When will we do proper chess?

A lovely lesson, with full participation and most of the objectives covered—though not quite in the depth I had intended. We actually began slightly off-plan because Mehmet asked, “Are we going to play a proper chess game today?” That stung a little. Fair enough—I’ve probably been slow getting them into full games. At times I’ve let them play “free chess,” not worrying too much about correct or incorrect moves unless they ask. It gives them the feeling of playing, even if it’s not always purposeful. Still, the question landed.

So today we set up properly. Three pairs, and I played simultaneous games with them. Not before introducing the word “simultaneous” (via “instantaneous”—not quite the same, but near enough to start a conversation). I do like giving them words to add to their hoard. This was less the lesson plan and more the threat line of an eight-year-old meeting the mild nervousness of a sixty-six-year-old. Quite a combination. Fortunately, it worked.

They had only a few seconds to move when I arrived at their board—though they had all the time between my moves to consult. As I rotated through, I commented on their play: praising good moves, pointing out weak ones, using proper chess language throughout. With the strongest two, I paused to let them work out how I had trapped their pinned queen. If they saw it before my next move, I held back. They did. I then showed how to separate king and queen and capture the undefended piece. Patterns, ideas—at least that was the aim.

Once we finished this, they moved on to full games. I’ll keep this structure; it seems to give them the sense of a real game while still allowing for guidance. I may even start turning the board around when they’re close to beating me, just to tilt things in their favour. No harm in that.

We then moved to pawn slides. They identified positions using algebraic notation—pink pawn on H3 and so on. They did well, particularly the younger ones, who are beginning to enjoy the language of chess. I repeated questions so they repeated answers. It seemed to stick.

I removed the slide and asked them to identify positions from memory. Not perfect, but better than expected. I think they’re ready to build on this. It’s starting to settle.

We then took a brief imaginative detour—pawn “superpowers.” Movement without restriction first, then back to reality. They contributed piece movements well enough—diagonals, L-shapes, straight lines—and we returned to pawns: one square forward (usually), capturing diagonally.

Ranks and files came back in, and it was good to hear “fifth rank,” “eighth rank” used with some confidence. They do learn from each other—especially once corrected.

We looked at pawn states: threatened, passed, blocked. Good contributions here, particularly from Archie, who is usually more hesitant.

To finish, I played queen against their pawns. The task: reach promotion safely. Next time I may insist they “run through the line,” not just arrive—too many assume reaching is enough. It isn’t.

They finished by playing each other while I commented—weak pawns, seventh-rank chances, that sort of thing. Whether it’s all going in remains to be seen. I’ll need to test it.

Overall, I’m happy. Not perfect, not as deep as I’d planned, but lively and productive. Still haven’t produced those multiple-choice questions I keep mentioning. One day.

how many words

Feedback from Children - with notes

Red Pawn described the lesson at hometime in simple terms, saying they had been “counting points” and “making numbers.” She was able to explain that a pawn is worth 1 point and a queen 9, which shows a clear grasp of basic piece values.

Conifdent King confidently calculated a total of 15 points in front of his father, identifying a queen, a rook, and a pawn. This suggests he is beginning to combine piece values accurately and apply them in context.

Tricky Bishop used the term “chess maths” to describe the lesson, adopting the language used during the session. She also demonstrated flexible thinking by finding two different ways to make 8 points while we were waiting in the playground, showing both understanding and creativity in working with piece values.

After the Lesson ...

AI is used here to generate imagined reflections on the lesson from the perspectives of four teachers. These perspectives are grounded in established pedagogical theory and support reflective evaluation of intent, implementation, and impact, contributing to ongoing improvement in teaching practice.

Zahida – Structured Clarity

Dear teacher, your lesson shows a strong instinct for structure, particularly in how routines and repetition supported learning. Through a Rosenshine lens, the incremental build from recall to application is effective, especially in “chess maths.” However, I wonder whether your modelling could be more explicit—demonstrating thinking before asking pupils to attempt it. The repetition task worked well, but you might tighten it further with clearer success criteria. You are clearly checking understanding, though making this more visible could strengthen impact. There is a solid foundation here, but it could be sharpened.
Takeaway: Model one example explicitly before each new variation of the task.

Bob – Social Meaning Making

Dear teacher, I see strong elements of Vygotsky in your use of shared recall and paired work. Pupils are not working in isolation; they are building understanding together, particularly when combining piece values. The adaptation for younger and older learners suggests sensitivity to differing developmental stages. However, the interactions seem somewhat constrained—there is limited evidence of rich dialogue or explanation between pupils. You might consider prompting them to explain why combinations work, not just what they are. This could deepen the social construction of knowledge. There is more potential here to extend talk.
Takeaway: Ask pupils to explain their reasoning to their partner before confirming answers.

Veronica – Responsive Teaching

Dear teacher, your lesson demonstrates responsive teaching in action, very much in line with Dylan Wiliam’s thinking. You are constantly gathering evidence—through recall, questioning, and observation—and adjusting tasks accordingly. The use of points keeps engagement high, though it risks prioritising speed over depth if not carefully managed. I notice that feedback is mostly implicit; pupils know if they are right, but not always why. Making success criteria clearer could help them regulate their own learning. You are adapting well in the moment, but making this more systematic would strengthen it further. There is promising formative practice here.
Takeaway: Make explicit what a “good answer” looks like before pupils begin.

Chris – Experience First

Dear teacher, from a Deweyan perspective, I question the absence of actual gameplay in your lesson. While “chess maths” develops useful skills, it risks detaching knowledge from meaningful experience. Learners may understand values but not why they matter in a real game. The structured tasks are efficient, but perhaps overly controlled, limiting exploration and curiosity. I would argue that understanding in chess emerges through play, not just calculation. Your lesson is thoughtful, but it may prioritise order and abstraction over lived experience. This is worth reconsidering.
Takeaway: Integrate even a short, simplified game to anchor learning in real experience.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Establish and rehearse entry routines to secure attention and readiness
Consistent, low-friction routines (lining up, seating, starting tasks) can create calm conditions for learning, though their long-term impact should be monitored.

2. Use structured repetition to promote active listening and recall
Tasks that require pupils to repeat and build on prior contributions can strengthen attention and memory, particularly when participation is expected from all.

3. Differentiate in real time through task adjustment and pairing strategies
Adapting numerical complexity and structuring pair work to ensure shared participation can support mixed attainment groups, though more deliberate pre-planning may enhance consistency.

Too much to teach

Today began in the playground with a line that aspired to be straight and a pace that aspired to exist. I insisted on walking in time and in order so we could at least reach the stairs with a sense of purpose. This was only partially successful, but sufficiently so. They are between 5 and 7 years old after all.

