Performing an agile literature review on “how managerial intellectual learning (MIL) can promote creativity” for illustration purpose

 

Working paper: jh-2021-03-02-a (https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2021/03/performing-agile-literature-review-on.html)

Performing an agile literature review on “how managerial intellectual learning (MIL) can promote creativity” for illustration purpose

 

 JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Dated: March 2, 2021

 

Abstract: Literature review, performed in an agile way, is useful for tapping into the repertoire of academic literature for busy learners, e.g. part-time MBA students. This article gives an illustration on an agile literature review exercise that examines the research theme of “how managerial intellectual learning can promote creativity”.  Six categories of academic ideas were gathered on the “what” and “how” of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) and creativity, as well as their relatedness.  More importantly, the agile literature review exercise offers an illustration on how an agile literature review can be performed in sync with busy managerial scholar-practitioners’ pace of life; this article demonstrates this method’s value for research work and deep-level intellectual learning purposes.

Key words: agile literature review, creativity, intellectual learning, managerial intellectual learning (MIL), literature review.

 

Introduction

Literature review skill is an important one for intellectual learning. It is a crucial skill that university students, e.g. in social sciences, are taught to master in their tertiary education. Nevertheless, most students that this writer, as lecturer on business and housing studies, comes across have difficulties to learn literature review skills. In response to this learning concern, the writer has been working on an approach to do literature review in an agile way, called the agile literature review approach (ALRA) (Ho, 2018a; 2018b). This article is an account to illustrate how to do literature review in an agile way with regard to a research task of the writer. The research task is “how managerial intellectual learning (MIL) (Ho, 2013; 2014) can foster creativity and engaged intellectual learning”. In this specific literature review context, MIL is a research topic propounded by this writer while research interest on creativity and engaged intellectual learning arise from the writer’s teaching, notably on the subject of entrepreneurship and innovation.

Academic ideas on intellectual learning and creativity as found via the agile literature review exercise

The prime literature review exercise direction is clear here, which is to gather and learn academic ideas that shed light on how managerial intellectual learning can foster creativity as well as promote intellectual learning engagement for management scholar-practitioners[1]. To achieve that, additional ideas about intellectual learning and creativity learning per se are also relevant.  Learning about them constitutes a secondary objective of this agile literature review exercise. Being agile in this review exercise context means being nimble, evolutionary and responsive, without ceding the commitment to deep-level intellectual learning[2]. It is thus not meant to be a one-time exercise that is comprehensive and vigorous. Rather, an agile literature review exercise is intended to in sync with the ongoing intellectual learning pace of busy practitioners, such as the management professionals studying for an MBA degree programme.

This literature review exercise took two days to perform in March 2021. The academic ideas collected and examined are grouped into five categories to facilitate intellectual learning and reflection on them. The six categories are: (1) nature of creativity, (2) factors affecting creativity, (3) creativity learning/ promotion methods, (4) nature of intellectual learning, (5) factors affecting intellectual learning and (6) intellectual learning methods. The literature search is done on Google Scholar as well as two UK University e-libraries. The literature review findings are presented in Table 1 as follows:

 

Table 1:  A set of gathered academic ideas related to managerial intellectual learning (MIL) for creativity, grouped in six categories

