Claims

Pupils and school staff held generally positive views of the chess intervention despite the null impact result

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Half of participating pupils said they liked the chess lessons a lot and only 8% reported not liking them; teachers were very positive about the intervention's impact on pupils' skills and behaviour. → Jerrim et al. 2016

Evidence

Jerrim et al. 2016

John Jerrim, Lindsey Macmillan, John Micklewright, Mary Sawtell and Meg Wiggins. (2016). Chess in Schools: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/library/chess-in-schools-protocol/

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Self-completion paper pupil survey administered in treatment schools in February 2015, approximately seven months after lessons ended, plus teacher and headteacher surveys. Staff perceived positive impacts on maths ability and learning skills such as concentration.

"Half of the pupils who participated in the trial said that they liked the chess lessons a lot, and only 8% reported that they didn’t like them. School teachers were very positive about the intervention and its impact on pupils’ skills and behaviour."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.