Year: 2019
Author: Gardiner, Graeme, van, der, Laan, Luke, Ormsby, Gail
Type of paper: Abstract refereed
Abstract:
Introduction
Many researchers have investigated a possible association between school children learning to play chess and improvements in their cognitive development. Three meta-analyses; Gobet (2006), Nicotera (2014) and Sala (2016) indicated the possibility that such improvements exist. However, they argued that academic rigour was missing in each study. Jerrim (2017) were critical of the lack of precision shown by researchers in studying the benefits of chess. The UK study of over 4,000 students, endeavoured to use research rigour; however, they found no evidence of improvements in cognitive thinking scores for the chess versus control groups.
Methods
This study utilised Nicotera’s criteria for enhanced rigour, sought to measure impact of learning chess across standardised school test scores, and examine a range of variables not previously considered but that were also framed within the context of ‘the cognitive benefits of learning to play chess’. The study was conducted at a private Queensland school during 2017. The students (year levels one to five) was comprised of groups: those who engaged in chess, in music, or both chess and music or neither. A quantitative instrument included demographic data and pre- and post-test scores of learners as administered by the school.
A qualitative survey was administered to the chess players measuring ‘extra chess’, teacher effect, parent effect, student motivation and so forth, as well as confounding factors such as home non-chess tuition.
We hypothesised that learners who played most extra chess would indicate a statistically significant difference to the other groups in terms of the relationship between standardised test score change (pre- and post-test difference) and the activities typifying each group.
Results
203 students (117 male) voluntarily participated in the study; 83 received chess lessons and 85 received music lessons. There were small improvements in standardised test scores for the chess and music groups but these were not statistically valid. Multivariate analysis tests were conducted, but no significance was found. There were also no statistical improvements for the group that played most extra chess.
The findings extend those of Martinez (2012) and endorse those of Jerrim (2017) in that no statistical significance was detected suggesting an advantage attributed to the chess playing group and chess and music playing group.
Conclusion
Given these findings, future research should focus on which types of thinking skills may be assisted by learning to play chess rather than cognitive thinking skills as measured by school tests.
Many researchers have investigated a possible association between school children learning to play chess and improvements in their cognitive development. Three meta-analyses; Gobet (2006), Nicotera (2014) and Sala (2016) indicated the possibility that such improvements exist. However, they argued that academic rigour was missing in each study. Jerrim (2017) were critical of the lack of precision shown by researchers in studying the benefits of chess. The UK study of over 4,000 students, endeavoured to use research rigour; however, they found no evidence of improvements in cognitive thinking scores for the chess versus control groups.
Methods
This study utilised Nicotera’s criteria for enhanced rigour, sought to measure impact of learning chess across standardised school test scores, and examine a range of variables not previously considered but that were also framed within the context of ‘the cognitive benefits of learning to play chess’. The study was conducted at a private Queensland school during 2017. The students (year levels one to five) was comprised of groups: those who engaged in chess, in music, or both chess and music or neither. A quantitative instrument included demographic data and pre- and post-test scores of learners as administered by the school.
A qualitative survey was administered to the chess players measuring ‘extra chess’, teacher effect, parent effect, student motivation and so forth, as well as confounding factors such as home non-chess tuition.
We hypothesised that learners who played most extra chess would indicate a statistically significant difference to the other groups in terms of the relationship between standardised test score change (pre- and post-test difference) and the activities typifying each group.
Results
203 students (117 male) voluntarily participated in the study; 83 received chess lessons and 85 received music lessons. There were small improvements in standardised test scores for the chess and music groups but these were not statistically valid. Multivariate analysis tests were conducted, but no significance was found. There were also no statistical improvements for the group that played most extra chess.
The findings extend those of Martinez (2012) and endorse those of Jerrim (2017) in that no statistical significance was detected suggesting an advantage attributed to the chess playing group and chess and music playing group.
Conclusion
Given these findings, future research should focus on which types of thinking skills may be assisted by learning to play chess rather than cognitive thinking skills as measured by school tests.