Categories	Academic ideas
1.1 Nature of creativity	“Most researchers have defined creativity with two key elements that have stayed consistent for more than six decades (see, e.g. Barron, 1955; Guilford, 1950; Stein, 1953). The first pillar of this definition is that creativity must represent something new or different. But novelty is not enough; to be creative, there is also an expectation of task appropriateness or usefulness. Both of these concepts are necessary for something to be creative” (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2014).
1.2 Nature of creativity	“The concept is generally defined as the ability to create novel and valuable ideas (Kolb, 2014; Piffer, 2012), and as a form of insight acquired through reorganizing problems (Mayer, 1995) that is essential to stimulating knowledge growth (Poon, Au, Tong, & Lau, 2014). Educators generally emphasize the changeable elements as an important ability to possess” (Huang, 2019).
1.3 Nature of creativity	“The recent Australian focus on ‘generic skills’ and ‘graduate attributes’ suggests that creativity can be seen as an ‘attitude’ (Central Queensland University), as a ‘way of thinking’ (Macquarie University and University of Western Australia) or as a component part of a suite of workplace skills (University of Canberra). What is surprising is that the relationships between these ideas about creativity and learning are not explicitly teased out” (Reid and Petocz, 2004).
1.4 Nature of creativity	“If we consider that creativity is a characteristic of a certain type of person, or people with certain sorts of personalities and behaviours, then it would be a simple matter to choose only students in our courses who had specific personality traits. Theories of creativity that support this idea look for the determinants of creative thinking. ….  Jungian theory describes four mind types that may be related to different styles of creative processes. …..” (Reid and Petocz, 2004).
1.5 Nature of creativity	“Past research mainly investigated creativity as an outcome variable of individual or teamwork, as ‘creative performance’ or ‘the creativity inherent in the delivered performance’ (Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou 2014; Gilson and Shalley 2004)” (Boon, Vangrieken and Dochy, 2016).
1.6 Nature of creativity	“Gilson and Shalley define team creative processes as ‘members working together in such a manner that they link ideas from multiple sources, delve into unknown areas to find better or unique approaches to a problem, or seek out novel ways of performing a task’ (2004, 454)” (Boon, Vangrieken and Dochy, 2016).
1.7 Nature of creativity	“Creativity can be defined as the development of ideas about products, services, practices, processes, and procedures that are judged to be (a) original and novel, and (b) appropriate and potentially useful” (Joo, Yang and McLean, 2014).
1.8 Nature of creativity	“… individual and group creativity is the starting point of innovation. Nevertheless, a successful innovation also depends on other components such as transfer of technology” (Sutanto, 2017).
2.1 Factors affecting creativity	“Various factors influence the development of creative potential, including everything from individual differences to the kinds of experiences and opportunities that creators experience throughout the lifespan” (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2014).
2.2 Factors affecting creativity	“Creativity is an inherent part of the everyday human experience. Certain conditions make it more or less likely to be expressed, but human creativity is resilient. It can bounce back even from seemingly systematic efforts to suppress it…” (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2014).
2.3. Factors affecting creativity	“To Sternberg and Lubart, creativity is the confluence of six factors: intellectual abilities, knowledge, intellectual styles, personality, motivation, and environmental context” (Zhang, 2015).
2.4 Factors affecting creativity	“Although it is undeniable that creativity stems from individual ability, whether or not individual creativity is motivated and implemented into a final product or service is a function of the work environment, or the contextual characteristics that may be involved in stimulating and supporting creativity (Amabile 1988, 1996; Lubart 1999; Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004). As Shalley and Gilson (2004) suggested, the major components of the contextual characteristics can be categorized into job, group, and organizational-level factors. These are all in the realm of management in general and human resource development (HRD) in particular” (Joo, Yang and McLean, 2014).
2.5 Factors affecting creativity	“… continuous learning, system connection, and embedded system are closely associated with the contextual mechanism, which leads to learning organization, whereas dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, and strategic leadership are more related to the organizational learning process. Despite the possible link between learning culture and employee creativity, however, little research has investigated the relationship between the two constructs” (Joo, Yang and McLean, 2014).
