fig. 4.1 provides a routine that can be flexibly adapted to almost any scenario setting. Within this setting, there are also other underlying processes, such as the legal reasoning or professional/ethical decision-making process that can supplement the SBL process. In an active learning SBL environment, students can routinely apply these sub-processes as a further means to scaffold their learning and structure the kind of thinking they will need in their profession.

48

4  Scenario-Based Learning

4.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance The student performance within SBL begins, albeit in a limited way, during the cooperative group exercise. In Phase 3, students discuss and contribute to the task, so at this point, their individual performances are confined to the group; however, this process certainly encourages active thinking around the task, which is a good start in minimising the learning impediment of passive and anonymous students (Shulman, 2005). There is of course the potential of certain students not engaging with this process, but regardless, peer encouragement and facilitator interventions should improve accountability within the group. In Phase 4 of the SBL process, there is a more shift in focus to the group spokesperson, who presents or discusses the task that importantly demonstrates their thinking and justifications around the task. This is why it is crucial for SBL as a signature pedagogy to incorporate a concrete and outcomes-based tasks that act as a focus for group learning and peer interaction. Without this scaffold, the group performance can become directionless and difficult for the facilitator to evaluate. Ideally, the facilitator should also make a record of individual student contributions in the final phase of SBL to ensure each class member takes turn in this performance over the program as a means of formative assessment. In this regard, police students are evaluated on more than their academic contribution as they need to demonstrate an ability to perform through public speaking in a range of contexts. For example, when using legal powers around searching or giving directions, police need to be clear in requirements and justify their actions, whether on the street or in a court of law. Whilst SBL does not require this kind of performance at a strictly authentic level, it certainly provides students with a scaffolding public performance experience that can be built on through other learning situations as the program progresses.

4.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere The creation of a risk-taking atmosphere is closely related to the public performance aspects of a signature pedagogy. The risk-taking element of SBL is limited to some extent by the sharing of this risk among the group, which collaborates in constructing a product or answer for an individual student to present and discuss. However, Shulman (2005) recommends the promotion of adaptive anxiety in signature pedagogies needs not be overwhelming or paralysing but should by managed to a point where effective learning is encouraged. In SBL, students should be encouraged to have a go and potentially make mistakes they can learn from but in a safe situation without adverse consequences or criticism. For example, students often approach the spokesperson role by simply reading from their document, just as novice teachers often read from slides or a script when they first start teaching. When students simply read, they should be stopped and encouraged to instead

4.6  Does SBL Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?

49

paraphrase and explain the group findings as if they were talking to a member of the public. There is also a scope for team intervention. As such, the risk taking in SBL is relatively low but certainly more significant than the passivity students experience in lectures. Asking students in their groups and individually to explain and justify their contribution is a key aspect of their sense making and something not experienced in lecture situations. Despite this relatively low level of risk, the SBL learning experience provides an important foundation in building students’ confidence to express their understanding and reasoning to others. As will be seen in the next few chapters, the risk taking for atmosphere can increase and impose greater expectations on students through other signature pedagogies as they progress through their academy program and prepare for their field training.

4.6 Does SBL Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity? Returning to the key dimensions of a signature pedagogy, each of the three examples is discussed separately given the difference in the balance of dimensions between each. In relation to seeking a balance within the dimensions, Shulman argues: … that a sound professional pedagogy must seek balance, giving adequate attention to all the dimensions of practice – the intellectual, the technical and the moral. Pedagogy is compromised whenever any one of these dimensions is unduly subordinated to the others …. (2005, p. 58)

In this respect SBL provides a reasonable balance between the dimensions; however, the degree of balance will ultimately depend on appropriate content focus and effective learning design that avoids the historical problem of narrowly addressing law enforcement at the expense of moral and social aspects of policing.

4.6.1 SBL 1: Constructing a Fact Sheet The first SBL lesson, with its focus on constructing a specific legal document, has a bias towards the dimension of perform, given the concrete nature of the task. Whilst the students construct the document as a group, there is an expectation students will use this experience to later produce a fact sheet individually within other activities and assessments. Another important aspect of this performance is the application of police legal reasoning through documentation. Whilst in the legal profession, there is more of an emphasis on argument in a courtroom; for police, it is more about the professional presentation of documents to prove offences, with the giving of evidence being more of a secondary consideration.

50

4  Scenario-Based Learning

There is certainly some encouragement of how students should think from a professional point of view, especially given the need to use relevant information to construct a narrative that also incorporates legal reasoning around the offence elements. In terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, students are required to think at the highest levels to complete this task, particularly when synthesising prior legal concepts. In relation to the dimension of act with integrity, there is some emphasis around professional conduct, which can be interwoven with appropriate guiding questions in the lesson plan and from the facilitator. For example, emphasis can be placed on the need for police to be objective and truthful in providing this information to the court, particularly given the level of honest the community expects of police.

4.6.2 SBL 2: Use of Police Discretion The second SBL lesson, with its focus on police discretion and communication, places a primary emphasis on how students should act with integrity. By asking students to evaluate poor practice and formulate appropriate responses based on communication concepts and a procedural justice framework, they are looking beyond the mechanical aspects of completing an infringement notice and towards the meaningful social interactions with a member of the public that can have a long-­ term impact on how police are viewed in their role. Crucially, the use of a video scenario allows for a clear depiction and contrast of poor vs best practice in determining and applying the principles of procedural justice. In terms of how students should perform, the SBL process encourages concrete examples of what not to do and how practice can be improved. As with the other SBL lessons, these examples of performance are not simulating real-life actions, but they do encourage the transfer of theory to practice, developing an understanding that informs future application in policing simulations. Finally, the dimension of thinking, whilst being less of a priority, is still a feature given the students’ need to consider the scenario from the police and driver’s point of view. This thinking is scaffolded via a procedural justice framework as a way of making this type of thinking routine in future practice (Shulman, 2005).

4.6.3 SBL3: Drug Possession Alternatives The third SBL lesson exhibits a reasonably balanced contribution from the three dimensions. Students are encouraged to think through a legal reasoning process that structures the offence around key elements. As part of this process, the scenario requires careful analysis to ensure matching of information to the elements, particularly around the key sub-elements of knowledge and control of prohibited drugs. In some respects, there is an overlap with how police should perform in this situation,

4.7 Conclusion

51

given the translation of underlying thought processes into a concrete proof of the offence. The dimension of act with integrity is also interwoven into this process, first around the adherence to proper legal principles in proving the offence and second in the application and justification of harm minimisation strategies. As with SBL 2, the students are required to consider alternatives beyond a narrow law enforcement approach, aligning thinking with societal opinions that have become more accepting of alternatives to minimising the harms of prohibited drugs.

4.7 Conclusion An evaluation of SBL demonstrates its ability to meet a balance of the intellectual, technical and moral dimensions typical of signature pedagogies. The surface, deep and implicit structures of SBL highlight how an active student response encourages knowledge transference to policing situations whilst beginning to encourage some communication and teamwork skills. In terms of characteristics, SBL exhibits the flexibility to be pervasive and routine whilst providing clear opportunities for a level of public performance and risk taking challenging students within their ZPD. Whilst SBL exhibits flexibility in how it might be applied across a curriculum, this advantage also becomes a limitation. Police education has a history of utilising scenarios, but its application can be poor, especially with inconsistent use of cooperative learning or ineffective facilitation that impacts students’ active participation. There is also the potential for narrow applications of SBL within a legal/investigative process that ignores the wider dimension of how police should act with integrity. Effective educational design for specific lessons should also be matched by an appropriate balance of signature dimensions across an academy curriculum. For example, whilst SBL 1 had a more traditional legal focus, this can be balanced in part by SBL 2 and 3 that gave more weight to acting with integrity. By balancing all SBL activities across a curriculum, their flexibility can be enhanced, and the historical problem of narrowly focussing on mechanical aspects can be addressed. Some final issues highlighted in this evaluation of SBL were the limitations of not establishing a truly authentic environment and lower levels of challenge and/risk when compared to real policing situations. First, it is reasonable to expect academy learning activities will rarely match the challenges of real-world practice; however, that is not their role. Their role is to bridge the gap between theory and practice, with SBL being an initial section of this bridge that supplements other methods in constructing students’ knowledge and skills towards professional policing practice. In other words, it is not suggested that SBL is the answer to more effective police education but just one of a suite of signature pedagogies that can create a synergy for better learning and teaching practice.

52

4  Scenario-Based Learning

References Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 509–513. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press. Errington, E. (2005). Creating learning scenarios: A planning guide for adult educators. Cool Books New Zealand. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A metaanalysis, Methods of Cooperative Learning, What Can We Prove Works, p. 1–30, University of Minnesota. Kolb, D. A. (1984). The process of experiential learning. In Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (pp. 20–38). Prentice Hall. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8–14. Lai, C., & Xin, Y. (2009). “Ru”: Xunzi’s thoughts on Ru and its significance. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 4(2), 157–179. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40343916 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCoy, M. (2006). Teaching style and the application of adult learning principles by police instructors. Policing: An International Journal of Policing Strategies & Management, 29(1), 77–91. Seren Smith, M., Warnes, S., & Vanhoestenberghe, A. (2018). Scenario-based learning. UCL IOE Press. Shipton, B. (2020). Police educators’ experiences of teaching: Detailing differences between teacher- and learner-centred approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 232–249. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 5

Problem-Based Learning

A good teacher has been defined as one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. Thomas Carruthers (1953)

5.1 Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) is the second of four proposed signature pedagogies. In this chapter, PBL is defined and made distinct from SBL and ST, particularly around its role as a holistic learning method that drives deeper problem-solving and reflective practice. These specific aims of PBL are further highlighted in discussion of its original development in the field of medicine, where evidence for its effectiveness has emerged over the past 40 years. An evaluation of PBL in policing begins with an outline of the problem-solving process designed for application in both academy and field training phases. This discussion of process leads naturally into an evaluation of its structure and other aspects of the signature pedagogy framework. Unlike the previous chapter’s discussion of SBL, there is only one example of a policing scenario used given the wide integration of content and greater emphasis on underlying thinking and learning processes that are explored.

5.2 Defining PBL PBL is a constructivist method with five core characteristics that use (1) a realistic problem to initiate the learning process, (2) cooperative learning in small groups, (3) learner-centred approaches, (4) tutors who guide learning and (5) appropriate time for self-directed learning (Wijnia et al., 2019). For an observer walking past a PBL classroom, the scene would look very similar to an SBL activity, particularly with its use of an authentic scenario and group learning; however, its learning focus is intentionally broader and deeper, with a stronger focus on reflective practice. PBL was initially designed by Howard Barrows in medical education to improve on the mass memorisation of information in traditional programs and to help students transfer clinical problem-solving skills to their medical practice (Barrows, 1986). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_5

53

54

5  Problem-Based Learning

This reasoning echoes advocacy for implementation of PBL into a range of other professions’ learning programs, including policing. The effectiveness of PBL has been established in a review of numerous studies, including a quantitative meta-­ analysis by Walker and Leary (2009) and qualitative meta-synthesis by Strobel and van Barneveld (2009). Its theoretical underpinnings are similar to that of SBL, with additional theoretical aspects of students’ cognitive approaches described by Schmidt, Rotgans and Yew (2011) and its cooperative and scaffolding aspects, based on the work of Vygotsky, being highlighted by Loftus and Higgs (2005). PBL has been adopted as a method in police education to improve the application of knowledge and practical problem-solving in everyday policing situations and broader community policing practices. A range of scholars in police education have described PBL as an improved model of learning for policing that is demonstrably more relevant than the traditional lecture model (Chappell, 2008; Belur et al., 2020; Makin, 2016). However, Barrows (1996) cautions that many versions of PBL have been developed globally since its inception, with any number of these examples not strictly adhering to the core process. This issue is not uncommon in policing, with police academies sometimes touting they utilise PBL, but they may in fact be simpler versions of SBL. This misrepresentation of learner-centred methods is part of a broader problem in police education where learner-centred methods are often applied within a narrow behaviourist framework, limiting effectiveness (White, 2006; Cushion, 2022).

5.3 PBL Process and Lesson Model In the previous chapter, an example of a basic lesson model was used as an outline of the surface structure for SBL, into which various kinds of guiding questions and task could be flexibly applied. For PBL, a more unique approach is taken that differentiates itself from SBL. PBL has an explicit problem-solving process (Fig. 5.1), which is used to scaffold learning. This process extends over a longer timeframe than SBL, with intervening periods for students’ self-directed learning. The process outlined in Fig. 5.1 is also iterative on smaller scales within a given problem. The lesson model in Fig. 5.2 is based on a lesson structure I have used in facilitating PBL in a police program and designed to incorporate this PBL process. Unlike the SBL lesson model in the previous chapter, the PBL lesson model extends over a number of lessons and an extended period of time due to its more complex capture of integrated content. It should be noted there is a scope for variation in PBL lesson structures (Wijnia et al., 2019), with some institutions examining a problem over an intensive day, rather than a longer period as suggested in Fig. 5.2, which may extend over a 1- or 2-week module. In PBL, the facilitator explicitly guides small learning groups through each step of the process, encouraging students’ higher-order thinking around the ill-structured problem. The problem is a partial scenario, only providing enough information for

5.3  PBL Process and Lesson Model

55

Ideas

Students brainstorm ideas about nature of problem and potential solutions and actions

Evaluation

A review and summary of key concepts and learning Evaluate and reflect on personal learning and group interaction

Action Plan

An outline of specific actions needed to address the problem Students present action plan to rationalise and justify actions

Known Facts

Students list pertinant facts from the problem This list becomes a growing synthesis of information as the the process unfolds

Learning Issues

Students list key learning issues they need to understand in order to answer and/or complete the problem

Fig. 5.1  PBL process. (Adapted from Cleveland and Saville (2007), with permission from authors)

students to rationalise the situation and learn new content to resolve it. The problem is ill-structured because there may be complicating factors or no clear path and/or multiple solutions, although some of these ill-structured aspects might be resolved in hindsight. In comparison, SBL tends to use a narrower and well-structured scenario. Crucially, PBL is broader in its integration of learning across a curriculum, incorporating all aspects of a policing situation or job in an authentic and holistic way. This integration can be encouraged and scaffolded by a mnemonic such as POLICE, which represented below, and can encourage lateral thinking about the problem: P – Procedure and policy O – Officer safety L – Legislation I – Investigation C – Communication and community E – Ethics and professionalism The mnemonic is also useful for facilitators to maintain their focus on the holistic nature of PBL at all steps of the process and can assist in avoiding the traditionally narrow focus on mechanical procedural and legal considerations.

56

5  Problem-Based Learning

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

•One hour classroom session •Student groups analyse problem by listing ideas, known facts & learning issues in preparation for self-directed research

•Self-directed period •Students engage in research and discussion of key resources to address learning issues prior to next session

•Two hour classroom session •Each group provides an update of progress •Additional part of problem revealed or highlighted, prompting continuation of problem-solving

•Self-directed period •Groups engage in further research & discussion to complete learning •Time includes preparation of final presentation

•Two hour classroom session •Each group presents their action plan & highlight key concepts learnt •Debrief & evaluation

Fig. 5.2  Police PBL lesson model

This particular police PBL model is built around a two-part disclosure1 of the problem, although it can still be used in a single disclosure case, with the facilitator directing focus on selected parts of the problem. The model also assumes breaking a normal class of 20–25 students into four sub-groups, unlike medical PBL which often has one larger group of 10–12 students. The group structure allows academies to maintain their teacher-to-student ratio, which minimises the cost of transitioning to PBL but allows manageable guidance for students. It is also suggested that for the research or self-directed phases, policing students should be able to easily access relevant content via their study guides, policing handbooks, handouts, digital lectures or other resources as scaffolds. This approach is different to medical schools which require students to research problems essentially from scratch. However, given the shorter duration and intensity of police academy programs, it is best to have these resources easily accessible to place the emphasis on learning and application rather than searching sources of information.

 A two-part disclosure asks students to work on an initial part of the problem, with the second part disclosing some answers to the students’ initial problem-solving, whilst providing a further stage of the problem to work on. A two-part disclosure allows students to focus on an initial aspect of the problem without revealing a solution. A single disclosure can also work depending on the type and context of the problem. 1

5.5  Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy

57

5.4 PBL Topic Example For the purpose of this evaluation, only one topic example is used; first, for the sake of simplicity and, second, because the focus of PBL is on the use of a problem-­ solving process to drive integrated learning rather than the flexibility in activity types in SBL. Notwithstanding this difference, flexibility within the PBL example will be demonstrated through content variation in the second part of the problem. The example referred to centres on police stopping a vehicle of similar description to one seen near the scene of a shop stealing. The police in this problem notice articles in the vehicle that may have been stolen from the scene. The problem scenario provides enough information for students to consider possibilities in relation to the situation, but being ill-structured, it is not initially clear what the final outcome might be, whilst the information highlights a range of issues beyond the legal aspects of a crime. For example, there may be details around officer safety, communication, the driver’s ethnicity and/or attitude or other factors that represent the normal contextual complexities that police confront in everyday encounters. There might also be additional information given to the students if they suggest doing vehicle and criminal history checks as part of ideas to investigate the situation. Ultimately, from this first part of the problem disclosure, they should eventually establish and justify reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle. This first disclosure of the problem is identical for each of the four student groups in a classroom; however, the second disclosure, given to the students after the first iteration of the PBL process, is different for each group. This variation in the problem scenario will take each group in a slightly different direction towards separate but related offences. One might be a standard stealing offence, whilst the others might relate to receiving stolen property, goods in custody or embezzlement. There might also be variation in aspects of the investigation, the accused’s circumstances or other aspects that may influence the outcome. Essentially, each group will learn from the outcome in their problem but will have an opportunity to also learn from the variations in content of other groups in their final presentations.

