Technical Report 1226 

Learning the lessons of leadership: Case method 

teaching with interactive, computer-based tools and 

film-based cases 

Randall W. Hill, Jr. and Julia M. Kim 

University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

Michelle Ramsden Zbylut 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Andrew S. Gordon 

University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

Jason N. Ward and Christopher L. Vowels 

Kansas State University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

March 2008 

 

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:

 

BARBARA A. BLACK, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

Research Program Manager Director

Technical review by 

Gregory A. Ruark, U. S. Army Research Institute 

Gerald Goodwin, 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-ZXM, 

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)

March 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

October 2005 – December 2007 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Learning the Lessons of Leadership: Case Method Teaching with 

Interactive, Computer-Based Tools and Film-Based Cases

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

W911NF-04-D-0005 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

622785 

6. AUTHOR(S): 

Randall W. Hill & Julia M. Kim (University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies), Michelle Ramsden Zbylut (U.S. 

Army Research Institute), Andrew S. Gordon (University of Southern 

California Institute for Creative Technologies), Jason N. Ward & 

Christopher L. Vowels (Kansas State University, Consortium 

Research Fellows Program) 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 269 

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 

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

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Technical Report 1226 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Contracting Officer’s Representative: Joseph Brennan. Subject Matter POC: Michelle Ramsden Zbylut 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL) system is an online interactive system for delivering multimedia case 

method instruction. The intent of the AXL system is to develop leaders with greater interpersonal competence 

and cultural awareness. To achieve this goal, the AXL research program combines the case method of 

instruction with Hollywood techniques and interactive online technology. This report describes the technological 

capabilities of the AXL system, as well as the case method pedagogy underlying the AXL approach. The report 

describes how the AXL system capitalizes on the best practices of traditional case method instruction and 

addresses some of the limitations of case method instruction. Additionally, this report outlines how the 

instructional content in the AXL system relates to the leadership competencies outlined in Army leadership 

doctrine (FM 6-22) and the tacit knowledge framework for military leaders developed by Sternberg et al. (2000). 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Leadership, TLAC-XL, AXL, Cultural Awareness, Tacit Knowledge, Training, Leader Development, Tripwire, 

Power Hungry, Case Method Instruction, Multimedia Training, Computer-Based Training

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

97 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication 

Specialist 

703-602-8047 

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified
 

Technical Report 1226 

Learning the lessons of leadership: 

Case method teaching with interactive, computer-based tools 

and film-based cases 

Randall W. Hill, Jr. and Julia M. Kim 

University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

Michelle Ramsden Zbylut 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Andrew S. Gordon 

University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies 

Jason N. Ward and Christopher L. Vowels 

Kansas State University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

ARI-Ft Leavenworth 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 

March 2008 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

622785A790 and Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This project is the result of a wide and varied collaboration across organizations and professional 

disciplines. 

First and foremost, this project would not have been possible without the vision and support of 

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), including Dr. 

Michelle Sams and Dr. Zita Simutis, and especially its Fort Leavenworth Research Unit (FLRU) 

under the direction of Dr. Stan Halpin and Mr. Robert Solick. Additional ARI-FLRU support 

was provided by Dr. Rex Michel, Dr. Larry Laffite, Dr. Joseph Psotka, Dr. Kimberly Metcalf, 

Mr. Jeffrey Mark, Mr. Tuan Tran (now a Ph.D.), and Mr. Jason Brunner. 

The technical accomplishments reported in this document are due to contributors from the USC 

Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). On TLAC-XL, these included Dr. Jay Douglas, Dr. 

Fred Pighin, Dr. Paul Debevec, Mr. Martin van Velsen, and Mr. Tim Hawkins. On AXLnet, 

these included Dr. David Traum, Mr. Scott Rocher, Mr. Stewart King, Mr. Reid Swanson, Mr. 

Sudeep Gandhe, Mr. Salvo Lavis, and Mr. Ashish Karnavat. The project was provided advice 

and support by Mr. Richard Lindheim. 

Both Power Hungry and Tripwire were written and produced by Mr. Kim LeMasters. Power 

Hungry was directed by Mr. Chuck Bowman. Tripwire was directed by Mr. Kenny Johnson. 

We gratefully acknowledge the input provided by the Center for Army Leadership – COL Mike 

Flowers, LTC (Ret.) Clark Delavan, CPT Charles Palmer – and the United States Military 

Academy’s Behavioral Sciences and Leadership department including COL Tom Kolditz, COL 

Donna Brazil, LTC Todd Henshaw, Dr. Orly Ben-Yoav Nobel, LTC Sean Hannah, and the 19 

captains who provided their stories. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by Mr. Kevin 

McHenry and Mr. Jack Silver on the Tripwire scenario and Mr. Geoff Babb and MAJ Michael 

Ryan on the Power Hungry scenario. 

Support also was provided by the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering 

Command Simulation & Technology Training Center, with particular thanks to Dr. Jeff 

Wilkinson and Mr. Joseph Brennan, and the Ft. Bliss Air Defense Artillery School, including 

LTC William Brooks, MAJ Kevin Spielman, and CPT Rob McCormick. 
 iv 

LEARNING THE LESSONS OF LEADERSHIP: CASE METHOD TEACHING WITH 

INTERACTIVE, COMPUTER-BASED TOOLS AND FILM-BASED CASES 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Given the rapid pace of U.S. Army deployments, a need exists to accelerate the 

development of the Army’s junior leaders. Today’s Army warfighters face stressful and 

demanding situations that are “close to war” but may not be covered by standard tactics and 

doctrine. Thus, it is important to develop adaptive leaders who can function effectively in a 

complex environment, facing situations they have never before experienced, and to do so as 

quickly and efficiently as possible for the large number of leaders required for the current 

operating environment. 

Procedure: 

 The Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL) system was developed by the University of 

Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) and the United States Army 

Research Institute of the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) to deliver case method 

instruction in an interactive multimedia environment. The development of the AXL system was 

an iterative process. First, the literature on leadership and tacit knowledge was reviewed, and 

captains were interviewed to ascertain common leadership challenges encountered while 

deployed. Second, a filmed case study and instructional content was developed and incorporated 

into a multimedia instructional system called Think Like a Commander—Excellence in 

Leadership (TLAC-XL). Third, after evaluations of TLAC-XL were conducted, the system was 

revised to address identified problems and renamed the Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL) 

system. This report describes the technical and instructional aspects of the TLAC-XL and AXL 

systems. Evaluation research regarding these systems can be found elsewhere in Zbylut, 

Metcalf, Kim, Hill, and Rocher (2007), Zbylut and Ward (2004a), and Zbylut, Ward, and Mark 

(2005). 

Findings: 

Specific findings in the report describe the efficacy of film as a medium for presenting 

case studies, as well as past findings on the TLAC-XL system as a whole and how such research 

informed the current version of the AXL system. With respect to the efficacy of film, filmed 

case studies yield several advantages over paper-based cases or multimedia versions of a 

scenario presented in PowerPoint. A filmed version of an AXL case study can be shown more 

quickly (13 minutes) than it takes a student to read a paper version of the same case (22 minutes 

on average). Results also suggested that AXL films are better than paper or PowerPoint at 

conveying the personalities of characters in the case study. Self-reports of arousal indicated that 

film can be more stimulating than PowerPoint and just as stimulating as a paper version of the 

same case, while other findings indicated that film is more emotionally evocative than both paper 
 v 

and PowerPoint versions of a scenario. With respect to how much information from a scenario 

students are able to retain, film performed as good as or better than paper and PowerPoint 

versions of the same scenario. Although students were able to retain details about story plot 

points and scenario background equally well in paper and film versions of a case study, retention 

of what characters said during the scenario was stronger when the case study was presented via 

film rather than paper. The reverse pattern was found with PowerPoint and film, with film 

performing the same as PowerPoint with respect to retention of character dialogue and film 

outperforming PowerPoint with respect to retention of plot points and scenario background. 

These findings suggest that the multimedia component (i.e., character voices and pictures of 

characters) may play an important role in retaining information about which characters said what 

during a story, and film might be a superior medium for accurately conveying the nature of a 

character in case method instruction. 

This report also summarizes findings from early work in the AXL project on TLAC-XL. 

Problems identified through research on the TLAC-XL system were addressed in the AXL 

system, producing an innovative technology solution for delivering case method instruction. 

Several case method best practices were incorporated into the technology of the AXL system, 

including the ability to interview individuals from the case study and opportunities to explore 

different points of view. Additional functionality was added into the AXL system to make it 

fully authorable for instructors, trainers, and course designers. The result is a system that allows 

for the presentation of filmed and text-based case studies, authorable modules that include a 

variety of question types (e.g., reflection, rating tasks, multiple choice questions), and content 

that branches depending on student answers. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

This report documents an approach for implementing case method instruction in a 

computer-based environment. For applied researchers who are engaged in similar work, this 

report outlines issues and challenges encountered early in the project and demonstrates 

approaches for addressing such problems. The report also documents how case method best 

practices in traditional classroom environments can be translated into virtual environments. For 

individuals wishing to use the AXL system, this report describes the AXL system and also 

indicates how AXL instruction overlaps with different leadership areas identified in Army 

leadership doctrine and Sternberg’s military tacit knowledge framework (Sternberg et al., 2000). 
 vi 

LEARNING THE LESSONS OF LEADERSHIP: CASE METHOD TEACHING WITH 

INTERACTIVE, COMPUTER-BASED TOOLS AND FILM-BASED CASES 

CONTENTS 

Page

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

The Interpersonal Skills of Leadership ................................................................................. 2

The Tacit Knowledge of Leaders .......................................................................................... 3

LEADER DEVELOPMENT WITH STORIES AND CASE METHOD TEACHING ....... 6

What Makes a Good Case ..................................................................................................... 8

Learning from the Case ......................................................................................................... 8

Role of Instructor: Orchestrate the Discussion ......................................................... 9

Role of Student: Prepare and Participate .................................................................. 10

Limitations of Traditional Case Method Instruction ............................................................ 10

Inadequate Representation of Interpersonal Issues ................................................... 10

Lack of Student Preparation Time ............................................................................ 11

Inaccessibility of Text-based Cases .......................................................................... 11

Amount of Effort Required for Facilitator Preparation ............................................ 11

Experience Level of Facilitator ................................................................................. 11

Finding and Creating Cases is Effortful.................................................................... 12

AXL FILM-BASED CASES ................................................................................................ 12

Power Hungry: An Afghanistan Context .............................................................................. 14

Leadership Issues in Power Hungry ..................................................................................... 16

Communication, Mission Clarity, and Sharing a Vision of Intent ........................... 17

Providing Guidance to Inexperienced Soldiers and Respecting the Experience of 

NCOs......................................................................................................................... 17

Upward Influence and Command Influence ............................................................. 18

Model of Command and Command Climate ............................................................ 18

Cultural Awareness ................................................................................................... 19

Tripwire: An Iraq Context .................................................................................................... 22

Leadership Issues in Tripwire ............................................................................................... 23

Balancing Mission and Troops ................................................................................. 23

Taking Care of Soldiers ............................................................................................ 26

Establishing Trust ..................................................................................................... 26

Cultural Awareness ................................................................................................... 26

Summary of AXL.Net Cases ................................................................................................ 26
 vii 

CONTENTS (continued.) 

Page

THINK LIKE A COMMANDER—EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP (TLAC-XL) ....... 27

Guiding Questions and the Animated Synthetic Mentor ...................................................... 29

Character Interviews and Conversation Graphs ................................................................... 32

Example of TLAC-XL System Dialogue ............................................................................. 34

Discussion of TLAC-XL....................................................................................................... 34

The Value of Filmed Scenarios ................................................................................. 36

The Value of Group Discussion ................................................................................ 36

Need for Structured and Probing Questions ............................................................. 37

Role of the Synthetic Mentor .................................................................................... 37

Usage and Accessibility ............................................................................................ 38

AXL.NET PLATFORM AND MODULES ......................................................................... 39

Character Interviews ............................................................................................................. 39

Tools to Support Case Method Analysis .............................................................................. 44

AXL.Net Pilot Modules ........................................................................................................ 55

Research on AXL.Net ........................................................................................................... 57

Web 2.0 and Authorability .................................................................................................... 58

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 59

One Case, Many Uses ........................................................................................................... 60

Broad Applicability of AXL.Net to Leader Development .................................................... 60

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX A: TLAC QUESTIONS AND TLAC-XL LEADERSHIP ISSUES................ A-1

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ON SCENARIO DIFFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO 

AFFECTIVE, COGNITIVE, AND PERSONALITY INDICES ......................................... B-1
 viii 

LIST OF TABLES 

 Page

 

TABLE 1. SUMMARIES OF LEADERSHIP TAXONOMIES FOR FM 6-22, STERNBERG 

ET AL. (2000), AND CARPENTER AND WISECARVER (2004) ............................. 4

 

TABLE 2. RELATIONSHIP OF POWER HUNGRY THEMES TO FM 6-22 ................................ 20

 

TABLE 3. RELATIONSHIP OF TRIPWIRE THEMES TO FM 6-22 ............................................ 24

 

TABLE 4. TLAC QUESTIONS USED TO ANALYZE POWER HUNGRY AND THE TLACXL LEADERSHIP ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH TLAC TOPIC .................. 30

 

TABLE 5. EXAMPLE OF TLAC-XL CONTENT OVERLAID ON TLAC TOPIC OF 

“MISSION” .................................................................................................................... 35

 

TABLE 6. CASE METHOD INSTRUCTION BEST PRACTICES AND ASSOCIATED 

AXL.NET FUNCTIONALITY AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 53

 

TABLE B-1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE 

AFFECT IN DIFFERENT SCENARIO CONDITIONS ............................................... B-6

 

TABLE B-2. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TESTS COMPARING PERSONALITY RATINGS BY 

PERSONALITY TRAIT (ACROSS SCENARIO CONDITIONS) ............................... B-8

 

TABLE B-3. MEAN PERSONALITY RATINGS BY PERSONALITY FACTOR AND 

SCENARIO CONDITION ............................................................................................. B-9

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 Page

 

FIGURE 1. SCENES FROM POWER HUNGRY .............................................................................. 15

 

FIGURE 2. SCREENSHOT FROM THE TLAC-XL INTERFACE ................................................ 31

 

FIGURE 3. THE MENTOR GRAPH ................................................................................................ 33

 

FIGURE 4. A CHARACTER INTERVIEW GRAPH....................................................................... 33

 

FIGURE 5. STUDENTS CLICK ON DIFFERENT FILM CLIPS TO SEE WHAT 

CHARACTERS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE MISSION IN POWER HUNGRY ....... 41

 

FIGURE 6. AXL.NET CHARACTER INTERVIEW INTERFACE ................................................ 41

 

FIGURE 7. SCREENSHOT OF HOW AXL.NET HANDLES STUDENT QUESTIONS THAT 

IT IS UNSURE OF HOW TO ANSWER ...................................................................... 43

 
 ix 

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) 

 Page

 

FIGURE 8. CHART DESCRIBING THE MEDIATION BETWEEN A STUDENT’S 

QUESTION AND THE AVAILABLE CHARACTER RESPONSES ..................... 43

 

FIGURE 9. AN EXAMPLE OF AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION USED IN A CULTURAL 

AWARENESS MODULE FOR TRIPWIRE ............................................................. 45

 

FIGURE 10. EXAMPLE OF A MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTION IN AXL.NET ..................... 46

 

FIGURE 11. FEEDBACK DELIVERED TO THE STUDENT AFTER ANSWERING A 

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTION .......................................................................... 46

 

FIGURE 12. A CULTURAL AWARENESS MODULE FOR TRIPWIRE INCLUDES 

INFORMATION ABOUT INTERPRETERS FROM ARMY DOCTRINE ON 

COUNTERINSURGENCY (FM 3-24) ..................................................................... 47

 

FIGURE 13. SCREENSHOT OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES TASK FOR POWER HUNGRY ..... 48

 

FIGURE 14. SCREENSHOT OF FEEDBACK DELIVERED TO THE STUDENT AFTER 

COMPLETING THE CRITICAL ISSUES TASK IN POWER HUNGRY ............... 49

 

FIGURE 15. SCREENSHOT OF THE VIDEO SEARCH TOOL BEING USED TO FIND 

SEGMENTS OF THE FILM PERTAINING TO THE FOOD TRUCKS IN 

POWER HUNGRY ..................................................................................................... 50

 

FIGURE 16. SCREENSHOT OF THE VIDEO BOOKMARKING TOOL .................................. 51

 

FIGURE 17. A SCREENSHOT FROM A CULTURAL AWARENESS MODULE IN 

TRIPWIRE ................................................................................................................. 52

 

FIGURE 18. SCREENSHOT OF THE AXL.NET TRIPWIRE CULTURAL AWARENESS 

MODULE .................................................................................................................. 56

 

FIGURE B-1. SCREENSHOT FROM THE POWERPOINT VERSION OF POWER HUNGRY .. B-2

 

FIGURE B-2. EXCERPT FROM THE TEXT-BASED VERION OF POWER HUNGRY ............. B-2

 

FIGURE B-3. PERSONALITY FACTOR DEFINITIONS PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS ..... B-4

 

FIGURE B-4. SELF-REPORTED AROUSAL ACROSS SCENARIO CONDITION.................... B-5

 

FIGURE B-5. CPT YOUNG’S PERSONALITY PROFILE BY SCENARIO CONDITION ......... B-8

 
 1 

LEARNING THE LESSONS OF LEADERSHIP: CASE METHOD TEACHING WITH 

INTERACTIVE, COMPUTER-BASED TOOLS AND FILM-BASED CASES 

INTRODUCTION 

Given the rapid pace of U.S. Army deployments to global hot spots, there is an existing 

and ever growing need to accelerate the development of the Army’s junior leaders. Today’s 

Army warfighters face extremely stressful and demanding situations that are “close to war” but, 

in many cases, are not covered by standard tactics and doctrine. There is little room for error—

tactical decisions can have strategic consequences (McCausland & Martin, 2001), and mistakes 

can cost lives. The challenge is how to develop adaptive leaders who can function effectively in 

a complex environment, facing situations they have never before experienced (Wong, 2004), and 

to do so as quickly and efficiently as possible for the large number of leaders required for the 

current operating environment. 

Many skills needed to be an effective leader are learned through experience (McCall, 

Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; Sternberg et al., 2000). In order to provide leaders with the 

requisite experience, the Army has explored various types of computer-delivered training and 

instruction for developing Army leaders. For instance, the Army has used large-scale 

constructive simulations such as Corps Battle Simulation (CBS), Joint Conflict and Tactical 

Simulation (JCATS), and Janus to provide environments where leaders can practice tactical 

skills related to mission planning, briefing, and operational execution. While these skills are 

necessary for battle command, they focus primarily on the tactical and technical aspects of the 

job. However, training and instructional interventions that target the “human” dimension of 

leadership are also necessary. The United States Army defines leadership as “influencing people 

by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and 

improving the organization” (U.S. Department of Army, Field Manual 6-22, 2006, p 1-2). 

Learning how to influence people, how to provide purpose, direction and motivation is not 

targeted currently by most constructive simulation environments. Recent research on virtual 

humans attempts to address these deficits in training by providing simulations that involve 

interpersonal scenarios and tactics for dealing with crowds (e.g., Haynes, Maloor, Lyell, & 

Zbylut, 2006; Rickel et al., 2002; Swartout et al., 2006). 

Another approach to computer-based training is through intelligent tutoring systems. The 

intelligent tutoring concept of automating human tutor functions has wide applicability 

(vanLehn, 1988). The field has done significant work in structured domains or using techniques 

where the learning content can be readily articulated or routinized, such as language skills 

(Johnson et al., 2004) and college physics (vanLehn et al., 2002; vanLehn et al., 2005). As with 

constructive simulations, there are few intelligent tutoring systems that explicitly support the 

development of the leader tacit knowledge such as motivating subordinates, effective 

communication, how to build a positive command climate, and other human dimensions that a 

leader must master to be effective. 

This paper describes work conducted during the Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL) 

project. This work was a collaborative effort between the United States Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and University of Southern California’s Institute 
 2 

for Creative Technologies (ICT). The AXL system is a computer-based approach for helping 

leaders develop leadership tacit knowledge and skills. The AXL system builds on the insight 

that leadership is typically learned by experience and through a process of analysis and reflection 

of those experiences. Specifically, AXL provides an online, media-rich environment for 

delivering case method instruction. Before describing AXL, however, this report first provides 

an overview of leadership skills and tacit knowledge, followed by a general description of the 

case method instructional approach. This report then describes the current AXL system, as well 

as earlier versions of AXL. 

The Interpersonal Skills of Leadership 

Army Doctrine defines leadership as an influence process (U.S. Department of Army, 

Field Manual 6-22, 2006). Because leadership and influence primarily occur within the context 

of two or more individuals interacting with one another, it is not surprising that several 

researchers have noted that interpersonal skills are critical for effective leadership. Warren 

Bennis (1994) defined a leader as someone who focuses on people rather than on systems and 

structure, someone who inspires trust through integrity rather than relying on control. Similarly, 

Sternberg and colleagues (2000) found that successful leaders were individuals who rapidly 

learned how to do their jobs in a social context. Sternberg et al. reported that three broad 

categories of knowledge distinguished effective military leaders from ineffective leaders, and 

these were intrapersonal behavior, interpersonal behavior, and teamwork and organizational 

behavior. Of these three categories, Sternberg et al. indicated that interpersonal skills were 

especially important for junior officer to be effective. Such skills include the ability to motivate, 

direct, supervise, influence the boss, develop subordinates, communicate, take care of Soldiers, 

establish trust, and cooperate with others. Since most junior officers serve in roles in line units 

as commanders and platoon leaders, they have direct contact with the Soldiers they lead, and 

consequently they spend much of their time engaged in interpersonal interactions with Soldiers. 

Sternberg and associates (2000) termed this knowledge broadly as tacit knowledge for military 

leaders (TKML). 

In another investigation of the interpersonal performance dimensions of military leaders, 

Carpenter and Wisecarver (2004) collected 1186 critical incidents from 175 Soldiers and found 

that Soldiers from all Military Occupation Skills (MOS) and ranks believed that interpersonal 

skills are important. Carpenter and Wisecarver then constructed and validated an interpersonal 

performance taxonomy that indicated the primary dimensions of interpersonal performance were: 

(1) Rewarding others 

(2) Influencing others 

(3) Coordinating 

(4) Training and developing 

(5) Managing perceptions 

(6) Managing others relationships 

(7) Controlling/regulating activities of others 

(8) Role modeling 

(9) Informing 

(10) Gathering information 

(11) Demonstrating courtesy 

(12) Helping others 

(13) Socializing 

(14) Adapting to the social environment 

(15) Formal staffing 

(16) Informal staffing 

Both the work of Sternberg et al. (2000) and Carpenter and Wisecarver (2004) overlap 

with many of the leadership competencies recently outlined in Army leader doctrine. This 
 3 

overlap is noted in Table 1 and provides a basis for a leader development program or curriculum 

in the area of interpersonal skills. 