3.1 Creativity learning/ promotion methods	“Educators generally emphasize the changeable elements as an important ability to possess. Creativity can be enhanced through training (Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Torrance, 1972) and corresponding strategies have been developed (Fasko, 2001; Horng, Tsai, & Chung, 2016). Among these strategies is the Remote Associates Test (RAT), which requires participants to think divergently while considering various possible associations and then think convergently to determine the most suitable answer” (Huang, 2019).
3.2 Creativity learning/ promotion methods	“There are ‘‘multiple forms of creativity’’, according to Lehrer (2012, pp. XVIII-XIX), and ‘‘we are inspired by other people’’. Creativity is thus often a result of collaboration between people with different backgrounds and perspectives. One approach for facilitating learning of creativity in teams is the so-called ‘‘camp model’’ (Bager, 2011)” (Boge, 2012).
3.3 Creativity learning/ promotion methods	“Yet, although individuals do produce relatively more ideas, the ideas produced by teams tend to be more creative (Mumford et al. 2001). One of the reasons for this may be that team members can collectively reason with and build further on a shared idea and, in doing so, come up with new, highly original ideas” (Boon, Vangrieken and Dochy, 2016).
3.4 Creativity learning/ promotion methods	“As teaching is acknowledged as a creative activity, there is an expectation that creativity is addressed in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes but, as noted by Craft (2006), there is a tendency for it to be neglected in undergraduate education courses” (Watson, 2018).
3.5 Creativity learning/ promotion methods	“Universities are called upon to become centres for creativity and innovation at the heart of the knowledge economy”; they are encouraged to produce graduates with creative and problem solving skills required in the twenty-first century. However, the rigid education system within which teachers and teacher educators work makes it difficult, if not impossible, to introduce elements of creativity into their practice” (Watson, 2018).
4.1 Nature of intellectual learning	“Some research has shown that individuals favor different learning styles depending on personal preferences or environmental differences (James & Gardner, 1995; Ozata & Keskin, 2014; Park, 1997). The concept of distinct learning styles first gained credibility in the mid-20th century (Boyle, 1995; Nevo Hawk & Shah, 2007). Fleming and Mills (1992) used the VARK system, which defines four learning styles: visual learning-oriented, aural learning-oriented, read/write text learning-oriented, and kinesthetic-oriented (Klement, 2014)” (Huang, 2019).
4.2 Nature of intellectual learning	“Intellectual styles, an encompassing term for such constructs as cognitive style, learning style, mind style, thinking style, and teaching style, refer to people’s preferred ways of processing information and dealing with tasks. In Zhang and Sternberg’s (2005) Threefold Model of Intellectual Styles, all existing styles are classified into three types: Type I, Type II, and Type III styles.1 Type I intellectual styles suggest preferences for tasks that provide low degrees of structure, that require individuals to process information using more complex thinking, and that allow originality and high degrees of autonomy to do things in one’s own way. …. Type II intellectual styles denote preferences for tasks that are structured, that allow individuals to process information in a more simplistic manner, and that require conformity to traditional ways of doing things and high levels of respect for authority. ….. Type III styles may manifest the characteristics of either Type I or Type II styles, depending on the stylistic demands of a specific situation” (Zhang, 2015).
4.3 Nature of intellectual learning	“Resnick and Nelson-LeGall (1997) identify a number of characteristics of those who value intellectual activity. Such individuals, they claim, believe they have the right (and the obligation) to understand things and make things work…[and] that problems can be analyzed, that solutions often come from such analysis and that they are capable of that analysis. (pp. 149–150)” (Kuhn, 2002).
4.4 Nature of intellectual learning	“Intellectual ability is regarded here as the acquired repertoire of general cognitive skills that is available to a person at a particular point of time (Humphreys, 1968; Snow & Lohman, 1984). As Anderson (1996, p. 356) phrased it, ‘‘intelligence is the simple accrual and tuning of many small units of knowledge that in total produce complex cognition” (Prins, Veenman and Elshout, 2006).
