Technical Report 1203 

Case Method Instruction: 25 Minutes of Discussion 

Can Make a Difference 

Michelle L. Zbylut 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Jason M. Brunner and Christopher L. Vowels 

Kansas State University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Julia M. Kim 

University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

July 2007 

 

United States Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

PAUL A. GADE MICHELLE SAMS, PhD.

Acting Technical Director Director 

 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

University of Southern California, Institute for Creative Technologies 

Technical review by 

Lawrence C. Katz, U. S. Army Research Institute 

Brooke B. Schaab, U. S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
i 

 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

July 2007 

2. REPORT TYPE

Interim 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

March 2006 – December 2007 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

W911NF-04-D-0005 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Case Method Instruction: 25 Minutes Can Make a Difference 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

622785 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 269 

6. AUTHOR(S): 

Michelle L. Zbylut (U.S. Army Research Institute) 

Jason M. Brunner and Christopher L. Vowels (Kansas State 

University) 

Julia M. Kim (University of Southern California, Institute for 

Creative Technologies) 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-RK 

851 McClellan Ave., Building 90 

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1360

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Technical Report 1203 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Subject Matter POC: Michelle Zbylut 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Case method instruction has been universally endorsed as an effective teaching approach, yet little empirical research 

provides evidence of this claim. This report describes research that investigated the importance of the discussion component 

of case method instruction to learning. In addition to collecting data from 182 USMA cadets, this investigation extends past 

research on case method instruction by incorporating the perspectives of instructors. Findings indicated that students 

produced better quality answers and were better able to diagnose leadership problems in the scenario after participating in 

discussion, even though the time allotted for discussion was relatively short. Self-reports of instructors provided corroborating 

evidence that the instructional approach was useful for accomplishing learning objectives and that class discussion quality 

was high. Additional results point to the importance of having an instructor’s manual available for discussing case studies. 

Results also suggest that the particular case study used, Power Hungry, generalizes from an audience of junior officers and 

NCOs to a cadet audience. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Leadership, Training, Leader Development, Power Hungry, Case Method Instruction, Interpersonal Skills, TLACXL, AXL

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication 

Specialist 

703-602-8047 
 ii 
iii 

Technical Report 1203 

Case Method Instruction: 

25 Minutes of Discussion Can Make a Difference 

Michelle L. Zbylut 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Jason M. Brunner and Christopher L. Vowels 

Kansas State University 

 Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Julia M. Kim 

University of Southern California, 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

Leader Development Research Unit 

Stanley M. Halpin, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

July 2007 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

622785A790 and Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 iv 
 v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL) project is a collaboration between the United States 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and the University of 

Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). Several individuals from ICT 

helped to build the AXL.net web-based system and its predecessor, Think Like a Commander—

Excellence in Leadership (TLAC-XL). These individuals include Randall Hill, Andrew Gordon, 

Scott Rocher, Salvo Lavis, Sudeep Gandhe, David Traum, Stewart King, Reid Swanson, Ashish 

Karnavat, Jay Douglas, Fred Pighin, Paul Debevec, Martin van Velsen, and Tim Hawkins. 

Additionally, Richard Lindheim provided advice and support for the AXL project. Kim 

LeMasters wrote and produced the Power Hungry film discussed in this report. Chuck Bowman 

directed Power Hungry. 

The authors would like to thank Stanley Halpin and Robert Solick of ARI for their continual 

advice and support throughout the duration of this project. Thanks also to the Center for Army 

Leadership—particularly COL Mike Flowers and LTC (ret) Clark Delavan—for their early 

support of Power Hungry and this project. 

We would like to thank LTC Brian Mennes, MAJ Devon Blake, and Walter Banach of the Simon 

Center for the Professional Military Ethic at the United States Military Academy and the 

instructors involved in the Power Hungry exercise for allowing us to be part of their instruction 

and setting aside a portion of their valuable class time for collecting data. 

In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support of the Behavioral Sciences and 

Leadership Department at the United States Military Academy—COL Tom Kolditz, LTC Donna 

Brazil, LTC Todd Henshaw and the captains in the Tactical Officer’s Education Program 

(TOEP). 

The authors also acknowledge the support provided by the Research, Development, and 

Engineering Command (RDECOM) and Jeffrey Wilkinson and Joseph Brennan of RDECOM’s 

Simulation and Training Technology Center (STTC). 
vi

CASE METHOD INSTRUCTION: 25 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION CAN MAKE A 

DIFFERENCE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

 Although case method instruction has been embraced as an effective teaching approach, 

little empirical work has investigated this claim. This report describes research that investigated 

the importance of the discussion component of case method instruction to learning. This 

research also extends previous work on case method instruction by incorporating both student 

and instructor perspectives on the instructional approach. Additionally, this research explored 

whether a specific case, Power Hungry, geared toward junior officers could be generalized to a 

different instructional audience. 

Procedure: 

One-hundred-eighty-two cadets and six instructors from the United States Military 

Academy completed questionnaires about a case study presented as part of a course offered 

through the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic. Cadets were asked to identify six 

of the most critical leadership errors that they observed during the case study; cadet responses 

were later scored for content and quality. One-hundred-and-seven cadets completed the 

questionnaire prior to discussion and 75 cadets completed the questionnaire after discussion. 

Instructor questionnaires were used to assess whether instructors believed that the lesson was 

effective, as well as to determine what topic areas were discussed during class. 

Findings: 

 Results indicated that cadets identified more leadership issues and produced better quality 

answers after participating in discussion, even though discussion was relatively short (i.e., 

approximately 25 minutes). Instructors indicated that they would have preferred more time to 

conduct discussion, but believed that the lesson accomplished their teaching objectives. 

Instructors further indicated that they would recommend using the Power Hungry case study 

again. Results also indicated that discussion focused primarily on content noted in the 

instructor’s manual for the case study. In sum, results indicated that the case study, Power 

Hungry, has educational value for a cadet audience. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

This research provides empirical evidence that discussion is an important part of the case 

method process. For practitioners of case method instruction, the results of this investigation 

indicate that even discussion of relatively short duration can yield benefits to student learning. 