5.5 Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy 5.5.1 Surface Structure The surface structure of PBL is made quite explicit by the problem-solving process in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. Traditionally, if policing students were given scenarios or problems to resolve, any underlying problem-solving processes tended to be vague or implicit. Making this process part of the surface structure assists in making it routine or automatic, allowing students to focus on content and application (Shulman,

58

5  Problem-Based Learning

2005). Also explicit should be the learning outcomes or standards, which should be detailed in a rubric2 supplied to students prior to learning. The physical layout of the PBL classroom has students initially seated in small groups around an artefact to record their problem-solving, whether it be an eisil, sharable computer screen or a whiteboard. However, given the fluid nature of PBL, especially as it moves between classroom and self-directed phases, the seating and working arrangements within and between the groups and facilitator can vary significantly. In this environment, the facilitator moves from group to group, watching, listening and providing guidance by scaffolding students’ thinking as required. Phase 1 opens with the first two steps in the PBL process, ideas and known facts. These steps are linked to a certain extent in the surface structure, with some historical debate about which step should come first. Some argue that collecting known facts first is important before thinking about ideas, whilst the thinking of others, including the model author (Barrows, 1986), is that generating a wide range of ideas first prevents tunnel vision around one possible solution. Whilst the latter approach is taken in this model, in a sense, the steps happen simultaneously. Prior to brainstorming3 ideas, the students will read through the scenario, often underlining and briefly thinking about key sections. As such, they are highlighting facts and thinking about initial ideas during this first encounter with the problem scenario. During this brainstorming of the ideas and facts, the facilitator encourages a broad range of thinking from the groups, who are working independently. Here, the POLICE mnemonic assists the students in thinking holistically about the problem. Once the students complete their lists of ideas and known facts, they construct a list of learning issues. It is important to note these lists do not remain fixed, with points being added or removed as the process continues. The list of learning issues will direct the students to content needed to resolve the problem. Again, the POLICE mnemonic assists students in maintaining a focus beyond the fundamental legal aspects of the case. In the context of the problem scenario, the students are initially focused on how they might justify searching the vehicle, perhaps co-opting a more specific mnemonic called THIS4 to guide their thinking on factors to justify reasonable suspicion to search the person and/or vehicle. As an example of how the facilitator guides students’ deeper thinking on this point, they may prompt students to consider aspects of effective communication and professional behaviour as an emphasis on how police might effectively and respectfully interact with the person in legally applying this search power. Importantly, the facilitator does not teach this

 A rubric is a learning and assessment tool that outlines both generic and content-related criteria with different levels of quality. 3  As an educational technique, brainstorming encourages the free flow of ideas or points by a group of students, whilst at the same time, suspending judgement of these ideas or points to a later time in order to encourage unhindered contribution from the group. 4  THIS represents Time and location (with certain crimes being more prevalent at the time or location), History (criminal history or history of offences at the location), Intelligence (police intelligence relating to the person or area) and Situation (how specific actions or circumstances lead to suspicion certain crimes of happening). 2

5.5  Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy

59

point but instead prompts student thinking towards the identification of key learning issues. Whilst one of the key aims of PBL is to encourage self-directed learning, the facilitator actions here indicate there is still a degree of teacher input or direction; however, this scaffolding should fade over the program as the students’ problem-­ solving and learning skills improve. Once the facilitator is satisfied, the groups have constructed appropriate learning issues, and the groups begin Phase 2, where they research and study their identified learning issues. The facilitator is not actively involved in this phase but may provide advice on study approaches and should be available for consultation. As indicated, there are available and explicit resources students can use in their application to the problem. Prior to Phase 3, each group should formulate an action plan based on their learning. This is not a final action plan as the second problem disclosure is not revealed yet; however, it is a basis of the final action plan and provides an outline of the students thinking the facilitator and other groups can evaluate in Phase 3. Phase 3 begins with each group outlining its progress and thinking so far on how police should be addressing the problem scenario. Ideally, each group should recommend a search of the person and vehicle; however, they must justify their actions from a legal standpoint and outline the appropriate management of this situation in terms of professional practice. In other words, it is not enough for students to simply prescribe a brief action plan, with students needing to rationalise actions. This summarisation of students’ progress on the PBL process might not entail every group detailing their learning but is a facilitator led discussion to check and compare learning progress that selectively draws aspects of learning and reasoning from each group. Once the facilitator is satisfied about each groups’ progress, the second disclosure of the problem scenario is provided, and the process repeats. Unlike the first disclosure, the second has variations that will lead each group to a different outcome. This technique is very useful in providing a broader coverage of curriculum topics and can minimise the possibility of some groups simply waiting for others to come up with the answers. As such, the variations require each group to share their learning on a unique aspect of the problem scenario. Aside from different offences, there might be other variations around the investigation, sources of evidence and circumstance that challenge communication and ethical aspects. Once the groups repeat the PBL process, they again establish key learning issues to provide direction in Phase 4. The learning pattern in Phase 4 is similar to Phase 2, but the groups also need to prepare a presentation of their learning in the Phase 5 lesson. This final 2-h lesson is organised around a 15–20 min presentation by each group in which they outline and justify their action plan. Importantly, the groups are encouraged to be creative in their presentations and move beyond simply reading from scripts to enhance the learning experience for their peers. There is also a strong emphasis on all students collaborating in their organisation of their presentations. In this session, the facilitator is seated at the back of the classroom during the lesson, leaving organisation around the setting up and timing of presentations to the students. After each group finished their presentation, feedback is elicited from the presenting group and then

60

5  Problem-Based Learning

through each of the other groups before the facilitator’s feedback, with time at the end of the lesson to draw together key learnings and themes. All feedback forms an important part of the students’ evaluation of both their learning and experience within the learning group. This reflection is undertaken as part of a learning journal to be completed prior to the next PBL problem. Ideally, this reflection should be scaffolded with guiding questions that encourage deeper and transfer learning of the content and importantly questions around an emotional intelligence (EI) framework that assist in developing communication and teamwork skills with their peers.

5.5.2 Deep Structure The deep structure of PBL shares the fundamental learning and teaching assumptions of SBL, particularly given its experiential nature (Kolb, 1984) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, PBL takes active learning deeper in terms of reflective practice, problem-solving and integrated learning. For example, the reflection on experience within and after action (Kolb & Kolb, 2018) is emphasised strongly by the facilitator during the problem-solving process to question and justify assumptions whilst also being made explicit in students’ reflective journaling. This metacognitive5 activity is a key technique within PBL that drives deeper learning and higher-order thinking (Daniels, 2007). Metacognition is an important tool in developing group problem-solving and is essential to developing reflective practitioners (Brookfield, 2017). These skills do not always come naturally to students and cannot be assumed, so they need to be made explicit to students early in the program and steadily scaffolded until they imbedded in their learning (Shulman, 2005). The goal of developing reflective practice and fading scaffolding over time is to develop independent learning and in a sense make the facilitator’s role gradually redundant (Wood et al., 1976). Another key aspect of the deep structure is the underlying thinking processes within the broader PBL process. Problem-solving within education has a long history, although it has often been underutilised (Schmidt et al., 2007), as is the case with police education (Chappell, 2008). Despite this reticence, problem-solving is a powerful learning tool (Dewey, 2007; Barrows, 1986), which crucially allows specific problem-solving skills to be transferred into professional practice (Schmidt et al., 2007). Looking deeper into the PBL process itself, there is a combination of both lateral thinking and critical thinking. Lateral thinking, a process of broadening problem-solving to consider unfamiliar patterns or options (De Bono & Zimbalist, 1970), is particularly evident in the early part of the PBL process during the brainstorming of ideas, known facts and learning issues. Critical thinking, a key skill encouraged in PBL and required by professional practitioners (Schmidt, 1993),

 Metacognition is an awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes, which is an important skill in developing as a reflective practitioner. 5

5.5  Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy

61

tends to follow lateral thinking as students analyse learning issues, refine their ideas to determine an action plan and creatively design their presentation. This level of thinking is also evident in their post-PBL evaluation when they reflect critically on their learning. These various levels of thinking are also reflected clearly in the midto higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This signature of problem-solving is an essential tool for police given they solve problems from the most basic policing tasks through to chronic community problems that require stakeholder partnerships (Chappell, 2008). The third key aspect of the deep structure in PBL is its holistic nature and integration of content and thinking tools from across a curriculum. This strategy is a key strength of PBL and is authentic because it asks students to consider all aspects of a policing problem that would confront them in a workplace setting. Critical to this process is the facilitators’ actions in guiding and scaffolding thinking to encourage active construction of meaning relevant to practice and developing transferable problem-solving skills (Biggs et al., 2022; Schmidt, 1993). For example, the problem scenario may highlight our person of interest refusing to be searched, so the facilitator may prompt students to consider approaches or options around rapport building, active listening and assertive communication, which are key tools in the application of a legal search power, especially in their justification and explanation. Here, the students are in their ZPD, trying to grasp a situation that is not familiar to them, so the facilitator provides guidance by making connections between various concepts that are drawn together to solve the problem and provide a comprehensive action plan (Daniels, 2007; Biggs, et  al., 2022). Finally, variations in the second disclosure are informed by variation learning theory (Marton & Booth, 1997) covering a wider range of concepts and providing key points of comparison that further stimulate learning.

5.5.3 Implicit Structure When considering the implicit structure of PBL, it specifically builds teamwork skills as students continue their learning in groups outside the classroom to achieve various goals. Cooperative learning in the form of peer support is a form of scaffolding (Daniels, 2007; Loftus & Higgs, 2005); however, the longer-term collaboration used in PBL can be challenging when there is tension or conflict within a learning group. In my experience, students would approach me and ask to work in different groups when uncomfortable with peers; however, my response was to first highlight they would not have this luxury as operational police, so alternatively, I highlight ways they could deal constructively with this challenge. Unfortunately, workplace conflict and friction are normal and especially so in police station environments, where it can have a greater mental impact than operational stresses. This is why effective group management strategies, including the use of EI, are crucial in assisting students to reflect on and manage their interactions with others, developing important skills that assist adaption and resilience in the workplace.

62

5  Problem-Based Learning

Another aspect of the implicit structure in PBL is developing empowerment and responsibility. In this regard, PBL requires students to take control and responsibility through active learning and completing tasks in their self-directed phases. This control and responsibility culminate each PBL cycle in the final presentation during Phase 5, with coordinating organisation of the lesson, presenting their learning and contributing to self- and peer evaluation. This empowerment contrasts with the passive student role in lecturing and is a signature of the growing responsibilities students are expected to take on as junior police at the start of their field training. This point is highlighted by Makin (2016) in his discussion of dualisms in police academy programs, highlighting the contradiction of using traditional and paramilitary approaches that stifle initiative and critical thinking, whilst expecting students to demonstrate these skills post academy. This contradiction is one reason why PBL has struggled to gain traction in academy programs against the weight of policing culture (ibid.). A crucial aspect of developing empowerment is understanding the facilitator’s role in guided instruction. A common misconception or myth of PBL is that students learn by themselves or that guidance is minimal; however, Schmidt et al. (2007) argue PBL requires flexible adaptation of guidance to support cognitive reasoning, with support only being faded as students improve their problem-solving abilities. A final aspect of the implicit structure relates to the encouragement of professional decision-making. A constant criticism of police has centred on the misuse of powers, including the inappropriate use of searching powers, often in terms of perceived profiling and inadequate justifications for searches that violated human rights and lead to substantive litigation. Within the first disclosure of the PBL example, students are placed directly in a decision-making situation in which they must weigh the legal and professional aspects of a search, particularly the reasoning and EI skills so often lacking in police education (Blumberg et al., 2019). As part of the legal decision-making, they can use the THIS model; however, they must also consider other parts of the problem scenario that highlight contextual factors around ethnicity, socio-economics and communication. In the real world and also in training situations, police and police students may sometimes pursue an end justifies the means or noble cause approach if they think the target of their search is present, which can lead to illegal and unprofessional actions. However, PBL as a slow-time learning method, with appropriate design and scaffolding, emphasises deliberate and considered justifications of police actions which account for all relevant aspects of a professional approach that can be factored into students’ decision-making.

5.5.4 Pervasive and Routine In spite of the inconsistent use of police problem-solving, especially at a macro level, PBL is yet to be described as pervasive across police education, although examples can be found with both academy and field training contexts. However, given the suitability of PBL as a method that integrates topic areas and develops

5.5  Evaluation of PBL as a Signature Pedagogy

63

problem-solving skills in academy and field contexts, it has a considerable potential as a pervasive signature pedagogy, particularly in addressing what is problematic in police education and policing generally. In this regard, it can be applied at all stages of academy programs and within field training programs, as will be discussed in Chap. 7. The routine nature of PBL has been demonstrated in police education and via the example described in this chapter. In my experience the PBL process described in Fig. 5.1 has been successfully applied to PBL spanning a full academy program. During this experience, I observed students were at first cautious in their use of the PBL process; however, by their second or third attempt, they were competent in using it to thoroughly examine problem scenarios. As such, it is recommended the initial problem(s) are relatively simple or well-structured to scaffold thinking, before introducing gradually more challenging or ill-structured problems to ensure students operate within their ZPD. More specifically, I have seen the PBL example described here examined and solved by students. It is a level of problem likely used in the latter half of an academy program, with students already adept at the process, resulting in lively discussions around searching in the first disclosure and interesting contrast in their final outcomes.

5.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance The public student performance in PBL builds on what was evident in SBL. Both display occasions where spokespersons from certain groups explain and justify assertions and learning; however, PBL provides greater scope and opportunity for this performance given the broader and deeper nature of the problem. As with the nature of PBL, the team contribution is not just about the content studied, as the students’ problem-solving, teamwork and organisation are all on display. The nature of evaluation also holds higher stakes, with the facilitator recording detailed feedback on the presentations and encouraging peer review, which reciprocally encourages student metacognition and reflection. During their presentation and throughout the process, an emphasis is placed on students justifying proposed actions, similar to their future workplace. Importantly, the facilitator guides these presentations towards effective paraphrasing and creative techniques to demonstrate learning. This use of students’ teaching as a learning technique underpins the public student performance. In my experience, students and police educators have questioned this aspect of PBL, suggesting police students are not teachers. Whilst I certainly agree we are not developing teachers, requiring students to share knowledge with peers and present their learning in PBL is achieving two fundamental goals. First, in a review of research on learning through teaching, Duran (2017) demonstrated that, among a range of techniques, cooperative learning groups and student presentations lead to improved learning and teamwork. Second, police students require public speaking and communication skills for a range of daily interactions, with these being demonstrated in PBL. As such, policing students

64

5  Problem-Based Learning

require opportunities to practise these skills through the articulation of key concepts, such as explaining a search power, and receive feedback on these efforts. Importantly, Duran (2017) highlighted that students gained more from a process where they interact with peers and a facilitator rather than simply telling or reading from text. As such, the student presentations should be interactive with the broader class and subject to structured questioning from both peers and facilitator(s) to clarify issues and enhance the learning for all students.

5.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere The level of risk taking for students in PBL provides a moderate level of risk given responsibilities for a substantive task and the requirements to explain and justify actions throughout the PBL cycle. As Shulman (2005) highlights, the key to managing this risk and learning generally is to provide appropriate scaffolding to keep students within their ZPD and not extending beyond it. The cooperative learning techniques within PBL assist in spreading that risk among group members whilst still placing responsibility on students to produce results from their problem-­ solving. Certainly, there are also risks of group dysfunction, which is why the facilitator must work to manage the groups and encourage the use of effective EI within the groups and in the students’ reflective journaling. Crucially, the pressure on students to take risks is part of the uncertainty seen in signature pedagogies, particularly as dealing with uncertainty and making judgements is a key aspect of professional practice (Shulman, 2005).

5.6 Does PBL Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity? Turning to the dimensions of signature pedagogies, the PBL example provided has addressed all three, although I would argue its main strength is guiding students in how to think like police and act with integrity, with a lesser emphasis on performing. First, in terms of students’ thinking, PBL is explicitly structured around a process that stresses lateral and critical thinking as techniques to drive active student learning. PBL requires several iterations of this process and employ levels of thinking are consistently at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, with demonstrated examples of students being required to apply, analyse, evaluate and create. This PBL example also utilises a range of specific thinking models such as the THIS principle, with other examples being the cognitive interviewing model, the assertive communication model and an ethical decision-making framework. Finally, student thinking in this environment is constantly encouraged and scaffolded by the overall learning design, peer support and the facilitator(s), who are ultimately training students to think like professional police officers.

5.7 Conclusion

65

PBL has a significant potential in guiding how policing students can act with integrity. Due to the holistic character of PBL, it allows students the time and space to properly problem-solve key aspects of the scenario beyond the basic legal concepts. In a sense, it allows students to consider not just what they are going to do but why and how they should act. For example, an ethical decision-making model would ask students to consider how they as police might be held to account. This model can prompt reasonable actions that consider members of the public filming them or how they would explain these actions in light of a complaint. The assertive communication model could also allow students to outline a verbal exchange that eliminates overly aggressive communication and instead combines effective communication in the application of their search power. Underpinning this communication strategy should also be EI concepts, which inform actions around self-­ awareness, social awareness and the effective management of the interaction. In this way, the students are applying the EI skills they have learnt to improve peer collaboration. All of these actions support Shulman’s (2005) emphasis on improving professional judgements in uncertain situations. The key dimension of perform is, at least to some extent, less obvious than the other dimensions within the context of PBL. This is because students will not usually perform specific policing tasks, although there are exceptions. For example, students may use a role play in their presentation phase or maybe submit an assessment product such as a notebook entry or report. However, what PBL does contribute towards this dimension is a detailed foundation for performance, with the action plan developed during slow-time learning acting as framework to inform the application of concepts when students undertake real-time simulations. The use of this foundation within a broader curriculum framework is elaborated in Chap. 8.