Once at the room, I sent them in in fours, bags on the back table and then seated. To their credit, they did this quickly and, suspiciously quietly. A few minor behaviour ripples—poking, fidgeting, the odd wandering hand or thought—surfaced, but these were managed with reminders and a look or two that suggested I meant it (even if I wasn’t entirely sure I did). We began with the register task. Each child came up in alphabetical order to write their name, while the rest had to remember who had already gone and in what order. This became a small test of collective memory, which they approached with varying degrees of success. I awarded them points when they remembered correctly and got my own points when they did not. Two new pupils—Little Pawn and Red Rook—joined us. Both were understandably hesitant, so I kept things calm and low-pressure, which helped them settle.

Next we moved into chess proper – well almost. Each child gave one fact about the game, with the next required to repeat the previous fact before adding their own. This, as expected, quickly revealed who had been listening and who had been elsewhere entirely. Still, it worked well. We had some solid contributions: pawns capture diagonally, the queen can move anywhere, and, really impressively, “long castling” from Quick Queen. The repetition was the real strength here—it got them towards actually listening to each other, not just waiting for their turn. I did not pull it all together with a grand summary, but I awarded points throughout, which kept them engaged. This structure is staying.

The main event of the afternoon was what I called “chess maths,” which sounds more impressive than it is but did the job. I placed a cluster of pieces on the table and asked how many there were. Most counted eight or nine. Quick Queen, however, said five—spotting five proper pieces and treating the pawns as a group. Whether she really knew or was just guessing I didn’t have time to find out. I accepted it warmly. We then worked out total piece values. After some collective puzzling, we arrived at 28. I then began removing pieces one at a time, asking them to recalculate. The older pupils took to this quite easily; the younger ones needed a gentler approach. I simplified for them—counting pawns, adding or taking away one—while stretching the older ones with combinations (rook and pawn, queen and rook, and so on). It felt like proper thinking was happening, which is always very welcome. It is what I’m paid to facilitate after all.

They moved to tables in pairs and built totals themselves. I asked for specific numbers, and they had to use both black and white pieces so that both partners were involved. This mostly prevented one child from doing all the work while the other perfected the art of watching. The younger ones still needed support, but they were engaged. We finished at 5:45 on the dot and left without fuss—always a small victory. In terms of learning, they are beginning to grasp piece values and how to combine them. We did not play a game today, which I slightly regret. Next time, I will correct this—perhaps starting with queens only, to keep it simple and purposeful. But the real story today was the chess: counting, valuing, remembering, and, every now and then, properly listening.

Feedback from Children - with notes

After the Lesson ...

Zahida – Structured Clarity

Bob – Social Meaning Making

Veronica – Responsive Teaching

Chris – Experience First

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

Always on Display

We headed for the chess club room with three newbies in tow for the first session of the term. They looked younger than last term’s group. And so we had a grand total of seven: a mixture of seasoned pieces and a few newly promoted pawns. I began, as usual, with what was meant to be a quick icebreaker. I asked Why I was sweating, why the jumper had to come off— and then I got to the lanyard. I got stuck on it and wondered aloud why it is so called. I couldn’t help myself. I asked them for a description but got a reason. Eventually I said I would look up the exact meaning. I noticed I was in danger of derailing the whole session before we had even set up the board. Time to castle out of trouble. The aim, somewhere in all that, was just to let the new ones hear my voice without the pressure of learning much.

We did eventually land on the idea that the lanyard identifies us, which gave me an in. The newbies introduced themselves. Jolly Knight (formerly nearly “Iron Man”) set the tone. We also had Little Pawn (the younger Artjan), noticeably smaller than Bold Bishop (the older Artjan), who continues to play with confidence and is full of experimenting. I wanted to emphasise listening, so I tried something new: each child gives a chess fact, and the next repeats it before adding their own. They did this well. I, predictably, loosened the rules —any fact would do, including my own rather basic one about black and white pieces. This was so that the newcomers wouldn’t feel intimidated. Quiet Queen offered that there are 64 places to move on the board—awkwardly phrased, but good enough. I resisted tidying it up. At this point, Little Pawn sat silently as a few tears rolled down his year two face. Kind Bishop noticed and gently pointed it out. I reassured the tearful one and nudged him towards an answer to one of the questions. Nothing succeeds like success, and he recovered.

The activity then grew into a team game. They handled collective recounting well. Eventually I restricted answers to newbies, with the experienced playing the part of prompters using mime and gestures to help. Without that, Bold Bishop and Swift Rook would have dominated. I also had to rein myself in—again. And so we got on to some actual chess. I deliberately misplaced the black pieces on the seventh and eighth ranks and asked for corrections. The experienced players spotted errors quickly and then had to describe the corrections by using chess notation. I drew simpler answers from Jolly Knight and Busy Pawn, especially when the pieces sat helpfully on rank seven. A slight rotation of the board helped the youngest see both letters and numbers at the edges of the board. That did the trick.

To recover time (lost somewhere around the lanyard), I clustered a few pieces together and asked for total value: king, queen, rook, bishop, knight, four pawns. No instant answers, though Quiet Queen and Bold Bishop came close. The newbies held back. Fair enough. We reached 24. Removing the king led Kind Queen and another to point out that it made no difference pointswise. A useful moment. Removing and replacing further pieces reinforced values. I called this “chess maths”. We will return to it; relative value is still shaky. Next, Silent Knight called out numbers for the pairs of players to choose pieces to make the totals. I think this helped. But I also think I should find a way of proving it.

We finished with pawn play. Promotion had been mentioned eatlier, but the focus now was simply reaching the end rank. I demonstrated the game by using the queen —“superpowers” and all to chase and capture the pawns. This sttumbled when Jolly Knight moved it like a knight, quite logically following my explanation. My fault. We corrected it and played queen versus pawns. They did, in the end, play chess. This was definitely not guaranteed at one stage. Most managed a game or two of the pawn challenge before dismissal. Feedback was limited quickly uttered phrases like “I enjoyed playing”. I want more than this next time. I’ll probaby have a multiple choice survey of some sort . Next week: fewer lanyard moments, more chess.

Feedback from Children

Quiet Queen (y4) (West African full of answers and trying) “enjoyed playing”

Busy Pawn (y3 ) brother of Emanuella a little distracted – didn’t manage the counting but moved the pieces

Jolly Knight (y3)- humorous “the queen moves everywhere forward back” Bold Bishop

(y6) (Turkish humorous and helpful) “enjoyed playing” Kind Bishop(y6) quiet turkish knowledgable Swift Rook

(y5) really confident and experimental Little Pawn

(y2) Bengali new chessmate – managed to count points a little

After the Lesson ...

Zahida — Social Meaning Matters

Dear Teacher,

I see a strong commitment to bringing every learner into the activity, particularly through structured talk and peer support, which resonates with Vygotsky’s ideas. The way you shifted roles so experienced players prompted rather than dominated is especially thoughtful. I wonder, though, whether the shared knowledge being constructed was always secure—some misconceptions seemed to pass without refinement. Social learning is powerful, but it still depends on accurate tools and language. You might consider when to step in more explicitly to stabilise understanding. I am still learning how to balance this myself.
Takeaway: Use peer scaffolding, but intervene to secure key concepts at critical moments.