With respect to the Power Hungry case study specifically, these findings suggest that Power 

Hungry would be useful as part of leadership education for cadets and the Reserve Officer 

Training Corps (ROTC). 
vii

 

CASE METHOD INSTRUCTION: 25 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION CAN MAKE A 

DIFFERENCE 

CONTENTS 

Page

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

THE CURRENT INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... 4

METHOD ............................................................................................................................. 5

Participants and Procedure.................................................................................................... 5

Measures ............................................................................................................................... 6

Cadet Measures......................................................................................................... 6

Instructor Questionnaire............................................................................................ 7

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 8

Cadet Performance and Reactions ........................................................................................ 8

Descriptive Statistics................................................................................................. 8

Learning .................................................................................................................... 8

Instructor Ratings.................................................................................................................. 10

DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 12

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX A: CADET QUESTIONNAIRE A-1

APPENDIX B: INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONNAIRE B-1

LIST OF TABLES 

 

 

TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CADET REACTIONS 

AND PERFORMANCE ACROSS CONDITIONS (N = 182)....................... 8

 

TABLE 2. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CADET REACTIONS 

AND PERFORMANCE BY CONDITION.................................................... 9

 

TABLE 3. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TOPICS DISCUSSED ..... 11
 viii 
1 

Case Method Instruction: 25 minutes of Discussion can make a difference 

Introduction 

 Case method instruction has been an accepted educational technique in higher education 

for almost a century. Popularized by Harvard Business School in 1910 (Jennings, 1996), case 

method instruction is found in a variety of professional disciplines including medicine, 

education, ethics, law, business, and the military (e.g., Borden, 1998; Green & Cotlar, 1973; 

Hassall, Lewis, & Broadbent, 1998; Owens, Padula, & Hume, 2002; Rempt, 2003; Stewart & 

Dougherty, 1993; Tarnvik, 2002; Williamson, 2001; Wright, 1996). In traditional applications of 

case method instruction, instructors assign a paper-based case study to students as homework. 

The case study might be either a historical account or a realistic fiction (Jennings, 1996; Maltby, 

2001). Students then read the case and prepare for discussion of the case during the next class 

meeting. Once students arrive at class, the instructor facilitates group discussion to elicit specific 

points, challenge student assumptions, and engage problem-solving and analytical skills. Over 

time, case method instruction has evolved to encompass several variations of the approach, 

including the use of filmed cases and technology-facilitated discussion or reflection (e.g., 

Borden, 1998; Cavalier & Weber, 2002; Green & Cotlar, 1973; Hill et al., 2006; Leeper, 1993; 

Richardson, 1994; Sprau, 2001). 

The discussion component of case method instruction may be particularly important to 

the learning process. For instance, the questioning and answering that occur during discussion 

are believed to encourage students to be active participants in the learning process and to process 

material at a deeper level (Zbylut & Ward, 2004b). Likewise, discussion can prompt selfexamination and compel students to evaluate the arguments of other students (Garner, 2000). 

Such critical examination is likely to occur when discussion triggers a reflective process that 

requires students to reorganize and reevaluate views of their initial position (Wright, 1996). In 

addition to the cognitive benefits of case method instruction, the group discussion component of 

case method instruction is purported to foster the development of interpersonal and 

communication skills (Crittenden, Crittenden, & Hawes, 1999; Jennings, 1996). 

On its surface, case method instruction appears to be a straightforward educational 

technique; students are exposed to a case study, which they later discuss. However, effective 

facilitation of discussion is hardly a simple process. First, instructors must select or create an 

appropriate case to accomplish the learning objectives that they have outlined. Second, after 

having selected a case, instructors must devote significant time and effort in preparing to discuss 

the case, investing as much as 20 hours to prepare (Diamantes & Ovington, 2003). Instructor 

preparation requires (a) building a complete understanding of the case, (b) constructing 

discussion questions to elicit key points and influence student thought processes, and (c) 

anticipating potential student statements, misconceptions, and questions that might arise during 

discussion. Third, instructors must orchestrate the discussion in such a way that they spend 

minimal time lecturing and maximal time soliciting a variety of student perspectives. Moreover, 

the instructor must be able to manage the group discussion process so that no one student 

dominates the discussion, less talkative students participate, the discussion stays on topic, 

differing student opinions do not devolve into destructive confrontations, and students end the 
2 

discussion more knowledgeable than they were prior to discussion. In sum, conducting effective 

case method instruction requires instructors to be both dedicated and skilled. 

Regardless of the intricacies of conducting case method instruction, the approach has 

been almost universally embraced as an effective teaching methodology. Practitioners have 

claimed several benefits to the case method approach. One of the most commonly cited benefits 

is that case method instruction stimulates critical and creative thinking (e.g., Jennings, 1996; 

McDade, 1995; Stewart & Dougherty, 1993; Wright, 1996). Another frequently cited benefit is 

that case studies provide students with an opportunity to apply the abstract lessons learned from 

books and lectures to the concrete situation described in a case (Jennings, 1996; Wright, 1996). 

Case studies provide students with a glimpse into interesting real-world situations while 

maintaining the safety and structure of a controlled classroom environment. The use of realistic 

case studies paired with discussion also intellectually engages and emotionally invests students 

in the learning process (Bocker, 1987; Jennings, 1996). 

Although many instructors endorse case method instruction as a valuable technique, little 

empirical research has tested the effectiveness of this approach. A few exceptions exist. For 

example, Hassall, Lewis, and Broadbent (1998) collected student ratings on a semester-long 

financial decision making course that relied on case method instruction. Students reacted 

positively to the course, indicating that the case method approach was effective in developing a 

range of knowledge, skills, and abilities including the ability to work in a group, negotiation 

skills, presentation skills, the ability to integrate subject skills and knowledge, and the ability to 

clearly define problems. While important in providing evidence that students believe that case 

method instruction is effective, this research is limited in that objective measures of learning 

were not included. 

