Abstract
This paper makes the argument that
valuable cognitive, psychomotor, and affective lessons are
learned by students when they are taught chess as part of the
school curriculum. This teaching need not be the orthodox style
based on "book move" memorization and competition.
This paper presents an alternative approach to the teaching of
chess. The prime motivational "hook" for the student
is not winning but rather the search for elegence and artistry.
The approach taken here emphasizes lateral creativity,
intuitive understanding, and logical, strategic thinking.
Winning is only viewed as a measure of which strategies
"worked" without it being important which player won.
Perhaps even more importantly, I can apply what I have learned
as a professional teacher and educational researcher concerned
with how students learn, to a field which is generally taught
by people who are not teachers. As a result, chess is too often
taught as if the learners were a homogeneous group. It is very
important to pick up on the signals which indicate the
different prefered learning styles and stages of development of
students. This approach advocates tailoring the teaching style
to the strengths and weaknesses of the individual learners.
Contents
Introduction
1.1 An Aesthetic, Feminist
Approach
1.1.1 Conceptions of Chess
1.1.2 An Aesthetic
Approach: Elegance in Chess
1.1.3 A Feminist Critique
1.2 Lessons from Learning
Chess
1.2.1 Cognitive Domain
1.2.2 Affective Domain
1.2.3 Psychomotor Domain
1.3 How these Lessons are
to be Studied?
Literature Review: Chess in
Schools Programs, Approaches, and Studies
A Study of the Chess'n Math
Association program: Methodology
Analysis of Results
Conclusions
Links and References
Introduction
Metaphors, Models, and Conceptions of Chess
Chess
teaching generally starts with building a foundation of
tactical thinking through the memorization of "winning"
moves versus "loosing" moves. The universality of
this is reflected in the fact that top players from around the
world in tournaments revert back to an infantile, single-move,
simplistic, non-strategic, tactical style of play, when they
get into time trouble. Despite the fact that such play is
generally recognized as weak, and causes them to loose even
when in a winning situation, they seem to have no choice but to
revert back to the models of chess which they first learned as
children, when in a panic situation.
I believe that this reflects a
metaphorical flaw in how chess is taught. I am therefore
developing a method of teaching organic chess, based on an
ecological metaphor, which inverts the learning pyramid.
Instead of starting with rote learning of tactics by drill
repetition, I start with a foundation of aesthetics and
strategic structural thinking which builds on a imageable web
of the interconnectedness of all of the pieces in context.
Instead of the beauty of chess being the last thing to be
learned, it is the first. This relational model is
fundamentally different from and (I argue) superior to other
models, such as the:
military model (chess as
conflict or scaled-down war);
computational (calculations
of variations);
geometric (abstract,
mathematical mapping):
logical (machine-like
realm);
or even the Eastern philosopnical "power"
model (lines of force).
Imagine that chess is like music. One could compare the
rules for the way the pieces move to the notes written on a
sheet of music. The practical knowledge of these rules can be
seen as understanding as much about chess as knowing the name
of each individual note on the page without ever hearing them
played by a musical instrument. The absence of a sense of the
artistry of chess in the context of a game, is like not
understanding that individual notes combine in harmonies and
rhythms to form music.
Another common comparison is that of
chess and art. If art is "representation with intent"
then indeed a chess strategy is an art form.
More commonly,
chess is conceived as a science. Unlike sports and many games,
it is completely free of the element of luck.
Unfortuneately,
chess is also conceived of as a scaled down form of warfare
-see grandmaster Daniel King's "Chess is War"
article, for example. I disagree. Although training for
strategic thinking in battle may have been the original
motivation for the invention of the game, I feel that this is
no longer relevant. My prefered approach, diveloped here, is
partly in response to this "chess as war"
misunderstanding.
An Aesthetic Approach: Elegance in Chess
What is
saught is an approach to good chess. Some may advocate teaching
"winning chess" and in the end the differences
between the two may be subtle. Ultimately, however, it the
lessons learned which are of paramount importance and not the
final competitive standing of the chess playing student. The
prime goal then is good chess and this involves sophisticated
aesthetic judgements having to do with (to name a view
concepts) elegance, efficiency, artistry, flow, risk,
smooothness, balance, harmony, and sustained rhythms.
A Feminist Critique
Many
Chess teachers have observed the keen interest shown by young
girls in chess, only to see it disappear by the teenage years.
By secondary school most chess club members are males. In
seeking an understanding of this observation, two
considerations must be investigated. First there is the
hierarchical and even patriarcical way chess is most often
experienced by young people.
Lessons from Learning Chess
Cognitive Domain
Creativity
Playing chess
develops a young person's higher order thinking, such as
problem-solving skills. Chess us about constantly making
judgements based on a combination of logical reason and
creative (perhaps even intuitive) sensibilities. While it is
possible to teach and play chess in a dry rote fashion, it is
the immagination and lateral creative thinking which is the
essence of chess.
