International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: 0020-739X (Print) 1464-5211 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

Teaching group theory using Rubik's cubes

Claire Cornock

To cite this article: Claire Cornock (2015) Teaching group theory using Rubik's cubes,
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46:7, 957-967, DOI:
10.1080/0020739X.2015.1070442

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1070442

Published online: 05 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 688

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 2015
Vol. 46, No. 7, 957–967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1070442

Teaching group theory using Rubik’s cubes

Claire Cornock∗

Department of Engineering and Mathematics, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street,

Sheffield, United Kingdom
(Received 30 March 2015)

Being situated within a course at the applied end of the spectrum of maths degrees,
the pure mathematics modules at Sheffield Hallam University have an applied spin.
Pure topics are taught through consideration of practical examples such as knots, cryp-
tography and automata. Rubik’s cubes are used to teach group theory within a final
year pure elective based on physical examples. Abstract concepts, such as subgroups,
homomorphisms and equivalence relations are explored with the cubes first. In addition
to this, conclusions about the cubes can be made through the consideration of alge-
braic approaches through a process of discovery. The teaching, learning and assessment
methods are explored in this paper, along with the challenges and limitations of the
methods. The physical use of Rubik’s cubes within the classroom and examination will
be presented, along with the use of peer support groups in this process. The students
generally respond positively to the teaching methods and the use of the cubes.
Keywords: Rubik’s cubes; group theory; discovery learning; visual aids; peer support

1. Introduction
The mathematics degree at Sheffield Hallam University is based on real, practical and
current uses of mathematics. The degree programme has several themes running throughout
including modelling and statistics. There is a large focus on the use of technology and the
development of employability skills. There is not a focus of getting students ready for
academia, although some do move on to postgraduate study.
Despite a strong focus on mathematics applications, there is a demand from students for
having a strand of pure mathematics running throughout the course. Rather than teaching
the material using a very abstract approach, the strengths of the students are utilized and
a lot of the topics are taught through applications or supported with physical examples.
The students take compulsory modules in pure mathematics in their first year, studying
a number of topics such as graph theory, logic, sets, methods of proof, group theory
and relations. A number of practical examples are used throughout to illustrate the ideas.
These include cards when looking at permutations and chess boards when exploring graph
theory. In their second year, students explore further number theory and matrix algebra
by studying cryptography. They also have the option of studying a knot theory module,
in which concepts in topology are explored by using a variety of numerical and algebraic
approaches. Throughout the lessons and examination, students are provided with rope as a
practical resource to explore the concepts.

∗
Email: [email protected]


C 2015 Taylor & Francis
958 C. Cornock

A recent addition to the degree programme, in 2012, has been a final (third) year pure
mathematics elective, entitled ‘Abstract Algebra’; 55 students chose this in 2014–2015
(67.9% of the year group). Students taking the module in 2014–2015 were surveyed, and
in response to an open question, 78.0% (32 of 41 students surveyed) stated that they chose
the module because they enjoyed the previous pure mathematics modules. Several of them
mentioned that it was because they were interested in the maths behind Rubik’s cubes
(12.2%, 5 students) and that the module sounded interesting (24.4%, 10 students).
The final year ‘Abstract Algebra’ elective was developed based on the success and
popularity of the other pure mathematics modules within the degree programme. Despite
its name, the module was designed around practical examples. Teaching methods were
carefully selected with the students in mind. Through observations of the other pure math-
ematics modules, it became apparent that the students’ strengths lie in consideration of
applications. They excel when using concrete examples and tend to struggle with abstract
concepts without any context. Therefore, the abstract ideas are taught through the use of
practical examples. In addition to this, the module aims to increase the understanding of
how abstract concepts can be used to form judgements about practical scenarios.
Within this paper, the use of Rubik’s cubes to teach the group theory part of the module
will be discussed. After describing the teaching environment that the students work within,
the connections with group theory are presented, along with examples of how specific topics
are taught. Details of the assessment methods are provided, along with the differences in
questions asked in coursework and examinations. Due to the practical constraints, the types
of exam questions that can be asked about Rubik’s cubes are limited; however, this fits in
nicely with the stage the students are in the learning process and appropriate examination
questions can be asked. The coursework part of the assessment plays a very different role
as the group theory assignment is done a lot earlier in the module and has fewer practical
restrictions.

