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

ABSTRACT

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.

“The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves.”

– Carl Jung

Introduction

As the demand for experiential, hands-on, and engaging learning experiences in marketing education continues to increase (Dahl, Peltier, & Schibrowsky, 2018), the concept of play in the classroom remains elusive (Neck, Grossman, Winkel, & Stamp, 2022). Playful learning experiences have been shown to be effective in developing disciplinary knowledge, critical thinking skills, and collaborative capabilities (Mardell et al., 2016), and while there is substantial evidence on how students’ learning can benefit through play, there is much less evidence on teaching through play (Whitton, 2018; Wood, 2009). Much research has been devoted to exploring how early childhood professionals make use of play and playful approaches to learning and teaching (Farné, 2005), in fact, play and playfulness are noted as “basic features in childhood education” (Singer, 2013, p. 172). Yet, the importance of these features appears to dwindle in more advanced levels of education (Lauricella & Edmunds, 2022; Whitton & Moseley, 2019).

In the post-secondary education environment, an increased focus on quantifiable performance lends itself to the creation of a culture of learning characterized by risk avoidance, a fear of failure and primarily extrinsically motivated learning behaviors (Nørgård, Toft-Nielsen, & Whitton, 2017). Leather, Harper, and Obee (2021) suggest that while play can be thought of as experiential learning in a post-secondary education environment, institutional constraints tend to limit the use of experiential teaching in this context. In addition, Carroll (2011) argues that educators in the tertiary education environment often assume that the level of intellectual work required does not lend itself to be taught through alternative means. Amongst those who may consider using games as a means of experiential learning, gamification (Zainuddin, Rasyidin, Zanzibar, Aruni, & Nurmasyahyati, 2023) and simulations (Carroll, 2011) are typically the primary techniques employed. Gamification has been shown to increase students’ enthusiasm and curiosity, leading to enhanced learning outcomes (Zainuddin, Rasyidin, Zanzibar, Aruni, & Nurmasyahyati, 2023), while simulations have been demonstrated to enhance grade performance (Van Esch, von der Heidt, Frethey-Bentham, & Northey, 2020). There are, however, a multitude of different techniques, both within and beyond academia, that could be utilized to engage students, thereby creating a positive learning environment.

While the concept of learning through play may not be novel, there exists a dearth of literature providing educators with guidance on fostering playful, fun, engaging and positive experiences in the higher education classroom (Edmunds, 2021), particularly within the marketing discipline (Anderson, 2006). To address this gap, the primary purpose of the research is to explore how play could be introduced in the graduate-level business classroom, by using LEGO® Serious Play (LSP) as a teaching tool through which to enhance creativity, student engagement, and teamwork. To achieve this purpose, the research is guided by two objectives. The first objective seeks to determine the most effective way to facilitate the LSP activity in alignment with a marketing curriculum through the development of a best practice guideline with practical examples of marketing focused LSP adaptation. The second objective seeks to determine how students perceived the LSP facilitation to impact their learning, creativity and fun in the classroom.

Literature Review

Play, Playfulness and Teaching Through Play

Play and playfulness, from a pedagogical perspective, has various conceptual differences leading to the “ambiguity of play” (Sutton-Smith, 2021). Play is generally regarded as spontaneous, enjoyable, and non-targeted activity (Mardell et al., 2016). It boosts creative, engaging activities that stimulate learning and development (Wood, 2009). This concept birthed a pedagogy of play, described as “a systematic approach to playful learning and teaching” (Mardell et al., 2016, p. 11). The pedagogy of play is universally recognized as crucial to childhood education (Eberle, 2014). Same for adult education, or andragogical instruction, play-based teaching approaches foster communication, creative problem-solving, social relationships, and self-esteem (Whitton & Moseley, 2019) – essential soft skills for managers and executives. However, its use in marketing education remains largely unexplored.