5.7 Conclusion An evaluation of PBL within the signature pedagogy framework highlights a process encouraging significant integration and application of content knowledge whilst simultaneously developing relevant problem-solving, communication and teamwork skills. The PBL process is explicitly embedded into the surface structure of this method, but the impact of this process can also be seen within the deep and implicit structure, where crucial underlying skills are developed in a way that aligns with learning theory and meets the future operational needs of policing students. PBL has been compared to SBL in a number of respects throughout this chapter; however, this comparison does not seek to elevate one approach over the other but to highlight how they might complement each other and other methods within a police academy curriculum. In this respect, PBL does not have some of the flexibility of SBL but is alternatively an excellent method for drawing together or integrating topics so learning can be transferred to authentic scenarios. As such, it is crucial to invest in effective facilitation and design of ill-structured problems to maximise this authenticity and integration.

66

5  Problem-Based Learning

An examination of the key dimensions in PBL highlights an emphasis on how students should think and act with integrity, which are historic weaknesses in police academy programs. Whilst some critics may suggest thinking models are already taught, the reality is they are often not applied by students in a way that encourages contextual learning. For example, problem-solving, communication and ethical decision-making models can be taught in lectures, but without students practising and reflecting on these models, they simply become forgotten pieces of information, along with other content lectured to them. Hence the strength of PBL, which integrates aspects of knowledge and integrates a range of relevant skills in contextually relevant situations that encourages transfer into the workplace.

References Barrows, H.  S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for Quality Learning at University 5th edition. McGraw-hill education (UK). Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., & Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4941. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons. Carruthers, T.  J. (1953). Discipline as a means of development. The Phi Delta Kappan, 35(3), 137–139. Chappell, A.  T. (2008). Police academy training: Comparing across curricula. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(1), 36–56. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, Blueprint for the 21st century. CommunityOriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Cushion, C. (2022, January). Changing police personal safety training using scenario-based-­ training: A critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 6, p. 548). Frontiers. Daniels, H. (2007) Pedagogy, in Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press. De Bono, E., & Zimbalist, E. (1970). Lateral thinking (pp. 1–32). Penguin. Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education (The Kappa Delta Pi lecture series). Free Press. Duran, D. (2017). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. Kolb, D. A. (1984). The process of experiential learning. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, 20–38. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8–14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Loftus, S., & Higgs, J. (2005). Reconceptualising problem-based learning in a Vygotskian framework. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 7(1), 1–14.

References

67

Makin, D.  A. (2016). A descriptive analysis of a problem-based learning police academy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1). https://doi. org/10.7771/1541-­5015.1544 Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem‐based learning: what works and why. Medical education, 45(8), 792–806. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-­ analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-­ Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem-based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 6. White, D. (2006). A conceptual analysis of the hidden curriculum of police training in England and Wales. Policing and Society, 16(4), 386–404. Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M., & Rikers, R. M. (2019). The problem-based learning process: An overview of different models. In The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 273–295). Wiley. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

Chapter 6

Simulation Training

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. Herbert Spencer (1894)

6.1 Introduction Simulation training (ST) is the third of four proposed signature pedagogies and the last of three used within police academy programs. In this chapter, ST is initially defined and made distinct from SBL and PBL, particularly in its use as a method to simulate responses to everyday policing situations. There is further description of an ideal ST model for use in academy programs whilst critically analysing its limitations when applied within a traditional and behaviourist mindset. Two specific examples of scenarios are used to provide contrast in how ST might be applied to promote student learning. These examples of ST are then evaluated against the signature pedagogy framework.

6.2 Defining ST Simulation learning in the broader field of education is defined as: … learning within a safe educational environment, in which some form of reality is simulated. Learners have to learn and act within this environment. They usually have to fulfill quite complex tasks, which often are close to real-life tasks. (Breckwoldt et  al., 2014, p. 673–4)

Many police educators might be more familiar with the term role play or practicals, but regardless of what they are labelled, these activities require policing students to complete typical policing tasks in a controlled learning environment. ST utilises realistic scenarios, and like PBL, they are always partial, providing students with a limited amount of information to complete a task. However, the key differentiation between the classroom-based methods and ST is firstly its application in real-time as compared to slow-time application with SBL and PBL. Secondly, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_6

69

70

6  Simulation Training

policing students are performing as police in a simulated environment rather than studying the underlying aspects of police performance in a classroom setting. For the purpose of examining ST as a signature pedagogy, this evaluation will focus on activities incorporating concepts and skills across a broader academy curriculum rather than specialised ST used, for example, in the use of force (UOF) encounters, including the use of virtual reality technology. Whilst research into the general use of ST in policing is limited, there is a more substantive body of literature investigating ST application to UOF encounters, particularly given the intense public interest on this issue. As such, specialised UOF simulations may constitute a signature police pedagogy in their own right but is beyond the scope of this evaluation, which seeks to examine more holistic use of ST integrating holistic topic areas. Another potential form of ST not considered as part of this evaluation is the increasing range of computerised simulations that are used or being developed within police education. Whilst these simulations can provide valuable learning opportunities, assisting students to work through key concepts and decision-making tasks, they remain more of a study tool rather than a genuine signature pedagogy. More specifically, these activities tend to lack the public performance associated with signature pedagogies, whilst they also tend to be narrow in their content focus and omit real-time human interactions associated with ST. In this sense, ST is defined here as a learning method that requires the application of specific teaching techniques, rather than a form of technology. The use of ST in police academy programs has grown significantly in recent decades as a supplement to classroom-based learning (PERF, 2022), matching a broader trend across professions to recreate relatively high-fidelity1 environments for students to apply knowledge and develop skills (Breckwoldt et  al., 2014). In spite of the increasing use of ST in police education, outside the sphere of UOF applications and specific technology items, little in the way of research into their broader application has been conducted. Some emerging studies, such as Beinicke and Muff (2019), have demonstrated both student learning and confidence benefits of ST. In the broader field of professional education and training, research on ST has also demonstrated the attributes of adult education and critical thinking in professional learning environments similar to policing, such as nursing (Nagle et al., 2009).

 Fidelity relates to the degree of authenticity or realism in the simulated environment. For example, most police academies construct scenario villages, with buildings and rooms that have police stations, streets and businesses to represent real-life locations police would attend as part of their work. Other items would include replica arms and appointments, radios, notebooks or props such a knife or drug sachet. 1

6.4  ST Topic Examples

71

6.3 ST Structure Whilst the potential of ST is promising, what remains problematic in police education is the limited and inconsistent way it is applied within behaviourist perspectives and an overly narrow legal/investigative focus (Pearce, 2006; PERF, 2022). These issues result in ST activities that predominantly centre on the investigation of criminal offences and are often dominated by students recording evidence in their notebooks. This is not to suggest these topics and skills are not important; however, the narrow legal/investigative focus, especially around the documentation of notebooks and reports, can tend to sideline the application of social and professional skills so important to policing (Blumberg et al., 2019). Additionally, a behaviourist approach encourages the use of checklists that see a list of actions being ticked off rather than linking theory to practise and assisting students to understand why they are performing certain actions and how they can operate in a more effective and independent manner through reflective practice. Additional problems that impact the effectiveness of ST in police education include a lack of alignment with prior learning and poor scaffolding structures around the simulation activities (Kalalahti, 2015; Cushion, 2022). The broader impact of this problem on the curriculum level is discussed further in Chap. 8, suffice to say that ST can lose its relevance within the curriculum structure without effective means to guide student learning towards the task and post task in the vital debriefing and reflection phase. As such, each simulation activity should align with prior learning in a timely manner to ensure effective construction and transfer of knowledge (Breckwoldt et al., 2014). There should also be links to prior learning and appropriate scaffolds that assist students to transfer knowledge and reflect on their simulation experience (Dieckmann, 2009). The ST structural model outlined in Fig. 6.1 is designed to address the need to scaffold the learning process within a broader curriculum. This simplified three-­ phase structure is inspired by the model used by Dieckmann (2009) in his analysis of ways to optimise simulation learning activities in healthcare settings, although this model has also been adapted to a security and policing setting by Kalalahti (2015). Detail of police students’ progress through the three-phase model is described as part of the ST surface structure later in this chapter.

6.4 ST Topic Examples For the purpose of evaluating ST as a signature pedagogy, two examples are used to demonstrate the degree of complexity and potential variation in scenarios used. The first example has two police attending a local pub after being called by the manager to remove an intoxicated person refusing to leave. This activity is designed as a non-­ notebook task that emphasises effective communication and EI skills in conjunction with exercising police powers and would likely be used relatively early in an

72

Phase 1 - pre activity

•Direct students towards theory relevant to upcoming ST, with learning resources supporting culmination of module learning •Briefing of upcoming activity around requirements and learning expectations

6  Simulation Training

Phase 2 - simulation activity

•Students engage in task through their assigned roles •Facilitator observes task, providing scaffolding at key points based on in task evaluation of performance

Phase 3 - post activity

•Debriefing led by facilitator but augmented by self and peer assessment •Student reflection on task via structured learning journal

Fig. 6.1  ST structural model. (Adapted from Dieckmann (2009), with permission from the author)

academy program, with its focus on developing key threshold concepts2 such as communications and legal powers. It specifically emphasises rapport building and assertive communication techniques but interweaves these techniques within the application of legal powers to remove the intoxicated person. Whilst this action can be thought of as law enforcement, it should also model the policing role of keeping the peace, with the aim of a non-physical resolution, with the intoxicated person ideally leaving of their own accord with no legal action needed. The direction for students not to use their notebook in this instance minimises the time-consuming aspect of completing notebooks. As such, it is recommended that at least some of the scheduled ST in any program should be notebook-free to allow shorter activities that focus on key communication and legal concepts. The second ST example highlights the challenging situation of policing domestic violence. As opposed to the first example, this ST exhibits a more complex learning activity that would typically be found in the latter stages of an academy program as it represents the integration and culmination of many key concepts and skills. This scenario is not limited to a certain aspect of the job but entails a full response by two police, ranging from their approach to the premises, managing the scene, interviewing the victim and further investigation through to arresting an offender. An extension on this ST may also involve the charging and bail process of the offender at a police station and completion of relevant court documents as part of a mock court proceeding. Whilst this example fits within the more traditional ST task involving

 Threshold concepts are challenging concepts, ideas or skills that, once understood or mastered, enable students to move forward in learning further content within a learning program (Meyer & Land, 2003). 2

6.5  Evaluation of ST as a Signature Pedagogy

73

investigation and law enforcement around a particular offence, there is a considerable scope in a properly designed activity to incorporate professional actions such as victim care, a range of communication strategies and officer safety.

6.5 Evaluation of ST as a Signature Pedagogy 6.5.1 Surface Structure Before students partake in their very first ST activity, they should receive a briefing on the broader purpose, characteristics and student expectations related to ST generally. Usually in larger police academies, a separate unit organises ST and uses a made-for-purpose location or scenario village. When students attend this location for a timetabled period, they go through a routine of collecting their equipment, for example, portable radios and/or a body-worn camera, before attending a session briefing. However, aspects of the briefing process should begin well before the ST activity, with students having received a learning rubric at the beginning of the relevant learning module. The rubric highlights various standards of performance expected and importantly allows students to link intervening theory lessons to their upcoming ST. There should also be supporting resources students can access, such as their interactive study guide, worked examples or demonstration videos that reflect the transfer of theory to practice in relevant situations. For example, in preparation for the failure to quit premises ST, students should be directed towards relevant legal concepts and perhaps view digital resources with examples of police using rapport building and assertive communication techniques in broadly similar situations, with students being encouraged to practise skills in their informal study time. After their briefing, students go to their ST location after calling onto academy radio, which acts as an authentic police radio service the students will utilise throughout their activity. Depending on staffing ratios, two students may be assigned to one facilitator or there could be up to four students, with two students performing their ST whilst the others observe. Whilst this arrangement has the downside of limiting time experiencing ST, it also has the benefit of students learning from their peers’ actions, where the facilitator can use these observers as additional sources of feedback in the debriefing process. As with most ST activities, there is the need for students to engage with various people that police would encounter in their day-to-­ day duties. As such, actors are required for these roles, which require specific instructions to ensure reality in the simulation. In the domestic violence ST, the victim’s role should be filled by someone who can provide a credible account of the incident, although it is not reasonable to expect a completely authentic representation. For the failure to quit premises ST, however, the role of the intoxicated person is likely best filled by the facilitator or, if possible, another staff member, given the need to adjust and de-escalate their response as the students apply the appropriate communication techniques.

74

6  Simulation Training

Once the facilitator ST activity has begun, the two students acting as police, one being the lead officer and the other in a support role with a police radio, work through the simulation as they act out the role of a police officer until its conclusion. The role of the facilitator is to listen and watch carefully whilst taking notes on student performance. The extent of possible intervention by the facilitator will depend on whether the ST is a formative3 or summative assessment. Ideally, the students should progress through the activity without facilitator support; however, applying theory into ST is often challenging for students, and the activity design should require the average student to be working within their ZPD, so the facilitator may intervene in situations where a student becomes stuck or takes the wrong path. In a sense, this intervention, where the facilitator assists the student’s thinking process, is a momentary pause in real time to slow time but one that can provide important ‘… coachable moments …’ (Cushion, 2022, p. 5). There is also a scope for structured interventions at key decision-making points during the activity, asking students to explain or justify key actions. For example, in the domestic violence ST, there may be a key decision-making point when police are initially refused entry to the premises, which the facilitator may have to scaffold to support decision-making. At the culmination of the ST activity, appropriate time should be given to a structured debriefing, which forms the basis of further critical reflection. Whilst the facilitator has likely completed detailed feedback on the assessment rubric, before providing this, they should first ask students to self-evaluate both positive and negative aspects of their performance. If student peers are observing, they should also provide peer feedback. Finally, the facilitator provides their feedback, supplementing the students’ input and highlighting key takeaway points for improvement. Beyond the activity conclusion, the students should make an entry in their structured reflective journal to consolidate learning and assist with improvements in their next ST activity. This reflective process can also be improved via a video recording of the activity (Beinicke & Muff, 2019).

6.5.2 Deep Structure The deep structure in ST is informed by several educational theories in a similar way to SBL and PBL but with differences in emphasis. One of the most appealing things about ST for policing students is the chance to finally act as a police officer, so from an adult learning theory perspective, ST provides an activity that drives  A formative assessment is an assessment for the purpose of learning and does not count towards a student’s final grading. A summative assessment is an assessment that counts towards a student’s final grade. Ideally, most ST activities should be formative, to maximise learning, allowing greater initiative through student confidence and greater opportunities for facilitator intervention and guidance. However, ST remains an ideal activity for summative assessment, although this application is usually more appropriate at key junctions or the end of the overall program. 3

6.5  Evaluation of ST as a Signature Pedagogy

75

motivation in an experiential or hands-on situation and an opportunity to implement their self-directed learning (Knowles, 1980). From the perspective of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory, ST provides a further step from slow-time PBL to a real-time simulation that allows students to make their new knowledge explicit in a policing situation, which is a significant chance to prove ability within their chosen community of practice. In terms of situated learning theory, ST, when applied appropriately, addresses its four elements elaborated by Stein (1998) and outlined in Table 6.1, with applications to the ST examples in a policing context. Another key educational assumption underpinning ST is experiential learning. The ST activities are highly experiential in that first they provide a concrete learning experience allowing the transfer of theoretical knowledge and second it provides an opportunity to reflect on a pivotal performance that has culminated a module of learning into an integrated activity. Strictly speaking, Kolb and Kolb (2018) suggest true experiential learning requires reflection on experience. The structure of ST allows for reflection before, during and after the activity, which aligns with the concepts of Schön’s (1983) reflection-for-action, in-action and on-action. Students’ reflection at each of these stages can be encouraged through the facilitator’s prompting during the activity and during debriefing, whilst reflection before and after the activity can be facilitated through their study guide and learning journal. Regardless, the quality of this reflection is fundamental to maximising learning from police ST experiences, consolidating knowledge construction and developing professional learning skills (Beinicke & Muff, 2019; Kalalahti, 2015; Boursnell & Birch, 2020).

Table 6.1  Elements of situated learning Situational learning elements Content

Context

Meaning of elements Rather than simply remembering content, it should also be used in everyday problem-solving that stresses reflective and higher-order thinking Provides the right time, place and situation to apply learning and a platform to examine the learning experience

Community

Working within the community allows learners to share, create, interpret and reflect on meaning

Participation

Learning and its negotiation as an exchange of ideas take place in a social setting among facilitators and peers

Adapted from Stein (1998) and applied to police ST

Examples of elements within ST activities Responding to each ST requires students to analyse a situation as part of their investigation and evaluate a range of evidence prior to making real-time decisions Each ST should be timed to occur after relevant theory sessions within a learning module, explicit debriefing and reflective tools providing opportunity to examine the learning experiences The police academy, including staff and learning peers, provides the opportunity to share practice-based and cultural knowledge of policing Explicit interactions between students and staff occur during and after the ST to assist the transfer of prior learning

76

6  Simulation Training

A final and related aspect of the deep structure is the transfer of knowledge learnt in theory-based lessons to the ST activity. If policing students are unable to effectively transfer or apply knowledge to practical situations such as ST, then learning has been ineffective, or at least not to a level required for professional practice, thus making ST a crucial opportunity to consolidate previous surface and deep learning (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016). Whilst SBL and PBL tend to have a greater focus on building surface and deep learning, with some transfer learning occurring, ST places a stronger emphasis on transfer learning in real time, albeit with opportunities to further deep learning. However, the key to maximising deep and transfer learning from the ST activity is an effective debrief and reflection phase, which allows for the consolidation of prior learning (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016; Kolb & Kolb, 2018).

