The resource for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement’s 1014 Basic Instructor Course.

Background

The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) updated their basic instructor course as of May 25^th, 2025. What they have provided is not a lesson plan, but what they call an “Instructor Resource Guide,” (IRG) which means there are suggested and required parts of the IRG: required activities and discussions and the assessments are required using their provided rubrics. However, the purpose of the IRG is to provide guidance on the minimum required – instructors are allowed to add and rearrange the content as they see fit. An instructor can provide more, but not less, than what is required (covered in objective 1.6).

This course is mandated by Texas statute for all law enforcement instructors to complete (unless they satisfy other, equal conditions and are approved by TCOLE). Since there are required components of it, the course cannot be changed from the required, even if there are issues with the content. An instructor will have to meet every performance objective, regardless of whether they agree with the content or not; even if the objectives are poorly designed. This is a problem for instructors of law enforcement who trust this document and do not verify or validate the information – it will be delivered as is, with the little amount of information that is provided.

The claim in the IRG 1014 is that there is little detail to provide flexibility, adaptability, and creativity to the instructor of this course. The instructor, academy, or agency is supposed to use the IRG to inform their lesson plan and must develop their own lesson plan using the IRG. This is a distinction without a difference. Most instructors will copy and paste the IRG, add a few things they feel are important, but not question the order, intent, or content.

This is problematic because the IRG is specific and lesson plan-like in some places, but very vague and general in others. It is clear that the authors believed there are parts that more important than others, which implies that there are areas without flexibility, adaptability, and creativity, regardless of if those specific areas are not as important to the tasks of an instructor than others, missing information, or just plain wrong.

The purpose of this review is to point out the errors, the misses, and the inappropriate parts of the course and provide fixes and resources that will give a motivated instructor the ability to provide an effective course and build an effective, accurate lesson plan and instructor guide. Law enforcement instructors are often at the whim of people who do not understand what they are writing or are writing from a paradigm (education) not entirely conducive to law enforcement training. While there is a lot in this document that is good and accurate, the parts that are missed and need reinforcement or correction are the difference between quality training and accurate performance, and what we have now in the law enforcement industry.

General issues with the IRG

Citations and references

Course citations and references are not associated with any of the material using “end notes.” While there are a number of references listed at the end, they are mostly education related and have very specific and niche application. Some of the references only go to a general website that does not provide detail. There are numerous references to one or two specific topics and then no references for other topics within the IRG. The lack of endnotes and detail in many of the topics provides an opening for inconsistency and a lack of continuity between instructors, courses, and course creation. This breadth of inconsistency impacts law enforcement training for quality more than it provides flexibility and adaptability.

Some references seem irrelevant or duplicated to support one specific topic, while there are no references for more important topics, or applied consistently. Without references throughout the course tied to specific topics, a basic foundation of instructing law enforcement is unsubstantiated, open to challenge in liability, and will contribute to a lack of consistency, continuity, and accountability between iterations of training and instructors.

Recommendation:

Course citations and references should be tied to specific topics in the IRG, rather than just included at the end. All the topics should have references associated with them in such a way that an instructor, especially a new one, can do more research on those specific topics. The current references are largely about one or two topics in the course and are overwhelmingly education related, not training related. There are important topics, like vicarious liability and the different types, that would be bolstered with actual case law and precedence supporting them. Even though this is an IRG and not a lesson plan, it should provide sources for all topics so instructors have a starting point for research and further examination to conduct their own analysis.

 

Consistency with detail

There is a lot of detail about topics that aren’t necessarily important to law enforcement instruction, like andragogy, while there is very little detail regarding very important parts of the training, like vicarious liability. Where the authors of this course chose to include detail and where they chose to remain vague is a matter of creating qualified instructors. It is clear this IRG is based on the “idea of instructing” rather than on an actual Performance Task Analysis.