Unlike many jobs, in which a deficiency in one skill set might be compensated for with 

excellence in another skill set, poorly developed interpersonal skills can interfere with a leader’s 

ability to successfully meet the requirements of the leadership role. In their research on 

successful executives, McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison (1988) identified ten “fatal” flaws of 

leaders that can derail an otherwise successful career. Many of these flaws involved a deficiency 

in the leader’s interpersonal skills, such as insensitivity to others, arrogance, betrayal of trust, 

failing to deal with performance problems, over-managing, and inability to adapt to a boss with a 

different style. 

 Given the importance of interpersonal skills to effective leadership, leader development 

interventions are required to help leaders cultivate social expertise. Research on tacit knowledge 

provides one foundation for creating such interventions. The next section provides an overview 

of tacit knowledge research. 

The Tacit Knowledge of Leaders 

Tacit knowledge can be characterized in three ways (Cianciolo, Antonakis, & Sternberg, 

2004; Ericsson, 1996; Hedlund, Sternberg, Horvath, Forsythe, & Snook, 1999; Hedlund, 

Sternberg, & Psotka, 2000; Hedlund, Antonakis, & Sternberg, 2002; Polanyi, 1983). First, tacit 

knowledge is acquired in the context of everyday activities, even with little support from the 

environment and minimal awareness that it is being acquired. Second, tacit knowledge is 

procedural in nature and has practical usage, and it is this ability to successfully apply procedural 

knowledge that distinguishes effective from ineffective performers in a given domain. Third, 

tacit knowledge relates directly to one’s personal goals. 

The concept of tacit knowledge has its origins in the philosophy of science and was 

described by Polanyi (1983) as a way of accounting for the fact that “we can know more than we 

can tell.” To illustrate this concept, Polanyi uses the example of how we are able to recognize a 

friend’s face and differentiate it from a million others. We use certain features to allow us to 

recognize our friend’s face, but we may be unable to fully articulate the variables that would 

enable someone else to recognize that person in the same way we do. Similarly, we may be able 

to recognize others’ moods and expressions without being able to verbalize how we know 

someone is feeling a certain way, except in vague terms. Polanyi also indicated that tacit 

knowledge is prevalent in professional domains. For example, scientists operate in their 

profession by making extensive use of tacit knowledge, which enables “(1) for a valid 

knowledge of a problem, (2) for the scientist’s capacity to pursue it, guided by his sense of 

approaching its solution, and (3) for a valid anticipation of the yet indeterminate implications of 

the discovery arrived at in the end” (Polanyi, 1983, p. 24). 

 

Sternberg et al. (2000) expanded upon the ideas of Polanyi and studied people who were 

successful in daily life across a variety of professions. They concluded that practical 

intelligence, which is the ability to adapt to and manipulate everyday environments, plays an 

integral role in effectiveness, perhaps to an even larger extent than the crystallized intelligence 
 4 

Table 1 

Summaries of Leadership Taxonomies for FM 6-22, Sternberg et al. (2000), and Carpenter and Wis

Leadership Competencies (FM 6-22) Tacit Knowledge for Military 

Leaders (Sternberg et al., 2000) 

Interpersonal P

(Carpenter 

Leads Others: This competency focuses on motivating, inspiring, and influencing others, particularly subordinates. This competency includes behaviors such as establishing clear intent and vision, using appropriate influence techniques to energize others, maintaining and enforcing professional standards, and balancing requirements of mission with follower welfare. 

• Establishing Credibility 

• Motivating Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor Performers 

• Taking Care of Soldiers 

• Managing Pe

• Rewarding O

• Influencing O

Extends Influence beyond Chain of Command: Leaders sometimes need to influence individuals who are not their subordinates. This competency focuses on influence beyond the leader’s traditional line of authority (e.g., multinational and interagency situations). This competency includes behaviors such as understanding the sphere, means, and limits of influence; building trust; negotiating and resolving conflict, and building and maintaining alliances. 

• Establishing Credibility 

• Establishing Trust 

• Influencing the Boss 

• Cooperating with Others 

• Managing Pe

• Influencing O

Leads by Example: Leaders serve as role models for others. This competency includes behaviors such as modeling Army values, leading with confidence in adverse situations, and seeking diverse ideas and points of view. 

• Role Modelin

Communicates: Communication requires that leaders convey ideas clearly, as well as listen to others. This competency includes behaviors such as active listening, determining appropriate information-sharing strategies, employing effective verbal and nonverbal communication strategies, ensuring shared understanding, presenting recommendations so that others understand advantages, and being sensitive to cultural issues. 

• Communicating • Informing 

• Gathering Inf
 5 

Leadership Competencies (FM 6-22) Tacit Knowledge for Military 

Leaders (Sternberg et al., 2000) 

Interpersonal P

(Carpenter 

Creates a Positive Environment: This competency targets the leader’s skill in building and maintaining a positive and functional work climate and improving the organization as a whole. Leader behaviors in this competency include fostering teamwork, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty; encouraging initiative and innovation; creating a learning environment; encouraging open communications; expressing concern for employee well-being; anticipating people’s on-the-job needs; and setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals and teams. 

• Cooperating with Others 

• Taking Care of Soldiers 

• Establishing Trust 

• Managing Organizational 

Change 

• Protecting the Organization 

• Managing Ot

• Coordinating 

• Helping Othe

• Demonstratin

• Socializing 

• Adapting to S

Develops Others: Leaders help their subordinates to develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform effectively in this job, as well as the next. This competency includes leader behaviors such as assessing current developmental needs of others; fostering job development and job enrichment; counseling, coaching and mentoring; and supporting institutional-based development. 

• Developing Subordinates • Training and 

Gets Results: This competency focuses on how well the leader accomplishes team, mission, and organizational objectives. This competency includes behaviors such as identifying individual/group capabilities and task commitment, clarifying roles, identifying and managing resources, rewarding good performance, and adjusting to external influences on the mission or organization. 

• Motivating Subordinates 

• Directing and Supervising 

Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor Performers 

• Rewarding O

• Managing Ot

• Controlling/R

Others 

• Adapting to S

• Formal Staffi

• Informal Staf

Prepares Self: Leaders high in this competency take action to ensure that they are mentally, physically, and psychologically fit to perform their duties. This competency also includes a self-awareness component, as well as the following behaviors: evaluating and incorporating feedback from others; expanding technical knowledge, tactical knowledge, and interpersonal capabilities; and maintaining cultural and geopolitical awareness. 

• Managing the Self • Adapting to S

Note. For a complete description of leadership competencies, the reader is referred to FM 6-22. 
 6 

typically measured by standard intelligence tests. Additionally, the researchers indicated that 

practical intelligence was a form of tacit knowledge, accumulated from experiences over time 

and difficult to articulate explicitly. Sternberg and colleagues conducted numerous 

investigations on tacit knowledge of Army leaders, and the culmination of this work is described 

in detail in Sternberg et al. (1999). This work resulted in tests of tacit knowledge for leaders at 

the platoon, company, and battalion levels, but more importantly, resulted in a theoretical 

classification of the types of tacit knowledge gleaned by Army leaders through experience. The 

tacit knowledge identified by Sternberg et al. consisted of practical knowledge about how to 

influence and deal with others, how to develop subordinates and engage them in problem solving 

activities, communication, and supporting and cooperating with others. 

Like domain-specific expertise, tacit knowledge is acquired over time and through 

experience. Given the current military operational tempo and environment, however, many 

junior leaders are required to be effective across a full spectrum of operations whether or not 

they have had the requisite experiences necessary for developing expertise. Moreover, “the 

Army is experiencing accelerated migration of leader tasks from higher to lower leader echelons 

than previously needed” (Brown, 2003, p. 69). As a result, junior officers may be called on to 

demonstrate more sophisticated leadership capability than their junior leader counterparts of two 

decades ago. Thus, one training challenge is how to accelerate tacit knowledge acquisition 

without the luxury of providing years of developmental experiences to junior leaders. 

The next section considers the dual challenge of expressing the tacit knowledge of 

interpersonal skills and constructing deliberate and structured learning experiences in order to 

accelerate the tacit knowledge acquisition process. Specifically, the following sections describe 

the use of stories in a case method-teaching framework as a way of conveying and supporting the 

acquisition of the tacit knowledge needed to be a successful leader. Stories convey context and 

situated behavior that transcend the use of abstract procedural descriptions of leadership 

behavior. While procedural descriptions provide a guideline for behavior, stories provide a 

vicarious experience for recognizing when and how to apply an integrated set of skills. Case 

method instruction provides both an experience and a framework for learning from experience. 

LEADER DEVELOPMENT WITH STORIES AND CASE-METHOD TEACHING 

Sternberg and his associates (2000) proposed an approach to leader development based 

on the use of stories they acquired from interviews of military officers. They suggested that the 

stories be made available by indexing them according to their tacit knowledge categories and the 

rank of the officers involved. Leaders could then access these stories to learn from the situations 

that their peers faced. By evaluating the situation, the course of action, and the consequences, 

leaders could develop the tacit knowledge that their peers gained from experience. Matthew, 

Cianciolo, and Sternberg (2005) tested this idea and demonstrated that tacit knowledge could, 

indeed, be improved through the use of scenarios and reflection. 

Despite the surge in tacit knowledge research since the 1990s, it should be noted that 

stories and scenarios have long been used in one widely recognized approach to leader 

development—case method instruction (e.g., Bass, 1990; Hays, 2005; Hughes et al., 2002; Yukl, 
 7 

2002). In actuality, case method instruction has been a popular approach for developing leaders 

since the early twentieth century when Harvard made case method instruction an integral part of 

its Business School curriculum (Gragg, 1982; Jennings 1996). Since that time, case method 

instruction can be found in many professional disciplines, including the medical, teaching, and 

legal domains (e.g., Jennings, 1996; Stewart & Dougherty, 1993; Tarnvik, 2002; Wright, 1999). 

While many variations of case method instruction exist today, case method instruction generally 

consists of two fundamental components. First, case method instruction requires a case study or 

description of a situation in which several events and challenges occur. Second, after students 

have had a chance to review the case, an instructor facilitates discussion of the issues and 

problems embedded in the case. 

Case method instruction provides a means for students to learn from the challenges and 

mistakes of others. A case is a synopsis of the experiences, decisions and actions of others that 

students can analyze or explore. Cases also provide a vicarious learning experience by placing 

the student in the shoes of another individual. By studying a case, the student does not need to 

suffer the consequences of the mistakes made by actors in the case in order to learn from the 

experience. Furthermore, while it may take a long period of time to accumulate enough 

experiences to develop tacit knowledge, a student can study many cases that provide a diverse set 

of experiences in a compressed period of time. Additionally, instructors can purposefully select 

cases to target specific learning objectives and skills. In real life these experiences may only be 

stumbled upon haphazardly, and when such experiences do occur, the individual may or may not 

be concerned with pausing to reflect on those experiences. 

 Cases provide a concrete experience for students to explore practical, job-relevant issues 

in a safe and controlled environment. However, it should be emphasized that the discussion, 

analysis, and reflection that follows exposure to a case are just as important as the case itself. 

Cases serve as a springboard for discussing why actors in the case made particular decisions or 

reacted in certain ways, thus giving students insight into the nature of people in different contexts 

(Gragg, 1940/1982). Understanding how other people behave and make decisions is key to 

developing interpersonal proficiency. 

Case method instruction is effective because it encourages active participation by 

students, resulting in deeper understanding and improved retention (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 

1989; Golich, Boyer, Franko, & Lamy, 2000). Students formulate and present their points of 

view about the case in a classroom discussion. While discussing the problems presented in the 

case, students are confronted with alternative points of view. These points of view challenge the 

student – revealing alternative interpretations of people and events, encouraging the student to 

reexamine his or her assumptions, or compelling the student to formulate coherent, rationale 

arguments to support his or her position. Furthermore, by both listening to others and presenting 

one’s own views, the student has the opportunity to develop and practice both interpersonal and 

critical thinking skills. 

The following sections describe best practices from leader development and traditional 

case method instruction, as well as limitations that can be addressed through technology to 

extend and support case method instruction in a variety of learning environments. 
 8 

What Makes a Good Case? 

A defining characteristic of a “good” case is that it presents real world situations 

containing problems, issues, and dilemmas similar to the ones that a student might confront 

outside the classroom. This characteristic maps to M. David Merrill’s (2002) first principle of 

instruction: learners should be engaged in real world problem solving. While many cases are 

extracted from historical accounts, it should be noted that it is not required that a case be a true 

event (Jennings, 1996; Maltby, 2001). Instead, it is more important that the case be reasonably 

realistic and complex, and also stimulate intelligent discussion among students in such a way that 

students will be better prepared for dealing with real world problems. To be sufficiently 

complex and useful for discussion, the case should be oriented around three to five major issues 

related to the learning goals set by the instructor (Golich et al., 2000). 

A case for discussing military leadership issues has additional needs. By definition, 

leadership is an influence process (Department of Army, FM 6-22), and therefore much of 

leadership occurs within the context of interpersonal interactions. Thus, a good case for 

exploring military leadership issues should not only incorporate the technical and tactical 

backdrop in which many leadership challenges occur, but also requires sufficient character 

development and description of character behavior to capture the interpersonal dynamics of a 

situation. Because many nuances of interpersonal behavior (e.g., nonverbal behavior, 

personality, motivation) may be inadequately described in a narrative or “paper-based” case, it 

has been suggested that the film medium may be better suited for leadership cases (Richardson, 

1994). 

Learning from the Case 

Case method instruction is not simply about providing a case, but rather creating a 

learning experience around a case. Yukl (2002) indicated that successful leadership training 

should start with clear learning objectives, meaningful content, appropriate sequencing and a mix 

of training methods. He emphasized that these complex skills require a significant amount of 

practice, and the provision of relevant, timely feedback. It is not sufficient to teach leadership as 

a set of simple procedures—learning transfer is much more effective when the student has the 

opportunity to apply a principle in a variety of situations and receive timely feedback on 

performance. 

Case method instruction provides students one such environment in which to practice 

applying principles and receive feedback. In case method instruction, the student is exposed to a 

situation; the student then analyzes the situation and derives an explanation of what happened 

and why. During the discussion phase of case method instruction the student receives feedback 

from both the instructor and peers. The instructor is responsible for facilitating the sharing of 

feedback. 

The instructor must follow the discussion as closely as the students. A skilled instructor 

leads the class through a discussion in a manner that maximizes the construction of knowledge 

and elaboration on important issues. An instructor accomplishes this by keeping the discussion 

on track with an overall question map but without spoon-feeding answers to students. A well-
 9 

selected and well-constructed case will contain ambiguities so that there will not be clearly 

defined right and wrong answers. Rather, there will be candidate solutions or recommendations 

that have pros and cons. By encouraging students to actively participate, an instructor enables 

exploration of these possibilities and thereby maximizes learning opportunities. 

Learning occurs when the students first grapple with the case on their own and then in a 

guided context with an instructor. Other class participants provide varying insights and critiques 

that would not have otherwise been considered, so it is important that the students listen to 

others. Through participation and group discussions, students learn not only how to apply their 

critical thinking skills, but they also learn how to articulate a position, listen to others, and 

compare alternative views for their relative merit. 

Role of Instructor: Orchestrate the Discussion 

When leading a case discussion, the instructor acts like an orchestra conductor rather than 

a lecturer (Golich et al., 2000). In this metaphor, the role of the instructor is to elicit 

participation by all the students, while attempting to coordinate their individual inputs. The art 

of facilitating discussion involves tracking and guiding the discussion by asking key questions, 

encouraging the students to construct knowledge rather than being told what to think, and 

provide feedback that challenges or affirms the viewpoints articulated during the discussion. To 

achieve this, the instructor has to keep in mind the desired learning outcomes and have a map of 

questions that will lead toward the goal (Gentile, 1990). The question map may resemble the 

preparation process taken by the student, going through stages of familiarization, analysis, and 

developing recommendations. 

During the familiarization stage of the class discussion, the questions establish the 

groundwork for subsequent analysis. Open-ended questions like, “What was going on in this 

situation,” “Who were the actors,” and “What led to failure in this situation,” serve to establish 

the issues in the case as well as prime the participants for the more detailed phases that follow 

(Golich et al., 2000). 

During the analysis phase, the instructor guides the discussion by asking questions that 

begin to target the sources of the problems identified during case familiarization. Examples 

include examining the underlying assumptions of the various actors’ decisions, the factors that 

influenced the outcome, and taking a critical look at the appropriateness of the actions and 

decisions of the actors. The case discussion tends to be a democratic process: the role of the 

students is to voice their opinions, listen to the viewpoints of others, and challenge others’ 

assertions in an appropriate manner. All the while, the instructor guides the discussion consistent 

with the goals of the lesson plan. 

The goal of the final phase of discussion is to make recommendations and evaluate 

alternative courses of action. One way of guiding students toward this goal is to ask a 

hypothetical question about what might have resulted if an actor had taken a different action, or 

ask for a prediction of what might happen next in the scenario. As solutions are generated and 

discussed, the instructor guides the class toward a set of potential solutions that could be applied 
 10 

in the case. In the end, the instructor provides a summary of the issues and solutions that 

reinforce the focal points of the learning experience. 

Role of Student: Prepare and Participate 

The literature on case method instruction encourages having the students review and 

analyze the case ahead of time. In so doing, the stage is set for a successful classroom 

discussion. The three stages to student preparation are familiarization, analysis, and developing 

recommendations (Golich et al., 2000). During familiarization, the student first skims the case, 

looking for themes, issues and problems (Corey, 1999). If the instructor provides study 

questions, the student reviews them prior to making a detailed review of the case. Once the major 

themes and issues have been outlined, the student is ready to perform a detailed analysis, 

beginning with a careful reading of the case and its appendices. The student should outline in 

more detail the problems in the situation, the people and parties involved and their reactions to 

the situation, the assumptions made, and the evidence for and against the decisions that were 

made. Finally, once the problems have been analyzed, the student should formulate 

recommendations for addressing the issues in the case (Golich et al., 2000). 

During the class, students are expected to actively participate in the discussion. Their 

participation includes both offering their points of view to the other members of their class and 

active listening to connect the points of view being shared with their own. Student participation 

in a discussion, reflection, and exposure to different points of view are found to help a student’s 

sensemaking process (Brown et al., 1989; Golich, et al., 2000; Palus, Horth, Selvin, & Pulley, 

2003). This sensemaking process helps students better understand the specific case being 

analyzed and should also help them develop overall sensemaking abilities critical for effective 

leadership. 

Limitations of Traditional Case Method Teaching 

While case method instruction has become ubiquitous in higher education, there are a 

number of potential limitations to this approach. 

Inadequate Representation of Interpersonal Issues 

Traditionally, cases are paper-based and generally do not employ the full array of storytelling techniques, such as emphasis on character dialogue or rich contextual detail. In 

particular, text-based cases have difficulty adequately conveying the interpersonal aspects of 

leadership. While a good writer can activate the reader’s imagination when describing a 

situation, the nuances of the relationships between individuals, and the conflicts among different 

points of view (Gerrig, 1993; Gerrig & Rapp, 2004; Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004), much of 

what happens at an interpersonal level involves nonverbal communication, which may employ 

visual perception of the facial expressions and gestures of another person. Beyond the words 

that are spoken, a speaker’s attitude and emotions are also expressed by the voice itself, through 

tone, volume, inflection and so on. What one perceives through the aural and visual senses often 

are not well-described or are not concisely delivered within a textual narrative. 
 11 

Lack of Student Preparation Time 

One assumption of case method instruction is that the students will receive the case ahead 

of time and analyze it before entering a classroom discussion. If the training context does not 

allow for student preparation outside the classroom, then the students will need to do their 

analysis in real-time during the teaching session. Given the current operational tempo of the 

U.S. Army, Soldier training time is highly constrained and packed with a variety of activities. 

Homework and other preparation before class is unrealistic when the students are expected to 

fulfill other professional development and job responsibilities while also participating in leader 

development education (Wallace, 2006). When this situation exists, the case has to be easily 

presented during the class in a short span of time. 

Inaccessibility of Text-based Cases 

Many cases used in business schools and other university contexts are presented as 

written materials. The unfortunate situation is that many people in the United States do not 

enjoy reading, nor do they read proficiently enough to comprehend moderately dense prose and 

make simple inferences. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Education, only 

13-15% of the adult population is considered to be proficient in literacy, meaning that they can 

read complex prose and analyze different points of view (Kutner, Greenburg, & Baer, 2005). 

Thus, case study materials that are presented through media other than the written form can 

create an opportunity for individuals who do not read well to participate in case method 

instruction. Additionally, given variability in student reading speed, long text-based cases can 

absorb a large component of class time, and this may be unfeasible in some classroom 

environments. 

Amount of Effort Required for Facilitator Preparation 

It takes a significant amount of time for an instructor or facilitator to prepare a case 

(Diamantes & Ovington, 2003). Again, using the metaphor that the instructor is like an orchestra 

conductor, he or she must know all the parts and how they are supposed to play together ahead of 

time. This means having a deep understanding of the case, the actors, the interrelationship 

among the issues, and how they relate to the learning goals. To facilitate discussion effectively, 

the facilitator needs to have a plan for the projected discussion that includes a question map, a 

schedule and sense of pacing, and an idea of what misconceptions the students may carry into the 

discussion. 

Experience Level of Facilitator 

In an ideal classroom situation, an experienced instructor or facilitator guides the 

discussion, provides feedback, and ensures that the learning goals are achieved. Experienced 

facilitators recognize when a discussion is going off-course and know how to get it back on 

track. They also know how to recognize the difference between an opinion and a misconception, 

and they provide feedback that is appropriate to the situation. Without experience, the discussion 

can veer toward different extremes, devolving into a lecture by facilitator, or heading unchecked 

into an argument (Golich et al., 2000).
 12 

Finding and Creating Cases is Effortful 

Good cases are realistic, complex, emotionally and intellectually engaging, and 

provocative. Therefore, creating a good case requires substantial effort to both research and 

write (Wylie, 2003). Defining or selecting a scenario that addresses the learning objectives of 

the course is challenging. The right level of detail needs to be provided; enough information 

should be presented that the student can do an analysis of the target issues without the case 

providing an obvious answer. In addition, the case should show a potential for transferring what 

it is studied in the case to a real life work context. 

AXL FILM-BASED CASES 

In spite of these limitations, case method instruction has become a popular technique 

used in university classrooms, corporate training, and in the military. The Army Excellence in 

Leadership (AXL)1

 project proposes a case method instruction approach that attempts to 

overcome some of these limitations and address the challenges of tacit knowledge development 

with a focus on interpersonal skills. AXL uses film-based cases in an interactive, computerbased environment to deliver a learning experience that accelerates the development of 

interpersonal skills in leaders. In the following sections, three components of the AXL project 

will be described: the AXL film-based cases; an initial proof-of-concept teaching system, Think 

Like a Commander-Excellence in Leadership (TLAC-XL); and a complete prototype system, 

AXL.Net. 

As previously discussed, Sternberg and his associates suggested that stories could be used 

as a way to provide a surrogate experience for Soldiers to develop tacit knowledge (Sternberg et 

al., 2000). Their basic idea was that, by reading the stories of peers, an officer could acquire an 

understanding of the situations others faced and how they dealt with them, a step toward 

transferring the tacit knowledge of one leader to another. Later research indicated that reflecting 

on Soldier’s stories did result in gains in tacit knowledge (Matthew et al., 2005). Additionally, 

stories have the ability to create an immersive, high-fidelity environment, affecting both 

cognitive and emotional states and increasing connectivity to real world situations (Gerrig, 1993; 

Gerrig & Rapp, 2004; Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004; Manovich, 2001). AXL takes the idea of 

telling real-life stories a step further by creating a film narrative to portray a complex leadership 

situation. 

AXL film narratives differ from the standard text-based cases traditionally used in case 

method instruction in several ways. First, AXL cases tell stories. Tactical and decision-making 

cases, such as those used in military scenario-based training like Think Like A Commander 

(Shadrick & Lussier, 2004) or in higher education (e.g., Harvard Business School), tend to 

portray a scenario as a mix of event descriptions, data, and other factors to be considered or 

analyzed. Because the purpose of these cases tends to be training individuals how to make 

effective decisions using the information and resources available, these cases tend to focus more 

on embedding relevant decision-making information and variables rather than the development 

 

1 AXL has previously been called the Critical Leadership Analysis System (CLAS) and Think Like a Commander—

Excellence in Leadership (TLAC-XL). 
 13 

of a story-like narrative. While these cases may contain some narrative to make the scenario 

easier to read and comprehend, these scenarios generally lack a story-like plot structure, welldeveloped characters and dialog, and the elements of surprise and suspense that create tension in 

the viewer. It should be noted that the lack of such storytelling elements in decision-making 

cases is not an indictment of the types of cases used in decision making exercises. These cases 

contain the information relevant for decision-making exercises. However, storytelling elements 

such as plot and character development may be helpful for cases that target leadership 

development, because stories may be more effective at conveying information relevant to the 

role of leader: specifically, character personality, character history, motivation, emotion, and 

interpersonal context. It is this development and portrayal of characters that is expected to be 

particularly important for a case study on leadership. Since leadership, by definition (FM 6-22), 

is an influence process involving interpersonal interactions, a leadership case that approximates 

reality should have characters with personalities, emotions, and attitudes. A character, whether 

in the role of leader or subordinate, embodies the positive and negative traits that one will 

encounter among members of an organization. Seeing how a character’s behavior affects other 

people and the organization’s ability to perform its mission can powerfully indicate the pros and 

cons of leader behavior. 

Second, AXL film-based cases present story information using both visual and aural 

media. Film is better able to present the emotional state of a story’s characters and the nonverbal cues that provide other indications of what is happening during a particular 

communication act. Film shows what text can only describe. While it is true that a great author 

can create powerful images of what a character is thinking or feeling or how one character 

interacts with another, film relies on the perceptual senses rather than the imagination. The tone 

of voice and manner of speech also feed the senses of the observer in a manner that more closely 

approximates what happens in real life. 

A substantial body of research in the field of cognitive psychology indicates that 

presentation of information through dual modes of presentation is superior to the presentation of 

information using a single modality (e.g., Baddeley, 1986; Paivio, 1986). Recently, these 

findings have been leveraged in the construction of multimedia learning environments, most 

notably in the work of Mayer and colleagues (e.g., Mayer, 1996; Mayer, Dow, & Mayer, 2003; 

Mayer & Sims, 1994; Mayer, Sobko, & Mautone, 2003; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 

2001). Mayer’s (2001) dual processing theory of multimedia learning proposes that individuals 

are able to construct both visual (e.g., pictures and animations) and verbal (e.g., written and 

audible words) representations simultaneously (Mayer, 2001, 2004). Learning is enhanced when 

the visual and verbal processing channels are tapped concurrently because trainees are able to 

construct both visual and verbal mental representations, as well as make connections between 

those two representations. Moreover, because the visual and verbal processing channels operate 

under somewhat distinct processing demands, the trainee is better able to ingest more 

information than if all of the information were transmitted using a single modality. That is, when 

information is presented using a single modality, the information can quickly exceed the capacity 

of the processing channel. However, when information is distributed across multiple modalities, 

the information now has two potential avenues to enter the individual’s mind. To provide an 

analogy, one might imagine the brain as an empty auditorium and bits of information as people. 

In trying to fill the auditorium with people, it is better to have two doorways instead of one, 
 14 

because more people can enter the auditorium if there are multiple doorways. Similarly, in 

trying to fill the brain with information, it is better to have two avenues for delivering content 

rather than one. 

Third, film-based stories can give the viewer a sense of the stress in a situation through 

the compression of time, the juxtaposition of events, and uncertainty about what might be 

happening on the screen and what might not be shown. When sitting in a classroom, it can be 

difficult to imagine the time pressure on a commander who is communicating, analyzing a 

situation, making decisions and providing interpersonal leadership, all in real-time. By 

unfolding events in quick succession, a film can help the viewer get a sense of the time urgency 

and uncertainty of an operation and how it relates to the interpersonal issues that arise in an 

organization under stress, issues that more experienced leaders seem to recognize and less 

experienced leaders may need to learn to recognize (Ben-Yoav Nobel et al., 2006). Additionally, 

various filming techniques can be used to induce mood and arouse emotion. For instance, 

psychologists have commonly used pictures, film, and music to induce mood (e.g., Dreisbach & 

Goschke, 2004; Gendolla & Krusken, 2002; Gendolla, Abele, & Krusken, 2001; Ottati & Isbell, 

1996). These same mood induction techniques can be employed in filmed case studies to 

provide a more realistic and immersive learning experience. 

Finally, film is more accessible to a broader audience than text. While text-based cases 

require a certain level of reading proficiency, literacy is less of an issue in watching a film 

(Kutner et al., 2005). Film also is advantageous in that rich detail can be presented in a more 

compact time frame than in a text narrative. What may take several pages to describe fully in 

text may be portrayed in a matter of minutes in film. This is because film is able to present 

different pieces of information concurrently, while text is limited to a sequential presentation of 

information. For example, film can simultaneously show explosions, nonverbal exchanges 

between individuals, and injuries within a matter of moments. 

 In sum, film is expected to yield many advantages over traditional paper-based 

instruction, particularly within the context of leader development interventions. The AXL 

system utilizes two filmed case studies, Power Hungry and Tripwire. The next sections describe 

the creation of these case studies in greater detail. 

Power Hungry: An Afghanistan Context 

In 2002, a project team from ICT worked with ARI and military subject matter experts 

(SMEs) to construct, author, and film an initial case about military leadership at the company 

level. The case is presented as a 13-minute fictional film entitled Power Hungry. The situation 

is a security mission for a food distribution operation in Afghanistan. In the scenario, a new 

company commander, Captain (CPT) Young, is seen engaging in a number of questionable 

leadership actions, which ultimately lead to the failure of the mission as a food riot erupts among 

the civilian population. 

Power Hungry was the result of a creative process that integrated three goals: (1) realism 

of the scenario, (2) embedding of leadership tacit knowledge, and (3) the creation of a 
 15 

compelling narrative. All three goals were balanced through an iterative creation process that 

began with real-world stories and ended with a fictional scenario. 

To ensure realism, the leadership issues portrayed in the fictional scenario were based on 

the real-life experiences of U.S. Army captains who had recently completed their assignment as 

company commanders. A team from ICT and the United States Army Research Institute (ARI) 

interviewed ten captains – members of the United States Military Academy (USMA) Tactical 

Officer Education Program (TOEP) – over a two-day time period. Each interviewee was asked 

to tell stories – rather than their own generalizations – that illustrated the leadership challenges 

they experienced as a commander. The story elicitation process was not focused on specific 

leadership issues, allowing the interview subjects to freely share their experiences. In total, 

sixty-three stories were gathered and subsequently categorized by leadership issue. The 

interviewing approach adopted was similar to the tacit knowledge elicitation approach advocated 

by Sternberg et al. (2000). 

Following interview data collection, a subset of the issues identified was selected as the 

basis for the leadership points that were interwoven with the Power Hungry scenario. There 

were a number of factors considered when choosing the leadership issues. One consideration 

was applicability of the issues to the greatest number of leaders. Another consideration was the 

suitability of the dilemma for the purposes of the narrative being constructed. Based on the 

stories gathered and input from SMEs in Afghan culture at the Center for Army Leadership 

(CAL), a humanitarian assistance scenario in Afghanistan was chosen as the operational setting 

for the scenario. 

A professional Hollywood writer created the narrative and developed a film script. 

Elements of the most compelling stories gathered during the interview process were woven into 

the fictional narrative. Story elements that illustrated leadership points also were consciously 

interwoven. As the fictional narrative was created, an iterative process was used to identify 

additional opportunities to either weave in or reinforce various leadership issues through some of 

the characters. A final script was created and then used to shoot the film in a mountainous, 

desert-like area of Southern California. The script was reviewed by an SME from CAL. Scenes 

from Power Hungry are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scenes from Power Hungry.
 16 

In the film, CPT Young has been given the mission to run a food distribution operation in 

an area where food is in short supply. The company quickly runs into a number of obstacles, 

beginning with how to secure the site given the nature of the terrain – soft soil, located in a bowl 

surrounded by hills, and two possible entry points. It is necessary to create lanes with wire to 

keep control of the crowds that are expected to arrive soon. The company’s lieutenants begin 

rigging the site, but their plan does not satisfy the commander, who directs the executive officer 

to start over, giving minimal guidance. To further compound the situation, two warlords arrive 

at the site, offering to “help” with security. Turning away the warlords proves difficult, 

particularly due to conflicting advice from a Brigade Command Sergeant Major, CSM Pullman, 

who happens to be in the area escorting a media crew. CSM Pullman plays a significant but 

ambiguous role in the case. He offers advice that seems to suggest that he has inside knowledge 

about the Brigade Commander’s intent, but his advice runs counter to the commander’s instincts 

in several instances. At CSM Pullman’s suggestion, the commander meets with one of the two 

warlords to discuss the situation. Meanwhile the situation worsens as the executive officer is 

unable to prevent the food trucks from arriving at the site early. Ultimately the food distribution 

mission fails, with the warlords obtaining control over the food trucks. A text-based version of 

the Power Hungry story is available in the facilitator’s guide for Power Hungry (Zbylut & Ward, 

2004b). 

The mission in the scenario was selected for its relevance to the Army’s contemporary 

operating environment. Since the primary focus of the case study was for use in leadership 

development, however, the scenario experience had to be designed to balance tactical context 

with interpersonal issues commonly encountered in deployment environments. Given Soldier 

proficiency in tactics, there was a concern that the students might focus primarily on the tactical 

problems confronting the commander (e.g., how to best provide site security, where to deploy 

troops). While these are crucial issues, the project goal was to develop a richer understanding of 

the situation that included consideration of how leadership issues can significantly impact these 

tactical elements. The tactical situation, while important, was actually meant to provide the 

context for discussing the interpersonal and cultural factors that led to failure in the mission. 

Thus, special attention is given in the film to the relationships between the company commander 

and his subordinates, the local warlord, and a command sergeant major from brigade 

headquarters. 

Leadership Issues in Power Hungry 

Woven into the narrative fabric of Power Hungry are a number of leadership issues that 

contributed to tactical failure in the mission. These issues emerged from interviews with 

deployed captains, as well as Army leadership doctrine available at the time, FM 22-100. These 

issues are classified into the following overlapping categories and are described in greater detail 

in the Power Hungry Instructor’s Manual (Zbylut & Ward, 2004b): 

1. Communication 

2. Mission Clarity and Shared Vision of Intent 

3. Providing Guidance 

4. Command Influence 

5. Shaping Command Climate 

6. Model of Command 

7. Respecting the Experience of NCOs 

8. Cultural Awareness 
 17 

Communication, Mission Clarity, and Sharing a Vision of Intent 

Several communication issues were embedded into the film. CPT Young’s leadership 

style was abrasive, which contributed to poor communication throughout the story. Moreover, 

CPT Young was not an effective transmitter of information, nor did he listen effectively to his 

Soldiers’ concerns. However, the first breakdown in communication in Power Hungry actually 

began prior to CPT Young’s arrival at the food distribution site. During the interview process, 

captains emphasized the importance of understanding the commander’s intent and how failure to 

understand intent impacted mission success. Thus, Power Hungry begins with CPT Young 

beginning the mission with an unclear understanding of his commander’s intent. As the situation 

in Power Hungry unfolds, it becomes apparent that CPT Young did not fully understand his 

company’s mission. Initially, CPT Young believed that the mission was to provide security for a 

food distribution operation. However, as CPT Young interacted more with CSM Pullman, his 

concept of the mission begins to shift from one of providing security to one of building 

relationships with the locals. As CPT Young’s concept of the mission changes, his goals and 

priorities change, resulting in an inadequate use of human and tactical resources and wreaking 

havoc on the mission. Moreover, CPT Young’s incoherent vision for the mission contributed to 

confusion on the part of his subordinates, because he could not convey the commander’s intent. 

Providing Guidance to Inexperienced Soldiers and Respecting the Experience of NCOs 

Leaders must maintain a balance between micromanaging and providing enough 

guidance and supervision for Soldiers to complete tasks effectively. One lesson that emerged 

from interviews with captains was that, while an authoritative style of leadership can be 

appropriate for combat situations where critical decisions must be made and executed 

immediately, sometimes it is useful to find ways of getting subordinates to own an idea through 

dialogue and persuasion. In Power Hungry, CPT Young’s guidance to the Executive Officer 

(XO), first lieutenant (1LT) Perez, was to “think outside the box” and stop asking questions 

about things he does not know. This particular part of the narrative is rooted in one former 

commander’s complaint about lieutenants who wanted to be told everything about what to do 

and how to do it. In Power Hungry 1LT Perez does not ask to be micromanaged; he simply asks 

for guidance that he needs to do his job. CPT Young, rather than seizing the opportunity to coach 

his subordinates, reacts negatively to 1LT Perez’s request for direction, shutting down future 

lines of communication. In turn, 1LT Perez models CPT Young when one of the platoon leaders 

poses a similar question to him, thereby perpetuating the poor command climate initiated by CPT 

Young. 

 While CPT Young failed to provide his inexperienced Soldiers the guidance they needed 

to perform their tasks, CPT Young severely underutilized his experienced human resources. 

Specifically, CPT Young failed to capitalize on the experience of his first sergeant, 1SG Jones. 

1SG Jones could have been invaluable to CPT in terms of his knowledge of the Soldiers in the 

company, advice on how to deal with the situation, and expertise in establishing site security. 

CPT Young also failed to effectively use the presence of a command sergeant major (CSM) on 

his site to his advantage. 
 18 

Upward Influence and Command Influence 

Leadership is defined as an influence process, requiring influence down the chain of 

command, outside the chain of command, and up the chain of command. Thus, while one 

challenge of command is how to influence one’s subordinates, a complementary issue is how to 

influence one’s superiors. In Power Hungry, the failure to influence upward is illustrated both 

within the company, between 1LT Perez and CPT Young, and between CPT Young and the 

battalion commander. In Power Hungry, the failure to influence upward occurs for a few 

different reasons. First, the command climate within the battalion discouraged questions and 

requests for clarification, resulting in a ripple effect on the lower levels. When leaders 

discourage their subordinates’ requests for help (e.g., through a lack of support, through overt 

messages to just “deal with” the situation), subordinates are less likely to engage in upward 

influence attempts. A second reason why upward influence attempts are discouraged occurs 

when a leader does not want his or her superior to think that he or she does not have control of a 

situation. This may be a matter of pride or not knowing when to ask for help. In Power Hungry, 

CPT Young fails to ask for help when warlords arrive on site, even though he should have. 

Instead CPT Young appeals to the Command Sergeant Major to “pull some strings” with his 

brigade commander, to find out more about one of the warlords. The conventional wisdom is 

that if CPT Young thought he was in trouble, he should have appealed to his higher headquarters 

directly and attempted to persuade his boss that the situation was deteriorating and he needed 

help before the situation escalated. 

 Another influence issue embedded within Power Hungry is the issue of command 

influence. Within the Power Hungry scenario, CPT Young is the formally designated authority 

on the ground. However, within the scenario there is a subtle power struggle between the 

Captain and the Command Sergeant Major. Because CPT Young does not have a firm 

understanding of the situation or the intent for the mission, he is intimidated and distracted by the 

Brigade CSM’s presence. CPT Young allows the Brigade CSM to shape his understanding of 

the mission, which is geared more toward maintaining positive relations with the local 

population rather than site security. This contributed to CPT Young’s losing focus on securing 

the site before the food convoy’s arrival. 

Model of Command and Command Climate 

 Leaders serve as role models for how their Soldiers should behave. Thus, Army leaders 

must embody Army values, exude warrior ethos, and be an exemplar of effective military 

leadership. CPT Young made multiple mistakes as a leader, such as his lack of emotional 

restraint, poor decision making, and poor communication. 

 When leaders are poor role models, it can have a negative impact on the command 

climate throughout the ranks. One of the lessons identified in the interviews with U.S. Army 

captains was that when a commander uses an overbearing commanding style, it has a ripple 

effect through the organization. If subordinates feel like they have been “shut down” and are not 

being listened to, they may stop taking the initiative that could compensate for weaknesses in a 

commander’s plan. To illustrate how an overbearing style of leadership can affect motivation 

and initiative in a unit, the CPT Young character was created. From the beginning of the 
 19 

scenario, CPT Young establishes that he does not encourage questions, rebuking the executive 

officer (XO), 1LT Perez, for asking for clarification. Instead, the XO is commanded to “think 

outside the box” and to figure things out for himself. The command climate created by these 

simple statements contributed to the eventual demise of the mission by discouraging 

subordinates from asking questions when they were confused. To emphasize the importance of 

leader behavior in command climate, 1LT Perez mimics CPT Young’s behavior when interacting 

with a platoon leader who asks him a question about the security plan. At the same time, CPT 

Young did not show respect for the experience of some of his key personnel, especially the first 

sergeant, who ultimately should have been establishing the security around the site rather than 

leaving it to 2LT Wychowski, who was unclear about what was being asked of him. 

Cultural Awareness 

Current leadership doctrine, FM 6-22, indicates the importance of cultural awareness. 

Cultural awareness (or lack thereof) plays a central role in Power Hungry, because much of the 

current operating environment requires that Soldiers at all levels be culturally savvy. In Power 

Hungry, CPT Young must deal with uninvited warlords on his distribution site, but he is unsure 

of how to proceed. CPT Young’s primary mistake, however, was in underestimating the 

sophistication of the enemy and in failing to comprehend the enemy’s motivation for arriving on 

the site. CPT Young’s lack of cultural awareness contributed directly to the outcome of the food 

distribution mission. 

Power Hungry is not focused on providing leaders with regional expertise about a local 

culture. Instead, the cultural teaching objective in Power Hungry is to help leaders build an 

understanding of how cultural issues are interrelated with security and tactical issues. Thus, 

while one aspect of Power Hungry deals with the company’s lack of cultural understanding and 

how that impacted the mission, another aspect of Power Hungry deals with the warlord’s cultural 

understanding of Americans and how that cultural knowledge allowed the Afghans to execute 

their plan. 

 When Power Hungry was first developed, the leadership doctrine available at that time 

was FM 22-100. Since that time, the Army has published new leadership doctrine, which 

describes leadership as a set of higher order competencies. Table 2 indicates how the themes 

embedded in Power Hungry are related to competencies outlined in FM 6-22. 
 20 

Table 2 

Relationship of Power Hungry Themes to FM 6-22 

Leadership Competencies 

(FM 6-22) 

TKML (Sternberg et al., 

2000) 

Interpersonal Performance 

(Carpenter & Wisecarver, 2004) 

Leads Others: This competency focuses on motivating, inspiring, and influencing others, particularly subordinates. This competency includes behaviors such as: establishing clear intent and vision, using appropriate 

influence techniques to energize others, maintaining and enforcing professional standards, and balancing requirements of mission with follower welfare. 

• Establishing Credibility 

• Motivating Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor 

Performers 

• Taking Care of Soldiers 

• Managing Perceptions • Rewarding Others • Influencing Others 

• • • 

Extends Influence beyond Chain of Command: Leaders sometimes need to influence individuals who are not their subordinates. This competency focuses on influence beyond the leader’s traditional line of authority (e.g., multinational and interagency situations). This competency includes behaviors such as: understanding the sphere, means, and limits of influence; building trust; negotiating and resolving conflict, and building and maintaining alliances. 

• Establishing Credibility • Establishing Trust 

• Influencing the Boss 

• Cooperating with Others 

• Managing Perceptions • Influencing Others 

• 

Leads by Example: Leaders serve as role models for others. This competency includes behaviors such as: modeling Army values, leading with confidence in adverse situations, and seeking diverse ideas and points of view.

• Role Modeling • 

• 

Communicates: Communication requires that leaders convey ideas clearly, as well as listen to others. This competency includes behaviors such as: active listening, determining appropriate information-sharing strategies, employing effective verbal and nonverbal communication strategies, ensuring shared understanding, presenting recommendations so that others understand advantages, and being sensitive to cultural issues. 

• Communicating • Informing 

• Gathering Information 

• • • 
 21 

Leadership Competencies 

(FM 6-22) 

TKML (Sternberg et al., 

2000) 

Interpersonal Performance 

(Carpenter & Wisecarver, 2004) 

Creates a Positive Environment: This competency targets the leader’s skill in building and maintaining a positive and functional work climate and improving the organization as a whole. Leader behaviors in this competency include: fostering teamwork, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty; encouraging initiative and innovation, creating a learning environment, encouraging open communications, expressing 

concern for employee well-being, anticipating people’s on-the-job needs, and setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals 

and teams. 

• Cooperating with Others • Taking Care of Soldiers 

• Establishing Trust 

• Managing 

Organizational Change 

• Protecting the 

Organization 

• Managing Others/Relationships • Coordinating • Helping Others • Demonstrating Courtesy • Socializing • Adapting to Social Environment 

• • 

Develops Others: Leaders help their subordinates to develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform effectively in this job, as well as the next. This competency includes leader behaviors such as: assessing current developmental needs of others; fostering job development and job enrichment; counseling, coaching and mentoring; and supporting institutional-based development. 

• Developing 

Subordinates 

• Training and Developing • 

Gets Results: This competency focuses on how well the leader accomplishes team, mission, and organizational objectives. This competency includes behaviors such as: identifying individual/group capabilities and task commitment, clarifying roles, identifying and managing resources, rewarding good performance, and adjusting to external influences on the mission or organization. 

• Motivating Subordinates • Directing and 

Supervising Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor 

Performers 

• Rewarding Others • Managing Others/Relationships • Controlling/Regulating Activities 

of Others 

• Adapting to Social Environment • Formal Staffing • Informal Staffing 

• • • 

Prepares Self: Leaders high in this competency take action to ensure that they are mentally, physically, and psychologically fit to perform their duties. This competency also includes a self-awareness component, as well as the following behaviors: evaluating and incorporating feedback from others; expanding technical knowledge, tactical knowledge, and interpersonal capabilities, and maintaining cultural and geopolitical awareness. 

