Surprise-enhanced and technology-mediated learning: a two-country study

Abstract

We develop a theoretical model of surprise-enhanced technology-mediated learning (STL) that builds on evolutionary biological ideas. The model predicts that in technology-mediated learning tasks made up of several discrete learning modules, the presence of a simulated surprise event eliciting negative emotions immediately before a discrete learning module will lead to enhanced learning associated with the module. An experiment involving 617 participants in two countries, USA and Mexico, is used to test the STL model. The participants reviewed six Web-based learning modules about terms used in international trade transactions and then took a test on what they had learned. Data from three experimental conditions were contrasted: two treatment and one control conditions. The two treatment conditions incorporated negative surprises in the form of Web-based screens immediately before Module 4. The surprise screens showed a snake in attack position and a computer malfunction warning, and were absent in the control condition. The participants in both surprise conditions performed significantly better than those in the control condition for Module 4. The learning enhancements were virtually the same regardless of country and type of surprise stimulus (snake attack or computer malfunction screen).

Appendices

Appendix 1: Content of the learning modules

Below are the contents of each of the six Web-based learning modules employed in the experiment discussed here. These learning modules are about terms used in international trade transactions, which are collectively referred to as Incoterms.

1.1 Module 1

The global economy has given businesses broader access than ever before to markets all over the world. Goods are sold in more countries, in larger quantities, and in greater variety. But as the volume and complexity of international sales increase, so do possibilities for misunderstandings and costly disputes when sales contracts are not adequately drafted.

Incoterms, the official International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules for the interpretation of trade terms, facilitate the conduct of international trade. Reference to Incoterms 2000 in a sales contract defines clearly the parties’ respective obligations and reduces the risk of legal complications.

Since the creation of Incoterms by ICC in 1936, this undisputed worldwide contractual standard has been regularly updated to keep pace with the development of international trade. Incoterms 2000 take account of the recent spread of customs-free zones, the increased use of electronic communications in business transactions, and changes in transport practices. Incoterms 2000 offer a simpler and clearer presentation of the 13 definitions, all of which have been revised.

Frequently, parties to a contract are unaware of the different trading practices in their respective countries. This can give rise to misunderstandings, disputes, and litigation, with all the waste of time and money that this entails. In order to remedy these problems, the International Chamber of Commerce first published in 1936 a set of international rules for the interpretation of trade terms. These rules were known as “Incoterms 1936.” Amendments and additions were later made in 1953, 1967, 1976, 1980, 1990, and presently in 2000 in order to bring the rules in line with current international trade practices.

1.2 Module 2

The purpose of Incoterms is to provide a set of international rules for the interpretation of the most commonly used trade terms in foreign trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree.

It should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to matters relating to the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract of sale with respect to the delivery of goods sold (in the sense of “tangibles,” not including “intangibles” such as computer software).

It appears that two particular misconceptions about Incoterms are very common. First, Incoterms are frequently misunderstood as applying to the contract of carriage rather than to the contract of sale. Second, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to provide for all the duties, which parties may wish to include in a contract of sale.

As has always been underlined by ICC, Incoterms deal only with the relation between sellers and buyers under the contract of sale, and, moreover, only do so in some very distinct respects.

While it is essential for exporters and importers to consider the very practical relationship between the various contracts needed to perform an international sales transaction—where not only the contract of sale is required, but also contracts of carriage, insurance, and financing—Incoterms relate to only one of these contracts, namely the contract of sale. Nevertheless, the parties’ agreement to use a particular Incoterm would necessarily have implications for the other contracts.

1.3 Module 3

The Incoterms are divided in four groups based on their arrangement. Departure is the base for group E, main carriage unpaid is the base for group F, main carriage paid is the base for group C, and arrival is the base for group D.

Group E is formed by: EXW—Ex Works (… named place). The Incoterms embraced by group F are: FCA—Free Carrier (… named place), FAS—Free Alongside Ship (… named port of shipment), and FOB—Free On Board (… named port of shipment). Group C is formed by: CFR—Cost and Freight (… named port of destination), CIF—Cost, Insurance, and Freight (… named port of destination), CPT—Carriage Paid To (… named place of destination), and CIP—Carriage and Insurance Paid To (… named place of destination). Finally, group D is formed by: DAF—Delivered At Frontier (… named place), DES—Delivered Ex Ship (… named port of destination), DEQ—Delivered Ex Quay (… named port of destination), DDU—Delivered Duty Unpaid (… named place of destination), and DDP—Delivered Duty Paid (… named place of destination).

Not all the Incoterms 2000 are appropriate for all modes of transportation. They are six that must be used exclusively when the transport is maritime and/or inland waterway. These Incoterms are FAS, FOB (group F), CFR, CIF (group C), DES and DEQ (group D). On the other hand, EXW (group E), FCA (group F), CPT, CIP (group C), and DAF, DDU, and DDP (group D) are appropriate for any mode of transportation.

1.4 Module 4

The risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as the obligation to bear the costs relating to the goods, passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled his obligation to deliver the goods. Since the buyer should not be given the possibility to delay the passing of the risk and costs, all terms stipulate that the passing of risk and costs may occur even before delivery, if the buyer does not take delivery as agreed or fails to give such instructions (with respect to time for shipment and/or place for delivery) as the seller may require in order to fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods. It is a requirement for such premature passing of risk and costs that the goods have been identified as intended for the buyer or, as is stipulated in the terms, set aside for him (appropriation).

The “E”-term requires the seller to do no more than place the goods at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed place—usually at the seller’s own premises.

