1 can chess improve math scores? an italian experiment goes international. roberto trinchero...

1

Can Chess Improve Math Scores? An Italian Experiment Goes International.

Roberto [email protected]

Department of Philosophy and Education University of Turin

Giuliano D'Eredità – University of Palermo

Workgroup: Alessandro Dominici, Giovanni SalaDario Mione, Malola Prasath, Gianluca Argentin

Roberto Trinchero – Department of Philosophy and Education - University of Turin – Italy

Can Chess Improve Math Scores in primary school children?

The implicit in the chess activities in school is the belief that skills acquired playing chess can transfer to other domains;

Is this belief based on well-substantiated evidence?;

Italian research 2006-2012 A basic in-presence Chess course of 30 hours can improve specific Math ability.

2

Gobet F., Campitelli G. (2006), Educational benefits of chess instruction. A critical review, http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstffg/preprints/chess_and_education.pdfTrinchero R. (2012), Gli scacchi, un gioco per crescere. Sei anni di sperimentazione nella scuola primaria, Milano, FrancoAngeli.


Our 2012-2013 Research: Chess and Oecd-Pisa Math Scores

Hypotesis: A blended (in-presence+online) basic Chess course can improve Oecd-Pisa Math Scores in children of 8-11 age;

Sample: 568 pupils of Italian primary school (non-random sample from Piedmont and Lombardy);

Method: Solomon 4-group test-retest experimental design; Subsamples: The Experimental Group was differentiated by:

Class attended (grade 3, 4, 5); Number of hours of the course (10, 11, 14, 16); Year of chess course (1, 2, 3).

3


The Math testSeven Oecd-Pisa released item (selected to be faceable by 8-11 years-old pupils):

4

Oecd-Pisa item code

Math abilities involved Oecd-Pisa Estimated difficulty

Analogy with chess ability

M145Q01 Calculate the number of points on the opposite face of showed dice

478 (Level 2)

Calculate material advantage

R040Q02 Establish the profundity of a lake integrating the information derived from the text and from the graphics

478 (Level 2)

Find relevant information on a chessboard

M520Q1A Calculate the minimum price of the self-assembled skateboard

496 (Level 3)

Calculate material advantage

M806Q01 Extrapolate a rule from given patterns and complete the sequence

484 (Level 4)

Extrapolate checkmate rule from chess situation

M510Q01T Calculate the number of possible combination for pizza ingredients

559 (Level 4)

Explore the possible combination of moves to checkmate

M159Q05 Recognize the shape of the track on the basis of the speed graph of a racing car

655 (Level 5)

Infer fact from a rule (e.g. possible moves to checkmate)

M266Q01 Estimate the perimeter of fence shapes, finding analogies in geometric figures

687 (Level 6)

Find analogies in chessboard situations


An Example of item

5


The Experimental Design: Solomon 4-group test-retest

6

Group N. ActivitiesG1 (Experimental) 380 Pre-test Blended chess training

(in presence + CAT)Post-test

G2 (Experimental without pretest)

32 - Blended chess training (in presence + CAT)

Post-test

G3 (Control) 115 Pre-test Ordinary school activities Post-test

G4 (Control without pretest)

41 - Ordinary school activities Post-test

CAT = Computer Assisted Training (www.europechesspromotion.org)

October-November

2012

January-February

2013

Shadish W. R., Cook T. D., Campbell D. T. (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Boston-New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, http://depts.washington.edu/methods/readings/Shadish.pdf


Score gain in mathematic ability: General results

7

Initial score Gain GainSign.Subgroup Mean St.

dev. Mean St. dev.

G1 (Experimental) 1,37 1,17 0,67 1,51 0,000

G3 (Control) 1,53 1,30 0,08 1,42 -

Math final scoresGroup Mean St. dev. Sign.

Experimental (G1) 2,03 1,31 0,006

Experimental without pretest (G2)

2,72 1,61 -

Math final scoresGroup Mean St. dev. Sign.

