Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Using Interlocking Toy Building Blocks To Assess Conceptual Understanding In Chemistry Michael 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 for new, 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 this purpose. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Testing/Assessment, Gases, Reactions
■
difficult.12 This can hinder the use of PNM in any form of multiple choice format, paired or not. There is not enough time in many teachers’ schedules to modify existing PNM questions or create PNM drawings for new questions. Even given the time, many teachers have not been properly trained in how best to evaluate PNM drawings by looking, for example, at whether or 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 and time-consuming they were to grade. There appears to be a lack of other ideas on how to effectively assess student conceptual understanding via PNM in a way that both allows the student to demonstrate what they know and yet does not put too much of a burden on the grader with respect to adding time to the grading process. Any new idea must address the current needs of summative assessment and yet be flexible enough to allow for its use in formative assessment during class or laboratory activities. It should be easy enough to adapt to new topics as well as different specific chemical and physical reactions. During the 2014−2015 and 2015−2016 school years, interlocking toy building blocks were used to address these demands. Flat baseplates of various sizes together with 1 × 1 flat, round plates (sometimes called studs) were used in a new form of assessment with tests, quizzes, homework, and laboratory activities in a general high school chemistry class. This tool was used in conjunction with traditional tests and laboratory write-ups. Students had been introduced to PNM at the beginning of the school year with Target Inquiry activities (such as “What’s The Matter”),13,14 so they were familiar with this representation before they began this new method of assessment.
BACKGROUND With more of an emphasis being placed on conceptual learning in chemistry, there has been a concerted effort over the past few decades to move away from viewing chemistry as primarily a calculator science. Research articles have appeared in this Journal as far back as 1987 that highlight the issue with focusing primarily on problem solving in chemistry and note that being able to solve a mathematical problem is not equivalent to understanding the nature of matter.1 Another article provided a list of 13 research studies performed over the past 30 years that state nearly the same thing.2 At the 12th BCCE in 1992, one of the program highlights, as reported in a conference summary in this Journal, dealt with how to use all three views of chemistry in a lecture format.3 The prior year, Johnstone had published an article in which he briefly mentioned his “triangle of levels of thought” in chemistry: the macro, submicro, and symbolics.4 This simple diagram and the article in which it appeared are most often referenced when discussing conceptual learning in chemistry via the particulate nature of matter (PNM). In recent years, several educational approaches to teaching various chemistry 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 many more chemistry teachers incorporating PNM into their curriculum, it only follows that the issue of assessment needs to be revisited, as it presents a new set of challenges for many classroom teachers. Sirhan points out that research has found more students are able to solve chemistry problems using symbols and numbers than could solve those problems with a particulate depiction.10 There is no question as to the necessity of assessment both formative and summative. However, what type of assessment is best for allowing students to demonstrate their understanding of the PNM and the concepts that lie behind them? Asking paired conceptual-calculation questions has been suggested2,11 as has been having students write explanations.11 However, time constraints on grading can pose issues for the latter. Moreover, as Prilliman notes, most current chemistry teachers have a limited supply of examples of particulate representations.2 In addition, creating particulate drawings that “faithfully represent chemical phenomena” is © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY ONE (FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT) In one example, the class was studying physical and chemical changes with a single-replacement reaction between aluminum Received: July 22, 2016 Revised: November 8, 2016
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 1. Interlocking toy building block kits supplied to student groups for assessment (left) and contents of each bag (right).