Bob — Guided Discovery

Dear Teacher,

Your lesson reflects Bruner’s notion of scaffolding, particularly in how you adjusted tasks and expectations for different learners. The movement from simple participation to more complex ideas like piece value and pawn roles is promising. However, the sequence felt slightly disrupted, and some ideas did not fully consolidate before moving on. Discovery works best when carefully structured, and your own reflections suggest you sensed this. Tightening transitions may help learners build more coherent mental models. I am still refining how much structure to impose myself.
Takeaway: Keep the exploratory approach, but sharpen sequencing so ideas build more securely.

Veronica – Confidence First

Dear Teacher,

I noticed how deliberately you protected learners’ confidence, especially the newer and younger ones, which aligns with Dweck’s work on mindset. Allowing approximate answers and celebrating participation helped create a safe entry point. That said, confidence alone does not guarantee progress, and a few missed opportunities for correction may matter over time. The challenge is to maintain that safety while gradually raising expectations for accuracy. Your instinct to reflect on this suggests you are already moving in that direction. I am still working on this balance too.
Takeaway: Pair encouragement with gentle insistence on improving precision.

Ron — Knowledge Before Discovery

Dear Teacher,

From a Hirsch-informed perspective, the lesson risks underemphasising the importance of secure, explicit knowledge. Key ideas—how pieces move, what the board represents—should be unambiguous, yet some confusion persisted. While your responsiveness and inclusivity are commendable, they may come at the cost of clarity. Learners, especially novices, benefit from direct instruction before exploration. I would question whether too much was left implicit or approximate. This may be uncomfortable, but worth considering.
Takeaway: Teach core knowledge explicitly before inviting open exploration.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Structure participation to include all learners, but define clear knowledge goals
Use strategies like “repeat and add” or role differentiation, but be explicit about what counts as a correct or complete idea. This helps maintain inclusion without diluting content.

2. Respond to emotional needs while engineering early success
When learners struggle or disengage, provide guided prompts that lead to a quick, achievable contribution. This appears effective here, though its longer-term impact on independence may need monitoring.

3. Balance exploratory dialogue with timely explicit instruction (tentative)
Allow space for discussion and approximation, but identify key moments where precision matters (e.g. rules of movement) and intervene clearly. The reflection suggests this balance is still developing.

Always on Display - version 2 from Gemini

Feedback from Children

Quiet Queen (y4) (West African full of answers and trying) “enjoyed playing”

Busy Pawn (y3 ) brother of Emanuella a little distracted – didn’t manage the counting but moved the pieces

Jolly Knight (y3)- humorous “the queen moves everywhere forward back” Bold Bishop

(y6) (Turkish humorous and helpful) “enjoyed playing” Kind Bishop(y6) quiet turkish knowledgable Swift Rook

(y5) really confident and experimental Little Pawn

(y2) Bengali new chessmate – managed to count points a little

After the Lesson ...

Zahida — Scaffolding Growth

Dear Teacher,

your use of the experienced students as “prompters” via mime was a sophisticated way to manage a mixed-ability room. It reminds me of Vygotsky’s focus on the social nature of learning, where the more capable peer bridges the gap for the novice. I noticed how this prevented the older ones from simply shouting out the answers. However, I wonder if the “newbies” were truly internalizing the concepts or just following the gestures. It seems the social scaffold was strong, but the individual cognitive gain for the younger ones is still being built. I have much to learn about how to transition them from prompted success to independent play.

Takeaway: Use peer-mentoring roles to keep high-attainers engaged while supporting beginners.

Bob — Evidence of impact

Dear Teacher,

I appreciate your focus on the “nothing succeeds like success” mantra during the session. This aligns with John Hattie’s work on the importance of self-efficacy; that small win for Little Pawn likely saved his entire engagement with the club. You mentioned being dissatisfied with the “I enjoyed playing” feedback, which is a vital realization for any practitioner seeking to measure impact. While the “chess maths” activity provided some data on their understanding, the lack of a formal check for understanding at the end leaves the actual progress a bit opaque. I am still working on how to move my own students from “enjoyment” to “articulated learning.”

Takeaway: Replace vague “enjoyment” surveys with specific, content-based check-ins to measure actual learning.

Veronica — Development and Logic

Dear Teacher,

The moment when Jolly Knight moved the Queen like a Knight was a fascinating look into a child’s logic. In Piaget’s view, he was assimilating your “superpower” explanation into his existing schema of how pieces move, even if it led to an error. Your decision to rotate the board to assist with coordinates shows a keen awareness of how physical perspective affects a child’s spatial reasoning. However, the emotional vulnerability of the Year 2 student suggests the cognitive load of the “recounting facts” game might have been too high for that developmental stage. I am still learning how to spot these “overload” moments before the tears start.

Takeaway: Match the complexity of the “icebreaker” to the youngest student’s emotional and cognitive limits.

Chris — The Subject Specialist

Dear Teacher,

I found the “lanyard moment” and the loosening of the chess fact rules to be a significant distraction from the domain-specific knowledge required. Following E.D. Hirsch, I would argue that students crave the “cultural literacy” of the game itself, and the time spent on “hearing your voice” could have been better spent on the rigour of the board. By accepting “any fact” to avoid intimidation, you potentially diluted the specialized vocabulary that helps children feel like real chess players. The “chess maths” was a good start, but it felt rushed because of the earlier digressions into etymology. I am still grappling with how to balance being a “relational” teacher with being a disciplined instructor.

Takeaway: Protect instructional time by limiting personal anecdotes to the very beginning or end of the session.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Structured Peer Prompting

When teaching a mixed-age group, assign “Mentor” roles to experienced students but restrict them to non-verbal cues (pointing, miming). This prevents “attainment-gap dominance” while forcing the experienced students to think more deeply about the mechanics of the game they are explaining.

2. Physical Adaptations for Spatial Awareness

For younger learners (KS1/Lower KS2), physically adjust the learning materials—such as rotating the board or using larger “superpower” analogies—to accommodate their developing spatial and logical schemas. Tentative recommendation: Consider using a vertical demonstration board for coordinates to reduce the “flat-table” perspective issue.

3. Guarding the “Instructional Core”

Set a strict timer for “icebreaker” or relational talk to ensure that the “instructional core” (in this case, piece values and movement) is not truncated. Use a “Parking Lot” on a whiteboard for interesting but off-topic questions (like the meaning of “lanyard”) to be revisited only if the core learning objectives are met early.

Always on Display

It doesn’t get much better than this. Five lively children and one listening-in teacher. Today was our first day back at chess club after two weeks away for half term.

We got to the room and found a teacher in it. She looked up and asked if we were using it for a club and if I needed the computer. I reassured her that it would be fine for her to stay working there. I’ve been looking for a senior teacher to have some eyes on the good things that are happening in club. Never sure if the school really knows what they are paying for and what they are actually getting. But here was somebody to listen and be impressed at what they have learned. Maybe they’ll even be impressed at me. (Hey! It’s not about you. It’s about the children!)

