The Kirkpatrick Learning Model and it’s relevancy for Military/Police Training

Author: Odhinn Kohout

Illustration by Odhinn Kohout 2012

For Military/Police personnel the ability to use cognitive reasoning when applying skill-sets learned in training can be the difference between life and death in a critical incident.

If we look at high-risk entry teams responsible for either executing warrants or responding to a call with a hostage or barricaded person involved, the Officers involved reference their actions back to the training which they received. When looking at the first component of the Kirkpatrick model which is;

• Reaction / to what degree participants react favorably to the training.

The casual observer will not notice the inherent dangers that applying this to Police training would cause. By narrowing the focus of this to SWAT and Military SOF (special operation forces) units and real world applications, we will soon see introducing any emotional aspects or “feelings” into the training curriculum could cause an unwanted moment of hesitation in actual combat.

When the Navy SEALS encountered Osama Bin Laden in his compound in Afghanistan some fascinating things from a training perspective occurred.

According to some accounts:

 The first SEAL in the door did not engage the target but intercepted two unexpected female occupants in the room which he believed to be suicide bombers protecting Bin Laden. This allowed for his teammate behind him to enter the room and complete the mission and not endanger the rest of his team in the event that one of the females had been carrying explosives. Neither female found with Bin Laden was killed during this mission which is a testament to the level of training and split second controlled actions exhibited by the SEALS.

How does this example relate to the Kirkpatrick model? Prior to actually deploying to Afghanistan to assault the Bin Laden compound, the mission itself was practiced for many weeks leading up to the event in a mock up of the house to prepare for many different variables which may be encountered. It is not important that the SEALS “react favorably”(Kirkpatrick model) to the mission training, only that they have the skill sets ingrained into muscle memory through many repetitions  so that they (skill-sets) may be called upon at the “unconscious competence” (Abraham Maslow) level when needed.

When Instructing Military or Police personnel the onus is on the cadre of Instructors (not the students) to be constantly assessing how the class is responding to the training. TL’s (team leaders) are also assigned to each group to act as an immediate liaison between the Instructors and each group of students.

The model found in Evaluating Distance Delivery and E-Learning; “Is Kirkpatrick’s model relevant?” Dominique L. Galloway is a very precise way to observe measurable results from training and well suited in my experience for teaching law enforcement classes.

Process	Were the correct tasks performed?
Sequence	Were the tasks performed in the correct order?
Results	Were the correct results obtained?
Time	Were the results obtained within time constraints?

I will expand on each of these four points from my own experience teaching Military and Police Officers and provide an approach to the assessing and evaluation students where the training is of a mandated nature under Provincial legislation and departmental directives and is not dependent on the students perception or reaction (Kirkpatrick) to the training they receive.

1. Process: Were the correct tasks performed?

The Instructors observe and record the PERFORMANCE of each student during each component of the training ensuring that they meet the organizational standard.

It does not matter how the student THINKS they did performing the task or how they may feel it is relevant to their job. The Instructor is only concerned with whether or not the student can demonstrate an understanding of what they have learned.

2. Sequence: Were the tasks performed in the correct order?

Students will be given a sequence that the material or skill-set will need to follow in order to be performed correctly.

The Instructors will observe that the student can follow the correct order of the task to its desired outcome in order to assess the student’s comprehension and learning of material.

3. Results: Were the correct results obtained?

Through physical and verbal testing an Instructor can measure the validity of the training program. Some students will say things that they feel the Instructor will WANT to hear. Positive comments are unreliable and not an accurate barometer of obtaining results the same as negative ones.

If the student is able to reproduce course material accurately through written, oral or physical testing, than the organization has a way to track training results in an accurate manner which can be later be followed up with long-term studies. I.E. one group of employees receiving the training against those they did not.

4. Time: Were the results obtained within time constraints?

Training is usually conducted within some sort of time framework. This is beneficial from an organizational point of view as it reinforces evidence of learning from employees taking provided or mandated training. The Instructors will have another means of measuring a students learning of the material against the overall class results as well as time allotted for the training itself. Students, who successfully complete the training within the time allocated for it, are DEMONSTRATING an understanding of the providing training. In this way these results are in no way dependent on any emotional response which they (the student) may feel about the course.

I would point out that any follow-up surveys which the organization may send out to its employees asking them to comment on the validity of the training they have received would be redundant. The exception to this would be surveys of a fact finding basis concerning itself with employee overall moral and job satisfaction. Whether or not an employee is satisfied with their position in the organization has no connection to the success, failure or continued use of a training program.