4.5 Nature of intellectual learning	“Imagine that there is a fundamental learning experience. It is at once emotional and intellectual, mental and physical, social and personal, totally unique yet freely shared. There is a communal place where this experience becomes positively energized and charged. This is the kind of experience which I call "deep learning”” (Bentz, 1992)
4.6 Nature of intellectual learning	“The knowledge sought in intellectual learning is an interested knowledge. It does not claim ethical neutrality or objectivity. It is knowledge aimed toward the search for eternal values (or, if "eternal" is too grandiose, a return to classical values) such as goodness, truth, beauty, and justice. Intellectual learning is socially and politically responsible knowledge. Emotional learning is more simply a love for the fullness of human expression, or awareness of human spirit” (Bentz, 1992).
4.7 Nature of intellectual learning	“Drucker and Freud seem to agree on one thing: the goal of learning and/ or analysis is the renewal of the knowing subject. In other words, for them, there is something inherently therapeutic in the act of learning; though, needless to say, there are no guarantees in the act of learning” (Srinivasan, 2007).
5.1 Factors that affect intellectual learning	“Unrecognized and unacknowledged emotions negatively effect one's ability to be present and to act effectively and efficiently. Following the lead of Gregory Bateson (1972, see also Rieber, 1989), Satir stresses the importance of congruent communications for self-esteem and good relationships. Congruent communication is defined as being in touch with one's own feelings and verbalizing them in a direct but unaggressive manner” (Bentz, 1992).
5.2 Factors that affect intellectual learning	“The synthesis of intellectual and emotional learning is an attempt to get beyond the false dichotomizations of the two. Emotions are not "error factors," or "disturbances" in a rational process. Rather they are a driving force in social action” (Bentz, 1992).
5.3 Factors that affect intellectual learning	“… students with higher cognitive ability (quicker learners), and those who are more hard-working and well-organized (higher Conscientiousness) tend to perform better in educational settings. That is, ability and effort are important determinants of academic achievement; however, their application is driven by a third, to date often overlooked factor: intellectual curiosity” (Von Stumm, Hell, and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
5.4 Factors that affect intellectual learning	“Conscientiousness has been repeatedly shown to be positively related to the academic performance of university students (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Poropat, 2009) as well as to several job performance criteria across a broad range of occupations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Conscientiousness is comprised of six facets—Competence (efficacy), Order (planning ahead), Dutifulness (following rules), Achievement striving (effort), Self-Discipline, and Deliberation (Costa & McCrae, 1992)—that indicate individual differences in persistence, responsibility, and effort, all of which are associated with better academic and occupational performance” (Von Stumm, Hell, and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
5.5 Factors that affect intellectual learning	“… knowledge and expertise result from applying one’s reasoning ability. The direction and strength of such application, in turn, is directed by so-called investment traits (Cattell, 1943, 1971)—that is, personality characteristics that determine where, when and how people apply their mental capacity. Accordingly, investment traits explain interindividual differences in the pursuit of learning opportunities such as visiting museums and galleries, solving riddles and puzzles, and reading the newspapers. Hayes (1962) suggested that all variation in intelligence resulted from individual differences in the drive or motivation to pursue learning opportunities” (Von Stumm, Hell, and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
5.6 Factors that affect intellectual learning	"Epistemic curiosity refers to individual differences in seeking out opportunities for intellectual engagement, acquiring facts and knowledge, or simply the “drive to know” (Berlyne, 1954, p. 187), whereas perceptual curiosity is evoked by visual, auditory, and tactile stimulation and refers to a “drive to experience and feel” (Berlyne, 1954)” (Von Stumm, Hell, and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
6.1 intellectual learning methods	“…learning styles differ and it is important for knowledge workers to quickly come to terms with their style of learning. Some learn by taking notes, some by writing letters, some by lecturing, etc. If knowledge workers take the trouble to find out what their cognitive and learning styles are and decide to work further on improving it, they will see not only a considerable increase in productivity, but a tremendous sense of ease in the act of working” (Srinivasan, 2007).