6.5.3 Implicit Structure The implicit structure of ST extends some of the themes seen in PBL, notably teamwork and social skills, but within an action-oriented environment that police educators and their students often prefer as it is outside the normal classroom. Police educators would traditionally describe ST as hands on, which is a term used to describe the active nature of learning but without fully appreciating its theoretical underpinnings or precise educational terms (McCoy, 2006). Whilst police educators might favour this form of learning, their focus on skills over knowledge ignores the transitions of surface to deep and transfer learning and instead assumes students’ automatic transition from theory to practice. This is why police academies utilise mainly lectures and behaviourist forms of ST to check skills that are assumed to be present once relevant knowledge is provided. This implied thinking is a part of a more traditional use of ST that is essentially a projection of rote learning procedures. As such, the implicit structure of ST described in this chapter extends on these traditional assumptions by linking the ST activity more explicitly with prior theoretical concepts and encouraging reflective practice that encourages critical thinking and independent learning. An important element within reflective practice is honest self-evaluation, which dovetails with the students’ EI development and the effective self-evaluation and management of emotional responses in challenging situations (Shulman, 2005). The two examples of ST described in this chapter both provide opportunities for students to demonstrate effective EI in the context of dealing with people in difficult emotional states that require various levels of empathy, rapport, assertiveness and customer service. Appropriate design of ST activities will allow for the application and reflection on these social/professional skills beyond basic legal/investigative procedures. Finally, the implied structure encourages learning beyond the application of memorised procedural steps to include a more dynamic problem-solving and decision-­making process to enhance professional judgements. Policing is fundamentally about solving a wide range of problems police confront in their daily

6.5  Evaluation of ST as a Signature Pedagogy

77

duties. These problems require more than a set number of fixed routines given the variations that make each situation unique and with its own challenges. Whilst the ST activities in a curriculum may only represent a limited number of common situations police will face, their design should require students to initially evaluate, collect information and make decisions based on their problem-solving. As such, ST is implicitly about developing these skills so police can adapt to new and varied situations.

6.5.4 Pervasive and Routine ST as a learning method used across the broad academy curriculum has become increasingly widespread and pervasive in police academy programs (PERF, 2022), although is more firmly established in some countries than others (Beinicke & Muff, 2019). ST is flexible for use in targeted applications, such as example 1 in this chapter, or being utilised for fully integrated situations that demonstrate the full range of capabilities, demonstrated in the domestic violence example. This flexibility allows ST to be used at any stage of academy programs, although often by staff specifically assigned to teaching roles within ST units. One caveat that limits the potential pervasiveness of ST is its low teacher to student ratio within congested and short academy programs (PERF, 2022). The routine nature of ST is difficult to determine due to the limited research and program descriptions available in the literature outside the sphere of UOF applications. Unfortunately, there is limited standardisation of ST across the field of police education (Beinicke & Muff, 2019). Whilst these traditional approaches do not prevent ST from being routine, these processes tend to favour the surface learning of procedures rather than encouraging deeper and transfer learning as part of a critically reflective process. In contrast, the ST structure outlined in Fig. 6.1 and similar frameworks described by other authors (e.g., Kalalahti, 2015) provide a routine that is more constructivist and drives lifelong learning skills through reflective practice.

6.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance The public student performance during ST is of a more demanding nature than what is expected in PBL. Students are now operating in pairs rather than within a group, with a specific spotlight on the senior officer who takes the lead on key actions during the simulation. The performance also entails an actual performance of policing actions in real time. The performance audience is usually smaller for ST; however, the students involved remain very aware of the scrutiny around their actions by peers and their facilitator. Whilst the main focus of the performance is on students acting out their policing role, other elements of the performance can be seen during their reflection in- and

78

6  Simulation Training

on-action within and after the ST activity. These reflections are just as public as the simulated performance but, similar to the discussions in SBL and PBL, represent the thinking and justifications underlying students’ actions. Importantly, these reflections should be encouraged and scaffolded by the facilitator, although over time, students should fall into this process as a natural response without additional prompting from the facilitator. There is potentially a minor public performance role for observing peers if they are tasked with providing feedback, particularly when comparing with their own ST performance. All of these interactions are examples of the social constructivist nature of ST and the benefits of interactive learning in police education.

6.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere The ST performance clearly entails the creation of a risk-taking atmosphere for policing students, which represents the aspects of uncertainty and making judgements within a professional setting (Shulman, 2005). As highlighted in relation to their public performance, students in the role of senior officer in particular carry a responsibility to provide a convincing and accurate representation of a police officer, equivalent to a reasonable standard expected of students at that stage of their program. For students undertaking summative assessment with ST, there is a significant level of risk, to the point where their policing career is potentially on the line if they do not perform to this standard. Ideally, policing students should be adequately prepared for the risk in these activities through participation in regular ST as formative assessments that develop students’ knowledge and skills to an acceptable level. However, even with the less-risky formative activities, students are still subjected to a reasonable level of pressure given the need to perform in front of their peers and facilitator and demonstrate their progression through the program and their worth as a developing police student. Importantly, formative ST provides a relatively safe learning environment where students can comfortably make mistakes and have the opportunity to reflect on these. Given the relatively high stakes of ST to individual students, the structure described in Fig. 6.1 provides scaffolding that assists in managing this risk by supporting students to work within their ZPD and maintain their resilience as a reflective practitioner (Shulman, 2005).

6.6 Does ST Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity? To answer how ST meets the key dimensions of a signature pedagogy, each of the two examples are discussed in light of the evaluation so far. As with the signature pedagogies of SBL and PBL, there is a mix of the intellectual, technical and moral

6.6  Does ST Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?

79

that addresses the need for balance as a signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005). It is argued that ST provides a reasonable balance across the three dimensions but with an emphasis on how students should perform as police.

6.6.1 ST 1: Failure to Quit Licensed Premises The first example of requesting an intoxicated person to leave a licensed premise provides an obvious situation where students must perform a specific task. As with any ST, the performance begins with acknowledging and calling off onto the location, with the police then identifying and communicating with the pub manager to gather information about the incident and to determine a course of action. Importantly, the actor playing the intoxicated person will not respond to the students’ requests until they demonstrate certain steps in their assertive communication process that incorporates an explanation of the relevant legal power police possess in this situation, thus leaving an option for a peaceful resolution to the impasse. Ideally, the students, knowing the content of the activity from their rubric, would have practised with their peers, thus providing further opportunity to consolidate learning and its transfer from theory to practice and enhance their functional knowledge (Biggs et al., 2022). This performance also entails a significant aspect of acting with integrity. In police education, the term assertive communication represents a functional and reasonable balance between a passive and aggressive approach that allows police to achieve ordered and respectful outcomes, without having resorting to escalated conflict and/or UOF that is often a source of policing complaints (Ouss & Rappaport, 2020). Crucially, this kind of professional behaviour acted out within the ST, rather than simply being learnt as an abstract theory that becomes irrelevant without transfer to meaningful contexts. By providing this opportunity for contextual application, policing students are provided with a concrete experience and an exemplar of the best practice that serves as a workable alternative to quickly succumbing to UOF in resolving situations. In relation to the dimension of think, this example does provide opportunities to apply thinking skills, especially as students evaluate and react to the situation. However, the main opportunity to learn and develop thinking skills within ST is through the structured debriefing and learning journal processes post activity. This reflection is a key thinking or metacognitive process that students are developing with each successive ST activity; however, it should be scaffolded by pointed questions asking students to analyse and justify their underlying thinking and how this informed their actions.

80

6  Simulation Training

6.6.2 ST 2: Domestic Violence Incident Similar to the first ST example, there is a major emphasis on the dimension of perform in the domestic violence simulation. In particular, a properly designed version of this ST activity integrates learning from across the full range of topic areas that any police officer should draw upon and apply in a similar operational setting. This integration of students’ learning can be seen in their actions that encompass each part of the POLICE mnemonic, with some examples highlighted in Table 6.2. Importantly, all topic aspects represented by POLICE require a seamless integration as part of the students’ performance; however, there needs to be realistic expectations as to the standard of performance and to what extent the activity is formative or summative. Regardless, the variation in performance standards from poor to excellent should be explicit for students and facilitators in the ST rubric, which also scaffolds learning. Whilst the most appealing aspect of ST for both students and police educators is this opportunity to perform, the dimensions of students’ thinking and ability to act with integrity are also demonstrated within the activity. As highlighted in discussion of the deep structure, students are required to problem-solve and make decisions. This type of thinking can be seen at various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, for example, analysing evidence as part of the investigation, evaluating options for entry into the premises and applying legal powers to arrest and search the offender. However, it should be noted that these levels of thinking do not easily occur without their prior development in prior slow-time learning activities. For example, the challenging use of cognitive interviewing techniques would ideally be introduced in SBL and PBL activities before they can be effectively applied within ST, hence the need for effective curriculum alignment. Finally, students have ample opportunities to act with integrity within this example. There are several aspects of professional actions highlighted across Table 6.2, particularly in relation to their dealings with the victim and demonstrating an ethical investigation process. As with example 1, the ST design is essential, including the assessment rubric, and actions of the role players provide a reasonably realistic Table 6.2  Integration of topics in ST as represented by the POLICE mnemonic Policy and procedure Officer safety Legislation Investigation Communications and community Ethics and professionalism

Victim care policy and procedures relating to checking for registered firearms before and after entering the premises Diligence in their approach to the premises and offender management during the investigation Applying powers such as entry and arrest whilst identifying elements of offence(s) and restraining orders Using cognitive interviewing skills with the victim and offender whilst recording relevant details Demonstrating emotional intelligence with victim whilst providing guidance to relevant community supports Demonstrating a fair and objective investigation whilst respecting the human rights of both victim and offender

References

81

situation so this kind of learning can be engaged. For example, if the victim is dry and non-descriptive in their performance, it can limit the ability of students to demonstrate the appropriate EI skills, which in turn can limit the material they can reflect on in their learning journal.

6.7 Conclusion ST as a method in police education has been growing in popularity due to its action or hands-on dynamic that intrinsically appeals to police educators and students alike. Despite the obvious benefits of ST, police academies have tended to let traditional and behaviourist approaches influence its use, resulting in an overuse of checklists that limit ST to linear procedures, inconsistent debriefing and limited critical reflection. The ST structure described and evaluated in this chapter in contrast provides the best practice model that maximises its potential as a signature pedagogy within a broader academy curriculum. The evaluation of this structure has demonstrated how ST, as a signature police pedagogy, can play a pivotal role in transferring and consolidating learning from classroom-based activities such as SBL and PBL. In this regard, ST provides an ideal platform for integrating learning from diverse topic areas; however, when used early in the program, it also allows for focussed foundational learning. As such, ST is best placed as a capstone activity in the final stages of key learning modules, where it culminates learning and provides an opportune point for students to reflect on their actions and prior learning they have transferred into the activity. In relation to the signature pedagogy dimensions, ST provides the ideal environment for students to perform their professional role within a controlled and safe academy environment. Additionally, there are key opportunities for students to think and act with integrity, although exploiting these two dimensions will depend upon effective learning design, broader curriculum alignment and structured reflection to move the activity beyond a simple step-by-step procedure. ST also allows an ideal opportunity for students’ public performance but at a risk level that allows students to make mistakes and learn from these within the debriefing and reflection stages.

References Beinicke, A., & Muff, A. (2019). Effectiveness of simulation-based learning in basic police training. Special Issue European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 4, 207. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-­ Hill Education. Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., & Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4941.

82

6  Simulation Training

Boursnell, M., & Birch, P. (2020). Becoming a pracademic. In Australian policing: Critical issues in 21st century police practice (p. 23). Routledge. Breckwoldt, J., Gruber, H., & Wittmann, A. (2014). Simulation learning. In International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 673–698). Springer. Cushion, C. (2022, January). Changing police personal safety training using scenario-based-­ training: A critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 6, p. 548). Frontiers. Dieckmann, P. (2009). Simulation settings for learning in acute medical care. In P.  Dieckmann (Ed.), Using simulations for education, training and research (pp. 40–138). Pabst. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. Kalalahti, J. (2015). How are simulations used in security sector training in Finland. European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 13, 70. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Cambridge the Adult Education Company. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8–14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press. McCoy, M. (2006). Teaching style and the application of adult learning principles by police instructors. Policing: An International Journal of Policing Strategies & Management, 29(1), 77–91. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines (pp. 412–424). University of Edinburgh. Nagle, B. M., McHale, J. M., Alexander, G. A., & French, B. M. (2009). Incorporating scenario-­ based simulation into a hospital nursing education program. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(1), 18–25. Ouss, A., & Rappaport, J. (2020). Is police behavior getting worse? Data selection and the measurement of policing harms. The Journal of Legal Studies, 49(1), 153–198. Pearce, R. J. (2006). Probationer training for neighbourhood policing in England and Wales: Fit for the purpose? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29(2), 335–342. Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Spencer, H. (1894). Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical. CW Bardeen. Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education (pp.  640–646). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, the Ohio State University.

Chapter 7

Field Training

Smooth seas do not make skilful sailors. African Proverb

7.1 Introduction The learning method of field training (FT) is the fourth and final signature pedagogy examined in this chapter. FT differs from the previous three signature pedagogies in a number of respects, the most obvious being its use in the operational sphere outside of academy programs, with FT being defined as a form of workplace learning. As part of the differentiation with academy learning, some background and research on FT and the pivotal role of field training officer (FTO) are outlined, followed by discussion of a process of reflective practice stemming from a cognitive apprenticeship model. The application of this model via a typical policing task is then used to evaluate FT against the signature pedagogy framework.

7.2 Defining FT FT is a version of workplace learning, where policing students1 engage in operational police work having been sworn in as functional police officers. The designation of workplace learning contrasts with SBL, PBL and ST, all of which can be described as work-integrated learning (WIL), which integrates the learning of theory with workplace practices. Police academies are potentially ideal environments for WIL, as they already provide a work-specific context, although the historical use of lecture has limited the effective application of WIL. Police students may also continue with WIL learning activities with academy-based assignments during their probationary terms, plus some police programs require their students to return to the

 Whilst there is still use of the terms policing student or student, the assumption is that having graduated from the police academy, these students are now operational police. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_7

83

84

7  Field Training

academy for short periods once they have entered the workforce. Regardless, their time spent on the job learning to be police officers is workplace learning, just as it is for a range of other occupations that utilise various traineeships, internships, clinical placements and apprenticeships. Whilst the probationary period for police can last a year or more, in the first several months, police students are assigned to one or more field training officers (FTOs)2 to instruct and guide students in the initial stage of their on-the-job training, resembling a generic apprentice model of placing a trainee with a more experienced operative. FT has a long history in policing that predates the establishment of academies (Fielding, 2018) and is a common strategy across a range of professions (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). However, whilst learning on the job forms the basis of learning and is certainly effective in developing students policing skills, long running concerns have been raised as to the consistency and quality of instruction among FTOs and the problematic aspects of socialisation in the policing culture (Chan et al., 2003; Lauritz & Karp, 2013; Hoel & Dillern, 2022). More specifically, the traditional focus on behaviourist learning practices and a tendency for FTOs to create their own personal models of teaching practice often limit learner-centred and critically reflective practice (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014; Hoel & Dillern, 2022; Ryan & Ollis, 2019). Additional problems include FTOs dismissing and undermining academy learning and a reinforcement of narrow reactive policing and law enforcement cultures over community policing practices (Chappell, 2007; Cleveland & Saville, 2007). The approach to FT as a signature pedagogy described here seeks to minimise these issues and provide an effective and sustainable learning environment for policing students.

7.3 FT Model for Learning The discussion of a learning model for FT differs somewhat in focus compared to academy-based methods given its workplace nature, where structured classroom or activity processes are replaced by the chaotic and unstructured nature of police work. This is not to suggest there are limited policing tasks upon which learning can be based but reflects restrictions on how well both FTOs and policing students can optimise learning from them given the demanding operational environment (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). Whilst attending a range of day-to-day policing tasks, the FTO guides a student’s learning in what Collins, Brown and Holum describe as a ‘cognitive apprenticeship’ (1991, p. 1). Collins et al. (ibid.) developed this model from what they described as a traditional apprenticeship model, which was based around an expert demonstrating a workplace task to a student, then coaching through further tasks and fading scaffolding as the student develops their ability to problem-­ solve complex workplace situations. Their criticism of this model was its limited

 There are variations on this title across jurisdictions; however, the generic FTO is used here.

2

7.3  FT Model for Learning

85

elaboration of underlying thinking processes to supplement observations and actions. As such, their cognitive apprentice model explicitly brings thinking to the surface through commentary, questioning and feedback from the teacher and through articulation and metacognition from the student to enhance the development of expert thinking (ibid.). In their research of the FTO role, Tyler and McKenzie (2014) highlighted that FTOs did not fully apply the cognitive apprentice model in terms of inconsistencies in making thinking explicit, particularly in relation to limited reflective practice. The authors highlighted an, ‘… unbalanced or skewed application of the cognitive apprentice model’, including a lack of awareness around effective training practices and the use of varied teaching philosophies based mostly on FTO’s personal experiences as policing students (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014, pp. 88–89). Given these findings, the model shown in Fig. 7.1 outlines a proposed process that resembles salient features of the cognitive apprentice model and applies it to a FT context. Whilst the

1. Modelling: Student observes task performed by FTO, who explains key actions during and posttask and invites student to explain selected actions via questions.