For instance, there are several references to articles on andragogy, with one article dating from 2003, yet the details about andragogy are all second and third-hand. They claim this is adult learning theory, which, in recent studies, is proving to be untrue. However, there is no discussion about actual learning theories such as Behaviorism, Constructivism, Humanism, Experiential Learning – to name a few.

The section on andragogy goes into detail about how adults learn when, in reality, more recent research is showing that there is no difference between how adults and children learn. Understanding a deep dive on andragogy isn’t as important as providing the basics of instruction, which the IRG covers inconsistently.

Where there is an abundance of discussion on andragogy, there is only a quarter page dealing with vicarious liability, which is a much greater concern and should have a lot more detail than andragogy. The lack of detail and the lack of sources to discover more detail can actually directly impact the quality and defensibility of training. There is case law, explanation, and relationships to instructing that are directly impacted by case law and precedence that is of a more immediate need for an instructor than understanding a highly complex and dubious topic as andragogy.

Likewise for performance objectives. The entire section of performance objectives is not only partly erroneous and missing exceptionally important parts, there is little detail about why performance objectives are essential to quality training and how they tie an entire course together. Instead, there is a detailed list of different “interactive instructional activities” (that would be more effective as a job aid), where a greater focus on delivery techniques and addressing classroom behaviors would be more appropriate. Also, many of the “interactive instructional activities” addressed are not really applicable to law enforcement training as a whole.

The lack of detail on important topics and the abundance of detail in less important topics, creates a scenario where instructors are more likely to claim “this is what I have to teach you, not what you should know,” which directly violates case law (Spell v. McDaniel, 1985). This will be covered more in the specific unit numbered areas.

Recommendation:

If multiple people are delivering this course, create an instructor guide that provides referenced detail to each section of the lesson plan. This is not only good practice, but in the case of this IRG, allows the instructor to defend why some sections are being delivered the way they are. While the required detail must be covered, additional detail must be added to make sure that every instructor is using the same content, referencing the same material, and staying within the intent of the IRG. It  will also be necessary to add parts that qualify the detailed information that is provided where it is appropriate.

If you are an independent instructor, you will want to create an instructor guide that has more detail to make sure your courses are consistent between iteration of training and you will have detail to defend yourself in vicarious liability. Courts are getting wise at looking at what is in the content and they are becoming less inclined to accept “based on my background, training, and experience.” They want to know what was said and they want evidence of it, which is the version of the instructor guide used for the course for the participant being sued. If it isn’t in the instructor guide, it isn’t evidence.

The courts are also recognizing that a single lesson plan as they are designed now is not covering the entire length of time for a course – so what is being said in between the bullet points? Without documenting the detail of exactly what you are telling your participants, more than:

“Stay within the scope of expertise.
“i. Limit instruction to subject areas supported by appropriate certification or expertise.
“ii. Refer to subject matter experts when needed.”

 you are opening yourself up to potential liability. It is easier to hand a document over that has referenced detail of what was said about each point than it is to try and explain it in court, especially if the course is several years old and there are revisions over time.

 

Learning objectives are not tied to actual tasks and really measurable

“Learning objectives” are all cognitive domain, most are only reaching the level of “Remember” in the Cognitive Domain, many are about what the participant does in class, and few have anything that is tied to an actual instructor task.

For instance, “4.6 Demonstrate interactive instructional activities.” falls into either “Understand” or “Apply” as an action verb for the Cognitive Domain. The more appropriate use of “demonstrate” would be as a “Complex Overt Response” action verb in Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain, which is defined as “Efficient and effective performance.”

It’s clear that performing an instructional activity is more of a complex action than applying the thought of an activity, and so is more appropriate in the Psychomotor Realm than it is in the Cognitive Realm. This is why the complete lack of the use of Psychomotor Domain in the objectives and in the content is a serious issue for law enforcement training.

Recommendation:

The performance objectives in the IRG cannot be changed, but performance objectives can be added or what are called “Enabling Performance Objectives” (EPOs). Treat each IRG performance objective as a Terminal Performance Objective (the objective that must be measured for competence) and add the EPOs to qualify or add detail. EPOs will then be measured as part of the TPO measurement.

