Instructor-Led Versus Automated Feedback in Cloud Security Laboratories: A Controlled Evaluation of Configuration Error Correction

Authors

  • Leon Bauer Department of Information Systems and Human Factors, United Arab Emirates University Author
  • Jamal Rahimi Department of Information Systems and Human Factors, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Author

Abstract

Cloud security laboratories can provide immediate automated feedback, but instructors may identify contextual errors that automated checks miss. We compared instructor-led and automated feedback in a controlled evaluation involving 102 participants completing six cloud-security configuration laboratories. Tasks covered network policy, IAM, secrets handling, logging, encryption, and misconfiguration remediation. Participants were assessed on first-attempt accuracy, time to correction, recurrence of the same error class, and performance on a final unseen task. Automated feedback shortened time to correction for syntax and policy-format errors, whereas instructor feedback produced larger reductions in recurring conceptual errors. Final-task accuracy was similar overall, but participants who received instructor feedback performed better on permission-inheritance and threat-model reasoning. Automated feedback generated consistent guidance and allowed faster iteration, while instructors varied in response time and level of detail. A combined model, in which automated checks handled deterministic errors and instructors focused on reasoning-intensive issues, achieved the best efficiency in a secondary analysis. Feedback design should therefore match the type of error being corrected rather than assuming one delivery mechanism is universally superior.

References

1. Azam MA. Desktop Display Stand for Electronic Tablets and Screens. GB Patent 6,509,489. 2026. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Kh7pTrcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Kh7pTrcAAAAJ:eQOLeE2rZwMC

2. Nazir M. Effectiveness of hands-on lab training for improving zero-trust and identity-access management competencies among hybrid cloud engineers. Journal of Computing, Intelligence and Information Sciences. 2023. Available from: https://jciis.com/index.php/jciis/article/view/2023-01-02

3. Rose S, Borchert O, Mitchell S, Connelly S. Zero trust architecture. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2020;NIST SP 800-207. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-207.

4. Swanson M, Bowen P, Phillips AW, Gallup D, Lynes D. Contingency planning guide for federal information systems. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2010;NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-34r1.

5. Grance T, Nolan T, Burke K, Dudley R, White G, Good T. Guide to test, training, and exercise programs for IT plans and capabilities. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2006;NIST SP 800-84. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-84.

6. Petersen R, Santos D, Wetzel K, Smith MC, Witte G. Workforce framework for cybersecurity (NICE Framework). Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2020;NIST SP 800-181 Rev. 1. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181r1.

7. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci. 1988;12(2):257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.

8. Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kraiger K, Smith-Jentsch KA. The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012;13(2):74-101. doi:10.1177/1529100612436661.

9. Sitzmann T. A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(2):489-528. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x.

10. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol. 1988;52:139-183. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.

11. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

12. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(23):8410-8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

13. Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, Burke CS, Stagl KC, Goodwin GF, et al. Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2008;50(6):903-933. doi:10.1518/001872008X375009.

14. Baldwin TT, Ford JK. Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Pers Psychol. 1988;41(1):63-105. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x.

15. Arthur W Jr, Bennett W Jr, Edens PS, Bell ST. Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(2):234-245. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234.

16. Aguinis H, Kraiger K. Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:451-474. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505.

17. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.

18. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.

issue7

Published

2026-06-01

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 01 (2026): Agentic AI, Intelligent Automation and Emerging Computing Frontiers

Section

Articles

License

Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.