Furthermore, innovative play-based methods, such as games, role-playing activities, and projective small work play, have demonstrated to positively impact adult student outcomes (Dann, 2018). Playfulness arguably promotes change that extends beyond merely creating engaging and effective learning experiences. The concepts of playfulness and playful academics present opportunities to reevaluate the fundamental understanding of higher education teaching, learning, and research (Nørgård & Moseley, 2021). What better place to explore the teaching of creative and imaginative creativities than marketing? Marketing is, after all, a creative activity that requires fresh solutions to customers’ problems and demands constant creativity to find novel ways to surprise and delight customers (Anderson, 2006). Educators are able to combine knowledge-building activities with elements of play, to further develop students’ skills and capabilities in creative ways (Hedges, 2000).

To date, however, limited research has explored how this could be implemented in the marketing classroom, with little guidance provided to educators who would like to incorporate play and playfulness in their curriculum. In addition, the developing area of playful learning for adults is not widely explored, and there is limited recognition of the unique and subtle characteristics of adult play (Whitton, 2018). To fill this gap we explore how play can be used in the marketing classroom, using LSP as a facilitation technique to enhance creativity, student engagement, and teamwork.

LEGO® Serious Play

The LSP process consists of posing a question or a challenge, building a personal model, sharing with other participants, and finally, reflection (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). The core principles of active participation by everyone, ensure a collective problem-solving outcome. LSP encourages exploration, sharing stories, metaphors, meanings, leading to increased memory retention, and conceptual connections (James & Nerantzi, 2019). Since its inception, LSP has been used in a variety of industries including hospitality management (Tuominen & Ascenção, 2016), healthcare (Schulz, Geithner, & Kawamura, 2015), and banking (Riedel & Azadegan, 2014). When used in corporate training, meetings, and project management, LSP has been shown to increase communication (Hinthorne & Schneider, 2012), teamwork (Riedel, Feng, Hauge, Hansen, & Tasuya, 2015), and creativity (Schulz & Geithner, 2013).

The core steps of the LSP method are: 1) posing a question or challenge, 2) building a personal model that is an artifact of a metaphor or story, 3) sharing the model with other participants, and 4) reflecting on the model (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). Each participant has an opportunity to share their thoughts, reflections, ideas, and feelings in a collaborative and additive process whereby individuals start by building independently, then sharing, and reflecting. Participants are told that the purpose of the activity is not to build the most aesthetically pleasing structure, but rather to build a physical expression of what the builder envisions as the solution to the posed challenge (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014), essentially suggesting that there is no right or wrong approach.

Given the successful use of LSP in a business context, a few bold educators have explored the use of LSP in the classroom (Peabody & Noyes, 2017). Specifically, LSP has been successfully used in disciplines including engineering design (Bulmer, 2009), software engineering (Kurkovsky, 2015), physics (Rieber & Matzko, 2001), and entrepreneurship (Dann, 2018). The LSP approach brings together students of a variety of different language and cultural backgrounds while also strengthening recall of concepts through memorable experiences (James, 2015). As a facilitation tool, LSP also provides a structured and revitalized way for educators to increase creativity and promote engagement, particularly for students who may not be inherently vocal during class (James & Nerantzi, 2018). Grounded in a constructionist theory lens, which promotes “learning through making,” combined with a kinesthetic approach to learning where knowledge is created through physical or mental models (Papert & Harel, 1991), LSP has been helpful in boosting student energy, engagement, and concentration. The models that students create represent external images of internal reality, thoughts, and ideas (James, 2013), which has the potential to increase creativity and engagement in the classroom (James, 2015).

Methodology

To achieve the research purpose, a single case study design was used, which allowed the researchers to delve deeply into the application of the LSP in the learning environment. While the use of a single case study is not without its limitations, it appears that the rich insights offered by this design could otherwise be lost under a different design (Geiger & Prothero, 2007). The sample for the research comprised Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) students at a large business school affiliated with a public university in the Pacific Northwest. At this business school, MBA students tend to be younger than EMBA students due to the work experience requirements being less (two to five years) for MBA students than for EMBA students (at least 10 years).

The research required two distinct methodological phases. First, the LSP activity required adaptation to the context of the marketing classroom. In preparation to complete the activity with the respective student groups, the first phase required that we determine the most effective way to facilitate and adapt the LSP activity to the marketing classroom. To achieve this goal, a literature review was conducted followed by expert interviews with educators from other universities who had used LSP in their curricula. The findings on the best practices for facilitation of the LSP activity are detailed in Appendix A. In the second phase, following the conclusion of the LSP facilitation, participants were invited to voluntarily complete an open-ended questionnaire that sought to gain a more nuanced understanding of the student experience of the LSP activity. The anonymous questionnaire asked students to identify their familiarity with LEGO® as well as soliciting opinions on how they felt the LSP activity impacted their creative thinking. In addition, students were asked what they enjoyed and what they disliked about the activity in order to aid the development of a best practice guideline.

The LSP facilitation exercise was incorporated into the marketing curricula of the (E)MBA programs to explain the concept of transformational customer experiences in a session lasting 150 minutes. The facilitation began with the educator providing a brief overview of service quality and its assessment within service industries. Students were then introduced to the LSP philosophy as an approach to problem-solving and the basic guidelines for the activity were introduced. There are a multitude of different LEGO® sets available and ensuring that students have sufficient blocks for the activity while not overwhelming them with options is important. The LSP starter kit provides a full set of blocks for one individual, with a wide variety of blocks to encourage deep imaginative work and problem-solving (LEGO, 2023). The set includes standard LEGO® blocks and DUPLO blocks together with a selection of “special elements” including base plates and other objects that can be used as metaphorical elements, i.e., windows, trees, etc (LEGO, 2023). Once all students had received their LEGO® building blocks, students ran a practice exercise to become familiar with the building process and develop their confidence in the storytelling associated with their builds. Table 1 provides an overview of the contextualized instructions provided during the facilitation exercise. Following the completion of each exercise, the educator would summarize critical service design principles to solidify the learning.

Table 1. Description of LSP facilitation instructions.

Build Number	Instructions for the build	Instructions for the listeners in the group	Instructions for the group as a whole
1	In ten minutes, build a model of a negative customer experience that you had.	Look for functional and emotional touchpoints. What caused the negative experience?	Select one model per small group to explain to the class. Share the customer experience design principle coming from the chosen model and associated story.
2	In ten minutes, build a model of a positive customer experience that you had.	Look for functional and emotional touchpoints. What made the experience good?	Select one model per small group to explain to the class. Share the customer experience design principle coming from the chosen model and associated story.

Results

A total of 75 students (37 MBA and 38 EMBA) completed the feedback questionnaire following the LSP activity where a strong majority of students indicated that they found the activity to be a fun learning experience. A majority of students had experience with the use of LEGO in their childhood (MBA = 62% and EMBA = 76%) with approximately a quarter of all students continuing to make use of LEGO during adulthood (MBA = 14% and EMBA = 35%). This contextualizing information is useful in order to determine the extent of experience that participants had with LEGO. In a question that asked what students liked about the LEGO® activity (Table 2), the strongest identified commonalities in the responses pertained to increased creativity, appreciation for new approaches to learning, the fun and playfulness of the activity and lastly, the tactile nature of the activity. Primarily, the positive responses to the activity focused on the power of play in the classroom and how the activity allowed students to reexperience the playfulness of a childhood activity. As stated by one student: “I really liked this exercise. I didn’t realize how much I missed being creative and engaging in play” with another student commenting: “I liked that I was able to be a kid again … It changes perception of how you start using your imagination to transfer something into LEGOs.” Two EMBA students described how the activity was an enjoyable change from other classroom exercises, with one suggesting that “it was a more tangible way to get me thinking about an experience and how to communicate it. It was a different way of learning.” The second “hesitated at first, then became comfortable and attained a lot of value. Thinking of buying LEGO myself.”

Table 2. Prominent positive responses.

	MBA Students	EMBA Students
Increased creativity	“It really sparked my creativity, even though I didn’t know exactly what I was building when I started, as I put the blocks together, it started coming together. The activity also helped to ease some of the stress that had piled up in the last few days.” “Made me think of creative ways to tell my story. Made me come up with more stories. Had a bigger impact on my audience since they ‘saw’ my story instead of just hearing it. Had a more interactive class.”	“It was creative and generated good discussion and atmosphere in class.” “Increased creativity. Simulated problem-solving. Created teamwork. Engagement and discussion within the team.”
New approach to learning	“Was a good break away from screens/books so it created a great experience to unleash creativity.” “It was different – never done something like this before so I believe it was an active way to teach the class material.”	“It was a refreshing change of pace to be creative and think with your hands.” “It was a more tangible way to get me thinking about an experience and how to communicate it. It was a different way of learning.”
Fun	“It is fun and different people can have different approaches to the same problem.” “It was fun and interactive and allowed us to combine creativity with analysis. This facilitated the storytelling very well and made the class expected to participate.”	“It was fun and promoted conversation.”
Tactile	“I liked that it is free form and not constrained. So many day-to-day tasks are rigid and allow no expression. I definitely agree that play can produce some of our best ideas.” “I enjoyed the process of representing a memory with a model. It was more compelling than using words to tell the story.”	“It was creative, tactile, involved play, low barrier for engagement.” “Ability to use tactile function to reinforce thoughts”

In response to an open-ended question that asked students what they did not enjoy regarding the LSP, responses tended to focus on one of three prominent themes (Table 3). The first considered the length of the activity, which was viewed from different perspectives within both student groups. Some students indicated that they would have preferred if the activity did not last for the full 150-minute session as they found the process repetitive, whereas other students requested more time to be able to craft their desired models. Students also highlighted frustrations with not having access to a sufficient array of diverse building blocks to craft their desired models. The final concern highlighted pertained to the placement of the LSP within the learning path and the lack of a clear link to the curriculum.

Table 3. Prominent negative responses.

	MBA Students	EMBA Students
The length of the activity	“I put the most effort into creating the first LEGO structure. My enthusiasm with the LEGO declined with every new structure that was built.” “The time crunch – I didn’t remember the best examples because I had to budget the time for creation.	“2–3 activities is good. More than that is too much.” “The most difficult issue was timing. As a person who needs some time to create throughs, the limited time to build made it more difficult.”
Variety of LEGO blocks available	“I wanted more pieces to be more creative. I also think this would help us solve more problems by building more complex structures.” “There were a couple of exercises that I found I needed more pieces (or maybe more imagination) to translate what I wanted to build. Also, funny thing after my first building, I noticed I didn’t want to destroy my whole ‘new creation,’ so it broke me a little to tear it apart.”	“At some point I became impatient because I wasn’t able to design what I wanted to design and express. Not enough pieces.” “Would like more LEGO pieces.”
Relationship to course material	“Relationship to customer experience not very clear.” “Probably a little less tied into the course material than a case.”	“It needed stronger bounds, more clear service design factors and a class on service design in advance. Not enough context.”

Discussion and Implications

This research explores the innovative application of LSP within graduate-level business classrooms, particularly its effects on improving creativity, student engagement, and teamwork, within the marketing classroom. The primary value offered by the LSP activity in the classroom was that it offered students a fun escape, one that was appreciated as a different approach to traditional teaching and learning activities. Building the LEGO® models offered students a tactile means through which to express their creativity. Students were actively engaged in their small group activities where they presented the stories of their LEGO® models and again when presenting a chosen model to the class at large. As such, while the findings suggest positive perceptions toward creativity, student engagement and teamwork as a result of the facilitation, it appears that both creative thinking and critical thinking skills were challenged through the exercise. By offering a hands-on, interactive alternative to traditional teaching methods, LSP presents an opportunity to foster and stimulate students’ conceptual thinking and critical reflections, skills particularly relevant in the marketing sector today (Ferreira, Robertson, & Pitt, 2022). Important findings of this research can be quickly recalled and understood using the mnemonic, LEGO, establishing the association with the LSP activity and capturing the key findings of the study:

1. L – Learning tool: Adapted from the corporate environment, LSP offered students a fun and tactile alternative to traditional teaching styles. As an innovative approach to learning in graduate-level business classrooms, students were able to express their creativity in a playful manner, activating both the creative and critical thinking skills necessary in marketing. Leveraging the LSP as a learning tool within the classroom allows for a less traditional approach to learning where student experiences are used first to later explain an underlying theoretical component.

2. E – Expectations: EMBA students, who are typically full-time professionals, were more critical of the activity, underscoring the importance of aligning teaching methodologies with the expectations and work style of adult learners. The EMBA students’ criticism could have stemmed from preformed expectations of the curriculum structure, or it could have been a result of their uncertainty of the activity’s purpose. The findings however reinforce the importance of instructors creating an open-minded, yet learner-centric classroom environment, especially among mature students, while fulfilling their roles as facilitators of learning experiences.

3. G - Going online: The recent increase in online MBA programs amplifies the importance of examining LSP’s viability in a digital setting. Implementing LSP online would necessitate strategic logistical coordination to ensure students across different geographical locations receive their physical LSP sets. Innovative digital resources like breakout rooms can help facilitate sharing and reflection for online learners and encourage equal participation.

4. O – Outcomes: The research asserts that LSP fosters creativity, enhances communication skills, and promotes problem-solving capacities among graduate-level marketing students. By simulating realistic marketing situations, educators can induce active discussions and group activities to create a learning environment that is both challenging and engaging. Using the example in Table 1, students are encouraged to build something tangible based on often abstract concepts and ideas, e.g., a positive or a negative customer experience. By getting students to focus on the emotional, functional, and technical aspects of the customer experience, they are challenged to take a step back and assess the build – as they have built it – from several angles. Iterative questions such as, “What customer experience design principles emanate from your build and the accompanying positive/negative experience observation?,” then encourage students to critically reflect both on how they have narrated the scenario and on their situational observations. This prompts students to collaboratively (re)discover where and what the critical customer experience touchpoints are. By encouraging students to create a concrete and tangible representation of an abstract or potentially emotionally charged marketing scenario, they have an opportunity to collaboratively assess the multilayered aspects of the scenario and to reflect more holistically and critically on how to address it. From an educational perspective, this provides marketing students with another tool in their toolkit with which to use playful experiences to address otherwise abstract or emotionally charged conversations in the boardroom.

The synergistic integration of traditional learning methods and real-world elements brought in by LSP empowers students to devise and apply novel marketing strategies. One of the themes identified within the negative responses to the activity pertained to students not being able to clearly align the activity with a theoretical component. As such, it is critical for the educator to use the activity as a complement to theoretical content and not necessarily a replacement thereof. Drawing from the student experiences shared with the class throughout the activity and linking these experiences to aspects of the theory under investigation is a critical component of the learning process that guides students in making the link between the application and the theoretical underpinning.

The results of the study suggest that the use of LSP in the graduate-level business classroom fosters creativity, communication, and problem-solving skills, all of which are fundamental in the field of marketing. These skills enable learners to reframe their thinking and approach learning objectives with a more innovative mind-set. Working in marketing often requires collaboration, negotiation, and the presentation of ideas to diverse audiences – all of which can be developed through LSP activities. Hence, LSP provides the marketing educator with a complementary approach to achieving specific learning outcomes and enhances students’ overall understanding and innovative application of marketing concepts beyond the scope of conventional teaching methods.

Limitations and Recommendations for Theory and Practice

The limitations of this research are primarily a result of the use of a single case study that included only business school students as one cannot suggest that similar results could be generalized to students in other majors, or at other levels of study. However, the limitations of the research provide future researchers with clear avenues to further explore the role of play and playfulness in the graduate-level classroom. First, it could be beneficial for future researchers to consider the long-term impacts of play-centered activities within the graduate classroom, notably the impact on future employment. According to Ferreira, Robertson, and Pitt (2022), the creative application of ideas presents a critical soft skill that sets candidates apart in a pool of equally qualified candidates. Second, while this research has considered the use of a particular tool, namely LSP, to encourage play in the graduate-level classroom, future research could validate these findings by examining the use of other such tools in the graduate-level marketing classroom and beyond, by extending its use to other subject areas.

In addition, four recommendations for marketing educators specifically are provided. First, it is beneficial for the facilitator to gain an understanding of the participants’ level of experience with LEGO® prior to developing the small groups. The aim should be to form small groups with varying levels of experience with LEGO®. The rationale for this is to allow for within-group discussion and knowledge sharing aligning with an implicit curriculum of soft skill development. Second, we recommend that a teaching tool, like the LSP, should be used as complementary to other hands-on, experiential and playful activities such as simulations and technology-mediated game-based activities in the classroom. The reasoning for this recommendation is based on the importance of inclusive learning practices, with the understanding that no single tool will be seen as the proverbial “silver bullet” that caters to all learning styles across subject matter (Ferreira, Robertson, Reyneke, & Pitt, 2022). Third, we recommend that the LSP activity is preceded or accompanied by a content-based learning session to ensure that the playful activity clearly connects with the knowledge-based elements in the curriculum. This recommendation is rooted in feedback from the study participants who appeared eager to ground the activity in the theoretical principles of the content. Fourth, a key recommendation pertains to the pace of the activity, with a noted decline in enthusiasm toward the later stages of the activity. In order to take full advantage of the students’ natural enthusiasm toward a new facilitation technique, reducing the amount of time and builds dedicated to practice sessions is recommended. Instead, sessions could be used more efficiently to engage with the content-related components of the activity throughout the activity.

Conclusion

While play and playfulness have been noted as critical features of childhood education (Singer, 2013), the application of pedagogies seeking to advance play in the graduate-level business classroom remains elusive (Lauricella & Edmunds, 2022; Neck, Grossman, Winkel, & Stamp, 2022). The researchers sought to explore how play could be introduced in the marketing classroom specifically, by using LSP as a teaching tool through which to enhance creativity, student engagement, and teamwork. Not only could the tool be used as an alternative, experiential means through which to achieve set learning outcomes, but the guided play approach may be an effective method of creating learning situations that motivate students at varying levels of study to become active and engaged participants in the learning process (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix A:

LSP Facilitation Guide

Step 1: Start with a practice round - build something tangible

Begin the activity by having students engage in a practice round (see Figure A1) where they build something tangible using Lego bricks, such as a bridge or tower. This helps them get comfortable with the process and encourages creativity.

Figure A1. The photo above depicts students’ practice round building a tower.

Step 2: Transition to marketing-related questions

After the practice round, the facilitator poses a question to students which helps participants focus on a particular type of marketing experience, topic or idea. The question should be open-ended to allow for reflection, exploration, and freedom in building with the LEGO® blocks. Nerantzi and McCusker (2014) suggest using a questioning technique that is focused on creating space for dialogue, debate, reflection, as well as both individual and collective problem-solving. These questions may start with ‘what’ or ‘how’ as they are questions that seek clarification, reason, identify implications, viewpoints, and assumptions. It is recommended that educators avoid ‘why’ questions as they may lead to judgements and negative dialogue (Nerantzi & McCusker, 2014). In the context of the marketing classroom, the questions posed to students depend on the positioning of the activity within the curriculum. In particular, these seek to provide marketing educators insight into (a) the possible positioning of the activity within the marketing curriculum and (b) initial, broad questions to begin the LEGO® building process.

Step 3: Build a representative Lego model based on the marketing-related question

After the instructor has posed their marketing-related question to students, each participant builds a model as a response to the facilitator’s question (see Figure A2). These models would typically be representative builds of more abstract concepts relevant to marketing. For instance, they could build models representing a service failure experience, a positive customer experience, or a representative brand persona. Examples of marketing themes that could be addressed are provided in Table A1. Students are encouraged to think creatively and use the Lego bricks to symbolize and represent these abstract marketing concepts.

Nerantzi and James (2019) emphasize that the model and its meanings belong to the individual who constructs it. As such, it is very important in this step that students do not receive any further instructions on what they are required to build. The building process should be organic and does not require pre-planning. A time limit of between five and ten minutes for the building encourages participants to begin immediately as opposed to overthinking and excessive planning. Nerantzi and James (2019, p. 15) describe the model-building process as an emerging external visualization of internal “thoughts that have a specific metaphorical meaning for the makers”. They also note that new pieces can be added or given to participants later in the building process in order to highlight parts of the model that have already been constructed. This adds a layer of reflection, sharing and exploration at the later stages of development which can be prompted through additional questions by the facilitator, adding to the original overarching question that motivates the model construction.

Figure A2. The photo above represents a student’s negative customer service experience with a bank. The student built a model depicting the service provider withholding their funds after an inter-bank transfer, with little explanation given. The student described their model as symbolizing the bank “imprisoning” their funds.

Step 4: Share and discuss

The fourth step, sharing the model, is argued to be the most important part of the activity as the physical model acts as a point of engagement with others to facilitate the learning process (Nerantzi & McCusker, 2014). The sharing step can involve multiple sub-steps including the opportunity to share with a partner, a small group of students, and/or the entire class. However, it is vital that each participant has at least one opportunity to share with one or more of their peers to access the power of storytelling with their senses. It is important that educators allocate sufficient class time to ensure that all participants are able to engage in their storytelling. In the context of the marketing classroom, additional information can be provided to the students so that they are able to take note of critical components of the narratives of others that will later link to the theoretical underpinning of the activity.

Step 5: Reflection

The final stage, reflecting on the model, involves an opportunity for both the facilitator and the participants to ask questions about specific features of the constructed models. As with the original question, reflection questions are open-ended with the intent of obtaining understanding as opposed to passing judgment on the models of other participants. This offers an opportunity for further critical reflection, probing aspects of the model and/or the narratives associated with the models to identify clear components of customer experiences that can be linked to the theoretical summary. Closely linked with Step 3, time for questions can be provided at any of the stages of sharing, including within pairs, small groups or the large group setting. At the very end of the activity, the facilitator is encouraged to debrief the participants and provide a summary of the key themes and ideas that were presented (Nerantzi & James, 2019). Educators may request that participants complete a written or video reflection highlighting their critical learnings from the activity, as well as any suggestions for further improvements. In the marketing classroom, the final component of the activity provides the facilitator with the opportunity to critically link the activity to core principles in the marketing curriculum. This is a critically important step that is able to bridge the divide between the activity and its relevance to the content.

Table A1. Aligning marketing concepts with the LSP.

Marketing concept	Build instructions	Functional and emotional cue prompts	Theoretical guidelines
Service quality and customer journey maps	Students could be asked to build a model of a good/bad customer experience that they had.	Students could be asked to pay attention to what was done well (poorly) that resulted in a good (bad) customer experience. Students should be encouraged to take notes of commonalities in the narratives of others.	The facilitator could introduce students to the unique characteristics of service offerings with a discussion focused on their ability to impact service quality. It is recommended that the facilitator refer to specific instances identified by students in their narratives in order to provide a clear link between how their customer experiences were positively (negatively) impacted by the different characteristics of services.
Branding and brand positioning	Students could be asked to build a model that best describes a particular brand.	Students could be asked to pay attention to and note any specific characteristics that are used to describe the brand. Students could be asked to group these characteristics into themes.	The facilitator could introduce students to brand personality frameworks, contrasting the characteristics of brands discussed by student groups.
New product development	Students could be asked to build a prototype of a product that would address a specific need, or to adapt an existing product that would better satisfy a specific need. This specific need could be standardized across all groups or differentiated between student groups.	Students could be asked to pay attention to the specific mechanisms through which the new/adapted product would be able to cater to the identified need. Students should seek to identify key steps, noting similarities, in the processes of developing the products.	The facilitator could introduce students to processes for new product development, using student examples as reference points to differentiate between the different levels of a product offering.
Target marketing and segmentation	Students could be asked to build a model that represents the typical consumer for a specific brand/product offering	Students could be asked to pay attention to the reasoning behind why specific characteristics are associated with the typical consumer.	The facilitator could draw on specific characteristics noted in student narratives that would align with segmentation theory to clearly illustrate different segmentation bases.
Value propositions and differentiation	Students could be asked to build a model that shows the uniqueness of a specific company/brand.	Students could be asked to note the specific sources of differentiation and/or value creation.	The facilitator could draw on the differing sources of value noted in the student narratives to examine frameworks for value creation in the context of value propositions.