Another tactic is “interpretation.” It is clear that the IRG was built only based on Cognitive Domain action verbs, because that is the only reference they use in the course, but there are action verbs in Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain action verbs lists that are the same as Cognitive Domain action verbs. While building your lesson plan, go through the IRG and identify each objective as either a Cognitive Domain or a Psychomotor Domain, which redefines the expected performance competency and measurement of the objective. Essentially, what was done for “4.6 Demonstrate interactive instructional activities.”

 

The IRG does not reflect actual learning theory in construction

While the IRG clearly states that the instructor is welcome to reorder content when they build their lesson plans, most will not. This will create issues with learning and applying new knowledge and skills as the course progresses.

Scaffolding is the process of ordering the content in such a way that there is a clear and rational order as to why things are presented as they are. It lends itself to building on previous knowledge and allows for better development of activities and discussions while the participants link and reinforce prior knowledge and skills with new and future knowledge and skills.

The order of the material doesn’t really lend itself to scaffolding. The order appears to be a collection of things to do that do not tie together or support following content. It is essentially following the same model of most law enforcement training – blocks of instruction that do not relate well into the next block. The result is a waste of time and opportunity to build instructors rather than deliver information to instructors.

Recommendation:

When creating the lesson plans, do an analysis of what would be most conducive to building new instructors. For instance, the basic instructor courses I design always have the instructional design parts first because that will be the instructors first experience with a new course. I always start with how a course is designed and developed, what the different parts are and what they mean, and how to create content that will enable any instructor to follow it with 80-90% accuracy with the intent of the course.

Then I get into learning theories and use the lesson plans they create as the foundation for how they will perform. As they go along, I provide them opportunities to adjust their lesson plans as they learn and apply new concepts – exactly what they would do if they were delivering and updating their courses after each iteration.

Make sure that you are not just dropping blocks of training on your participants. The “new” exciting term in LE training is “interleaving,” which is nothing more than scaffolding and applying learning science to reinforce previous knowledge while developing new knowledge and skills.

 

Required activities should not be left up to interpretation

One of the greatest issues with law enforcement activities and scenario-based training is the dearth of information surrounding them. Activities and scenarios are one of the greatest training tools we have, but also one of the most destructive when not done well. The required activities in the IRG are explained in a simple paragraph but should have more specific guidance for them, since they are required activities, which implies an instructor will be held responsible for them.

Recommendation:

Although the IRG is designed for the instructor to adapt material to their preferences – activities and scenarios are a special case where the intent of the activity needs to be specifically indicated and scripted, with a goal, bullet list instructions, and answers with an answer key and explanation or a rubric. There should also be a scripted debriefing of each activity.

Although they are not graded, each activity needs to be accounted for and documented. Too often instructors give credit to individuals for work a class performed, without knowing who contributed. If there is not individual documented performance, then there is a gap in identifying if knowledge or skill was developed, especially for required activities.

As you develop your lesson plans, make sure you detail the activities so that you will have evidence of individual performance. Each instructor needs to know the intent, goal, answers, expectations of participants performance, and the class has an opportunity to debrief each exercise.

 

Specific issues with the IRG

1.2.F Identify the Commission standards regarding instructor responsibility.

1. The instructor shall maintain accurate course schedules and training files.
2. Training files must be kept for a period of five years.

The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) has a National Certification Program for training, with standards of training materials and design. Their standard for retaining records and documentation of training is 30 years of retention because all training can be subpoenaed for the length of the career of a LEO, regardless of where they have served or for how long. Five years is too short and could lead to a failure to document training in a liability lawsuit. If the five years is a standard set by statute, there needs to be a case law or statute code citation to support it, otherwise default to IADLEST’s NCP standard.

