Enhancing Chess Education through Interactive Teaching Strategies: A Comprehensive Approach

This study aims to identify the correlation between interactive teaching strategies and chess teaching effectiveness in Armenian primary schools. Traditional chess teaching methods often involve rote memorization and abstract rules, while interactive strategies emphasize active learning and practical application of learned knowledge. The authors advocate the inclusion of interactive methods in chess education, such as heuristic conversation, the use of information and communication technologies, modeling, collaborative learning, problem solving, and reflection. The article examines various empirical studies and theoretical approaches that support the effectiveness of interactive learning strategies in developing critical thinking, active student participation, and knowledge retention. 476 students of 5th grade from 42 schools of Armenia (50,2% male) took part in the study, they had learned chess in previous three years (in 2-4th grade). The study's results demonstrate that all indicators of interactivity, according to students' perceptions, significantly correlated with the results of the chess test. Analysis of the results allows us to confirm the hypothesis about the correlation between interactive learning strategies and the effectiveness of chess learning. We propose reconsidering pedagogical approaches, restructuring curricula, and providing training and professional development opportunities for chess teachers to effectively implement interactive methods in their teaching.

Introduction

In the Republic of Armenia, chess has been successfully taught as a stand-alone subject in primary schools for over 13 years. However, directive strategies, which focus on memorisation and abstract rules, remain prevalent in chess education, while interactive strategies emphasising active learner learning and practical tasks are less widespread. Empirical studies [Dunlosky; Freeman, 2014; Prince, 2004] highlight the potential of interactive teaching strategies to enhance the effectiveness of instruction across various subjects, offering new opportunities for learner engagement, improved learning outcomes, and the development of critical thinking and other cognitive skills.

Research findings [Mirzakhanyan, 2017] indicate the need to revise teaching methods for chess in schools. Educational materials for teaching chess in primary schools should be improved in line with pedagogical principles such as providing models, presenting material step-by-step, ensuring learner comprehension, engaging a large number of learners inclusively, and maintaining equity in instructional resources with regard to learners’ knowledge and skills. These materials should also connect new content to prior learning.

Consequently, it is advisable to continue research aimed at refining approaches to teaching chess. Furthermore, the effectiveness of teaching chess through interactive strategies from the perspective of children remains underexplored. We believe that an approach based on the cultural mediation of the game and accounting for children’s perspectives aligns better with the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory [Vygotskii, 1966] and his followers [Glukhova; Zaretskii; Kravtsov, 2020; van Oers, 2013]. The idea that education plays a leading role in development, foundational in cultural-historical psychology [Vygotskii, 1966] as noted by researchers [Zaretskii], underpinned the introduction of chess (including as a cultural element, considering its prevalence in Armenia) into the mandatory primary education curriculum.

The study aims to identify the relationship between interactive teaching strategies and the effectiveness of chess instruction in Armenian primary schools.

By employing interactive methods and strategies, learners become more engaged in the learning process, retain more information, and experience greater satisfaction [Steinert].

An interactive teaching strategy is a learning approach designed to actively involve learners in the educational process through participation, collaboration, and interaction. It encompasses various methods and techniques that enhance learners’ engagement with course content, instructors, and peers, fostering more profound understanding, critical thinking, and knowledge retention.

According to researchers [OECD (2016) insights; Senthamarai, 2018], interactive teaching strategies include, but are not limited to, classroom discussions, goal-oriented learning activities, group work, utilisation of information and communication technologies (ICT), collaborative learning, catering to diverse learning styles, reflection, independent learning, practical exercises, games, and simulations where learners apply theoretical knowledge to real-life situations, and problem-based learning.

The OECD (2016) [OECD (2016) insights] (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) classifies widely used teaching strategies into three main types: active learning strategy, where learners engage in weekly projects and/or ICT-based classwork and perform self-assessments while group collaboration is encouraged for problem-solving; cognitive activation strategy, where teachers explore various methods for solving complex problems and require explanations, with particular attention to real-world applications, and homework is widely used; directive strategy (teacher-led instruction), where teachers present learning objectives and repeat tasks until they are mastered. This strategy also involves summarising information and providing immediate feedback, as well as offering differentiated instruction.