Critical Thinking
Logical Thinking
Reasoning
Problem Solving
Visualization
Planning
Chess is about
making a plan and then trying to carry it out in the face of
a dynamic situation. More than this it is about making a plan
which has multiple aspects which can be carried out in
numerous ways depending on the response of the other side.
Since one singular strategy is easily recognized and responed
to by the other side, such a multifaced approach to strategy
is essential to good chess.
Weighing Options
The
many options faced by the student at each move (many pieces,
many of which can move in a number of different directions
and different distances) is compounded by this apsect of
trying to plan several moves ahead with a multifaced strategy
and by the variety of responses which the other side might
make to each move. Each of these move-response pairs of
options must be weighed by the player, if not consciously
then at least at an almost sub-conscious intuitive level.
Sometimes the player simply senses that a certain line of
play is undesirable without coldly calculating the reasons or
the extent to which it does not work.
Risk Management
Each of
the move options has advantages and disadvantages. While each
move options' advantages include creating the possibility of
a certain desirable future line of play; there is for each
move option the risk that it will open up possibilities for
(perhaps unforseen) lines of play which are desirable for the
other side. Weighing the risks of this play and counterplay
is the key to good judgement in chess and is really a type of
risk management.
Personal
Responsibility
Unlike many activities, chess cannot be
seen by young people as involving luck or chance. The
situation one finds oneself is entirely the result of
decisions made. The student cannot blame anyone else for the
way things go in a game and therefore must take
responsibility for his or her own actions.
Efficiency
The extreme
limitation of resources (sixteen pieces and only one move at
a time) teach the importance of efficiency -making the best
with each move.
Reading Ability Enhanced
Studies
show that learning chess contributes to a significant
increase in children's reading ability compared to the
ability of children who do not learn chess.
Memory
Concentration
Affective Domain
Self-confidence and
Self-esteem
Chess also contributes to the development of a
student's self-confidence because in every game at least some
of the moves made are good, successful ones. A child who can
play a good game of chess feels an externatal validation of
his or her mental abilities which is self-evidently real.
Such real bolstering of self-esteem is much more important
than the artificial support which many students receive but
is of limited long-term value.
Determination Good chess
demands a certain forceful perserverance.
Self-expression
Poise
Patience
Etiquete, Dignity, and Good
Sportsmanship
Empathy
In chess, one
must constantly be seeing the situation of the game from not
only your perspective, but from the perspective of the player
opposite you. You must try to "get into" their mind
and put yourself "in their shoes".
Psychomotor Skills
Schoolastic Chess
In some jurisdictions, chess is
becoming very important in schools. In New York City 10,000
students are taught chess lessons regularly during class
instruction hours. Principals and classroom teachers report
improvements in school work, motivation towards school, and
enhanced self-esteem.
Studies
The "Challenging Math program" used in many
schools introduces students to chess in the second half of
grade 2 (ie. 7 year olds). Chess is integrated into the
curriculum until grade 6. The Chess'n
Math Association points out that "Schools using the
Challenging Math program are scoring far better than thos using
other programs qpproved by the Ministry of Education. The
Province of Quebec, where the program was first introduced, has
the best math marks in Canada. Canada scores better than the
U.S.A. (where there is less chess taught) on international
mathematics exams. In the province of New Brunswick,
Challenging Mathematics was introduced into all the French
language elementary schools. Now, a number of years later, the
French sector in New Brunswick is scoring much better in math
than their English counterparts from the same province."
With funding from the IBM Corporation, the
Chess-in-the-Schools
program in New York, commissioned a 1991
study conducted by educational pyschologists. They examined
the effect that learning and playing chess had on reading
scores of children in the Chess-in-the-Schools program in New
York City Community School District 9. Located in an
economically disadvantaged neighbourhood, students of this
school district have historically scored the lowest in reading
and math of all 32 New York City school districts. The findings
were significant. Children in the Chess-in-the-Schools program
showed an average year-to-year gain of 5.37 percentile points
against the national average. The gains were particularly
impressive among children who started with low or average
initial scores. Non-chess playing control groups showed no
gain.
Another
more recent study examined two classrooms over two years in
each of five schools, in each of six American cities. Students
were given instruction in chess in only one of the two
classrooms in each school. While students in the one class
received instruction in chess, the other students in the
control class received additional equivalent instruction in
basic education. The control group teacher was free to use the
same period of time in any way he or she wanted -but the time
was often used for reading, math, or social studies
instruction. While the reading scores of chess players and
control classroom students were approximately equal at the
beginning of the school year, students in the chess program
obtained significantly higher post-test reading scores by the
end of the year.
