Research Paper: Immense Learning Experience
Annotated Works Cited
Charness, N. “The impact of chess research on cognitive science.” Psychological Research 54 (1992): 4-9.
I cite Charness for the proposition that “Scientists have embarked on a cognitive research of the effects of chess on mental performance with respect to memory, visual imagination ability, thinking ability, brain activation and perception.” Charness is accurately portrayed in this paper for the research that has been and is being done on the enormous benefits of playing chess as it relates to cognitive function. Charness specifically states that “Chess playing provides a model task environment for the study of basic cognitive processes, such as perception, memory, and problem solving.” Charness was very important to shaping my thoughts for this paper. This paper was immensely helpful in outlining the research on chess and cognitive benefits, namely as explained in Charness “The two most-cited references in chess research, de Groot (1965) and Chase and Simon (1973 a), have accumulated over 250 citations each (SSCI andSCI sources summed), with the majority of citations coming a decade or more from their publication dates. Both works are frequently cited in contemporary cognitive-psychology textbooks.” This paper was important because it provided the backbone for my further research and the basis for forming my conclusions.
Chase, W.G. & H.A., Simon. “Perception in chess.” Cognitive Psychology 4 (1973): 55-81.
I cite Chase and Simon for the proposition that “perhaps one of the most important lessons in chess is the virtue of patience.” Chase and Simon are accurately cited for the proposition that chess takes a directed perception which can be extrapolated to requiring a distinct level of patience in learning the game of chess. Patience would also be required to see the patterns needed to make a good move, versus just seeing the bad moves on a piece by piece basis. This article is important to the paper in that it describes the diametrically opposed perceptions between great chess players and average chess players. It is helpful in describing that great chess players focus on the right moves, taking into account only what he himself has control over, contrasted with weaker players who focus on the bad moves and the consequences of those. This led me to cite the article for the advantageous learning processes that chess instils. My thought process in using this article was to provide insight into the type of processing that is successful as demonstrated through chess.
Chase, W. G., & H.A. Simon. “The mind’s eye in chess.” Visual information processing 215 (1973): 215-281.
Chase and Simon’s description of the link between visual and brain activity is accurately portrayed in this paper. Chase and Simons postulated a “theoretical formulation to characterize how expert chess players perceive the chess board” and how this task that correlates with cognitive processes. Applying this online chess playing, I concluded that in online chess then “the eyes and brain are constantly interacting in such a mode.” This article is important to the paper in that it demonstrates how chess can improve visual coordination with mental function. This article was helpful because it further demonstrates how chess can be a useful tool to improve a student’s brain function through visual intake and processing, particularly in online chess playing. This was my thought process in including the article as support for my conclusion.
Connor, B., & P., Standen. “So much technology, so little time: factors affecting use of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation following stroke.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality, and Associated Technologies (2012): 53-59. ftp://ftp.ict.usc.edu/arizzo/ICDVRAT%20Conference%20slides/S02-Cognitive%20Rehabilitation%20I/03-Connor/ICDVRAT.091012.pdf
Connor is accurately cited in this paper for the description and benefits of computer and online gaming in cognitive development. Specifically Connor supports my argument that online chess “helps a given player to increase his concentration and change his interaction approach while playing through online mode.” Connor is important to this paper in demonstrating that whether chess is played with another human on a physical chess board or against a computer or with an online opponent, similar cognitive development occurs and the benefits of playing chess can be reaped from both mediums. This article was helpful in understanding that chess as a learning tool can be utilized in different formats, i.e. with an in person opponent, against a computer, or with a virtual opponent. My thought process in using this article was to provide a range of options for utilizing chess cognitive development, and in particular the benefits of computer-based cognitive development.
Dannhauser, T.M., M., Cleverley, T.J., Whitfield, B.C., Fletcher, T., Stevens, & Z., Walker. “A complex multimodal activity intervention to reduce the risk of dementia in mild cognitive impairment–ThinkingFit: pilot and feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial.” BMC Psychiatry 14.1 (2014):129.
[NOTE: The first proposition Danhauser is cited for is clearly not even close to what is disclosed in Danhauser. I would simple state that this should have been cited to Kelser – which supports your arguments on IQ in this paragraph]. I cite Danhauser for the proposition that “scholastic endeavours require quick creativity and memory which chess trains the players in a more interesting and attractive fashion.” I extrapolated Danhauser’s findings on the benefits of complex multimodal activity programs for dementia patients to the game of chess. Chess is akin to Danhauser’s group-based and individual cognitive activities – two parts of his complex multimodal activity program. Danhauser’s findings in this article are important because chess is akin to the complex multimodal activity described in Danhauser. This article was helpful in providing another study that supports the conclusions about the potential benefits of chess as a complex multimodal activity that would parallel the benefits articulated by Danhauser. This was the thought process in including this article as support for the conclusions in the paper.