• Managing the Self 

Note. For a complete description of leadership competencies, the reader is referred to FM 6-22. Bolded portions of competency descriptions inembedded in the Power Hungry film. 
 22 

Tripwire: An Iraq Context 

In 2004, ICT and ARI began the process of creating a second AXL case, Tripwire. The 

approach and the final goal for Tripwire was similar to the approach used to develop Power 

Hungry. To develop the Power Hungry case, stories were collected from former company 

commanders and issues and situations from their accounts were woven into a fictional narrative. 

In retrospect, the approach, while effective, was very much a bottom-up process. Also, the 

approach was a similar approach to the one taken by Sternberg et al. (2000) and others to create 

an inventory or set of leadership competencies based on interviews with leaders. This approach 

was again utilized, but a more top-down theoretical view of the case creation process also was 

adopted. Specifically, there was concern that allowing themes to emerge from a limited number 

of interviews would result in an inadequate representation of the leadership content domain. 

Additionally, one goal of the AXL project was to begin the creation of a “case library” that 

would ultimately encompass the full range of leadership skills, so the overlay of a theoretical 

taxonomy was helpful in identifying other leadership issues that might have been less prevalent 

in the Power Hungry scenario. Although a number of different concept taxonomies were 

considered, the tacit knowledge categories identified by Sternberg et al. (2000) was ultimately 

selected because the taxonomy was based on data collected from Army leaders and the goal of 

the AXL system was to facilitate the acquisition of tacit knowledge. This taxonomy, as well as 

new officer interviews, was used to guide the leadership issues embedded in Tripwire. 

Like Power Hungry, Tripwire is a brief fictional film portraying leadership at the 

company level. Like Power Hungry, establishing security is again a primary mission concern, 

but in Tripwire the goal of security is to ensure the safe arrival of an Iraqi official for a meeting 

in an Iraqi town. The security situation is complicated by the presence of several possible 

improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Although the captain in Tripwire is not as interpersonally 

abrasive as the captain in Power Hungry, CPT Holston of Tripwire makes a number of 

questionable leadership decisions, including failing to listen to the advice of his Soldiers and 

allowing himself to become dehydrated. Like Power Hungry, the scenario ends with mission 

failure and an engagement between the U.S. Army and local insurgents. 

Similar to Power Hungry, Tripwire was inspired by the real-life experiences of captains. 

ICT and the Hollywood screenwriter interviewed nine captains at USMA (different from the 

captains interviewed for Power Hungry) who had recently completed their assignments as 

company commanders. A number of them had deployment experience in the Middle East. The 

captains were once again asked to share the stories of their leadership challenges, resulting in 

forty-four stories gathered. Members of the USMA Behavioral Science and Leadership faculty 

provided subject matter expertise regarding the leadership issues portrayed in Tripwire. 

One compelling issue identified through the interviews and by the subject matter experts 

(SMEs) was the handling of IEDs. IED procedures, detection, and safe detonation were all 

factors in the tactical approach to IEDs, but leadership issues related to the handling of IEDs also 

emerged. Specifically, IEDs required leaders to consider the issue of balancing the mission with 

troop safety, and the Tripwire script was developed to include opportunities for students to 

explore this issue in greater detail. In order to ensure the realism of the depiction of IED threats 
 23 

(real and perceived), members of the U.S. Army IED Task Force provided input to the story and 

script. 

Tripwire begins with an Army battery in the midst of relieving a Marine company. The 

battery has begun patrols and encounters a suspicious book bag by the side of a road. A young 

man is detained and claims that the bag only contains prayer books. Despite warnings from the 

interpreter that the bag contains a Qur’an, CPT Holston orders the bag to be shot rather than wait 

for an Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team to arrive. CPT Holston’s decision to shoot the 

bag proves to be in error, with the bag indeed holding religious books. The battery encounters 

further problems during the scenario, including the death of an interpreter, insurgent activity, and 

the XO receiving news that his fiancé is pregnant with another man’s child. A text-based version 

of the Tripwire story can be found in an instructor’s guide for facilitating discussion of Tripwire

(Metcalf & Zbylut, 2007). 

Leadership Issues in Tripwire 

Like Power Hungry, a number of leadership issues are embedded into the narrative fabric 

of Tripwire. Tripwire depicts an operational scenario that ends in failure, but also highlights the 

potential causes that underlie the failure. The interpersonal skills identified in the Tacit 

Knowledge for Military Leaders framework were used to guide the leadership issues embedded 

in Tripwire, as was SME input. Four leadership issues in particular were emphasized in 

Tripwire: balancing mission and troops, taking care of Soldiers, establishing trust, and cultural 

awareness. Other interpersonal elements of the TKML framework and Power Hungry were 

incorporated to a smaller extent in the film: establishing credibility, cooperating with others, 

respect for NCO experience, communicating, directing and supervising subordinates, and 

managing the self. Table 3 indicates how the issues of Tripwire map onto current Army 

leadership doctrine and the TKML framework. 

Balancing Mission and Troops 

Leaders must constantly balance the need to accomplish the mission and take care of 

Soldiers. Sometimes the two goals conflict, and leaders must be able to determine the 

importance of each goal. In Tripwire, CPT Holston faces a particularly challenging situation by 

needing to balance his overall mission to maintain the security of a town, his immediate mission 

to provide security for an Iraqi official who will be visiting the town, and the welfare of his 

Soldiers. It is revealed during the scenario that CPT Holston previously lost Soldiers to IEDs, 

experiences that seem to weigh on him. As a series of possible IED threats emerge during 

preparations for the arrival of the Iraqi official, CPT Holston appears to be more focused on 

micromanaging the IED threats than focusing his effort on his primary mission of securing the 

official. Moreover, as incidents of violence break out in the town, CPT Holston decides to take a 

more passive stance to protect his Soldiers from risk, even though his subordinates challenge him 

on his prioritization. 
 24 

Table 3 

Relationship of Tripwire Themes to FM 6-22 

Leadership Competencies 

(FM 6-22) 

TKML 

(Sternberg et al.) 

Interpersonal Performance 

(Carpenter & Wisecarver) 

Power Hungry

Themes 

Leads Others: This competency focuses on motivating, inspiring, and influencing others, particularly subordinates. This competency includes behaviors such as: establishing clear intent and vision,using appropriate influence techniques to energize others, maintaining and enforcing professional standards, and balancing requirements of mission with follower welfare. 

• Establishing 

Credibility 

• Motivating 

Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor 

Performers 

• Taking Care of 

Soldiers 

• Managing Perceptions • Rewarding Others • Influencing Others 

• Mission Clarity 

and Shared Vision of Intent 

• Communication • Command 

Influence 

Extends Influence beyond Chain of Command: Leaders sometimes need to influence individuals who are not their subordinates. This competency focuses on influence beyond the leader’s traditional line of authority (e.g., multinational and interagency situations). This competency includes behaviors such as: understanding the sphere, means, and limits of influence; building trust; negotiating and resolving conflict, and building and maintaining alliances. 

• Establishing 

Credibility 

• Establishing Trust 

• Influencing the 

Boss 

• Cooperating with 

Others 

• Managing Perceptions • Influencing Others 

• Cultural 

Awareness 

• Upward Influence 

Leads by Example: Leaders serve as role models for others. This competency includes behaviors such as: modeling Army values, leading with confidence in adverse situations, and seeking diverse ideas and points of view.

• Role Modeling • Model of 

Command 

• Respect for 

Experience 

Communicates: Communication requires that leaders convey ideas clearly, as well as listen to others. This competency includes behaviors such as: active listening, determining appropriate informationsharing strategies, employing effective verbal and nonverbal communication strategies, ensuring shared understanding, presenting recommendations so that others understand 

advantages, and being sensitive to cultural issues. 

• Communicating • Informing 

• Gathering Information 

• Respect for 

Experience 

• Cultural 

Awareness 

• Communication 
 25 

Leadership Competencies 

(FM 6-22) 

TKML 

(Sternberg et al.) 

Interpersonal Performance 

(Carpenter & Wisecarver) 

Power Hungry

Themes 

Creates a Positive Environment: This competency targets the leader’s skill in building and maintaining a positive and functional work climate and improving the organization as a whole. Leader behaviors in this competency include: fostering teamwork, cohesion, cooperation, and loyalty; encouraging initiative and 

innovation, creating a learning environment, encouraging 

open communications, expressing concern for employee wellbeing, anticipating people’s on-the-job needs, and setting and maintaining high expectations for individuals and teams. 

• Cooperating with 

Others 

• Taking Care of 

Soldiers 

• Establishing Trust 

• Managing 

Organizational Change 

• Protecting the 

Organization 

• Managing 

Others/Relationships 

• Coordinating • Helping Others • Demonstrating Courtesy • Socializing • Adapting to Social 

Environment 

• Model of 

Command 

• Command Climate 

Develops Others: Leaders help their subordinates to develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform effectively in this job, as well as the next. This competency includes leader behaviors such as: assessing current developmental needs of others; fostering job development and job enrichment; counseling, coaching and mentoring; and supporting institutional-based development. 

• Developing 

Subordinates 

• Training and Developing • Providing 

Guidance 

Gets Results: This competency focuses on how well the leader accomplishes team, mission, and organizational objectives. This competency includes behaviors such as: identifying individual/group capabilities and task commitment, clarifying roles, identifying and managing resources, rewarding good performance, and adjusting to external influences on the mission or organization. 

• Motivating 

Subordinates 

• Directing and 

Supervising Subordinates 

• Dealing with Poor 

Performers 

• Rewarding Others • Managing 

Others/Relationships 

• Controlling/Regulating 

Activities of Others 

• Adapting to Social 

Environment 

• Formal Staffing • Informal Staffing 

• Providing 

Guidance 

• Cultural 

Awareness 

• Respect for 

Experience 

Prepares Self: Leaders high in this competency take action to ensure that they are mentally, physically, and psychologically fit to perform their duties. This competency also includes a selfawareness component, as well as the following behaviors: evaluating and incorporating feedback from others; expanding technical knowledge, tactical knowledge, and interpersonal capabilities, and maintaining cultural and geopolitical awareness. 

• Managing the Self 

Note. For a complete description of leadership competencies, the reader is referred to FM 6-22. Bolded portions of competency descriptions inembedded in the Tripwire film. 
 26 

Taking Care of Soldiers 

Taking care of Soldiers requires that a leader maintains awareness of the Soldier’s current 

state of mind, since a Soldier’s mental and emotional state can affect mission outcomes, group 

dynamics, and unit cohesion. While it may not be physically possible to constantly monitor the 

well-being of subordinates, CPT Holston should have been more aware of the state of key 

personnel. He failed to recognize a number of warning signs about the emotional state of his XO, 

1LT Porter, who recently received a breakup letter from his fiancé. 1LT Porter seems distracted 

during operations and has compromised task performance. Additionally, in Tripwire 1SG 

Morino is aware of 1LT Porter’s personal problems and fails to take action. 

Establishing Trust 

Trust is a critical ingredient for unit cohesion: trust of one’s comrades, trust in the unit’s 

leaders, trust in the Army, and trust in the moral dimension of the mission (Wong et al., 2003). 

Although CPT Holston leads his battery, his subordinates disagree with his ideas in a slightly 

disrespectful manner throughout the scenario. At one point after being questioned about his 

passive stance, CPT Holston says explicitly that they just need to trust him and accept what he 

says. It does not appear that his subordinates actually do trust his judgment, however, and in this 

situation they may be correct. 

Cultural Awareness 

Cultural awareness is a critical skill for every warfighter to have, especially in today’s 

contemporary operating environment (Petraeus, 2006). The challenge is that there is no single 

set of rules or expertise for cultural awareness. FM 6-22 indicates that “culture consists of 

shared beliefs, values, and assumptions about what is important” (p. 6-7). Understanding a 

culture and the people that one encounters in a culture is a considerable interpersonal skill that 

can have a significant impact on the outcome of a situation. In Tripwire, the local situation 

greatly affects the battery and the outcome of the scenario. A lack of a common understanding 

of the local situation and how to handle it becomes an important point of contention between 

CPT Holston and his command team. CPT Holston relies in part on his previous experience in a 

different town, but he finds that his past experiences are not similar to the situation that he 

experiences in Tripwire. 

Summary of AXL.Net cases 

 Two filmed cases were created for the AXL project: Power Hungry and Tripwire. 

Interviews with captains were used to determine the leadership issues and challenges embedded 

in the Power Hungry case. For Tripwire, captains again were interviewed, but Sternberg et al.’s 

(2000) TKML framework was used to identify additional leadership topics for inclusion in the 

case study. Each case study is paired with an instructor’s manual for facilitating discussion of 

the various leadership themes in a traditional classroom environment (Metcalf & Zbylut, 2007; 

Zbylut & Ward, 2004b). Advances in technology and online training, however, afford 

opportunities for exploring alternative delivery mechanisms for case method instruction. The 
 27 

next sections describe the evolution of the AXL.Net system, beginning with an early software 

prototype called Think Like a Commander—Excellence in Leadership (TLAC-XL) and followed 

by a description of the current AXL.Net system. 

THINK LIKE A COMMANDER-EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP (TLAC-XL) 

In late 2002, ICT developed pilot software for a proof-of-concept system called Think 

Like a Commander – Excellence in Leadership (TLAC-XL). TLAC-XL was motivated by a 

recognition that leader development education, including classes using the case method teaching 

approach, would be well-served by content and tools that augment traditional classroom teaching 

and discussion. Classroom discussion, while effective, requires coordination and expense to 

bring the group together. Classroom time is also limited. Soldiers in the current operating 

environment receive a significant and varied amount of teaching while in garrison, with leader 

development-related lessons being only one part of the curriculum. In non-military settings, 

education and professional development time is also limited and expensive. 

Previous research has focused on addressing some of these challenges. Quite a bit of 

research has focused on the creation of instructional systems with intelligent tutors and/or natural 

dialogue functions (e.g., Graesser et al., 2003; Graesser et al., 2004; Graesser, Person, & Hu, 

2002; Graesser, Wiemer-Hastings, Wiemer-Hastings, & Kruez, 1999; Hill & Johnson, 1993a, 

1993b; Hill & Johnson 1994). At least two computer-based applications have been applied to the 

Think Like a Commander (TLAC) framework, whose instructional concept originally served as a 

foundation for the instructional approach in TLAC-XL. TLAC was developed by the Army 

Research Institute and the faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and 

uses eight basic questions to develop a leader’s thinking in a tactical decision-making situation 

(Lussier & Shadrick, 2003; Shadrick & Lussier, 2004). These eight questions tap eight 

dimensions identified by experts as important in tactical thinking: mission, enemy, terrain, assets, 

timing, bigger picture (context), visualize the battlefield, and contingency plans. In its original 

conceptualization, TLAC consisted of 8 vignettes: four offensive scenarios and four defensive 

scenarios. Scenario content was delivered in a multimedia format, consisting of maps, troop 

movements and locations, and other relevant tactical descriptors. While vignettes were delivered 

via computer, an instructor would facilitate student analysis of each vignette. The instructional 

process relied primarily on the concepts of deliberate practice and scaffolding, with the instructor 

presenting highly structured guidance to students on how to think about the first scenario. Over 

the course of the eight scenarios, the instructor provides less and less guidance, until finally 

students are able to think about the scenarios much in the same way as a tactical expert with 

minimal prompting from an instructor. 

The Automated Tutoring Environment for Command (ATEC) was designed to be a webbased environment for delivering existing TLAC materials and replacing the classroom learning 

experience with an intelligent tutoring system (Ryder, DePaul, Zachary, & Iordanov, 2002). The 

approach leveraged the idea of deliberate practice to habituate the TLAC analytical approach. 

ATEC delivered existing TLAC materials including a short vignette, operation orders, and maps, 

as well as limited tutoring where the intelligent tutor prompted the student with questions similar 

to a human instructor and used a keyword spotting natural language understanding system to 
 28 

provide follow-up and feedback. The system modeled the knowledge that the students should

demonstrate (as opposed to the knowledge the student did demonstrate) with the intent of 

providing feedback and follow-up questions based on whether the student reached the expected 

answer or knowledge. However, the proof-of-concept system did not include any dialogue 

management, and the results suggested the need for a sophisticated means of tracking the state of 

the student in the deliberate practice situation. Given the challenging nature of such a natural 

language understanding effort (still an open research question), these results suggest that a more 

open-ended form of tutoring with a focus on reflection, rather than achieving a “schoolhouse” 

answer, is more feasible. 

Another computer-based environment for teaching TLAC concepts was the Command 

Mentoring (ComMentor) intelligent tutoring system (Domeshek, 2002). The intelligent tutoring 

system modeled Socratic techniques for facilitating learning. ComMentor centered the learning 

experience on a tactical decision group presented through maps, force structures, and text 

descriptions for situational awareness. The student takes actions within the system by inputting 

text. The system uses natural language understanding to parse their actions and insert probing 

questions for students to describe their reasoning, reflect on possible outcomes, and, at the end, 

reflect on the actions taken. Domeshek (2002) presented a combined domain model and scenario 

model and indicated that the Socratic dialogue with a combination of knowledge about the 

tactical elements available and the tactical situation in the scenario were compelling. 

Domeshek’s report also suggested that presentation of related stories would be useful for 

illustrating teaching points. 

TLAC-XL was designed to take some of the instructional principles successfully 

employed by TLAC in improving tactical thinking and apply those principles to the domain of 

interpersonal leadership and cultural awareness. The original TLAC-XL concept was to provide 

a structured, computer-based learning experience for company commanders analyzing the Power 

Hungry case using a synthetic mentor. As with previously described systems, the TLAC-XL 

design started with the TLAC framework, which is targeted at company-grade officers. TLACXL, however, introduced another factor beyond those identified in TLAC: interpersonal 

leadership issues. 

The initial goal of the TLAC-XL system was two-fold: to support the habituation of the 

TLAC framework and to support student understanding of the leadership issues that impact the 

tactical issues addressed by TLAC. The system design used the TLAC framework as the 

overarching model for student analysis. All eight topics in the TLAC framework were covered 

in TLAC-XL. Additionally, six leadership issues were covered in TLAC-XL: mission clarity, 

shared vision of intent, command influence, model of command, cultural awareness, and 

employing the experience of NCOs. The TLAC-XL issues were overlaid onto the TLAC tactical 

issues. 

While TLAC consisted of 8 tactical vignettes, the pilot version of TLAC-XL only 

consisted of one case study, Power Hungry. Only one case study was included at the time 

because initial research was geared toward testing the software and general instructional 

approach prior to investing significant time and resources in developing multiple case studies. 

TLAC-XL consisted primarily of two instructional phases, presentation of Power Hungry
 29 

followed by computer-facilitated analysis of TLAC themes and leadership issues in the film. 

An additional feature of TLAC-XL was the ability for students to interview characters 

from the film to discover more information about the tactical and leadership elements embedded 

in the film. Each character in the film represented a specific TLAC topic and leadership issue, 

and students would be prompted periodically to type in questions to the characters to find out 

more information about the scenario. The eight TLAC issues, the associated TLAC-XL 

leadership issues, and the associated character interviews explored through TLAC-XL are 

described in Table 4. 

Guiding Questions and the Animated Synthetic Mentor 

The TLAC-XL learning experience begins by presenting the student with the Power 

Hungry case within the system. After the film ends, a synthetic mentor is then used to guide 

students through a series of open-ended questions to facilitate analysis of Power Hungry. In a 

traditional classroom context, feedback or guidance from an instructor or tutor can increase 

learning. In a distance-learning context where there is no human instructor or peers, it is 

important to provide some form of guidance and feedback to the student who may not have the 

benefit of others’ points of view. TLAC-XL attempted to address this need by providing 

automated feedback and guidance through a synthetic mentor or intelligent tutor. Research in 

the area of multimedia learning suggests that an animated pedagogical agent can be effective in 

assisting students learn in computer-based instructional environments (Atkinson, 2002; Mayer, 

Sobko, & Mautone, 2003; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001). 

The synthetic mentor begins by introducing the first TLAC issue – mission – as the topic 

for consideration. The synthetic mentor then asks the student the first question, “What is the 

mission,” which is similar to the first question posed in TLAC exercises. The student types his 

or her response, using free text. The synthetic mentor then asks the second question relating to 

mission (Again similar to the instructor question posed in TLAC exercises): “What was the 

commander’s intent?” The student again types in a free text, written response. After reflecting 

on a series of questions around an issue, the student is prompted to interview one of the 

characters from the film in order to explore the issue in greater detail. 

After completing the questions pertaining to the leadership issue and interviewing the 

character, the mentor prompts the student to synthesize his or her thoughts around the issue just 

analyzed. The mentor asks a reflection or synthesis question, and the student types in a short 

answer using free text. The system applies natural language understanding techniques to 

determine whether the response is correct, and the system provides feedback about whether the 

answer is correct or incorrect, as well as the system’s own synthesis of the issue (i.e., the “take 

away” message from the analysis of this particular TLAC-XL issue). The student then moves on 

to the next issue and restarts the exercise cycle, again facilitated by the synthetic mentor. 
 30 

Table 4 

TLAC Questions Used to Analyze Power Hungry and the TLAC-XL Leadership Issues 

Associated with Each TLAC Topic 

TLAC Issues TLAC-XL Leadership Issues and 

Associated Character Interviews 

1. Mission 

a. What is the mission? 

b. The commander’s intent? 

• Command influence 

• Unity of command/shared vision of intent 

Interview: CSM Pullman influenced CPT Young’s concept of the 

mission. 

• Mission clarity 

• Communication 

Interview: CPT Young does not have a clear understanding of the 

mission. 

2. Enemy 

a. What can the enemy do? 

b. How will I know? (indicators) 

c. How is that information linked to decisions? 

• Cultural awareness 

• Communication 

Interview: Omar the warlord who CPT Young does not know how 

to handle. 

3. Consider effects of the terrain 

a. What do you know about the terrain or the geography? 

b. How can you use it to your advantage? 

c. How can it be a disadvantage? 

• Model of command 

• Developing subordinates (role modeling) 

• Directing and supervising subordinates 

• Communication. 

Interview: 2LT Wychowski sees a command style replicated through 

the ranks. 

4. Use all assets available 

a. What assets do you have available that you can 

use? 

b. What assets does higher HQ have? 

c. What are the second & third order effects of using 

other assets? 

• Employing NCO expertise 

• Motivation 

• Trust 

• Directing and supervising subordinates 

• Communication 

Interview: 1SG Jones’ experience is not recognized as an asset. 

5. Consider timing 

a. What is the first decision we need to make? 

b. How much time do we have to make a decision? 

c. How critical is time in this situation?

• Unity of command/shared vision of intent 

• Communication (shared vision of intent) 

• Directing and supervising subordinates (command climate) 

Interview: 1LT Perez does not understand the mission and intent. 

6. See the bigger picture 

a. How does our operation support the bigger plan? 

b. Given this problem, what are the implications to the 

tactical situation? 

c. Are there strategic or operational implications? 

