Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.

To send me email, click here - ckstewar@sbcglogal.net.
To return to the main page, click here.

APPENDIX D Educational Analysis of 8 Different Police Sexual Orientation Trainings

Sexual orientation training was observed at 8 different training sites (see Chapter 4 for detail descriptions). An analysis of instructional methodologies is made here by comparing observations to the educational perspective presented in Chapter 3. Table D presents a visual representation of that analysis and should prove helpful in determining effectiveness of instructional methodologies. For each analysis item, an estimate was made of how well it complied to psycholinguist/humanistic educational perspective.

Psycholinguistic/Humanistic Educational Perspective Item Analysis
Item Description
1. Instructor(s) (should be more than one instructor) Were these the type of people the students wanted to emulate? were they knowledgeable and skilled?
2. Length of Training 4 hours is recommended.
3. Size of Class A ratio of 15 students to each instructor is recommended.
4. Introduction Was instructor and program introduced by program administrator?
5. Goals Did instructor present training goals to students?
6. Self-Awareness By some means, were students allowed to become aware of their beliefs, feelings about homosexuals?
7. Sexual Orientation Research Was accurate information given on human sexuality and did these emerge from students?
8. Overcoming Stereotypes The myths and stereotypes of gays and lesbians were addressed and linked to homophobia, racism, sexism and the processes of stigmatization.
9. Personalizing Gays and Lesbians Personal stories told by gay and lesbian instructors or panel members.
10. Societal, Internalized, Institutionalized Homophobia Just how bad is it for gays and lesbians? (stereotype activities).
11. Points-of-Contact Were behaviors during police contact with gays and lesbians discussed?
12. Strategies for Overcoming Homophobia Were students engaged in problem solving situations with a gay and/or lesbian component?
13. Closure/Resource materials Did instructor attempt summaries and closure after different topics? Any resource materials handed out to students to keep?
14. Meeting Local Gay and Lesbian Police Organization Members Did students meet such representatives?
15. Evaluations Were students asked to evaluate the training?
Note: Items #1-3 (appropriateness of instructor, length of training and size of class) were grouped and ranked. Items #4-15 (instructional methodologies) were grouped and ranked. Ranking allows for fast assessment of compliance to educational theory. Ranking used equal weight analysis which may not be accurate. For example, is instructor appropriateness equal in importance as length of training or class size? Also, separating instructor appropriateness from instruction methodologies denies the strong influence they have on each other.

Estimate of Compliance to Theory Level
Box Shading
Excellent ComplianceLevel 1
(no shading)Good Compliance
Level 2Fair Compliance
Level 3Poor Compliance
Level 4Note: The more light boxes, the better instruction complied with education theory.

