Games of all kinds (video games, card games, board games) are increasingly becoming a part of the educator's toolbox of ways to engage students in learning. Providing a context for learning that is closer to what the student finds at home can be invaluable. As we've discussed in my classes this semester, learning is a cultural activity, and we already bring our lives and our culture into any learning opportunity. Games can make the educational setting more conducive to learning, as they are part of our non-school cultural environment.
Given my obvious penchant for games in an educational context, then, it may surprise you to know that I do not agree with Pacific Standard correspondent Alex Berezow, who believes that kids should be required to learn chess in school. Why, if games are so valuable to the learning experience would I not want the ancient, grand game of chess taught to our students? I'm so glad I asked on your behalf.
There was a time when it was believed that a set of core principles should be taught in schools to prepare students for life outside of school. This included not only the "3 Rs", but also courses like Latin. Latin was believed to be a noble language, used by great classical philosophers and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It was believed that for a student to learn the language would sharpen the mind, making it more rigorously logical. Berezow points at a study that indicates a possible link between chess and greater cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills. However, as he notes, there could be other factors besides chess, or it could be a group of higher-IQ students inclined towards chess in the first place. Still, chess is popular around the world, and Armenia has made chess a required subject for its purported cognitive enhancement.
Well, that sounds great, but basically, this is the same "exercising the brain as a muscle" strategy that underlies things like brain-training games. The idea being that by using the brain to process information, that somehow makes it more capable of processing information in the future. But Latin isn't something we use every day. Nor is chess. For kids today, these things are cognitively inert, something to learn long enough to get through class, and then more than likely never used again. Hmm...that sounds familiar. Oh wait, I know, it's basically the same argument used against teaching to maximize test scores.
Another aspect of the "teach chess to everyone" idea is that chess isn't FOR everyone. If everything we learn is learned in the context of the culture in which its learned, then chess just isn't going to fit in every situation. Oh, I'm not saying there are groups who CAN'T learn chess. Berezow correctly points out that chess is popular around the globe. Anyone can learn the rules. But it's not part of most people's everyday lives, and would make an awkward fit for some. So you get the dubious brain training, but even that is applied scattershot amongst the people who actually take to chess.
Personally, I'm not good at chess. I can play it. I know the rules. But man, I suck at it. I'm just not good at the planning many steps ahead that's required. I can rip through video games (though even there, I lag behind kids who've grown up in this era's video game culture), I'm a wiz at logic puzzles, and I'm reasonably creative. But chess? Not so much. Maybe I'm just projecting my own questionable abilities on the rest of the world. But I'd rather have kids playing games they actually like, because they're way more likely to actually learn from it. If we could teach GAMES in school, well, I'd be all for it. Because there are nearly as many ways to learn and things to learn as there are people to learn them.