7. Visualize the battlefield 

a. How do we visualize the battlefield right now in 

terms of time, space, and forces? 

b. What will the battlespace look like in 30 minutes? 

1 hour? Longer? 

c. How do you see the end state? Describe it. 

d. How can this situation get worse? 

8. Consider contingencies and remain flexible 

a. What can we do in our planning and preparation to 

avoid or mitigate this situation? 

b. What branches or sequels should we consider? 

c. What information requirements do we have for 

those branches? 

No leadership questions. However, TLAC-XL asks scenario-related 

questions pertaining to these issues. 
 31 

To support the conversational interactions with the synthetic mentor, we developed an 

animated character (shown in Figure 2 in the lower right box). We attempted to create a virtual 

mentor that was lifelike and engaging to the students. Because the Power Hungry case was 

filmed with live actors rather than created through animation, the challenge was to create a 

mentor that could look photoreal to be consistent with the “social” fidelity of the film. 

We leveraged computer graphics technology to bring this character to life and build a 

digital talking head that could be animated for an arbitrary input sentence. The approach taken 

falls within the realm of visual speech synthesis: the facial animation system takes as input a 

speech signal and outputs the corresponding animation (Cao, Tien, Faloutsos, & Pighin, 2005). 

Realistic animation of a synthetic human is a difficult task due to the complexity of the human 

body, one that traditionally involves many digital artists in the special effects industry. We took 

advantage of motion capture technology to bring realism into the synthetic mentor at an 

affordable cost. Motion capture allows the accurate recording of live actors' motions. We used 

this technology to record a large database of speech related motions from a live actor. We then 

analyzed this data to build a generative statistical model of the actor's facial motions. This model 

used the database of motions indexed with speech. We organized this database according to the 

phonemes of the recorded speech: each phoneme is associated with a large number of motion 

fragments. 

Figure 2. Screenshot from the TLAC-XL interface. 
 32 

Character Interviews and Conversation Graphs 

The questions posed by the synthetic mentor provide students with the opportunity to 

reflect on his or her own understanding of the situation. In a classroom situation, however, a 

student would also benefit from hearing other student responses to these questions, thereby 

gaining exposure to different points of view. In the TLAC-XL environment, the student might 

be working alone on the computer, in which case the student would have limited exposure to the 

perspective of others. In order to provide exposure to different points of view and to introduce 

specific leadership issues (e.g., mission clarity, cultural awareness) into the learning experience, 

TLAC-XL allows students to query characters from Power Hungry about their thoughts, 

motivations, and roles in the scenario. To query characters, students type questions into a text 

box (see Figure 2). While information about the characters could be presented or “pushed out” 

to students without the benefit of a natural language interface, the act of constructing questions to 

ask characters may serve as useful learning purpose. Within the context of a multimedia learning 

environment, Mayer, Dow, and Mayer (2003) found that students performed better when they 

were able to query a pedagogical agent interactively, rather than access the same information 

through non-interactive means. Such a finding may stem, in part, from the active cognitive 

engagement required to construct a question. 

After a student types a question, a natural language understanding (NLU) engine within 

the system chooses the best response available. This functionality provides the student with an 

opportunity to reflect on the case and formulate appropriate questions for the characters. The 

interview functionality also allows the student to find out additional information about the 

characters, their motivations, and the situation beyond what is seen in the case itself. The 

interview function mimics an event that happens in some classrooms during case method 

instruction. When a case is being taught about a real life situation, sometimes one of the people 

in the case – the “protagonist” – will participate in the classroom discussion. These are 

opportunities typically limited to select classrooms because individuals from a case study are 

often unavailable to participate in classroom exercises. The TLAC-XL interview functionality 

provides a wider audience with the opportunity to interact with characters from the case. 

In order to design effective interactions between students and the TLAC-XL system, we 

encoded the set of possible student/system dialogues as a directed finite-state graph. Each node 

in the graph represented a dialogue turn where the system said something (using media), and 

each arc in the graph represented a classification of the student’s typed input. Every node in this 

graph that has more than one arc transitioning away from the node requires a separate 

classification of the student input. The section of this graph representing the mentor interactions 

include 12 separate classifiers for this purpose, mainly to determine whether or not the mentor 

should agree or disagree with a student’s response to a mentor’s preceding question. However, 

each of the six character conversations is driven by a single classifier, which selects the most 

appropriate answer from the character. Graphical representations of the mentor graph and a 

character interview graph are presented in Figures 3 and 4. More information about this 

approach to textual classification can be found in Hill et al. (2003). 

As seen in Figure 3, the mentor interaction can be viewed as an eight-tiered interaction, 

where each tier corresponds to a line of questioning that concerns one of the eight TLAC topics. 
 33 

Within each tier, the mentor begins by asking a few preliminary questions about the topic (e.g. 

“What was your understanding of the mission?”) that lead to one of the critical leadership issues 

that were brought up in the case. To explore these leadership issues, the mentor will allow the 

student to conduct an interview with a relevant character from the case. Each node labeled with 

a letter in the mentor graph indicates a point where the mentor introduces a character, invoking 

an embedded subgraph corresponding to a character interview. At the end of an embedded 

character interview, the mentor asks a follow-up question aimed at determining the student’s 

understanding of how the leadership issue (i.e., TLAC-XL theme) relates to a TLAC tactical 

decision-making topic, then moves on to the next point. 

Figure 4. A character 

interview graph 

Figure 3. The mentor graph 
 34 

Figure 4 illustrates the general shape of an embedded subgraph for supporting a studentled character interview. A single classifier is used to route a student’s question to one of a set of 

possible character responses. A sample dialogue between a student and the CSM Pullman 

character follows: 

 Student: What do you think about Captain Young? 

CSM Pullman: This mission went downhill pretty quick. To tell you the truth, I was 

surprised the Captain didn't ask me to step in as his XO, given Lieutenant Perez was 

someplace north of nowhere. I didn't want to look like I was throwing my weight around, 

but maybe I should have jumped in. 

Student: Were you surprised to see the warlords show up at the site? 

CSM Pullman: I was surprised when Omar wandered into camp, no question about it. We 

certainly weren't briefed on any families in the area, other than the ones we were dealing 

with for local security. On the other hand, what to do with Omar wasn't my call. I was 

there to keep the locals happy, and, at that point, Omar was a local. I felt it was urgent to 

get Captain Young to make the decision on what to do with him. Young seemed 

preoccupied if I recall. So I made 'em "comfortable," if you know what I mean. Put them 

under the "protection" of some of our boys, and waited for the Captain.

Example of TLAC-XL System Dialogue 

TLAC-XL incorporates the eight tactical themes of TLAC (Lussier & Shadrick, 2003; Shadrick 

& Lussier, 2004) and overlays six leadership themes on those tactical issues. An example of the 

instructional content overlaid on the TLAC issue of “Mission” is listed in Table 5. It shows the 

full cycle, beginning with the original TLAC questions and how they were translated into 

probing questions asked by the mentor. Appendix A contains the lines of question for all eight 

TLAC topics and the leadership issues in Power Hungry that are overlaid on them.

Discussion of TLAC-XL 

Research that evaluated the effectiveness of the pilot version of TLAC-XL is described in 

greater detail in Zbylut and Ward (2004a) and Zbylut, Ward, and Mark (2005). This research 

included a test run of TLAC-XL in two classes at the Combined Arms and Services Staff School 

(CAS3; n = 26 captains), a comparison between TLAC-XL and a multimedia presentation of the 

same material in PowerPoint (n = 97 lieutenants and captains) across four US Army installations, 

and an instructor led-discussion of the Power Hungry film with members from a Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team (n = 23 Soldiers, with the majority of Soldiers being sergeants). A summary of 

these findings and lessons learned are presented here; these findings were used to revise the 

TLAC-XL system and form the basis of the AXL.Net system. 
 35 

 Table 5 

Example of TLAC-XL Content Overlaid on TLAC Topic of “Mission” 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Mission: 

a. What is the mission? 

b. What is the commander’s intent? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s begin by talking about the mission. What is your understanding of 

the mission and the commander’s intent? 

b. What do you think was CPT Young’s understanding of the mission and 

the commander’s intent? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Command Influence, Unity of 

Command 

Information: CSM Pullman gave CPT 

Young additional information about the 

commander’s intent.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. How did Command Sergeant Major Pullman’s presence influence CPT 

Young’s understanding of the mission and the commander’s intent? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

b. Let’s talk with Command Sergeant Major Pullman directly. You can ask 

him questions related to the influence that he had on CPT Young. 

Character interview opportunity with CSM Pullman:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. CSM Pullman answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

a. What do you think of Command Sergeant Major Pullman’s comments on 

the influence he had on Captain Young? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

b. I {agree/disagree}. Command Sergeant Major Pullman may not believe 

that he had an influence on CPT Young. However, his presence certainly 

caused CPT Young to question his understanding of the mission. 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Communication, Mission 

Clarity 

Information: CPT Young doesn’t have 

a clear understanding of the mission.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. How did the clarity of the mission change over time for CPT Young? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor:

b. Let’s talk with CPT Young directly. You can ask him questions related to 

the clarity of his mission. 

Character interview opportunity with CPT Young:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. CPT Young answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor: 

a. What do you think of CPT Young’s comments on the clarity of his 

mission? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding: 

b. I {agree/disagree}. CPT Young did not have a clear understanding of the 

mission throughout. He should have asked more questions when he was 

first briefed. He should have questioned the presence of Command 

Sergeant Major Pullman. He should have notified battalion headquarters 

that the brigade command sergeant major was present at the site. 
 36 

The Value of Filmed Scenarios 

TLAC-XL was inspired by the Think Like a Commander (TLAC) teaching approach 

(Shadrick & Lussier, 2004), but whereas TLAC focused on the tactical situation, the TLAC-XL 

concept expanded the scenario scope by considering the interpersonal aspects of leadership. The 

tactical scenario became the context for examining key leadership issues that influenced the 

outcome of a situation. Interleaving leadership issues with the tactical scenario enabled students 

to see how specific interpersonal skills can impact an operation. The Power Hungry case and 

TLAC-XL software were found to be memorable, interesting, and engaging (Zbylut & Ward, 

2004a), and the Power Hungry case has since been widely used in other instructional settings. 

The filmed scenario performed better than other media delivery formats of the same 

scenario. Previous research (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a; Zbylut et al., 2005) indicated that Soldiers 

were able to remember more details from the Power Hungry scenario when it was presented in 

film format rather than in a multimedia PowerPoint format. This finding was somewhat 

surprising since the PowerPoint presentation of the scenario included the entire audio soundtrack 

from the film running in conjunction with more than 100 still images taken from the film. In 

addition to differences in memory between the two scenario conditions, the film also led to 

reports of higher positive affect, greater emotional response, and higher ratings of story and 

character realism than the PowerPoint version of the scenario. Conversely, higher levels of 

confusion were reported for the PowerPoint scenario. 

Additional research using an undergraduate sample indicated that the filmed version of 

Power Hungry performed better than or as good as text and PowerPoint versions of the scenario 

across a variety of affective, cognitive, and personality variables2

. With respect to self-reported 

arousal, the film was more arousing than PowerPoint and evoked levels of arousal similar to text. 

With respect to emotional valance, however, the film was associated with higher levels of 

negative affect than both the text and PowerPoint conditions. Film also appeared to be more 

effective overall at conveying certain types of information more effectively than other forms of 

media. While participants in film and text conditions performed similarly on memory task of 

scenario details, participants in the film condition performed significantly better on a memory 

task of what different characters said to one another. Character information also seemed to come 

across more effectively in film in another substantive way. Specifically, participants rated CPT 

Young as more disagreeable and less emotionally stable and open to experience in the film 

condition than in either the text or PowerPoint conditions, suggesting that character personality 

might be better depicted in film format than in other media forms. Taken together, these results 

suggest that film is an effective way for exposing individuals to case studies about interpersonal 

interactions. 

The Value of Group Discussion 

 In its original conceptualization, TLAC-XL was built within the traditional computerbased instruction paradigm—namely, instruction was completed by one person on one computer. 

However, in early pilot tests of the user interface, the researchers made a conscious decision to 

collect data in small groups. While this decision was made primarily in order to bolster the 

 

2

 This research is described in greater detail in Appendix B. 
 37 

sample size we could obtain at a single Army installation, an unintended side effect occurred. 

Specifically, the discussion that was occurring between Soldiers as they worked through the 

TLAC-XL content seemed to be highly relevant to the teaching goals of the system. For 

example, Soldiers would talk about how their deployment experiences were similar or dissimilar 

to the events that occurred in the film or would discuss solutions that they had used in the past. 

As another example, Soldiers would sometimes challenge the assertions of their peers or ask a 

peer to elaborate on his or her reasoning. 

 In addition to researcher observations, questionnaire results in a variety of settings 

suggested that discussing the film as part of a group is important. For example, Soldiers who 

discussed Power Hungry as part of their Stryker Leader Course at Fort Lewis strongly indicated 

that group discussion was valuable (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a). Similar results were found when 

Power Hungry was discussed at Fort Wainwright with an audience of 119 Soldiers, which 

included a mix of officers and NCOs. Of 93 Soldiers who responded to the open-ended question 

of what helped them to learn during the lesson, approximately 66% indicated that interacting and 

discussing things in a group was helpful. 

Need for Structured and Probing Questions 

TLAC-XL used a synthetic mentor in place of a human instructor counterpart. The 

synthetic mentor posed a series of highly structured questions related to the TLAC tactical topics 

and TLAC-XL leadership themes. The intent was to have the student think on his or her own 

and generate responses to the questions rather than selecting an answer from a menu. While the 

intent was appropriate—this is the expectation in the case method approach— the dialogue was 

one-way with the student generating analyses but not receiving feedback from the mentor, even 

as informed follow-up questions. In observing Soldiers use TLAC-XL, it appeared that, at times, 

Soldiers were not delving into enough detail on the topics. While structured questions appeared 

to do a good job at focusing Soldiers on a specific leadership topic, additional probing questions 

or follow-up questions would help in compelling Soldiers to examine the topics at a deeper level. 

Role of the Synthetic Mentor 

In observing Soldiers interact with the system, occasionally Soldiers would react 

negatively to the synthetic mentor when he told them that he agreed or disagreed with their 

assessment of an issue. In some instances it was clear that the synthetic mentor did not 

comprehend the answer given by the student, so the act of disagreeing with the student would 

undermine the mentor’s credibility. Given that the assessment was done using the same 

statistical techniques that were used for classifying student questions, it became evident that this 

approach would not suffice in giving feedback, particularly where a judgment of correctness was 

involved. Interestingly, the only difference in the actual feedback given by the mentor was at the 

beginning of the statement when the mentor said that he agreed or disagreed. The statement 

summarizing the key lesson from the interview with a character was the same whether the 

mentor agreed or disagreed with the student. So, while the summary statement may have held 

value for the student on its own, the message was lost when the mentor tried to give more 

explicit feedback. 
 38 

Zbylut et al. (2005) compared the use of the mentor in TLAC-XL to a non-mentor 

version of TLAC-XL run in PowerPoint. In the PowerPoint version, the discussion questions 

posed by the mentor in TLAC-XL were presented in text form on slides. The discussion 

question slides were followed by slides containing the mentor’s “take away” message minus the 

assessment of whether Soldiers answered the questions correctly or incorrectly. Soldiers rated 

the PowerPoint version of the discussion questions higher than they rated the identical questions 

delivered by the mentor in TLAC-XL. 

These results are not meant to imply that the use of pedagogical agents is inappropriate in 

computerized instruction. Indeed substantive research has indicated the utility of computerized 

instructors (e.g., Atkinson, 2002; Mayer et al., 2003; Moreno et al., 2001). Ultimately, the lesson 

learned here is that guidance and feedback, which are essential to efficient and effective learning, 

must be delivered in a pedagogically and socially appropriate manner. From a computer graphic 

standpoint, the mentor was an advance in high audiovisual fidelity. However, it is equally 

important that the mentor know what to say, know when to say it, and deliver accurate content 

much like a human instructor. Otherwise the credibility of the system can be undermined. 

Usage and Accessibility 

The TLAC-XL system was envisaged to be used primarily in a mode where the student 

would work alone, whether on a computer at home or in a lab. In the course of deploying 

prototypes of the system, it became evident that (1) there were multiple ways to conduct 

instruction with the TLAC-XL materials, including instructor-led discussion and computerfacilitated small group discussion, and (2) instructors were interested in using the case studies for 

conducting lessons on topics beyond those originally identified in the system (e.g., ethics, how to 

talk to the media). Additionally, the software system was originally designed so that it could be 

installed on a personal computer with a two CD set. What was quickly learned was that there are 

practical constraints on deploying the software this way in the Army. The dependency on the 

hardware and software configuration became problematic, with significant variability across 

computers complicating the installation process. Also, the software could not be easily changed 

by anyone besides the programmer who had developed it. Integrating new learning content or an 

entirely new case required essentially starting over from the beginning from a programming 

standpoint. 

In sum, a number of lessons were learned from the TLAC-XL prototype. First, filmed 

case studies had wide appeal to Army instructors and Soldiers. Second, the content embedded in 

the system could be used in a variety of ways other than those originally anticipated—including 

computer-facilitated small group discussion and instructor-led classroom instruction. Moreover, 

instructors were able to construct lessons to cover topic areas not originally targeted in the 

prototype. Third, while structured questions are an important part of facilitating discussion, 

follow-up questions and feedback are required to compel Soldiers to investigate issues more 

thoroughly. Fourth, the use of software poses challenges in getting Army instructors the content 

in a timely and efficient fashion. The next section describes the creation of a new case-method 

instructional system called Army Excellence in Leadership (AXL), which builds from the 

lessons learned with TLAC-XL. 
 39 

AXL.NET PLATFORM AND MODULES 

As a follow-up to TLAC-XL, ICT began designing a new computer-based learning 

environment. ICT considered the findings from the TLAC-XL evaluations, literature searches, 

observations of expert case method instructors, as well as existing and new research technology 

approaches. Rather than revise the existing TLAC-XL system, ICT reconsidered the entire 

approach to using computer-based solutions and film-based cases. The result was the new 

prototype system called AXL.Net (Hill et al., 2006). AXL.Net is a prototype web-based 

immersive technology solution that supports case method instruction for U.S. Army leader 

development. Whereas TLAC-XL was created specifically around the Power Hungry filmed 

case and the TLAC framework, AXL.Net was created to offer a generalized interactive 

technology solution for case method instruction using film-based cases. 

The overarching design for AXL.Net was based on the traditional case method instruction 

approach (Corey, 1999; Gentile, 1990; Golich et al., 2000; Hill, Gordon, & Kim, 2004): 

1. Review learning objectives and be immersed in a case. 

2. Familiarize with the basic story points – identify roles and responsibilities, story points, 

key events. 

3. Critically analyze the case – consider stakeholder goals, cause and effect relationships, 

and alternate decisions. 

4. Synthesize thoughts – develop rules of thumb, connect to personal experience and real 

world situations. 

The approach outlined above was created with the notion that instruction would be conducted 

in a classroom setting with a human instructor to facilitate discussion. Thus, this general 

teaching approach required some modification to translate it into an interactive, computer-based 

medium. Furthermore, the interactive medium along with the use of filmed cases provided 

opportunities for learning experiences that were not possible in non-computer-based solutions or 

without film-based cases. Finally, theories about the acquisition of tacit knowledge were 

incorporated into the design and approach. 

The result of these efforts was two-fold: (1) an open, web-based platform for delivering rich 

media case method instruction learning experiences, and (2) exemplar modules built around the 

Power Hungry and Tripwire cases. In the next sections, the AXL.Net technologies will first be 

described. The exemplar modules, as well as initial evaluations with these modules, will then be 

described. 

Character Interviews 

One of the insights gained in reviewing the literature on case method instruction was that 

students need to go beyond the initial details presented in the case and dig more deeply into the 

background details and relevant theory. In TLAC-XL, the ability to interview the characters 

provided one opportunity to analyze the details of the case more deeply. The technology for 

conducting the interviews worked fairly well, allowing students to ask a range of questions of the 

different characters. The purpose of the character interviews is to provide the student with the 
 40 

perspectives of the different Soldiers in the scenario. By hearing their responses, a picture of the 

command climate of the unit emerges that aids the student in the inquiry of what caused mission 

failure. 

Previous research with TLAC-XL indicated some problems with the character interview 

features (Zbylut & Ward, 2004a, Zbylut et al., 2005), and these problems emerged for a few 

different reasons. First, in the TLAC-XL system, the instructional approach restricted students 

with respect to which characters could be queried and when. Specifically, characters were 

presented in a sequential order and in conjunction with different leadership topics such that once 

a student interviewed a character, the student could never revisit that character to ask additional 

questions. However, in reviewing the content of possible character answers, connections in 

content across characters emerged. For example, in Power Hungry, every Army character has a 

response as to what he believed the mission was. In the original TLAC-XL format, a student 

might be able to access all of the character interview clips about character’s beliefs about the 

mission, but those character answers would be spread out over the course of about 45 minutes of 

discussion and interspersed between discussions of other leadership topics. This general 

approach does not facilitate the integration of these different character interview clips because 

they are spread out in time and across different leadership topics. 

Second, some students would attempt to “test” the system by asking irrelevant or 

tangential questions, such as “Where did you go to school” or “What did you have for 

breakfast?” As a result, characters often supplied answers that were non-responsive to the 

questions that were posed. Third, students who were inexperienced tended not to ask as 

sophisticated questions as their more experienced counterparts, and this led to problems with the 

more novice students accessing the relevant scenario information that they needed to make sense 

of the case study. 

AXL.Net employed two solutions to deal with these problems. To increase the 

probability that students would integrate and compare/contrast different character answers with 

one another, AXL.Net modules will sometimes “feed” specific character interview answers to 

students rather than wait for students to interview characters. AXL.Net then asked students to 

examine what the different characters said. Proactive presentation of character interview clips in 

the same temporal space should increase the likelihood that students will make connections 

among different character statements. Additionally, proactive presentation ensures that students 

access specific pieces of character dialogue regardless of what questions students choose to ask 

of the characters. Figure 5 provides an example in which AXL.Net presented clips of multiple 

characters indicating what they believed the mission in the scenario was. Students click on the 

character interview clips to hear what each character has to say. 

The second solution was to offer students the opportunity to interview any character at 

any point during the learning process. The interview functionality was added as a persistent 

“tool” on every page of AXL.Net, with every character available to interview (Figure 6). 
 41 

Figure 5. Students click on different film clips to see what characters had to say about the mission in Power 

Hungry. 