.c2.Table D Compliance of Observed Instructional Methodology to Education Theory

ItemSite #1Site #2, #3Site #4Site #5Site #6Site #7Site #8Site #915 gay and lesbian police personnel, somewhat skilled, very knowledgeable.
Level 11 heterosexual male officer of high respect, skilled but limited knowledge.
Level 21 lesbian officer of high respect, skilled and very knowledgeable.
Level 24 gay and lesbian police officers, 1 heterosexual officer, all very skilled, all very knowledgeable.
Level 14 gay and lesbian community members, somewhat skilled, somewhat knowledgeable.
Level 31 gay male academic who is gay activist and somewhat effeminate, very skilled, subject matter expert.
Level 31 gay male academic who is gay activist and somewhat effeminate, very skilled, subject matter expert.
Level 31 gay male academic who downplayed activism and effeminacy, very skilled, subject matter expert.
Level 222.4 hours.
Level 22.2 hours.
Level 24 hours.
Level 13.4 hours.
Level 11.8 hours.
Level 33.2 hours.
Level 13.5 hours.
Level 13.7 hours.
Level 1317 students to 2 instructors and 5 panel members.
Level 143 students to 1 instructor.
Level 230 students to 1 instructor.
Level 245 students to 4 instructors and co-instructors.
Level 1105 students to one panel.
Level 494 students to 1 instructor.
Level 438 students to 1 instructor.
Level 365 students to 1 instructor.
Level 44excellently introduced by administrator and video from chief.
Level 1no introduction.
Level 4marginally introduced.
Level 2good introduction.
Level 2good introduction.
Level 2marginally introduced.
Level 3marginally introduced.
Level 3marginally introduced.
Level 35goals stated well.
Level 1goals stated well.
Level 1goals stated well.
Level 1goals stated well.
Level 1not observed.goals stated well.
Level 1goals stated well.
Level 1goals stated well.
Level 16no self-awareness activity.
Level 4good open dialogue method.
Level 2excellent self-awareness activity.
Level 1self-awareness partially from stereotype activity.
Level 3no self-awareness activity.
Level 4self-awareness partially from stereotype activity.
Level 3self-awareness activity but in wrong sequence.
Level 2self-awareness from harassment activity.
Level 27very limited research emerged from student questions.
essentialist position stated.
Level 4very limited research given.
essentialist position stated.
Level 3limited research emerged from student questions.
essentialist position stated.
Level 3accurate research but essentialist perspective.
Level 2limited research emerged from student questions.
essentialist position stated.
Level 3overload of information and handouts.
combined radical feminist deconstruction of sexual identity.
topics emerged from video.
Level 2overload of information and handouts.
combined.
radical feminist deconstruction of sexual identity.
topics emerged from video.
Level 2reduced information and handouts.
mild combination of essentialism and constructionism perspectives.
emerged from students.
Level 18limited information emerged from panel on stigmatization or gay politics.
Level 3no information given and deficit position reinforced.
Level 4homophobia not linked to stigmatization, but gay politics presented by video.
Level 2gay lifestyle activity gave some awareness.
Level 2no information about stigmatization given.
Level 4gay lifestyle activity gave some awareness.
stigmatization not addressed.
Level 2gay lifestyle activity gave some awareness.
stigmatization not addressed.
Level 2gay lifestyle activity gave some awareness.
stigmatization not addressed.
Level 29excellent personal stories by panel members. Needed police stories.
Level 2no personal stories given.
Level 4excellent personal story told by instructor. Needed more than just the instructors story.
Level 1many excellent stories by appropriate role models.
Level 1some stories but inappropriate role models.
needed police stories
Level 2limited personal story of instructor but inappropriate role model.
needed police stories.
Level 3limited personal story of instructor but inappropriate role model.
needed police stories.
Level 3limited personal story of instructor.
used gay cop video for police stories.
Level 210very limited information emerged from panel.
Level 3no information given.
Level 4excellent stereotype activity.
needed more on legal status.
Level 2adequate stereotype activity.
could have given more legal status.
Level 2some historical information given.
could have given more legal status.
Level 3excellent stereotype activity but in wrong sequence.
much information on legal status.
teen suicide.
Level 2excellent stereotype activity.
video on growing up gay.
much information on legal status.
Level 2adequate stereotype activity.
Gay cop video.
harassment of gay and lesbian officer small group activity.
Level 111no behaviors discussed.
Level 4no behaviors discussed.
Level 4very little specific information.
Level 3excellent coverage of points.
Level 1limited information given.
Level 3good coverage of points.
Level 2good coverage of points.
Level 2excellent coverage of points.
Level 112no problem solving activities.
Level 4no problem solving activities.
Level 4no problem solving activities.
Level 4no problem solving activities.
Level 44 scenarios discussed by class.
needed individual work.
Level 3student problem solving engaged through police scenarios.
Level 1student problem solving engaged through police scenarios.
Level 1student problem solving engaged through police scenarios.
Level 113closure not attempted.
small bibliography handed out.
Level 3closure attempted with religious monologue.
no handout materials
Level 3no attempts at summary or closure.
no handout materials.
Level 4closure attempted through Q&A.
no handout materials.
Level 3closure not attempted.
no handout materials.
Level 4closure not attempted.
85-pages of materials handed out.
Level 2closure attempted through homework assignment.
85-pages of materials handed out.
Level 2closure and summary attempted.
75-pages of materials handed out.
Level 114no representatives or information.
Level 4no representatives or information given.
Level 4no representatives or information given.
Level 4telephone number written on board.
Level 2no representatives or information given.
Level 4no representatives.
materials handed out.
Level 2no representatives.
materials handed out.
Level 2no representatives.
materials handed out.
Level 215limited.
Level 3not observed.not observed.limited "evals."
Level 2no observed.limited "evals" and research questionnaire.
Level 2limited "evals" and research questionnaire.
Level 1limited "evals" and research questionnaire.
Level 1#1
#2
#3
Rank

#4-15
-1
-2
-3
-4
Rank1
2
1
top (2)


2
1
4
5
bottom (5)2
2
2
middle (3)


1
1
2
7
bottom (5)2
1
2
middle (3)


3
3
2
3
middle (4)1
1
1
best(1)


3
6
2
1
middle (3)3
3
4
worst(6)


0
2
4
5
worst (6)3
1
4
bottom (5)


2
7
3
0
middle (3)3
1
3
middle (4)


3
7
2
0
top (2)2
1
4
middle (4)


7
4
1
0
best (1)c
o
m
m
e
n
t
sInstructor and class size were excellent while length of training was good.
Rank=top.

Instruction methodologies stressed hearing about personal stories, but failed to convey information on human sexuality, stigmatization, or appropriate police behaviors.
Rank=bottom.Length of training, instructor and class size were good.
Rank=middle.


Instruction methodologies emphasized self-awareness but failed to convey information on human sexuality, stigmatization or appropriate behaviors.
Rank=bottom.Length of training was excellent, instructor and class size were good.
Rank= middle.

Instruction methodologies were equally mixed from excellent to poor. Excellent goals, self-awareness and personal interactions. Fair to poor on specific information of sexuality or police behaviors.
Rank=middle.Instructors, class size and length of training was excellent.
Rank=best.


Instruction methodologies were mostly good and covered most items of the curriculum effectively. Greatest failing was involving students in problem solving.
Rank=middle.Instructors and length of training were fair while class size was poor.
Rank=worst.


Instruction methodologies emerged from panel presentation and was fair to poor in conveying specific information on human sexuality, stigmatization or appropriate police behaviors.
Rank=worst.Length of training was excellent, instructor was fair and class size was poor.
Rank=bottom.

Instruction methodologies were mostly good emphasizing much information and many handouts. Excellent problem solving. Needed better personal stories from police and more self-awareness.
Rank=middle.Length of class was excellent. Instructor and class size were fair.
Rank=middle


Instruction methodologies were mostly good emphasizing much information and many handouts. Excellent problem solving. Needed better personal stories by police officers.
Rank=top.Length of class was excellent. Instructor was fair and class size was poor.
Rank=middle.


Instruction methodologies were mostly excellent with excellent small group activities for self-awareness, student problem solving and closure. Needed better personal stories by police officers.
Rank=best.