Table 1 Confidence Tactics (CT) CT... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Confidence Tactics (CT)

CT Components	Treatment Group	Control
LR1: Are there clear statements, in terms of observable behaviors, of what is expected of the learners?	Objectives were stated in SAM at the beginning of each lesson and restated on guide-sheets. Reminders were stated in the confidence-enhancing e-mails (CEE). In addition, a performance exercise (see SO1) served to familiarize learners with what was expected of them.	Objectives were not stated, and a pretest was not provided.
LR2: Is there a means for learners to write their own goals or objectives?	SAM 2003 is a self-contained simulation environment, so this was not an option.	SAM 2003 is a self-contained simulation environment, so this was not an option.
SO1: Multiple entry points: Provide a pretest and multiple entry points into the instructional material.	The treatment group received a performance exercise that determined the level of expertise the learner brought to each exercise, and this allowed for the learner to enter the training/instructional material at differing points. Each learner received training/instructional materials only in areas of demonstrated deficiency. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	The control group received no such pretest/performance exercise and was required to take all of the training/instructional material regardless of previous knowledge, experience or expertise.
SO2: Is the content organized in a clear, easy-to-follow sequence?	The content was organized in a pretest-training-posttest sequence. The treatment group received a statement with each lesson assuring them the material was clear and easy-to-follow along with directions highlighting how to proceed through the pretest-training-posttest sequence. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	This group received no such explanation.
SO3: Are the tasks sequenced from simple to difficult within the material?	Materials in SAM 2003 follow a logical sequence and are generally sequenced from easy to more difficult in each lesson. However, only the treatment group received a statement assuring them of this fact. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	The tasks were sequenced from simple to difficult; however, the control group received no statement.
SO4: Is the overall challenge level appropriate for this audience?	Yes, but only in the treatment group was this stated to the learner. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but not stated.
SO5: Are the materials free of “trick” or excessively difficult questions or exercises?	Yes, but only this version stated this fact to the learner, and learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but this fact was not stated.
SO6: Are the exercises consistent with the objectives?	Yes, however, only this version stated the objectives to the learner before beginning. Learners were also reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but objectives were not stated.
SO7: Are there methods for self-evaluation?	Yes, SAM 2003 was set to display simple feedback for each task (e.g., correct or incorrect). Results were also displayed at the end of each exam as a percentage (e.g., 90% correct). Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	No feedback was provided, and no results were displayed.
PC1: Are learners given choices in sequencing? Can they sequence their study of different parts of the material?	All exercises in each module were presented at once, and learners were able to approach the lessons in any order they chose. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Learners were given the lessons in a particular sequence, one-at-a-time, with a specific due date.
PC2: Are learners allowed to go at their own pace?	Self-pacing was allowed with a due date established clearly up front, and all assignments were opened at the same time and stayed open until the due date with no time-limits for self-pacing. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Each exercise was timed. The time-limit was decided as follows: (a) examine the time it took for the students in the previous semester to complete exercises, (b) select the longest time for completion, and (c) add thirty minutes. The control group had ample time to complete the exercises but was not informed of this. Every control group subject finished each exercise before time had expired.
PC3: Are learners given opportunities to create their own exercises or methods of demonstrating competency?	Learners were given the opportunity for demonstrating further competency by creating their own exercises (such as an Access database) for extra credit or to take the place of a low test score. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Learners were given no such opportunity.
PC4: Are learners given choice over study location?	Yes—this was an internet-based class. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes—this was an internet-based class.
PC5: Are learners given the opportunity to record comments on how the materials could be made more interesting?	A blog and threaded discussion concerning the materials was set up to allow for comments. Learners were encouraged to participate in the CEEs.	There was no access to a blog or threaded discussion about materials.
PC6: Are learners given the opportunity for feedback and practice in a “low risk” environment where it is acceptable to make mistakes and learn from them?	On the pretest, training, and posttest, learners were given feedback regarding performance and were allowed multiple attempts at the posttest. They were reminded about these multiple attempts at the beginning of each exercise and in the CEEs. Only the first attempt was used to gather data to measure and compare performance.	The control group received no pretest, one timed attempt at the training with minimal computer-generated feedback, and one attempt at the posttest with no feedback concerning final performance.