Control (G3) 1,61 1,19 0,56

Control without pretest (G4)

1,49 1,03 -

There is a little but significative increase of Math scores in Experimental Group (0,67 vs a maximum of 7, Anova)

The pre-test has lead to a significative decrease of gain in Experimental Group (probably «boredom» effect)


Score gain in mathematics ability: Subgroups analysis

8

Initial score Gain GainSign.Subgroup Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev.

G1b4-14-2 1,74 1,79 0,11 1,88 0,942G1a4-11-1 1,64 1,20 0,16 1,74 0,763G1p4-8-2 1,57 1,06 0,27 1,38 0,409G1d4-10-1 1,14 0,86 0,51 1,37 0,103G1g4-10-1 1,27 0,93 0,63 1,41 0,023G1g3-10-1 1,05 0,84 0,66 1,26 0,022Whole G1 1,37 1,17 0,67 1,51 0,000G1p5-16-1 1,56 1,30 0,79 1,36 0,003G1r4-10-1 1,16 0,94 1,04 1,43 0,003G1c4-14-2 1,68 1,42 1,43 1,17 0,000G1b5-14-2 0,94 1,43 1,44 2,12 0,001G1c5-14-3 0,55 0,93 1,73 0,79 0,000G3 (control) 1,53 1,30 0,08 1,42 -

Score gainSuccessful subgroups Significance relevant to

Control Group (from Anova)


Successful subgroups

9

Subgroup N. N. Classes Chess training

G1p5-16-1 52 3 (grade 5) 16 hours in presence, 2 hours per week (first year of training) + CAT

G1r4-10-1 25 1 (grade 4) 10 hours in presence (first year of training) + CAT

G1c4-14-2 28 2 (grade 4) 14 hours in presence, 2 hours per week (year of training) + CAT

G1b5-14-2 18 1 (grade 5) 14 hours in presence (second year of training) + CAT

G1c5-14-3 11 1 (grade 5) 14 hours in presence, 2 hours per week (third year of training) + CAT

Successful subgroups have attended a chess course of almost 14 hour OR …


Engagement in the online game (CAT)

10

Achieved level in online game

Subgroup Players % on the subgroup

Mean St. dev.

G1p4-8-2 53 95% 5,38 4,17

G1g4-10-1 48 98% 5,75 4,36

G1d4-10-1 35 95% 5,86 4,71

G1g3-10-1 38 93% 6,08 4,48

Whole G1 313 82% 6,72 4,46

G1a4-11-1 43 98% 7,16 4,66

G1p5-16-1 50 96% 7,36 4,26

G1b5-14-2 3 17% 8,00 4,00

G1r4-10-1 20 80% 9,00 3,96

G1c4-14-2 14 50% 9,43 3,98

G1b4-14-2 6 32% 10,33 2,16

G1c5-14-3 3 27% 11,00 0,00

… have had a greater involvement in the CAT

… with an exception …


Unsuccessful subgroups

11

Subgroup N. N. Classes Chess trainingG1a4-11-1 44 2 (grade 4) 11 hours in presence (first year of training)

+ CATG1g4-10-1 49 2 (grade 4) 10 hours in presence (first year of training)

+ CATG1g3-10-1 41 2 (grade 3) 10 hours in presence (first year of training)

+ CATG1d4-10-1 37 2 (grade 4) 10 hours in presence (first year of training)

+ CATG1p4-8-2 56 3 (grade 4) 8 hours in presence, 2 hours per week

(second year of training) + CATG1b4-14-2 19 1 (grade 4) 14 hours in presence (second year of

training) + CAT

Exception: a class with a very high initial score, and with several organizational problems in post-test


Score gain in Chess ability

12

Initial score Gain GainSign.Subgroup Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev.

