See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273292437

Building with purpose: Using LEGO SERIOUS PLAY in play therapy

supervision.

Article  in  International Journal of Play Therapy · January 2015

DOI: 10.1037/a0038607

CITATIONS READS

9 1,357

1 author:

Mary Anne Peabody

University of Southern Maine
9 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mary Anne Peabody on 16 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Building With Purpose: Using Lego Serious Play
in Play Therapy Supervision
Mary Anne Peabody
University of Southern Maine: Lewiston-Auburn College
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

LEGO SERIOUS PLAY is an innovative facilitated methodology, using brick

building and metaphoric storytelling that has been successfully utilized in business,
training, educational, family, and mentor contexts. This article explores a modifica-
tion of the established LEGO SERIOUS PLAY (LSP) process as an expressive tool
for use in individual and group supervision, with a targeted focus on play therapist
professional identity. The article provides an overview of the LSP methodology and
process, adaptations, case examples, implications for practice, and suggests areas for
future research within the play therapy community of practice.
Keywords: play therapy, professional identity, supervision, metaphors, LEGO SERIOUS PLAY

Slowing down, reflecting, and receiving lie at the nexus of clinical play
therapy supervision. A core aim of supervision is to create an experience that
encourages the development of clinical competencies, professional values, the-
ory integration, and professional identity (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Profes-
sional identity development is defined as the “successful integration of personal
attributes and professional training in the context of a professional community”
(Gibson, Dollarhide, & Moss, 2010, pp. 23–24) and is central to counseling
professionals’ ethical practice (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2010; Granello &
Young, 2012). Therefore, it is in reflective play therapy supervision that devel-
opment of a distinctive identity as a play therapist becomes integrated into
clinical practice.
The Association for Play Therapy (2014) confers the Registered Play Therapist
(RPT) and Registered Play Therapist-Supervisor (RPT-S) credentials upon li-
censed mental health professionals to help consumers easily identify those who
have specialized experience and training in play therapy. The RPT credentialing
process encourages specific supervision with a registered play therapist-supervisor
(RPT-S), for clinicians seeking or maintaining the RPT credential. Recent research
by Hughes-Bise (2012) posited effective supervision by a RPT-S played a vital role
in furthering the professional identity of clinicians specializing in play therapy.
Several authors in the play therapy supervision literature espouse the use of
playful supervision techniques (Drewes & Mullen, 2008; Guiffrida, Jordan, Saiz,
& Barnes, 2007; Robert & Kelly, 2010). Drewes and Mullen (2008) gathered a
cross-section of experts in child and play therapy to share both knowledge and

Correspondence concerning the article should be addressed to Mary Anne Peabody, Social and
Behavioral Sciences, University of Southern Maine: Lewiston-Auburn College, 51 Westminster Street,
Lewiston, ME 04240. E-mail: mpeabody@usm.maine.edu

30
International Journal of Play Therapy © 2015 Association for Play Therapy
2015, Vol. 24, No. 1, 30 – 40 1555-6824/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038607
 Metaphoric Model Building in Supervision 31

playful interventions that foster professional development growth. Guiffrida,

Jordan, Saiz, and Barnes (2007) asserted that metaphoric activities in the
context of supervision facilitated “supervisee self-understanding and aware-
ness” (p. 393). Robert and Kelly (2010) discussed pairing visual metaphors with
verbal meaning to bridge feeling and insight, which influenced supervisee
behavior and action. Several authors have explored the utility of expressive art
techniques, including the use of drawing, sand tray, photographic images,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

collages, and metaphoric activities, all underscoring the primary benefits of

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

“creative activities” in supervision (Bratton, Ceballos, & Sheely, 2008; Guiffrida

Jordan, Saiz, & Barnes, 2007; Morrison & Homeyer, 2008; Shepard & Guenette,
2010; Stark, Frels, & Garza, 2011; Stewart & Echterling, 2008; Lahad, 2000).
Adapting the innovative LEGO SERIOUS PLAY (LSP) methodology, where
building and thinking are intertwined, combines kinesthetic, creative, and met-
aphoric forms of expression in clinical supervision.
In this article, LSP is introduced; followed by an examination of theoretical
underpinnings, methodology, and modifications for clinical supervision. Next, a
modified version of LSP targeting supervisee professional identity development is
illustrated using case study examples in both individual and group supervision.
Finally, implications for the current and future use of LSP in the field of play
therapy are suggested.

