Beighton, C.

Poma, S.

English

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment

Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputshttp://create.canterbury.ac.ukPlease cite this publication as follows: Beighton, C. and Poma, S. (2013) Open Range – what happens when firearms training turns into Higher Education? Top Cover: The Police Firearms Officers Association Magazine, 4. pp. 24-27. Link to official URL (if available):This version is made available in accordance with publishers’ policies. All material made available by CReaTE is protected by intellectual property law, including copyright law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law.Contact: create.library@canterbury.ac.ukOpen Range – what happens when firearms training turns into Higher Education? By Chris Beighton and Sabrina Poma Senior Lecturers, Canterbury Christ Church University  We’ǀe seen a lot of teaĐhers do a lot of things, ďut ǁhen you’re ǁatĐhing a trainer explain how to dispatch a cow, gain entry onto a house full of villains or deal with a sabre-wielding alcoholic, we know that we can only be in one place: the National Firearms Instructors Course When we were asked if we would take part in a training programme with Kent Police in 2010, as University lecturers we jumped at the chance of a change of scenery. In our day job, we teach teachers, mostly in colleges of Further Education, delivering a 2-year part-time qualification that entitles the holder to work as a lecturer in a college, adult education centre and so on.  Teaching methods, assessment techniques, dealing with training rooms and ICT are all part and parcel of what we do on a daily basis. So our brief was fairly straightforward: to deliver this qualification for a group of officers in Kent coming from all parts of the UK. No problem there then. It was when we heard that the Police in question would be firearms officers that the questions started coming. Who were these people? What did they do? What could they possibly want from us? Were we in danger? We soon found out as we planned and delivered training as part of the NatioŶal Fiƌeaƌŵs IŶstƌuĐtoƌ͛s Đouƌse at KeŶt PoliĐe College.  The programme lasts six weeks, and is likely to grow in to seven very soon. It mixes the intensive technical training needed by anyone in charge of firearms training, and the academic input that supports this expertise by providing a base in how to convey it effectively. Our first concern wasŶ͛t the course content though, but our own credibility. Who did we think we were? And as we started preparing for the programme, it became clear that we had a lot to learn. But the Chief Firearms Instructor at Kent Police College Tactical Firearms unit made sure there were discussions about content, ŵaŶuals ǁeƌe iŶspeĐted aŶd of Đouƌse sessioŶs oŶ the ƌaŶge oƌgaŶised. Tiŵe iŶ KeŶt͛s judgment suite was particularly useful; although we had never held a weapon before, we were taken through the process of responding in a critical shooting incident, and then debriefed. The learning Đuƌǀe ǁas huge: seeiŶg ǁhat it͛s like to feel the pƌessuƌe, ǁoƌk as a teaŵ, aŶd eǀeŶ take a deĐisioŶ that will affect many lives, all in a split second. Only then did we fully realise the extent of the responsibility and accountability of the AFO instructors, and the part we were able to play in it.  Ouƌ seĐoŶd ĐoŶĐeƌŶ ǁas ͞ǁho ǁill these guǇs ďe͟? But ouƌ steƌeotǇpes ǁeƌe sooŶ seŶt ďaĐk to where theǇ Đaŵe fƌoŵ. Fiƌst off, theǇ ǁeƌeŶ͛t all guǇs, aŶd the toughest Ŷuts, best shots and best dƌiǀeƌs aƌe Ŷot alǁaǇs the ŵeŶ. AŶd theǇ ĐeƌtaiŶlǇ ǁeƌeŶ͛t the ͞goƌillas͟ soŵe had jokiŶglǇ ǁaƌŶed us of. These ͚guǇs͛ ǁeƌe peƌhaps the ŵost peƌĐeptiǀe aŶd ƋuiĐk thiŶkiŶg studeŶts ǁe had eǀeƌ had. Learning points which were delivered and learnt in the morning were applied in the afternoon. Teaching session and development feedback given on the lesson was diligently implemented in the next, something we don͛t alǁaǇs see in other contexts.  There were so many other memorable moments such the session on destruction of animals, which included soft toys and blown up images of giraffes. The dynamic entry procedures concerned Sabrina greatly, particularly in finding out ͚ǁho ǁould ďe paǇiŶg foƌ the dooƌ theŶ?͛.  Micro-teach sessions, designed as a ͚tasteƌ͛ to teaĐhiŶg ǁeƌe also eŶlightening: the one focusing on how to give an injection, which nearly made Sabrina faint, and the car-wash technique, still very much applied to her own car on a Sunday morning. OŶe of Chƌis͛s faǀouƌites ǁas aŶ introduction to submarine tactics, using a real-life, homemade sub, ingeniously constructed from a plastic bottle, an old ďike iŶŶeƌ tuďe aŶd a feǁ Ŷails as ďallast. We all laughed ǁheŶ ͞HM“ NFIC͟ ďuďďled its ǁaǇ across a washing up bowl of water, but we soon got the point: this was an object lesson in how to get technical points across without sinking the audience.  