G1p4-8-2 5,45 3,39 3,52 3,37 ,000G1d4-10-1 1,51 2,63 5,73 4,34 ,000G1c4-14-2 4,71 4,16 5,86 4,54 ,000G1b4-14-2 4,37 5,14 6,11 4,52 ,000G1a4-11-1 4,23 4,48 6,25 4,11 ,000G1c5-14-3 1,45 3,39 6,27 4,52 ,000Whole G1 3,00 3,98 6,62 4,60 ,000G1g4-10-1 2,57 3,40 7,04 4,92 ,000G1g3-10-1 0,61 1,95 7,20 4,63 ,000G1p5-16-1 2,54 3,85 8,46 4,22 ,000G1r4-10-1 0,92 1,80 8,84 3,70 ,000G1b5-14-2 3,17 4,49 10,17 5,11 ,000G3 (control) 1,17 2,46 0,47 2,10 -Maximum gain is 18.Significance is relevant to the control group and calculated with Anova


Overall results

The gain in math scores is proportional to time spent in the chess course;

CAT can be an effective instrument for chess training;

These results are compliant with results of Italian research 2006-2012.

13Trinchero R. (2012), Gli scacchi, un gioco per crescere. Sei anni di sperimentazione nella scuola primaria, Milano, FrancoAngeli.


Weakness of the study and future challenges

Weakness: Participants were not randomly selected: Groups and subgroups are not statistically equivalent; Results are not generalizable.

Challenges: To define the conditions of transferability when the

transferability can occur; To explain the dynamics of chess transfer what

ability are transferable and why.

14


The experience in 2010:Using the digital technologies for chess scholastic learning

A collaboration among Turin University, Palermo University and Italian National Research Council (CNR), with the support of Italian Chess Federation- Piedmont Committee, Banca San Paolo, MSP;

The goal of the inquire was to compare different chess learning settings;

We submitted to 3rd grade students a short chess protocol (10h) using digital or traditional learning;For traditional learning we considered 3 modes: Chess Instr. only, Chess Instr.+Class Teacher, 2 Chess Instr.+Class Teacher

We adopted the software Gatto Vittorio (it was its first appearance !)

15


The experience in 2010: Main results

Surprisingly, kids who already knew chess obtained worst results! The best results were obtained using the 2 Ch.Instructors+Teacher

mode, followed by Ch.Instr.+ Teacher, after Ch. Instr, at last the digital one, but the only significative difference was found for the 2Ch. Instr + teacher mode;

We have to respect kids' learning time (digital activity requires more time with respect to the traditional one); 10 h is the minimum time to obtain any achievement);

Doing tests, and obtaining feedback from them improve the chess learning

16


In progress: Research «Chess World» 2013-2014

Replication of 2012-2013 research design, with:An international sample (Italy and India) (about 6000 participants);Sample with randomized pairs of equivalent classes (swap experimental-control groups):

17

Randomized selection

Test Test Test

G1 Experimental

G2 Control

G1 Control

G2 Experimental

Change 1 Change 2

Hypotesis is corroborated if Ch1(G1)>Ch1(G2) And Ch2(G2)>Ch2(G1)


We are managing to realize an implicative statistical analysis with respect to the reasoning and arguing style of the students; Through an a-priori analysis of the items we will formulate other research hypotheses based on epistemological and social-linguistic considerations;These hypotheses are to be turned into implications and correlations among the occurrences of the tests outputs, using binary variables (Y or N);We'll adopt the implication and correlation indexes as in Gras (2000), using the software CHIC

18


19

Syntesis of italian research 2006-2012

R. Trinchero (2012), Gli scacchi, un gioco per crescere. Sei anni di sperimentazione nella scuola primaria, Milano, FrancoAngeli.

R. Trinchero (2012), Chess, a game to grow up with: a synthesis of six years of research, Milano, FrancoAngeli (the book has a chapter in English that summarize the results).


20

Thanks…

[email protected]

[email protected]

Presentation is available on

www.europechesspromotion.orgThanks to workgroup:

Alessandro Dominici - Giovanni Sala

Dario Mione - Malola Prasath - Gianluca Argentin

1 can chess improve math scores? an italian experiment goes international. roberto trinchero...

Documents