Stewart and Dougherty (1993) compared two undergraduate process cost accounting 

classes taught by the same instructor. In one class students were taught with lecture and 

textbook (i.e., control condition); in the other class students were exposed to lecture, textbook, 

and a case study. Five weeks into the course and prior to case exposure, students in both classes 

scored comparable to one another on a course exam. However, on the final exam, students in the 

case method condition scored higher on an essay portion of the exam than did students in the 

control condition. This finding suggests that the case method approach is not only effective in 

helping students develop conceptual understanding and analytical thinking, but contributes 

educational value beyond what is offered in a traditional lecture format. Other research indicates 

that case method instruction is superior to lecture (Bocker, 1987). 

Green and Cotlar (1973) tested different approaches to case method instruction. As part 

of a 10-week course on management principles, students were exposed to case method 

instruction using either paper-based cases or film-based cases. Four weeks after beginning case 

method instruction, students in the film condition rated the case as significantly more realistic 

than students in the paper case condition. Students in the film condition also scored higher with 

respect to understanding management principles than did students in the paper condition. No 

difference in transfer of principles to other tasks was found between the two conditions, 

however. 
3 

Green and Cotlar’s (1973) work is important because it was one of the few investigations 

to test the impact of media on the effectiveness of case method instruction. Specifically, Green 

and Cotlar demonstrated that filmed cases might be more effective than paper cases in promoting 

learning. Later research conducted by Zbylut, Ward, and Mark (2005) extended the work on 

media effects by comparing a filmed case to a case presented in PowerPoint. Zbylut et al.’s 

research indicated that the filmed case evoked a stronger emotional response and was rated as 

more realistic and less confusing than the PowerPoint version of the case. Moreover, research 

participants were able to recall more scenario details from the filmed case than from the 

PowerPoint case. These results are particularly surprising given that the PowerPoint scenario 

included over 100 still images from the film version, as well as the complete audio track from the 

film. Taken together, the results of Green and Cotlar (1973) and Zbylut et al. (2005) provide 

evidence that the medium in which a case study is delivered is important. 

Despite evidence of media effects, the case medium may not be nearly as important as the 

discussion or reflection that follows the case. Research conducted by Cavalier and Weber (2002) 

appears to demonstrate this point. Cavalier and Weber examined three types of media for 

presenting a case on medical ethics. The case centered on the ethical question of an individual’s 

right to die. In the case, medical professionals were confronted with a badly burned individual 

who requested that he be allowed to die rather than undergo a painful recovery process and lifelong disfigurement. Students were exposed to one of three conditions: (1) a text-based narrative 

of the case paired with additional written documentation, (2) a filmed documentary about the 

case, or (3) an interactive CD that included pieces of the documentary paired with Socratic 

dialog for guiding case analysis and individual reflection. Unlike traditional case method 

instruction, no instructors facilitated discussion and analysis of the case. Results indicated that 

students learned most in the CD condition that included both film clips and guided inquiry. 

Given that the film and text conditions did not include guided inquiry, such results suggest that 

the reflection component of case method instruction plays an important role in the learning 

process. However, the content in the three conditions was not completely equivalent, so it is 

difficult to attribute better test performance directly to guided inquiry and reflection. 

Research conducted by Zbylut et al. (2007) provided a more direct test of the benefit of 

case discussion and analysis to learning. In their investigation, they examined the effectiveness 

of an online variation of case method instruction in which student discussion was facilitated by 

computer rather than an instructor. In a comparison of pretest and posttest scores, students 

performed better on a judgment test and placed stronger emphasis on relevant instructional 

content after participation in discussion. However, this research was limited in that the research 

design utilized a within-subjects design without a control group. Thus, the pretest might have 

primed students to focus on the relevant test content during discussion of the module, and the 

higher posttest results might have been due to a combination of priming effects and discussion 

rather than discussion alone. 

In sum, it appears that case method instruction has been often used, but less frequently 

evaluated. An instructional exercise at the United States Military Academy (USMA) provided 

an opportunity to explore both instructor and student perspectives on case method instruction, as 

well as test a specific military case study product. 
4 

The Current Investigation 

The Power Hungry case study is a film about a fictional food distribution operation in 

Afghanistan (Hill, Douglas, Gordon, Pighin, & van Velsen, 2003). During the film, a captain 

encounters a variety of leadership challenges, including inexperienced subordinates, the 

unexpected presence of a brigade command sergeant major on site, warlords, poor terrain, and 

Afghan civilians. The captain also makes several leadership mistakes, such as failing to 

communicate his intent, verbally berating subordinates in public, and losing focus on the 

mission. The film ends with mission failure and warlords seizing both the food and the nongovernmental organization (NGO) trucks carrying the food. 

 The Power Hungry case is part of a larger instructional system called Army Excellence in 

Leadership (AXL)1

 that delivers case method instruction in an online environment. In the AXL 

environment, students watch a filmed case study and then the computer facilitates discussion and 

analysis of the case with respect to several leadership and cultural issues. Instructor intervention 

is not required for students to engage and learn from the AXL system. Although the AXL 

system is capable of facilitating case method instruction without the aid of an instructor, the case 

studies embedded in the AXL system can be used in traditional classroom environments. To 

assist instructors who wish to use AXL films in their classes, instructor manuals for facilitating 

discussion around the cases have been created (Metcalf & Zbylut, 2007; Zbylut & Ward, 2004b). 

The Power Hungry manual provides discussion questions for the following topics: 

• Command Climate 

• Command Influence 

• Communication 

• Cultural Awareness 

• Model of Command 

• Mission Clarity 

• Respect the Experience of Non-commissioned Officers (NCOs) 

• Providing Guidance to Subordinates 

• Leadership Assessment 

 The Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (SCPME) at USMA requested to 

use the Power Hungry film as a tool for discussing leadership issues with their senior class. This 

provided a unique opportunity to explore several research questions of interest about the 

effectiveness of case method discussion, in general, and about the Power Hungry case study in 

particular. At a general level, we were interested in determining whether the discussion portion 

of case method instruction impacted learning. At a more specific level, we were interested in 

determining whether cadets were an appropriate audience for the Power Hungry case study, 

because Power Hungry and its instruction manual (Zbylut & Ward, 2004b) were developed to 

target junior Army officers. Additionally, while previous research demonstrated that students 

(primarily NCOs and officers) believed that instructor-facilitated discussion of Power Hungry

was effective (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a), this provided a chance to collect measures of learning 

based on indicators other than student self-reports. Specifically, cadet answers were scored for 

content and quality, and instructor reports of discussion quality were collected. Since prior 

research on case method instruction primarily focused on the student’s perspective, the collection 

of instructor reactions offered an alternative perspective generally not captured quantitatively in 

 

1

 AXL is a collaboration between the United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

(ARI) and University of Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). 
5 

the case method literature. Instructor data also were used to determine what topics cadets 

discussed during class and explore whether instructors focused the discussion on topics covered 

in the Power Hungry manual or chose instead to focus on other topics. 

