CHESS  101

SUMMARY

"Chess 101" is an interactive training program designed in Articulate Storyline 360 to provide a comprehensive introduction to the game of chess. This course covers the fundamental rules and objectives, a brief history of chess, and an in-depth look at each piece’s unique movements and functions. Learners will engage with interactive activities that provide hands-on practice in using pieces correctly and making strategic decisions. Additionally, quizzes and challenging scenarios will reinforce key concepts and problem-solving skills.

By the end of this training, users will be fully equipped to play chess with confidence and a strong foundational understanding of the game. To do this, I utilized Articulate Storyline 360 and took the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) approach (Allen, 2012), using Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) to design each iteration of the learning objectives. Finally, content validity (DeVellis, 2017) was used to ensure the precision of the material.

THE PROBLEM

In recent years, chess has experienced a remarkable surge in popularity across the United States, driven by key cultural moments such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the release of the hit show “The Queen’s Gambit”, and the high-profile controversy between world #1 Magnus Carlsen and Hans Niemann. As a result, companies have invested heavily in online chess platforms, with Chess.com—the largest of them—growing from 34 million users in 2019 to over 200 million today (Thomas, 2025). These platforms aim to connect players worldwide while fostering a rich learning environment through interactive puzzles, lessons, and activities. However, in my experience, many assume that users already understand the basics before diving into gameplay. New players are often thrown into matches with little guidance, making the learning curve steeper than necessary. As both a chess enthusiast and an instructional designer, I saw an opportunity to create a truly comprehensive program—one that starts with the fundamentals and accelerates learning in an engaging, structured way.

THE SOLUTION

With this goal in mind, I set out to design a structured learning progression for new chess players. It took several iterations to refine, but I ultimately settled on an approach that balances historical context, foundational knowledge, and hands-on practice. The journey begins with a brief history of chess—how it originated and the key moments that shaped it into the game we know today. From there, players take an initial quiz to assess their current understanding. While this quiz doesn’t impact their starting point in the program, it serves as a baseline for measuring progress when they retake a similar assessment at the end.

Next, learners dive into the fundamental parameters of the game, covering the overall objective, ways to win, and essential rules. With that groundwork in place, they progress to piece mechanics, where they explore how each piece moves, its strategic strengths and weaknesses, and different game formats based on time controls. Once players understand these core mechanics, they are introduced to basic strategy—commonly known as "chess principles"—which helps them recognize key positional and tactical patterns before they move on to interactive activities.

The hands-on portion of the program starts with simple exercises, such as correctly moving individual pieces. As players build confidence, challenges gradually increase in complexity, requiring them to capture pieces, make strategic moves, and navigate more intricate board positions. The final set of activities introduces checkmate puzzles, starting with "Mate in 1" (a single-move checkmate) and progressively advancing to multi-step checkmates. Finally, learners complete a concluding assessment to compare their results with the initial quiz. If their score improves, it validates the effectiveness of the training, demonstrating tangible growth in their chess understanding.

THE PROCESS

To create a structured and engaging chess training program, I followed a systematic instructional design approach, ensuring a logical progression of learning while reinforcing key concepts through interactive elements in Articulate Storyline 360.

ESTABLISH A LEARNING PROGRESSION

I began by mapping out a structured learning path that introduced new users to chess in a logical sequence. The goal was to build foundational knowledge first, ensuring that learners gained confidence before progressing to more complex topics.

INCLUDING HISTORICAL CONTEXT

To provide context, I included a brief history module that highlighted key moments in chess evolution using narration, images, and synchronized text.

To provide learners with an understanding of chess’s evolution, I incorporated a brief history module at the start of the training. I used Alex Gendler’s TED-Ed video, A Brief History of Chess (Gender, 2019) as a primary source, taking detailed notes to craft a custom script. This script was then narrated using Articulate Storyline’s AI-generated voice, ensuring consistency in tone and delivery. To enhance engagement, I synchronized key historical moments with corresponding images and on-screen text that appeared dynamically throughout the narration, allowing learners to absorb information visually and audibly.

ASSESSING BASELINE KNOWLEDGE

A pre-training quiz was developed to assess learners’ starting knowledge and personalize their experience using dynamic name inputs via JavaScript.

To gauge learners' prior knowledge, I developed an initial quiz that did not impact their training progression but provided a baseline to measure learning effectiveness. The quiz featured a variety of question formats—including multiple choice, matching, and true/false—to assess different aspects of chess knowledge. Additionally, I incorporated a text entry field where users could input their name. Using JavaScript, the system stored this information and dynamically displayed it within the training, greeting users by name at the beginning and customizing their final exam completion message, adding a personal touch to the experience.