Figure 6. AXL.Net character interview interface. Students can click on any of the character images on the right side 

of the screen. In this instance, 1LT Porter from Tripwire has been selected for interviewing. Similar to TLAC-XL, 

students can type their question of the character in the text box provided. 
 42 

To increase the likelihood of an effective “match” between student questions and 

character answers, the AXL.Net system employed two techniques. One technique was to 

introduce a more sophisticated classification scheme over the one used with TLAC-XL. This 

schema added two dimensions. First, an “unrelated” node was created to catch questions that 

were entirely outside the learning domain (e.g., what did you have for breakfast?). For these 

unrelated questions, the system returned a text prompt with two pieces of information: (1) the 

character did not understand the question, and (2) a suggestion for topics that the student might 

want to ask the character. The prompt did not ever state that the student was asking the wrong 

kind of question but instead put the blame on the system. This was to address the possibility 

observed with TLAC-XL—and with even the best natural language understanding (NLU) 

systems—of occasional misclassifications. The topic suggestions were included to guide the 

student back on topic without dictating to the student what questions they should ask. 

Another dimension added to the classification schema was the possibility of “related” 

questions, but questions with classification ratings with a low confidence. In this case, the 

system was coded to assume that the student was asking about the correct general topics but was 

not asking the questions in the “right” way that the NLU system understood. As a result, the 

system also returned the same text prompt as for “unrelated” questions, but also opened another 

window that offered questions identified as most relevant to the question that the student typed 

in. The related questions were chosen by keyword matching the student’s question to the 

transcripts of the answers available in the system. When available, the system also chose the top 

three related questions from other characters. For example, if a student asks 1LT Perez “what 

did you think of Wychowski,” the TLAC-XL interview system returns “ .” With the new 

classification technique in AXL.Net, the system returns the text prompt “1LT Perez is not sure 

how to answer your question. Try asking him about his relationship with CPT Young” and 

provides a list of suggested questions to ask instead (see Figure 7). 

The second technique investigated was the use of mediation in the dialogue to fill in the 

gaps between what is being asked and what can possibly be selected as a response from the 

database (Gandhe, Gordon, & Traum, 2006). This approach was motivated by the observation 

that humans do not always directly answer a question. Rather, depending on the question and the 

set of knowledge that a human has, he or she will offer a response that connects the question to 

the answer available. In the AXL.Net system, the video responses are pre-determined and filmed 

at the same time as the scenario, so they are not easily changed. AXL.Net’s automated mediation 

system generates a text that provides a similar linking function to human bridging dialogue. The 

text is then displayed before the video is played. Figure 8 describes the question-linking 

dialogue-answer framework. Technical details about the approach can be found in Gandhe et al. 

(2006). 
 43 

Figure 7. Screenshot of how AXL.Net handles student questions that it is unsure of how to answer. AXL.Net 

identifies a set of questions that might be relevant to the students’ questions. Students can click on any of these 

suggested questions to be hyperlinked to the character’s filmed response to that question. 

Figure 8. Chart describing the mediation between a student’s question and the available character responses. 
 44 

Tools to Support Case Method Analysis 

The AXL.Net case method framework was derived from case method instruction best 

practices extracted from literature and observation of expert practitioners, as well as the findings 

from research on TLAC-XL. However, the overarching premise of the AXL.Net approach is 

that student participation in discussion, reflection, and exposure to different points of view help a 

student’s sense-making process (Brown et al., 1989; Golich et al., 2000; Palus et al., 2003). In 

traditional case method instruction, an instructor typically leads a discussion through the use of 

questions (Gentile, 1990; Golich et al., 2000). This activity is not easily duplicated in a distance 

learning environment without an instructor (Murray, 2007). As previously described, the openended questioning in TLAC-XL was not effective, as the dialogue was one-way with the student 

generating analyses but not receiving feedback from the mentor, even as informed follow-up 

questions. 

One solution in AXL.Net drew on the instructional design principles of guided analysis 

rather than pure discovery learning (Mayer, 2004). While engaging with the AXL.Net system, 

students are asked to discuss and reflect on several open-ended questions. These questions 

compel students to examine the relationships among different characters in the scenario, analyze 

cause-and-effect relationships, and consider the implications of different courses of action that 

characters might have chosen in the scenario. Students also are encouraged to relate personal 

experiences to the situations encountered by different characters in the scenarios. These sorts of 

questions draw on the instructional concepts of elaborative interrogation (e.g., Martin & 

Pressley, 1991; Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987; Willoughby, Wood, 

Desmarais, Sims, & Kalra, 1997) and self-explanations (e.g., Chi & vanLehn, 1991). By 

reflecting on, analyzing, and discussing answers to these questions, students are better able to 

learn from their peers and integrate socially constructed knowledge with their personal 

experience and knowledge. The processes of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation can 

assist students in retaining information over time and improves the likelihood that they will be 

able to transfer what is learned to other situations. An example of an open-ended question is 

presented in Figure 9. The open-ended questions of AXL.Net differ from the questions of 

TLAC-XL in a few notable ways. Most importantly, AXL.Net has more questions per teaching 

theme than did TLAC-XL. Some questions also are more explicit in asking students to relate 

what occurred in the film to their real world experiences. Moreover, the questions have now 

become interspersed with other student tasks, checks on understanding, presentation of 

information from Army Doctrine, and presentation of film clips and character interviews. 

 Unlike TLAC-XL, which consisted primarily of general open-ended questions, AXL.Net 

leverages the full range of question types possible. A specific improvement in the AXL.Net 

system is the utilization of close-ended questions (e.g., multiple choice, true/false, rating tasks, 

ranking tasks) that can help determine the level of student understanding and allows feedback to 

be delivered to the student. An example of a multiple choice question from AXL.Net and the 

feedback that a student might receive appear in Figures 10 and 11. Additionally, close-ended 

questions can be used to branch the instructional content delivered to the student. In the case of 

procedural, factual, or other determinable knowledge, these forced choice questions enable the 

system to ensure understanding where right and wrong are important and determinable. The 

branching function allows for tailored remediation to be provided to these students and bypassed 
 45 

by those students who demonstrate comprehension. Alternatively, the branching function is used 

to provide a more tailored experience (outside of performance metrics) that will permit the 

student to pursue lines of inquiry consistent with the student’s interests or background. For 

example, the system may ask whether a student has been deployed and branch to different sets of 

questions depending on how the student answers. The branching function also can be used to 

challenge student assumptions. For example, if a student chooses one course of action over 

another course of action, the branching function can be used to compel the student to think 

through the implications of that course of action, as well as the second course of action. 

Figure 9. An example of an open-ended question used in a Cultural Awareness module for Tripwire. 
 46 

Figure 10. Example of a multiple-choice question in AXL.Net. This question will be followed by feedback to the 

student. Depending on whether students selected option A or option B, students will receive a different series of 

discussion questions to explore their assessment in greater detail. 

Figure 11. Feedback delivered to the student after answering a multiple-choice question. 
 47 

 AXL.Net also relies on some of the more standard approaches to delivering content in a 

computer-based learning environment. Specifically, at certain points in a lesson, AXL.Net will 

present information to students to read and consider. An example of the type of information 

presented to students in an AXL.Net module is presented in Figure 12. Other types of 

information presented to students include an overview of the module, learning objectives, and 

module summaries. AXL.Net also provides downloads for Army reading materials (e.g., FM 6-

22) relevant to leadership and cultural awareness. 

Figure 12. A Cultural Awareness module for Tripwire includes information about interpreters from Army Doctrine 

on counterinsurgency (FM 3-24). 

Another capability in the system that supports case analysis is the implementation of a 

“critical issues” task for the Power Hungry and Tripwire cases. In the critical issues task, the 

student is provided with a list of different leadership actions and issues in the scenario that most 

impacted the mission. In the task, the student is asked to select and rank order the seven most 

important issues (see Figure 13). Based on the students’ choices and rankings, the system 

provides the student with feedback about their choices, including drawing attention to issues that 
 48 

they did not select. The intent of this task is to bring self-awareness to students about the issues 

that they are emphasizing and potentially call their attention to important issues they may have 

overlooked, particularly within the categories of cultural awareness and leadership. In instances 

where students are interacting as a group, the critical issues task can serve as a tool for 

stimulating debate and discussion. 

Figure 13. Screenshot of the critical issues task for Power Hungry. 

The critical issues task is scenario-specific. Thus, there is a different list of critical issues 

for Power Hungry than there is for Tripwire. The list of critical issues in Power Hungry was 

developed from leadership issues identified by 16 captains and 25 cadets at the United States 

Military Academy (Ben-Yoav Nobel et al., 2006). The list of critical issues for Tripwire was 

generated from focus groups interviews and questionnaires administered to 27 junior officers 

(Zbylut, Metcalf, Kim, Hill, & Rocher, 2007). 

Because the critical issues task is scenario-dependent, feedback delivered for the task is 

also scenario-dependent. In Power Hungry modules, feedback is provided for tactical issues, 

situational issues, leadership issues, and cultural issues; these were the overarching categories 
 49 

identified in the Ben-Yoav Nobel et al. (2006) research. In the Tripwire case, the Power Hungry

taxonomy of issues did not cleanly map onto the issues generated by the junior officers. Instead, 

issues fell into the categories of security (tactical actions), leadership, culture, and selfregulation. Because self-regulation (such as managing one’s emotions and taking care of one’s 

physical well-being) was built into the Tripwire case, self-regulation issues appeared to be 

identified more commonly than issues falling under the general category of “situational” 

parameters. In both the Power Hungry and Tripwire tasks, however, feedback indicates how 

many of the issues on the master list were in the respective categories and offers feedback about 

what was and was not chosen. The feedback includes suggestions for re-directing focus to other 

issues in order to broaden the student’s awareness of the myriad of issues built into the scenario. 

An example of feedback for the critical issues task is provided in Figure 14. 

 

Figure 14. Screenshot of feedback delivered to the student after completing the critical issues task in Power 

Hungry. In the current screenshot, the student is receiving feedback on the leadership category. However, students 

can obtain feedback on the other three categories (Tactical Issues, Situational Issues, and Cultural Issues) by 

clicking on the tab for that category. 
 50 

In addition to guidance and traditional tutoring techniques (e.g., providing feedback for 

answers to close-ended questions) embedded in the system, AXL.Net offers interactive tools and 

exercises that encourage a student to do “close-watching” of the filmed cases. Although 

AXL.Net is capable of supporting text-based cases, one of its strengths is handling rich media 

content. One tool offered within the system is the ability to “search” the filmed cases for specific 

information. This function is similar to the way some people skim books or use the index to find 

specific content within a text. With the filmed cases, this tool allows people to review interesting 

or noteworthy moments for them. Rather than force the student to recall specific lines from the 

script, the cases are annotated conceptually (e.g., the bag on the side of the road). An example of 

the video search tool is presented in Figure 15. 

Figure 15. Screenshot of the video search tool being used to find segments of the film pertaining to the food 

trucks in Power Hungry. Students can click “play” to watch film segments of interest. 
 51 

Another tool offered in AXL.Net is the ability to bookmark specific film references (See 

Figure 16). This tool offers similar functionality as making margin notes or highlighting the text. 

As an exercise, it requires the student to go back through the movie and find specific moments in 

the film. The video search tool previously described can also be used here so that the student 

does not need to watch the entire scenario again. However, even with the search capability, this 

exercise could be tedious. It is currently being used in remediation situations when the student is 

being prompted to review the movie more closely because he or she seems to lack 

comprehension of the essential elements of the movie – e.g., character roles, plot points. 

Figure 16. Screenshot with the video bookmarking tool. 

 
 52 

A final feature of AXL.Net is the inclusion of a virtual character named “CPT Stewart.” 

Unlike the mentor in TLAC-XL, CPT Stewart is not a dynamic-audiovisual character, but is 

instead a two-dimensional static animated image that is paired with text. The purpose of CPT 

Stewart in the current set of AXL.Net modules is to serve more as a virtual peer who presents 

alternative points of view to challenge the thinking of students engaged with the system. An 

example of CPT Stewart is presented in Figure 17. While the CPT Stewart character is currently 

used in AXL.Net to portray alternative viewpoints of student peers, authorability of the AXL.Net 

system does permit course authors to use CPT Stewart to function in more of a “mentor-like” or 

“expert” capacity. 

Features of the AXL system and how they relate to different aspects of case method 

instruction are summarized in Table 6. 

Figure 17. A screenshot from a Cultural Awareness module in Tripwire. CPT Stewart acts as a virtual peer during 

an instructional branch in which students incorrectly indicated that the IED was planted to kill an Iraqi official. 
 53 

Table 6 

Case Method Instruction Best Practices and Associated AXL.Net Functionality and Techniques 

Phase of Case Method Instruction 

Traditional Case Method Best Practice: 

Approach and Tactics AXL.Net Functionality for Case 

View

Description: The student is exposed to 

the case. Purpose: To communicate a realistic 

story that contains pedagogical value. 

• Provide case study • Provide background material and theory 

(e.g., textbooks, readings) 

Included in modules: 

• Provide filmed case study 

• Reference to Army Doctrine • Downloads of Doctrine and other Authoring capability for instructors: • Ability to upload new cases (e.g., 

documents) 

• Ability to upload reference materi

video, text) 

• Ability to create web links to inter

Familiarize

Description: The student reviews the 

case for comprehension. Purpose: To ensure a basic 

understanding of essential scenario details such as characters, plot points, and critical events / experiences / decisions for discussion. 

• Ask questions to establish whether student 

understood the plot points of the case. 

• Explore specific plot points with goal of 

improving understanding of the case. 

• Identify “areas of interest” and events in 

the scenario that are interesting, significant, or otherwise worthy of discussion. 

Included in modules: 

• Close-ended questions to check fo

true-false, multiple choice) 

• Branching and remediation to imp• Bookmarking task to identify key • Provide feedback • Presentation of relevant film and c• Critical issues task to identify areaAuthoring capability for instructors: • Ability to create new close-ended • Ability to construct feedback base

responses 

• Ability to create branched training 

types of students 
 54 

Phase of Case Method Instruction 

Traditional Case Method Best Practice: 

Approach and Tactics AXL.Net Functionality for Case 

Analyze

Description: The student investigates 

leadership issues related to the case. Purpose: To engage in critical 

thinking about the case and to consider different points of view through deep analysis of the situation and the characters. 

• Begin with an area of interest identified in 

the previous step. 

• Ask exploratory questions to get students 

to think more about why events are significant and about the leadership issues embedded in the events. 

• Seek out different points of view. • Ask students to identify additional 

information that they need to consider in the situation. 

• Ask students to discuss characters’ roles. • Identify root causes of issues. • Discuss theories about leadership issues 

involved. 

• Introduce and discuss other events/ issues 

that students did not identify but are among primary leadership issues in the case. 

Included in modules: 

• Use of open-ended questions to st

analysis 

• Character interview feature to exp

view 

• Small group discussion to present • Virtual peer, CPT Stewart, used to 

perspective 

• Branching content to challenge stuAuthoring capability for instructors: • Ability to upload expert comment

provide alternative points of view 

• Ability to create branches based o

can explore different lines of inqudecision making aspects of the cascultural issues of the case) 

Synthesize Description: The student reviews the 

analysis of the case and demonstrates understanding. Purpose: To synthesize information 

and codify the explicit, actionable knowledge (e.g., rules of thumb) about the leadership issues in the case. 

• Review the main points from the 

discussion. 

• Provide updates and additional knowledge 

acquired since the development of the case. 

• Reinforce the theories and its connection to 

the case. 

• Provide additional resources and materials. 

Included in modules: 

• Use of open-ended questions that 

experience, scenario to leadership other hypothetical situations 

• Downloads of Army Doctrine and 

Questionnaire 

• Static pages that review concepts • Instructor feature: aggregated stud

action reviews of content 

Authoring capability for instructors: • Ability to upload reference materi

video, text) 

• Ability to create web links to sites • Ability to author static content 
 55

AXL.Net Pilot Modules 

ICT delivered eight exemplar modules with the AXL.Net system: four for Power Hungry

on the leadership topics of cultural awareness, communication, employing NCO expertise, and 

command climate, and four for Tripwire on the leadership topics of cultural awareness, 

balancing mission troop and safety, command climate and managing the self, and establishing 

trust. ARI created an additional 4 modules for demonstration and evaluation purposes using the 

authoring capabilities and the course modules designed by ICT; each film has one leadership 

module and one cultural awareness module. The modules were designed to be stand-alone 

modules that require between one and two hours to complete. The modules also were designed 

to be completed in small groups of students (typically between two and four) but without the 

need of an instructor or facilitator. However, it should be noted that these modules can be 

completed by a single person in a more traditional distance learning paradigm. 

Each module was designed around the AXL case method approach: 

1. Review learning objectives and be immersed in the case. 

2. Familiarize with the basic story points – identify roles/responsibilities, story points, key 

events. 

3. Critically analyze the case – consider stakeholder goals, cause/effect, alternate decisions. 

4. Synthesize thoughts – develop rules of thumb, connect to personal experience/real situations. 

As we developed modules in the AXL.Net online system, we considered three important 

elements: 1) learning objectives of the module; 2) how the case could be used to facilitate the 

acquisition of those learning objectives; 3) the learning experience for the student and the content 

of the module. Before AXL.Net modules were authored, learning objectives and teaching points 

were outlined. These learning objectives stemmed from the original interviews with deployed 

CPTs, recommendations from various Army instructors, the leadership literature and the tacit 

knowledge literature. Course content was developed with a training audience of junior officers 

in mind. 

In the exemplar modules delivered by ICT, once the group of students enters a module, they 

are presented with an introductory screen that describes the overarching topic for the module as 

well as the sub-topics that will be discussed (typically between two and four sub-topics). After 

the students are oriented, they click the “Next” button to advance to the next screen. Figure 18 

shows the opening screen for the Tripwire Cultural Awareness module with the green “Next” 

button in the lower right portion of the screen. 

Students are then presented with the filmed case that will be the topic of their analysis. 

They are able to watch the entire movie online within the page. Students also can pause, rewind, 

or fast forward through the movie. Apart from the instructional flow of events (e.g., film, series 

of questions interspersed with additional character and media clips), the system does not apply 

many constraints on the student. As officers, students are expected to demonstrate some selfmotivation and also should not require an instructor’s oversight to take the tasks seriously. 
 56

Figure 18. Screenshot of the AXL.Net Tripwire Cultural Awareness module. 

After the students are done watching the movie, they are presented with the critical issues 

task described previously in this report. This will be the first opportunity for the group to discuss 

various events in the scenario and should help students begin the process of understanding each 

other’s point of view. At this early stage in the module, discussion will likely be wide-ranging 

because the module has not prompted students to focus their attention on a specific leadership or 

cultural issue. After completing the critical issues task, students will review their feedback and 

then move to a screen that reiterates the learning objectives for the module. Students then are 

introduced to the first of the module-specific questions. 

Each module begins with a series of questions to ensure that students are familiar with 

key points of the case. In the case of the Tripwire “Balancing Mission and Troop Safety” 

module, the students are asked “To begin, what is your understanding of the battery's mission?” 

Students discuss their answer to this question and then type their answer in a text box provided 

beneath the question. After proceeding to the next screen, they are prompted with a forcedchoice question to demonstrate understanding of one of the characters in the case study: “CPT 

Holston felt the battery's mission was to provide security for the upcoming arrival of an Iraqi 

official. Did CPT Holston have other concerns?” The students are given the option to choose 

yes or no. In the scenario, CPT Holston does have other concerns, and if the students confirm 
 57

that he does by choosing yes, they are asked to identify some of those other concerns. However, 

if the students believe he does not have other concerns and indicate so by choosing no, the 

system branches to a remediation path to further explore the various concerns of CPT Holston. 

During remediation, students are given a bookmarking task to perform3

: “Reflect on key 

moments in the scenario. Think about when CPT Holston describes the mission. Bookmark 

point(s) in the movie when he does so, noting briefly what the implication of his message is.” 

When the students do so, they should be reviewing at least one of two scenes: during the 

command brief when he describes he explains that the town they are in is “cold and settled and 

[he wants] to keep it that way” and “protect [the U.S. Army’s] own.” Another part of the film 

that students might identify is during a conversation between CPT Holston and his command 

team where he reiterates that he wants to keep the town under control and protect Soldiers. 

After students complete the bookmarking exercise, they are once again prompted with the 

question “Does CPT Holston talk about anything else besides site security?” If the students still 

believe he is not aware, then the instructional design assumes they have not accessed the clips 

referenced above or else did not watch it closely enough. After the students proceed to the next 

screen, the system displays a page that contains an embedded clip of the second command team 

conversation where CPT Holston states his other interests. Students also are asked “Do you 

think CPT Holston is also concerned about taking care of his Soldiers?” In this way, students are 

directed to the information they need to understand a basic element of the story. This point is reiterated on the next page with an intervention by the virtual peer CPT Stewart who says, “In my 

opinion, CPT Holston indicates in the clip that he is concerned with protecting his Soldiers, in 

addition to providing security for the official and maintaining security in the town.” CPT 

Stewart is used throughout the exemplar modules as a mechanism for stimulating discussion or 

introducing points that students might not have generates on their own. After completing the 

remediation process, the remediation path rejoins with the analysis question that the nonremediated students also were asked: “CPT Holston does seem to focus on issues other than site 

security. Specifically, note what you think were some of CPT Holston's other interests and 

goals.” 

The familiarization and analysis process continues throughout the module so that students 

gradually analyze various components of the case. Toward the end of the module, AXL.Net 

modules prompt students to begin synthesizing the concepts and relating them back to their own 

experiences. After completing questions in the module, students are presented with summary 

slides that review what students should have learned from the module and what key points they 

should remember. 

Research on AXL.Net 

An initial pilot test was conducted with one of the eight modules delivered, the Tripwire

“Cultural Awareness” module. This research is discussed in greater detail in Zbylut et al. (2007), 

but the findings are summarized briefly here. First, results indicated that junior officers’ 

 

3 The bookmarking tasks require students to identify relevant segments from the film by scanning the film contents. However, some remediation paths do not include a bookmarking task. Instead, brief film segments (e.g., 30-60 

seconds) that contain the key details missed by the student are replayed for the student to review. 
 58

reactions to both the film and overall instructional approach were positive. With respect to the 

Tripwire film, officers rated the film as emotionally engaging and realistic, the characters 

multifaceted, and the film as not confusing. Of particular note is that officers overwhelmingly 

indicated that they would prefer to watch a film rather than read a case study or listen to a 

PowerPoint presentation. With respect to the module and instructional approach as a whole, 

officers indicated that the cultural awareness module was valuable and useful. Officers also 

indicated that they could transfer something that they learned during instruction to their activities 

as a leader and indicated that the module was thought-provoking. Specifically, officers indicated 

that the module made them think about the Tripwire scenario in a way different from a way in 

which they would usually approach the scenario. Because one objective of case method 

instruction is to encourage students to broaden their thinking and challenge their perspectives 

(Crittenden, Crittenden, & Hawes, 1999; Jennings, 1996; Kreber, 2001; Richardson, 1994; 

Stewart & Dougherty, 1993), these findings are encouraging. 

In addition to reaction criteria, results indicated that officers learned from the cultural 

awareness module. After having completed the module, officers demonstrated better judgment 

about particular courses of leader actions that could have been adopted during Tripwire. Officers 

also placed more emphasis on cultural issues embedded in the Tripwire scenario after having 

completed the AXL.Net module. In sum, results from the pilot investigation indicated that the 

AXL approach is an effective method for delivering interactive multimedia case method 

instruction. Moreover, these results are particularly compelling given that a majority of the 

officers in the sample had been deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. Despite their 

significant experience in Middle Eastern environments, officers still found AXL.Net useful and 

informative. 