Source: https://iadlest-ncp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-v1-On-line-NCP-Rubric-FINAL.pdf

 

1.2 Activity

A source of a sample policy or the state’s policy should be provided, identified with a title or statute code, or addressed on how to find or make one. AI policy can be wildly different (and in many cases, non-existent) between jurisdictions, but there should be a TCOLE or state-set AI policy as a minimum standard.

Example: https://www.northfieldmn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20620/344-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-Use

 

1.3 Identify key legal principles contributing to instructor liability.

There should be a list of case law that dictates what should be in training as precedent. There are numerous cases that instructors should be aware of that dictates what should be in training, how training should be conducted, and regarding behavior. Here are some examples of the case law I use in training course design and instructor development:

• Popow v. City of Margate – 1979
• Spell v. D McDaniel – 1985
• Graham v. Connor – 1989
• Clipper v. Takoma Park – 1989
• Zuchel v. Denver – 1993
• Paul v. City of Altus – 1998
• Flores v. City of San Diego – 2022

These are not comprehensive and new cases are developed every year and discovered from research. There are more out there, they are difficult to find, but they exist and instructors should be aware.

 

1.4 Define common areas of instructor liability.

Provide the case law that established each of these standards. Instructors should be aware of the case law that makes these standards significant and should be a matter of record in the training. Searching for the supporting case law can be difficult for many instructors, especially if the liability precedence is based on employment law and not specifically on law enforcement.

 

2.1 Discuss research findings regarding learning styles.

While this is an excellent addition, and really the first course I have seen this declared, Learning Styles is not the only learning myth, there are others and they should be included. Make sure to add other learning myths, like Dale’s Cone of Learning, MBTI, Right-brain/Left-Brain, Multiple Intelligence’s, etc. One of the worst things we can do for new instructors is to allow them to not know the difference between actual theories and myths – the myths are far more disseminated than actual theories.

 

2.2 Recognize key principles of adult learning.

Current research is showing that there is little to no difference between pedagogy and andragogy – the difference between the two is topic based and situational decision making on the best tactic for developing knowledge and skills.

 Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: A False Dichotomy? https://jotsjournal.org/articles/10.21061/jots.v26i2.a.8

It would be more effective to list the six most commonly applied learning theories, since they are informative of learning in a general sense and cover both pedagogy and andragogy:

• Behaviorism – we learn through environmental conditioning
• Cognitivism – we learn through internal mental processing
• Constructivism – we learn by incorporating new information with previously learned experience (also referred to as scaffolding)
• Experiential Learning – we learn through experiencing, like practical exercises, hands-on discovery, and on-the-job training
• Humanism – we learn when other needs are met
• Connectivism – we learn through making connections

 

2.4 Describe how stimuli influence learners’ cognitive load in the learning process.

The general information about Cognitive Load Theory does well in providing some high-level points on how to manage it, but the theory isn’t explained and the three types of load are not discussed. This section would be better presented by discussing the three types and then addressing remedies for mitigating cognitive load. This also opens the door to what could be a good discussion with the participants developing their own tactics, opportunities for identifying when cognitive load may be showing, etc.

https://www.franklin.edu/institute/blog/cognitive-load-theory-helping-students-learning-systems-function-more-efficiently

3.1 Define the role of the instructor in an adult learning environment.

Instructor v. facilitator shift – is a false dichotomy. There is no research, study, or evidence that there is a difference between an instructor or facilitator – it is all philosophical. Over the years, and mostly because of the rise of andragogy, the idea of a “facilitator” being different from an “instructor” has been promoted by idealistic beliefs in the difference.

In reality, both do the same thing at different times based on the content, goal, and audience. Using the term “instructor” vs. “facilitator” is more about fad and fashion than actual differentiation, as facilitators have to do what is considered traditionally “instructor things” at times, and good instructors will do what is traditionally described as a facilitator.

The key is the 3.1.B where it talks about “workplace.” The corporate world and academia has largely moved to using “facilitator” because they believe it is more humanist in usage and differentiates between the militaristic and controlling idea of an instructor, to a more “people-centric” view of training people. The problem is that the principle of conducting training and education is the same regardless of the label we place on who it is doing the delivery. Calling someone an “instructor,” “facilitator,” or “trainer,” is purely semantics and does not contribute to the quality of delivering content at all.