However, in our view, this classification does not fully delineate the techniques and methods employed within different teaching strategies. For example, problem-solving does not exclude project work, and reflection on acquired knowledge should not be considered solely a component of directive strategies. Therefore, we tentatively group these tactics under interactive teaching strategies, as they generally involve active interaction between learners and teachers during the educational process.

Within the framework of interactive teaching strategies, we identify essential methods that can be tentatively classified according to various teaching approaches. We begin with the consideration of methods such as heuristic dialogue and decision-making.

Heuristic Dialogue and Decision-Making

The ability to ask questions is a fundamental teaching method that fosters critical thinking and an active role for learners. It encourages learners to engage actively and develop a deeper understanding of the subject [Brookfield, 2015]. Questioning techniques and heuristic dialogue are critical components of chess teacher training programmes [Professional development program]. The questioning technique is associated with the principles of the algo-heuristic theory [Landa, 1974]. Researchers from the National Institute of Chess Studies hypothesised a connection between chess and algorithmic thinking [Khachatryan, 2021].

According to R. Trinchero and G. Sala [Trinchero, 2016], chess is an effective tool for solving mathematical problems among primary school children, but only if the instruction incorporates heuristic methods for solving such problems. Considering the existing research findings on the effectiveness of heuristic methods in teaching chess, it is worth noting that the MirMe tool [Luan], which is essentially based on heuristic techniques, has revealed a significant influence of chess education on the decision-making skills of primary school children in chess education studies.

Use of ICT, Games, and Simulations

The integration of multimedia resources, such as videos and interactive technologies, can enhance the learning process by providing visual and auditory stimuli suitable for different learning styles [Mayer, 2014]. Gamification and simulations can make learning more interactive, engaging, and memorable by immersing learners in realistic scenarios and allowing them to apply theoretical knowledge in practice [Aldrich, 2009]. According to Khachatryan et al. [Khachatryan, 2021], chess can stimulate learners’ ability to navigate changing and non-standard situations.

In 2021, alongside the development of new educational standards, the chess curriculum standard was revised. Each topic includes a practical mini-game and a “live game.” All these games are digital and were developed for online platforms. Chess is taught to children as a game, an enjoyable “battle.” The child not only remembers what a checkmate is but also experiences satisfaction when delivering a checkmate during practical games.

In 2021, the World Chess Federation (FIDE) approved an international chess teacher training programme developed with the participation of specialists from the National Institute of Chess Studies. The course programme included numerous modern teaching methods adapted for online chess teacher training. It also utilised various electronic online tools and platforms widely employed in contemporary distance learning processes. These methods and ICT tools, combined with modern game-based and group learning technologies, are gaining increasing popularity, contributing, in our opinion, to the improvement of chess education quality.

Practical exercises can provide concrete experiences that ensure the reinforcement and development of skills [Bonwell, 1991]. Although the OECD [OECD (2016) insights] included this component in directive strategies, we are inclined to view problem-solving primarily within the framework of interactive strategies, as skill development and practical activities are inconceivable without active interaction among learners.

Setting Learning Objectives and Independent Learning

Granting learners autonomy in choosing their learning paths enhances motivation, responsibility, and an individualised approach to learning [Deci, 2008]. Clear learning objectives determine direction and focus, helping learners understand what is expected of them and aiding teachers in designing effective teaching methods [Wiggins, 2005]. Among a wide range of motivational factors, only responsibility and a positive attitude towards chess lessons have a significant positive impact on chess achievements [Gevorkyan, a].

Independent learning refers to a process in which individuals take responsibility for their own learning paths. When analysing the outcomes of chess teacher retraining, special attention is given to the formulation of professional training programme goals. Consequently, we implemented an approach based on planned learning outcomes [Gevorkyan]. Moreover, the chess curriculum standard was built on the basis of Bloom’s educational objectives [Bloom, 1956]. Thus, we can assert that the outcome-based approach was fully realised at both school (for children) and university (for teachers) levels.

It is important to note that chess activities, by developing critical thinking [Khachatryan, 2024], also foster independence in this process, thereby enhancing the autonomy of learning.

Collaborative Learning, Problem-Solving, and Reflection

Collaborative learning technology is a critical tool in chess education as it is used both in teacher training and in teaching learners. Collaborative activities are also fundamental to cultural-historical psychology. “The most important concept for understanding the relationship between learning and development, and the role of the adult in this relationship, is the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) [Vygotskii, 1986]. This is the domain of activities that a child cannot perform independently but can accomplish with the help of an adult” [Zaretskii].