We start off with me asking for the first few moves of a game we began learning last term. I had called it the Opera Game. They remembered a few moves. Great, the teacher heard them using algebraic notation confidently to describe moves. Next up I introduced some etymology as they didn’t know what an opera was. I offered that it was a Greek word and that it meant work. We get the word “operate” from it. Then Fresh-to-Chess asked what a grandmaster is. Growing-in-Confidence answered that they were the best chess players in the world. He started with the word “basically”. I stopped him and he adjusted his answer seeing that I disapproved of the word. This is where I get to tell my story of beating a grandmaster in a game in a cafe. They were really impressed until I let out the little detail that he had been only six years old at the time. Bah. He’s now 15 and the youngest chess grandmaster the UK has ever had. It was lovely to hear Bright-Ideas say that it would be better to say I beat a “future grandmaster”. Lovely also to hear Growing-In-Confidence say that maybe my words inspired him. I said probably not as he was already devoted to the game. Still we can dream.

So we pressed on with me starting the game itself and realizing that it wasn’t actually the Opera game at all. I asked the chessmates whether it was possible or okay for teachers to make mistakes. They quickly agreed “Yes”. So I owned up that it was not actually the Opera Game we had started with. We rectified this by setting out again. I called out moves and asked the children to move them on the board. I made up the ditty “Every good move has a good reason behind it”. The trouble is every child thinks they have a good reason even when they don’t. I suppose I have to keep on plugging away giving them good reasons such as control of the centre, development of the pieces, protection of the king and gain material (that last one was new today). So they had to give a possible good reason for each move we made. That led to tons of suggestions. Mission accomplished. They were thinking about those chess moves. How to sustain this. We’ll see next week.

After the Lesson ...

Zaeeda — Social Meaning Matters

Dear teacher,

Your club thrives on talk. When children refine one another’s phrasing and negotiate meaning around “grandmaster,” you are working in the territory of Lev Vygotsky. He argued that thinking develops first between people before it settles within the individual. Your insistence on giving reasons for moves creates a shared language of chess concepts that mediates understanding. However, you might sharpen this further by being more deliberate about who speaks and how ideas are built cumulatively. Dialogic spaces can easily be dominated by the confident few unless carefully structured.

takeaway
Plan structured talk so every child rehearses the language of reasoning within their zone of proximal development.

Bob — Thinking About Thinking

Dear teacher,

When you pressed pupils to justify each move, you were cultivating metacognition in the spirit of John Hattie. Hattie’s synthesis of research suggests that visible learning hinges on pupils understanding success criteria and evaluating their own thinking. “Every good move has a good reason” is a neat success criterion, but it needs sharpening. What counts as a good reason, and how do pupils know? Without clarity, children will offer plausible-sounding but weak rationales. The next step is to model what strong reasoning sounds like and let them critique examples.

takeaway
Make the criteria for a “good reason” explicit and teach pupils to evaluate the strength of their explanations.

Liz — Errors as Growth

Dear teacher,

Your admission about the mistaken Opera Game reflects the mindset described by Carol Dweck. By asking whether teachers can make mistakes, you framed error as part of growth rather than failure. That move likely strengthened trust and resilience. Yet growth mindset can become sloganistic if not tethered to strategy. Simply saying “mistakes are fine” is insufficient unless pupils also learn how to improve from them. The chessboard is fertile ground for this—analyse missteps publicly and extract principles.

takeaway
Treat each mistake as data: name it, analyse it, and connect it to a transferable principle.

Ron — Knowledge Before Discovery

Dear teacher,

I admire the energy of your club, but I worry that reasoning without firm foundations risks superficiality. E. D. Hirsch argues that knowledge is the bedrock of thinking; without secure background knowledge, “skills” float untethered. When children generate “possible good reasons,” are they drawing on a well-sequenced body of chess knowledge, or improvising? Discovery and discussion have limits if core content is insecure. Hirsch would caution that cultural literacy—in this case, the canon of classic games and principles—must be systematically taught before it can be creatively manipulated. Some matters here are contested, but the tension is worth holding.

takeaway
Ensure that exploratory talk rests on carefully sequenced, explicitly taught chess knowledge.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Engineer Accountable Talk

Pose questions that require reasoning, not recall.
Insist on precise vocabulary (e.g., centre control, development).
Rotate participation so all pupils articulate ideas.

2. Make Success Criteria Visible

Define what counts as a strong explanation.
Model examples and non-examples of “good reasons.”
Invite pupils to assess the quality of their own and others’ reasoning.

3. Normalise and Utilise Error

Publicly acknowledge teacher and pupil mistakes.
Analyse errors for underlying principles.
Revisit misconceptions in subsequent sessions to secure learning.

This one could fly

I’m going to move my big pieces onto the board”. Those words are music to my ears. I heard them like people hear their name called in a crowded room. I’m going to run with this. And so I set the mission for the class and wrote it on the mini whiteboard in my hand: “Get the king safe and develop the pieces”. The aim was to get the class moving with purpose in the opening. They still largely play what I call Mr Micawber chess. That means they play hoping that “something will turn up”. Well I want them to take the next steps and to play with purpose.

I need them to be quiet and concentrating. Not so easy for 20 five and six year olds after school on a Friday afternoon. How to make that work? I said they were to play on in “Tournament mode” They’re told that they win if their opponent talks in the two minutes of the game. This two minutes gave me valuable time to play against one pair and to see how they are doing while giving them a mini lesson. I said we would turn this into a counting game where points were awarded for pieces that got off the starting blocks and onto the board. They know that pawns aren’t pieces and that the king must stay back. It’s tricky keeping count of two scores while trying to fiddle it a little so that they get the benefit of the doubt. This fiddling keeps them in a game which I am making up as I go along. What’s that? Oh I just awarded myself ten points for castling. I hope they see it and do the same. Then I made sure they saw that I only got one point for the pawn movements. Far too often pawns get moved at random in these games. I want to change that. At the end of two minutes we tot the points up again. I’ll have to think of some quick way of keeping a running total. Something like one of those cribbage boards maybe. This will encourage them to move pawns more conservatively and to ensure that they are only moved to facilitate piece development. I think that could work. But it really needs familiarity with the values of the pieces. Maybe a sheet with pictures of the pieces to be ticked off. That might work.

I walked the room like some distinguished adjudicator doling out verdicts on each game when I noticed a lot of rooks left on their starting squares. I called them “lazy rooks”. That called for and received loud giggles. That died down when I said I would take them away in the next round. Great stuff. Now they had a purpose. Now they had something to play for. To get the rooks out they would have to get the other pieces out. Not really I hear someone say: they could just move the pawns on h and a. Hey I could say that if those pawns are moved in the opening to allow rooks out they will count as takeaways or minuses. Too many ideas. I really have to keep the rules simple, interesting and achievable. This one really could fly. On we go to the next round which ends with me beaming a great smile as I find and sweep six lazy rooks off their boards. Still they are up for it. But it’s hometime. We’ll try this next time

After the Lesson ...

Zaeeda — Purposeful Apprenticeship

Dear teacher,

Your shift from hopeful play to purposeful development reminds me strongly of Lev Vygotsky. You are not simply letting them play; you are structuring the environment so that they operate just beyond their current habits. The two-minute “Tournament mode” creates a social frame that sharpens attention and raises expectations. When you model castling and attach visible value to it, you are providing the scaffold that helps them internalise strategic priorities. Still, Vygotsky would caution that scaffolds must be gradually withdrawn — are you planning for the moment when they generate these principles independently?

takeaway: Design clear scaffolds, then plan explicitly how and when to remove them.

Bob — Habits Through Reinforcement

Dear teacher,

Your counting system and playful “lazy rooks” feel very much in the spirit of B. F. Skinner. You are shaping behaviour by reinforcing what you want to see: development earns points; random pawn pushes earn little. The immediacy of the feedback matters — they see you gain ten points for castling and the message lands. However, Skinner’s work also warns us that reinforcement systems can become ends in themselves. If the children chase points rather than positional understanding, you may inadvertently create compliance rather than insight. The balance between extrinsic reward and intrinsic chess thinking remains delicate.

takeaway: Ensure rewards point beyond themselves to genuine conceptual understanding.

Liz — Cognitive Load Matters

Dear teacher,

As I read about fiddling scores, tracking silence, awarding points and policing rooks, I hear the voice of Dylan Wiliam in the background. Wiliam argues that formative assessment works when it clarifies the learning intention and success criteria. Your mission — “Get the king safe and develop the pieces” — is admirably clear. Yet you yourself note the danger of too many rules. If cognitive load is high, five- and six-year-olds may struggle to prioritise the core principle over the mechanics of the game system. The key is parsimony: fewer rules, sharper feedback, tighter alignment with the learning goal.

takeaway: Keep success criteria simple enough that children can hold them in mind while playing.

Ron — A Child-Led Counterpoint

Dear teacher,

I admire the energy, but I find myself leaning toward Maria Montessori. Montessori warned against adult over-direction that interrupts the child’s self-construction of knowledge. When you “fiddle” scores and sweep away rooks for effect, are you guiding discovery — or scripting it? The laughter at “lazy rooks” shows engagement, yet the constant rule adjustments risk making the game about your authority rather than their exploration. Chess itself contains natural feedback: poor development leads to quick checkmate. Perhaps the material, if prepared carefully, could teach without so much orchestration.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Make purpose Visible

State the strategic aim in child-friendly language.
Model one strong example (e.g., castling early)
Revisit the aim at the end of play.

2. Engineer Attention through Structure

Use short, timed bursts to focus energy.
Establish one or two simple behavioural rules.
Monitor without overwhelming with commentary.

3. Align incentives with understanding

Reward moves that reflect the core principle.
Avoid complex scoring systems that distract from thinking.
Gradually reduce external rewards as habits form.

Maybe they won't notice

Enjoyed my flat white while chilling at a quiet café three minutes’ walk from my school. I enjoyed it a bit too much and so signed in at school with just seconds to spare. No problem. The teacher had my chessmates ready for me. And boy were they ready for this first club of the new year.

Miss “I’ve-got-to-tell-you-absolutely-everything-in-thirty-seconds” told us about the deluxe chess set she got at Christmas. She was so excited. Master “I-know-my-little-brother-is-better-than-me” was keen to talk about chess in a restaurant over Christmas. He said he told his family he was moving his bishop to z12. He stood up and went outside the restaurant with it. What a wonderful piece of playfulness. Love it.

And so to work. I said that this term we wouldn’t be playing the Lasker v Bird game again. That was the Danish in 1892. Today they would have a choice. They would watch two other short games I had committed to memory, then make up their minds which one we should pursue. As it turned out, I had been unrealistic and hadn’t thought through my timings. If they were to make an informed choice, they would need more time than I had allowed. Ho hum. I’ll just have to try to be brilliant and interesting enough to hold their attention.

The game we played was the Opera Game. I couldn’t quite remember if I had introduced it before, but we plunged in anyway. My bad. I really should keep a fuller record of what each class has done so that I don’t get moments of uncertainty like this.

After a few moves I started asking for suggestions and threatened pieces. As we went through the game, various suggestions were made. One of them gave us a golden opportunity to introduce a chess truth. Never think that your opponent might not see a straightforward capture. Always play as if they are as clever as you. Better to do forcing moves rather than moves based on “I hope they don’t see that.” As we continued, it was wonderful to see two of them using chess algebraic notation to describe what they were doing. Success.

When the game finished we noted that white had used every single piece. That was obvious even though more white pieces were crashed out at the side of the board having been captured. This reiterated the idea that we need to get all our pieces active and working together.

Now it was time for them to play their individual games. They set up, with me making new pairings so that the brothers didn’t play each other. They’ve all got enough chess now to get on without much fuss. This left one child on her own. I had planned that she would play with me. She is the slowest and most ponderous, but she remembered some of the moves from before Christmas. That was great. She spotted the threat to her pawn and reacted to it.

At the end of the lesson I asked each player to briefly describe their game. The first comment wasn’t heartening. Miss “I’ve-got-to-tell…” said that she had made too many dumb moves. I invited her opponent Jnr to say that wasn’t so. He responded well and spoke about her contesting the centre. The other game was similarly described.

I think I have to try this some more. It gives the players a chance to reflect on what they were doing and to take an overview of the game. This is essential if they are to play with purpose and strategy. I’ll have to try the same for my teaching.

After the Lesson ...

Zaeeda — Freedom with intention

You remind me strongly of Maria Montessori in the way you trust your pupils to think and choose for themselves. By allowing them to select which game to study and encouraging them to suggest moves, you create a prepared environment where independence and concentration can flourish. Even the slower pupil thrives because you give her time and dignity rather than rushing her thinking. Montessori would, however, nudge you to strengthen your record-keeping so freedom is supported by continuity.
Takeaway: Offer freedom, but anchor it in careful preparation.

Bob — Meaning through talk

As I read this, I kept thinking of Lev Vygotsky and his insistence that learning is fundamentally social. The way you draw out suggestions, invite pupils to explain games, and let peers reframe negative self-talk shows learning happening between people, not just inside heads. When pupils use algebraic notation aloud, language becomes the tool that sharpens thought. You are clearly working within their zone of proximal development, even when you feel you’re improvising.
Takeaway: Keep making dialogue the engine of understanding.

Lizzy — Intellectual dignity

Your approach resonates deeply with W. E. B. Du Bois, particularly his belief in rigorous intellectual life as a form of empowerment. You treat chess not as a pastime but as serious thinking, and you hold all pupils—regardless of speed or confidence—to that standard. I was struck by your insistence that one should always assume the opponent is “as clever as you”; Du Bois would recognise that as a moral as well as cognitive stance. In your room, strategy becomes a way of affirming dignity.
Takeaway: High expectations communicate respect.