 

Unit 3 – Required activity

Reference to “based on adult learning theory covered in this unit.” But no adult learning theories were presented, other than andragogy and cognitive load theory (which wasn’t explained). The problem is that using “adult learning theory” in such a broad and over-generalized way provides zero support for how people actually learn and how to adapt learning for different abilities.

 

Unit 4

One of the greatest challenges in LE training is the fact that there is little given when it comes to creating training. This unit should introduce the term “Instructional Design” and follow the ADDIE model, even if briefly to support a “minimal acceptable product.”

While this course is insufficiently long to train instructors in instructional design, introducing the terminology of instructional design will at least provide a foundation from which to do further independent research. It has been my experience that over 90% of instructors in law enforcement have never heard of the term instructional design and could have spent years creating quality, research and science-based training had they known, which would have had massive impact on the quality of training provided. By simply introducing the terms and providing resources for new instructors to discover instructional design systems and methodology, we advance LE training by decades.

Performance objectives are the linchpin for performance, assessment, and content generation. This section should provide more information on how objectives are created by tying them to the complexity of a task, which then leads to how they are measured and by what means.

Additionally, there is no discussion about the Psychomotor Domain, which is essential to law enforcement training. Cognitive Domain is only meant for education (acquisition of knowledge). When instructors create their own training without discussing Psychomotor Domain, they struggle to apply a Cognitive Domain action verb to a Psychomotor domain skill. There is a distinct difference between education and training. Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain taxonomy should also be included for creating objectives that are physical activities and is most appropriate for law enforcement training. A lot of poorly designed and poorly measured training is a direct result of using Cognitive Domain action verbs where Psychomotor Domain action verbs should be used. It results in objectives that appear to be measured but really are not.

Psychomotor Domain, Simpson, 1966: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010368.pdf

NOTE: the Learning and Development industry is getting away from using “learning objectives” because it implies education and cognitive skills only. The term being used now is “performance objectives” which encompass training and education and puts the focus on participants performing to a level of competency either cognitive or psychomotor. LE need to demonstrate they know things, but they also need to demonstrate they can perform tasks.

4.1 Required activity

Would be more effective if it was actually based on instructional design principles, like ADDIE, instead of just “ideas.”

 

4.1 Identify the structure of a lesson plan template.

The content doesn’t match the performance objective – it doesn’t cover the structure, it only lists what goes into an instructor guide/lesson plan. For instance, a lesson plan should have several parts:

• Front matter – Administrative information, like hours, instructions, performance objectives, citations, change log, review and authors, etc.
• Body – Where all of the content should be in an outline format, then an explanation of different types of formats.
• Performance objective identifiers – Something that identifies the content being tied to specific performance objectives.
• Instructor notes – Notes that an instructor needs to take heed of, such as slide identifiers, activities, discussion questions, instruction tactics, etc.
• References – Endnotes and citations supporting all content. These should be in some sort of format that is consistent throughout.
• Appendices – Where ancillary documentation, such as job aids, handouts, etc. reside.

 

4.2 Describe the workflow for developing a lesson plan.

The “workflow” doesn’t follow instructional design principles and established methodologies. This “order” is loosely based on educational practices, which provides the content in the form of textbooks: LE training is not education and the content is often “discovered” after an instructional design process.

The very outline of the “workflow” is one of the overarching issues we have with law enforcement training – determining content structure and sequence and then the performance objectives, when, in actuality, it is supposed to be the other way around – performance objectives dictate the content sequence, and the content.

Additionally, the list of what is “content” in this guide is not what ID considers content: content is the actual descriptions and information related to tasks. What this guide provides as content is nothing more than courseware and training materials.