2. Methodology of evaluation techniques

Evaluation of the approaches, mainly carried out through consultation with the students, will
be presented throughout the paper. In addition to yearly evaluation, a survey in 2014–2015
was carried out with 41 (74.5%) of the students on the module whilst they were studying the
material on a subsequent topic. Most of the questions were about the specific teaching tools
and techniques used in the first part of the module. Responses to the following questions
have been used:

• Did using Rubik’s cubes help you understand the concepts?

• Did you find the application of Rubik’s cubes interesting?
• Would you have preferred to study group theory without the Rubik’s cubes?
• Do you find it easier to understand abstract ideas when you see a practical example?
• Did being in a support group help you learn the material for the group theory part of
the module?
• Do you like the partially printed notes?

These questions had three possible responses (yes, no or sometimes) and were followed
by questions asking why they had responded the way they had. There was also an open
question about why they chose Abstract Algebra as an elective along with questions asking
whether they attended most of the lectures and why this was the case.
 International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 959

In addition to this, evaluation has taken place by consultation with the moderator, who
has a background in teaching pure mathematics to these students. This was done through a
process of peer observation and discussions. The attendance of the students and the marks
they obtained have also been used when evaluating the success of the group theory part of
the module.

3. Teaching methods in the classroom

Throughout the module, the students are taught in groups no larger than 30. Sessions are
run as 2-hour workshops in a classroom where the tables can be rearranged. Running the
module through lectures and tutorials has a number of restrictions including the limitations
on group activities, so these methods of delivery are not used.
At the start of the year, the students group themselves into support teams of three
to four. During the workshops, the students work within these teams on activities and
are encouraged to support each other outside the classroom. As discussed by MacBean,
Graham and Sangwin,[1] one benefit of group work is the support that the students receive
from each other. They found that discussions helped students to ‘move forward when stuck,
organise their ideas and thoughts, and correct misunderstandings’. During sessions, time is
allocated for students to discuss concepts and ideas. For example, after a proof, students are
given a few minutes to discuss the content and are encouraged to ask each other questions
about parts they are unsure of.
Students on the mathematics degree at Sheffield Hallam University are accustomed to
working within groups. When they first arrive, they are placed into small groups ready to
take part in a peer assisted learning scheme, producing assessment materials together; on
many occasions thereafter, they are required to work in groups on assignments. When taking
part in final-year electives, most students have little difficulty taking part in discussions and
supporting each other.
Generally, the students respond positively to working in their support groups. Of the
students that were surveyed in 2014–2015, 85.4% (35 students) found that being in a
support group helped them learn the material and 9.8% (4 students) found that it sometimes
helped. This was not surprising having observed them working in their groups both within
and outside the classroom. Most of the students commented that they found it useful to ask
questions to group members and also that they could help others out in the group. They
felt that it made it easier to learn the material. They recognized group work as useful, with
students commenting that they ‘all seemed to understand bits and helped one another so
[they] all understood it all by the end’. They commented that they can utilize each other’s
strengths and weaknesses, meaning the groups ‘help get the best out of everyone’. They
even recognized the benefits of helping out other students with one student commenting
that ‘explaining things to others helped [them] process [their] own explanations.’ As found
when evaluating a peer mentoring scheme within a university, Colvin & Ashton [2] noted
that student mentors found that ‘mentoring allowed them to reapply concepts into their own
lives and helped them become even better students themselves’ as suggested by [3]. Some
students mentioned they felt more confident to mention an issue within a group and that
they could then ‘work as a unit to work it out’. They found that hearing ideas explained in
a different way was useful to them, typical comments being: ‘it was good to hear things
explained from a different perspective’ and ‘sometimes a different way of explaining helped
more’.
A typical workshop in this module consists of short presentations intertwined with ex-
ercises, discussion and exploration. Students are provided with partially complete notes for
960 C. Cornock