THE ESTABLISHED LEGO SERIOUS PLAY (LSP) PROCESS

LSP is a thinking and problem-solving approach that was originally devel-

oped by the LEGO group with leading business, organizational thinkers, and
psychologists drawing upon research from each of these disciplines (Gauntlett,
2007; Lego Serious Play, 2010). LSP is a process where individuals build
metaphors with LEGO bricks, in response to questions or prompts posed by the
facilitator (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). The process includes several
rounds of building, storytelling, and reflection, all assembling knowledge,
thoughts, and feelings.
Supervisees follow a build-explain-build process whereby they construct mod-
els with a collection of bricks specifically selected by the kit designers to inspire the
use of metaphoric story making that represents realizations, struggles, problems,
complex systems, and potential resolutions (James & Brookfield, 2014). When used
in group play therapy supervision, supervisees also benefit from group process
dynamics including mutual learning, shared model building, and group cohesion.
The LSP model is utilized globally in a variety of contexts, including
business, consultancy, higher education, research, life coaching, and nascent
work with families and mentors (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Nolan, 2009).
Nolan (2009) shared LSP usefulness in mentoring relationships, which has
affirming implications for the supervisory relationship. Specific to professional
identity development and LSP, the research by Gauntlett (2007) has applica-
bility for more exploration and research in the clinical supervision arena.
Modifications for use of LSP in clinical supervision are necessary, as the
established model of LSP is typically conducted in a workshop format lasting
 32 Peabody

anywhere from 2–3 hours to 2 days. Although characteristically conducted with

adult groups of six to 12 participants, successful modifications of the methodology
have also included LSP use with as few as two individuals (Kristiansen & Rasmus-
sen, 2014) and academic experiences extending over full semesters (Gauntlett,
2007; James & Brookfield, 2014). While LSP adaptations such as the aforemen-
tioned are necessary for use in a supervision capacity, the core process of building
symbolic or metaphorical representations, in a nonjudgmental and playful environ-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ment, remains the same.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This modification of LSP to supervision is quite similar to the use of

sandtray and miniatures as a supervision intervention. Both approaches provide
specific metaphoric materials, specific prompts from the supervisor, and allow
time to create metaphoric representations. Additionally, both approaches in-
clude a verbal processing phase where supervisees make meaning of their
construction. A distinctive difference between the modified application of LSP
for play therapy supervision and sand tray with miniatures, is although some
LSP bricks are “ready-made metaphors,” most of the bricks are nonspecific
allowing for creative, new, and original metaphors. The bricks may be consid-
ered less symbolic than traditional sand tray miniatures; therefore, the super-
visee must rely on the metaphoric meaning making to unfold as they build the
model. The supervisee must both build and create the story themselves, instead
of being guided by the images elicited from the miniatures. Supervisees literally
think through their fingers in a learning-by-doing experience that invites ex-
pression and deeper learning (Frick, Tardini, & Lorenzo, 2013). Both ap-
proaches depend on the careful processing skills of the supervisor to guide the
supervisee in fully exploring the meaning of their creation.
Furthermore, an adaptation of LSP can be found in educational contexts
with children, called the LEGO BuildToExpress (BTE; Lego Education, 2014).
Typically, the BTE method is facilitated by a classroom teacher with the entire
classroom of students in a much shorter time frame than LSP. The BTE model
is a set of challenge activities based on curriculum content, whereas the LSP
model is a full, adult-based methodology with broader applications. While a
play therapist supervisor may find the BTE model easier to adapt given time
constraints, deeper training in LSP is highly recommended to fully understand
the depth and breadth of the advanced adult applications. Participation in the
4-day LSP facilitator certification training is advised, where every aspect of the
process is experienced and practiced. Information on LSP facilitator certifica-
tion training can be found at www.seriousplay.com and is offered internation-
ally. Likewise, while many play therapists may have access to LEGO bricks, the
LSP kits include special pieces that allow for “ready-made” metaphors, as well
as nonspecific bricks. Initial financial expense in securing the metaphoric kits
can be high, especially if purchasing for groups, however LEGOs are robust by
design, making it a sound investment.
While interventions using LEGOs can be found in the play therapy litera-
ture for treating children with autistic spectrum disorders (Legoff, Krauss, &
Levin, 2010), there is little, if any literature on its use in child or play therapy
supervision. Nolan (2009) and Sutton (2012) have both suggested LSP holds
great promise in the field of counseling and the current author has been
 Metaphoric Model Building in Supervision 33

