LEGO SERIOUS PLAY AND THE GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a longitudinal project to integrate career development supports into a biosystems engineering classroom, students engaged in a LEGO© Serious Play workshop and wrote reflections on their experiences. This workshop provided opportunities for teambuilding and deliberations on what constitutes a strong team. A constructivist grounded theory analysis of students’ reflections was conducted. Through this analysis, a preliminary theme of Perceptions of Engineering Skill emerged, with three subthemes of the necessity of teamwork and communication to engineering; the vulnerability in making interpersonal connection; and the explicit connection of engineering to creativity. These skills can be conceptualized within the CEAB graduate attributes and theorized within the systems theory framework (STF) of career development, which positions the students’ skill development within the larger context of their career. Ultimately, the preliminary findings of this study provide a starting point for further analysis, and for the development of an interview protocol for the longitudinal study this project sits within, with the overarching goal to investigate the impact of career supports and process of career development in a professional degree program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".