each section of the course. These contain many of the technical definitions and diagrams,
but also spaces for examples and notes. This ensures that students do not have to write
everything down, but on the other hand they are not provided with every piece of written
information that they will need, in order to encourage attendance and active participation at
the sessions. The majority of the students like the printed notes, with 80.5% (33 students)
giving a positive response. There are a number of benefits of taking notes including main-
taining the students’ attention and attendance.[4] A disadvantage of letting students make
their own notes is that key information may be missing or incorrect, and a way of gaining
the benefits of both approaches is to provide them with ‘skeletal notes’.[5]
The students who didn’t like the partially printed notes mainly disliked them because
they personally like to make their own notes. The majority of the students thought that it
was a ‘good balance’, with one student commenting that their ‘concentration would slip if
[they were] given everything.’ They like ‘not having to rush to get everything down so can
listen to what is being said’. They appreciate being able to make some of their own notes as
it gives them a ‘better understanding’ with comments including that they have more time
to read and write their own interpretations of the ideas. A few of the students commented
that having a fully printed set of notes would ‘discourage attendance’ and that ‘it is always
tempting to not attend lectures when you have all the notes’. Overall, the balance of the
partially printed notes encourages attendance, but eliminates the need for students to spend
full sessions making notes.
During each session whilst studying the group theory part of the module, and for the
period of time they are working on assignment questions, students are provided with a
Rubik’s cube. Being able to complete a Rubik’s cube is not a requirement of the course, but
additional sessions are run for any of the students that wish to learn how to solve one. They
are all able to swap their cube for a solved one if needed. Students are also provided with a
Rubik’s cube within the examination. The types of questions are restricted, but this will be
explored in the assessment section.

4. Rubik’s cubes and group theory

Using a number of resources, including [6] and [7], a series of sessions were created with the
aim of studying abstract concepts using Rubik’s cubes. Taking the set of all possible Rubik’s
cube moves where the binary operation is performing one move after another, a group is
formed. It is generated by six basic moves of turning each of the sides 90◦ clockwise;
namely R ‘right’, L ‘left’, U ‘up’, D ‘down’, F ‘front’ and B ‘back’. A number of topics
within group theory can be explored including subgroups, permutations, homomorphisms,
equivalence classes and generators.
Wherever possible, concepts are introduced through an example on the cube first. Even
though their study concerned a younger age group,[8] discuss how practical objects can
be used to teach abstract ideas. In particular, they describe the advantages of using such
props as allowing students to use several senses when exploring ideas; it also encourages
group work and makes the material accessible to more students. Most of the students taking
Abstract Algebra (97.6%, or 40 students) stated that they found it easier to understand an
abstract idea when presented with a physical example. This significant response was not
a surprise because it was clearly apparent in class. Reasons given for this very positive
response were that it ‘makes more sense’ and that ‘practical examples aid in cementing
the idea’. Several of the students commented that they would have difficulties without
the applications as they would ‘be unable to understand why you would learn the ideas’,
that ‘some abstract ideas seem unbelievable and hard to imagine’ and that ‘it’s sometimes
 International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 961

Figure 1. Numbering on the front of the cube.

difficult to picture abstract concepts’. The concrete example helps the students to understand
the material with comments including that ‘seeing a demonstration in anything immediately
clarifies any misunderstanding’.
As final year students will have had a two year gap since studying group theory, or three
years if they have been on an industrial placement, a reminder of the basics are required at
the start. A concept often confused by students is that for the moves g and h within a group,
the inverse of an element gh is h−1 g −1 . This can easily be illustrated using a Rubik’s cube.
Turning the front side followed by the right side, it is automatic to undo the right side before
undoing the front side. Students can explore this result themselves and can be reminded
of the physical examples when working with more abstract ones. This is by no means a
proof, but it is a useful visual and practical aid that re-enforces the result before a proof
is explored and a deeper understanding is reached. As suggested by [8], the ‘process of
hands-on modelling and simulation provides children with an opportunity to confront their
misconceptions about dynamic behaviour’. Observing the students looking at the inverses
when using the cubes, it is apparent that this occurs with older learners as well.
The students find proof very challenging, particularly since there are not many pure
mathematics modules within our degree programme. The Rubik’s cubes can be used to help
students understand, for example, the idea of a homomorphism. Numbering the pieces of
the Rubik’s cube allows a permutation to represent each move of the cube. For example,
numbering the front of the cube as in Figure 1, we can see that after the move F , we have
Figure 2.
The homomorphism that we define sends the move F to a permutation involving the
numbered pieces. This can be done for any move of the Rubik’s cube by using the numbering