Contrasting Commentary

Ron — Structure before reflection

I want to challenge you here, drawing on E. D. Hirsch, whose work questions discovery-heavy approaches. Your uncertainty about whether you had taught the Opera Game before suggests a lack of clearly sequenced, cumulative knowledge. From a Hirschian view, pupils need shared, explicit instruction and repeated exposure to core material before they can meaningfully reflect or choose. Without that foundation, reflection risks floating free of secure understanding.
Takeaway: Secure core knowledge before expanding choice.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical to practice

1. Plan for agency, not spontaneity alone

Decide in advance where learners will have genuine choices.
Limit options so choice deepens thinking rather than fragments it.
Ensure each choice leads towards the same underlying learning goal.

2. Turn experience into language

Ask pupils to explain moves, decisions, or strategies out loud.
Introduce and insist on shared terminology and notation.
Build in brief reflection moments at the end of tasks or games.

3. Stay responsive, but track learning

Adjust pacing and grouping in response to what you notice in the moment.
Keep simple records of what has been taught and understood.
Use those records to inform the next session’s starting point.

Fear of the B word

What a great start to the lesson. It was an extended warmer. My introduction went on longer than anticipated (by whom?). Did it feel “rushed” for the four chess mates present today? Well it was rushed in my mind because I always fear going on too much and boring my learners. But no. It went well. How do I know? Well we’ll see the lesson pan out now.

They set up the board. They’re just about getting used to the idea of white on one and two and black on ranks seven and eight. Master Confidence made a great and fine distinction when he said white queen white square and shaded queen on shaded square. Why? Because actually our boards are dark green and white. I congratulated him on this and we moved on. This time we would go through the Opera game again. But they would have to call out the moves and I would move my hand like one of those claw hands at the fairground. I needn’t have worried that Miss Expansive would be all at sea. She managed the first couple of moves very confidently. But then I had to make sure everybody got a chance by ordering that they speak the moves in turn. That was how we got to see that they know the moves well.

We got through to Bishop B4 then in came Milos Jnr, late from swimming. He is a revelation. Late to the course and yet eager and with a good memory. We played on with me allowing alternative moves and discussing them. We got all the way through to checkmate with the words fork and pin being remembered and used by them. This was really encouraging. How to continue without encountering the dreaded b word (boring)? Just ensure that they know they are making good suggestions and that this is significant. Nothing succeeds like success.

I go on to play through the game just one more time – this time at 90 miles an hour so that they see it as a whole rather than be punctuated by chat. Finally, to make a challenge and to allow them to see what can be done, I close my eyes and move the pieces by touch and feel. I called out the moves for reinforcement. They enjoyed adjusting the pieces as I obviously didn’t get them inch perfect. They would each call out “I adjust” before doing so. This was all good.

Finally, it was time for them to have their own free games. But I just couldn’t help myself. In order to win the right to a free game they had to call out the first two moves of the Opera game fluently with no “ums” and “ahs” and no unnecessary words. I did my usual long winded explanation of one move and asked them to shorten it. They got the point. Use the least number of words possible. A4, or Bishop captures g7 etc. Not “You pick up the white piece on the square called b2 and lift it towards the square called g7 simultaneously picking up the pawn; that’s the little piece with one point”. … yawn.

You get the idea. I want them using chess language when appropriate and more descriptive language at other times. The descriptive language shows understanding and appreciation. That happened when Atalik Jr remarked that the escaping knight said to the threatened rook “You’re on your own”. He could see there was no helping that rook. And so they were off to play on their own. In those independent games there was a little squabbling and playfulness but they had earned the right to play.

After the Lesson ...

Zaida – learning is social

What stands out to me is how learning is constructed through shared talk and action. The naming routines, lining up, and calling out squares function as mediating tools in the Vygotskian sense, supporting children to operate just beyond what they could manage alone. Understanding is built through interaction, with the teacher guiding participation rather than simply delivering content. The lesson positions learning as something that happens between people before it becomes individual.

Advice: Keep using talk and shared action as the bridge into complex ideas.

Bob – return builds understanding

The session is carefully structured so that ideas are revisited and extended rather than rushed. Names, boards, pawns, notation, and the full game are introduced in a sequence that allows concepts to reappear at increasing levels of complexity, which aligns with Bruner’s notion of a spiral curriculum. The Opera Game serves as a worked example that gives coherence to the earlier activities. Understanding is built through return and re-encounter.

Advice: Trust this spiral—depth comes from return, not rush.

Lizzy – action before abstraction

The emphasis on handling pieces, moving bodies, and seeing relationships on the board fits well with Piaget’s account of how younger children learn. Concepts are grounded in concrete action before symbolic notation is expected to make sense. The hesitation about letting children “just play” reflects an awareness of their developmental stage. Experience is used to prepare the ground for later abstraction.

Advice: Continue privileging concrete experience before abstraction.

Contrasting Commentary

Ron – explicit knowledge comes first

My concern is that core chess knowledge is delayed by too much emphasis on process. From a Hirsch perspective, learners benefit from early, explicit access to the shared knowledge of a domain: piece names, rules, and winning conditions. Some children may be capable of grasping this framework sooner than the lesson allows. Discovery is valuable, but it should sit alongside clear, direct instruction.

Advice: Consider balancing experiential work with clearer upfront exposition.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical principles to teaching takeaways

1. Language as Thinking

Precise subject-specific vocabulary
Descriptive language shows understanding
Talk structures thinking

2. Anchor abstraction in the body

Turn concepts into movements before definitions.
Use physical orientation (turning, lining up) to teach spatial ideas.
Keep objects in learners’ hands as long as possible.

3. Success, Motivation, and Memory

Early wins build confidence
Repetition strengthens recall
Fluency earns autonomy

The very first session

My first job of the afternoon on this first day of term was to go to the playground to wait with the children as they finished off their snacks. I asked the first six or seven children for their names. I usually repeat names several times in conversation in my attempt to learn them. Them being seated on the ground and in line made it far easier to memorize. The trick would be to do this once they moved and got in different positions.

We got to the classroom in an orderly manner and I sent them one at a time to put their coats and bags on the window sill. Eventually they sat down in front of me. I said we wouldn’t do much chess today but that we would learn names. It was time for my old joke; if my first name is Joe and my second name is King then what is my full name? When they said this fast enough the penny dropped. One or two saw that I was Joe-king. Following this I gave them my actual name. Then I went around the class asking names and repeating them inordinately (for memory’s sake). When I came to one whose name I should have known because he had been with me last term I masked my forgetfulness by asking for the first letter of his name. This triggered my memory successfully. But I thought that this was a useful technique anyhow, even for new children and so we went along until we had all of the names. I asked if it was better than I said “Oy you at the back on the right”. We agreed that this would not be respectful. This is why it is so important to learn the names.