Reflection:

Student selfevaluates performance

2. Coaching: Student performs all or

most of task with FTO providing close guidence, encouraging student to rationalise key actions and leading debriefing process.

& EI

3. Independent: Student performs

task, with FTO only providing guidence when required. FTO encourages student's self-evaluation as a foundation for reflection.

Articulation: Student explains task related thinking

4. Exploration: Student explores task beyond that learnt from the FTO, through application into a different context or by problem-solving underlying issues.

Scaffolding: FTO

supports student thinking, fading it as competence increases

Fig. 7.1  FT learning process modified from cognitive apprentice model (Collins et al., 1991)

86

7  Field Training

contextual challenges outlined remain, this model attempts to provide explicit steps and guidance for suitably trained FTOs and policing students. In their use of this model, an FTO would apply the step of modelling to a task the student has encountered for the first time and use subsequent steps in future encounters with a particular task to guide learning and competence. It should also be emphasised that this model can be used flexibly in terms of the level of task or in the repeating or combination of steps and should be viewed as a broad guideline. However, it is important for the educational techniques of reflection, articulation and scaffolding to be made explicit as part of the training process and within supporting curriculum documents.

7.4 FT Task Example Rather than focus on a particular topic, as the previous discussion did for academy pedagogies, the workplace context of FT necessitates focus on particular tasks police attend as part of their normal duties. For example, police may attend an assault complaint, with the victim’s statement providing a crucial sub-task the FTO may ask the student to focus on within the broader job. Essentially, the FTO needs to control a student’s workload and learning expectations to allow an effective learning environment, which is not always easy in a pressurised and often chaotic workplace. For the purpose of examining FT as a signature pedagogy, the example of investigating a serious traffic collision is used, particularly given police requirements to attend serious incidents to provide an essential emergency service and investigate legal aspects when injuries and deaths occur. As such, collisions comprise a range of sub-tasks and involve considerable communication, organisation and investigation. Referring to the model in Fig. 7.1, a student will manage a number of collisions over time in partnership with their FTO as they learn and develop their knowledge and skills around this task; however, it is important to realise each occasion can differ markedly. Whilst the students in their academy program are provided with a number of broad steps in dealing with traffic collisions, real-world variations require adaptative problem-solving whilst transferring previous learning to unique experiences.

7.5 Evaluation of FT as a Signature Pedagogy 7.5.1 Surface Structure The broader surface structure of FT is outlined in Fig. 7.1; however, there is a finer detail of the techniques used within each stage. The stage utilised by an FTO will depend on a student’s readiness to undertake a particular task, remembering the

7.5  Evaluation of FT as a Signature Pedagogy

87

student would have knowledge from their academy learning and ideally some ST experience to develop their functional knowledge. Generally, though, when experiencing a relatively complex task for the first time, an FTO would initially model the task, whilst the student observes this demonstration of the best practice. As the student observes, the FTO should, where possible, provide explanations of their actions and ask the student questions to encourage reasoning around the task. For example, when first examining a traffic collision scene, the FTO might ask a student to speculate on its cause based on initial observations of the collided vehicles, scattered debris and tyre marks. This questioning can stimulate the students’ thinking and give the FTO and indication of the student’s understanding around evaluating a collision scene. Essentially, observation is supplemented with an unstructured dialogue between the FTO and student to illuminate thinking behind key actions and decisions. The next time our FTO and student encounter a traffic collision, they would likely move to a coaching stage, where the student takes a more active role or at least completes certain parts of the task. For example, the traffic collision may involve two drivers, so the FTO may take the initial driver’s statement to again model the task, before asking the student to take a statement from the second driver, where the FTO provides coaching. The FTO role when coaching is to give close guidance and support, answering questions and prompting the student to articulate thinking and actions. Whilst taking a statement from the second driver, the FTO might ask the student to pause at key points and consider the information gathered so far or prompt their thinking on further questions they may ask the driver. The key point is allowing the student to complete as much of the task as they can but with scaffolding to ensure the task conducted appropriately. Once completed, a debriefing process should begin with the student self-evaluating of their actions, including articulation of their reasoning of actions in addition to their effectiveness. As such, debriefing incorporates both articulation and reflection whilst also being a form of scaffolding as it supports understanding. The student’s learning is consolidated in their reflective journal, which includes prompts around their emotional intelligence (EI) to improve interactions with members of the community and their resiliency in dealing with any challenges. Again, the FTO may choose to repeat this or any stage if they feel the student is not ready to progress. The independent stage is a natural progression from the FTO’s more active approach in guiding learning during the coaching role, allowing the student space to take a lead role in completing a task to demonstrate learning and competence. The student undertakes the major actions required during the task, whilst the FTO continues to supervise the students’ actions, refraining from intervening unless the student became genuinely stuck or is on the verge of taking an inappropriate action, essentially acting as a safety net that gives the student confidence to apply their learning. As such, scaffolding would be minimal with fading support at this point being appropriate given the student’s improving ability. Articulation remains an important technique in this stage. For example, the student may decide to issue an offending driver with a traffic infringement notice, but prior to this point, the FTO may ask the student to elaborate the reasons why, based on the evidence collected

88

7  Field Training

from the scene and drivers. Here, the FTO is confirming the correct action and allowing the student to justify an action by outlining their reasoning. The stage of exploration is an opportunity for the student to extend and deepen their learning of the task beyond the basic competencies expected of a policing student. For example, they may be required to investigate a more serious traffic collision resulting in a person’s death and the additional investigative complexities that bring or perhaps deliver a problem-solving proposal that can minimise future collisions at a specific location. This latter example is a specific design feature of a North American FT program called Police Training Officer (PTO), which builds on traditional FTO programs by requiring students to engage with community stakeholders, who essentially act as a PBL learning group to solve policing problems (COPS Office, 2001). When undertaking this problem-solving activity, the student will examine the underlying reasons for continued traffic collisions at a location with a high rate of road trauma. This research might involve consultation with stakeholders such as local government, state road safety authorities and specialised traffic police. The student, utilising this community expertise, can formulate a number of solutions and make specific recommendations for change. All through this process, the PTO, acts like any PBL facilitator, scaffolding the student’s learning and encouraging effective articulation and reflection in a way that develops professional learning skills. Another key aspect of the PTO program is its use of a reflective journal, which embeds reflection-on-action. Realistically, a student cannot journal every task or learning situation; however, as part of this model, it is used on a regular basis to capture key learning experiences. This final stage is important in extending students’ understanding of policing and ongoing development as an independent and reflective practitioner.

7.5.2 Deep Structure The learning theories that inform FT are very similar to those discussed in the previous three chapters given that FT is a natural progression into workplace learning from the work-integrated and experiential methods already described. The modified cognitive apprentice model in Fig. 7.1 outlining the surface structure is also informed by a number of these theories, particularly in relation to situated learning, participation in a community of practice and guided participation utilising the ZPD (Dennen & Burner, 2008). Traditional FT in policing has tended to be behaviourist, simply reinforcing behaviours through assessment checklists without encouraging deeper learning and reflective processes (Cleveland & Saville, 2007). This approach is also embedded within a cultural tendency for some FTOs to rely on a ‘watch and learn’ approach that limits the articulation of thinking and discounts prior learning (Campbell, 2008, p. 88) and is similar to the passive approach to academy lecturing. A cognitive apprentice approach addresses this problem by bringing thinking to the surface and making thinking and metacognition more explicit (Collins et al., 1991; Dennen & Burner, 2008), with obvious benefits to students beyond traditional

7.5  Evaluation of FT as a Signature Pedagogy

89

approaches (Karp & Stenmark, 2011). Thus, from a teaching perspective, FT requires the FTO to be active in highlighting and guiding students’ thinking processes, particularly by encouraging verbalisation of these processes and reflective practice. Returning to the underlying theories that inform this approach to FT, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning is one of several key theories that inform assumptions about learning within this signature pedagogy. It reflects learning within a sociocultural environment and through a context that requires the application of policing concepts learnt at the academy into real-life situations. Importantly, this theory implies that academy learning is not simply the transference of static procedural knowledge but develops key ways of interacting with people and problem-­ solving in complex social environments to develop functional knowledge (Stein, 1998; Biggs et al., 2022). The social aspect of this theory as it relates to legitimate peripheral participation is also relevant given students’ immersion into a community of practice. The FTO is one of a number in this community who co-constructs knowledge with policing students and is a powerful influence on their learning and development (Chan et al., 2003), with Cleveland and Saville (2007) describing the FTO essentially as a gatekeeper for students into the organisation. The broader approach of learning by doing evident in FT is also underpinned by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning. In particular, the emphasis on articulation promotes reflection-in-action, whilst the debriefing and learning journals are examples of reflection-on-action (Schön, 1983). The model in Fig. 7.1 essentially takes learning and teaching techniques that would traditionally be implicit and inconsistently applied and makes them explicit. Highlighting these techniques is essential to encouraging an experiential learning dialogue between FTO and student, whilst developing students’ capacity for long-term reflective practice (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). The students’ reflective journaling further supports and gives focus to experiential learning, ideally accelerating progression through stages of this model. The third theoretical assumption informing the use of this FT model is Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD, which sits within his broader sociocultural theory, where cognitive development occurs through socialisation. Vygotsky’s theory was further developed by Rogoff (1990) into a theory of cognitive apprenticeships, highlighting how the teacher gradually exposes the learner to increasingly complicated tasks within their social (and potentially workplace) environment until they can complete them independently. This process is termed guided participation, which is structured around the concept of ZPD and is evident in the description of the surface structure of FT. First, the FTO needs to match the right stage of the model with a student’s ability around a given task and has the flexibility to repeat a stage to maintain the student’s ZPD. Second, when undertaking the task, the FTO uses a variety of interactive scaffolds that allows the student to complete the task. It is important for this process to be challenging for the student, but without so little support, they become overwhelmed and make mistakes because they are beyond their ZPD or with too much support that results in the FTO simply telling the student what to do, leaving them within their zone of current development (ZCD). Scaffolding is also supported by encouraging a student’s articulation during the task and through subsequent

90

7  Field Training

reflection that encourages further learning beyond the task completion, both in terms of specific skills and knowledge of the task and their underlying problem-­ solving and metacognition skills. The final point in relation to the deep structure relates to the concept of surface, deep and transfer learning (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016). Whilst there is a broad transfer of knowledge from academy to field, there remain elements of all three levels and their consolidation during the FT process. When engaging in the task of managing and investigating a traffic collision, students will continue to expand their surface knowledge, deepen their understanding of key concepts learnt at the academy and transfer prior learning into specific actions. Even after achieving relative competence, all of these learning processes continue into the exploration stage and beyond, with new challenges and variations confronting students as they develop through their policing career.

7.5.3 Implicit Structure Given the historically powerful influence of FT in shaping policing students’ professional attitudes and values (Chan et al., 2003; Campbell, 2008; Bergman, 2017), there are obvious contrasts between traditional implicit practices and the ideal focus of the proposed model. FT is embedded deeply into police practice and culture and is further differentiated from academy learning due to considerable variation in how FTOs undertake their role. Historically, many FTOs have unfortunately commenced their students’ training with the words to the effect, ‘Forget everything you learnt at the academy’ (Chan et al., 2003; Cleveland & Saville, 2007), which has so often served to undermine academy learning and its principles in a negative socialisation process. Fortunately, this is not the only experience of policing students, but highlights a need to properly structure FT programs and prepare FTOs for their role to avoid negative aspects of the hidden curriculum (Karp & Stenmark, 2011) and provide continuity with academy programs (Bergman, 2017; Belur et al., 2020). These aspects of the hidden curriculum can also inadvertently place distance between police and their communities by promoting a warrior3 rather than a guardian mindset, which goes to the heart of the contemporary debate around the policing role (McLean et al., 2020). Breaking down the key aspects of the implicit structure within the proposed model, there is an emphasis on moving beyond teaching procedural skills within a narrow law enforcement approach to additionally developing key skills such as communications, problem-solving and reflective practice within a community  A warrior mindset views police as warriors fighting crime; however, this approach reflects a more aggressive approach that often clashes with community values and favours a narrow law enforcement view of policing. Alternatively, a guardian mindset values working with the public to problem-­solve and reduce crime, leading to better outcomes around crime and community relations (McLean et al., 2020). 3

7.5  Evaluation of FT as a Signature Pedagogy

91

policing framework. Crucially, these skills are an important aspect of improving community interactions and building resilience in policing students in a way that supplements traditional learning content. For example, the development of problem-­ solving and related thinking skills is clearly evident in the traffic collision tasks. Dealing with a task such as this has always been about problem-solving, as can be seen with the FTO developing a student’s ability to evaluate the scene and gather evidence from drivers and witnesses to determine a collision’s cause. However, these traditional or reactive problem-solving skills are built upon in the PTO program by applying them in a proactive way that may prevent future traffic collisions. This approach is part of the potential of PTO in contributing to the development of community policing (Chappell, 2007). Another fundamental skill evident within the implicit structure of the FT model is communication, and entwined with this is EI. The traditional and masculine culture of policing would often ignore or deride the use of these terms, leading to both academy and FT programs tending to prioritise hard skills over perceived soft skills (PERF, 2022; Ryan & Ollis, 2019). However, Tyler and McKenzie (2014) highlight FTO’s acknowledgement of communication as one of several key generic skills all police must have. The proposed model assists in making these soft skills increasingly explicate, with further scaffolding being provided by regular reflective journaling, which asks students to reflect through the prism of EI to develop interactions with both members of the public and their colleges. Given the contemporary imperative of enhancing policing resiliency (Craven et al., 2020), the development of EI in this challenging environment can provide a key tool to assist this goal whilst also contributing to a broader multidisciplinary approach to improved communication (Wooden, 2020). Improved resilience can also be encouraged by the development of reflective practice within this model, which builds independent and lifelong learning skills (Boursnell & Birch, 2020). The implicit structure of this FT model emphasises the importance of these skills as a foundation for learning the broader content of policing across students’ policing careers.

7.5.4 Pervasive and Routine FT, in a general sense, has been more pervasive than any other learning method in the history of police education, although it should be cautioned that all aspects of the cognitive apprenticeship model, particularly the elaboration on thinking and reflective aspects, have not been pervasive given its skewed application in policing (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). What remains pervasive is an apprenticeship form of learning where practice is modelled and coached but with considerable variations depending on organisational programs and individual FTO choices (Dulin et  al., 2020). These variations are exacerbated by poor FTO selection, limited or no training and a lack of recognition for this role. Regardless of these problems, FT remains a cornerstone of police students’ preparation and a significant influence on their

92

7  Field Training

socialisation into policing that must be accounted for and addressed in any effort to improve organisational performance and culture. When considering the routine nature of FT, it is important to differentiate the pedagogical routines from the routines of undertaking police work, particularly given the propensity of workplace challenges that can overwhelm training practice (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). The quality and consistency of the pedagogical routine also hinge on past teaching experiences, personal judgements and pedagogical inclinations of individual FTOs (ibid.). However, Bergman’s (2017) study of FTOs did highlight a relatively consistent application of basic reflective stages on students’ policing experiences, although their knowledge of broader curriculum imperatives and educational techniques that guide key routines were limited. The proposed FT model described here and the previously mentioned PTO program provide techniques that build upon the current practices in FT to enhance articulation and critical reflection. Shulman (2005) also highlights the importance of signature routines assisting students within their ZPD. Unfortunately, within FT practice, some FTOs willingly allow their students to make mistakes or go down the wrong path as a way of teaching a lesson (Tyler & McKenzie, 2014; Hoel & Dillern, 2022), arguably allowing them to work beyond their ZPD. This practice can be counterproductive to the development of effective routines and can be compounded by the cultural shaming of policing students’ mistakes when learning (Hoel & Dillern, 2022).

7.5.5 Entailing a Public Student Performance Of the four signature policing pedagogies discussed, FT involves the most public student performance of all. For students performing the actual role of police, they are front and centre in terms of visibility and accountability to their community. In the task of investigating a traffic collision, police are engaged in an often chaotic and challenging situation where they must interact with various members of the community and other emergency personnel. Here, the students are no longer performing in front of their student peers but people whose lives can be directly impacted and by an FTO, whose job is to continually evaluate this performance from both a formative and summative perspective. The degree of this performance will depend upon the stage from Fig.  7.1 that is chosen, with the first stage of observing the FTO’s modelled performance requiring limited performance, although even at this stage, the FTO encourages articulation and reasoning from the student to make sense of actions being demonstrated. Nonetheless, progression to the remaining stages provides considerable opportunities for active engagement in a public performance as a police officer.

7.6  Does FT Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity?

93

7.5.6 Creating a Risk-Taking Atmosphere The public student performance in this situation indeed creates a risk-taking atmosphere. Performing the task of investigating a traffic collision for a student has an immense potential for the ‘adaptive anxiety’ described by Shulman (2005, p. 57), where they must make judgements in uncertain situations. The judgements made by police in these situations can certainly impact people’s lives, whether it relates to physical safety, legal decisions or customer service and emotional management in a stressful situation. For the student, the risks around mismanaging these situations is very real and can impact on their progression as a student and impact their reputation within a community of practice where they are trying to prove their worth. Given these risks within a high-stake learning situation, adequate management is important to produce effective learning rather than letting the student become paralysed with the fear or uncertainty these situations can present (Shulman, 2005). The FTO’s role is crucial to managing the line between anxiety and learning during this public performance. This management begins with the FTO choosing the appropriate stage of the model and continues with their use of scaffolding within the ZPD that manages the risk of becoming overwhelmed but still challenges the student to perform the task or sub-tasks in a way that maximises learning. A key to maintaining learning and resiliency in this challenging environment is building students’ self-management skills through techniques such as EI. Whilst Shulman (ibid.) does not specifically mention EI as a tool within signature pedagogies, he does highlight the need for managing the emotional content of learning within the risk-taking atmosphere, suggesting this can have an influence on establishing positive professional values and dispositions in learners.

