MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394621676 · doi:10.1080/10528008.2024.2337926

UNLOCKING STUDENT CREATIVITY WITH LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY: A CASE STUDY FROM THE GRADUATE MARKETING CLASSROOM

2024· article· en· W4394621676 on OpenAlexaff
Caitlin Ferreira, Jeandri Robertson, Leyland Pitt, Sarah Lord Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueMarketing Education Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityExperiential learningPsychologyTeamworkFacilitationPedagogyMarketingMedical educationBusinessManagementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of play is well established in early childhood development; however the importance of play appears to diminish in more advanced levels of education. Despite this, the demand for experiential, engaging learning experiences that seek to differentiate graduate-level programs in a fiercely competitive market continues to increase. This research sought to explore the phenomenon of bringing play and playfulness to the graduate-level classroom as a means through which to enhance creativity, student engagement, and teamwork. The LEGO® Serious Play (LSP) activity was originally created to be used as a facilitation strategy for business executives seeking to enhance innovation and business performance. This research sought to develop a protocol to adapt the LSP activity for masters’ students completing a mandatory marketing course. The primary aim of the research considered whether LSP would provide a valuable learning activity for future graduate-level marketing classes. As such, feedback was collected on the activity from students following engagement with LSP. The results of the study provide guidelines for marketing educators to seamlessly incorporate novel activities, such as LSP, into their teaching practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarketing Education ReviewSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207