Better Writing, Brick by Brick: a Student-Centered Writing Exercise Using LEGO

ABSTRACT

Supporting student development of clear science communication skills is critically important and incredibly challenging. In this activity, to help students understand the importance of clear written communication, students work in pairs with LEGO bricks. One student with a completed LEGO structure describes a small LEGO construction, directing a second student to build it, sight unseen. This exercise serves three aims. First, it acts as an icebreaker in the beginning of this writing-intensive course; second, it prompts thinking about the features of clear communication; and finally, it highlights challenges in written communication. The exercise is followed by a short debrief and an in-class writing assignment. Most students found the exercise to be enjoyable and useful and advised including it in future course offerings. With modifications, it also runs well in an online format, and is easily adaptable to many other course contexts.

INTRODUCTION

Clear written communication is an essential component of scientific literacy (1, 2) and an important employment skill (3). Scientific writing courses within the curriculum can be effective in building writing skills among undergraduates (4). In our writing-intensive upper-division genetics lab course, students practice a variety of types of scientific writing which many find difficult. Like many other students (5, 6), they struggle with weak writing skills, understanding course concepts, time management, and understanding the reader. Here, we describe an activity to support their awareness of a reader’s experience.

Students need to understand what the reader needs in order to follow the logic of the “story” they are telling (5). The reader is not inside the head of the author, so they must be led logically through the reasoning. To support students understanding this aspect of communication, and to help form community, we ran a short, low-stakes, in-class icebreaker activity using LEGO bricks. This involves pairs of students building small structures and communicating about the process, without being able to see the construction.

PROCEDURE

To prepare, we purchased duplicates of several LEGO “Classic” kits, which included instructions for several structures of ~20 pieces each (Fig. 1). The structures were recognizable, describable objects: flowers, animals, or vehicles. (Unbranded building blocks would work equally well, and instructions for small structures are readily available for free on the Internet.) We organized the LEGO bricks into pairs of small opaque bags: one bag with a completed structure, and another containing the disassembled pieces for the same structure. Thus, for a class, we had one bag per student (half assembled, half loose pieces).

FIG 1.

Examples of two LEGO structures and the disassembled pieces used in this activity.

This activity took one 2-h class, though it could be varied. In class, we explained the aims: (i) an icebreaker to get them talking, and (ii) an exercise focusing on clear communication with a connection to written communication. Students were randomly assigned to pairs and instructed to sit back-to-back. We then gave one partner (the “Author”) a completed structure, and the other partner (the “Reader”) the duplicate bag of disassembled LEGO bricks.

The Author gave verbal instructions, describing the shape of the completed structure, and the Reader built the structure based on their understanding of the Author’s words, without either party looking at each other’s materials. The Author was asked not to name the structure (i.e., a truck, a tree, etc.). Students had about 10 to 15 min to produce their structure, during which we and the teaching assistants circulated and made notes to support the debrief. When the time was up, the partners compared the two structures, which led into our class discussion. We led the debrief naturally, for about 20 min, based on student comments. Some prompts included:

• What challenges did you encounter, as the Author? As the Reader?

• What helped authors communicate the information?

• What helped readers understand the information?

• Based on this, can you identify some qualities of clear communication?

• How (dis)similar is this type of communication to writing?

The debrief aimed to draw out an analogy to the challenge of communication in writing, the distance in time and space between the author and the reader. An author must be as clear as possible because they cannot check with the reader to see if they understand, rephrase for clarification, or answer the reader’s questions. This creates an opportunity to identify the qualities of clear writing. Clear writing lacks ambiguity, it is precise and specific, it is accurate, and the information is provided in a logical sequence.

Finally, the students completed a short in-class written assignment (graded for completion only). They were asked to describe what makes written communication clear, whether and how the exercise made them think about clear writing, and what they intended to do during the semester to ensure that their writing is clear. The assignment lets us see a sample of their writing, sets the tone, and identifies struggling students at this early point. It also provides time for reflection and an opportunity to practice expressing their ideas in writing.

CONCLUSION

We found this to be a lively icebreaker, bringing a playful aspect to the start of the semester. The postactivity debrief sparked meaningful discussion, validating our activity’s success. From the debrief, our students identified two main challenges: the inability to see the finished product and the inability to see ongoing progress. They also identified qualities that helped: familiarity with LEGO, describing the pieces clearly and precisely, providing the building steps in a logical sequence, and others. Both the challenges and these positive qualities align strongly with scientific writing practices. One student shared the following comment, included here with permission:

“The activity did make me think about characteristics of clear communication. Being the builder during the exercise, I ended up asking many clarifying questions since some of the directions and descriptions of pieces were ambiguous. When in a written medium, readers do not always have the opportunity to ask the author for clarification, therefore specificity and having a logical flow of arguments is key in making sure your reader understands exactly what you mean.”

While we instructors know these challenges from our own writing and teaching experiences, this student-led experience centered the learning on them and gave them more ownership.

Based on survey data from the end of the semester, the student response to this activity was very positive. Over 98% of responses agreed that it would be useful to include the LEGO activity in future offerings of the course. We also asked two Likert-style questions (Fig. 2).

FIG 2.

Student response to survey questions about the LEGO communication exercise (79% of students responded, of 138 enrolled, over two semesters in 2019 and 2020).

This short and versatile activity can easily be adapted to various scenarios in any course that involves writing or other scientific communication. We have used it successfully in face-to-face and online classes (see supplemental material items 1 and 2). We ran it during labs, but it could be run in lecture, whether large or small (depending on one-time resources for buying the duplicate sets of bricks). A third student team member could be added, in the role of note-taker or observer, with roles rotating between the students.