7.6 Does FT Assist Students to Think, Perform and Act with Integrity? Returning to the broader dimensions of what defines a signature pedagogy, there is consideration of the intellectual, technical and moral aspects of FT. Beginning with the dimension of perform, it is evident that FT fulfils this purpose as students are directly performing the job of policing as a part of their workplace learning. More specifically, the traffic collision example requires performance across a wide range of sub-tasks and their subsequent follow-up once police have left the scene. This dimension has been a strength of traditional FT practices, reinforced by the use of competency checklists and the underlying action-based and behaviourist culture of police education (Belur et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2003). If there is a criticism of this traditional strength, it is a focus on action and hard skills to the exclusion of underlying thinking processes and softer skills that are equally as important to policing practice (Ryan, 2022; Tyler & McKenzie, 2014).

94

7  Field Training

The dimension of thinking, as discussed, has been given less emphasis in traditional FT; however, the proposed model places an improved emphasis on the articulation of thinking processes within the traffic collision task and in post-task reflection. For example, there is the FTO prompting articulation and/or scaffolding a student’s thinking around the collection of physical and oral evidence at the scene to assist with its collection and evaluation. This application of the cognitive apprenticeship model brings previously implicit thinking to the surface (Karp & Stenmark, 2011) and extends it to make reflective practice more explicit (Bergman, 2017; Tyler & McKenzie, 2014). The model also places an emphasis on highlighting and developing problem-solving skills from both reactive and preventative perspectives, which are essential in supporting a broader community policing strategy (Chappell, 2007). In the final dimension of act with integrity, traditional FT has an inconsistent record limited by individual FTO applications and a broader behaviourist focus on legalistic processes at the expense of softer skills underpinning community interactions and personal resilience. In this respect, these inconsistencies and negative messages sent by FTOs as a part of undesirable cultural aspects undermine how effectively FT programs can encourage students to act with integrity (Bergman, 2017). For example, Hoel and Dillern’s (2022) research describes contradictory FTO behaviours, where they encourage student engagement and responsibility for learning whilst on patrol, but in house with other police, they enforce obedience and passivity. In attempting to address these inconsistencies, the proposed model and programs like PTO encourage a more self-sufficient and reflective practitioner, particularly around key communication and resiliency skills. For example, the traffic collision provides a range of opportunities to demonstrate professionalism when communicating with motorists and emergency personal. In particular, this situation may produce particularly stressful and intense situations that provide opportunities for critical reflection on students’ practice and use of EI to manage and negotiate in these situations.

7.7 Conclusion This chapter has highlighted the vital and long-standing role of FT and more specifically the FTO has with introducing policing students into the operational sphere of policing. The traditional use of FT has provided a strong focus on the signature pedagogy dimension of perform but has been lacking and/or inconsistent in terms of explicitly developing thinking or how students should act with integrity. In particular, there tends to be a focus on procedural or hard skills that reflect the basic mechanics of policing and individual preferences of FTOs, who often ignore curriculum guidance and have limited preparation for this training role. The proposed FT model, based on a cognitive apprenticeship approach, is similar to the current practices of FTOs; however, it builds upon this focus on performance by elaborating underlying thinking processes and self-reflection. These additional

References

95

aspects likely make explicit what effective FTOs are already doing and strengthen the experiential nature of FT by ingraining reflective practice. The focus of self-­ reflection and its role in developing EI also underpins effective professional behaviour and emotional resiliency, contributing to the dimension of act with integrity. These additional strategies are an attempt to seek balance between the harder and softer skills or what Shulman (2005) describes as the intellectual, technical and moral dimensions. Whilst the proposed model holds potential in providing balance to the dimensions of FT as a signature pedagogy, its effectiveness remains reliant upon the willingness of police organisations to make commitments to robust curriculum practices and the selection and development of FTOs. As part of an effective curriculum, scholars have also advocated appropriate links between academy and field training that provide consistencies in learning methods and reinforce the transfer of academy learning to the operational field. Without this synergy, building the bridge between theory and practice for policing students becomes problematic and contributes to the negative aspects of socialisation into the policing culture.

References Belur, J., Agnew-Pauley, W., McGinley, B., & Tompson, L. (2020). A systematic review of police recruit training programmes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 76–90. Bergman, B. (2017). Reflexivity in police education: Voices of Swedish police officers on field training of probationers. Nordisk politiforskning, 4(1), 68–88. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-­ Hill Education. Boursnell, M., & Birch, P. (2020). Becoming a pracademic: The importance of lifelong learning as a police officer in the 21st century. In Australian policing (pp. 23–37). Routledge. Campbell, M. (2008). Learning in early-career police: Coming into the workplace. In WACE/ ACEN Asia Pacific conference 2008 E-proceedings (pp. 81–90). ACEN. Chan, J. B., Devery, C., & Doran, S. (2003). Fair cop: Learning the art of policing. University of Toronto Press. Chappell, A.  T. (2007). Community policing: Is field training the missing link? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 498–517. Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11. COPS Office. (2001). PTO: An overview and introduction. In A problem-based learning manual for training and evaluating police trainees. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice. Craven, R., Marsh, H. W., Ryan, R. M., Atkins, P. W., Dicke, T., Guo, J., Gallagher, P., Van Zanden, B., Kennedy, M., & Birch, P. (2020). A critical social justice issue of our time: Enabling police wellbeing. In Australian policing (pp. 71–92). Routledge. Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 425–439). Routledge.

96

7  Field Training

Dulin, A., Dulin, L., & Patino, J. (2020). Transferring police academy training to the street: The field training experience. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35, 432–442. Fielding, N.  G. (2018). Professionalizing the police: The unfulfilled promise of police training. Oxford University Press. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. Hoel, L., & Dillern, T. (2022). Becoming a member of the police. Workplace expectations of police students during in-field training. Studies in Continuing Education, 44(1), 173–188. Karp, S., & Stenmark, H. (2011). Learning to be a police officer. Tradition and change in the training and professional lives of police officers. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 12(1), 4–15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). The process of experiential learning. In Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (pp. 20–38). Prentice-Hall. Lauritz, L. E., & Karp, S. (2013). Impact of selection and distrust in construction of professional police identity. In M. C. de Guzman, A. M. Das, & D. K. Das (Eds.), The evolution of policing: Worldwide innovations and insights (pp. 77–90). CRC Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press. McLean, K., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Alpert, G. P., & Smith, M. R. (2020). Police officers as warriors or guardians: Empirical reality or intriguing rhetoric? Justice Quarterly, 37(6), 1096–1118. Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press. Ryan, C. (2022). Common sense and police practice: It goes without saying. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(2), 139–166. Ryan, C., & Ollis, T. (2019). Disembodied police practice: “Keep a lid on it so you can function”. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 266–283. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. Basic Books. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education (pp.  640–646). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, the Ohio State University. Tyler, M. A., & McKenzie, W. E. (2014). Training by the dashboard lights: Police training officers’ perspectives. Studies in the Education of Adults, 46(1), 74–90. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wooden, K. (2020). The incorporation of multidisciplinary approaches to enhance police communication strategies. In Australian policing (pp. 55–69). Routledge.

Chapter 8

Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

Education is all a matter of building bridges. Ralph Ellison (2011)

8.1 Introduction Having outlined and examined each of the four signature pedagogies, it is time to consider their role within a potential policing curriculum across both academy and field training phases. As previously highlighted, the purpose of this evaluation is not to identify a single best method for use in police education but to consider how current signature policing pedagogies might be synergised within a police curriculum structure. This approach acknowledges the diverse nature of policing programs and the need to develop a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitudes through multiple methods and techniques. The ultimate aim of this proposed curriculum is to address what is problematic in police education at both the broader design level and within specific learning environments. The first part of this chapter considers how each of the four signature pedagogies can be integrated into a policing curriculum, beginning with a broader metaphor of building a bridge from theory to practice, before detailing a more concrete curriculum structure. An integral part of this structure, termed experiential cycles, underpins learning modules that integrate content around common policing situations. Further to this discussion, the role of assessment is highlighted, given its significant influence on learning and potential to undermine the proposed signature pedagogies if not utilised effectively.

8.2 Building a Bridge Between Theory and Practice Each of the signature policing pedagogies discussed has developed over time to address distinct learning needs driven by the profession’s demands, similar to other professions (Shulman, 2005). However, in policing, they have often been used ad © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_8

97

98

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

Scenario-based learning

Problem-based learning

Simulation training

Field training

Theory

Practice

Fig. 8.1  Building a bridge from theory to practice across academy and field phases

hoc or applied in limited ways due to traditional assumptions and poor understandings of educational practices. In the first step towards addressing this problem, the following metaphor is presented to describe how each pedagogy can be applied in unison across a recruit preparation program. Figure 8.1 represents a metaphor of building a bridge between theory and practice for policing students during their initial education and training. Figure 8.1 is not a representation of the concrete curriculum structure, although it does broadly represent some of the phasing in the recommended curriculum, particularly with SBL playing a more prominent role in the initial stages and FT being the logical step post academy. Fundamentally, this metaphor represents an abstract concept of the four signature policing pedagogies each playing a specific role in assisting students to understand and transfer theoretical concepts into policing practice. In essence, this approach is intertwined with the process described by Hattie and Donoghue (2016) of moving through surface, deep and transfer stages of learning professional practice. This metaphor is useful in addressing the historical dominance of lecturing in police academy programs, which have limited deeper and transfer learning in academy programs and put considerable strain on students in their field training phase as they attempt to make sense of academy-based theory. In other words, the traditional approach has resulted in a very steep learning curve for students upon entering the field, likely contributing to the high attrition rate for police recruits in their first year of service (Haarr, 2005). This situation likely leads to the negative attitudes many students have about academy programs, particularly as they question the ability of these programs to prepare them for workplace challenges (Miles-Johnson, 2023). What this recommended curriculum seeks to do is reduce the incline of this challenging learning curve by improving students’ ability to think critically and transfer theory to practice prior to their field phase. This approach also assists in developing greater resilience through improved lifelong learning, problem-solving and EI skills. These skills can improve students’ ability to withstand and adapt to unique challenges that police academies cannot directly prepare them for.

8.3  Academy Curriculum Structure

99

8.3 Academy Curriculum Structure Moving from the broader theoretical concept of what is being achieved with the integrated use of signature police pedagogies, a more defined academy curriculum structure is proposed. It is acknowledged there are a range of possible variations in curriculum structures that can deliver an effective learner-centred approach; however, the following example is designed to harness the four signature pedagogies whilst addressing the historical problems of lecture-dominated teaching and student passivity.

8.3.1 Length of Program As a precursor to describing this curriculum, it is important to first discuss academy program length and the impact this can have on subsequent field training. There is a significant variation globally in the length of police academy programs as discussed in the recent report by PERF (2022). This report indicates most US academy programs average between 4 and 6 months, which it describes as significantly inadequate. The report further compares these figures to a range of other countries, finding some have longer programs, particularly some European countries, where higher-quality programs range from 2 to 3 years. However, the situation in Australia is little better than the USA, where academy programs average 28 weeks or just over 6 months in length (Miles-Johnson, 2023). In fact, whilst Australian programs have increased in length in recent decades, for example, my initial training was just 12 weeks, much of this increase can be put down to significant extensions to weapons and officer safety training in relation to more complex firearms training and for new devices like OC spray and tasers. Ultimately, a longer program does not assure quality, particularly without effective learning and teaching practices; however, excessively short programs have encouraged historically narrow and legalistic content (PERF, 2022). It is also likely the need to cover large quantities of content in limited timeframes has further encouraged excessive lecturing and an overreliance on simplistic recall exams. Subsequently, the following curriculum structure will be based on a recommended 1-year program as a minimum for the effective preparation for policing students across key content learning areas prior to their field training. It is also suggested that during this academy program, students should spend at least some time in field observation phases, which some academies currently utilise. These observation phases can also include time in relevant community placements that regularly deal with policing-related problems.

100

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

8.3.2 Rationale for a Two-Phase Structure Curriculum can be modelled around a range of different structures and underpinning educational approaches. Historically, academy programs tend to have subject or module structures that centre on broad topic areas but without serious consideration of underlying educational philosophies or approaches (Blumberg et al., 2019). Sometimes these academies will use terms such as scenario-based, integrated or case-based to describe their programs in an attempt to gain educational legitimacy, but often, these programs retain a linear content approach, where discrete topics are siloed and delivered in a sequence that checks of topics but is often inconsistent with effective learning (PERF, 2022). Whilst this traditional approach allows for a more compact or shorter program, it does not suit deeper learning and transference of theory to practice, which what policing students need. A notable aspect of the proposed curriculum outlined in Fig. 8.21 is its two distinct phases. The first phase is structured around specific subjects that provide a foundation for the second phase of experiential cycles, which utilise PBL and ST to integrate content into authentic policing situations. The purpose of the foundation subjects is for students to examine underlying policing concepts and develop a range of skills that underpin further learning throughout the program. The foundational subjects have the appearance of a standard subject structure; however, their Foundation subjects

Experiential cycles/integrated modules

(12 weeks)

(36 weeks or 12-15 cycles) Only three cycles or modules are shown for simplicity. It is recommended a comprehensive curriculum should have about 12 to 15 cycles, which should be appropriately spaced to provide adequate time for structured reflection.

Legal processes & reasoning

Ethical investigating

Professional practice

Policing role in democracies

Youth Street Offence – discretion, alternatives to arrest, communicating with intoxicated and young people

Assault – Cyber threats, hate crime, victim care, cognitive interviewing and customer service

Property Damage – Neighbourhood dispute, social media, police court statement and communicating with the mentally ill

The Foundation phase, whilst outlining underlying content, also front loads key learning skills such as group interaction, EI, self-study and written reflection.

Fig. 8.2  Academy curriculum structure

 This curriculum structure relates only to the academic portion of an academy program and assumes various other activities such as UOF, computer training, driver training and physical fitness run parallel to it. 1

8.3  Academy Curriculum Structure

101

delivery is centred around SBL and similar learner-centred lessons, activities and resources that develop students’ active learning skills and confidence in working with their peers. The foundational phase also provides two additional advantages. First, for police educators and especially those from a non-policing background, the subjects provide an avenue to deliver topics within their specific area of expertise. This approach is reasonable given the range of specialisations in policing and provides an entry pathway for novice police educators to begin on topics where they are comfortable with a particular content area whilst developing basic teaching skills. However, care should be taken by academy management to ensure these staff do not default to lecturing but instead utilise their expertise and passion to facilitate learning by guiding their students’ professional thinking (Shipton, 2020). The second advantage in using foundational subjects is ensuring non-legalistic topics such as community contexts, ethics and communication, which are historically neglected, are given a balanced platform along with law, investigations and procedural topics. From my personal experience, I have observed a transformation from a subject to modular curriculum that led to a range of valuable topics, especially around ethics and communication, being stripped or reduced from lessons because of traditional cultural assumptions of what policing is or is not (Ryan & Ollis, 2019; PERF, 2022). This is not to criticise a properly planned modular approach; however, using discrete subjects, at least early in a program, can ensure the inclusion of so-called soft skills and contribute to an appropriately balanced curriculum. Looking at the big picture of the two-phase structure, it seeks to build students’ understanding of key concepts by revisiting them through increasingly challenging and complex activities. For example, the concept of arrest is pivotal in policing and would be a key topic addressed within the subject of legal reasoning in Fig. 8.2 as a key underlying concept. However, it is not assumed students will fully understand or be able to utilise arrest after just one lesson, so this concept will be revisited on multiple occasions in later experiential cycles, and across differing contexts, building students’ capacity so they can eventually begin applying it into their ST phase. This idea of revisiting key concepts is part of what is termed a spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960), where key concepts are repeatedly addressed but in deeper and more complex ways as a curriculum progresses. The idea of a spiralling curriculum contradicts the traditional linier curriculum that ticks off topic areas once they are delivered; however, it provides a more powerful approach to learning around reinforcement and integration of content. In this regard, PBL can enable a spiralling curriculum (Harden, 1999), with this approach being supported by ST and student reflection evident in the experiential cycles.

