‘You’re not a police officer without thinking’ says Prof. Chris Cushion. And training should reflect that. I sat down with Chris to talk about the crucial role of cognition in police work and training. And that is a reason that Scenario Based Training (SBT) is not the same as Constraint Led Approach (CLA). “Police officers have to give evidence, they have to write, they have to justify their actions…
under pressure in court they’re going to be asked about their understanding. In an ecological framework… cognition is rejected to a lesser or greater degree.” It is not that one approach is better but this philosophical divergence is not an abstract academic quibble; it has significant practical implications for domains like policing.
The Mission
I am not seeking THE ANSWER. Coaching and teaching are as much ARTS as Science. I want to bring a wide variety of ideas to the listeners so they can use what usefull and reject what is useless in their specific situation.
The background
Professor Cushion wrote the article Thinking the (Policing) Game: Why Scenario-Based Training (SBT) is Not Ecological Dynamics (or CLA) in Disguise, because many practitioners were misinterpreting scenario-based training (SBT) as if it were just a Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) in disguise.
People were watching the methods (task modification, realism, complexity, representativeness) and assuming the theory behind them was the same.
Cushion argues that although SBT and CLA look similar methodologically, they are based on different learning theories, with different assumptions about cognition, mental models, and how people learn.
He wrote the article to clarify this misunderstanding, protect the integrity of SBT’s cognitive foundation, and ensure trainers choose methods based on a correct understanding of the underlying paradigm.
Common ground
Both SBT and CLA share four fundamental learning principles. First, they agree that training must be representative—it should look and feel like real operational work. As Cushion puts it: “We all agree that practice needs to be representative of the performance environment.” Second, both approaches reject front-loading and isolated drills; instead, skill and decision-making must be trained together: “We probably all agree that front-loading skills is not necessary, that we need to develop skill and decision making together.” Third, they both rely on task manipulation and variability to shape learning by adjusting challenge, roles, numbers, and context: “We all manipulate tasks—making them easier or harder… changing numbers, roles, context.” And finally, they both believe in progressively increasing complexity, starting with simplified but still realistic situations and building upward: “Gradually increasing complexity… stripping things back and adding things in again.” in knowledge and understanding, not just the environment.”
The difference
Although SBT and CLA often look similar on the training floor, they come from very different ways of thinking about learning. SBT is grounded in cognitive science—memory, understanding and mental models—whereas CLA comes from ecological dynamics, which approaches learning from a different angle and tends to minimise the role of cognition.
As Cushion puts it: “The model that we’ve created is firmly grounded in a different paradigm,” while “CLA comes from a completely different paradigm. It thinks about the world in a completely different way.”
In SBT, cognition is central: “We recognise memory, understanding, knowledge… explicit understanding and personal meaning are really important.” In ecological dynamics, by contrast, “cognition is essentially rejected to a lesser or greater degree,” and, as Cushion says, “we are cognitive creatures, we think essentially,” which means a purely environmental or attunement-based view is incomplete.
This leads to different learning outcomes: SBT aims for conceptual understanding alongside skills and decision-making, not just attunement to affordances. As he explains: “I’m trying to develop a conceptual understanding… knowledge and personal understanding that is meaningful to the learner,” which is “very different to attunement… becoming attuned to the environment.”
Even task design shows the contrast: in SBT, “task modification is about cognitive load… but also drawing out concepts and principles,” while in CLA the focus is attunement.
The scope of learning also diverges: policing requires law, ethics, justification and decision models—“ethical and legal judgments, strategic decisions, articulating decision models… those are cognitive-heavy tasks”—and this is why Cushion argues that ecological dynamics is a very useful and inspiring “practice-design heuristic,” but “not a comprehensive learning theory.”
And there’s more.
In the podcast, Cushion dives into how briefing and debriefing work very differently in SBT than in CLA — and why that matters for real learning. He also explains why the scenario itself serves a completely different purpose than many CLA-minded trainers expect. He also shows how knowledge and judgment are woven into the scenario. If you want to hear what that looks like in practice — and why it sets SBT apart — you’ll have to listen or watch the episode.