Figure 2. Numbering after turning the front of the cube.

962 C. Cornock

on all the required edges and corners that are moved. Considering a combination of a few
moves, the students discover that it does not matter whether you work out the permutation
after all the moves have been performed or whether you deduce the permutation for each
move and then multiply them together.
The method presented above is learning through discovery, described by [9] as ‘a form
of curriculum in which students are exposed to particular questions and experiences in such
a way that they “discover” for themselves the intended concepts’. As discussed in [10], ‘to
promote discovery learning, the educator often reframes learner questions in terms of the
learner’s current level of understanding’. Even though there is not a full proof within the
example, it gives the students an indication of what a homomorphism is, an abstract concept
that can be quite confusing when first encountered. The students’ strength in applications
of maths are utilized instead of approaching it without the physical tool. After the concrete
example, the formal definition can be provided and more abstract examples are explored.
For example, after looking at homomorphisms with the Rubik’s cubes, the formal definition
is provided and the students are then given the opportunity to explore algebraic examples
defined on sets of numbers and matrices. In a similar way, equivalence relations can be
introduced by considering conjugacy examples on the cube. Providing students with the
opportunity to explore concepts themselves by looking at particular examples on the cubes
may encourage them to think that full proofs are being provided by looking at the specific
examples. Students need to be reminded on a frequent basis that the examples are just for
illustrative purposes. In addition to this, full proofs can be provided where appropriate.
As well as introducing abstract ideas using the cubes, conclusions about the cubes can
be made by consideration of algebraic manipulation and proof. For example, starting at
the solved state and performing the same move repeatedly, it can be proved using proof
by contradiction that the cube will return to the solved state and that this is the first time
there is a repetition. Students can then try some of the examples to see the idea in practice.
Following on from this result, it allows them to explore subgroups generated by one element.
By generating small examples, students can observe that each element generated is unique
until you get back to the solved state. However, the result described above is needed to work
with larger examples.
Another example is exploring when a move is a 3-cycle, a move affecting just three
pieces of a Rubik’s cube that leaves all the other pieces unchanged once the full move
has been carried out. The commutator of two Rubik’s cubes moves g and h is defined
by [g, h] = ghg −1 h−1 . If the moves g and h only have one piece in common, then the
commutator is a 3-cycle. For example, as explored in [6], the moves FRF−1 and L both
affect eight pieces, but only have one of those in common. Therefore it can be concluded
that [FRF−1 , L] is a 3-cycle. Drawing conclusions based on abstract concepts is explored
further throughout the module.
The students responded generally positively to the use of the Rubik’s cubes within the
module. When using the cubes, 73.2% of the students (30 students) surveyed found that they
helped to understand the concepts and 24.4% (10 students) claimed that they sometimes
helped. When asked why the cubes helped them understand the concepts, 63.4% of the
students (26 students) mentioned that it was useful to have a visual aid as it made the
material clearer and helped them to visualize abstract concepts. Comments included that
‘often [they] didn’t believe the results and theorems given so [it] was good to be able to test
them’ and they could ‘visually see why something worked’. Several of the students (7.3%,
3 students) commented that it made the material more fun, interesting and engaging and
14.6% of the students (6 students) mentioned that they liked having a real-life, physical
example, with comments including that ‘more than one approach [is] extremely better
 International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 963