102

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

8.3.3 Foundational Subjects’ Structure From a content perspective, the foundational subjects focus on distinct concepts but allows for a degree of integration to maximise learning opportunities. An example of this integration was discussed in the SBL activity from Chap. 4 that outlined the use of discretion for a traffic offence. That lesson addressed the legal aspects of discretion and procedural justice but also integrated key communication strategies. The idea was to focus on specific concepts but not to the extent of excluding all other topics, particularly as communication skills play an important role in that engagement with a member of the public. The weaving in of professional or ethical considerations, highlighted in the organisational code of conduct, is a further concept relevant to this scenario. Essentially, this approach limits the impact of siloing topic areas, allowing the gradual introduction of broader content integration whilst grasping key learning opportunities from scenarios across the SBL lessons. In relation to the use of learning and teaching approaches within the foundational subjects, it is recommended that SBL be utilised as a default method but with a range of other techniques used in support of them. As a basis for each subject, there should be a substantive online study guide that highlights topics and provides learning activities to promote higher-order thinking around content. In this regard, the study guide should not simply reproduce large slabs of content but should make use of key questions, references to resources, sample videos of poor and best practice, explanatory diagrams and other activities to engage students’ thinking.2 When considering possible teacher-centred techniques to support learning, there are two recommended options. The first is recorded lectures of 15–20 min in length, with a focus on visually supported explanations of key concepts rather than delivering large quantities of information. Using recordings gives students flexibility in their use and provides a more usable resource across the program. A second approach is to use direction instruction as a technique for delivering technical concepts and skills. As highlighted in Chap. 2, direct instruction is sometimes equated to lecturing; however, it is more than that because it incorporates elements of active learning. For example, if applied to the topic of cognitive interviewing, a short lecture of 15–20 min on its technical aspect can be followed by a demonstration of an interview by a teacher, with students then engaging in practice with their peers whilst receiving guidance and feedback before concluding with a detailed debrief. This activity follows a similar structure to SBL but with a more direct focus on technical skills. It also takes advantages of a range of learning modalities as part of a pulse teaching process and puts theory immediately into practice to build on knowledge depth and transfer.

 In the design of these and similar learning activities, care should be taken to utilise a range of techniques, and tools to enhance the learning experience by helping students create schema and manage cognitive load. A range of strategies to assist this process are described by Clark and Mayer (2016). 2

8.4  Experiential Cycle/Integrated Module Structure

103

In addition to a focus on key concepts, the foundation phase should also develop students’ study skills, their EI through reflective practice and ability to work with peers in groups. These skills are built in conjunction with their active learning and through explicit activities that highlight the importance of developing a set of learning tools or skills they will utilise throughout the experiential cycles and beyond the classroom into their policing career.

8.4 Experiential Cycle/Integrated Module Structure Turning to the experiential cycles within Fig. 8.2 and detailed further in Fig. 8.3, the integrated module of learning is centred on a PBL process and supplemented with an aligned ST activity and journal reflection activity. Within Fig.  8.2, only three content examples are provided given space limitations, but within a substantive program, about 12–15  cycles would be appropriate to address an adequate range of policing situations. Crucially, the PBL and ST stages are linked, with ST transferring a substantial portion of learning from the PBL or slow-time problem-solving to a real-time simulation. Students then take time to reflect on the whole cycle experience in terms of content learnt, their approach to learning and interactions within their team. The descriptions of these cycles in Fig. 8.2 highlight the multi-layered and integrated aspects of the ill-structured problems that provide the basis for learning. As

Experiential cycle/ Integrated module

PBL slow-time :

•

Students utilise PBL process to solve illstructured problem that integrates learning through POLICE acronym • Ill-structured problem is multi-layered, incorporating concepts beyond basic legalinvestigative process • Learning process is supported through SBL lessons, recorded lectures, content resources and structured study guide

ST real-time: Students transfer learning from PBL through authentic simulation of similar/simplified policing task

Reflection: Students journal salient lessons from PBL and ST experiences

Fig. 8.3  Inner structure of experiential cycle. (Adapted from Shipton (2022, p. 69), the previous version of this figure was published in Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(1), 56–75, with approval given to use prior published work with copyright to AJAL)

104

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

described in Chap. 5, ill-structured problems are not simplistic jobs3 that prompt a cookie cutter solution but instead require investigation to carefully uncover cause(s) and solution(s) and, as with real policing jobs, include unique situational challenges. For example, in Fig.  8.2 there is reference to the Youth Street Offence problem, which requires students to examine how police might confront a group of intoxicated youths in a shopping area. One youth in particular is using offensive language to an extent where initial communication approaches used by police are exhausted and they must consider arrest as the only way of preventing continued offences. However, the scenario is structured in such a way that police must evaluate a range of alternatives to continuing an arrest and dealing with the youth’s actions. Aside from examining basic legal and procedural concepts around discretion, arrest and street offences, there are a number of topics around legal issues and youths, communicating with youths, communicating with intoxicated persons, assertive communication and EI. There may also be other ill-structured aspects, such as one of the police being friends with the youth’s parents or dealing with a complicated criminal history for the youth. Each of these additional aspects may influence police decision-­ making. As such, whilst there are significant legal and procedural aspects to this problem, there are also challenges in using key soft skills with vulnerable people in addition to normal aspects of a job such as officer safety, use of technology and reporting. Similar layers can be briefly viewed in the other examples in Fig. 8.2, highlighting how a relatively straightforward legal investigation can be designed to incorporate various other topic areas. This depth and complexity not only reflect challenges and variations found in the real world but also provide opportunity to incorporate a range of topics from the integrated curriculum as reflected in the POLICE mnemonic that encourages thinking beyond a narrow legal approach and broader coverage of content. The full range of problems across the program should consider examples of policing situations beyond law enforcement but are also reflective of the wider policing role of keeping the peace, dealing with emergencies, providing a social service and preventing crime rather than simply reacting to it. Turning to the detailed structure of the experiential cycle in Fig. 8.3, there are components of PBL, ST and structured reflection on students’ learning experiences. The PBL and ST processes are supported by a range of scaffolds, including allocated learning resources, interactive study guides and supporting lessons that may include SBL or direct instruction. These scaffolds are not intended to provide direct answers to the ill-structured problem but assist in addressing the students’ identified learning issues, which underpins their thinking towards the problem and establishing an action plan for presentation. As with any PBL approach, time should be allocated to students’ self-directed learning. In this regard, structured lessons that form part of the scaffolding should not necessarily fill the timetable, as so often is the case in academy programs, especially given their compacted nature and

 The term job is part of Australian policing slang that describes a particular case or call for service that police attend as part of their daily duties. 3

8.4  Experiential Cycle/Integrated Module Structure

105

overemphasis on lecturing excessive content. In other words, the focus should be on quality learning and teaching rather than delivering a mass of content, much of which tends to be forgotten Within the cycle, it is crucial that both PBL and ST are effectively aligned to encourage students’ motivation to engage in the PBL process and allow transfer of learning from slow time to real time. The slow time in PBL provides space for deliberate and deep engagement with the problem content, but in the knowledge, this deeper understanding is required to subsequently engage in a real-time ST. In essence, the ST is an additional phase of the PBL process beyond students’ action plan presentation, although the ST is undertaken with student pairs rather than a larger learning group. The ST also need not replicate all aspects of the PBL problem for the sake of simplicity and to ensure expectations fit within students’ ZPD. In this way, both signature pedagogies directly compliment and reinforce each other, with learning being further embedded by a reflective process that builds on debriefing across PBL and ST. The reflective process conducted post ST should be structured to include pointed questions around key concepts learnt and the learning process, particularly in relation to students’ EI and interactions with their peers. For example, questions could focus on how effectively students were able to apply certain concepts learnt in PBL to their ST phase. This application might include reflection on the application of assertive communication from the previous example of dealing with the youth’s actions. This example in particular is an ideal opportunity to explore students’ EI and negotiation skills and how effectively they were applied within ST. Crucially, this reflective process not only enhances learning within the experiential cycle, but it also provides a tool that can be used to reflect on similar encounters in the workplace. This ongoing reflective process is important for learning beyond the academy into the field and provides a resiliency mechanism in adapting to challenging situations in the workplace both in the field and with the inevitable peer interactions and conflicts in a police environment. From a staffing perspective, a facilitator should ideally follow their students through the whole or substantive parts of the experiential cycles. This suggestion allows for continuity with student learning and assists with program evaluation and quality assurance. It is strongly recommended that facilitators are given time to read and provide feedback on students’ reflective journals. This approach places value on the reflective process as a lifelong learning tool to be developed into their policing career and gives valuable insights into individual students’ learning. The process itself and the constructive feedback provide an explicit summary of the students’ experience in the cycle before moving to the following module, where they continue to apply and improve this process as a routine development of professional skills (Shulman, 2005).

106

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

8.5 FT Role in a Continuous Curriculum Structure Returning to the metaphorical bridge from theory to practice, the final part of this bridge belongs to the signature pedagogy of FT, which occurs post academy. As previously highlighted, there might be phases within an academy program where students observe policing in the field, or once they have left the academy for FT, they may return to the academy for further training. Regardless of these arrangements, there remains a fundamental transition point at which FT becomes the primary mode of learning around the approaches described in Chap. 7. Whilst it is not the purpose of this section to give a definitive description of FT beyond the discussion in Chap. 7, some points are put forward to encourage a smooth transition from academy to field and provide consistency in learning expectations in academy and field phases. Historically, many police lament academy trainings, contrasting it with the learning they experience once entering the field. Given the problems noted with academy programs, this attitude is understandable; however, there is always going to be a certain preference for learning in the workplace, particularly for policing students, who upon entering the field, now have the full status of being a police officer within a close-knit policing culture. Part of this potentially unfair comparison that promotes FT over academy learning stems from a false dichotomy or choice between these two essential phases of policing students’ preparation. In this respect, both phases are necessary and should be designed to complement each other. There is also the inevitable cultural scapegoating of academy programs to explain problems students have in the field or complaints from senior police about the competence of recruits, notwithstanding the problems with FT already identified. Addressing these concerns, whether legitimate or not, requires rethinking the link between academy and field, which can serve to strengthen the bridge between theory and practice for policing students. Whilst a broad range of effective management practices could improve understanding and relationships between the academy and the field it serves, this discussion is limited to some key educational solutions to improve students’ learning transition to FT. First, there should be an overarching program that encompasses academy and field-based learning outcomes. When designing this program, there should be negotiation with all stakeholders and agreement on the sequence and expectations around learning tasks. For example, it might be agreed the academy program will teach the theory of witness interviews and provide further practical learning to ensure a basic level of competence, which the field might agree to further develop. However, there will always be certain skills or concepts that are best left to the field or even later in a police officer’s career. For example, the investigation of a person’s death may be left until later in an officer’s probationary period, with only some brief theory introduced at the academy. Essentially, it is not realistic to expect academy programs to teach every aspect of policing but to instead focus on preparing students for their field training, including the development of key learning and problem-solving skills to empower development. Ideally, all

8.6  Assessment and Learning Backwash

107

field-based education staff and especially FTOs should have clear and realistic expectations of what students have learnt at the academy and their role in building on that training and development. The second strategy, which extends from the first, requires improved training and development for FTOs, including developmental rotation as an academy teacher. This developmental time may only be a few weeks or months but would be highly constructive by introducing the FTO to academy methods such as ST and appreciating how they build students’ learning towards their transition to the field. The FTOs would also recognise students’ stages of development across a range of concepts and skills, as part of acknowledging the realistic expectations of academy learning. This exchange would also benefit the academy by gathering feedback from FTOs as part of their program evaluation. In addition to these rotational duties, FTOs also require training for their role, which is currently limited or non-existent in many jurisdictions. Police organisations should invest in suitable micro-credentials for FTOs that focus on evidence-based workplace learning techniques highlighted in Chap. 7. Further recognition and remuneration for this role should also be considered to enhance its status in the organisation and attract motivated staff. The third strategy is to ensure logical continuities between learning and teaching methods between the academy and field. In other words, students need to experience a continuation of educational approaches and expectations as they transition from academy to field. For example, the reflective process used in the experiential cycles should continue in relation to significant learning experiences during FT. Likewise, PBL still has a place in FT as evidenced in the PTO program (Cleveland & Saville, 2007), with an increasing emphasis on community problem-­ solving as a balance between preventative and reactive policing. As part of this emphasis, it is crucial for FTOs and other education staff in the field to actively support learner-centred practices and more generally encourage concepts developed at the academy. However, in developing this consistency between academy and field, there should be negotiation and consensus between both, as a program dictated solely on the needs of an academy program will tend to alienate field educators and operational police generally.

8.6 Assessment and Learning Backwash Whilst the focus of this chapter is in relation to curriculum structure, some mention of assessment must be made because of its significant and unavoidable influence on the learning process. Biggs (1999) describes this influence as backwash, where summative assessment tasks drive students’ learning approaches in a given direction to pass program requirements, which for student police, is the gateway to being a police officer. For police academy programs historically, this effect has seen an overuse of exams and very basic recall questions as a driver of excessive surface learning at the expense of deep and transfer learning. This problem is exacerbated by the overuse of lectures, where significant quantities of information are simply

108

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

handed to students, who most often respond by memorising what they believe is required for recall in their exams. In other words, from a student’s perspective, the assessment tasks are the curriculum, and they will adjust their learning to suit it (Biggs, 1999). Consequently, if signature police pedagogies were applied as suggested but with traditional assessment practices kept in place, their effectiveness would be undermined, with students losing confidence in methods they perceive as not addressing their assessment needs. This undermining of deep and transfer learning also removes further opportunities for students to transfer learning to more authentic contexts. Returning to the concept of constructive alignment (Biggs et al., 2022) as outlined in Chap. 2, there is a need to properly align learning outcomes with both teaching and assessment activities. Table 8.1 displays a range of alignments based on Bloom’s Taxonomy to contrast traditional academy lecturing with examples of signature pedagogies. As discussed in Chap. 2, it is ideal for any learning program to push learning into the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy as students progress and yet academy programs often fail to do this, requiring policing students to mostly memorise information at the expense of higher-order outcomes. In the first line of Table  8.1, the outcome of remembering is aligned with the teaching activity of lecturing and the use of recall- or rote4-based questions in exams that require nothing beyond the simple memorisation of information. The teaching and assessment activities here re-enforce each other; however, even if more suitable teaching activities are used, for example, SBL, if students are still only required to recall information for exams, their study habits in response will undermine the teaching activity and likely encourage some students to request more lectures. Subsequently, in any move towards implementing learner-centred approaches, there must also be careful consideration of assessment practices to align with these Table 8.1  Comparison of summative assessment examples in policing curriculum LEARNING OUTCOME REMEMBERING

TEACHING ACTIVITY

ASSESSMENT TASK

Lecturing legislation

Exam recall question

SBL communication activity

Exam scenario question

PBL search of drug suspect

Summative ST

UNDERSTANDING APPLYING ANALYSING EVALUATING CREATING

 Rote learning and surface learning are not exactly the same thing. Rote learning implies memorising information without considering context, whilst surface learning relates to knowing a broad range of information but with the intent of later moving into deeper and transfer phases of learning. 4

8.6  Assessment and Learning Backwash

109

teaching methods. This is not to suggest removing exams entirely from a program, as they can still play an important role in testing essential concepts for policing. For example, in the apply outcome within Table 8.1, a properly designed exam question based on a scenario can test a learning outcome generated in SBL, although there are limitations on testing the very highest learning outcomes under exam conditions. Regardless, an effective exam should limit the use of questions promoting basic recall of rote learnt information and instead develop a range of quality scenario-­based questions that are capable of testing students’ ability to understand, apply and analyse key policing concepts. To supplement exams, implementing a range of authentic assessment activities is also recommended. This focus on authentic activities addresses specific workplace needs and provides scope in meeting higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. An example of this is the use of ST in Table 8.1 as an assessment aligned with learning from a PBL activity. This assessment item asks students to evaluate a range of factors to consider reasonable suspicion in conducting a search of a drug suspect. It is authentic because the simulation enacts a realistic policing situation in which students are required in real time to evaluate various circumstances in order to make an informed decision. This assessment process should be supported by a properly constructed assessment rubric and can also be supplemented by an oral assessment5 process, allowing a student to articulate and justify their decision-making. This way, the assessor can be sure that students understand the reasoning processes behind various behaviours, or in other words, they can demonstrate the thinking that informs the way they perform. Other authentic assessment activities used within a program may include the production of work examples stemming from their PBL tasks, such as a notebook entry or a police statement. The difficulty and complexity of these tasks should gradually increase through the program, with confidence and competence being built through formative tasks prior to completing summative items. There is also a scope for more innovative exam approaches, such as having students analyse a video scenario and producing medium or long answer responses that reflect deeper understanding and the ability to transfer learning into practical situations. The reflective journals used by students across both academy and field phases can also contribute towards their summative assessment and provides important insights into their reasoning of ethical questions or how they should act with integrity. By using a balance of constructively aligned and authentic assessment items, learning at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy is encouraged, with the reflection on practical aspects of police work being far more credible than assessing rote learning. Whilst Biggs (1999) highlights the powerful backwash effect of assessment being a problem, he also points out this effect being the solution when appropriate assessment tasks are utilised. If academy managers wish to utilise signature police pedagogies and improve learning generally, they must move beyond a reliance on

 An oral assessment is an approach used to gauge students’ understanding through their spoken words, usually in relation to a specific task and is guided by a teacher’s questions. 5

110

8  Signature Pedagogies and an Integrated Policing Curriculum

simplistic exams and adopt a range of well-constructed assessment items that prepare policing students more effectively for workplace practice. Importantly, these activities should not simply checklist behaviours but should develop and test the thinking processes students need in their development through the early years of their career.

8.7 Conclusion This chapter has outlined a police curriculum approach that synergises various strengths of the proposed signature pedagogies. The curriculum structure incorporates aspects of both content and delivery, which is essential in any learning design but is significant for policing, where content considerations have tended to dominate and subdue effective learning methods. Within the curriculum structure, each signature pedagogy plays a specific role in helping students to convert theory into practice whilst also developing key learning skills to enhance their resiliency in a demanding occupation. Recommendations in relation to this curriculum have also highlighted the importance of addressing links between academy and field training phases to ensure they support rather than contradict each other. For students, the transition from academy to field is a significant step in their early career, but it often highlights problems with academy methods, whilst a cynical policing culture can undermine good aspects of academy learning. Addressing these issues is essential to promoting an effective learning transition that sees both academy and field phases working in unison rather than against each other. Finally, the role of assessment has been highlighted as a crucial aspect of learning, which can effectively make or break the implementation of signature pedagogies. In this respect, learning and assessment are intertwined, with poor assessment choices favouring rote learning over deeper understanding and practical application.

References Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-­ Hill Education. Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., & Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 4941. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Wiley.

References

111

Cleveland, G., & Saville, G. (2007). Police PBL, blueprint for the 21st century. Community-­ Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice and Regional Community Policing Training Institute. Ellison, R. (2011). Going to the territory. Vintage. Haarr, R. N. (2005). Factors affecting the decision of police recruits to “drop out” of police work. Police Quarterly, 8(4), 431–453. Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143. Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. Miles-Johnson, T. (2023). “Insufficient guidance and a lack of preparation”: Police academy training and the reality of police work. Journal of Criminology. https://doi. org/10.1177/26338076231167880 Police Executive Research Forum. (2022). Transforming police recruit training: 40 guiding principles (Critical issues in policing series). Police Executive Research Forum. Ryan, C., & Ollis, T. (2019). Disembodied police practice: “Keep a lid on it so you can function”. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 266–283. Shipton, B. (2020). Police educators’ experiences of teaching: Detailing differences between teacher- and learner-centred approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 232–249. Shipton, B. (2022). Maximising PBL in police education: Why understanding the facilitator role is a key factor in developing learning for police problem solving. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 62(1), 56–75. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.

Chapter 9

Conclusions and Recommendations

Usually, growth comes at the expense of previous comfort or safety. Josh Waitzkin (2008)

9.1 The Road So Far This book has evaluated four proposed signature police pedagogies and discussed their synthesis into a structured curriculum. The historically problematic nature of police education has been an important starting point in this discussion, particularly given the need to shift traditional teacher-centred learning practices to a more constructivist or learner-centred focus. This traditional approach has encouraged student passivity whilst stifling problem-solving, initiative and the development of professional learning skills. These criticisms have been repeated across the globe for over a half a century, and yet minimal progress has been made to conclusively reform how police organisations train and educate their recruits. Whilst it has been noted that some academy programs have made progress towards implementing learner-centred initiatives, particularly through increasing the use of ST, the application of these initiatives has been inconsistent and limited by a prevailing behaviourist mindset and a limited awareness by many police educators of how to effectively exploit learner-centred methods and techniques. To address this problem, at least from an educational viewpoint, police educators must approach learning and teaching from a constructivist perspective, which underpins the theoretical and practical aspects of the four signature police pedagogies. Each of these pedagogies, when exploited effectively, facilitates learning around students’ ZPD, developing their underlying problem-solving, teamwork, EI and communication skills. This approach is not only more effective at promoting deeper and transfer learning than traditional lecturing, but it also develops thinking and resiliency skills. As Shulman (2005) notes, signature pedagogies provide students with the tools they need to survive and thrive within their chosen profession, with these tools being vital for policing students within a demanding operational environment.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1_9

113

114

9  Conclusions and Recommendations

The signatures described within each of the pedagogies are what makes them effective and relevant to policing practice. These signatures are captured across the three dimensions of performing, thinking and acting with integrity. As highlighted within the evaluation process, each pedagogy addresses these dimensions or educational goals but to varying degrees. In relation to SBL, it is sufficiently flexible to meet aspects of all three dimensions; however, the degree to which it can fully meet all of these dimensions is limited. For example, in the fact sheet scenario, we cannot be sure of an individual students’ ability to undertake this task in light of each dimension; however, this learning task does lay an important foundation to further their ability to perform, think and act with integrity. As such, SBL provides an ideal platform for learning basic concepts and skills early in an academy program as a precursor to the remaining three signature pedagogies. In comparison, PBL has a broader scope than SBL in terms of breadth of integration and depth or length in which to investigate a policing scenario. The main strength of PBL is around its ability to develop the dimension of thinking and, if properly designed and facilitated around the POLICE mnemonic, holds a considerable potential in assisting students to act with integrity. Whilst it could be argued that addressing the dimension of perform is not a strength of PBL, the slow-time aspect of this signature pedagogy is ideal for deeper learning and exploring underpinning concepts that explain and justify various professional actions police must take. As such, it provides an ideal learning foundation for students to perform within the next signature pedagogy of ST. Having completed PBL in slow time, students should be prepared to transfer this learning into a real-time ST scenario. This pedagogy has the dimension of perform as its strength, particularly given the transfer of learning into an authentic policing simulation. As with PBL, there is a potential to act with integrity if the ST incorporates critical aspects of a task beyond the traditionally narrow legal-investigative trap these simulations often fall into. Whilst the dimension of thinking may be considered a weakness in ST, especially when applied in a traditionally behaviourist way, this weakness can be alleviated through the use of supplementary oral assessments, effective debriefing and reflective journaling. Crucially, students’ preparation for each ST should be aligned and scaffolded through the broader curriculum and most specifically through their PBL experience. Consequently, SBL, PBL and ST can be applied within a carefully designed academy curriculum in a way that synergises their strengths to fully address all three dimensions and provide students with a structured learning sequence that builds a bridge between theory and practice as students move into the FT stage. The objective of this curriculum is to decrease the significant learning curve experienced by policing students when transitioning from academy to field and build underlying thinking skills and capacity to learn on the job. As with ST, the FT stage tends to favour the dimension of perform, with less emphasis on how they should think and act with integrity. Similar to encouraging metacognition with ST, the proposed model encourages the articulation of and reflection on practice during FT. This model continues building the bridge between theory and practice, linking academy learning to actions in the field. Ideally, there should be continuity in these thinking

9.2  The Road Ahead

115

and metacognitive approaches between the academy and field phases so they can reinforce rather than undermine each other.

9.2 The Road Ahead Policing and its management can be challenging tasks, particularly given their crucial role in a functional democracy, where a balance between control on the streets and basic human rights is required. Unfortunately, traditional and often outdated policing practices continue to be applied in contradiction to the evidence, leading to ongoing criticisms and questions around the broader policing function and approaches. Whilst police education is not often a high-profile issue or in the public eye, many questions about policing practice inevitably turn to how police recruits are prepared for their role from both a technical perspective and the shaping effect these nurseries have on organisational culture (Shulman, 2005). As such, evaluating police education programs requires understanding how policing culture can influence problematic practices and block evidence-based reforms. Therefore, whilst it is increasingly vital to advocate reform in relation to subject content or what is taught and delivery methods or how it is taught, it is also necessary to examine learning and teaching within its cultural context to explore what works best in this environment and how it can be effectively reformed in spite of cultural inertia. This book’s exploration of signature police pedagogies has acknowledged this influence by outlining long-standing problems in police education and by examining methods in police education that already exist within this context. This existence is owed to the contribution each pedagogy has made to the unique signatures of policing. However, as this evaluation has demonstrated, these pedagogies have not been fully exploited due to a range of cultural barriers that have limited positive educational change. The ultimate irony of this situation is that police academies have historically embraced teaching approaches that negate the bridging of theory towards practice whilst at the same time proclaiming the importance of relating real-world practice to learning. In effect, this cultural attitude has only driven a further wedge between academy and field learning, making academy programs less relevant to the practical needs of students and their organisations. Fortunately, this contradiction provides part of the solution, with the premise of each signature policing pedagogy being based upon improved learning for practice or, in police cultural jargon, being more hands on. Arguing for these signature pedagogies in this vein offers a logical appeal to police educators in convincing them to move on from their overreliance on lecturing. However, whilst this argument seems straightforward, the main barrier to adopting educationally sound pedagogies has been the reluctance of police managers and educators to embrace teaching approaches they do not understand and are contrary to their cultural propensity of controlling the classroom. Addressing this barrier is perhaps the most fundamental challenge within police education.

116

9  Conclusions and Recommendations

Consequently, fulfilling the potential of these pedagogies and reforming curriculum structures must have support at all organisational levels, so important choices can be made in relation to educational approaches. Top-down management directives to change teaching practice and redesign curriculum will not hold, whilst a critical mass of teaching staff maintain teacher-centred conceptions. Likewise, practitioner initiatives to improve learning and teaching will wither when academy managers cling to outdated educational assumptions and remain ignorant of evidence-based teaching practices. Beyond the academy, there is also a need at the highest organisational and political levels to back educational reform and improvement. At each of these levels, choices need to be made in relation to either maintaining traditional approaches that are educationally redundant or adopting evidence-based approaches that more effectively support policing students within an increasingly challenging learning and operating environment. For government and organisational managers, this choice to reform should be seen as a long-term investment in staff and programs, where any additional costs and resources bring potential returns in relation to improved operational performance, greater individual resiliency, lower attrition rates, reduced litigation and greater community satisfaction. For academy-level managers, there are more specific curriculum choices around removing ineffective methods and replacing these with evidence-based approaches. There are also choices around recruitment and staff development to attract passionate practitioners and commit them to ongoing improvement of their teaching practice. Finally for police educators themselves, there is a choice to question the traditional transmission model and move outside their comfort zone to experience and develop learner-centred practices. My own observations and research have demonstrated to me how professionally and personally fulfilling this journey from teacher- to learner-centred practice can be.

9.3 Recommendations The following recommendations build on and distil previous discussions into key actions for managers and practitioners seeking evidence-based change that adapts lessons learnt from this evaluation of signature police pedagogies. Recommendation 1: Encourage and reward a healthy teaching culture, beginning with the recruitment of staff passionate about teaching and investing in an evidence-­based and ongoing staff development program. This recommendation is intentionally first because it is vitally important to begin laying a foundation for change by instilling a positive ethos that values teaching skills in addition to the content expertise police educators traditionally value. Attracting staff who are genuine about education is essential, particularly given the historical tendencies of police organisations to see academies as dumping grounds for troubled personnel or those wishing to avoid operational roles. Any academy or FTO role should be filled through a competitive process and offer appropriate

9.3 Recommendations

117

monetary and career incentives commensurate to its importance. New teaching staff should be provided with a substantive teacher training course that explicitly models the pedagogies and techniques described in this book and engages them in experiential and reflective activities to expand their awareness of learner-centred practice. Crucially, this initial course and/or external adult education courses should only be considered a starting point in an ongoing developmental process that incorporates Brookfield’s (2017) reflective lenses. These lenses promote scholarly activity in learning and teaching by encouraging: peer-review of teaching, self-reflection on teaching, student feedback and reference to underlying educational theory. Development activities based on these lenses are essential for individual and collegial development around teaching, requiring managers to allocate time and resources as a key investment into a positive learning and teaching culture. Importantly, less experienced teaching staff should be gradually introduced via teaching pairs, where they can observe and receive peer guidance as part of their development program. Recommendation 2: Critically evaluate both educational approaches and subject content within a recruit education and training program, using a range of indicators and specific input from an independent and objective educational expert(s). There are two important aspects to this recommendation. The first, in relation to educational approaches, should examine both the broader educational philosophy and theories informing the program whilst also evaluating the application of specific methods and techniques by staff. The delivery aspect of academy programs is often neglected or superficially endorsed to maintain institutional or organisational reputation. Accordingly, an evaluation requires an objective expert opinion that utilises direct observation of both curriculum and teaching activities, with surveys of staff and students providing supplementary data. The second aspect of evaluation relating to subject content requires consideration of what knowledge and skills students must have at key stages of the program, particularly when they leave the academy and end their FT phase. This must have knowledge should be prioritised over content knowledge and skills that can be reasonably developed post FT. The evaluation should also include consultation with key academy and field educators to ensure the introduction of content is timely and not overly front loaded into academy programs. Overall, both aspects of the evaluation should be undertaken by a team of individuals to ensure an appropriate range of expert input and to improve candour and objectivity. Recommendation 3: Design a recruit education and training program based on evaluation results and relevant educational research, outlining broader curriculum processes, constructively aligned assessments and specific lesson/activity plans. At face value, this recommendation may seem presumptive, but even the best programs should be regularly evaluated and redesigned. Crucially, as with the evaluation process from Recommendation 2, people with relevant expertise, particularly around learning design, must participate and provide educational leadership. In my personal experience, I once visited an academy-based team designing a new

118

9  Conclusions and Recommendations

curriculum, but on entering their planning room, I observed multiple white boards full of information around curriculum content but with nothing in relation to delivery. Whilst each team member possessed important expertise and experience in policing, they had only limited educational expertise, which unfairly placed them in a difficult situation of resorting to organising content in a linear fashion and formatted within lessons in a way that encouraged lecturing. Just as teachers with limited awareness of learner-centred practice will lecture in the classroom, so will the same staff design learning around a transmission approach. Consequently, if managers wish to implement the signature pedagogies described in this book, they should utilise both external expertise and ensure staff are appropriately equipped to provide credible educational leadership. Recommendation 4: Review curriculum changes as part of an ongoing evaluation and development in line with Kirkpatrick’s program evaluation guidelines. As indicated in discussion of Recommendation 2, educational curriculum should not be seen as static, with constant evaluation and development occurring to refine and improve learning and teaching practices. The signature pedagogies described in this book, as with any teaching method, will require ongoing scrutiny and refinement at various levels to maximise their potential. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) outline a four-level training evaluation model that moves beyond the superficial use of student surveys to examine deeper levels of curriculum impact on learning and workplace indicators. Ongoing evaluation assists in maintaining a focus on effective educational practice that benefits both staff and students and should be standard practice in any substantive learning program.

9.4 Final Thoughts The four proposed signature police pedagogies examined have been put forward as part of wider discussion around requisite and overdue reforms to police education. More specifically, further debate around the four pedagogies outlined is welcomed as a mechanism to stimulate academic and practical interest in learning and teaching in police education generally. There also remains a scope for further suggestions or examples of signature police pedagogies not covered in this evaluation, particularly in relation to skills-based topics such as UOF or driver training. However, it should be emphasised that any future discussion of signature police pedagogies needs to maintain a degree of focus on how learning and teaching are facilitated, in addition to what is being facilitated. Avoiding this trap is important given the historical tendency of police educators to excessively focus on the transmission of subject content at the expense of evidence-based methods and techniques to facilitate learning. This tendency has limited the growth and effective application of signature police pedagogies, essentially holding them at the fringes of academy programs or leaving them underutilised when influenced by behaviourist assumptions.

References

119

The ultimate aspiration of this book is to promote discussion of good learning and teaching practice in police education. It does this by challenging what is problematic with traditional practices whilst providing alternatives that already exist in academy and field programs. The recommendations above provide a mechanism through which managers can honestly and transparently evaluate current practice and in turn consider the significant opportunities these signature police pedagogies offer in terms of bridging theory and practice. Each of these pedagogies offers variations in how they assist students’ abilities to perform, think and act with integrity, but when applied together within a curriculum, they can address each of these important dimensions. These learning experiences can improve policing students’ capabilities and resiliency, allowing them to provide a policing service that matches the rhetoric of community policing.

References Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Wiley. Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Waitzkin, J. (2008). The art of learning: An inner journey to optimal performance. Free Press.

Index

B Behaviourism, 14, 27, 28

Learning evaluation, 105, 118 Lecture method, 3, 4, 7, 20, 25, 32–36, 46

C Cognitive apprenticeship, 5, 83, 84, 89, 91, 94 Community policing, 1, 2, 54, 84, 90–91, 94, 119 Constructivism, 13–15, 28 Cooperative learning, 26, 32, 45, 46, 51, 53, 61, 63, 64 Curriculum design, 36

P Police academy, 2–5, 12, 14, 20, 25, 27–29, 31, 32, 39, 46, 54, 56, 62, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 75–77, 81, 83, 98, 99, 107, 115 Police culture, 62, 84, 91, 93, 95, 106, 110, 115 Police education, 1–4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15–18, 20, 23, 25–36, 39, 41, 47, 51, 54, 60, 62, 63, 70, 71, 77–79, 81, 91, 93, 97, 113, 115, 118, 119 Police reform, 2, 113 Problem-based learning (PBL), 3–5, 12, 28, 39–41, 53–66, 69, 74–78, 80, 81, 83, 88, 100, 101, 103–105, 107, 109, 114

E Educational leadership, 117, 118 Emotional intelligence (EI), 60–62, 64, 65, 71, 76, 80, 81, 87, 91, 93–95, 98, 103–105, 113 Experiential learning, 11, 15, 41, 75, 89 F Field training (FT), 3, 5, 12, 26, 28, 34, 36, 40, 49, 53, 62, 63, 83–95, 97–99, 106–107, 110, 114, 117 L Learning assessment, 20, 35, 88, 107, 109, 114 Learning debriefing, 14, 44, 71, 73–75, 79, 81, 87, 89, 105, 114 Learning design, 4, 41, 49, 64, 81, 110, 117

R Reflective practice, 28, 53, 60, 71, 76, 77, 83–85, 89–91, 94, 95, 103 S Scaffolded learning, 7, 12, 21, 41, 46, 48, 55, 60, 64, 78, 79, 114 Scenario-based learning (SBL), 3–5, 28, 39–51, 53–55, 57, 60, 63, 65, 69, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83, 98, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 114

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Shipton, Signature Pedagogies in Police Education, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42387-1

121

122 Signature pedagogies, 1–7, 9–13, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 30, 32–36, 39–41, 43–49, 51, 53, 57–65, 69–71, 73–79, 81, 83, 84, 86–95, 97, 99, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113–115, 118 Simulation training (ST), 3, 5, 7, 27, 31, 39–41, 53, 69–81, 83, 87, 100, 101, 103–105, 107, 109, 113, 114 Situational learning, 75 Staff development, 30, 116

Index T Teaching approaches, 2, 6, 14, 23, 25, 27, 102, 115 Teaching development, 16, 34, 36 W Work-integrated learning (WIL), 83 Workplace learning, 40, 83, 84, 88, 93, 107