Once we finished the naming activity I asked them to gather around a table for a demonstration. Now all 19 of these five and six-year-olds were around a nest of three tables so that they could see what was going on. I asked what the square mat on the table was. Somebody said it was a chess board. Good start. I asked how many squares were on it. Another offered the number 64. I said, “If you answer a question please give your name first”. I asked how many rows and how many lines. We called the rows ranks and asked when we line up in ranks. For a school photo. Who else lines up in ranks? Soldiers. Then what is a file? A line where you line up one behind the other as opposed to shoulder to shoulder. I got them to line up shoulder to shoulder and pointed out their ranks. Then they turned ninety degrees and ended up one behind the other and that counted as a file.

Now it was time for the pieces and their movements and positions. I got out a piece and asked what it was. Somebody offered the answer “pawn”. That’s good. I gave out all eight pawns to the younger children to keep them engaged. I put the first one down on square a2 and asked them to put theirs down one at a time on starting squares, This they did and mostly successfully called out the names of the squares as I allowed them to say “b and 2” or “c and 2” etc. Once they were all down, I moved one of them forward and invited the children to move the pawns one at a time and to call out the name of the square onto which they had moved it. They saw that on the first go pawns can move two squares. This was mission successful. Great. But I do get nervous that some of them are wondering why we aren’t just playing chess but I feel they need the reinforcement and the vocabulary.

Our next step was to go through a game. I got those who knew how, to set out the pieces on the board. Once this was done I asked them to watch a game that I would replay. It was the Opera game. I did this at pace, at times tracing the moves with my fingers and saying when a piece could capture another (with its “laser”). I would use descriptive language to point out positions. I said that when the king was trapped that was the end of the game. Lots of talking. One girl described the castling move another child thought it could only be done on one side (queen-side). We clarified this. The head teacher came in to tell me about the new arrangements for dismissal. I told her what we had been doing in terms of learning names and then proceeded to name all of the children (what a showoff I might have thought – but I couldn’t help myself. I just love an audience). Finally I went through the game again at pace without commentary so as not to tax their patience. And so we finished.

After the Lesson ...

Zaida – learning is social

Advice: Keep using talk and shared action as the bridge into complex ideas.

Bob – return builds understanding

Advice: Trust this spiral—depth comes from return, not rush.

Lizzy – action before abstraction

Advice: Continue privileging concrete experience before abstraction.

Contrasting Commentary

Ron – explicit knowledge comes first

Advice: Consider balancing experiential work with clearer upfront exposition.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical principles to teaching takeaways

1. Build belonging before content

Learn and use names relentlessly from the first minute.
Use humour to humanise authority without losing control.
Make respect explicit and shared (“not ‘you at the back’”).

2. Anchor abstraction in the body

Turn concepts into movements before definitions.
Use physical orientation (turning, lining up) to teach spatial ideas.
Keep objects in learners’ hands as long as possible.

3. Control pace, not curiosity

Slow the beginning to speed up later learning.
Vary commentary and silence to manage attention.
Accept learner impatience as a sign of engagement, not failure.

Powered by Haribo?

Just four today. But what a four! Four lively chatty girls in years four and five. There is some chatter about a school camping trip and the like as we come into the chess room but I let all that go as I think about how I will start the lesson. They continue, seemingly oblivious of my presence, and their voices get louder as they contest the right to speak and to be right. So I get a chess set out and begin laying it out without a word from myself. One of them notices and I simply say I was disappointed that they had spoken and carried on as though I wasn’t there. Another says she had stopped talking. Too late. I had a point to prove and would continue for a while playing out a game myself. They could watch. And that they did as each quietly protested that they had ceased talking. They hadn’t. I really should remember that this is an after school club not a lesson. It is at the end of the school day and they are here voluntarily. But still there are some standards that have to be taught and kept. Chattiness and joking I like but there is a time to stop and listen. And so they do. Now that we are settled I go through the Opera Game at some speed once. Then again with a little storylike commentary to give some meaning and context to the moves. Finally, I play just the first six moves hoping, not against hope, that they will remember some of them. That’s one objective for today’s lesson: to be able to play those first six moves. That’s an achievement. To be clear, I reckon that this is not a big ask. I teach at another school where the energy levels are just as high but the listening is better. They would manage these moves well enough and without fuss. Anyhow, I try to make things interesting by challenging these girls. Each of them will keep moving the pieces until they make a mistake. We’ll keep up with this until all of them have managed the moves. We could be in for a long haul. Miss Little is the best of them by a mile. I don’t let on but it is obvious although even she makes mistakes and is upset with herself. I feel I have to manage this and make sure her disappointment doesn’t spill over into negativity for her and for others. Yet we have to keep her challenged. I advise that it is best if they choose to go last in our little game. Why? So that they can learn from the errors of others and so that they can see the correct moves repeated. Miss Turkey resiles from her decision to go first. Good. She’s listening. One player makes some pretty weird moves which I say that a bishop can’t make even if he has had Haribo for breakfast. That dates me. I must think of a more contemporary advert or reference. Bishops must religiously stay on their diagonals. I will each of the children on while trying not to interfere or encourage audibly. I want to take this approach so that I have been seen to be fair to each of them. No way that is going to work out when under my breath I whisper “Wow” for each unexpected correct move. Eventually two of them manage them all. Once we have success I get the chance to introduce the touch move rule. I impress this upon them and go on to say that a grandmaster contravened the “let go” rule and this was considered cheating. Then there was the nicety of the “I adjust” rule. They loved that and tried it out loads. So a lot was gained today even through the chatter. Eventually I paired them off, with each pair having one confident player and one not so confident. Now they had to practice the first five Opera Game moves and then play on against each other. I was so happy with the results especially for Miss Pedantic who eventually got it. So now with just a few minutes left and with time running out we all gathered at my table and I explained why each move had been taken. We went for control and contesting of the centre. That was easy enough. Next time I’ll have to lay down trails of tiddlywinks to visualize that control. Then we saw how, although black captured the pawns, this was done because of moving the same piece multiple times whereas white got more pieces out of the changing room and out onto the pitch ready to play. And so we hurriedly the ended our session with more chatter and giggling. Next week we will build on what we did today. But I’ll also have to give some fundamental teaching and practice on moving that Bishop without any Haribo.

After the Lesson ...

Zaida – Learning is Social

You have made learning visible in ways that matter. That comes straight out of John Hattie‘s playbook. By asking pupils to verbalise moves clearly and fluently, you give both them and yourself immediate insight into what has been learned and what still needs attention. Your feedback is timely, specific, and focused on the task rather than the child, which is precisely what accelerates progress. The pupils know what success looks like, and that clarity is doing much of the instructional work for you.
takeaway: “The most powerful single modification that enhances achievement is feedback.”

Bob – Discovery with Structure

Dear teacher,
Your lesson resonates strongly with the thinking of Jerome Bruner. You model the whole, revisit it with story, then reduce the task so pupils can actively test their understanding through play. The “keep going until you make a mistake” challenge invites learners to construct meaning rather than receive it passively. What stands out is your restraint—you allow discovery to do the heavy lifting while you shape the environment.

takeaway: Teach the big idea first, then let pupils uncover its structure through guided challenge.

Lizzy – Learning by Watching

Dear teacher,
I like how much learning you allow to happen without direct instruction. Drawing on Albert Bandura, your use of modelling—both your own and the pupils’—creates powerful moments of vicarious learning. The repeated correct moves, the whispered “wow,” and the visible handling of error all shape behaviour and belief. Pupils are learning not just chess, but how learners behave.

takeaway: Make good practice visible and emotionally safe so pupils can copy it.

Contrasting Commentary

Ron – Control Before Meaning

Dear teacher,
While your session is clearly warm and engaging, I remain uneasy about the reliance on implicit expectations. From the perspective of B. F. Skinner, clearer rules and immediate consequences would reduce ambiguity and speed learning. Chatter, from this view, is behaviour to be shaped, not accommodated, and precision comes from consistent reinforcement. Your approach values meaning, but it risks inconsistency in outcomes.

takeaway: If accuracy is essential, state expectations explicitly and reinforce them without delay.

Do you have a comment of your own to make?

Submit it below.

From pedagogical principles to teaching takeaways

Lead with presence

Use silence, modelling, and calm action to establish authority.
Delay correction so pupils recognise expectations independently.
Balance warmth with clear, non-negotiable standards.

Anchor abstraction in the body

Turn concepts into movements before definitions.
Use physical orientation (turning, lining up) to teach spatial ideas.
Keep objects in learners’ hands as long as possible.

Teach the learner as well as the content

Anticipate emotional responses to success and failure.
Group pupils strategically to balance confidence and challenge.
Protect motivation while maintaining clear academic expectations.

What have I been doing?

This was the last session of term and there were 7 children waiting outside the classroom as the teacher had not dismissed her class for the day. I went in and set the room. When signalled by the teacher I called in my crew of chessmates. The chess display board was up. I then thought “why do stuff that could otherwise be a learning or consolidation activity?” So I called on the two youngest to slot the pieces in. This was their 10th week of chess and they made a good go of it.

Today I sat down with one of the children who had special educational needs; Mo by name. He picked up a pawn and nervously put it down in a jerky fashion. He had moved it diagonally. Oh No! Ten weeks of teaching and he can’t confidently move a pawn. What have I been doing? Never mind, I was glad for a chance to redeem myself while the others played out their games, doubtless with a smattering of seemingly aimless and thoroughly illegal moves.

Del triumphantly held up his opponent’s king and claimed a win. He became deflated when I said in our club it is illegal to pick up or even touch your opponent’s king. You can touch any other piece when you are capturing it but not so the king. So I called it a draw. One of the reasons for this rule is that it is so difficult for the adjudicator to adjudicate on anything when pieces have been lifted a long way from the board and only to be replaced in a wrong square. That is a recipe for a thousand arguments and upsets. This means I’m going to have to build in some etiquette about keeping your hand near to the board until your move is finished. Also important is the practice of having just one player’s hand over the board at a time. At this level children so easily get confused about whose turn it is. Having the hands of both players hovering over the board at the same time just adds to the mess.

Back to our pawn moving game. I first asked Mo to move the “a” pawn forward. Of course he moved the “a” rook because it was nearest the letter “a” on the edge of the board. We’re in for a long haul here. I corrected him and touched each file calling out the letter and the pawn on it. Then I’m back to calling the moves again. This time mixing up the letters. He moves them slowly and hesitantly but correctly. Time to reintroduce the idea that pawns can move twice on the first go. So I say “move the “a” pawn two squares” etc. Then it’s his turn to instruct me. This he does with the same hesitancy. At least he is consistent in that. But he does manage to give the instruction when I prod and help him by asking him to complete our phrase which I have begun. Wow. all this for one child. But he is getting it. I’m sure that by repeated movements we will reinforce his learning.

So much for me to get right next term. So much of the success of a session is just down to good housekeeping and etiquette. Before we even get down to strategies and tactics for the game itself I have to devise a strategy and tactics for starting up, closing down and packing away. Maybe then we won’t get to a point late in the term with fundamental errors being made. Planning. Planning. Planning.

After the Lesson ...

AI is used here to generate imagined reflections on the lesson from the perspectives of four educational thinkers, “Lev” (Vygotsky), “Jerome” (Brunner), “Maria” (Montessori), and “Jean” (Piaget). These perspectives are grounded in established pedagogical theory and support reflective evaluation of intent, implementation, and impact, contributing to ongoing improvement in teaching practice.

Zaeeda – Dialogue Builds Learning

Dear teacher,

Your reflection shows a growing awareness that learning happens with learners rather than to them. When you invite Mo to instruct you, you step away from authority and into dialogue, which is exactly where learning becomes meaningful. As Paulo Freire argued, education should resist the “banking model” and instead empower learners through participation and voice. Even hesitation can be a form of engagement when learners feel safe to speak.

takeaway: Design moments where learners actively teach, question, and name their own understanding.

Bob – Scaffolding the Struggle

Dear teacher,
Your work with Mo sits squarely in the space between what he can do alone and what he can do with help. By modelling moves, repeating language, and gradually handing responsibility back to him, you are working in the learner’s zone of potential. Lev Vygotsky reminds us that learning is first social before it becomes internal. The hesitancy you notice is not failure but evidence of thinking in progress.

takeaway: Keep tasks just beyond independent reach and stay alongside learners as support, not rescuer.

Lizzie – Learning Through Structure

Dear teacher,
Your realisation about housekeeping and etiquette speaks volumes about how learning environments function. By revisiting fundamentals repeatedly and embedding them in routine, you are spiralling learning rather than rushing content. Jerome Bruner argued that any subject can be taught effectively if it is structured well and revisited often. Your planning instincts are pointing you in exactly that direction.

takeaway: Build routines that allow key ideas to reappear in varied but familiar forms.

Contrasting Commentary

(Speaking frankly with Rigour and Challenge)

Ron – Discipline Before Discovery

Dear teacher,
While your reflections are thoughtful, I worry that too much time is spent negotiating meaning instead of reinforcing correct behaviour. From a B. F. Skinner perspective, learning depends on clarity, repetition, and immediate correction. Illegal moves, hesitation, and uncertainty should be shaped out quickly through consistent reinforcement. Discovery and dialogue may feel humane, but they risk slowing mastery of essential rules.

takeaway: Establish firm behavioural expectations first, then allow exploration within those limits.

From pedagogy to Practice

Design for Dialogue

Build in moments where learners explain, instruct, or model learning.
Treat talk and hesitation as data, not disruption.

Scaffold with Intent

Identify core concepts and break them into visible, repeatable steps.
Gradually remove support as confidence and accuracy grow.

Routinise the Conditions for Learning

Explicitly teach transitions, etiquette, and material handling.
Rehearse “how we learn here” as carefully as the subject content itself.