 

The six categories in Table 1 are (1) nature of creativity, (2) factors affecting creativity, (3) creativity learning/ promotion methods, (4) nature of intellectual learning, (5) factors that affect intellectual learning and (6) intellectual learning methods. Academic ideas in categories 1 to 3 inform us the nature of creativity as well as factors and practices that influence creativity while those in categories 4 to 6 enrich our understanding on the nature, influencing factors and methods of intellectual learning. Intellectual learning involves combining and tuning pieces of knowledge to produce more complex cognition (item 4.4 of Table 1) so as to understand how to make things work (item 4.3 of Table 1). Intellectual learning shares a common goal with creativity that, by definition, cares about “task appropriateness or usefulness” (item 1.1 of Table 1). It is reasonable to perceive creativity as suggestive of a higher (i.e. more skilful and sophisticated) form of intellectual learning. With such enrichment of knowledge on intellectual learning and creativity, the writer now moves on to examine how creativity can be promoted in managerial intellectual learning (MIL).

How managerial intellectual learning (MIL) can promote creativity: the agile literature review findings

The research subject of managerial intellectual learning (MIL) (Ho, 2013; 2014), as proposed by the writer, is a subtopic of intellectual learning. It is individualized intellectual learning on the business management field based on critical systems thinking, especially using multi-perspective, systems-based research thinking (Ho, 1996). MIL is formulated for busy management professionals who aspire to be scholar-practitioners in the field of business management with the critical systems thinking lens. While critical systems thinking explicitly endorses creativity learning and creative problem solving, there is always room for considering academic ideas from non-systems thinking literature to enhance managerial intellectual learning and creativity outcomes. In this article, the key attention is on “how managerial intellectual learning promotes creativity”. This is different from another topic that is related but outside our scope of discussion, which is “studying the academic literature on creativity per se with the MIL mode”. Here, it is recognized that the research goal of gaining more understanding on “how managerial intellectual learning promotes creativity” is much helped by “standing on the shoulders of giants”. This is achieved by the agile literature review exercise done by this writer (re: Table 1 findings). Its main findings, in the form of quotations from a number of academic articles, (re: Table 1) are as follows:

Findings as related to the nature of creativity (re: category 1 of Table 1): creativity can be conceived as:  (A) an individual/team outcome variable, e.g., as creative performance; it possesses 2 main elements, namely, (1) being new or different and (2) useful for a certain task and (B) ability to create ideas that exhibit the two elements of (1) and (2).  These clarify the meaning of “creativity” in the research goal of this article on “how managerial intellectual learning promotes creativity”.

Findings as related to factors affecting creativity (re: category 2 of Table 1): creativity is affected by (A) kinds of personal experience and opportunities, (B) intellectual ability and styles, (C) personality, (D) motivation and (E) environmental context, e.g. organizational learning culture and processes. Related to our research goal, the findings specifically point to the relevance of intellectual ability and motivation as influencing factors on creativity.

Findings related to creativity learning/ promotion methods (re: category 3 of Table 1): methods on creativity include: (A) exercises/ programmes, to encourage divergent and then convergent thinking, especially in a team-setting, (B) ways to encourage collaboration by people with diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, and (C) methods that are aware of the restraining effects of rigid education systems. Assimilating these creativity methods in managerial intellectual learning (MIL), especially when the situation allows, is useful to promote creativity in MIL.

Findings related to the nature of intellectual learning (re: category 4 of Table 1): (A) there are different learning styles and intellectual styles on intellectual learning, (B) a key resultant of intellectual learning is intelligence status, being the accrual and tuning of many small knowledge units to form a complex cognition, (C) intellectual learning seek for interested and socially/ politically responsible knowledge, and (D) an important learning goal, including intellectual learning, is to achieve personal renewal, which is therapeutic. All these academic ideas in category 4 can be straightforwardly employed to conceive managerial intellectual learning (MIL). Doing so conceptually clarifies and enriches the notion of the “nature of managerial intellectual learning”.

Findings related to factors affecting intellectual learning (re: category 5 of Table 1): unregulated emotions, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, [knowledge application] investment traits, and epistemic curiosity are some of the main factors that affect intellectual learning. In this respect, these are some of the prime contingency factors that managerial intellectual learners need to regularly reflect on in tuning and personalising their managerial intellectual learning approaches. Nevertheless, these factors, essentially psychological ones, are not the direct objects of investigation in the MIL research scope.

Findings related to intellectual learning methods (re: category 6 of Table 1): a learner, including a managerial intellectual learner, needs to position his/ her learning approach to be compatible his/ her their learning style, so as to improve his/ her intellectual learning performance.

On the whole, the findings clarify (i) the main concepts involved, namely, intellectual learning (thus also on managerial intellectual learning) and creativity, (ii) how intellectual learning and creativity (as outcomes, and ability) are related. The findings point to the major factors (e.g. as points of leverage,  contingency factors, and content for self-reflection) that need to be considered in managerial intellectual learning for fostering creativity. The findings enable a more comprehensive and sophisticated way to study managerial intellectual learning (MIL), including the various models as produced in the MIL literature. It should be made clear that MIL as a research subject, albeit focusing on the individualized mode of deep-level intellectual learning, does not preclude learners to participate in team-based learning and creative problem-solving nor denies the value of these activities for gaining managerial intellectual learning. Next, the writer is going to make some concluding remarks on the value of this agile literature review exercise.