TEACHING GAME PARAMETERS AND RULES

Before introducing individual pieces, I structured a module around the fundamental aspects of chess, covering the game’s objective, win conditions, and essential rules. This section, similar to the historical module, incorporated carefully placed images and text animations to highlight key points. By ensuring that learners grasped the framework of the game first, they were better prepared for subsequent modules.

EXPLORING PIECE MECHANICS AND GAME FORMATS

I utilized a combination of text, images, and interactive hotspots to demonstrate piece movements, strategic advantages, and different game formats.

Next, I developed content focused on piece movements, strategic advantages, and different chess formats, such as timed games. To ensure this information was both comprehensive and engaging, I used a combination of text, images, and interactive elements to illustrate these concepts effectively.

For piece movements and characteristics, I leveraged Articulate Storyline’s hotspot feature, allowing learners to hover over each chess piece to reveal its movement patterns, strengths, and weaknesses. This interactive approach enabled learners to absorb key details without overwhelming them with excessive slide transitions. Additionally, static text and corresponding images were displayed on-screen, reinforcing key points about each piece’s role on the board.

To demonstrate different game formats, I designed a series of visual aids that showcased various chess time controls, such as bullet, blitz, rapid, and classical. Each format was accompanied by a brief description outlining how the time limit impacts gameplay and strategy. This ensured that learners understood not only how chess is played but also how different time controls influence decision-making and overall playstyle.

INTRODUCING BASIC STRATEGY

To equip learners with fundamental chess principles, I introduced a strategy module that covered essential positioning techniques and common strategic patterns. To reinforce these concepts, I embedded short video clips demonstrating each principle in real-game scenarios. These visuals helped learners see theoretical strategies in action, making the material more tangible and applicable.

DEVELOPING PROGRESSIVE INTERACTIVE STRATEGIES

Custom chessboards were designed in Articulate Storyline to support interactive activities, featuring state changes, visual indicators, and audio feedback.

Building on the foundational knowledge, I designed a series of interactive activities that gradually increased in complexity:

  • Basic Activities: Learners practiced fundamental piece movements, such as correctly moving a piece and capturing an opponent’s piece.

  • Intermediate Challenges: Players applied strategic concepts by identifying the best move for a given piece to gain an advantage.

  • Advanced Scenarios: Learners tackled multi-step tactical decisions, requiring them to think ahead and plan their moves.

To create these activities, I designed a custom chessboard in Articulate Storyline, where each square and piece functioned as an independent component. This modular approach allowed me to reuse the board for various exercises while maintaining precision in state changes.

For correct moves, I incorporated a state change effect, where the destination square would be highlighted in green with a checkmark in the top right corner, providing clear visual feedback. Additionally, a chime sound effect played in sync with the state change, reinforcing positive learning through both auditory and visual cues. This combination of interactive design elements ensured an engaging and intuitive learning experience.

DESIGNING CHECKMATE CHALLENGES

A structured checkmate challenge series gradually introduced learners to tactical patterns, starting with Mate in 1 and increasing in complexity.

To refine learners’ strategic thinking and endgame tactics, I developed progressive checkmate exercises:

  • Mate in 1: Learners identified a checkmate in a single move.

  • Mate in 2: A slightly more advanced puzzle requiring a two-move checkmate.

  • Increasing Complexity: Each subsequent challenge required more moves, helping players recognize winning patterns in practical game situations.

These exercises provided a structured way for learners to develop their pattern recognition skills while reinforcing tactical awareness.

FINAL KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT

To measure the effectiveness of the training, I designed a final exam mirroring the initial quiz. This allowed for direct comparison of pre- and post-training scores. An improvement in scores validated the program’s impact, demonstrating increased chess knowledge and strategic thinking.

Live Look

APPLICABLE THEORIES

I-O PSYCHOLOGY

The application of psychological and instructional design theories played a crucial role in developing this training. This section explores the integration of key theories from Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Instructional Design that shaped the structure and effectiveness of the Chess 101 training. By incorporating concepts such as content validity, the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) and Bloom’s Taxonomy, the training ensures both the accuracy of instructional content and an iterative approach to course development. The following subsections provide a detailed analysis of how these theories were applied to create a comprehensive and engaging learning experience.

CONTENT VALIDITY

Content validity refers to the extent to which a test or measurement accurately represents all aspects of the concept it aims to assess (DeVellis, 2017). In this context, it helps ensure that the training materials and assessments comprehensively cover all beginner aspects of chess knowledge and skills as outlined in the learning objectives. In this training, content validity was established through:

  • Consulting with SME – Typically, content validity is validated by discussing the content with an SME or subject matter expert. In this case, I am personally the SME, thus I can verify content validity has been achieved.

  • Alignment with Learning Objectives – Each lesson directly supports the learning objectives, ensuring that key topics—such as the game rules, piece movements, strategies, and tactics—are thoroughly covered before being assessed.