De Groot, A., F., Gobet, & R., Jongman. Perception and memory in chess. Assen, Holland: Van Gorcum, 1996. Print.
De Groot is accurately cited for the proposition that the very process of the game of chess allows the player to strengthen their ability to reach solutions to any situation quickly and accurately. It is also accurately cited for the finding that chess has a profound impact on improving the speed of memory and recall. These are all very important findings for the paper. De Groot provides detailed support for use of chess as a very effective learning tool. It was helpful to use De Groot because he specifically looked at chess in light of improving memory and recall, as well as the improvement of a chess player to then have a heightened ability to assess other situations quickly and accurately so as to rapidly develop the best workable solutions. This was my thought process in including De Groot as prima facie evidence of the ability of chess to serve as a superior learning and cognitive development tool.
Feuer, L. S. Einstein and the generations of science. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982. Print. https://books.google.com/books?id=_6zauDvo78sC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false
[NOTE: I could not find anywhere in Feuer what you cited him for, especially in the pages you cite, which I read again, but here is what I came up with] Feuer’s observations of Einstein are applied in arriving at the propositions that chess improves numerical skills, verbal ability and memory. Feuer is important to this paper in that it provides substantial support for these propositions which are incorporated into the conclusions about chess as a superior and useful learning tool in education. Feuer was very helpful in describing in detail how numerical skills, verbal ability and memory are affected by cognitive exercises such as chess. Even though Einstein stated that “I have to confess I have always disliked the fierce competitive spirit involved in that intellectual game.” My thought process in using this book was that it was very detailed in providing support for the conclusions as to the use of chess for multiple cognitive improvements along the scale from numerical to verbal to memory.
Finn, M., & S., McDonald. “Computerized cognitive training for older persons with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study using a randomized controlled trial design.” Brain Impairment 12.3 (2011): 187-199.
Finn is cited for the proposition that computerized chess is also effective in cognitive training. Finn’s finding that computer cognitive training exercises improve cognitive function in individuals with mild cognitive impairment are extrapolated in my paper and applied to the game of chess. Finn’s findings in the ability of computerized cognitive training have direct applicability to computerized chess in cognitive development. This article was helpful in demonstrating that computer cognitive exercises can improve brain development. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that playing chess on a computer against the computer or an online adversary is also effective in achieving the learning and development goals outlined in the conclusion of this paper. My thought process was to explore the benefits of cognitive-improving exercises such chess in a computerized medium.
Gobet, F., & G., Campitelli. “Educational benefits of chess instruction: A critical review.” Chess and Education: Selected essays from the Koltanowski Conference 44.115 (2006): 230. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236883992_Educational_benefits_of_chess_instruction_A_critical_review
Gobet is accurately cited in this paper for its discussion of the Ferguson study finding that students who engaged in sixty to sixty-four hours of chess play improved their ability to think critically. In addition to this, Gobet is critically important to the conclusions of this paper in that it not only found that critical thinking was improved but so was the level of student’s creativity. This is helpful in that it suggests that playing chess affects both the right and left hemispheres of the brain. Thus my thought process in using this article was to demonstrate chess can serve as a comprehensive learning tool targeted not just at critical thinking and analysis, but also substantially affecting creativity which is often implicated in problem solving where the student is required to “think outside the box” and develop creative solutions. Finally, this article is accurately cited for the persuasive research that shows that the benefits of chess are not a reserved for the brilliant students, but the slow learners capture useful strategies in the game that can help them learn concepts, language and the motor movement art. This is particularly important and helpful for reaching the conclusions in this paper – that chess as a learning tool is comprehensive – it improves cognitive ability of the entire brain (both hemispheres) and benefits all types of learners, whether viewed as gifted or struggling with learning. Chess benefits all on all levels.
Gliga, F., & P.I. Flesner. “Cognitive Benefits of Chess Training in Novice Children.” Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 116.1976 (2014): 962-967. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814003450 acc
My paper utilizes the results of Gliga’s study of Romanian children playing chess. My paper cites the benefits the children appeared to gain from engaging in regular chess playing. This study is important to the conclusion of this paper in that it provides statistically significant data through rigor of scientific method. This was my thought process in using the article. It was helpful in that it demonstrated one study design that can be used to measure the effect of a learning tool, specifically chess, on overall educational performance as well as the appropriate statistical analysis to use.