examining its use in play therapy supervision and researching its impact in
higher education coursework.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The theoretical underpinnings of LSP are situated in both constructivist and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

constructionist theories (LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®, 2002). Constructivism, as a

theory of knowledge has been heavily drawn upon in the fields of psychology,
education, and behavioral sciences (Haney & McArthur, 2002; McAuliffe & Erik-
sen, 2011). Bruner (1990) and Piaget (1973) are considered the chief theorists
among the cognitive constructivists, where Piaget discovered that children are
active builders of theory who construct and rearrange knowledge based on what
they experience around them.
In clinical supervision, supervisors operating from a constructivism paradigm,
recognize and encourage supervisees to build upon their existing knowledge and
experience to make meaning of their clinical experiences (Rudes & Guterman, 2007).
The basic tenets of a constructivist orientation parallel those of a humanistic perspec-
tive, which is often taught in play therapy training programs (Lambert et al., 2007). In
the humanistic perspective, supervisees may be taught that their clients are the experts
in their own lives, and client previous experiences along with present reality combine
as the foundational basis for the therapeutic process (Shaw, Bayne, & Lorelle, 2012;
Teyber, 2006). Therefore, a humanistic and constructivist framework, which promotes
reflexivity of supervisees and encourages them to consider their own phenomenological
experiences (Nelson & Neufeldt, 1998), is optimal in play therapy supervision.
The second theoretical lens informing LSP is constructionism, aptly named by
Seymond Papert, a former colleague of Piaget (Papert, 1999). Papert and his
colleagues argued that learning happens especially well when people, not just
children, are engaged in constructing something external to themselves (Kristiansen
& Rasmussen, 2014; Papert, 1999). Papert postulated when we “think through our
fingers,” different modes of thought, creativity, and imagination are engaged, and
when tangible objects are involved, abstract ideas become more concrete, visual,
and therefore more understandable (Papert & Harel, 1991).

LSP METHODOLOGY AND MODIFICATIONS FOR SUPERVISION

The LSP core method includes a four-step process, a set of several application
techniques that increase in complexity dependent on context and goals, and a
number of process principles (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; LEGO® SERIOUS
PLAY®, 2010). While a comprehensive explanation of the established methodol-
ogy is beyond the scope of this article, a review of the four-step process and a
sampling of basic application techniques modified for clinical play therapy super-
vision will be introduced through case examples.
In the context of a modification for play therapy supervision, the core steps would
include: (a) facilitator/supervisor poses a question; (b) supervisees build a model in
response to the posed question; (c) supervisees tell their metaphoric story; and (d)
 34 Peabody

questions and reflections by both supervisor and supervisees are shared to crystallize
key insights, make connections, and summarize any surprises (LEGO® SERIOUS
PLAY®, 2014).
Throughout the process, the supervisor may ask clarifying questions, continu-
ously focusing on the brick model, and the accompanying story. When only two
individuals are engaged in LSP, both individuals take part in the process by each
constructing, giving meaning, and sharing metaphoric stories (Kristiansen & Ras-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

mussen, 2014).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

If other supervisees ask questions or comment, it is also critical that the supervisor
instruct them to focus on the model and story, not the individual. For example, a
supervisor may ask, “Does the distance you placed between the parents and you in
your model have significance?,” instead of directly asking the supervisee to describe the
relationship between themselves and the parent. Similar to the play therapy concept of
staying in the metaphor (Kottman, 2003), this concept keeps the supervisory space safe
until the supervisee wants to directly discuss specific issues. The supervisor may pose
questions to explore further, but the supervisee can accept or reject the invitation for
further exploration.

