Thinking About Chess as a
Mechanism for Executive Function
Development
Amanda Aldercottea
Dr Michelle Ellefsona
Dr Teresa Parrb
Dr Zewelanji Serpellc
5 December 2015 - London Chess Conference
aFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge bAshley- Parr, L.C.C. cVirginia Commonwealth University
Overview
• Executive Function & Chess
• The Mind MATCH Chess Program
• Methods & Study Design
• Influence of Chess on Executive Function Development
• Implications & Limitations
• Future Directions
Executive Function & Chess
Executive Function
Inhibitory Control
Planning
Working Memory Shifting
Inhibitory control: Control impulses, regulate
behaviour
Planning: Sequence and coordinate
actions
Executive Function & Chess
• Related to academic achievement and positive
adjustment
• Continues to develop in late childhood and adolescence
• Can be improved through intervention
Engage social and emotional factors
Opportunities to repeat, practice, and advance
Why is executive function important?
Chess & Executive Function
• Plan your moves
• Build a strategy
• Switch strategies when
needed
• Forego small wins for
bigger victories
• Remember how the pieces
move
Intuitive
Associations
Demonstrated
Associations
• Intervention for clinical populations
The Mind MATCH Chess Program
• Two cohorts of 8- to 11-year-old children followed over
two academic years
• Intervention: 1-year afterschool chess club
Overview
Overarching Goal
Does a chess
intervention promote
improvement in
executive function?
Chess
Intervention
Improved
Executive
Function
Improved
Academics
Methods & Study Design
T1 T3 T2
Mid
(Jan.)
Post
(May)
Pre
(Sept.)
7
4
START MOVE 1
MOVE 2
MOVE 3
Inhibitory Control Planning
Procedure:
Measures:
Chess Knowledge
n = 203
Children
Influence of Chess on Executive Function
Development
• Average improvement over time
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
T1 T2 T3
Chess Knowledge
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
T1 T2 T3
Inhibitory Control
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
T1 T2 T3
Planning
• Latent Growth Models: Does chess knowledge predict the
slopes of these two lines?
Chess & Inhibitory Control
Inhibitory
Control
Improvement
Inhibitory
Control
At T3
T1 Inhibitory
T2 Inhibitory
T3 Inhibitory
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.12
SRMR = .02
3
3
3
3
1
2
Chess & Inhibitory Control
Child Age
T1 Inhibitory
T2 Inhibitory
T3 Inhibitory
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.12
SRMR = .02
.05
-.13
3
3
3
3
1
2
Inhibitory
Control
Improvement
Inhibitory
Control
At T3
Chess & Inhibitory Control
Child Gender
Child Age
T1 Inhibitory
T2 Inhibitory
T3 Inhibitory
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.12
SRMR = .02
.05
-.13
.04
-.17+
3
3
3
3
1
2
Inhibitory
Control
Improvement
Inhibitory
Control
At T3
Chess & Inhibitory Control
Reasoning Skills
Child Gender
Child Age
T1 Inhibitory
T2 Inhibitory
T3 Inhibitory
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.12
SRMR = .02
.05
-.13
.04
-.17+
-.12
.03
3
3
3
3
1
2
Inhibitory
Control
Improvement
Inhibitory
Control
At T3
Chess & Inhibitory Control
Child Gender
Child Age
T3 Chess
Knowledge
T1 Inhibitory
T2 Inhibitory
T3 Inhibitory
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.12
SRMR = .02
.05
-.13
.04
-.17+
-.12
.03
.35**
-.16
3
3
3
3
1
2
Inhibitory
Control
Improvement
Inhibitory
Control
At T3
Reasoning Skills
Chess & Planning
Planning
Improvement
Planning
At T3
T1 Planning
T2 Planning
T3 Planning
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.17
SRMR = .02
3
3
3
3
1
2
Chess & Planning
Child Age
T1 Planning
T2 Planning
T3 Planning
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.17
SRMR = .02
.-.05
.17
3
3
3
3
1
2
Planning
Improvement
Planning
At T3
Chess & Planning
Child Gender
Child Age
T1 Planning
T2 Planning
T3 Planning
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.17
SRMR = .02
-.05
.17
-.05
-.07
3
3
3
3
1
2
Planning
Improvement
Planning
At T3
Chess & Planning
Child Gender
Child Age
T1 Planning
T2 Planning
T3 Planning
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.17
SRMR = .02
-.05
.17
-.05
-.07
-.25*
-.05
3
3
3
3
1
2
Planning
Improvement
Planning
At T3
Reasoning Skills
Chess & Planning
Child Gender
Child Age
T3 Chess
Knowledge
T1 Planning
T2 Planning
T3 Planning
Model Fit:
RMSEA = .00
CFI = 1.00
TLI = 1.17
SRMR = .02
-.05
.17
-.05
-.07
-.25*
-.05
.39**
.35**
3
3
3
3
1
2
Planning
Improvement
Planning
At T3
Reasoning Skills
Implications & Limitations
Informs education
practices and
interventions
Guides public policy-
making
Applications:
Limitations:
Generalizability of
the results
Unforeseeable
extraneous variables
Future Directions
• Does this prediction hold in our 6- and 12-month follow-ups?
• Benefits seen in other executive abilities?
In school performance?
Social skills and behaviour regulation?
• Fine-grained analysis of trial-by-trial data
• Currently have over 14,000 participant events and 125 million
cells of data – we’re just getting started!
Where do we go from here?
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant
R305A110932 to the University of Cambridge. The opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of
the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Michelle Ellefson
Zewelanji Serpell
Teresa Parr
Maurice Ashley
plus about 100 research assistants