especially if it’s a hands on approach.’ A few mentioned that they liked how they could use
the cube to check answers (7.3%, 3 students). Reasons were provided if they did not like
using the cubes or only sometimes liked using them. One student found them a distraction,
one found them confusing and some of them got frustrated when they messed the cube up
(7.3%, 3 students).
When asked whether they would have preferred to study group theory without Rubik’s
cubes, 95.1% (39 students) claimed that they would not and 4.9% (2 students) would.
The students had encountered some topics in pure mathematics without the use of Rubik’s
cubes or other props, so had experience of both methods. This percentage is a significantly
high proportion of the students, but was not surprising due to the level of engagement
observed within the module. One of the main reasons the students provided to why they
would not have preferred the module without the cubes was that it would not have been
as fun, interesting or engaging. Several of the students commented they would not have
necessarily been ‘as focussed or engaged in the lectures’ and that ‘the Rubik’s cubes
provided a layer of interactivity that helped increase [their] concentration’. Another main
reason was that it helped them understand the material with many of the students making
comments that ‘Rubik’s cubes significantly helped in [their] understanding’, not having the
cubes would have ‘hindered [their] ability to understand some aspects of group theory’
and they ‘don’t think [they] would have understood the concepts or language used without
a visual demonstration’. Another reason for this was the enjoyment the students got from
the application, with one student commenting that they ‘enjoyed learning about Rubik’s
cubes and because [they] enjoyed it, [they] learnt better and remembered more’. The vast
majority found the application of Rubik’s cube interesting, with 87.8% (36 students) saying
they found it interesting and 9.8% (4 students) sometimes found it interesting. They liked
that they could apply what they were learning on the Rubik’s cubes and that they felt that
‘it could get tedious without application’. One student commented that they ‘didn’t know
there was much application’ and was surprised to find there was.

5. Assessment
The assessment for the module consists of 50% coursework and 50% examination at the
end of the year. Group theory and Rubik’s cubes feature in both parts of the assessment,
but the types of questions in the coursework and examination are considerably different.
In the examination, there is one question involving Rubik’s cubes and hence a cube is
provided to each student. Introducing concepts using the Rubik’s cubes is a scaffolding
technique. In a similar way to instructional scaffolding,[11] approaches are adjusted to
‘meet the students at their current level of competencies and help them build meaning’.
Whilst learning the material, the students are introduced through applications of the cube.
During the assignment, students still use the cubes, but are experimenting with ideas
themselves. As presented in [12], within mathematics education ‘we have come to believe
that when learners generate their own representations, questions, and problems, they probe
and crystallize their mathematical knowledge more deeply than when they are given ready-
made facts’. A typical question assignment may be the following:

Assignment question
Provide your own example of an edge 3-cycle or a corner 3-cycle x. Explain how you created x.
Explain how you could conjugate x to produce another 3-cycle y.
964 C. Cornock

This question requires the consideration of a commutator and the definition of conjugacy.
The following question also requires both of these aspects:

Alternative assignment question

Explain why the move x = R −1 DRU R −1 D −1 RU −1 is a 3-cycle using commutators. Conjugate
x by L to produce another 3-cycle.