Initial Skill Building

The LSP methodology always considers the importance of pacing and safety by
ensuring that individuals are comfortable with model building. Being an expert LEGO
builder is not important to the LSP process, as the focus is on thinking and commu-
nication to problem solve and gain greater self-awareness (Kristiansen & Rasmussen,
2014). To ensure comfort with both basic building and metaphoric storytelling, a series
of simple skill building techniques and questions are initially posed. Supervisee’s might
be asked to build a tower, or a creature and then in a second round of building may be
asked to change the model into a metaphor of something they know very well. For
example, “Build a model of how you feel on Monday morning or Build a model of the
ideal parent of a client, including traits or characteristics.” Additional rounds or
variations on the initial skill building section are encouraged, keeping in mind the
overall objectives of familiarity with the bricks, comfort with block building, experi-
encing the hand-mind connection, and metaphoric storytelling through the process of
“first build, then explain.”
Typically, clinicians who are drawn to play therapy already value the power of play
as an expressive medium, so it might be tempting to skip the initial skill building phase.
This is discouraged, as it also models the importance of pacing when using experiential
techniques, similar to pacing in a play therapy session or parent consultation. If the
individual or group meets over a period of time, which is often the experience in
supervision, the initial skill building process is only used the first time. In subsequent
sessions, the supervisor would pose different prompts for building, remaining mindful
of pacing and emotional safety.
The established LSP model consists of seven applications, each increasing with
complexity in terms of problems that can be addressed (Kristiansen & Rasmussen,
2014). The more advanced applications include group shared model building, building
connections within and across systems, identification of external entities that impact the
 Metaphoric Model Building in Supervision 35

professional workplace, emergent future scenarios, and guiding principles to navigate

and adapt to change (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). While many of the applications
are most useful when examining system or organizational contexts, the same strategies
with minor modifications are helpful in conceptualizing the systems involved in client’s
lives. LSP as a method is extremely powerful when problems are complex and there are
no obvious or simple solutions, which inherently describes many supervisee scenarios
brought to the play therapy supervisory experience.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

To the untrained eye, both play therapy and LSP may look simple. This compar-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ison is made to illustrate and respect the complexity of facilitating both. The art of LSP
in all contexts, including clinical supervision, lies in understanding the facilitative
methodology. The supervisor must pay careful attention to the developmental stages of
the supervisees, overall goals and needs of the individuals, pacing, emotional safety,
and time allotted for each build and sharing.
Next, applications of the methodology most germane to play therapy supervi-
sion will be examined to foster self-awareness, professional identity, and how others
in the supervisee’s workplace system coevolve and interact. Woven into the differ-
ent applications will be hypothetical case examples of both individual and group
formats.

CASE EXAMPLE FOR INDIVIDUAL SUPERVISION

Doug, a new supervisee had recently opened his first independent practice after a
decade long career as an elementary school social worker. While his comfort level with
counseling children was high, his confidence with working with parents was much
lower. He struggled with the perception that parents were now “paying” for his
expertise and wanted faster results, which was creating dissonance with his values and
theoretical orientation of providing play therapy. His thoughts were creating feelings of
self-doubt that he had not felt in his previous position.
The play therapy supervisor suggested LSP as a tool to explore Doug’s new
identity as a private play therapy practitioner. After introducing Doug to the initial LSP
skill building process, the supervisor began using the LSP applied techniques most
applicable for personal/professional development called: Real time identity for you
(Gauntlett, 2007; Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). This application is especially useful
to explore and clarify the complex notion of professional identity and to gain insight
into the notion that identity continuously develops over time.
The supervisor divided the LSP real time identity application technique into
four phases: (a) professional identity at work, (b) external identity [how individuals
think they are perceived]; (c) aspirational identity or [what you could be at your
best]; and (d) reflection upon the differences. The supervisor began by asking Doug
to construct a model of his core professional identity today. Further prompts
included: What are your values, competencies, what really matters to you, who do
you really sense you are?
After Doug built a model and shared its meaning, the supervisor asked him to take
a few minutes to explore what he may not have included and encouraged additional
building to the original model. Then Doug’s original models were put aside momen-
tarily. Next, the supervisor moved to external identity or how Doug perceived others
 36 Peabody