The “F”-terms require the seller to deliver the goods for carriage as instructed by the buyer.

The “C”-terms require the seller to contract for carriage on usual terms at his own expense. Therefore, a point up to which he would have to pay transport costs must necessarily be indicated after the respective “C”-term.

The “D”-terms require the seller to be responsible for the arrival of the goods at the agreed place or point of destination at the border or within the country of import.

1.5 Module 5

“Ex works” means that the seller delivers when he places the goods at the disposal of the buyer at the seller’s premises or another named place (i.e., works, factory, warehouse) not cleared for export and not loaded on any collecting vehicle. This term thus represents the minimum obligation for the seller, and the buyer has to bear all costs and risks involved in taking the goods from the seller’s premises. However, if the parties wish the seller to be responsible for the loading of the goods on departure and to bear the risks and all the costs of such loading, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale.

The seller must provide the goods and the commercial invoice, or its equivalent electronic message, in conformity with the contract of sale and any other evidence of conformity, which may be required by the contract. The seller must render the buyer, at the latter’s request, risk and expense, every assistance in obtaining, where applicable, any export license, or other official authorization necessary for the export of the goods. The buyer must pay the price as provided in the contract of sale. The buyer must bear all risks of loss of or damage to the goods from the time they have been delivered in accordance with the term’s delivery; and from the agreed date or the expiry date of any period fixed for taking delivery which arise because he fails to give notice in accordance with the notice of the seller, provided.

1.6 Module 6

“Free Carrier” means that the seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, to the carrier nominated by the buyer at the named place. It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading. If delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is not responsible for unloading. This term may be used irrespective of the mode of transport, including multimodal transport.

“Carrier” means any person who, in a contract of carriage, undertakes to perform or to procure the performance of transport by rail, road, air, sea, inland waterway or by a combination of such modes. If the buyer nominates a person other than a carrier to receive the goods, the seller is deemed to have fulfilled his obligation to deliver the goods when they are delivered to that person.

The delivery is completed: (a) if the named place is the seller’s premises, when the goods have been loaded on the means of transport provided by the carrier nominated by the buyer or another person acting on his behalf; (b) if the named place is anywhere other than (a), when the goods are placed at the disposal of the carrier or another person nominated by the buyer, or chosen by the seller in accordance with the contract of carriage, on the seller’s means of transport not unloaded.

If no specific point has been agreed within the named place, and if there are several points available, the seller may select the point at the place of delivery which best suits his purpose.

Appendix 2: Model and data validation results

Variance inflation factors (VIFs) are reported in Table 3. These VIFs were calculated simultaneously for all variables, based on a full collinearity test (Charoensukmongkol 2014; Daniel and Chatelain-Jardon 2013). This test enables the identification of both vertical and lateral collinearity, the latter being collinearity among predictor–criterion variable pairs, and also of common method bias (Daniel and Chatelain-Jardon 2013; Kock and Lynn 2012). Stone-Geisser Q ² coefficients (Geisser 1974; Stone 1974) are also shown for each of the six endogenous variables in the model, storing scores on learning tests for modules (M1–M6). Stone-Geisser Q ² coefficients are used for predictive validity assessment (Rejikumar 2013; Kock 2015a).

Table 3 Full collinearity VIFs and Q ² coefficients

The absence of full collinearity VIFs > 3.3 is an indication that the model is free of both multicollinearity and common method bias (Daniel and Chatelain-Jardon 2013; Kock and Lynn 2012; Lindell and Whitney 2001), which as we can see is the case with our model. The absence of negative Q ² coefficients is an indication of acceptable predictive validity in connection with all endogenous variables (Geisser 1974; Rejikumar 2013; Stone 1974; Kock 2015a), which is also the case with our model. Testing predictive validity is important here because all variables in our model are measured through single indicators, which precludes the use of other common validity tests in the context of confirmatory factor analyses (Thompson 2004), such as convergent and discriminant validity tests. Single-indicator measurement is a characteristic of the path analysis method, which differentiates it from structural equation modeling (Bowen and Guo 2011; Kline 2010).

Table 4 shows the skewness and excess kurtosis for all variables, as well as the results of two tests of normality: the classic Jarque–Bera test (Jarque and Bera 1980; Bera and Jarque 1981) and Gel and Gastwirth’s (2008) robust modification of this test. The results of the normality tests are shown in the columns labeled “Normal (Jarque–Bera)?” and “Normal (robust Jarque–Bera)?” The entry “Yes” indicates that the variable is normally distributed according to the test, and “No” that it is not normally distributed. As we can see, the results of both normality tests suggest that most of the variables were not normality distributed, supporting our decision to employ robust path analysis to test our hypotheses.

Table 4 Skewness, excess kurtosis, and normality tests

Living in a country does not necessarily mean that an individual is representative of that country’s national culture. Because of this, in studies including participants from different countries, it is important to assess the extent to which the participants “belong” to a national culture. This can be done through what is generally known as a manipulation check (Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran 2000; Maheswaran 1994).

We conducted a manipulation check to assess whether the participants were representative of the countries they lived in at the time of the study. In order to do so, we asked questions related to two dimensions of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions model for which the USA and Mexico were markedly different, namely the power distance and masculinity/femininity dimensions. We then compared the means of the answers, provided on Likert-type scales going from 1 to 5, and found statistically significant differences consistent with the differences in Hofstede’s (2001) model for both power distance (β = .213, P < .001) and masculinity/femininity (β = .118, P = .01). This suggests that the participants were representative of the countries they lived in at the time of the study.