Hardy, J.L., D., Drescher, K., Sarkar, G., Kellett, & M., Scanlon. “Enhancing visual attention and working memory with a web-based cognitive training program.” Mensa Research Journal 42.2 (2011): 13-20.
My paper cites to the ranges and descriptions of IQ levels. This was derived from Hardy in his description of IQ range levels as used by Mensa for its members. It was important to this paper in demonstrating that even high IQ levels face challenges. It further supports my conclusion that the ability to learn how to play chess is not relegated to only the intelligent, and that similar benefits can be gained by engaging in chess as a learning too regardless of IQ level. This was helpful, especially in conjunction with Kesler, to make the point. This was my thought process in using Hardy and Kesler.
Kesler, S.R., K., Sheau, D., Koovakkattu, & A.L., Reiss. “Changes in frontal-parietal activation and math skills performance following adaptive number sense training: preliminary results from a pilot study.” Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 21.4 (2011):433-454. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152634/
I cite Kesler for its view on the limitations of IQ tests. Kesler is important because it demonstrates that IQ is not dispositive of a student’s ability to learn number sense and numerical calculations and become at least somewhat proficient in these. This was helpful to the paper because it demonstrates that IQ is not essential to being able to learn games like chess and to benefit from chess as a learning tool to improve cognitive ability. My thought process in using this article was to illustrate the broad applicability of chess as learning tool, not just for those with preconceived “chess ability” based on IQ, but the opportunity for chess to be used throughout student populations over a wide range of IQ.
Kiesel, A., W., Kunde, C., Pohl, M.P., Berner, & J., Hoffmann. “Playing chess unconsciously. Journal of experimental psychology.” Learning, memory, and cognition 35.1 (2009): 292-298.
[NOTE: you cite Kiesel for its Venezuelan study of 4,000 second grade students playing chess. This is the wrong cite. The correct cite for the Venezuelan study and other school studies – which would have been great to use in this paper instead of some other less relevant cites, as noted herein – is Kritsis, Aleksandr, “Benefits of Chess for Academic Performance and Creative Thinking.” Available from http://vivacityinc.com/chess/Articles/BenefitsOfChess.pdf and Dauvergne, Peter (Dr.), “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children's Minds”, University of Sydney, www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm, (July 2000). Since Kiesel and Kritsis would have appeared right next to each in your references citations, you could argue you mistakenly inserted the wrong “K” cite when you were citing to Kritsis.]
Kiesel discloses that “chess experts were able to judge unconsciously presented chess configurations as checking or nonchecking.” Another experiment “demonstrated that experts' priming does not occur for simpler but uncommon chess configurations” Kiesel concludes that long-term practice prompts the acquisition of visual memories of chess configurations with integrated form-location conjunctions” and that “perceptual chunks enable complex visual processing outside of conscious awareness.”
Rattray, B., & D., Smee. “Exercise improves reaction time without compromising accuracy in a novel easy-to-administer tablet-based cognitive task.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16.6 (2013): 567-570.
In my paper I argue that “the game of chess is not different from other games only that it involves more critical thought and high level concentration in comparison to other games that can be played passively.” Rattray describes association of cognition and physical tests such as cycling. I cite Rattray in this paper to demonstrate the difference between the impacts of passive physical test compared with that of games such as chess requiring more critical thinking and analysis. Rattray is important to this paper in demonstrating the superior ability of chess to affect cognition versus just passive games. It is helpful to include this comparison in order to support the conclusion that chess is very effective tool for education compared with other passive games or activities. This was my thought process in using this article.
Thatch, W. “What is the role of the cerebellum in motor learning and cognition?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2.9 (1998): 331-337.
Thatch is accurately cited in this paper that during the growth of an infant child motor skills are learned through impulses that travel through the cerebellum parallel fibre at the speed of 500 spikes in every three seconds. This fact is important at the beginning of the paper in establishing the amazing functionality and potential of the human brain from infancy. It is helpful in engaging the reader at the outset and setting the tone of the paper. The thought process here was to provide basic information about how the brain functions before delving into chess-specific benefits.
White, W. “What every teacher should know about the functions of learning in the human brain.” Education, 117.2 (1996): 290-296.
This paper takes White’s propositions and conclusions about the function of the learning brain and applies those conclusions to the game of chess. This article is particularly important in that it specifically address the learning brain of the child, which is what is at issue in my paper. This takes my argument a step further in not just relying on articles which discuss cognitive function in general over the population. The article was very helpful in that it specifically addresses this from a teacher’s perspective, thus being right on target for the topic of this paper on chess as an educational tool. White helped me form, and supports, the conclusions I reach for implications of chess as an effective learning and cognitive development tool. This was my thought process in using this article as support for my paper.