see him. The prompt posed was, “Build a model that explores and expresses how
parents currently see you.” After Doug built and shared the models metaphoric
meaning, the supervisor posed even deeper questions, such as: Any surprises in what
you built? How do you feel about this external identity model? What is the impact of
this external identity on your core identity?
The final build of the session focused on aspirational identity. Specifically, the
prompt asked Doug to build a model, which depicted his growing sense of identity that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

felt within his reach and realistic, but he had not yet obtained. After the aspirational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

model was shared, a variety of techniques were utilized. For example, asking Doug to
physically place the aspirational model in relation to how near or far he believes it is
from his core and external models. During the reflection step the supervisor asked
Doug to share any surprises or insights he learned from the process.

Group Supervision

A group of community mental health clinicians providing clinical play therapy

services to the local school district meet for group supervision twice a month. The
supervisor observed a reoccurring theme of role confusion that continued to surface
over several months, and suggested using LSP as a communication and problem solving
technique. The team was exposed to LSP in previous sessions, so the introductory skills
building were not necessary. The supervisor divided the application technique into five
phases over two different sessions: (a) the nature of community mental health in the
school culture; (b) landscaping (combining individual stories into one large story); (c)
agent modeling (factors that impact the workplace landscape), (d) connections and
relationships; and (e) professional identity as perceived by self.
Different from the individual supervision format, the group supervisor participated
as a facilitator only, not actually building models with the group. The first prompt posed
by the supervisor was: Build an individual model about the nature of community
mental health services in your schools culture. Each supervisee built for approximately
10 min, followed by group sharing. Examples included: one participant constructed a
model of a rocking horse, symbolizing a culture where many individuals (including
herself) were always extremely busy, but never moving forward; often rocking solo and
isolated. Another supervisee, built a structure where two ladders leaned against a tall
tower of bricks, symbolizing academics as primary, with mental health and social-
emotional learning as supporting structures.
Next, the supervisor introduced a LSP application called landscaping (Kristiansen
& Rasmussen, 2014). The group was instructed to place their individually built models
from the previous question, in relation to each other creating a formation that told one
“mega story;” a collective view of the “bigger picture” of community mental health
situated in school cultures. One volunteer was then asked to tell the collective mega
story, then another volunteer, then another. After each round of story sharing, the
supervisor checked in with each individual supervisee to ensure the collective story still
captured the essence of their individual meanings.
Next, the supervisor asked participants to build a symbol or metaphor that repre-
sented an agent; defined as factors that impacted their workplace landscape. Agents
can be intangible like the weather or tangible, like agency or school policies. The group
 Metaphoric Model Building in Supervision 37

began building and constructed metaphoric representations of moving clocks for time;
an overloaded boat representing caseload numbers; a dollar sign for funding; an
elephant balancing on a ruler for accountability; two windows, one open, the other
shut, representing the mood and mindset of the supervisee; a dark cave representing
poverty; and several soccer goals symbolizing the dizzying amount of client documen-
tation necessary to comply with both agency and school policies.
Next, the task was to identity one agent and to tell a story about the relationship
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

between the agent and each supervisee’s original individual model (the nature of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

mental health services in the school culture) by using Lego connector blocks. The
choice of connector material also had symbolic meaning, for example: the difference
between using a chain, ladder, string, or flexible tube for the connection (Kristiansen &
Rasmussen, 2014). Then following the “build-explain” process, the supervisor asked
the supervisees to make two more connections, followed by a group reflection step,
where the supervisor invited discussion on any insights, surprises, and comments.
The final round of building began with the prompt: Build a model that tells the
story . . .“I think people at school see me as___.” The group returned to building,
sharing and reflecting. This building phase and the sharing became more personal,
illustrating how personal and professional perceived perceptions are often braided.
During the reflection phase, supervisees shared several insights, comments, and
surprises. One supervisee shared that the complexity and interconnectedness of the
landscape was both validating and overwhelming. Still another shared the experi-
ence gave her a visual picture and a language around how her identity as a play
therapist played a key role in the functioning of the interdisciplinary team. One
individual described a modified LSP experience in this way:
I feel as if it is a good way to share metaphors that we didn’t even know we are creating. When you
are building, it sometimes is enough of a distraction so you don’t over think what you are trying to
explain. I found myself talking about the never-ending ladder of necessary education and knowl-
edge, as a constant climb that never seems to getting any shorter. It was a tool that allowed me to
be honest with myself.