Method 

Participants and Procedure 

 The senior class at USMA (approximately 1,000 cadets) participated in a discussion of 

Power Hungry as part of an undergraduate course offered by the SCPME. Classes were 

randomly assigned to either complete questionnaires after watching Power Hungry but before 

class discussion (pre-discussion condition) or to complete questionnaires after class discussion 

(post-discussion condition). Eleven instructors returned questionnaire data for 17 classes, 

resulting in a sample size of 182 cadets and a survey return rate of approximately 18%. Ten 

classes were in the pre-discussion condition (n = 107) and seven classes were in the postdiscussion condition (n = 75). Each class ranged from five to 22 students, with an average of 11 

students per class. The pre-discussion (M = 10.70) and post-discussion (M = 10.71) classes were 

equivalent in class size on average, and six of the eleven instructors each had a pre-discussion 

and a post-discussion class. 

 In both conditions cadets watched the Power Hungry film, which lasts approximately 13 

minutes. Additionally, in both conditions instructors facilitated discussion of leadership issues in 

their class for approximately 20-30 minutes. During discussion, some instructors opted to 

include “character interviews,” which are additional film clips depicting the characters stating 

their thoughts, feelings, and evaluations of what transpired in the scenario. Because class time 

was limited to 55 minutes, it was left to the instructor’s discretion about whether to include 

character interviews during class. 

Cadets in the pre-discussion condition completed a questionnaire about leadership issues 

prior to discussing the film, while cadets in the post-discussion condition completed the 

questionnaire after discussing the leadership issues in the film. Given constraints on class time, 

the cadet questionnaire was only one page and designed to be completed in 10 minutes or less. 

On the questionnaire, cadets were asked to list up to six of the biggest errors made by the leaders 

in Power Hungry and to be as specific as possible. The post-discussion group answered an 

additional item pertaining to the usefulness of the discussion in helping them think about 

leadership issues. The post-discussion questionnaire is located in Appendix A. 

 In addition to collecting data from cadets, instructors were asked to complete a short 

questionnaire about their experience using Power Hungry. Six of the eleven instructors who 

provided cadet data returned these questionnaires. 
6 

Measures 

Cadet Measures 

Each cadet had an opportunity to list up to six errors made by the leaders in the Power 

Hungry film. The errors were scored in three different ways. First, the total number of errors

that cadets listed were counted. This provided an index of whether cadets who engaged in film 

discussion were able to identify more problems in the scenario than cadets who did not engage in 

discussion. 

 Second, two researchers classified each error into the separate categories of leadership, 

cultural, and tactical issues to explore whether discussion about leadership improved cadets’ 

ability to identify leadership issues in the scenario. The Power Hungry film was designed to 

interweave tactical, cultural, and leadership challenges into one scenario, and prior research 

indicated that captains and cadets who analyzed the film identified issues from all three of these 

categories2

 (Ben-Yoav Nobel et al., 2006). Errors were classified in the leadership category if 

they dealt with interactions between a leader and a subordinate. These included issues such as 

general communication, providing guidance to subordinates, using an appropriate tone, gathering 

expertise from others, and maintaining composure. Interrater reliability for errors classified as 

leadership content was r = .79 (89.67% agreement). Errors were classified in the cultural

category if they reflected that leaders lacked cultural awareness, problems in dealing with the 

local population, or mishandling the warlords. Interrater reliability for errors classified as 

cultural content was r = .77 (94.56% agreement). Errors were classified as tactical if they 

focused on tactical decision making and planning, terrain issues, security issues, or use of 

physical resources (e.g., weapons, fencing, radios). Interrater reliability for errors classified as 

tactical content was r = .74 (89.44% agreement). Disagreements were resolved by discussing the 

issues with a third researcher. After resolution of disagreements, an overall score for each 

category was computed for each cadet by summing the number of errors that he or she identified 

within a category. 

 Third, researchers scored each error for quality, and then computed an overall “answer 

quality” score for each cadet by summing the quality across the errors. Quality scores for each 

error ranged from -1 to 3 points. An error received -1 if it was an incorrect statement about the 

film. For example, one cadet’s answer indicated that the first lieutenant told the first sergeant to 

“invent and improvise,” and this did not occur in the film. 

In a few instances, errors were nonsensical or irrelevant. Errors of this nature received 

zero points. For example, a statement like “CO vs. XO” received zero points because it was 

unclear what was meant by that statement. As another example, a statement like “very hot” 

received zero points because it technically was not an error made by the leaders in the film. 

Only 10 of the 902 errors coded received zero points for being nonsensical. 

An answer received 1 point if it was vague and did not include a sufficiently descriptive 

or evaluative component. For example, a statement like “talking to Omar” appeared to address a 

cultural issue embedded in the film, but it was unclear what the cadet believed was problematic 

 

2

 Analysis of the film without discussion. 
7 

about speaking to Omar. Statements that were more descriptive or included an evaluative 

component received 2 points. An example of a statement receiving two points was “Captain did 

not provide enough guidance to Soldiers.” 