Web 2.0 and Authorability 

AXL.Net takes advantage of the worldwide web, particularly for usability and Web 2.0 

innovations. Core principles of Web 2.0 applications include dynamic user-generated content 

(remixability), lightweight data and service structures, and simple (but rich) user experiences 

(O’Reilly, 2005). By applying these core principles to both the system infrastructure design and 

the user interface design, the result was a system that could be easily modified or extended. The 

system takes advantage of Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) techniques to reduce load 

time and bandwidth requirements for the media-heavy AXL.Net. AXL.Net also was 

implemented as a dynamic content management system, making authoring and customization of 

toolsets easier for both instructors and system developers. AXL.Net applies the transparent 

integration of media formats, such as image file formats JPG, GIF, and BMP, as well as movie 

file formats for QuickTime and Windows Media that are possible with the web. 

AXL.Net was structured to maximize innovation opportunities by its users. AXL.Net is 

actually designed for two different users: (1) students and (2) instructors or course authors. It 

should be noted that the primary focus of the AXL project was on the student experience in a 

multimedia, interactive learning environment. However, because of instructor and trainer 

interest in the AXL case studies, it was determined that some authoring capability would be built 

into the AXL system while it was being created. As a result, AXL.Net is not limited to the precreated modules or filmed cases. Instructors and instructional developers have the ability to 
 59

upload new cases into the AXL system or take a priori modules and adapt the content to their 

own instructional goals. The newly authored content can be shared and used by other 

instructors, if desired. The authoring tools were and continue to be used by the AXL.Net 

development team to create all of the module content within the system – including the exemplar 

modules provided with the AXL.Net system. 

With the exception of the filmed cases, Tripwire and Power Hungry4

, the critical issues 

task for each of those scenarios, and the character interviews, instructional content in the 

AXL.Net system is completely authorable. While the Tripwire and Power Hungry scenarios are 

not authorable, the modules associated with those films are. Additionally, instructors can upload 

new case studies (film or text-based) and construct new modules around those cases. Currently, 

instructors can author or insert text, multimedia (e.g., movies, images, documents for download), 

and questions (e.g., multiple choice, short answer). Instructors can author feedback given to 

students during the module. Instructors can define multiple paths that students can take 

depending on the students’ responses (e.g., for remediation, to investigate an issue more 

deeply).5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The starting point for the Army Excellence in Leadership project was based on several 

observations. First, knowledge about leadership is largely tacit in nature, and as such it is both 

difficult to articulate and to transfer to others (Sternberg et al., 2000). Second, and consistent 

with the idea that leadership relies on tacit knowledge, many leaders become effective through 

experience (McCall et al., 1988). Third, case method instruction is a way of enabling students to 

learn from the experiences of others. Moreover, reflection on the stories of others can be used as 

a technique for accelerating the acquisition of tacit knowledge without actually having to live 

through the experience (Matthew et al., 2005). While case method instruction was initially used 

in business and law schools, it is now widely used in universities worldwide across a wide range 

of disciplines (Golich et al., 2000). Finally, learning in case method analysis occurs in stages. A 

good case is rich in detail and provides the student with a vicarious experience worthy of study 

and reflection. We believe that this is one of the qualities of this method of learning that make it 

appropriate for the acquisition of tacit knowledge, and it highlights the importance of building 

the case from the experiences of others. Once the student is familiar with the case, the work 

commences of analyzing and synthesizing a position. The role of the instructor (or computer) is 

to ask questions that guide the initial analytical process, but also to encourage a context in which 

different points of view can be heard, challenged, and integrated into an explanation and a 

coherent set of recommendations for a plan of action. The work described in this report indicates 

that these observations could be applied effectively to an online environment and are already 

bearing fruit in helping to accelerate the development of Army leaders. 

 

4 Fort Bliss worked with ICT to develop a third filmed case study called Red Tight, which is an air defense scenario. 

Red Tight is available in AXL.Net, but does not have any course material associated with it. 5

 Current work on AXL targets how to make AXL.Net SCORM-compliant. However, instructors in the AXL 

system are able to view the answers of individual students, as well as look at the answers of students in the 

aggregate by class (or by forming a group by selecting student names of past users of the system). Researchers can 

export data collected in AXL.Net to an Excel Spreadsheet, as well as use the instructor viewing functions. 
 60

One Case, Many Uses 

The Power Hungry and Tripwire cases have been found to be memorable and engaging. 

That the Power Hungry case is powerful a tool is evidenced by its widespread use in a variety of 

instructional settings. These include U.S. Army classrooms across branches, in individual and 

combat team training situations, in U.S. Army officer pre-commission training, as well as outside 

the Army by Project Kaleidoscope and the National Academy of Engineering. These results 

indicate that a single case, when properly authored, can be used to explore many different 

leadership issues set in an operational context. 

Broad Applicability of AXL.Net to Leader Development 

The results from early pilot tests with AXL.Net are encouraging. The differences seen 

before and after interacting with an AXL.Net module is an important first step in establishing the 

efficacy of the approach. Perhaps even more encouraging, however, is the anecdotal and 

qualitative feedback from Soldiers with deployment experience who have found the AXL.Net 

learning experience to address the complexity of the situations that they are facing. Furthermore, 

ICT has begun additional testing with the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of 

Business to develop AXL.Net modules for junior business leaders. Early tests indicate that the 

AXL.Net system and approach applies to business contexts in addition to military contexts. 

Thus, the online interactive approach utilized by AXL appears to have generalizability across 

disciplines. The authorability of AXL.Net will ensure that it remains relevant to the needs of 

instructors and students over time. 
 61

REFERENCES 

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427. 

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 

Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial 

applications. New York: The Free Press. 

Bennis, W. (1994). On becoming a leader. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 

Ben-Yoav Nobel, O., Zbylut, M., 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. 

Brown, F. J. (2003). Leaders for America’s Army. Military Review, 83, 68-78. 

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. 

Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb, 1989, 32-42. 

Cao, Y., Tien, W. C., Faloutsos, P., & Pighin, F. (2005). Expressive speech-driven facial 

animation. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(4), 1283-1302. 

Carpenter, T., & Wisecarver, M. (2004). Identifying and validating a model of interpersonal 

performance dimensions. (ARI Technical Report 1144). Arlington, VA. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal 

of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69-105. 

Cianciolo, A., Atonakis, J., & Sternberg, R. (2004). Practical intelligence and leadership: Using 

experience as a “mentor.” In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader 

development for transforming organizations (pp. 211-236). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. 

Corey, E. R. (1999). A note on case learning. (Report 9-899-105, April 27, 1999). Harvard 

Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. 

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. 
 62

Domeshek, E. A. (2002). Phase 1 final report on an intelligent tutoring system for teaching 

battlefield command reasoning skills. (ARI Technical Report 1124). Alexandria, VA. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced 

perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental 

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343-353. 

Ericsson, K. A. (1996) The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the 

issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert 

Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games (pp.1-50). Mahwah, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 

Gandhe, S., Gordon, A., & Traum, D. (2006, January-February). Improving question-answering 

with linking dialogues. Paper presented at the Intelligent User Interfaces Conference. 

Sydney, Australia. 

Gendolla, G. H. E., & Krusken, J. (2002). Informational mood impact on effort-related 

cardiovascular response: The diagnostic value of mood counts. Emotion, 2, 251-262. 

Gendolla, G. H. E., Abele, A. E., & Krusken, J. (2001). The informational impact of mood on 

effort mobilization: A study of cardiovascular and electrodermal responses. Emotion, 1, 

12-24. 

Gentile, M. C. (1990). Twenty-five questions to ask as you begin to develop a new case study. 

(Report 9-391-042). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. 

Gerrig, R., & Rapp, D. (2004). Psychological processes underlying literary impact. Poetics 

Today, 25, 265-281. 

Gerrig, R. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. 

New Haven: Yale UP. 

Golich, V., Boyer, M., Franko, P., & Lamy, S. (2000). The ABCs of case teaching. Pew Case 

Studies in International Affairs. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh 

School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Retrieved on 10 June 2007 from 

http://ecase.georgetown.edu/abcs.cfm. 

Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H. H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., et al. (2004). 

AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, 

Instruments and Computers, 36, 180-193. 

Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K., Marineau, J., Adcock, A., Olney, A., & Person, N. (2003). 

AutoTutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialog or the talking 

head? In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (Eds.) Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in 

Education (pp. 47-54). Amsterdam: IOS. 
 63

Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Kreuz, R. (1999). AutoTutor: A 

simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 15-25. 

Graesser, A., Person, N., & Hu, X. (2002). Improving comprehension through discourse 

processing. In D. Halpern and M. Hakel (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and 

Learning (No. 89, pp. 33-44). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass. 

Gragg, C. I. (1982). Because wisdom can’t be told. (Report 9-451-005, November 30, 1982). 

Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. (Original work published in Harvard 

Alumni Bulletin, October 19, 1940). 

Green, M., Brock, T., & Kaufman, G. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of 

transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14, 311-327. 

Haynes, J., Maloor, P., Lyell, M., & Zbylut, M.L., (2006, Sept). A story-based approach to 

simulation-based training. Paper presented at the annual Simulation Interoperability 

Standards Organization Conference Annual Symposium on Applied Experimental 

Research. Orlando, FL. 

Hays, R. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. 

(Technical Report 2005-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems 

Division. 

Hedlund J., Antonakis, J., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Tacit knowledge and practical intelligence: 

Understanding the lessons of experience. (ARI Research Note 2003-04). Alexandria, 

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

Hedlund, J., Sternberg, R., & Psotka, J. (2000). Tacit knowledge for military leadership: Seeking 

insight into the acquisition and use of practical knowledge (ARI Technical Report 1105). 

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

Hedlund, J., Sternberg, R., Horvath, J., Forsythe, G., & Snook, S. (1999). Tacit knowledge for 

military leaders: Lessons learned across military organizations (ARI Research Note 99-

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

Sciences. 

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., Gordon, A. S., & Kim, J. M. (2004, December). Learning the lessons of leadership 

experience: tools for interactive case method analysis. Poster presented at the 24th Army 

Science Conference, Orlando, FL. 
 64

Hill, R., & Johnson, W.L. (1993a). Designing an intelligent tutoring system based on a reactive 

model of skill acquisition. Proceedings of the World Conference on Artificial 

Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 93), Edinburgh, Scotland, 273-281. 

Hill, R., & Johnson, W.L. (1993b). Impasse-driven tutoring for reactive skill acquisition. 

Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on Intelligent Computer-Aided Training and Virtual 

Environment Technology (ICAT-VET-93), NASA/Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 

May 5-7, 1993, pp. 93-110. 

Hill, R., & Johnson, W.L. (1994). Situated plan attribution for intelligent tutoring systems. 

Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, 

Washington, 499-505. 

Hill, R., Kim, J., Zbylut, M., Gordon, A., Traum, D., Gandhe, S., King, S., Lavis, S., Rocher, S. 

(2006, November). AXL.Net: Web-Enabled Case Method Instruction for Accelerating 

Tacit Knowledge Acquisition in Leaders. Paper presentation at the 25th Army Science 

Conference, Orlando, FL. 

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2002). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. 

San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 

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

Development, 15(9), 4-12. 

Johnson, W., Marsella, S., Mote, N., Viljhalmsson, H., Narayanan, S., & Choi, S. (2004, June). 

Tactical Language Training System: Supporting the Rapid Acquisition of Foreign 

Language and Cultural Skills. Paper presented at InSTIL/ICALL2004 – NLP and Speech 

Technologies in Advanced Language Learning Systems, Venice, Italy. 

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807. 

Kreber, C. (2001). Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual analysis. 

Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 217-228. 

Kutner, M., Greenburg, E., & Baer, J. (2005). A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in 

the 21st century. (Publication Number NCES 2006470). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, Maryland 20794-1398. 

Lussier, J., & Shadrick, S. (2003). Adaptive thinking training for tactical leaders. Paper presented 

at RTO HFM Symposium on Advanced Technologies for Military Training (NATO 

RTO-MP-HFM-101), Genoa, Italy, October 13-15, 2003. 

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

428. 
 65

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 

Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative effects depend on the nature of the question. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113-119. 

Matthew, C. T., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Developing effective military 

leaders: Facilitating the acquisition of experience-based tacit knowledge. (ARI Technical 

Report 1161). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of 

educational psychology’s second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4),151-161. 

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The 

case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19. 

Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive selfexplaining environment: What works in the design of agent based microworlds? Journal 

of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806-812. 

Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions 

of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

86(3), 389-401. 

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of 

speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425. 

McCall, M., Lombardo, M., & Morrison, A. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful 

executives develop on the job. New York: The Free Press. 

McCausland, J., & Martin, G. (2001). Transforming strategic leader education for the 21stcentury Army. Parameters, 31(3), pp. 17-33. 

Mehrabian, A., & and Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & 

Development, 50(3), 43-59. 

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. 
 66

Moreno, R., Mayer R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in 

computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with 

animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213. 

Murray, S. (2007, March 19). Online case study teaching: Space for thought encourages a richer 

vocalization of ideas. Financial Times. Retrieved 28 March 2007 from 

http://www.FT.com. 

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next 

generation of software. O’Reilly Media, September 30, 2005. Retrieved 10 June 2007 

from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. 

Ottati, V. C., & Isbell, L. M. (1996). Effects of mood during exposure to target information on 

subsequently reported judgments: An on-line model of misattribution and correction. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 39-53. 

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Palus, C. J., Horth, D. M., Selvin, A. M., & Pulley, M. L. (2003). Exploration for development: 

Developing leadership by making shared sense of complex challenges. Consulting 

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 26-40. 

Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J., & Fostreling, F. (1992). Personality structure 

across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 62, 447-456. 

Petraeus, D. H. (2006). Learning counterinsurgency: Observations from soldiering in Iraq. 

Military Review, 1, 2-12. 

Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith. First published by 

Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966. 

Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and 

precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291-300. 

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

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

Rickel, J., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Marsella, S., Traum, D., & Swartout., B. (2002). Toward a new 

generation of virtual humans for interactive experiences. IEEE Intelligent Systems 

Journal, 17(4), pp. 32-38. 
 67

Ryder, J., DePaul, J., Zachary, W., & Iordanov, V. (2002). Automated Tutoring Environment for 

Command (ATEC): Using an intelligent tutor to model expert mentor interactions (ARI 

Technical Report 1125). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Shadrick, S., & Lussier, J. (2004). Assessment of the Think Like a Commander training 

program. (ARI Research Report 1824). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Sternberg, R., Forsythe, G., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Wagner, R., Williams, W., et al. (2000). 

Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Sternberg, R., Forsythe, G., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Tremble, T., Snook, S., et al. (1999). Tacit 

knowledge in the workplace. (ARI Technical Report 1093). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

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

Swartout, W., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Hovy, E., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., Traum, D. (2006). Toward 

virtual humans. AI Magazine, 27(2), pp. 96-108. 

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & 

Row. 

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

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

U.S. Department of the Army. (1999). Army leadership (FM 22-100). Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2006). Army leadership:Competent, confident, and agile (FM 6-

22). Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2006). Counterinsurgency (FM 3-24). Washington, DC: Author. 

VanLehn, K. (1988). Toward a theory of impasse-driven learning. In H. Mandl and A. Lesgold

(Eds.) Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 19-41). New York: SpringerVerlag. 

VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schultz, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R. H., Taylor, L., et al. (2005). The 

Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial 

Intelligence in Education, 15(3), 147- 204. 
 68

VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Taylor, L., Weinstein, A., Shelby, R. H., Schulze, K. G., et al. (2002). 

Minimally invasive tutoring of complex physics problem solving. In S. A. Cerri, G. 

Gouardères & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.) Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2002, 6th International 

Conference (pp. 367-376). Berlin: Springer. 

Wallace, W. (2006). Victory starts here! Changing TRADOC to meet the needs of the Army. 

Military Review, 36(3), pp. 59-69. 

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures 

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. 

Willoughby, T., Wood, E., Desmarais, S., Sims, S., & Kalra, M. (1997). Mechanisms that 

facilitate the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

89, 682-685. 

Wong, L. (2004). Developing adaptive leaders: The crucible experience of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. Monograph, ISBN 1-58487-167-9, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War 

College, Carlisle, PA. 

Wong, L., Kolditz, T., Millen, R., & Potter, T. (2003). Why they fight: Combat motivation in 

the Iraq war. Monograph, ISBN 1-58487-133-4, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army 

War College, Carlisle, PA. 

Wright, S. (1999). Case-based instruction: Linking theory to practice. Physical Educator, 53, 

190-208. 

Wylie, D. (2003). A primer on developing cases. (Case Method Institute Note 100-N03 for the 

Case Development Institute, Olin Hall, Babson College) Wellesley, MA. 

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Zbylut, M. L., Mark, J. D., & Vowels, C. (2006, August). Challenges and approaches to 

evaluating a leadership intervention for Army officers. Paper presented at the annual 

Academy of Management Conference. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Zbylut, M. L., Metcalf, K. A., Kim, J.M., Hill, R. W., & Rocher, S. (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., & Ward, J., (2004a, December). Developing interpersonal abilities with interactive 

vignettes. Poster presented at the 2004 Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL. 
 69

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., Ward, J., & Mark, J. (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. 
 70
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

TLAC QUESTIONS AND TLAC-XL LEADERSHIP ISSUES 

The Think Like a Commander (TLAC) framework developed by the Army Research 

Institute and the faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College uses eight basic 

questions to frame a discussion about a tactical situation. The topics covered by these questions 

include mission, enemy, terrain, assets, timing, bigger picture (context), visualize the battlefield, 

and contingency plans. The initial TLAC-XL prototype uses the eight TLAC topics as a 

launching point for a deeper analysis of the leadership issues that are embedded in the Power 

Hungry case. This appendix summarizes the original TLAC questions related to each topic, the 

questions that the TLAC-XL synthetic mentor asks on the topic, and the leadership drilldown 

questions that lead to an opportunity to interview a character from the story. The interview gives 

the student an opportunity to delve more deeply into the perspective of one of the characters—

the search to understand each point of view reveals more information for the leadership analysis. 

For each of the drilldown discussions there is a summary of the relevant leadership issues, a 

character whom the student may interview, and a set of questions the mentor asks before and 

after the interview with a character. Since this was an experimental prototype, not all of the 

TLAC topics have leadership issues and characters to interview. 

1. Mission 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Mission: 

c. What is the mission? 

d. What is the commander’s intent? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

c. Let’s begin by talking about the mission. What is your understanding 

of the mission and the commander’s intent? 

d. What do you think was CPT Young’s understanding of the mission 

and the commander’s intent? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Command Influence, Unity of 

Command 

Information: CSM Pullman gave 

CPT Young additional information 

about the commander’s intent.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

c. How did Command Sergeant Major Pullman’s presence influence 

CPT Young’s understanding of the mission and the commander’s 

intent? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

d. Let’s talk with Command Sergeant Major Pullman directly. You can 

ask him questions related to the influence that he had on CPT Young. 

Character interview opportunity with CSM Pullman:

d. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

e. CSM Pullman answers question. 

f. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

c. What do you think of Command Sergeant Major Pullman’s comments 

on the influence he had on Captain Young? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

d. I {agree/disagree}. Command Sergeant Major Pullman may not 

believe that he had an influence on CPT Young. However, his 

presence certainly caused CPT Young to question his understanding 

of the mission. 
A-2 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Communication, Mission 

Clarity 

Information: CPT Young doesn’t 

have a clear understanding of the 

mission.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

c. How did the clarity of the mission change over time for CPT Young? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor:

d. Let’s talk with CPT Young directly. You can ask him questions 

related to the clarity of his mission. 

Character interview opportunity with CPT Young:

d. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

e. CPT Young answers question. 

f. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor: 

c. What do you think of CPT Young’s comments on the clarity of his 

mission? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding: 

d. I {agree/disagree}. CPT Young did not have a clear understanding of 

the mission throughout. He should have asked more questions when 

he was first briefed. He should have questioned the presence of 

Command Sergeant Major Pullman. He should have notified battalion 

headquarters that the brigade command sergeant major was present at 

the site. 
A-3 

2. Enemy 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Enemy: 

a. What can the enemy do? 

b. How will I know? (indicators) 

c. How is that information linked to 

decisions? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Who do you think stood in the way of accomplishing this mission? 

Were there competing interests to the accomplishment of this 

mission? 

b. CPT Young may have seen things differently. What was CPT 

Young’s understanding of the local Afghan interests with respect to 

this mission? How was this understanding informed? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Communication, Cultural 

Awareness 

Information: Omar the warlord isn’t 

thought of as directly opposing CPT 

Young’s mission initially.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. Omar, the Afghan warlord, isn’t seen as opposing CPT Young’s 

mission at first. What assumptions did CPT Young make about Omar 

and his men? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

b. Let’s talk with Omar the Afghan warlord directly. You can ask him 

questions related to the assumptions that CPT Young made about him. 

Character interview opportunity with Omar:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. Omar answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

a. Having heard from Omar, what should CPT Young have assumed 

about him? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

b. I agree (disagree). CPT Young needed to better understand Omar and 

his relationship with the local population. This information was 

needed before any cooperation began. For Omar and Mohamed, food 

equals power. The success of their plan depended on CPT Young’s 

ignorance of who they were, how they were related to one another and 

to the local clan. 
A-4 

3. Consider effects of the terrain 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Terrain: 

a. What do you know about the 

terrain or the geography? 

b. How can you use it to your 

advantage? 

c. How can it be a disadvantage? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s move on to the effects of terrain. How could the terrain and the 

geography be viewed as an advantage or a disadvantage in this 

situation? 

b. Second LT Wychowski had to take terrain into consideration when 

preparing the food distribution site. What terrain issues did he have? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Developing Subordinates, 

Model of Command, Command 

Climate, Directing and Supervising 

Subordinates, Communication. 

Information: 2LT Wychowski has 

problems establishing a security zone 

for the site.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. What was the reason that Wychowski was having trouble with the 

food distribution site preparation? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

b. Let’s talk with Second LT Wychowski directly. You can ask him 

questions related to his preparation of the food distribution site. 

Character interview opportunity with 2LT Wychowski:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. 2LT Wychowski answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

a. Having heard from LT Wychowski, what do you think was the root 

cause of his problems with the food distribution site? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

b. I agree (disagree). CPT Young created a command climate that 

discouraged LT Wychowski from asking critical questions and from 

asking for clarification. However, this does relieve LT Wychowski of 

his responsibility to request clarification when necessary. It will be 

important in LT Wychowski’s development as a leader that he not 

adopt CPT Young’s model when he becomes a company commander 

himself. 
A-5 

4. Use all assets available 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Assets: 

a. What assets do you have available 

that you can use? 

b. What assets does higher HQ 

have? 

c. What are the second & third order 

effects of using other assets? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s move on to the topic of available assets. What were the primary 

assets available to this company in this mission? 

b. CPT Young may not have taken advantage of all of the assets 

available to him. How could he have better used his assets? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Motivation, Trust, Directing 

and Supervising Subordinates, 

Communication, Respect for 

Experience 

Information: CPT Young does not 

see First Sergeant (1SG) Jones’ 

experience is not seen as an asset.