■
OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY TWO (SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT) In another example, while they reviewed states of matter using a Sophia tutorial,15 the students were to generate an example of ten “particles” for each of two elements. After they watched a video showing the solid version of the element in the macroscopic realm, on one 6 × 12 plate, they were to create a particulate model for the solid phase and take a picture with a smartphone. Then a video of the element in the liquid phase (macroscopic realm) was viewed, and students modified the previous model to reflect this new phase of matter and took a picture when finished. After this they were to again modify their particulate model to represent the element in its gaseous phase. Again they were to take a picture of this model. A collage photo was then created on the smartphone (see Figure 3) and submitted electronically through the school’s learning management system for grading. In doing this, it was possible to quickly determine how much time (if any) was needed to devote to the phases of matter early on in the chemistry class. Moreover, since smartphones are ubiquitous, the students are happy to use them and able to quickly create very elaborate collages with labels directly on the picture. In addition, by having all assignments submitted electronically, there is not anything that the teacher needs to physically collect to grade. All grading can be done electronically and, depending on what system is used to collect the pictures, comments can be provided and returned to the students with their grade.
and copper(II) chloride. After a laboratory activity, the students were asked to predict the products (prior to any form of instruction on this material). To facilitate a postlab, ungraded assessment, each lab group was provided with two baggies each containing two interlocking toy building block 6 × 8 plates and several 1 × 1 round plates of three various colors (see Figure 1). One baggie was for the reactants, and the other was for the products. The students had established in a prior discussion which color represented each of the three elements in the chemical reaction. They were to create an example of several “particles” for each reactant on one set of 6 × 8 plates and then do the same for the products on the second set of plates. After this, they were to place their “answers” back into the two appropriate baggies and turn them in for grading. Assessment of the level of understanding was quick and easy by looking over each plate (see Figure 2). The level of success was much
■
CONCLUSIONS This form of assessment is easy to use for a quick formative assessment or a summative assessment. It can be used separately or with other assessment techniques and does not take a very long time to grade. Student work can either be collected or photographed with smartphones and submitted electronically. In some cases, feedback can be given in class while students work on an ungraded assessment, and the work does not need to be collected. It is rather inexpensive in the long-run in that, once purchased, the interlocking toy building blocks 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 the use of interlocking building blocks provides options for students to make a limited number of mistakes and learn from them rather than an unlimited number of mistakes that can be made using student created drawings. Moreover, the
Figure 2. Student response showing particulate level aluminum (left) and copper(II) chloride (right) reactants.
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. B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 3. Student responses showing collage pictures of the elements mercury (left) and oxygen (right) in all three states of matter. (4) Johnstone, A. H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom 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. Understanding Chemical Reaction Kinetics and Equilibrium with Interlocking Building Blocks. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (10), 1400−1403. (7) Ruddick, K. R.; Parrill, A. L. An Interlocking Building Block Activity in Writing Formulas of Ionic Compounds (JCE Classroom Activity #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 Metrics with Interlocking Building Block Molecular Models. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 691−694. (9) Melaku, S.; Schreck, J. O.; Griffin, K.; Dabke, R. B. Interlocking Toy Building Blocks as Hands-On Learning Modules for Blind and Visually 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 and Improve Students’ Conceptions of Pure Substances and Mixtures. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (6), 762−766. (13) These inquiry-based activities, created by instructors involved in the Target Inquiry Program at Grand Valley State University, may be accessed at http://www.gvsu.edu/targetinquiry. A password is required to obtain materials. This initial registration is for data collection 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 in the Target Inquiry Program at Miami University, may be accessed at http://www.targetinquirymu.org. A password is required to obtain materials. This initial registration is for data collection only. The site provides free instructor and student guides, facilitation notes, student misconceptions addressed by each activity, and help with setup and assessment questions. (15) Geyer, M. Modeling States of Matter with LEGOs. https://www. sophia.org/tutorials/modeling-states-of-matter-with-legos (accessed November 2016).
tactile nature of the blocks is more interactive and engages kinesthetic learners in a way that drawing cannot. Most students have played with LEGOs at some point in their childhood 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 topics ranging from states of matter, conservation of matter, and the gas laws to testing for physical or chemical change and types of chemical reactions, predicting products, and balancing equations.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications 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 INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Michael J. Geyer: 0000-0002-0184-5887 Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. Concept Learning versus Problem Solving: Is There a Difference? J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (6), 508−510. (2) Prilliman, S. G. Integrating Particulate Representations Into AP Chemistry 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. C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00551 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
