Designing a talents training model for cross-border e-commerce: a mixed approach of problem-based learning with social media

  • Xusen ChengEmail author
  • Linlin Su
  • Alex Zarifis


Cross-border e-commerce has developed rapidly integrating the global economy. Research has presented some solutions for the challenges and barriers in cross-border e-commerce from the perspective of the enterprise. However, little is known about the requirements of cross-border e-commerce talents and how to train them. In this paper, we firstly conducted semi-structured interviews to acquire the requirements of cross-border e-commerce talents. Business and market knowledge, technical skills, analytical ability and business practical ability were found to be the four core requirements. Then, we integrated problem-based learning and social media to design a talents training model for cross-border e-commerce and did a program to evaluate effectiveness of the model. Finally, its effectiveness was evaluated from the four evaluation dimensions of attitude, perceived enjoyment, concentration and work intention. The talents training model was improved according to the suggestions.


Cross-border e-commerce (CBEC) Problem-based learning (PBL) Social media Talent training model 



We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71571045), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in UIBE (Grant No. CXTD10-06), Program for Excellent Talents in UIBE (Grant No. 18JQ04), and the Foundation for Disciplinary Development of SITM in UIBE for providing funding for part of this research.


  1. 1.
    Accenture and AliResearch. (2016). Global Cross Border B2C e-Commerce Market 2020 : Report highlights & methodology sharing. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from Accessed 22 March 2018.
  2. 2.
    Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandera, C. (2017). Value-added service providers for mobile education: Empirical challenges and analytics. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 317–333.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401–422.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng, X., Fu, S., & de Vreede, G. J. (2017). Understanding trust influencing factors in social media communication: A qualitative study. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 25–35.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng, X., Fu, S., & Druckenmiller, D. (2017). Trust development in globally distributed collaboration: A case of US and Chinese mixed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4), 978–1007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng, X., Fu, S., Han, Y., & Zarifis, A. (2017). Investigating the individual trust and school performance in semi-virtual collaboration groups. Information Technology & People, 30(3), 691–707.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, X., Fu, S., Sun, J., Bilgihan, A., & Okumus, F. (2019). An investigation on online reviews in sharing economy driven hospitality platforms: A viewpoint of trust. Tourism Management, 71, 366–377.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Fransisco: JosseyBass.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Flow: The Psychology of happiness. London, UK: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cui, Y., Mou, J., Cohen, J., & Liu, Y. (2019). Understanding information system success model and valence framework in sellers’ acceptance of cross-border e-commerce: a sequential multi-method approach. Electronic Commerce Research. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deng, Z., & Wang, Z. (2016). Early-mover advantages at cross-border business-to-business e-commerce portals. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 6002–6011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giuffrida, M., Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., & Tumino, A. (2017). Cross-border B2C e-commerce to Greater China and the role of logistics: A literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(9), 772–795.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gomez-Herrera, E., Martens, B., & Turlea, G. (2014). The drivers and impediments for CBEC in the EU. Information Economics and Policy, 28, 83–96.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo, Y., Bao, Y., Stuart, B. J., & Le-Nguyen, K. (2018). To sell or not to sell: Exploring sellers’ trust and risk of chargeback fraud in cross-border electronic commerce. Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 359–383.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2013). Research note—An investigation of the appropriation of technology-mediated training methods incorporating enactive and collaborative learning. Information Systems Research, 24(2), 454–469.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131–195). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hortaçsu, A., Martínez-Jerez, F., & Douglas, J. (2009). The geography of trade in online transactions: Evidence from eBay and mercadolibre. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu, P. J. H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 782–792.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, Y. (2016). Understanding China’s belt & road initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment. China Economic Review, 40, 314–321.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2017). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for stem education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 1–33.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, T. Y., Dekker, R., & Heij, C. (2017). Cross-border electronic commerce: Distance effects and express delivery in European Union markets. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21(2), 184–218.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loyens, S. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & Van Gog, T. (2015). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richardson, J. T. (2017). Student learning in higher education: A commentary. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 353–362.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rueda, L., Benitez, J., & Braojos, J. (2017). From traditional education technologies to student satisfaction in Management education: A theory of the role of social media applications. Information & Management, 54(8), 1059–1071.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W., & Wijnen, W. H. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–249.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sinkovics, R. R., Yamin, M., & Hossinger, M. (2007). Cultural adaptation in cross border E-commerce: A study of German Companies. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(4), 221–235.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Svinicki, M. D. (2007). Moving beyond “it worked”: The ongoing evolution of research on problem-based learning in medical education. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45(2), 122–133.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tavengerwei, R. (2018). Using trade facilitation to assist MSMEs in E-commerce in developing countries. Journal of International Economic Law, 21(2), 349–378.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tian, Y., Ye, Z., Yan, Y., & Sun, M. (2015). A practical model to predict the repeat purchasing pattern of consumers in the c2c e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 571–583.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsai, H. T., Chien, J. L., & Tsai, M. T. (2014). The influences of system usability and user satisfaction on continued internet banking services usage intention: Empirical evidence from taiwan. Electronic Commerce Research, 14(2), 137–169.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wan, Y., Ma, B., & Pan, Y. (2018). Opinion evolution of online consumer reviews in the e-commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(2), 291–311.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, S., Cavusoglu, H., & Deng, Z. (2016). Early mover advantage in e-commerce platforms with low entry barriers: The role of customer relationship management capabilities. Information & Management, 53(2), 197–206.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., Derous, E., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Is there a role for direct instruction in problem-based learning? Comparing student-constructed versus integrated model answers. Learning and Instruction, 34, 22–31.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wright, S., & Calof, J. L. (2006). The quest for competitive, business and marketing intelligence: A country comparison of current practices. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 453–465.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Strategic facilitation of problem-based discussion for teacher professional development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 342–394.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Technology and ManagementUniversity of International, Business and EconomicsBeijingChina
  2. 2.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations