How to Play Chess - Literature review Example

Running Head: Learning Chess Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Coarse Code and Name: University: Date Submitted: Learning Chess Introduction According to history, Chess originated early in the sixth century in a region within India (Palm, 1994). The game was quit different by then, with elephants that replaced the present day rooks and pawns being replaced by peasants. Chess game has been dominated by many skills involved with many people developing an interest in learning the same. Chess has also been part of the curriculum particularly in schools for many years with adolescents encouraged to learn chess at an early age across the globe (Palm, 1994). The main goal has been increasing their reasoning and problem solving skills. Cognitive learning theory has been the key theory in use in this paper in developing a model of analyzing the process of learning to play chess. The paper digs in-depth on the limitations of the theory and its key strengths in explaining the activity. The paper also gives an overview of some of other theories that are close in explaining learning, which include social learning theory, humanism and behaviourism. It is from the paper that we learn more about these theories and provide comparison on the same giving a broader overview of the best means of explaining learning. Jakobson et al. (2008) explains that chess is a great game but learning how to play the same requires broad knowledge and extensive skills that include concentration, choreography, comprehension, and concentration. Cognitive learning theory focusing on memory, the way people end up receiving, processing and transforming information is thus extraordinarily useful (Palm, 1994). Rote learning is also part of what chess learning requires with additional attributes of rehearsal, and chunking. For an individual with zeal to learn to play chess they also have to adopt better approaches of shaping, with many tutors using rewards and reinforcements and making good of what behaviourist theories explain as the best approach to learning (Marjoram, 1987). It takes in attention, modeling and observation as crucial elements engaged and supportive of social learning (Palm, 1994). Playing chess may also bee a creative mind but on the same note motivation cannot be left out as it is key in making learning better and efficient. These elements are relatively part of the humanist theories dominant in explaining learning. Maslow in applying the theory of human motivation was excellent in discussing the personality of the chess learner. The main aim of the research and application of the theory was trying to explain the situational elements of the learner as well as cultural context in which the learner thrives (Marjoram, 1987). This paper for that reason finds that cognitive learning theories without a doubt are of relevance in elucidating what is involved in learning the game of Chess. Rote learning, memory and Schemata are tremendously useful in learning Chess (Marjoram, 1987). It also takes in emotional and behavioural theories as applied in explaining learning and for that reason; it tries to explain that cognitive theory is limited. Collectively with other theories such as behaviourist and humanist theories, it turns out critical in providing explanations and giving a full spectrum of routine activities that can go into chess learning (Palm, 1994). This paper sets out in providing definitions of the varying theories and applying them to learning chess (Marjoram, 1987). Learning chess is predominantly appealing because with people having varying skills and abilities naturally; they often generate strong emotional engagement with chess as a game (Palm, 1994). It is this emotional engagement that generates the authentic and dynamic learning (Saskia, 2003), which entails inward interest to know more about chess. However, chess playing is cultural in context and many people have held it as a game of high esteem because of learning the same from the former generations. This cultural meaning is what gives people motivation to learn in that they want to be fit with the culture around and make the best out of the social meaning that chess goes with. As a result individuals strive hard to learn the game and therefore it can be espoused that this is where they draw some motivation (Van Oers, 1998). Chess is a relaxing game and a part of culture in many communities especially for the male gender therefore, generating an interest for many people to learn the same. From this, we can therefore conclude that learning theories of any kind either being a social theory incorporating the external (contextual or environmental) and internal (personal and cognitive) as espouse by Krause, Bochner & Duchesne (2003) might be of relevance for revealing how playing chess is learned. Nonetheless, equally Vygotsky’s takes in cognitive development with prominence on sociocultural elements as being of exceptional relevance. Krause et al. (2003: 43) applies Cognition in his explanations to how individuals are able to succeed in learning and what makes them develop greater interest in learning and have the zeal of trying out many things. It is also from his explanations that we can understand why people are even ready to undergo hard times only to have a part of learning and make best use of the same. In cognitive learning theory, the mind of an individual learner is a complex system working to store, receive, transform, transmit and retrieve information (Palm, 1994). Cognitive theory as espoused by many scholars is seen to consider human memory as being either of a short or long term in nature as well as schemata, and does not have much concern in explaining learning through individual behaviour (Baddelay 2001). Hence, it does not look into the motivation that might be coming from an individual’s social environment for learning chess skills. Scheirer & Kraut 1979, in Shavelson & Bolus (1982) are quick to note that only reinforcement especially the betterment of the environment in which the learner learns skills that makes it better and efficient for the activity to continue with minimal or no interruptions, all in the learning process. De Corte (1999) says that learning chess is likely to engage conscious information storage including ‘mindless repetition’. His works reflect that the application of any learning theory is excellent when conducting research on transfer of memory in individuals and giving an account of why people are different in learning. The works explains that only through the proper application that people are able to understand why some people are slow in learning playing chess and why many of them catch up very fast and become experts. Knowing to play chess and its tricks requires developing meaning or subsequently activating ideas in a semantic network. Individual learners need to build up linkages between the involved and required ideas (Marjoram, 1987). They need to the transfer of the respective concepts that are on the chess board and the respective moves. Taking this further, chess learners’ understanding the game requires ideas and concepts from the sociocultural environmental within which they are in as learners and the relevance of the same (Palm, 1994). Reading the moves on the chess board also requires some social effort. A system is on demand to put in order the social system and material required for the teaching chess game (Krause et al. 2003, p.67). This is an indication that it can be effectual in knowing the learner’s sociocultural environment when learning and teaching chess. For Vygotsky’s, mental functions of a higher level including abstract thinking as well as language develop within the social interactions and supremely crucial in the learning process (Marjoram, 1987). Vygotsky’s works explains culture as a social setting that provides collaborative cultural activities and facilitates easy time in the learning process. His works provide an example of how children learn through collaboration by engaging creativity and involving others within the group therefore pulling efforts and making learning group wise being easy and applied within a short duration. Krause et al. (2003) adds that the creativity they engage within a social context can be of value in creativity required in playing chess. The same is applied to learning chess similarly where moves can be molded and recognized with ease as well as developed using the creativity in the child all within the same social context. This therefore, reveals the magnitude of the sociocultural context in the application for cognitive learning (Marjoram, 1987). For instance, Asian students learning chess may take a better approach than African students because they have been engaged in such creativity than the later and given more freedom to explore as compared to the restricted Africans (Palm, 1994). Van Oers (1998) argument is that context is of monumental relevance since it ‘buoys up the particularization of meaning, therefore, bringing about rationality with the whole’. It is from this works that we can understand that social surrounding and mental surrounding are part of what a learner requires in excelling within the learning activity, in fact, they are a must for anyone willing to make it through the learning process. This has palpable implications for learning chess (Marjoram, 1987). People generally learn chess from a more knowledgeable and experienced person that they are because they have to take something from them and become experts as they are. Billett (1995) is of the view that learning theory is capable of providing ground for explaining knowledge construction within diverse cultures and varying circumstances and bringing out and acknowledging what happens within the diverse social setting. Saskia (2003) studied to compare memory for visual and verbal material to memory for playing chess. They argue that the structural information of chess as a game including rules moves complexity and individual goal direction can also of relevance in improving visual and verbal learning and recall for learning chess (Marjoram, 1987). Limitations are therefore evident, which relate to the cognitive theory and behaviorist theory scope when it comes to their explanations of learning in any given context. This is because as clear as it is, no theory is able to stand on its own and give better explanations and full explanations of respective theories as they need to support each other since all aspects apply on individuals. A human being literally is a subject to a social setting and they are also subject to a particular culture. It is also clear that the individuals have their own behavior (Krause et al., 2003). If a chess learner gets smacked on hand for every wrong move they make on the chess board then as per the application of classical conditioning, they eventually and with time stop making the wrong move or relatively fear a lot not to repeat that wrong move. It might be clear that behaviorists’ theory holds many weaknesses but one thing to appreciate is that chess playing takes in a lot of practice including errors and slow learning therefore the theory is excellent as it gives light to how learners are able to understand and master the game within a small duration (Marjoram, 1987). They can be positioned in a situation requiring problem solving for them to work out he correct moves they make on the board severally before they master the moves or rewarded for making the right moves (Palm, 1994). When the leaner gets rewarded with approval in the process of playing chess, then self concept is probable to change, and greater achievement is achieved (Palm, 1994). Jakobson et al. (2008) in their works of the effects of cognitive abilities in learning refer to the positive transfer from IQ to learning abilities. In application, chess learning training associates with more recall of visual information especially on the moves even when other variables including IQ, age, and gender are controlled for. Shavelson and Bolus’s (1982) works could also be part of this as it is very similar especially on the part of discussing self concept hierarchy, and self concept. It generates an understanding of what happens and how reinforcement comes in promoting learning from an individual’s social environment. This is what many scholars have incorporated and argued out in revealing the relevance of the theories in explaining how learning chess becomes efficient and how learners manage to do the same. This then extends beyond the first chess lesson (Marjoram, 1987). It is from this that we can look deeper into social learning theory and engage more of the same therefore evaluating its limitations and capitalizing on its strengths to explain how it works. Marjoram (1987) also wrote about the effect of games on memory, when playing a game, people can use a variety of structural information including information regarding the initial moves to play when starting and strategizing on playing chess. They use this general information in understanding what moves they can make in the process of the game. In any event of learning chess one has to be very attentive and this is what should apply in all theories explaining how the game is played and mastered. In learning the game, definitely skills involve coming out the smartest and emerging the