4.4 Define learning objectives.

The performance objective for this is woefully inappropriate. “Define a performance objective” needs to be expanded and more than the most basic level of the Cognitive Domain. Just defining one doesn’t mean they are understood. This should be a more complex action verb that adequately covers the content associated with the content. “Explain” and then requiring an essay question would be more appropriate, or even “Analyze” written objectives for what is wrong.

Section 4.4.A. “Learning objectives are clear statements that describe what learners will be expected to know or do by the end of a lesson or course” is a common misconception – the performance objective should reflect the task as it is performed in the job, in the environment, under similar circumstances. LE will argue that is impossible, but that is the purpose of scenario-based training – to mimic the reality as close as possible in a controlled environment. So, while technically it will be measured first in class, in a real learning environment, it would also be measured after class in the work environment. This is perhaps one of the biggest gaps in law enforcement training, even though we have resources to do this. The target needs to be met after class, not just in class, but in class we are measuring their grasp of it on a basic level.

Section 4.1.B. conflicts with the workflow provided earlier, as it references “content.”

Section 4.1.C.ii.1. the overuse of “describe” is a common issue in LE training – very few tasks actually require describing something as the task. It is also not measured or observed correctly in class – it is either a “group discussion” which is not measuring individual performance or it is considered “measured” in an MCQ, which is incorrect also. This is where a conversation about what “assessed” actually means and how to do it correctly.

4.5 Write clear and measurable learning objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The suggested video is not entirely correct. It calls the 6 levels of the Cognitive Domain as steps, which is not accurate. It implies that the levels have to be followed in order and sets up a false hierarchy of performance, instead of what it is intended to be, a hierarchy of complexity of performing tasks to indicate competency. It is also factually wrong – Bloom’s was published in 1956, not 1946.

For a performance objective that uses “write” as the action verb, there is nothing about how to write them. There is no discussion about SMART objectives, “Performance-Conditions-Criteria,” etc. There are many ways to write them, but there are no examples or content to demonstrate them.

Section 4.5.B it is not six levels of “learning,” it is six levels of complexity of what is to be learned. The complexity dictates what an instructor should do to make sure the complexity is met and indicates how the objective should be measured – the more complex the verb, the more complex the assessment.

Section 4.5.C.i. it is not based on what they need to know or do by the end of the course, it is what they should know or do to complete a task.

Section 4.5.D. would seriously benefit with a third point providing examples of effective ways of measuring each of these levels.

 

4.6 Demonstrate interactive instructional activities.

The action verb of this performance objective is too broad and general, thus making it, at most, impossible to assess well, at least, ineffective as a measurable objective.

Instead of providing three pages of possible types of interactions, this unit should focus on a couple that participants can actively use immediately in their course concept and upon leaving class. For instance, word clouds is rarely used and not proven to be effective in developing understanding at all, but interactive discussions could be.

No mention of scenario-based training. Mentioning roleplays is present, but there is woefully too little information while there is a body of information on appropriately running roleplays, when it is appropriate to use participants as roleplayers, and how to design and structure scenarios.

 

4.9.D Identify characteristics of legally defensible test questions.

Each objective should have a minimum of three questions – two for randomizing in the test, one for retest options. Best would be five questions per performance objective.

 

Lesson Plan Guidelines

Section B says that the course has provided opportunities for the participants to develop portions of the lesson plan. While this is true to an extent, there was nothing in the course that provided guidance for when and how to put it all together. It is part of the problem with this course not being scaffolded correctly.

 

Lesson plan requirements

Section D is unnecessary or vague. Presenting something in chronological order with clear time segments for a 15-minute presentation is onerous and unnecessary, especially when the class has not provided any documentation, tactic, or resource for estimating how long it should take to present any content, at all.

It is essential in a lesson plan to provide section times, but for a 15-minute class, this requirement doesn’t make sense.

 

Appendix H

While this also conflicts with prior documentation, it is more accurate with instructional design processes. However, 02 should come after writing performance objectives, because until the analysis is complete and the performance objectives are established, it is unknown what is the best method for scaffolding the material.