However, the added complexity of asking the students to create their own examples
provides a deeper learning experience. The second form of the question could be answered
looking at similar examples in the notes and spotting the pattern, whereas the first style
of question requires a much deeper understanding of the concepts. The added element of
experimentation also adds to the level of the learning experience. In addition to this, asking
questions in the first form requires each student to produce their own individual examples
and makes it easier to spot plagiarism.
Another potential assignment question is based on the subgroup U 2 , R 2 . The elements
can be provided with suitable notation built up from a = U 2 , b = R 2 and c = U 2 R 2 .
The students can be asked to argue why there are no more elements as well as producing
the multiplication table. They can be asked to deduce whether the subgroup is isomorphic
to the Dihedral group D6 , an example they encounter in their first year when looking at the
symmetries of a hexagon. Another potential question could involve finding the congugacy
classes of subgroups containing Rubik’s cube moves.
The questions on the assignment are not restricted by physical practicalities. As long as
students are given adequate time to complete the assignment, there is not a need to avoid
questions that might result in the cube being messed up. Students are aware that they can
swap their cube for a solved one if necessary. When evaluating the module in 2014, it came
to light that some of the students found it ‘frustrating when [they] couldn’t solve [the cube]’
and that they ‘can’t solve them if an error occurs’. Allowing plenty of time for assignments
eases this frustration.
Within the examination, the questions are centred mainly around Rubik’s cube moves,
but they are working mainly with the algebra instead of working with the cubes themselves.
Also, there is a practical reason why the questions mostly do not require the physical use
of a cube. To ensure fairness, students are aware that they cannot swap their cube for a
completed one during the examination. As a consequence of this, the questions are written
to limit the possibility of a cube being messed up; students can do the vast majority of the
work without needing a cube at all. The cubes are there as a visual aid rather than being an
essential tool. The students often worry about having a Rubik’s cube in the examination. A
lot of them are unable to solve a cube and become concerned that this would disadvantage
them in the examination. Reassurance and examples of past examination papers helps to
ease their fears.
A typical exam question would be as follows:

Examination question
Given that the order of F R −1 is 63, what are the possible orders for subgroups of F R −1 ? Give
an example of a subgroup of each possible order. You do not need to provide multiplication tables.
 International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 965

Even though this is a question about Rubik’s cubes, it can be done entirely without
one. The students can use the given information to deduce the possible orders and then use
algebraic methods to deduce examples of subgroups with the possible orders. If students
needed to deduce the order of F R −1 before doing the question, then this raises the possibility
of them messing up the cubes and not being able to carry on with the rest of the question.
Asking the question in this way still requires the students to understand the definition of
the order of an element, closure properties of a group and results on repeating moves.
Requiring the students to work out the order of the move F R −1 does not add anything to
the question. Whilst students are learning these concepts, there is great benefit in testing
out these theories for themselves as it re-enforces what has been learnt. At this stage, there
is no longer a need to test out the concepts and having the Rubik’s cube there jogs their
memory of trials in the lessons. As one of the students commented in the survey, they find
it ‘easier to remember [concepts] when visual examples are in mind’. Having the Rubik’s
cube in the exam is mainly there as a prop for associated memory and final checks, rather
than generating answers.
Some of the questions on group theory do not involve Rubik’s cubes at all. Students
can be asked to deduce conjugacy classes of another group for example. A multiplication
table can be provided to limit the length of the question if necessary. Students can think
back to what this meant in the Rubik’s cube example and apply these in an abstract way to
new example. Questions could be around alternative applications, for example, looking at
the symmetries and reflections of an equilateral triangle.

6. Evaluation
The module has a high attendance record. Figure 3 shows the attendance during the first
eight weeks of the module during the 2014–2015 academic year whilst the group theory
part of the module was being taught.
When asked for open responses, the students stated several different reasons for their
high attendance at the sessions. Several mentioned personal motivation (9.8%, 4 students),
wanting to learn (9.8%, 4 students) and wanting to do well in the module (7.3%, 3 students).
Some mentioned that they attend because they enjoy the module and find it interesting

Figure 3. Attendance records.

966 C. Cornock

(19.5%, 8 students). A proportion said they did not want to fall behind and feared that they
would struggle to catch up (34.1%, 14 students). There were three mentions of the group
work in responses to the survey, with one student stating that they felt like they would
be ‘letting the group down’ if they did not attend. Another student attends most of the
lectures because they find that communicating with peers helps. A few commented about
the content being difficult to follow without the taught sessions (7.3%, 3 students) and that
they attend to help them understand (7.3%, 3 students), with one student stating that ‘just
copying up from the notes wasn’t helpful’ and another making a similar comment. These
responses suggest that the students gain much more from the taught sessions than just a
set of lecture notes. As stated by [13], a fundamental error is to ‘see lectures as a way of
transmitting the contents of notes or textbooks’.
Other indicators of the success of the approaches are the marks the students receive
in their first assignment on group theory. In the year 2014–2015, the average for this
assignment was 71.4%, with 65.5% of the students (36 out of 55 students) receiving a
first class mark of 70% or above, 27.3% (15 students) receiving a mark between 60% and
70% and 7.3% (4 students) obtaining a mark between 50% and 60%. These marks were
as expected due to the level of engagement from the students and were independently
moderated. Comments from the moderator regarding assessment methods included ‘the
questions are appropriate for assessing whether the students meet the learning objectives
of the module and are suitable for the level of the students’.

