Old habits die hard
Many students finish basic firearms training with only a superficial grasp of shooting. Why? Too many classes routinely use outdated, standardized content and employ passive learning techniques that prioritize theoretical knowledge over technical skill. Most of the training — as much as 70% — is spent in a classroom. Very little time is devoted to live fire on the range.
Most introductory training isn’t designed to make students competent shooters. Basic training emphasizes safety concepts to help students avoid accidents. It’s focused on helping students overcome fear and anxiety. These classes are structured to accommodate large groups of students and meet basic safety standards. There are no tests or shooting qualifications. The student, who doesn’t know what he or she doesn’t know, walks away with the illusion of learning after receiving a certificate of attendance.
The result is false confidence.
False confidence arises when the brain confuses the process of passively listening and receiving information with the ability to actively call on and apply information. False confidence limits development, doesn’t hold up under pressure and, in fact, compromises safety.
Real confidence is based on competently and consistently performing skills to recognized standards and benchmarks. Competence is built primarily through experience — hands on, contextualized, active experience based on repetition of properly executed techniques. This process is called “habituation” — taking small, active steps to acclimate students to shooting, proving to them that the gun is, in fact, manageable — and, therefore, safe in their hands.
Passive vs. active learning
National Training Laboratories conducted research on retaining learning and produced the “Learning Pyramid.” What they found is that passive learning — classroom lectures or watching videos — is the least effective of all learning methods. Just 5% of information is retained after one week. Demonstrations of gun handling and shooting fundamentals may contribute to higher retention rates (possibly 20%), but these methods are still considered “passive.”
“Active” techniques, however, ramp up retention significantly. Active methods prioritize the shooting and contextualize training by putting students on the range as soon as possible, boosting retention to as much as 90%. According to researchers Stephanie Kalchik and Kathleen Oertle, a contextualized approach offers “instructional strategies designed to seamlessly link the learning of foundational skills … by focusing on concrete applications in a real-life context.” Not only does it improve retention, it connects the dots making the learning relevant, accelerates skill development and enhances safety.
Today, most new students experience the “Leaky Bucket Method of Learning.” Think of the “bucket” as the student’s brain and the “leak” as how much or how little information or learning is retained from classroom lectures. Today’s training has a massive leak.
Group learning vs. individualized instruction
Research suggests that individualized instruction is best for building foundational knowledge. Working 1:1, instructors can focus on the individual and his or her specific needs, offer specialized instruction and immediate feedback. This helps to accelerate development. Group learning demands a one-size-fits-all approach that may be too fast for some and leave others bored. And individual feedback is severely limited, allowing poor technique to go unchecked.
Challenging the status quo
The research shows that passive and group learning — the central components of traditional introductory pistol training — are ineffective. If ineffective, why isn’t the training being challenged? There are several reasons.
The objective of most training is to check a box. Classes are predominantly focused on safety to meet basic licensing requirements, without any meaningful evaluation of shooting skill. Compliance is rewarded and classes satisfy legal obligations.
Training is scripted for consistent, standardized delivery. “One-size-fits-all,” pre-packaged content is simplified, efficient to deliver to large groups, and minimizes risk. But it’s largely outdated and inadequate for real-world, defensive application. Legacy systems and bureaucracy stifle innovation.
Anyone can call themselves a firearms instructor. The field is largely unregulated, relying on under-qualified instructors and unqualified instructors who lack deep expertise, experience and skill, sometimes relying on outdated, irrelevant and outright dangerous techniques, and using ineffective teaching methods, leading to poor outcomes.
Disrupting the status quo
In my experience, students learn best when they are hands-on, actually doing the thing, not trapped in a classroom listening to lectures or watching videos. A dynamic learning model is a collaborative approach based on contextualized application of skills and real-time instruction and coaching. Here are four things to consider:
Create a student-centric learning experience. Create and maintain a controlled, safe environment by keeping classes small (1-3 people). Curriculum should be flexible enough to accommodate unique capabilities, challenges and objectives. Break down complex ideas into bite size chunks. Use a coaching approach to provide immediate feedback. Encourage students to find answers for themselves while setting realistic — but still challenging and achievable — expectations for their performance.
Get out of the classroom and get on the range. Applying new skills immediately on the range helps students to contextualize learnings and adds immediacy and relevancy to training. Use the “explain, demo, imitate, practice” method and engage students in the learning process. Start with a brief explanation of your drill, demo it, allow the student to practice it dry, then run it live. Students need quality reps to build muscle memory and skill.
Prioritize what matters most. Students most often want to know how to operate a pistol safely for defensive utility. Understand what is most critical to cover in the first class. That will probably mean focusing on shooting efficiently, with accuracy, under pressure. If training outdoors, include target transitions and movement. Exercises should begin simple and increase in complexity as skills develop. In this process students will assimilate safety concepts, shooting techniques and gun handling naturally and efficiently.
Encourage competitive shooting. Competitive shooting is an excellent training tool. It pressure tests skills and exposes weaknesses, giving students insight into where they need to put in the practice. It forces students out of the static range mindset and out of their comfort zone where complacency can set in. And it provides them with purpose and direction to train defensive skills like target transitions, movement, accuracy and speed.
Continuous development of shooting skills is essential for instructors. Anyone wearing an “instructor’s hat” should lead by example. Instructors have a responsibility to train with other reputable instructors, pressure test their skills through standards and competition, and challenge their own curriculum so that they bring the most current and relevant training to their students.
Ineffective firearms training is entrenched, with the National Rife Association (NRA) leading the way as the recognized authority in gun safety training and certification. The NRA fails to set adequate standards for instructors and students alike, and content is superficial to ensure everyone can get the certification.
A dynamic approach to training requires much more from both the instructor and the student. But the payoff is significant. Active learning methods combat fear and anxiety, promote curiosity, problem-solving and self-direction. One-on-one training leads to more highly engaged students who will get the reps needed to begin to learn proper shooting techniques and build good habits.