Empirical evidence from a connectivist Competitive Intelligence Massive Open Online Course (CI cMOOC) proof of concept

Authors

  • Gianita Bleojua
  • Alexandru Capatinaa
  • Valter Vairinhosb
  • Rozalia Nistora
  • Nicolas Lescac

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v9i3.512

Keywords:

Market Market Intelligence, Business Intelligence, Competitive Intelligence, Information Systems, Geo-Economics

Abstract

This study proposes a competitive intelligence connectivist Massive Open Online Course (CI cMOOC) proof of concept and highlights the interactions among content, context and community to explore relevance in CI cMOOC behavior. The CI cMOOC proof of concept was empirically tested with an online purposive sampling to target a qualified audience of similar and dissimilar information-rich cases, providing evidence about content-context-community competing influence on CI knowledge. The results revealed how the CI learning community perceive the capability of a cMOOC to train foreknowledge practices, given the best match between its content and context. The findings outline that tailored learning approach of the instructor influences the CI learning community’s satisfaction with the content. The study facilitates theory development in addressing the emerging paradigm of an open intelligence approach to cMOOC collective training. Within boundaries of empirical return on experience of qualified respondents, the research framework strengthens trust in supervised interpretive judgment of CI learners confronted with anticipating competitive challenges.

References

Baber, C., Attfield, S., Conway, G., Rooney, C. and Kodagoda, N., 2016. Collaborative sensemaking during simulated Intelligence Analysis Exercises. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 86, pp.94-108.

Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V.O. and Lan, W.Y., 2010. Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), pp.61-80.

Bratianu, C. ed., 2015. Organizational Knowledge Dynamics: Managing Knowledge Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation: Managing Knowledge Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation. IGI Global.

Bruff, D.O., Fisher, D.H., McEwen, K.E. and Smith, B.E., 2013. Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), p.187.

Burd, E.L., Smith, S.P. and Reisman, S., 2015. Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(1), pp.37-49.

Calof, J., Richards, G. and Santilli, P., 2017. Integration of business intelligence with corporate strategic management. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 7(3).

Chang, J.W. and Wei, H.Y., 2016. Exploring engaging gamification mechanics in massive online open courses. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), pp.177-204.

Chau, M., Wong, A., Wang, M., Lai, S., Chan, K.W., Li, T.M., Chu, D., Chan, I.K. and Sung, W.K., 2013. Using 3D virtual environments to facilitate students in constructivist learning. Decision Support Systems, 56, pp.115-121.

Cheng, G. and Chau, J., 2013. Exploring the relationship between students' self-regulated learning ability and their ePortfolio achievement. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, pp.9-15.

Daniel, J., 2012. Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2012(3).

DeBoer, J., Ho, A.D., Stump, G.S. and Breslow, L., 2014. Changing “course” reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online

courses. Educational researcher, 43(2), pp.7484.

Etzkowitz, H., 2010. The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics Publ.

Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L. and García-Peñalvo, F.J., 2016. From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), p.24.

Fuld, L.M., 1995. The new competitor intelligence: the complete resource for finding, analyzing, and using information about your competitors (pp. 417-436). New York: Wiley.

Hew, K.F. and Cheung, W.S., 2014. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational research review, 12, pp.45-58.

Hood, N., Littlejohn, A. and Milligan, C., 2015. Context counts: How learners' contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, pp.83-91.

Hu, P.J.H. and Hui, W., 2012. Examining the role of learning engagement in technologymediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision support systems, 53(4), pp.782-792.

Huang, L., Zhang, J. and Liu, Y., 2017. Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), pp.84-91.

Hwang, H. and Takane, Y., 2014. Generalized structured component analysis: A componentbased approach to structural equation modeling. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Joksimović, S., Dowell, N., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Dawson, S. and Graesser, A.C., 2018. Exploring development of social capital in a CMOOC through language and discourse. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, pp.54-64.

Jordan, K., 2014. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1).

Kahaner, L., 1997. Competitive intelligence: how to gather analyze and use information to move your business to the top. Simon and Schuster. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M., 2016. Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), pp.441450

Karagiorgi, Y. and Symeou, L., 2005. Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), pp.1727.

Kent, C., Laslo, E. and Rafaeli, S., 2016. Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 97, pp.116-128. Leckart, S., 2012. The Stanford education experiment could change higher learning forever. Wired Magazine, 20, pp.122-128.

Lewin, K., 1946. Force field analysis. The 1973 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, pp.111-13.

Littlejohn, A. and Milligan, C., 2015. Designing MOOCs for professional learners: Tools and patterns to encourage self-regulated learning. eLearning Papers, 42.

Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C. and Margaryan, A., 2012. Charting collective knowledge: Supporting self-regulated learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(3), pp.226-238.

Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task–oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, 14(4).

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M. and Littlejohn, A., 2015. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, pp.77-83.

McClure, M.W., 2013. MOOCs: Hope and hype in viral technologies and policies. Excellence in Higher Education, 4(1), pp.7-24. McGonagle, J.J. and Vella, C.M., 2002. Bottom line competitive intelligence. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Mertens, A., Stöter, J. and Zawacki-Richter, O., 2014. Predictors of perceived importance and acceptance of digital delivery modes in higher

education. Research in Learning Technology, 22.

Moore, A.H., Fowler, S.B. and Watson, C.E., 2007. Active learning and technology: Designing change for faculty, students, and institutions. Educause Review, 42(5), pp.4244.

Ospina-Delgado, J. and Zorio-Grima, A., 2016. Innovation at universities: A fuzzy-set approach for MOOC-intensiveness. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), pp.1325-1328.

Patton, K. M. (2005). The role of scanning in open intelligence systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(9), 10821093.

Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M., 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of engineering education, 95(2), pp.123-138.

Ranga, M., and Etzkowitz, H. 2015. Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. In Entrepreneurship and knowledge exchange (pp. 117-158). Routledge. Sanchez, G., 2013. PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley: Trowchez Editions, 383, p.2013.

Shapiro, H.B., Lee, C.H., Roth, N.E.W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M. and Canelas, D.A., 2017. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110, pp.3550.

Shen, C.W. and Kuo, C.J., 2015. Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, pp.568-577.

Søilen, K.S., 2016. A research agenda for intelligence studies in business. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 6(1).

Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H., 2010. Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer.

Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Wosnitza, M. and Schroeder, U., 2015. A cluster analysis of MOOC stakeholder perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(1), pp.74-90.

Zimmerman, B.J., 2000. Attaining selfregulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-02-10

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2019): Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business

Section

Article

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).