7. Conclusions
Despite the mathematics degree at Sheffield Hallam University being mostly applied, stu-
dents like the opportunity to study pure mathematics modules. Teaching group theory to
final year students works well due to the use of Rubik’s cubes as this utilizes their strengths
in applied mathematics. The physical example increases engagement and enjoyment as ev-
idenced by the high attendance rate, the positive feedback received and the good marks the
students obtain. The cubes help the students understand the material as they find it easier to
grasp the concepts using the visual aid. The process of making discoveries by consideration
of Rubik’s cubes allows students to understand abstract concepts such as homomorphisms.
The use of support groups within the workshops works well. The students provide
help to each other and work together to understand the material, providing each other with
explanations from different perspectives. The use of partially printed notes is a good balance.
The notes include enough detail so students do not have to write everything down and can
make notes on their own interpretations, but no so much that attendance is discouraged.
Within coursework, students explore topics by answering questions about Rubik’s cubes.
Questions are asked in a way that enables students to go through a process of discovery
to obtain a deeper understanding of the concepts. Practicalities within examinations mean
that students do not have an unlimited supply of solved Rubik’s cubes, but questions can
be asked in a way that requires minimal use of a cube. In addition to this, questions within
the examination serve another purpose as they are asked at a different stage of the learning
process. At the examination, students are no longer testing concepts and are working with
the algebra surrounding the application. Rubik’s cubes get used as a visual aid rather than
being essential for answering the questions.
Overall, the use of Rubik’s cubes to teach group theory increases student engagement
and satisfaction and by providing a tangible example leads to improved mastery of abstract
concepts.
 International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 967

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
[1] MacBean J, Graham T, Sangwin C. Guidelines for introducing group work in undergraduate
mathematics. Birmingham: The Higher Education Academy, 2001.
[2] Colvin JW, Ashman M. Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in higher
education. Mentoring Tutoring: Partnership Learning. 2010;18:121–134.
[3] Goodlad S. Mentoring and tutoring by students. London: BP Educational Service; 1998.
[4] Bligh DA. What’s the use of lectures? Eastborne: Intellect; 1998.
[5] Kiewra KA. Providing the instructor’s notes: an effective addition to student notetaking. Educ
Psychol. 1985;20;33–39.
[6] Untitled [Internet]. Stanford. [cited 2015 March 25] Available from: http://sporadic.stanford.
edu/bump/match/rubik.pdf.
[7] Singmaster D, Frey AH. Handbook of cubik maths. Hillside (NJ): Enslow Publishers; 1982.
[8] Zucherman O, Arida S, Resnick M. Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital
montessori-inspired manipulatives. CHI’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems; 2005; New York (NY). p. 859–868.
[9] Hammer D. Discovery leanring and discovery teaching. Cogn Instr. 1997;15:485–529.
[10] Mezirow J. Transformative learning: theory to practice. New DirAdult Contin Educ.
1997;1997:5–12.
[11] Turner JC, Cox KE, DiCintio M, et al. Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. J
Educ Psychol. 1998;90:730–745.
[12] Watson A, Mason J. Mathematics as a constructive activity: learners generating examples.
ZDM. 2006;38:209–211.
[13] Pritchard D. Lectures and transition: from bottles to bonfires? In: Grove M, Croft T, Kyle J,
et al., editors. Transitions in undergraduate mathematics education. Birmingham: The Higher
Education Academy; 2015. p. 57–69.