Overall, the experience of landscaping helped group members see the complex
“bigger picture;” explored perceived professional identity; and for some, provided
clarity about next steps in continual development and improvement.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND THE FUTURE

Because clinical supervision often continues outside of formal education or

training, providing a research-based process or tool that incorporates play, con-
structionism, constructivism, metaphors, meaning making, and reflection seems
congruent with humanistic play therapy supervision. Landreth (2012) is often
quoted saying, “Play is a child’s language and toys are their words” (p. 156).
Although LSP is typically adult-centric, the process itself is a language (Kristiansen
& Rasmussen, 2014) with potential goals for fostering supervisee insight, self-
awareness, and professional identity as a play therapist.
Future research of LSP in the mental health field, and specifically play therapy
supervision, is warranted. Nolan (2009) and Sutton (2012) propose that modifica-
tions of this metaphoric model may be useful in counseling and that experts in the
 38 Peabody

field should continue to evaluate its utility and impact. Play therapists who already
value expressive and symbolic play, metaphors, and storytelling as vehicles of
communication are prime candidates to accept this challenge.

SUMMARY
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

According to Bernard and Goodyear (2004), a primary goal of supervision is to

further supervisees’ understanding of themselves as clinicians and of the clients
with whom they work. Supervision is a place where professional identity as a play
therapist grows, is challenged and eventually integrated. As the demand for play
therapy supervision continues to grow, Registered Play Therapy Supervisors are
encouraged to provide an array of playful approaches so supervisees can grow in
self-awareness and professional identity (Drewes & Mullen, 2008; Hughes-Bise,
2012). The building of LEGO models followed by metaphoric storytelling is an
enhanced experience that parallels the experiences of play therapy clients, while
simultaneously increasing the supervisees’ appreciation for the power of play,
creative expression, and metaphorical thinking, all important aspects of profes-
sional identity as a play therapist.
Although LSP is an emerging methodology that has not been used extensively
in play therapy supervision, the potential for its use is promising. Modifying the
established LSP model to the unique context of clinical supervision offers oppor-
tunities to help supervisees explore personal values, beliefs, theoretical alignment,
and professional identity. By stopping to build, share, reflect, and receive, “serious
play” shows great promise as a tool for the play therapy community of practice.

REFERENCES

Association for Play Therapy. (2014). Retrieved from www.a4pt.org

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bratton, S., Ceballos, P., & Sheely, A. (2008). Expressive arts in a humanistic approach to play therapy
supervision: Facilitating therapist self-awareness. In A. A. Drewes & J. A. Mullen (Eds.), Super-
vision can be playful (pp. 211–232). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Drewes, A. A., & Mullen, J. A. (2008). Supervision can be playful. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Frick, E., Tardini, S., & Lorenzo, C. (2013). White paper on Lego® Serious Play®: A state of art of its
applications in Europe. Lifelong Learning Programme (Version 2.0.1). Lugano, Switzerland:
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® Learning for SMEs. Retrieved from http://s-play.eu/attachments/
article/70/splay_White_Paper_V2_0_1.pdf
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded
theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50,
21–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00106.x
Granello, D. H., & Young, M. E. (2012). Counseling today: Foundations of professional identity. Boston,
MA: Pearson Higher Education.
Guiffrida, D. A., Jordan, R., Saiz, S., & Barnes, K. L. (2007). The use of metaphor in clinical
supervision. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 393– 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
j.1556-6678.2007.tb00607.x
 Metaphoric Model Building in Supervision 39

Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs
constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86, 783– 802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
sce.10038
Hughes-Bise, W. (2012). Supervision: Perceptions of attachment and professional identity (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and thesis database. ProQuest Dissertations
and thesis (Order No. 3494424).
James, A., & Brookfield, S. (2014). Engaging imagination: Helping students become creative and reflective
thinkers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kottman, T. (2003). Partners in play (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the Lego® Serious Play®
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lahad, M. (2000). Creative supervision: The use of expressive arts methods in supervision and self-
supervision. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lambert, S., LeBlanc, M., Mullen, J., Ray, D., Baggerly, J., . . . White, D. (2007). Learning more about
those who play in session: The national play therapy in counseling practices project. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 85, 42– 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00442.x
Landreth, G. L. (2012). Play therapy: The art of the relationship (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-
Routledge.
Legoff, D. B., Krauss, G. W., & Levin, S. A. (2010). LEGO®-based play therapy for autistic spectrum
children. In A. A. Drewes & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), School-based play therapy (2nd ed., pp.
221–236). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118269701.ch11
Lego® Education. (2014). Build to Express model. Retrieved from https://shop.education.lego.com/
legoed/education/BuildToExpress/BuildToExpress⫹Core⫹Set/45110&isSimpleSearch⫽false
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. (2002). The science of Lego Serious Play™: Play, construction, imagina-
tion. Retrieved from http://www.strategicplay.ca/upload/documents/the-science-of-lego-serious-
play.pdf
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. (2010). Open source introduction to LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Re-
trieved from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5032997/LEGO%20Serious%20Play%20OS/
LEGO%C2%AE_SERIOUS_PLAY_OpenSource.pdf
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. (2014). Imaginopedia for core process. Enfield, CT: Lego Education.
McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructivist, devel-
opmental and experiential approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, M., & Homeyer, L. E. (2008). Supervision in the sand. In A. A. Drewes & J. A. Mullen (Eds.),
Supervision can be playful (pp. 233–248). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Nelson, M. L., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1998). The pedagogy of counseling: A critical examination.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 70 – 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998
.tb00560.x
Nolan, S. (2009). Physical metaphorical modelling with Lego® as a technology for collaborative
personalized learning. In J. O’ Donohue (Ed.), Technology-supported environments for personal-
ized learning: Methods and case studies (pp. 364 –385). Hershey, PA: Information Science Refer-
ence. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-884-0.ch020
Papert, S. (1999). Papert on Piaget. Retrieved from www.papert.org/articles/Papertonpiaget.html
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation. Retrieved from http://namodemello.com.br/pdf/tendencias/situatingconstrutivism.pdf
Piaget, J. (1973). Main trends in psychology. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Robert, T., & Kelly, V. (2010). Metaphor as an instrument for orchestrating change in counselor training
and the counseling process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 182–188. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00007.x
Rudes, J., & Guterman, J. T. (2007). The value of social constructionism for the counseling profession:
A reply to Hansen. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 387–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
j.1556-6678.2007.tb00606.x
Shaw, B. M., Bayne, H., & Lorelle, S. (2012). A constructivist perspective for integrating spirituality into
counselor training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51, 270 –280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
j.1556-6978.2012.00020.x
Shepard, B., & Guenette, F. (2010). Magazine picture collage in group supervision. Canadian Journal of
Counselling and Psychotherapy, 44, 296 –306.
Stark, M. D., Frels, R. K., & Garza, Y. (2011). The use of sand tray in solution-focused supervision. The
Clinical Supervisor, 30, 277–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2011.621869
Stewart, A., & Echterling, L. G. (2008). Playful supervision: Sharing exemplary exercises in the
supervision of play therapists. In A. A. Drewes & J. A. Mullen (Eds.), Supervision can be playful
(pp. 281–307). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
 40 Peabody

Sutton, J. (2012). When psychologists become builders. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychologist.org

.uk/archive/archivehome.cfm?volumeID⫽25&editionID⫽216
Teyber, E. (2006). Interpersonal process in therapy: An integrative model (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Received July 23, 2014

Revision received October 14, 2014
Accepted December 1, 2014 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publi-
cations and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Man-
uscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would
gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in
encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this
process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at

Reviewers@apa.org. Please note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed

journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for
preparing a thorough, objective review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical

journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to
review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer
with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of
existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs
detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter,
please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your
area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is
not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change”
as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you
are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to
evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manu-
scripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://
www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.

View publication stats