best among others through better skills and moves in the same. Knowledge extraction is one great thing that an individual should have for him or her to be the master of chess. Social learning theory therefore is a strong hold in explaining chess and how learners go about the entire process especially when it supports the reinforcement concept that has been a great one in mastering the game. Upward movement of self concept is also a part of what the theory makes good use of and one that is excellent in delivering as per the expectations of the reader in understanding the entire activity in chess learning. Maslow’s (1943) also on a hierarchy of needs applied in the learning process could also be one great idea. The discussion of the theory applies the fact that people do things because they feel the need and want to serve an inner call. This is why learning chess becomes much of value because the individual participating in the same has no option because of the pressures of the innate needs they have (Palm, 1994). The theory is able to explain authentic learning giving reasons as to how the same develops in the real world, and applying it to chess learning, it gives a completely different picture as it espouses on the sociocultural context as applied in learning (Saskia, 2003). Chess learners as per what Baddeley (2001) says, must learn better and master the art as they get. His works reflects that there is nothing better that being an expert and this is what people feel condemned to be therefore engages the concept of reflectivity in making good of the explanations of learning. In the process of the respective phases, learners can use distinctive cognitive skills that include the utilization of schemata and diverse habits. Summarizing what Baddeley (2001) wrote, human beings act responsibly and they engage habits and schemata in what they do. His works game the example of driving a car, which he espoused that the act needs espoused through schemata. It was from this works that we were also able to understand that the human behavior was a natural occurrence and one that need the individual to adapt to situations as they unraveled for instance stopping because of red lights. The reflections also added that routine is also part of what makes people behave in a certain way with Baddeley (2001) bringing into considerations diversities between memory of both nature (long and short term) all applicable by the chess players. The learner given the procedural problem of making a move in playing chess has to combine varying kinds of information including new skills of deciphering moves with information from memory in the long term about how a particular move on a chess board should go and the result of the same, of which it might be a repetition of what an earlier learn move might have resulted to. Learning is complex as many scholars say adding that it is learner and situation specific (Palm, 1994). Teaching a person to play chess needs acknowledgement of the fact that not just own cognitive abilities are required, but the sociocultural context as well and attending to the respective phases. If they are contented with what they have as rewards and this affects individual self concept, learning based theories therefore are of prodigious relevance in explaining how learning becomes easier. The student can turn to be motivated even more and engage actively and dynamically in learning (Palm, 1994). They reflect nonetheless that there has been inadequate research on intrinsic motivation arguing against the use of rewards in controlling behavior instead of dealing with the subject matter of why learners do not have an interest in learning (Palm, 1994). Conclusion In summary, cognitive learning remains as important in all levels of explaining how chess learners manage to do it and the entire process. Compared to other theories, it is the one with a better stand and one that holds ground above all because it applies all concepts of learning including human behavior, culture as well as the social setting. Chess is a great game but learning how to play the same requires broad knowledge and extensive skills that include concentration, choreography, comprehension, and concentration. Cognitive learning theory focusing on memory, the way people end up receiving, processing and transforming information is thus extraordinarily useful (Palm, 1994). Rote learning is also part of what chess learning requires with additional attributes of rehearsal, and chunking. For an individual with zeal to learn to play chess they also have to adopt better approaches of shaping, with many tutors using rewards and reinforcements and making good of what behaviourist theories explain as the best approach to learning, which is why cognitive learning holds better ground in providing better explanations to successful learning. This paper has been a revelation that the numerous learning theories are all relevant in providing explanations as to how people manage in learning chess. However, it is only when combined with cognitive learning that they apply as more useful. Reference Baddeley, A.D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851-864. Billett, S. (1995). Workplace learning: its potential and limitations, Education & Training, 37(5), 20-27. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 3(7), 555-559. Ivcevic, Z. (2009). Creativity map: towards the next generation of theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 17-21. Karpov, Y.V. & Haywood, H.C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation: Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, 53(1), 27-36. Krause, K.L., Bochner, S & Cuchesne, S. (2006). Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching. 2nd Edition. Thomson. Marjoram, D. (1987). Chess and Gifted Children. Gifted Education- International, 5, (1), 48-51 Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 1943, 370-396. Mercado, E. (2008). Neural and cognitive plasticity: From maps to minds. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 109-137. Palm, C. (1994). Scholastics: Chess Improves Academic Performance. Northwest Chess, 10, 1, 3 Saskia, H. (2003). A complex adaptive perspective on learning within innovation projects, Learning Organization, Vol. 10(6), pp.340-346 Shavelson, R.J. & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: the interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology. 74(1), 3-17. Shuell, T.J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research. 60(4), 531-547. Stevenson, J. (2009). Expertise and Development: 7286EBL. Study Guide. Griffith University, Logan. Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473-488 Read More