Concluding remarks

The agile literature review exercise on the research topic of “how managerial intellectual learning promotes creativity” led to a number of findings that enhance understanding on the research topic. The steps of the agile literature review exercise demonstrated, including (1) the literature search, (2) academic ideas categorization and synthesis, and (3) employment to comprehend more resourcefully on the research topic of “how managerial intellectual learning promotes creativity”, should be of use to students interested in the subject of the agile literature review approach (ALRA) (Ho, 2018a; 2018b).

 

 

 

References

Beghetto, R.A.  and Kaufman, J.C.  2014. “Classroom contexts for creativity” High Ability Studies 25:1, 53-69, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2014.905247.

Bentz, V.M. 1992. "Deep Learning Groups: Combining Emotional and Intellectual Learning" Clinical Sociology Review 10(1), Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr/vol10/iss1/9.

Boge, K. 2012. "How to facilitate the learning of creativity: thinking "outside the box" and beyond textbook solutions" Development and Learning in Organizations 26(6): 14 – 16, Emerald.

Boon, A., Vangrieken K. and Dochy, F. 2016. “Team creativity versus team learning: transcending conceptual boundaries to inspire future framework building” Human Resource Development International 19(1): 67-90, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1096635, Routledge.

Ho, J.K.K. 1996. “MPSB Research Explained” Journal of the Operational Research Society 47: 843-852.

Ho, J.K.K. 2013. “A Research Note: An exploration on the intellectual learning process of systems thinking by managers in the digital social media ecosystem” European Academic Research Vol. 1(5), August: 636-649.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “A Research Note on the Managerial Intellectual Learning Capability-Building Mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research Vol. 2(2), May: 2029-2047.

Ho, J.K.K. 2018a. “Research Note: On the Agile Literature Review Approach for Practising Managers: A Proposal” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 35: 341-348, Wiley.

Ho, J.K.K. 2018b. “Some further conceptual clarification of the recently proposed agile literature review approach (ALRA)” European Academic Research 5(12), March: 6313-6328.

Huang, T.C. 2019. “Do different learning styles make a difference when it comes to creativity? An empirical study” Computers in Human Behavior 100: 252–257, Elsevier.

Joo, B.K.B., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N. 2014. “Employee creativity: the effects of perceived learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, job autonomy, and proactivity” Human Resource Development International 17(3): 297-317, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2014.896126, Routledge.

Kuhn, D. 2002. “The Importance of Learning About Knowing: Creating a Foundation for Development of Intellectual Values” Child Development Perspectives 3(2): 112–117.

Prins, J.F., Veenman, M.V.J. and Elshout, J.J.  2006. “The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory” Learning and Instruction 16: 374-387, Elsevier.

Reid, A. and Petocz, P. 2004. “Learning Domains and the Process of Creativity” The Australian Educational Researcher 31(2), August: 45-62.

Srinivasan, S.K. 2007. “Drucker: On Learning (to Learn) Management” Vilalpa 32(4), October – December: 1-12.

Sutanto, E.M. 2017. “The influence of organizational learning capability and organizational creativity on organizational innovation of Universities in East Java, Indonesia” Asia Pacific Management Review 22: 128-135, Elsevier.

Von Stumm, S. and Hell, B. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. 2011. “The Hungry Mind: Intellectual Curiosity Is the Third Pillar of Academic Performance” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(6): 574– 588, Sage.

Zhang, L.F. 2015. “Fostering successful intellectual styles for creativity” Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 16:183–192, Springer.

 

---

[1] It is presumed that part-time MBA students do aspire to be scholar-practitioners in the management field, thus possessing the intellectual curiosity to study academic management literature with the deep learning approach.

[2] Deep-level intellectual learning implies achieving learning outcomes of strengthened intellectual and knowledge transfer competence..