Why Hands-On Training Still Matters in a Digital Age

VR, AR and AI can expand training opportunities, but physical practice remains essential when workers must handle equipment, coordinate with teams and perform correctly in high-risk situations.

• By Michael Burke
• Oct 15, 2026

Over the last quarter century, computer-based and online learning have become basic components of many emergency and disaster response training programs. But in recent years, more advanced forms of technology such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), serious games and now artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly being explored as immersive tools to integrate into training as well. When applied with care and rigor, these technologies can helpfully supplement learning. But decades of workplace safety research suggest that live, in-person training remains critical for many reasons. Understanding these reasons will help organizations strike a balance between delegating the right amount of training to VR/AR or AI as appropriate and, for other forms of training that will be discussed here, sticking to the tried and true method of hands-on approaches.

Knowledge Does Not Equal Correct Application

The first reason that VR/AR and AI cannot yet replace in-person training is the gap between knowledge acquired and correct, real-time application of said knowledge. For instance, a 2017 study found that health care workers who had received prior PPE training nevertheless made mistakes when physically handling the PPE. Twenty-seven percent of them made mistakes while donning the PPE, and 100% made mistakes while doffing.

Trainees can understand safety, emergency and disaster response procedures perfectly well on paper and yet still make mistakes when performing the actions physically. Research shows the more active, engaging and interactive a training program is, the more effective it is for bridging this gap between knowledge acquired and its application for reducing the likelihood of mistakes, accidents, injuries and illnesses.

The most engaging training methods are hands-on training, behavioral modeling, physically staged simulations and opportunities for feedback and questions. Less engaging and therefore less effective training methods are generally passive: lectures, videos and reading materials, with a lack of opportunities for feedback and questions. In a 2020 systematic review, in-person PPE training that included behavioral modeling, feedback and opportunities for asking questions reduced the likelihood of mistakes more than training done through paper-based training materials and videos alone.

Handling the Physical Tools and Equipment

Another component that makes hands-on training so important is the physical handling of tools and equipment. Health care personnel, for example, often inadvertently veer from protocol for even very basic PPE such as medical gloves and gowns, resulting in potential contamination. PPE used in more critical situations such as hazmat emergencies, major disease outbreaks, natural disasters and severe wildland or structural fires involves complex equipment with elaborate procedures for donning and doffing. Here, even slight deviations from protocol can potentially result in serious injuries or illnesses.

Lecture-based learning, online learning, VR/AR and AI cannot fully convey the tactile and sensorimotor feedback of physically handling, donning, working in and doffing PPE. The same holds true for non-PPE equipment and tools in general, especially in physically simulated situations or real situations, both of which can add an array of unpredictable variables.

Individual competence is moreover not the same as cohesive group competence, and trainees must cultivate both competencies. Under the "buddy system," trainees and active workers maintain constant communication and visual contact so that any problems, such as improper use of PPE or any rips, tears, damage or contamination, can be detected as soon as possible and assistance requested. But such close coordination between two people under dangerous, complex and stressful conditions needs to be practiced in person since such complex inter-dynamics cannot be fully replicated yet via VR/AR and AI technology.

The Dread Factor

There is a common perception that positive moods are optimal for learning, and there is indeed research that suggests this is true in certain learning contexts. A third factor for why in-person training is so effective and important can therefore strike some as counterintuitive at first. It is "the dread factor," or an acute awareness of a dangerous hazard, and of one's own vulnerability to the hazardous event or exposure, which produces "negative" thoughts and feelings of fear, anxiety and related sensations. When training to work in highly hazardous situations, this dread factor actually motivates trainees to learn how to correctly perform and protect themselves.

Research also suggests that this effect depends on using engaging forms of training because they are more likely to convey the seriousness of hazardous situations and therefore elicit the "dread." As mentioned previously, this means hands-on training including live simulations of hazardous scenarios, behavioral modeling, questions from trainees and instructor feedback so that trainees can immediately understand what they did well and what mistakes they made.

Team Coordination, Cross-Training and Multiagency Training

Another reason in-person training is critical is the need for team coordination training and cross-training. Team coordination training is when emergency/disaster response workers learn knowledge and skills related to the different roles of other team members to promote safety and operational efficiency. It does not involve them preparing to take over others' roles, necessarily, but they learn enough about those roles so that they can perform their own duties in a way that best supports others' roles and the team as a whole.

Cross-training, on the other hand, involves more extensive training so that emergency/disaster workers can step up and perform the duties of other roles if necessary. Emergencies and disasters often involve unforeseen events where such cross-training can be lifesaving. For example, due to an increase in extreme weather events, wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires are increasingly common. This is when wildland fires spread to urban settings or vice versa. But although an estimated 80% of firefighters will respond to WUI fires at some point, 60% of them do not train for WUI fires at all. If firefighters' knowledge and skills are limited to their particular specialties, it can put them at a disadvantage. Cross-training is therefore becoming an increasingly vital part of present-day emergency and disaster training. However, due to the intrinsic complexity of team-based responses to emergencies and disasters, which in themselves are highly volatile situations, in-person training remains essential for such multi-layered situational complexity.

A related but different concept is multiagency training, or when different agencies who are all involved in emergency and disaster responses, such as fire, police, medical services and transportation departments, rehearse how they will communicate and collaborate when responding to the same incident. Many hands-on training programs are carried out with individuals or a single team, but as with team coordination and cross-training, numerous unpredictable variables come into play when real personnel, equipment and environments are involved, especially when multiple agencies and teams are involved. The September 11 disaster response remains an unfortunate but valuable case study of what can occur when multiple agencies converge under chaotic conditions without sufficient prior coordination and multiagency preparation.

When it comes to emergency and disaster response training, the answer is not to shun advances in VR/AR and AI. These technologies offer numerous potential benefits such as making computer-based training engaging and accessible, and making some forms of training more scalable. But for the foreseeable future, these tools should be considered useful components of a balanced, multi-format training program that integrates hands-on, in-person training. At the end of the day, emergency and disaster response is physical work done in the physical world. And in a line of work where mistakes and even slight deviations from protocol can mean illness, injury or death, advanced digital tools can strengthen, but not replace, the need for hands-on experience and practice.

This article originally appeared in the October 2026 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.