Using Interlocking Toy Building Blocks To Assess ConceptualUnderstanding In ChemistryMichael J. Geyer*

Sycamore High School, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242, United States

*S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: A current emphasis on teaching conceptual chemistry via the particulate nature of matter has led to the need fornew, effective ways to assess students’ conceptual understanding of this view of chemistry. This article provides a simple,inexpensive way to use interlocking toy building blocks (e.g., LEGOs) in both formative and summative assessments for thispurpose.

KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Testing/Assessment, Gases, Reactions

■ BACKGROUND

With more of an emphasis being placed on conceptual learningin chemistry, there has been a concerted effort over the past fewdecades to move away from viewing chemistry as primarily acalculator science. Research articles have appeared in thisJournal as far back as 1987 that highlight the issue with focusingprimarily on problem solving in chemistry and note that beingable to solve a mathematical problem is not equivalent tounderstanding the nature of matter.1 Another article provided alist of 13 research studies performed over the past 30 years thatstate nearly the same thing.2 At the 12th BCCE in 1992, one ofthe program highlights, as reported in a conference summary inthis Journal, dealt with how to use all three views of chemistryin a lecture format.3 The prior year, Johnstone had published anarticle in which he briefly mentioned his “triangle of levels ofthought” in chemistry: the macro, submicro, and symbolics.4

This simple diagram and the article in which it appeared aremost often referenced when discussing conceptual learning inchemistry via the particulate nature of matter (PNM). In recentyears, several educational approaches to teaching variouschemistry topics via the use of interlocking building blocks,to represent the particulate realm, have been proposed.5−9

Given this newer emphasis in chemistry, and with manymore chemistry teachers incorporating PNM into theircurriculum, it only follows that the issue of assessment needsto be revisited, as it presents a new set of challenges for manyclassroom teachers. Sirhan points out that research has foundmore students are able to solve chemistry problems usingsymbols and numbers than could solve those problems with aparticulate depiction.10 There is no question as to the necessityof assessment both formative and summative. However, whattype of assessment is best for allowing students to demonstratetheir understanding of the PNM and the concepts that liebehind them? Asking paired conceptual-calculation questionshas been suggested2,11 as has been having students writeexplanations.11 However, time constraints on grading can poseissues for the latter. Moreover, as Prilliman notes, most currentchemistry teachers have a limited supply of examples ofparticulate representations.2 In addition, creating particulatedrawings that “faithfully represent chemical phenomena” is

difficult.12 This can hinder the use of PNM in any form ofmultiple choice format, paired or not. There is not enough timein many teachers’ schedules to modify existing PNM questionsor create PNM drawings for new questions. Even given thetime, many teachers have not been properly trained in how bestto evaluate PNM drawings by looking, for example, at whetheror not there is mixing of scale in the drawings.Having asked students in the past to make their own PNM

drawings on assignments, it became apparent how difficult andtime-consuming they were to grade. There appears to be a lackof other ideas on how to effectively assess student conceptualunderstanding via PNM in a way that both allows the studentto demonstrate what they know and yet does not put too muchof a burden on the grader with respect to adding time to thegrading process. Any new idea must address the current needsof summative assessment and yet be flexible enough to allowfor its use in formative assessment during class or laboratoryactivities. It should be easy enough to adapt to new topics aswell as different specific chemical and physical reactions.During the 2014−2015 and 2015−2016 school years,

interlocking toy building blocks were used to address thesedemands. Flat baseplates of various sizes together with 1 × 1flat, round plates (sometimes called studs) were used in a newform of assessment with tests, quizzes, homework, andlaboratory activities in a general high school chemistry class.This tool was used in conjunction with traditional tests andlaboratory write-ups. Students had been introduced to PNM atthe beginning of the school year with Target Inquiry activities(such as “What’s The Matter”),13,14 so they were familiar withthis representation before they began this new method ofassessment.

■ OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY ONE (FORMATIVEASSESSMENT)

In one example, the class was studying physical and chemicalchanges with a single-replacement reaction between aluminum

Received: July 22, 2016Revised: November 8, 2016

Article

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

© XXXX American Chemical Society andDivision of Chemical Education, Inc. A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551

J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

and copper(II) chloride. After a laboratory activity, the studentswere asked to predict the products (prior to any form ofinstruction on this material). To facilitate a postlab, ungradedassessment, each lab group was provided with two baggies eachcontaining two interlocking toy building block 6 × 8 plates andseveral 1 × 1 round plates of three various colors (see Figure1). One baggie was for the reactants, and the other was for theproducts. The students had established in a prior discussionwhich color represented each of the three elements in thechemical reaction. They were to create an example of several“particles” for each reactant on one set of 6 × 8 plates and thendo the same for the products on the second set of plates. Afterthis, they were to place their “answers” back into the twoappropriate baggies and turn them in for grading. Assessmentof the level of understanding was quick and easy by lookingover each plate (see Figure 2). The level of success was much

higher using this method of assessment than had been

experienced in prior years. A combination of the macroscopic,

symbolic, and particulate representations at the same time

allowed the students to quickly eliminate incorrect answers

more easily (by rearranging the interlocking toy building blocks

and evaluating the result immediately against lab observations)

than when the students were left to think and respond in the

macroscopic and symbolic realms only.

■ OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY TWO (SUMMATIVEASSESSMENT)

In another example, while they reviewed states of matter usinga Sophia tutorial,15 the students were to generate an example often “particles” for each of two elements. After they watched avideo showing the solid version of the element in themacroscopic realm, on one 6 × 12 plate, they were to createa particulate model for the solid phase and take a picture with asmartphone. Then a video of the element in the liquid phase(macroscopic realm) was viewed, and students modified theprevious model to reflect this new phase of matter and took apicture when finished. After this they were to again modify theirparticulate model to represent the element in its gaseous phase.Again they were to take a picture of this model. A collage photowas then created on the smartphone (see Figure 3) andsubmitted electronically through the school’s learning manage-ment system for grading. In doing this, it was possible toquickly determine how much time (if any) was needed todevote to the phases of matter early on in the chemistry class.Moreover, since smartphones are ubiquitous, the students arehappy to use them and able to quickly create very elaboratecollages with labels directly on the picture. In addition, byhaving all assignments submitted electronically, there is notanything that the teacher needs to physically collect to grade.All grading can be done electronically and, depending on whatsystem is used to collect the pictures, comments can beprovided and returned to the students with their grade.

■ CONCLUSIONSThis form of assessment is easy to use for a quick formativeassessment or a summative assessment. It can be usedseparately or with other assessment techniques and does nottake a very long time to grade. Student work can either becollected or photographed with smartphones and submittedelectronically. In some cases, feedback can be given in classwhile students work on an ungraded assessment, and the workdoes not need to be collected. It is rather inexpensive in thelong-run in that, once purchased, the interlocking toy buildingblocks can be reused each year and adapted to many topics.Some of the advantages over having students create their

own particulate drawings on paper or white boards is that theuse of interlocking building blocks provides options forstudents to make a limited number of mistakes and learnfrom them rather than an unlimited number of mistakes thatcan be made using student created drawings. Moreover, the

Figure 1. Interlocking toy building block kits supplied to student groups for assessment (left) and contents of each bag (right).

Figure 2. Student response showing particulate level aluminum (left)and copper(II) chloride (right) reactants.

Journal of Chemical Education Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

B

tactile nature of the blocks is more interactive and engageskinesthetic learners in a way that drawing cannot. Moststudents have played with LEGOs at some point in theirchildhood and are familiar with how to use them.While this form of assessment cannot be used for all topics in

chemistry, the teacher can quickly adapt this tool for topicsranging from states of matter, conservation of matter, and thegas laws to testing for physical or chemical change and types ofchemical reactions, predicting products, and balancing equa-tions.

■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT*S Supporting Information

The Supporting Information is available on the ACSPublications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551.

Grading rubric for activity two (PDF, DOCX)AP acid test/quiz question (PDF, DOCX)Grading rubric for AP acid test/quiz question (PDF,DOCX)AP acid test/quiz question student response (PDF)

■ AUTHOR INFORMATIONCorresponding Author

*E-mail: geyerm@sycamoreschools.org.ORCID

Michael J. Geyer: 0000-0002-0184-5887Notes

The author declares no competing financial interest.

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis material is based upon work supported by the NationalScience Foundation under Grant No. DRL 1118749.

■ REFERENCES(1) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. Concept Learning versusProblem Solving: Is There a Difference? J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (6),508−510.

(2) Prilliman, S. G. Integrating Particulate Representations Into APChemistry and Introductory Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2014,91 (9), 1291−1298.(3) Russell, A. A.; Wood, F. E. Changing the Image of Chemistry:Report of the 12th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education. J.Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (7), 523−527.(4) Johnstone, A. H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things areseldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1991, 7,75−83.(5) Witzel, J. E. Lego Stoichiometry (JCE Classroom Activity #43). J.Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (3), 352A−352B.(6) Cloonan, C. A.; Nichol, C. A.; Hutchinson, J. S. UnderstandingChemical Reaction Kinetics and Equilibrium with InterlockingBuilding Blocks. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (10), 1400−1403.(7) Ruddick, K. R.; Parrill, A. L. An Interlocking Building BlockActivity in Writing Formulas of Ionic Compounds (JCE ClassroomActivity #113). J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (11), 1436−1438.(8) Hudson, R.; Leaman, D.; Kawamura, K. E.; Esdale, K. N.;Glaisher, S.; Bishop, A.; Katz, J. L. Exploring Green Chemistry Metricswith Interlocking Building Block Molecular Models. J. Chem. Educ.2016, 93 (4), 691−694.(9) Melaku, S.; Schreck, J. O.; Griffin, K.; Dabke, R. B. InterlockingToy Building Blocks as Hands-On Learning Modules for Blind andVisually Impaired Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (6),1049−1055.(10) Sirhan, G. Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview. J.Turkish Science Educ. 2007, 4, 2−20.(11) Pienta, N. J. Testing in a Traditional General Chemistry Course.J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (1), 1−2.(12) Sanger, M. J. Using Particulate Drawings to Determine andImprove Students’ Conceptions of Pure Substances and Mixtures. J.Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (6), 762−766.(13) These inquiry-based activities, created by instructors involved inthe Target Inquiry Program at Grand Valley State University, may beaccessed at http://www.gvsu.edu/targetinquiry. A password isrequired to obtain materials. This initial registration is for datacollection only. The site provides free instructor and student guides,facilitation notes, student misconceptions addressed by each activity,and help with setup and assessment questions.(14) These inquiry-based activities, created by instructors involved inthe Target Inquiry Program at Miami University, may be accessed athttp://www.targetinquirymu.org. A password is required to obtainmaterials. This initial registration is for data collection only. The siteprovides free instructor and student guides, facilitation notes, student

Figure 3. Student responses showing collage pictures of the elements mercury (left) and oxygen (right) in all three states of matter.

Journal of Chemical Education Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

C

misconceptions addressed by each activity, and help with setup andassessment questions.(15) Geyer, M. Modeling States of Matter with LEGOs. https://www.sophia.org/tutorials/modeling-states-of-matter-with-legos (accessedNovember 2016).

Journal of Chemical Education Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

D