More complex answers received 3 points; these were answers that demonstrated causal 

reasoning or linked two or more concepts together in an explanatory fashion. Examples of 

statements receiving 3 points were “Correcting subordinates in front of wrong people; created a 

destructive command climate” and “CPT should have been more specific in the orders he issued 

because his XO and platoon leaders were lost.” In the first example, the cadet’s statement 

indicates a linkage between how disciplining subordinates in public contributed to a destructive 

command climate, thus linking leader actions to group climate. In the second example, the 

cadet’s answer indicated that the appropriate action of the leader (i.e., providing more detailed 

orders) was dependent on the state of the follower (i.e., Soldiers were confused). Interrater 

reliability for answer quality was r = .90 (94.57% agreement). Disagreements among raters were 

discussed and reconciled before computing an overall answer quality score. Answer quality 

scores were computed by summing the quality of the individual errors identified by each cadet. 

Consequently, quality scores could range from -6 to +18. 

 In addition to listing up to six errors made by leaders in the film, cadets in the postdiscussion condition completed an item to indicate how useful they thought the discussion was in 

helping them think about leadership issues. The item was anchored on a nine-point scale ranging 

from -4 (completely useless) to +4 (completely useful). Zero represented a neutral point. Cadets 

in the pre-discussion condition did not receive this item. 

Instructor Questionnaire 

Instructors were given a brief questionnaire to assess the discussion, film, and possible 

changes they would make to the lesson (see Appendix B). Four of the items asked the instructors 

to rate the quality of the discussion, the usefulness of the film in addressing leadership issues, if 

the lesson accomplished the learning objectives of the class, and if they would recommend using 

the film in the future. The four items were rated on a nine-point scale ranging from -4 to +4, with 

zero as a neutral point. Additionally, instructors were asked what they would do the same and 

what they would change if they conducted the lesson again. 

 

Instructors also indicated the extent to which 23 different topics were discussed in their 

classes. These topics represented topics included in the instructor manual, as well as topics 

discussed in other applications of Power Hungry. Examples of these topics are communication 

issues, building trust, warrior ethos, tactical issues, and negotiation. Instructors indicated the 

degree to which each topic was discussed using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (no discussion 

at all) to 5 (dominated most of the discussion). 
8 

Results 

Cadet Performance and Reactions 

Descriptive Statistics 

 The means and standard deviations across conditions for the cadet variables are presented 

in Table 1. Cadets rated the discussion as somewhat useful in helping them think about 

leadership issues (M = 2.02, SD = 1.41), although cadet ratings were lower than instructor ratings 

(M = 3.17, SD = 0.75). 

Across conditions, cadets identified an average of five errors from the scenario. Of the 

errors identified, cadets tended to list more leadership errors than cultural and tactical errors. 

Overall, cadets identified few cultural errors, and the cultural errors that were identified tended to 

be at a general level of detail. In examining the answers provided by cadets, the primary cultural 

error indicated by cadets was that leaders “lacked cultural awareness.” 

Learning 

 Although cadet and instructor reactions are important indicators of user acceptance of an 

instructional product, of greater interest is whether cadets learned from the instruction. To 

examine the impact of discussion on learning, we used three indicators. First, we examined 

whether cadets who engaged in discussion identified more errors made by the leaders in Power 

Hungry than cadets who had not participated in discussion. Second, we examined whether 

cadets who participated in discussion specifically identified more leadership errors than cadets 

who had not participated in discussion. Third, we examined whether cadets who participated in 

discussion provided higher quality and more detailed answers than cadets who had not 

participated in discussion. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2 and 

described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 

Table 1 

Means and Standard Deviations of Cadet Reactions and Performance 

Across Conditions (n = 182)

Variable M SD 

Usefulness of the Discussion a 2.02 1.41 

Total Number of Errors Identified 4.92 1.22 

Number of Leadership Errors Identified 2.80 1.31 

Number of Tactical Errors Identified 1.44 1.22 

Number of Cultural Errors Identified 0.64 0.67 

Overall Answer Quality 8.64 2.98 a

 n = 75 because the pre-discussion group did not complete this item. 
9 

Table 2 

Means and Standard Deviations of Cadet Reactions and Performance by Condition 

Pre-Discussion 

(n = 107) 

Post-Discussion 

(n = 75) 

Variable M SD M SD 

Total Number of Errors Identified ** 4.69 1.27 5.25 1.08 

Number of Leadership Errors Identified *** 2.35 1.22 3.45 1.15 

Number of Tactical Errors Identified * 1.62 1.22 1.19 1.18 

Number of Cultural Errors Identified 0.70 0.66 0.55 0.68 

Overall Answer Quality * 8.27 2.99 9.16 2.91 

Note. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. 

Total number of errors identified. If one objective of case-method discussion is to help 

cadets analyze the scenario, then one indicator that discussion is useful would be that cadets 

could identify more errors made by leaders in the scenario after discussing the scenario than they 

could prior to engaging in discussion. Cadets in the post-discussion condition generated more 

errors (M = 5.25, SD = 1.08) than cadets in the pre-discussion condition (M = 4.69, SD = 1.27), 

t(180) = 3.12, p < .01. 

Emphasis on types of content. Discussion was intended to focus cadets on the 

leadership content in the scenario. Thus, in addition to identifying more errors after participating 

in discussion, cadets specifically should be able to identify more leadership errors after 

discussion. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine if cadets placed stronger 

emphasis on leadership content after group discussion. Results indicated that cadets cited more 

leadership issues after discussing the film (M = 3.45, SD = 1.15) than cadets in the pre-discussion 

condition (M = 2.35, SD = 1.22), t(180) = 6.16, p < .001. This finding provides evidence that 

discussion helped cadets to focus on the leadership content presented in Power Hungry.

Because cadets were constrained to listing the six biggest errors committed by leaders in 

Power Hungry, an identification of more leadership errors could result in a reduction of the other 

types of errors listed as the most important issues of the scenario. With respect to tactical issues, 

fewer tactical issues were listed post-discussion (M = 1.19, SD = 1.18) than pre-discussion (M = 

1.62, SD = 1.22), t(180) = 2.37, p < .05. The reduction in the number of tactical errors reported 

is most likely a methodological artifact created by the six-error ceiling imposed on cadets rather 

than an “unlearning” of tactical knowledge. That is, by emphasizing more leadership errors postdiscussion, cadets had less opportunity to report tactical errors. With respect to cultural errors, 

the pre-discussion and post-discussion cadets identified a similar number of errors, t(180) = 1.53, 

p > .05. As noted earlier, the number of cultural errors listed was small (M = .64, SD = .67), 

suggesting that culture was either not a salient topic for cadets or they were unable to list many 

cultural errors. 
10 

Overall answer quality. In addition to examining the number and types of errors 

identified by cadets, errors were scored for answer quality. An independent-samples t-test was 

conducted to examine if the overall quality of cadets’ answers improved after group discussion. 