It is essential to highlight that considerable attention is devoted to collaborative problem-solving, which is a cornerstone of chess education in schools. Problem-solving fosters critical thinking, creativity, and resilience, preparing learners to tackle real-world problems [Jonassen, 2010]. Collaborative learning, problem-solving, and critical thinking are directly linked to the development of learners’ reflective abilities. This is particularly evident in chess, given the constant analytical work aimed at evaluating various positions.

An example of problem-solving through collaborative technologies is tasks that take no less than a week to complete. In our previous research, we found that “increasing the frequency of problem-solving in lessons raises the average score on chess tests” [Gevorkyan].

The analysis and discussion of collaborative activities are among the fundamental principles of applying a reflective-active approach to teaching chess in schools [Glukhova]. Reflective practices promote more profound understanding, metacognition, and continuous improvement, encouraging learners to critically assess their learning experiences [Dewey, 1933]. Our studies [Sargsyan, 2019] also identified a strong correlation (0.58) between chess scores and learners’ reflective learning styles. Developing reflective skills is also a mandatory component of chess teacher training [Professional development program].

Long-term tasks lasting more than a week are integral components of an interactive approach to chess education. The updated general education standard, particularly for the subject of chess, aims to significantly expand the scope of project-based tasks, emphasising the importance of teamwork and shared goals in completing these tasks [Khachatryan, 2021a]. Project-based learning is also extensively incorporated into teacher training programmes [Professional development program].

It is also crucial to emphasise the importance of learners’ perceptions and inner states for the effectiveness of teaching strategies. Research [Hidi; Trigwell, 1996] has shown that learners’ motivation, active participation, and sense of belonging significantly influence their learning experiences and academic achievements. Moreover, the same teaching approach may be perceived differently by learners depending on their individual preferences, prior knowledge, and cultural backgrounds [Sarkisyan].

Organisation of the Study and Methods Used

In 2021, an empirical study was conducted to determine the impact of various factors on chess education in Armenia. The study employed the following tools and methods from both quantitative and qualitative research: tests, questionnaires, and practical investigations.

Participants, including learners, were provided with questionnaires developed in collaboration with teachers, psychologists, and chess players. Among the many questions in the questionnaire, a special section focused on the methods and conditions of chess education in schools. Specifically, learners were asked whether they had engaged in the following learning activities during their chess education:

1. completed project work requiring at least one week;
2. used information technologies/devices during classwork;
3. completed tasks requiring several class hours;
4. assessed their own achievements in chess;
5. solved chess problems in more than one way;
6. verbally explained how they solved a problem;
7. solved mathematical problems together with the entire class;
8. worked in small groups to find a standard solution;
9. discussed homework that they had failed to solve.

The survey, conducted using a random sampling method, included participation from across the Republic of Armenia, including the capital, Yerevan. A total of 42 schools were selected. The study involved 476 fifth-grade learners (239 boys and 237 girls) who had studied chess during the previous three years (from grades 2 to 4).

To achieve the research goal, a chess knowledge test was developed by a researcher from the National Institute of Chess Studies, who is also an international women’s chess grandmaster. This test was designed to assess the level of knowledge gained by learners over their three years of chess education. Psychologists, sociologists, and researchers from the National Institute of Chess Studies contributed to its development. The test was based on the educational standards for chess instruction in primary schools in the Republic of Armenia and consisted of eight chess problems. For each task completed, participants received one point.

The analysis of the results utilised the IBM SPSS 26 statistical software. Since most of the measured variables were ordinal, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was applied.

Results

The results of the correlation analysis are presented in the table below.

Table. Inter-correlation matrix of indicators of interactive learning strategies and chess education outcomes

Note: * – correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ** – correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

It was found that correctly solved tasks have a positive correlation with project-based learning (r=0.25, p<0.01), indicating the potentially positive role of project work in learners’ academic achievements. The identified relationship between correctly solved tasks and learners’ self-assessment of progress (r=0.19, p<0.01) may suggest a beneficial role of reflection in the learning process. Additionally, significant correlations were observed between correctly solved tasks and learners’ engagement in commenting on assignments (r=0.18, p<0.01), indicating that learners who generally provided comments on assignments tended to perform better in solving chess problems. Statistical analysis also revealed a correlation between academic achievements (chess problem-solving results), participation in small group work (r=0.15, p<0.05), and reflection on homework (r=0.29, p<0.01). The latter reflects the essence of reflexivity, as, during task review, learners not only recall information but also reflect on their knowledge, problem-solving methods, and learning strategies. This process helps them identify their strengths and weaknesses, understand errors, and plan further actions to improve their results.

As shown by the results of the correlation analysis (see table), all interactivity indicators, as perceived by learners, were statistically significantly correlated with the results of the chess test (with the variable “Correctly Solved Tasks”). For example, according to the classification we proposed, project work, reflection in the form of commentary and self-assessment of one’s work, and small group work are components of an interactive learning strategy. Components of the interactive strategy that are challenging for learners to assess, such as heuristics, critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making, were deliberately excluded from the questionnaire.

Discussion of Results

The discussion of the study results must begin with a comparison of theoretical approaches and empirical data. As a result of the comprehensive approach to the problem of the relationship between interactive learning strategies and the outcomes of chess education, it became clear that a considerable amount of experience has been accumulated in the application and research of interactive learning within chess education.

When examining the issue of interactive methods of teaching chess within the framework of cultural-historical psychology, it is evident that it is necessary to analyse not only the application but also the effectiveness of these methods from the perspective of learners. Cultural-historical psychology, developed by L.S. Vygotsky [Vygotskii, 1966], emphasises the influence of cultural and historical factors on the development of the human psyche. The results of the correlation analysis demonstrated a connection between interactivity and the effectiveness of chess education. Meanwhile, numerous studies [Gevorkyan; Gevorkyan, a; Sarkisyan] on the impact of chess on children’s mental development, including within the framework of cultural-historical psychology and the reflective-activity approach [Glukhova], have shown that learning chess contributes to the development of learners’ higher mental functions. The above findings confirm the hypothesis of the relationship between interactive learning strategies and the effectiveness of chess education.

Saraji and Zuhri [Saragih, 2019] confirmed that interaction influences critical thinking processes, especially during teaching and learning. Regarding problem-solving, research [Gevorgyan] indicates that when teachers help learners solve various chess problems, learners become aware of their improved problem-solving abilities not only in chess but also beyond. In other words, teacher competence strongly influences learners’ self-efficacy, which can be considered one of the key factors in their motivation. Self-efficacy in solving chess problems helps foster self-efficacy in addressing life challenges. Motivational components of interactive chess learning strategies were also explored in our previous studies [Gevorkyan, a]. Research into the influence of psychological factors on PISA test results (the Programme for International Learner Assessment) highlights the significant role played by intrinsic motivation and related factors, as well as belief in one’s abilities [Kriegbaum].

The analysis of experimental study results [Khachatryan, 2024] revealed that in the experimental group, where second-grade learners were taught chess using interactive game technologies, they solved chess problems more effectively. Moreover, the average number of incorrect solutions in the experimental group was lower than in the control group. These findings support the hypothesis that the game-based method of teaching chess is more effective.

A review of previous studies shows that approximately half of the learners play chess once a week. According to our research findings [Gevorkyan, a], playing chess once or twice a month, with games tied to the topics covered for reinforcement, is sufficient to improve chess proficiency. In this case, learners achieve higher chess test results, indicating better problem-solving performance.

Therefore, diversity in classroom activities is not only valuable but also essential for achieving educational goals. Considering that some educational activities, such as problem-solving, independent thinking, and strong intrinsic motivation, are primarily driven by the nature of chess itself, we deemed it necessary to include them within the framework of interactive learning strategies.

The results obtained once again underscore the need to reassess the pedagogical approaches used in teaching chess in educational institutions. Consequently, achieving the successful integration of interactive learning strategies into the practice of chess education requires ensuring the following conditions.

The effective integration of interactive learning strategies into educational practice necessitates a reassessment of chess training programmes and the professional development of chess teachers aimed at improving their qualifications in employing these innovative teaching approaches. Furthermore, it would be desirable to explore the possibility of integrating the principles of interactive learning into broader educational reforms and initiatives. This may include allocating resources for the development of educational games, supporting research on effective pedagogical strategies, and encouraging schools to adopt innovative teaching methods. 

Conclusions

The analysis of various teaching strategies within the realm of chess education reveals that the challenges associated with teaching chess transcend a simplistic classification. Strategies that incorporate reflection, heuristic discussions, ICT integration, collaborative learning, problem-solving, and independent learning interact dynamically, resulting in enhanced learning outcomes.

Heuristic discussions, practical exercises, independent learning approaches, reflection, collaborative work, problem-solving strategies, and the incorporation of multimedia resources and gamification in chess education not only accommodate diverse learning styles but also play a pivotal role in cultivating critical thinking skills essential for addressing real-world challenges. Furthermore, interactive learning strategies broaden learners’ capabilities, fostering independence and facilitating a more individualised learning experience.

The investigation of this issue within the framework of cultural-historical psychology has substantiated the hypothesis regarding the connection between interactive strategies and the effectiveness of chess education. All examined components of the interactive strategy – such as project work, reflection, and group work – demonstrated statistically significant correlations with the results of the chess test. This finding underscores that the application of interactive learning strategies significantly enhances the overall effectiveness of chess education.

1. Vygotskii L.S. Igra i ee rol' v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka [The Game and Its Role in the Mental Development of the Child]. Voprosy psikhologii = Psychology issues, 1966, no. 6, pp. 62– (In Russ.).
2. Vygotskii L.S. Konkretnaya psikhologiya cheloveka [Concrete Human Psychology]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. «Psikhologiya» = Bulletin of Moscow State University. Episode 14. “Psychology”, 1986, no. 1, 51–65. (In Russ.).
3. Gevorkyan S.R., Ispiryan M.M., Sarkisyan V.Zh., Tadevosyan A.V. Issledovaniya i opyt prepodavaniya predmeta «shakhmaty» v sisteme obrazovaniya Respubliki Armeniya [Research and Experience of Teaching the Subject “Chess” in the Educational System of the Republic of Armenia]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, Vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 121–135. DOI:10.17759/pse.2023280612 (In Russ.).
4. Gevorkyan S.R., Manukyan S.A., Sarkisyan V.Zh. Vliyanie uchebnoi deyatel'nosti i ustanovok uchashchikhsya nachal'noi shkoly na uchebnye dostizheniya po shakhmatam [The Impact оf Students’ Attitudesаnd Learning Activities оn the Chess Academic Achievements in Primary Schools]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, Vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 100–113. DOI:10.17759/pse.2023280508 (In Russ.).
5. Glukhova O.V., Volikova S.V., Zaretskii Yu.V., Zaretskii V.K. Rezul'taty longityudnogo diagnosticheskogo issledovaniya po proektu «Shakhmaty dlya obshchego razvitiya» [The Results of a Longi-tudinal Diagnostic Study on the Project «Chess For Overall Development»]. Konsul'tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 49–75. DOI:10.17759/cpp.2022300404 (In Russ.).
6. Zaretskii V.K. Reflixia i razvitie: refexivno-deyatel’nostniy podhod. V kn. Razvitie kommunikativno-refleksivnykh sposobnostei u detei 6–10 let v zavisimosti ot sposobov organizatsii uchebnykh vzaimodeistvii [The Influence of Ways of Organizing Learning Interactions on the Development of Communicative and Reflexive Abilities of Children 6–10 Years Old]. Kollektivnaya monografiya / Pod red. V.V. Rubtsova. Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU. 203 p. (In Russ.).
7. Kravtsov G.G., Kravtsova E.E. Kul'turno-istoricheskii podkhod k voprosam obrazovaniya [Cultural-Historical Approach to Education]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 4–13. DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160401 (In Russ.).
8. Sarkisyan V.Zh., Manukyan S.A., Ispiryan M.M., Gevorkyan L.L., Khachatryan E.A. Metodologiya issledovaniya vliyaniya psikhologicheskikh kharakteristik uchenikov pri obuchenii shakhmatam [The Influence of Students’ Psychological Characteristics on the Results of Learning Chess]. Konsul'tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 97–123. DOI:10.17759/cpp.2022300406 (In Russ.).
9. Aldrich C. The Complete Guide to Simulations and Serious Games: How the Most Valuable Content Will Be Created in the Age Beyond Gutenberg to Google. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. P. 576.
10. Bloom B.S., Engelhart M.D., Furst E.J., Hill W.H., Krathwohl D.R. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc, 1956.
11. Bonwell C.C., Eison J.A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 1991. P.
12. Brookfield S.D. Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. John Wiley & Sons, 2015. P. 336.
13. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 2008. Vol. 49(1), p. DOI:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
14. Dewey J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers, 1933. 301.
15. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Marsh E.J., Nathan M.J., Willingham D.T. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 14(1), pp. 4–58. DOI:10.1177/1529100612453266
16. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014. Vol. 111(23), pp. 8410–8415. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
17. Gevorgyan S., Sargsyan V., Gevorgyan L. Socio-psychological analysis of factors influencing Chess Education. Main Issues of Pedagogy and Psychology, Scientific Periodical, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 7–19. DOI:10.24234/miopap.v8i2.403
18. Hidi S., Renninger K.A. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, Vol. 41(2), pp. 111–127. DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
19. Jonassen D.H. Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. New York: Routledge, 2010. 472 p. DOI:10.4324/9780203847527
20. Khachatryan H., Khachatryan S., Movsisyan N. Elements of critical thinking in the school standards of «chess» subject. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 2021. Vol. 58(1), pp. 105–
21. Khachatryan H., Khachatryan S., Movsisyan N., Gevorgyan L. The Enhancement of Students' Critical Thinking with The Use of “Chess”. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, LXI, 1, 2024, pp. 105–120. DOI:10.57028/S61-105-Z1055
22. Khachatryan H.V., Khachatryan S.H., Movsisyan N.N. Distinctive features of the new standard of the "chess" subject. ASPU Scientific News, 2021. Vol. 3(41), pp. 52–
23. Kriegbaum K., Jansen M., Spinath B. Motivation: A predictor of PISA’s mathematical competence beyond intelligence and prior test achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 43, pp. 140–148. DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.026
24. Landa L. Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1974.
25. Luan S., Nowacki M.R. (2021). Evaluation of MirMe® Online Assessment for 21st Century Skills: Situational Intelligence (SQ) and Online psychometric assessment of 21st century skills. DOI:10.31124/advance.16988389
26. Mayer R.E. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. 2014. DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139547369
27. Mirzakhanyan R., Gevorgyan S., Sargsyan V., Daveyan H. Analysis of the Efficiency of Teaching Chess in Schools. Sociology Study, 2017. Vol. 7(1), pp. 36– DOI:10.17265/2159-5526/2017.01.006
28. OECD (2016) insights from the talis-pisa link data: teaching strategies for instructional quality.
29. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 2004. Vol. 93(3), pp. 223–231. DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
30. Professional development program. Developing the capacity to teach the basics of chess. Yerevan,
31. Saragih S., Zuhri D. Teacher behavior in students’ critical thinking ability development. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2019, pp. 1–8. DOI:1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012006
32. Sargsyan A., Khachatryan A. Critical thinking and motivation of chess teachers with the «best experience». Revista Mundi Engenharia, Tecnologia e Gestão, 2021. Vol. 6(1), pp. 310–313. DOI:10.21575/25254782rmetg2021vol6n11483
33. Sargsyan V., Avetisyan M. Learning styles and teaching strategies at chess lessons. Current state and development trends of chess education. International conference Tsakhkadzor, 2019, pp. 131–135.
34. Senthamarai S. Interactive teaching strategies. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 2018. 3 (Suppl. 1), pp. 36–S38. DOI:21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.166
35. Steinert Y., Snell L.S. Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 37–42. DOI:10.1080/01421599980011
36. Trigwell K., Prosser M. Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 1996. Vol. 21(3), 275–284. DOI:10.1080/03075079612331381211
37. Trinchero R., Sala G. Chess Training and Mathematical Problem-Solving: The Role of Teaching Heuristics in Transfer of Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2016. Vol. 12(3), pp. 655– DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1255a
38. van Oers B. An activity theory view on the development of playing. In: Schousboe I., Winther-Lindqvist D. (eds.). Children’s Play and Development. International perspectives on early childhood education and development. Vol. 8. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013, pp. 231– DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-6579-5_14
39. Wiggins G., McTighe J. Understanding by Design. ASCD, 2005.