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. How was the experience of First Sergeant Jones used as an asset by 

CPT Young? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

b. Let’s talk with SGT Jones directly. You can ask him questions related 

to his experience, and his relationship with CPT Young. 

Character interview opportunity with 1SG Jones:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. 1SG Jones answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

a. Having heard from First Sergeant Jones, how do you think CPT 

Young should have capitalized on the experience of First Sergeant 

Jones? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

b. I agree (disagree). CPT Young needed to foster a command climate 

where the experience of his men was valued. Respect for the 

experience of First Sergeant Young will be critical to the success of 

this company. 
A-6 

5. Consider timing 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Timing: 

a. What is the first decision we need 

to make? 

b. How much time do we have to 

make a decision? 

c. How critical is time in this 

situation? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s move on to consider issues related to timing. In what ways do 

you see issues of timing to be critical in this scenario? 

b. Timing becomes particularly important as the NGO trucks are 

approaching. What did CPT Young and his men believe about the 

importance of timing with relation to these trucks? 

TLAC-XL issues and information 

embedded in scenario: 

Issues: Communication, Shared 

Vision of Intent, Directing and 

Supervising Subordinates, Command 

Climate 

Information: 1LT Perez failed to stop 

the NGO trucks and left the site 

without informing CPT Young

Priming question asked by mentor: 

a. The XO of this company, LT Perez, was tasked with contacting and 

controlling the timing of the NGO trucks. What was the main problem 

that made him ineffective? 

Introduction of character and issue prompt by mentor: 

b. Let’s talk with LT Perez directly. You can ask him questions 

concerning the NGO trucks. 

Character interview opportunity with 1LT Perez:

a. Free text interface for the student to type in any question. 

b. 1LT Perez answers question. 

c. Repeat interview process until student decides to end interview. 

Follow-up question asked by mentor:

a. Having heard from LT Perez, what do you see as the main problem 

that made him ineffective in this mission? 

Feedback by mentor based on natural language understanding:

b. I agree (disagree). LT Perez did not share the same vision of the intent 

of this mission as CPT Young. He did not understand that site 

preparation and stopping the NGO convoy were both essential aspects 

of the mission. LT Perez needed to increase the time available for 

preparing the food distribution site by delaying the NGO trucks at a 

safe distance. He also needed to make sure the site was adequately 

prepared and ready to accept the truck convoy. CPT Young’s failure 

was in not creating a shared vision of intent with his subordinate 

officers. 
A-7 

6. See the bigger picture 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on The Bigger 

Picture: 

a. How does our operation support 

the bigger plan? 

b. Given this problem, what are the 

implications to the tactical 

situation? 

c. Are there strategic or operational 

implications? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s move on to consider the bigger picture. In your opinion, how 

does a food distribution operation like this one fit into a bigger plan? 

b. How did the Soldiers in this company view the bigger picture, and 

how did this affect their operations or strategies? 

7. Visualize the battlefield 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Visualizing the 

Battlefield: 

a. How do we visualize the 

battlefield right now in terms of 

time, space, and forces? 

b. What will the battlespace look 

like in 30 minutes? 1 hour? 

Longer? 

c. How do you see the end state? 

Describe it. 

d. How can this situation get worse? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s move on and try to visualize the battlefield. What do you think 

will happen next in this situation? What are the branches and 

sequels? 

b. CPT Young was certainly upset about how things turned out. How do 

think he visualized the battlefield during this operation? 

8. Consider contingencies and remain flexible 

Topic Area Instructional Flow of Events in TLAC-XL 

TLAC questions on Contingencies: 

a. What can we do in our planning 

and preparation to avoid or 

mitigate this situation? 

b. What branches or sequels should 

we consider? 

c. What information requirements do 

we have for those branches? 

TLAC-oriented questions asked by mentor: 

a. Let’s conclude by talking about contingencies and flexibility. If you 

the company commander in this mission, what contingencies would 

you have planned for? 

b. How would you characterize the flexibility of CPT Young? Did 

flexibility play a role in how this mission turned out? 
A-8 
B-1 

APPENDIX B 

RESEARCH ON SCENARIO DIFFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO 

AFFECTIVE, COGNITIVE, AND PERSONALITY INDICES6

Overview 

 Research was conducted to examine how effective different types of media (film, 

PowerPoint, and text) were for presenting a scenario/case study. A variety of criteria were used, 

including memory of scenario details, memory of character dialog, emotional reactions to the 

materials, and personality profile of the protagonist. Eighty-eight undergraduate participants 

from a Midwestern university participated in the study for general psychology course credit. 

Particiapnts ranged in age from 18 to 31, with an average age of 19.48 years (SD = 2.09). 

Approximately 53% of the particpants were female, and approximately 47% were male. 

Design and Procedure 

 Participants were randomly assigned to one of three scenario conditions: film, 

PowerPoint, or text. Each scenario condition presented the Power Hungry story delivered in a 

different form of media. The film condition (n = 31) represented the highest level of mediarichness of the Power Hungry story, with full audio and moving images of characters and story 

activities. The PowerPoint condition represented a lower level of media-richness and fidelity 

than the film. In the Power Point condition (n = 28), over 100 still images from the Power 

Hungry film were used in conjunction with the complete audio soundtrack from the Power 

Hungry film. Rather than appearing like a standard PowerPoint presentation found in lectures 

and briefings, the PowerPoint version of Power Hungry is closer in presentation to a historical 

documentary that uses still photos and art work in conjunction with narration and recreated 

character dialog. The PowerPoint version of Power Hungry represents technology that is readily 

accessible to PowerPoint savvy instructors who wish to use something other than a paper-based 

case study in their classrooms. An image from the PowerPoint version of the scenario is 

presented in Figure B-1. 

Lastly, the text condition (n = 29) represented the least media-rich scenario condition. In 

this condition, students read a paper-based version of the story depicted in the film. The paperbased version of Power Hungry is written as a six-page short story, with character dialog from 

the film replicated verbatim as text. An excerpt from the scenario is presented in Figure B-2, and 

the complete text-based version can be found in Zbylut and Ward (2004b). After viewing or 

reading the scenario, students then completed a series of measures designed to gather their 

reactions to the scenario. 

 

6

 This research was conducted primarily by Jason N. Ward and Michelle L. Zbylut. 
B-2 

Figure B-1. Screenshot from the PowerPoint version of Power Hungry. 

CPT Young walked toward the command center, which was located on a relatively flat area near one of the 

ridges. Six armed Soldiers stood guard over two camouflage tents. The second tent was CPT Young’s tent and 

contained a table and some chairs. A cautious-looking Lieutenant Perez in his late twenties stood near the tent and 

held a map. Next to LT Perez stood a powerfully built African-American in his late forties. He was a seasoned 

non-commissioned officer (NCO) named First Sergeant Jones. 

CPT Young approached the lieutenant and first sergeant and saluted. LT Perez and 1SG Jones returned the 

salute. CPT Young looked at LT Perez pointedly and asked, “How’s it going, lieutenant? What’s your thinking 

here?” 

LT Perez, pointing to the map replied, “It’s going very well, sir. Villagers enter along this road below us. Road 

Alpha One. They exit ninety degrees to the East.” 

CPT Young then asked, “And the NGO trucks come in...?” 

Perez pointed to the left and said, “...Road Bravo Three. We’ll stage them off the road, close to us. That’ll 

leave a path for the villagers’ departure.” 

CPT Young, continuing his questioning, asked, “Aren’t the trucks due at 1500 hours?” 

“Affirmative, sir,” replied LT Perez. 

CPT Young looked across the landscape at the filming crew. “Sergeant Major Pullman’s crew?” he asked LT 

Perez. 

LT Perez replied, “Yes, sir. Brigade’s been filming for about an hour.” 

“How many food distribution ops have you done, Perez?” CPT Young inquired. 

“First time, sir,” LT Perez replied matter of factly. 

CPT Young, looking out over the food distribution site, stated, “Gentlemen, we are responsible for the lives of 

one-hundred-twenty-two United States Soldiers. We do this thing right! I’ve done two of these ops. Not a lot, but 

enough to know that this one could go south on us.” CPT Young paused for dramatic effect before continuing. 

“The site stinks. Soft sand, a wide perimeter that’s going to spring more leaks than the Titanic, and only half the 

time we need to turn it into the world’s largest McDonald’s.” 

Figure B-2. Excerpt from the text-based version of Power Hungry. 

. 
B-3 

Measures 

 Self-Reported Arousal. After exposure to the scenario, participants completed five selfreport items from Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) arousal scale. Items were anchored with 

bipolar adjectives (relaxed/stimulated, calm/excited, sluggish/neutral, dull/jittery, and 

sleepy/wide awake) on a nine-point scale ranging from -4 to +4. Arousal scores were computed 

as the mean of the five items (α = .86). Positive and high scores indicate high energy, while 

negative scores indicate low energy. 

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). After completing the arousal 

instrument, participants completed Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative 

Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS consists of 20 adjectives, each anchored on a 5-point 

scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Participants were asked to 

indicate to what extent they experienced each emotion during the survey. Ten items on the 

PANAS reflected positive affect, and included emotions such as enthusiastic, proud, and alert. 

The remaining 10 items reflected negative affect, and included items such as distressed, upset, 

hostile, and nervous. Positive affect (α = .90) was operationalized as the mean across the 10 

positive items and negative affect (α = .89) was operationalized as the mean across the 10 

negative items. 

Memory of Character Dialogue. Participants completed five multiple-choice items that 

asked them to select the character responsible for uttering a specific phrase in the story. An 

example is provided below. Memory of character dialogue was operationalized as the percent of 

items answered correctly. 

Which character said, “Sir, I heard him say he wants to rethink the fencing?” 

a) Captain Young 

b) First Lieutenant Perez 

c) Second Lieutenant Wychowski 

d) Sergeant Finn 

Memory of Scenario Details. Eight multiple-choice items assessed the extent to which 

participants recalled specific details from the scenario. Two examples of questions are provided 

below. Memory of scenario details was operationalized as the percent of items answered 

correctly. 

Captain Young took over command of the food distribution site because the 

prior commander 

a) was reassigned elsewhere. 

b) was notified of a death in the family. 

c) was critically wounded. 

d) needed his appendix removed. 
B-4 

The primary reason that Command Sergeant Major Pullman was on location 

was to 

a) help manage the food distribution to the villagers. 

b) direct people who were videotaping the food distribution. 

c) assume command in the event that Captain Young failed. 

d) assist Captain Young in dealing with the local population. 

Personality Ratings of CPT Young. One of the original research questions early in the 

AXL project was the question of whether or not characters had more “personality” when 

depicted in story-based films. In order to assess whether CPT Young character’s was being 

depicted similarly across the three types of presentation, participants were asked to provide 

ratings of CPT Young’s personality on the “Big Five” factors of personality. These five factors 

were extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional 

stability. The five factor model was selected as a basis for measurement because personality 

research suggests that human personality can be broadly described using five factors of 

personality (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002; Paunonen, Jackson, Trzebinski, & Fostreling, 1992). 

Participants were provided definitions of each personality trait, and these definitions were 

provided below in Figure B-3. After reading the definitions, participants were told to evaluate 

CPT Young on each of the five factors. Ratings were anchored on a five-point scale ranging 

such that 1 represented the opposite of the trait (e.g., extremely introverted as opposed to 

extremely extraverted) and 5 represented embodiment of the trait (e.g., extremely introverted). 

A rating of 3 represented a neutral rating for the trait (e.g., neither introverted not extraverted). 

EXTRAVERSION: Individuals who are extraverted enjoy social situations. They are outgoing, sociable, talkative, 

assertive, and active. Conversely, introverted individuals tend to be shy and apprehensive in social situations.

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE: Individuals who are open to experience are broad-minded and like to try new things. 

They tend to be curious, cultured, creative, and imaginative. Conversely, individuals who are closed to experience 

do not like to try new things or be exposed to different experiences. They tend to be narrow-minded and 

unimaginative.

AGREEABLENESS: Agreeable individuals tend to be cooperative, good-natured, easy to get along with, and trusting 

of others. They also tend to be forgiving and softhearted. Conversely, disagreeable individuals tend to be 

uncooperative, difficult to get along with, untrusting, and insensitive to others. 

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: Conscientious individuals tend to be dependable, responsible, organized, thorough, and 

hardworking. They also tend to strive for achievement. Conversely, unconscientious individuals tend to be 

unreliable, irresponsible, careless, and disorganized. They do not exert effort toward achieving goals.

EMOTIONAL STABILITY: Individuals who are emotionally stable tend to be calm, composed, and relaxed. They 

also tend to be upbeat and confident and do not allow negative emotions to control their behavior. Conversely, 

individuals who are emotionally unstable experience a wide variety of negative emotions in their daily lives. They 

are prone to negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, sadness, embarrassment, worry, and insecurity. 

Figure B-3. Personality Factor Definitions provided to participants. 
B-5 

Results 

Time to Complete Scenario 

 One indicator of efficiency of content delivery is how long it took individuals to complete 

the scenario. In the instance of the film and PowerPoint conditions, the time allocated to 

complete the scenario was pre-established; both the film and the PowerPoint presentation take 

approximately 13 minutes to run. In the text condition, however, the time to read the scenario 

was within control of the participant. The data collector recorded the time it took to complete the 

scenario for 25 of the 29 participants in the text condition. On average, it took participants 22.40 

minutes to read the scenario (SD = 3.5 minutes, Minimum = 18 minutes, Maximum = 29 

minutes). Thus, it appears that both film and PowerPoint can deliver case study content more 

quickly than can a text-based scenario. 

Self-reported Arousal 

 A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the impact of 

scenario condition on arousal levels. The ANOVA was statistically significant, F(2, 85) = 3.95, 

p < .05. Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni corrections indicated that the film (M = 1.23, SD = 

1.46) was more arousing than the PowerPoint presentation (M = .26, SD = 1.09, p < .05), but not 

significantly more arousing than the text condition (M = .51, SD = 1.54). The PowerPoint 

presentation did not differ significantly from text with respect to self-reported arousal levels. 

Thus, film appears to result in higher levels of reported arousal than the PowerPoint presentation, 

but does not result in substantially greater levels of arousal than text. Figure B-4 graphs the 

mean arousal level across scenario condition. 

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Film PowerPoint Text

Scenario Condition

Self-reported Arousal

Figure B-4. Self-reported arousal across scenario condition. 
B-6 

Positive and Negative Affect 

 A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of scenario condition on 

positive affect. The ANOVA was not statistically significant, F(2, 85) = .91, p = ns. Regardless 

of condition, participants tended to report that they experienced moderately high levels of 

positive affect. However, a one-way ANOVA that examined the impact of scenario condition on 

negative affect was significant, F(2, 85) = 9.63, p < .001. Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni 

corrections indicated that the film (M = 2.32, SD = .68) was associated with stronger negative 

affect than either the PowerPoint (M = 1.66, SD = .62, p < .001) or text conditions (M = 1.69, SD

= .65, p < .001). PowerPoint and text conditions did not differ significantly from one another 

with respect to negative affect. The means and standard deviations for both types of affect are 

reported in Table B-1. 

Table B-1 

Means and Standard Deviations for Positive and Negative Affect in Different Scenario Conditions 

 Positive Affect Negative Affect

Scenario M SD M SD 

Film 2.97 .77 2.32 .68 

PowerPoint 2.69 .76 1.67 .62 

Text 2.87 .91 1.69 .65 

Memory of Character Dialogue 

 A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of scenario condition on 

participant ability to correctly recognize which characters were responsible for saying different 

things in the Power Hungry story. The ANOVA indicated that memory of character dialog was 

significantly different between conditions, F(2, 85) = 5.62, p < .01. Moreover, post hoc analyses 

with Bonferroni corrections indicated that memory of character dialogue was significantly higher 

in the film condition (M = 81% correct, SD = 22) than in the text condition (M = 61% correct, SD

= 24). Although memory of character dialogue appeared higher in the film condition than in the 

PowerPoint condition (M = 71% correct, SD = 23, p < .01), this difference was not significant. 

Memory of Scenario Details 

A one-way ANOVA indicated that the number of details recalled from the Power Hungry

scenario differed between conditions, F(2, 85) = 19.45, p < .001. Post hoc analyses with 

Bonferroni corrections indicated that fewest details were recalled in the PowerPoint condition (M

= 49% correct, SD = 19), with significantly more details remembered in the film (M = 70% 

correct, SD = 17, p < .001) and text conditions (M = 78% correct, SD = 17, p < .001). Although 

text appeared to provide a slight advantage over film with respect to memory of scenario details, 

this difference was not significant. 
B-7 

Character Personality 

 One of the original research interests in creating a filmed case study was the idea that 

film would be more likely to convey character personality than other forms of media. To 

examine the question of whether film is more likely to produce characters with “personality” 

than other types of media, a profile analysis was conducted to examine if (1) participants were 

able to differentiate between different personality traits for CPT Young and (2) different 

personality profiles for CPT Young emerged as a result of scenario condition. 

A profile analysis essentially is a repeated-measures ANOVA conducted in a multivariate 

framework. Profile analysis allows for different dependent variables that are based on the same 

measurement scale (in this case, ratings of personality for each of the five traits of personality) to 

be treated as a within-subjects variable. In this research, personality ratings were the dependent 

variable in a 3X5 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with scenario condition serving 

as a between-subjects factor (film, PowerPoint, and text) and personality traits serving as a 

within-subjects factor (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, 

and emotional stability). 

One of the advantages of conducting a profile analysis using MANOVA is that 

MANOVA provides statistical tests of interaction and main effects (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). 

This particular research was most interested in the main effects in the profile analysis. 

Specifically, a main effect for personality trait would indicate that individuals were able to 

discern that CPT Young had different levels of different personality traits (i.e., CPT Young’s 

personality was not “flat”). To the extent that CPT Young has different levels of personality 

attributes, this might provide one indicator that CPT Young has a complex personality that can 

be conveyed through story form. Additionally, a main effect for scenario would indicate that 

mean differences on average ratings exist with respect to the personality profiles generated for 

each scenario. 

The average personality profile for CPT Young in each scenario condition is depicted in 

Figure B-5. Using Wilks’ lambda as a criterion, results indicated an interaction effect was not 

present, F(8, 164) = .74, p = ns. However, both personality trait and scenario main effects were 

present. First, a main effect for trait was present, F(4, 82) = 20.36, p < .001. This finding 

indicates that across conditions, CPT Young received different ratings on different personality 

traits. Such a finding indicates that CPT Young’s personality was not “flat” and that CPT Young 

was rated differently on the five different factors of personality. Thus, this finding provides 

evidence that case studies that are told as stories have characters that have human-like 

personalities. Table B-2 provides t-tests comparing the different ratings for the interested reader. 
B-8 

1

2

3

4

5

open consc extra agree em stab

Personality Trait

Rating

Movie

PowerPoint

Text

Figure B-5. CPT Young's Personality Profile by Scenario Condition 

Table B-2 

Paired-samples T-tests Comparing Personality Ratings by Personality Trait 

(Across Scenario Conditions) 

Personality Factor Pair Tested t df p 

Agreeableness—Conscientiousness -8.09 87 .000* 

Agreeableness—Emotional Stability -7.72 87 .000* 

Agreeableness—Extraversion 6.94 87 .000* 

Agreeableness—Openness to Experience 4.52 87 .000* 

Openness to Experience—Emotional Stability -3.70 87 .000* 

Openness to Experience—Conscientiousness -3.56 87 .001* 

Openness to Experience—Extraversion 3.41 87 .001* 

Conscientiousness—Emotional Stability -.38 87 .705 

Extraversion—Conscientiousness .35 87 .729 

Extraversion—Emotional Stability .07 87 .944 

Note: * Bonferroni correction sets p < .005 for significance. 
B-9 

In addition to a main effect for personality trait, a main effect for scenario condition also 

was present, F(2, 85) = 7.51, p < .001. Such findings indicate that, in general, some conditions 

yielded a higher average personality rating than other conditions. In looking at the personality 

profiles depicted in Figure B-5, the main effect for scenario condition becomes more evident. 

Specifically, a similar personality profile is generated in each scenario condition, with CPT 

Young being rated much lower with respect to agreeableness than on the other personality traits. 

However, while the personality ratings generated from the PowerPoint and text conditions are 

virtually identical, the ratings generated from the film condition tend to be lower (see Table B-3). 

Of particular note, in the film condition CPT Young came across as disagreeable, while CPT 

Young was rated as neither agreeable nor disagreeable in the PowerPoint and text conditions. 

Similarly, CPT Young received much lower ratings on the emotional stability and openness to 

experience factors in the film as opposed to text and PowerPoint conditions. Since CPT Young 

was created to represent a disagreeable, hotheaded, rigid, and abrasive leader, these findings 

suggest that the film may have presented a more accurate representation of CPT Young’s 

personality. 

Table B-3 

Mean Personality Ratings by Personality Factor and Scenario Condition 

 Scenario Condition

Personality Factor 

Film 

(n = 31) 

PowerPoint 

(n = 28) 

Text 

(n = 29) 

Openness to Experience 2.84 3.29 3.48 

Conscientiousness 3.42 3.86 3.79 

Extraversion 3.61 3.89 3.72 

Agreeableness 2.16 2.79 2.83 

Emotional Stability 3.23 4.11 3.90 

Summary of Results 

 In general, film consistently performed better than or as good as alternative media 

formats for delivering case study material. Film also was a more expedient way to deliver case 

study content, requiring only 13-minutes to present the film as opposed to an average of 22 

minutes to read the text-based version of the story. 

With respect to affective variables, film was reported to be more arousing than 

PowerPoint and about as arousing as text. While all scenario formats appeared to result in 

moderate levels of positive affect, the film resulted in reports of higher negative affect than the 

PowerPoint and text versions of the scenario. In sum, these findings indicate that the film 
B-10 

version is an effective delivery format for impacting both emotional activation (i.e., arousal) and 

emotional valence (i.e., positive and negative affect). 

With respect to memory of scenario details, film outperformed PowerPoint and yielded 

statistically similar results to text. With respect to memory of character dialogue, film 

outperformed text and yielded statistically similar results to PowerPoint. The film also appeared 

to do a better job at conveying the personality of CPT Young, with CPT Young coming across as 

more disagreeable, less emotionally stable, and less open to experience in the film format than in 

the text and PowerPoint format. Taken together, these results suggest that film is superior in 

conveying specific types of information, particularly information about characters. While 

character information may not be important to the learning objectives of all case studies (e.g., 

case studies used to examine decision making), case studies that are used to understand the 

phenomenon of leadership require a good depiction of people (i.e., character). Consequently, 

filmed case studies might be better than other less-media rich case studies for use in leadership 

instruction.