Results indicated that the quality of the errors cited were of a better quality after discussion (M = 

9.16, SD = 2.91) than before discussion (M = 8.27, SD = 2.99), t(180) = 2.00, p < .05. Thus, 

discussion appeared to improve the overall quality of the answers generated by cadets. 

Instructor Ratings 

 Historically, Power Hungry has been used to precipitate discussion of a variety of topics. 

While all of these topics are relevant to the Power Hungry scenario, some of these topics are 

included in the manual, and some are not (e.g., negotiation). During the present exercise, 

instructors from USMA indicated that the three most discussed topics in their classes were the 

importance of using the experience and advice of NCOs (M = 3.83, SD = 0.41), directing and 

supervising subordinates (M = 3.67, SD = 0.82), and establishing a positive unit climate (M = 

3.50, SD = 0.55). These three topics correspond to topics covered in the instructor’s manual—

specifically, respecting the experience of NCOs, providing guidance to subordinates, and 

command climate. Other topics covered in the instructor’s manual were discussed during class, 

as well; these topics were cultural issues (M = 3.33, SD = 0.52), communication issues (M = 

3.33, SD = 1.03), and establishing and communicating mission intent and purpose (M = 3.17, SD 

= 0.75). Another topic in the instructor’s manual, model of command, was less discussed as 

indicated by ratings on the topic of leading by example (M = 2.67, SD = 1.03). In general, topics 

not covered by the instructor’s manual received less attention during discussion. The least 

discussed topics were warrior ethos (M = 1.50, SD = 0.55), taking care of Soldiers (M = 1.67, SD 

= 0.82), and balancing the mission with Solider welfare (M = 1.62, SD = 0.52). The means and 

standard deviations for instructor ratings of the different discussion topics are provided in Table 

3. 

 

With respect to instructor reactions to the lesson, instructors rated the quality of cadet 

discussion as high (M = 2.67, SD = 0.52). Instructors also indicated that the film was useful as a 

case study about leadership issues (M = 3.17, SD = 0.75) and felt that they were successful in 

accomplishing important learning objectives (M = 2.67, SD = 0.82). When asked if they would 

recommend using the film again, most instructors indicated they would definitely use Power

Hungry (M = 3.67, SD = 0.52). 

 Given the small sample of instructors, there was not enough information to group openended comments into categories or themes. Thus, individual instructor comments about things 

they would continue or change with respect to the Power Hungry lesson are reported instead. 
11 

Table 3 

Means and Standard Deviations of Topics Discussed 

Topic M SD 

Using the Experience and Advice of NCOs 3.83 .41 

Directing and Supervising Subordinates 3.67 .82 

Establishing a Positive Unit Climate 3.50 .55 

What Characters Should Have Done Differently 3.33 .52 

Cultural Issues 3.33 .52 

What Went Wrong in the Scenario 3.33 .82 

Respecting Others 3.33 .82 

Communication Issues 3.33 1.03 

Establishing and Communicating Mission Intent and Purpose 3.17 .75 

Developing Subordinates 2.83 .75 

Planning and Decision Making 2.83 1.17 

Leading by Example 2.67 1.03 

Situational Awareness 2.50 .55 

Tactical, Logistical, and Technical Issues 2.50 .55 

Influencing and Persuading Others 2.50 1.22 

Building Trust 2.00 .63 

Negotiation 2.00 .89 

Motivating Subordinates 2.00 .89 

Ethical Issues 2.00 1.10 

Self-awareness 1.83 .75 

Balancing the Mission with Solider Welfare 1.67 .52 

Taking Care of Soldiers 1.67 .82 

Warrior Ethos 1.50 .55 

Note. n = 6 instructors. Rating scale: 1 = No Discussion at All, 2 = Briefly Mentioned, 3 = Some 

Discussion, 4 = Quite a Bit of Discussion, 5 = Dominated Most of the Discussion.
12 

Instructors noted several things that should be continued in conducting discussions about 

Power Hungry. Two instructors stated they would continue to use the character interviews as 

part of the discussion with the film. One instructor noted that, “Having these interviews with the 

various film figures and checking on those as discussion naturally goes to the content of those 

interviews is excellent.” Other things that instructors said that should be continued when 

conducting discussions about Power Hungry included: 

• Allowing cadets to steer the direction of the discussion 

• Using group discussion as a teaching technique to promote student learning 

• Conducting a train-the-trainer session to prepare instructors for class discussion 

• Continuing to use Power Hungry as a case study for discussing leadership 

With respect to what could be changed about the lesson, four of the six instructors 

indicated that 55 minutes to watch the film, cover the interviews, and conduct a productive 

discussion was an inadequate amount of time. One instructor reported that it would be better to 

conduct the discussion across two or three sessions to cover different learning objectives. Other 

instructor suggestions about what could be improved included: 

• Having an NCO and officer in each classroom 

• Making the lesson more focused on decision-making rather than command climate 

and respecting the experience of NCOs 

• Having an approved solution for each discussion question 

• Better preparation on the discussion questions for each topic 

Discussion 

 The present investigation contributes to the sparse empirical literature on case method 

instruction. Specifically, the results of this investigation indicated that the discussion component 

of case method instruction contributed to the student’s ability to analyze the scenario, as 

demonstrated by cadets’ diagnosis of more errors in the scenario, emphasis on leadership 

content, and propensity to articulate higher quality answers. Such findings are consistent with 

claims made by practitioners of case method instruction—namely, that the approach contributes 

to critical and analytical thinking (Jennings, 1996; McDade, 1995; Stewart & Dougherty, 1993; 

Wright, 1996). Furthermore, these results are encouraging given that learning took place in the 

relatively short timeframe of 20-30 minutes of discussion. 