But where do trainees get all these ideas from? The fact is it takes a bit of a leap of faith to really believe that what you have is worth sharing and can actually be the basis of good training. One remarkable thing about NFIC is the first few hours of day one. You can sense the trepidation as 12 AFOs are forced in to what they expect to be a very uncomfortable place: academia. From the start, trainees aƌe eǆpeĐted to ĐƌitiƋue, aŶalǇse, ĐoŶtƌiďute, disĐuss…aŶd this ĐaŶ ďe a ĐhalleŶge, espeĐiallǇ if Ǉou͛ƌe eǆpeĐtiŶg ;ǁƌoŶglǇͿ to ďe leĐtuƌed at. The gƌeat thiŶg foƌ us though is that aŶǇ iĐe is ďƌokeŶ so quickly, as groups form and effective teams develop.  AŶǇoŶe iŶ the foƌĐe ǁill ƌeĐogŶise this though. If theƌe͛s oŶe thiŶg Đolleagues kŶoǁ hoǁ to do, it͛s bond quickly, build teams and work together But they also know how to communicate, explain, deŵoŶstƌate, ĐheĐk…all esseŶtial teaĐhiŶg skills that Ŷot eǀeƌǇoŶe ĐaŶ Đlaiŵ to do ǁell. AŶd so as ǁe haǀe ďeguŶ to get to kŶoǁ the AFO͛s ǁoƌld, it has staƌted to affeĐt us too.  In fact, we have found ourselves using things we learnt with other trainees, starting with the jargon. Following a collaborative teaching session we doŶ͛t ͚ƌefleĐt͛, ǁe ͚deďƌief͛.  ͚Front-loading͛ describes the way we give important information out up front so that trainees know what they doing; tracking ĐƌitiĐal iŶĐideŶts fƌoŵ ͚the smoking gun backwards͛ is a handy phrase to remind us all about the importance of training in the chain of events leading up to any sort of problem. We͛ǀe Ŷot Ǉet used ͞ŵethods of eŶtƌǇ͟, ďut ǁheŶ it ďeĐoŵes necessary to break into a classroom, Chris is definitely better equipped now than before.   AŵaziŶglǇ, ͞shot-fall aŶalǇsis͟ has ďeeŶ a useful teƌŵ to help aŶ archery teacher develop self-assessment techniques for his students: get your learners to look at the target, and see the links between the shot pattern and your stance, your technique, how stressful you feel at that particular moment.  Theƌe͛s Ŷo ǁaǇ ǁe ǁould haǀe thought of doiŶg this if ǁe hadŶ͛t seeŶ AFOs ďƌeakiŶg doǁŶ the reasons why shots had gone wide of the target. The more you think about it, the more you see that the sort of techniques, ideas and analysis which an AFO has to master have real applicability, and not just on the range.  That said, we spent a lot of time on the range, trying to understand how AFOs ǁeƌe taught to shoot, the disĐipliŶe of puttiŶg ͚eǇes aŶd eaƌs oŶ the ƌaŶge͛, ǁhǇ ǁeƌe iŶstƌuĐtoƌs and students staring at those little holes on the target at the end of the shooting... We asked questions, noted examples, obtained clarifications, took pictures, made videos, trying to soak up any information which may enable us to decipher their practice. This turned out to be crucial to our understanding of AFO instruction and to integrate our practice within theirs. The point is pertinent here, we do not intend to impose our teacher education on the NFIC, we want to complement it and wish to learn from it.  Looking back, and beyond the technicalities of teaching, we feel that our role consists of negotiating the ͚gƌeǇ aƌeas͛ of eduĐation and training with the future instructors. We expect them to explore received ideas about teaching and learning and whilst this can be tricky for AFOs, it also challenges us. Working on NFIC has overturned many of our assumptions about what and how to teach and train. For example, leaƌŶiŶg hoǁ to eŶgage studeŶts ǁith theiƌ leaƌŶiŶg aŶd ƋuestioŶ oŶe͛s pƌaĐtiĐe as being critical is at the heart of teacher education but this needs to be in line with the rigour of AFO teaching practices, and the two are not necessary so different. As for the dreaded course assigŶŵeŶts, “aďƌiŶa ǁould tell Ǉou that ǁheŶ Ǉou ĐaŶ hold a guŶ, theƌe͛s ŶothiŶg to feaƌ fƌoŵ a ďit of paper... There still much for us to learn from the AFO teaching context but we hope that the current joint teaching approach has been beneficial to all parties. From our end, we can safely say that the relationships we have developed with the CFI, the NFIC course director, AFOs and the Kent instructors͛ team, have enriched our own teaching practice and given us a very different perspective on the notions of professionalization and professionalism.  Foƌ fuƌtheƌ iŶfoƌŵatioŶ ƌegaƌdiŶg Chƌis aŶd “aďƌiŶa͛s ƌeseaƌĐh oŶ the pƌofessioŶalizatioŶ of AFO instructors please contact us at Sabrina.poma@canterbury.ac.uk    

Open Range – what happens when firearms training turns into Higher Education?

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/download/f327f2a82c0726a117da412b348e059332f9d28ff1b09050e422fd1c9489ef5f/203735/Open_Rangev3.pdf

Open Range – what happens when firearms training turns into Higher Education?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment