Knowledge Conversion Dynamics in Multicultural LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® Learning Environments: SECI Model and Constructionism Integrative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13052/jmm1550-4646.2232Keywords:
Knowledge Management, SECI Model, Knowledge Conversion, Constructionism, LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®, Multicultural Learning, multimodal learning, active learning, multicultural learning, intercultural communicationAbstract
Multicultural learning environments are increasingly prevalent in higher education; however, empirical understanding of how cultural context shapes knowledge conversion during collaborative, hands-on learning remains limited. This study examines how knowledge conversion unfolds within LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® (LSP) activities by integrating Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) model with constructionist learning principles and multimodal interaction theory. A qualitative comparative case-study design was employed. Two graduate cohorts – Thai learners (n=9, Thai-medium instruction) and International learners from East and Southeast Asian backgrounds (n=10, English-medium instruction) – participated in an identical LSP-based Smart City design workshop under controlled conditions. Data were collected from group presentation videos, individual reflection recordings, and instructor observations, and analysed using a hybrid deductive–inductive coding framework with frequency counts of Smart City-related coded episodes as a structured basis for cross-cohort comparison. The findings suggest distinct, culturally patterned knowledge-conversion trajectories. Thai learners appeared to demonstrate tacit synchrony, metaphor-first externalization, holistic combination, and experiential–emotional internalization. International learners appeared to exhibit explicit verbal coordination, verbal-first externalization, analytical combination, and cognitively oriented internalization. These patterns suggest that SECI processes may not operate uniformly across cultural contexts but appear to be mediated by communication styles, cognitive orientations, and culturally situated meaning-making practices. Based on these findings, the study proposes the Multicultural SECI Flow Model, which explains how constructionist artefacts may function as intercultural mediating objects that support convergence toward shared understanding across divergent cultural learning pathways. The study contributes to Knowledge Management scholarship and provides practical implications, including facilitation guidelines and a practitioner checklist, for culturally responsive LSP-based learning in higher education, corporate training, and digital collaboration contexts.
Downloads
References
Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday.
Polanyi, M. (2009) The tacit dimension. In Knowledge in Organisations (pp. 135–146). Routledge.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. (2009). The knowledge-creating company. In The Economic Impact of Knowledge (pp. 175–187). Routledge.
Hu, J., Lee, J., and Yi, X. (2023). Blended knowledge sharing model in design professional. Scientific Reports, 13, 16326. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43505-z.
Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why. Free Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., and Chung, L. C. (2022). Understanding Intercultural Communication (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (2003). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books.
Papert, S., and Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Ablex Publishing. http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Cherapanukorn, V., and Jintapitak, M. (2017). An organization learning with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management and Applications (SKIMA) 1–8.
Benesova, N. (2023). LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® in management education. Cogent Education, 10(2), Article 2262284. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2262284.
Kristiansen, S., and Rasmussen, P. (2014). Facilitating tacit knowledge through LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 153–178.
Frappaolo, C. (2008). Implicit knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 23–25. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500168.
Suppiah, V., and Sandhu, M. S. (2011). Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462–477.
Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge Creation and Management. Oxford University Press.
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. doi:10.2307/3250961.
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/978145222970.
Kafai, Y. B., and Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism In Practice: Designing, Thinking, And Learning In A Digital World. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053492.
Jintapitak, M., and Yodmongkol, P. (2025). The enhancing system thinking and teamwork through LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®: A case study in knowledge and innovation management. Asian Health, Science and Technology Reports, 33(1).
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Kajamaa, A., and Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Students’ multimodal knowledge practices in a makerspace learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(4), 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09337-z.
Sung, H., and Nathan, M. J. (2025). Unraveling temporally entangled multimodal interactions: investigating verbal and nonverbal contributions to collaborative construction of embodied math knowledge. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00504-6.
Yan, R., et al. (2024). Evidence-based multimodal learning analytics for feedback and reflection in collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 1900–1925. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13498.
Bala, M. M., Akkineni, H., and Srinivasulu, C. (2022). An approach for learner categorization based on emotions in intelligent adaptive e-learning environment. Journal of Mobile Multimedia, 18(06), 1709–1732. https://doi.org/10.13052/jmm1550-4646.18611.
Kongrit, T., and Kiattisin, S. (2023). Live streaming contents influencing game playing behavior among Thailand gamers. Journal of Mobile Multimedia, 19(04), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.13052/jmm1550-4646.1946.
Guo, Z., et al. (2025). A review of multimodal interaction in remote education: Technologies, applications, and challenges. Applied Sciences, 15(7), 3937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073937.
Jintapitak, M. (2026). Gamified mobile edutainment for cultural heritage learning: A design-based research study of Tai ethnic cultures in Lanna. Journal of Mobile Multimedia, 22(01), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.13052/jmm1550-4646.2216.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