CT Components	Treatment Group	Control
LR1: Are there clear statements, in terms of observable behaviors, of what is expected of the learners?	Objectives were stated in SAM at the beginning of each lesson and restated on guide-sheets. Reminders were stated in the confidence-enhancing e-mails (CEE). In addition, a performance exercise (see SO1) served to familiarize learners with what was expected of them.	Objectives were not stated, and a pretest was not provided.
LR2: Is there a means for learners to write their own goals or objectives?	SAM 2003 is a self-contained simulation environment, so this was not an option.	SAM 2003 is a self-contained simulation environment, so this was not an option.
SO1: Multiple entry points: Provide a pretest and multiple entry points into the instructional material.	The treatment group received a performance exercise that determined the level of expertise the learner brought to each exercise, and this allowed for the learner to enter the training/instructional material at differing points. Each learner received training/instructional materials only in areas of demonstrated deficiency. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	The control group received no such pretest/performance exercise and was required to take all of the training/instructional material regardless of previous knowledge, experience or expertise.
SO2: Is the content organized in a clear, easy-to-follow sequence?	The content was organized in a pretest-training-posttest sequence. The treatment group received a statement with each lesson assuring them the material was clear and easy-to-follow along with directions highlighting how to proceed through the pretest-training-posttest sequence. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	This group received no such explanation.
SO3: Are the tasks sequenced from simple to difficult within the material?	Materials in SAM 2003 follow a logical sequence and are generally sequenced from easy to more difficult in each lesson. However, only the treatment group received a statement assuring them of this fact. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	The tasks were sequenced from simple to difficult; however, the control group received no statement.
SO4: Is the overall challenge level appropriate for this audience?	Yes, but only in the treatment group was this stated to the learner. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but not stated.
SO5: Are the materials free of “trick” or excessively difficult questions or exercises?	Yes, but only this version stated this fact to the learner, and learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but this fact was not stated.
SO6: Are the exercises consistent with the objectives?	Yes, however, only this version stated the objectives to the learner before beginning. Learners were also reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes, but objectives were not stated.
SO7: Are there methods for self-evaluation?	Yes, SAM 2003 was set to display simple feedback for each task (e.g., correct or incorrect). Results were also displayed at the end of each exam as a percentage (e.g., 90% correct). Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	No feedback was provided, and no results were displayed.
PC1: Are learners given choices in sequencing? Can they sequence their study of different parts of the material?	All exercises in each module were presented at once, and learners were able to approach the lessons in any order they chose. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Learners were given the lessons in a particular sequence, one-at-a-time, with a specific due date.
PC2: Are learners allowed to go at their own pace?	Self-pacing was allowed with a due date established clearly up front, and all assignments were opened at the same time and stayed open until the due date with no time-limits for self-pacing. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Each exercise was timed. The time-limit was decided as follows: (a) examine the time it took for the students in the previous semester to complete exercises, (b) select the longest time for completion, and (c) add thirty minutes. The control group had ample time to complete the exercises but was not informed of this. Every control group subject finished each exercise before time had expired.
PC3: Are learners given opportunities to create their own exercises or methods of demonstrating competency?	Learners were given the opportunity for demonstrating further competency by creating their own exercises (such as an Access database) for extra credit or to take the place of a low test score. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Learners were given no such opportunity.
PC4: Are learners given choice over study location?	Yes—this was an internet-based class. Learners were reminded of this in the CEEs.	Yes—this was an internet-based class.
PC5: Are learners given the opportunity to record comments on how the materials could be made more interesting?	A blog and threaded discussion concerning the materials was set up to allow for comments. Learners were encouraged to participate in the CEEs.	There was no access to a blog or threaded discussion about materials.
PC6: Are learners given the opportunity for feedback and practice in a “low risk” environment where it is acceptable to make mistakes and learn from them?	On the pretest, training, and posttest, learners were given feedback regarding performance and were allowed multiple attempts at the posttest. They were reminded about these multiple attempts at the beginning of each exercise and in the CEEs. Only the first attempt was used to gather data to measure and compare performance.	The control group received no pretest, one timed attempt at the training with minimal computer-generated feedback, and one attempt at the posttest with no feedback concerning final performance.

Note: Adapted from Moller (1993) and Moller and Russell (1994). LR = Learning Requirements, SO = Success Opportunities, PC = Personal Control, CEE = Confidence-Enhancing E-mail.