 Despite evidence of learning, instructors indicated that they would have preferred more 

time to conduct discussion. These findings mirror earlier findings with Power Hungry in which 

students indicated that 20-30 minutes of group discussion was not enough time to discuss the 

film in its entirety (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a). Anecdotal reports of applications of Power Hungry

suggest that a minimum of 45 minutes should be allotted for discussion, if not more. Future 

research should investigate whether a longer period of discussion results in additional learning, 

as well as explore potential time limits with respect to holding student attention. That is, at what 

time does discussion reach a point of diminishing returns? 

 Consistent with research on both case method instruction (Green & Cotlar, 1973; Hassall 

et al., 1998) and instruction with Power Hungry (Zbylut & Ward, 2004), students responded 
13 

favorably to the instructional approach. While past research primarily focused on student 

perspectives, the current investigation extends that research by incorporating instructor 

perspectives. Instructors provided corroborating perceptions that the case method approach was 

effective in instructing students. Instructors indicated that discussion quality was high, Power 

Hungry was useful as a case study about leadership, learning objectives were accomplished, and 

they would recommend using the film again. 

 Instructors also reported that much of the discussion in their classes focused on topics 

covered in the Power Hungry instructor manual (Zbylut & Ward, 2004b). Given that discussion 

of this content appeared to facilitate learning, such findings underscore the importance of having 

an instructor’s manual or detailed notes available for case studies. Because instructor 

preparation of a case can be labor and time intensive (Diamantes & Ovington, 2003), instructor 

manuals that offer case analysis and discussion questions could serve as a valuable resource for 

instructors. 

 An additional finding of this research was that the Power Hungry film is applicable to an 

unanticipated student audience—cadets. Power Hungry, as part of the AXL system, was created 

to help junior officers develop their tacit leadership knowledge and cultural understanding. 

However, as demand for the case study has grown, the usefulness of this product has been 

demonstrated with multiple audiences, including NCOs (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a) and now cadets. 

 Several limitations to this research should be noted. First, although the sample size of 

cadets (n = 182) was large enough to conduct statistical analyses, the overall return rate of 

questionnaires was low for both cadet and instructor questionnaires. While it is unclear why the 

return rate was so low, a potential explanation is that instructors who were dissatisfied with 

instruction might have opted not to return data for themselves or their cadets. If this were the 

case, the results in this report would have grossly overestimated the positive benefits of case 

method instruction. However, the USMA coordinator of the various classes conducting the 

Power Hungry exercise indicated that the film and instructional approach were well-received. 

Additionally, several instructional audiences in the past have reacted positively to AXL case 

method instruction (e.g., Hill et al., 2006; Zbylut & Ward, 2004a; Zbylut et al., 2005), so it is 

unlikely that the low return rate would be due solely to dissatisfaction with the teaching method. 

A more likely explanation is that many instructors did not want to take additional time away 

from discussing the film by having their cadets complete a survey. Previous research on Power 

Hungry indicated that students wanted longer than 20-30 minutes to discuss the film (Zbylut & 

Ward, 2004a), and this also might have been the case at USMA. As a result, instructors may 

have opted to spend more time during discussion rather than to complete their questionnaires or 

have cadets complete their questionnaires. Unfortunately, a higher return rate of instructor 

questionnaires would have been particularly beneficial, as it would have allowed for an analysis 

of the relationship between the content discussed during class and cadet learning. Given that 

only six instructors completed the questionnaire, there was not enough variability to explore the 

relationship between topic content and cadet learning. Future research, however, should 

examine this question, as well as investigate how different types of discussion questions (e.g., 

asking students to bring prior experiences into discussion, telling students to diagnose portions of 

the scenario, encouraging students to generate solutions to problems encountered in the scenario) 

impact different aspects of learning. For example, asking students to diagnose problems in a 
14 

case study might stimulate analytical thinking, but generating solutions to problems encountered 

in the case study might facilitate training transfer. Second, because of constraints on class time, 

there were practical limitations on how many variables could be measured in this research. 

Optimally, additional indicators of learning would have been collected, such as transfer of 

leadership concepts to another scenario. 

Despite such limitations, the findings of this research provide evidence that case method 

discussion plays an important role in learning, even when discussion is of relatively short 

duration. Twenty to 30 minutes of discussion was enough time to focus students on specific 

leadership content and to improve students’ ability to produce a higher quality analysis of the 

scenario. Twenty to 30 minutes also appeared to allow for substantive discussion of many of the 

topics outlined in the Power Hungry instruction manual. This suggests that, while cases may not 

be discussed fully in the short time allotted for many classes, cases can nevertheless be discussed 

in a meaningful and thoughtful way. However, it should be noted that instructors in this 

investigation and students in past investigations (Zbylut and Ward, 2004a) indicated that they 

would have liked more time to discuss the film. Thus, instructors should consider lengthening 

the time of discussion by extending the length of the instructional session or assigning the case 

study as homework prior to class. 
15 

REFERENCES 

Ben-Yoav Nobel, O., Zbylut, M. L., Fuchs, D., Campbell, K., Brazil, D., & Morrison, E. (2006). 

Leader experience and the identification of challenges in a stability and support 

operation. (Technical Report 1186) Arlington, VA: Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Bocker, F. (1987). Is case teaching more effective than lecture teaching in business 

administration? An exploratory analysis. Interfaces, 17(5), 64-71. 

Borden, S. L. (1998). Avoiding the pitfalls of case studies. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 13,

5-13. 

Cavalier, R., & Weber, K. (2002). Learning, media, and the case of Dax Cowart: A comparison 

of text, film, and interactive multimedia. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 243-

262.

Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & Hawes, J. M. (1999). The facilitation and use of student 

teams in the case analysis process. Marketing Education Review, 9(3), 15-23. 

Diamantes, T., & Ovington, J. (2003). Storytelling: Using a case method approach in 

administration preparation programs. Education, 123(3), 465-469, 451. 

Garner, D. D. (2000). The continuing vitality of the case method in the twenty-first century. 

Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 307-346. 

Green, T. B., & Cotlar, M. (1973). Do filmed cases improve the case method? Training and 

Development Journal, 27(5), 28-31. 

Hassall, T., Lewis, S., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Teaching and learning using case studies: A 

teaching note. Accounting Education, 7, 325-334. 

Hill, R. W., Douglas, J., Gordon, A. S., Pighin, F., & van Velsen, M. (2003, August). Guided 

conversations about leadership: Mentoring with movies and interactive characters. 

Proceedings of the 15th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference. 

Acapulco, Mexico. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. 

Hill, R. W., Kim, J. M., Zbylut, M. L., Gordon, A. S., Traum, D., Gandhe, S., et al. (2006, 

November). AXL.Net: Web-enabled case method instruction for accelerating tacit 

knowledge acquisition in leaders. Paper presented at the 25th Army Science Conference, 

Orlando, FL. 

Jennings, D. (1996). Strategic management and the case method. Journal of Management 

Development, 15(9), 4-12. 
16 

Leeper, R. V. (1993, April). Mutiny on the Bounty: A case study for leadership courses. Paper 

presented at the annual convention of the Central States/Southern States Communication 

Association, Lexington, Kentucky. 

Maltby, J. (2001). Second thoughts about “Cases in Auditing.” Accounting Education, 10, 421-

428. 

McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of 

Psychology, 22, 9-10. 

Metcalf, K. A., & Zbylut, M. L. (Feb 2007). Educating Army leaders with the Tripwire film. 

(ARI Research Product 2007-03). Arlington, VA: Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Owens, N. J., Padula, C. A., & Hume, A. L. (2002). Developing and using interdisciplinary case 

studies in teaching geriatrics to practicing health care professionals. Educational 

Gerontology, 28, 473-489. 

Rempt, R. P. (2003). President’s forum. Naval War College Review, 56(3), 4-8. 

Richardson, B. (1994). Towards a comprehensive view of the case method in management 

development. Industrial and Commercial Training, 26(9), 3-10. 

Sprau, R. (2001). I saw it in the movies: Suggestions for incorporating film and experiential 

learning in the college history survey course. College Student Journal, 35(1), 101-113. 

Stewart, J. P., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). Using case studies in teaching accounting: A quasiexperimental study. Accounting Education, 2, 1-10. 

Tarnvik, A. (2002). Advantages of using the multiple case method at the clinical stage of 

medical education. Medical Teacher, 24, 396-401. 

Williamson, M. (2001). The Army’s Advanced Strategic Art Program. Parameters, 30, 31-39. 

Wright, S. (1996). Case-based instruction: Linking theory to practice. Physical Educator, 53, 

190-208. 

Zbylut, M. L., Metcalf, K. A., Kim, J.M., Hill, R. W., Rocher, S., & Vowels, C. (2007). Army 

Excellence in Leadership (AXL): A multimedia approach to building tacit knowledge and 

cultural reasoning. (ARI Technical Report 1194). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Zbylut, M. L., & Ward, J. N. (2004a, December). Developing interpersonal abilities with 

interactive vignettes. Poster presented at the 24th Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL. 
17 

Zbylut, M. L., & Ward, J. N., (2004b). Think Like a Commander—Excellence in Leadership: 

Educating Army leaders with the Power Hungry film. (ARI Research Product 2004-01). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Zbylut, M. L., Ward, J. N., & Mark, J. D. (2005, April). Constructivism in training: A 

comparison of two interactive training tools. Poster presented at the 20th annual conference 

for the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychologists, Los Angeles, CA. 
18 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

CADET QUESTIONNAIRE 

1. Instructor or Discussion Group Leader: __________________________________________ 

2. I am completing this survey BEFORE AFTER my group has discussed the film. 

 (circle one) 

3. Have you ever seen the Power Hungry film before? Yes No

4. If you answered “yes,” to the previous question, where did you see the film before? 

5. List up to 6 of the biggest errors made by the leaders in the Power Hungry scenario. Be specific. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

6. How useful was today’s discussion in helping you think about leadership issues? 

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 

Completely Useless Neutral Completely Useful 
A-2 
B-1 

APPENDIX B: 

INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONNAIRE 

1. Name: ______________________________________________________ 

2. How would you rate the overall quality of today’s discussion? 

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 

Extremely Poor Neutral Extremely High 

3. How useful was the film as a case study for talking about leadership issues? 

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 

Completely Useless Neutral Completely Useful 

4. How well do you think that today’s lesson accomplished important learning objectives? 

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 

Complete Failure Neutral Complete Success 

5. To what extent would you recommend using the film again? 

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 

Never Use Again Neutral Definitely Use 

6. What would you do the same if you conducted this lesson again? 

7. What would you change if you conducted this lesson again? 
B-2 

How much were each of the following topics discussed during today’s lesson? 

Dominated Most of the Discussion

Quite a Bit of Discussion 

Some Discussion 

Briefly Mentioned 

5 = Dominated Most of the Discussion 

4 = Quite a Bit of Discussion 

3 = Some Discussion 

2 = Briefly Mentioned 

1 = No Discussion at All 

No Discussion at All 

1. Communication Issues...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

2. Establishing and Communicating Mission Intent and Purpose ........ 1 2 3 4 5 

3. Influencing and Persuading Others................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

4. Cultural Issues .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

5. Tactical, Logistical, and Technical Issues ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 

6. Using the Experience and Advice of NCOs ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

7. Ethical Issues .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

8. Leading by Example ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 

9. Planning and Decision Making......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

10. Directing and Supervising Subordinates .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

11. Building Trust................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

12. Taking Care of Soldiers.................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

13. Respecting Others............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

14. What Went Wrong in the Scenario................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

15. What Characters Should Have Done Differently ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 

16. Self-awareness .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

17. Motivating Subordinates................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

18. Warrior Ethos ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

19. Developing Subordinates.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

20. Establishing a Positive Unit Climate ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 

21. Negotiation ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

22. Situational Awareness ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

23. Balancing the Mission with Soldier Welfare 1 2 3 4 5