Recalling Responses: A RCT on Police Learning and Knowledge Retention

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/police/paac110
Timothy Bonadies, J. Herbert, Jon Blum, Peggy M Schaefer, Dianne Beer-Maxwell, G. Cordner, Chris Carter
{"title":"Recalling Responses: A RCT on Police Learning and Knowledge Retention","authors":"Timothy Bonadies, J. Herbert, Jon Blum, Peggy M Schaefer, Dianne Beer-Maxwell, G. Cordner, Chris Carter","doi":"10.1093/police/paac110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Public and policy demands to address police training are prominent in modern policing. While existing research has highlighted the gaps of inclusive topics and content dosage to meet reasonable expectations of knowledge or competency, there is a significant gap in policing research on evidence-based training methods. Specifically, the evaluation of police recruit training methods and the impact to student knowledge gain, retention, and application of concepts. This study is designed as two, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 152 police recruit participants. These participants are divided into control and treatment groups for in-person and online instructional methods and again into subgroups for traditional and integrated learning. These four groups are defined as: Group 1: In-Person Traditional; Group 2: Online Traditional; Group 3: In-Person Integrated; and Group 4: Online-Integrated. For all participants, four tests were administered to measure changes in knowledge gain and retention. Panel data within a weighted stratification model evaluated changes within groups and differences among groups. Integrated learning groups performed best overall for knowledge gain and longer retention of content. In-person Integrated (Group 3) had highest scoring for immediate knowledge gain and continued retention throughout the experiment. Knowledge retention decreased immediately for in-person traditional (Group 1) participants. These findings have direct impacts to the current practices of traditional police training during basic academies. Furthermore, additional details on student engagement during the experiment indicate additional expectations of recruit learners. Outcomes from this RCT inform practitioners how to deliver critical topics (e.g., communication skills) and measure officer knowledge and retention. The outcomes inform agencies on training development practices for future in-service and/or field training programming that reinforces concepts and critical skills.","PeriodicalId":47186,"journal":{"name":"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paac110","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public and policy demands to address police training are prominent in modern policing. While existing research has highlighted the gaps of inclusive topics and content dosage to meet reasonable expectations of knowledge or competency, there is a significant gap in policing research on evidence-based training methods. Specifically, the evaluation of police recruit training methods and the impact to student knowledge gain, retention, and application of concepts. This study is designed as two, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 152 police recruit participants. These participants are divided into control and treatment groups for in-person and online instructional methods and again into subgroups for traditional and integrated learning. These four groups are defined as: Group 1: In-Person Traditional; Group 2: Online Traditional; Group 3: In-Person Integrated; and Group 4: Online-Integrated. For all participants, four tests were administered to measure changes in knowledge gain and retention. Panel data within a weighted stratification model evaluated changes within groups and differences among groups. Integrated learning groups performed best overall for knowledge gain and longer retention of content. In-person Integrated (Group 3) had highest scoring for immediate knowledge gain and continued retention throughout the experiment. Knowledge retention decreased immediately for in-person traditional (Group 1) participants. These findings have direct impacts to the current practices of traditional police training during basic academies. Furthermore, additional details on student engagement during the experiment indicate additional expectations of recruit learners. Outcomes from this RCT inform practitioners how to deliver critical topics (e.g., communication skills) and measure officer knowledge and retention. The outcomes inform agencies on training development practices for future in-service and/or field training programming that reinforces concepts and critical skills.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回忆反应:警察学习与知识保留的随机对照研究
在现代警务中,解决警察培训问题的公众和政策要求十分突出。虽然现有研究强调了包容性主题和内容剂量以满足知识或能力的合理期望的差距,但在基于证据的培训方法方面的警务研究存在重大差距。具体而言,评估警察招募培训方法及其对学生知识获取,保留和概念应用的影响。本研究设计为两个随机对照试验(RCTs),共有152名警察新兵参加。这些参与者被分为面对面和在线教学方法的控制组和治疗组,以及传统和综合学习的子组。这四组被定义为:第一组:面对面传统;第二组:传统在线;第三组:现场综合;第四组:在线整合。对所有参与者进行了四项测试,以衡量知识获得和保留的变化。加权分层模型中的面板数据评估了组内变化和组间差异。综合学习小组在知识获取和长时间记忆方面表现最好。在整个实验过程中,面对面整合(组3)在即时知识获取和持续记忆方面得分最高。对于面对面的传统参与者(第一组),知识保留立即下降。这些发现直接影响了目前在基础院校进行传统警察培训的做法。此外,实验期间学生参与的更多细节表明了新学习者的额外期望。该随机对照试验的结果告知从业者如何传达关键主题(例如,沟通技巧)并衡量官员的知识和保留。研究结果为各机构提供了培训发展实践的信息,以便为未来在职和/或实地培训规划提供信息,以加强概念和关键技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Policing: a Journal of Policy and Practice is a leading policy and practice publication aimed at connecting law enforcement leaders, police researchers, analysts and policy makers, this peer-reviewed journal will contain critical analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics including current law enforcement policies, police reform, political and legal developments, training and education, patrol and investigative operations, accountability, comparative police practices, and human and civil rights. The journal has an international readership and author base. It draws on examples of good practice from around the world and examines current academic research, assessing how that research can be applied both strategically and at ground level. The journal is covered by the following abstracting and indexing services: Criminal Justice Abstracts, Emerging Sources Citation Index, The Standard Periodical Directory.
期刊最新文献
911 Usage by Boston Public Schools: A Researcher–Practitioner Partnership Crowdsourcing to Tackle Online Child Sexual Exploitation: Europol’s ‘Stop Child Abuse—Trace an Object’ Platform Courtney Marsh (2022). Irish Policing: Culture, Challenges, and Change in an Garda Síochána Doing the Job! Expectations of Police Recruits (Pre- and Post- Graduate Entry) Police Recognition of Gender Issues in Relation to Intimate Partner Domestic Violence and Abuse in Greece
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1