By ensuring that the content and assessments fully represent the required knowledge and skills, the training achieves strong content validity.

INSTUCTIONAL DESIGN

Successive Approximation Model (SAM)

In my previous training projects, I primarily relied on the ADDIE model, but for this project, I wanted to explore a framework that better aligned with the project’s unique demands. After careful consideration, I chose the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), which structures development into three key phases: preparation (information gathering), iterative design (prototyping), and final development and rollout. This approach offered several key advantages.

First, SAM minimizes rework. While ADDIE is a well-structured and effective model, its linear nature can sometimes lead to extensive revisions if issues arise late in the process. In contrast, SAM’s emphasis on rapid prototyping and continuous feedback allows for ongoing refinements, reducing the likelihood of major overhauls and ensuring a smoother development process.

Second, because this project involved building something entirely new to me, I knew that spending weeks drafting a “perfect” design upfront would not be the most efficient strategy. SAM allowed me to quickly develop a working prototype, test its functionality, and refine it based on real user interactions. This iterative approach helped me step into the learner’s shoes, ensuring that the course structure, interactive elements, and overall design effectively supported engagement and knowledge retention.

Finally, this project served as an opportunity to challenge myself to develop training within a shorter timeframe. My past projects typically spanned three to six months, but by leveraging SAM’s iterative cycles, I was able to deliver a polished final product in just under seven weeks. This experience demonstrated how SAM can accelerate development without compromising quality, making it a valuable approach for future projects with tight deadlines.

The following sections outline how each phase of SAM was applied in the development of Chess 101.

PREPARATION

The goal of this phase was to identify and structure the essential components that would allow users to progress from having no knowledge of chess to confidently playing a full game by the end of the training. These core elements would form the foundation of the program, with additional features built around them to enhance the learning experience.

To determine these foundational elements, I asked myself two key guiding questions:

  • Who is the target audience?: The training is designed for individuals with no prior chess experience.

  • What does success look like?: Success means that by the end of the training, learners can sit down and play a complete game of chess with a clear understanding of the rules, piece movements, and basic strategy.

With these answers in mind—and drawing from my own experience—I outlined three fundamental learning objectives:

  • Understanding the basic rules and objectives of the game.

  • Learning the value, movement patterns, and strategic strengths and weaknesses of each piece.

  • Applying this knowledge to evaluate chess positions and make moves that provide a strategic advantage.

Using these elements as a foundation, I designed the first iteration of the program’s learning objectives, leveraging Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) to ensure they were measurable. As the training evolved through multiple prototypes, these objectives were refined and adapted to better align with user needs.

For more details on how the final learning objectives were developed, see the “Bloom’s Taxonomy” section.

ITERATIVE PROTOTYPING - PROTOTYPE 1

With the foundational concepts established, I wanted to create my first working prototype. The layout of the program was as follows:

Lesson 1: Overview

  • Learning objectives

  • What is the object of the game?

  • Checkmate: A position where a player's king is under attack and has no legal moves to escape, resulting in an immediate loss.

  • Resignation: A player voluntarily concedes defeat, typically when they believe their position is hopeless.

  • Timing Out: A player loses the game by exceeding the allotted time on their clock without making a move.

  • Looking to beat the opponent in one of three ways:

Lesson 2: Basic Rules

  • Each player gets on move per turn. Once a player has moved it is their opponent’s turn.

  • Captures: Taking an opponent’s piece by moving onto its square.

  • Castling: A special move where the king and rook move at the same time to improve safety.

  • Checks: When the king is attacked and must escape or be protected.

Lesson 3: Piece Importance and Capabilities

  • How does each piece move?

  • What is the relative importance of each piece?

  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of each piece?

Lesson 4: Finding the best moves

  • Move a piece to capture an opponent’s piece (bishop and knights).

  • Move a piece to put the king in check.

  • Move your pieces to find the checkmate.

  • Each player will be given a handful of random positions where they will be asked to complete increasingly complex tasks in increasingly complex situations.

Final Quiz

Conclusion

EVALUATION - PROTOTYPE 1

Pros:

Overall, the initial design effectively covered the foundational chess concepts I aimed to teach. Each lesson built upon the previous one, reinforcing knowledge and ensuring a smooth learning experience. Lesson 1 introduced the objective of the game and the different ways to win, while Lesson 2 covered the fundamental rules, helping users understand how to move toward victory within legal constraints. Lesson 3 taught piece movement and positioning within the framework of the rules to achieve a win, and Lesson 4 allowed users to apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios of increasing difficulty.

In addition to the structured lesson progression, the interactive activities were a strong component of the training. By incorporating sliders and state changes, users experienced a more dynamic and realistic simulation of online chess play. Another key strength was the inclusion of a final quiz, which provided a measurable way for learners to gauge their progress. Achieving a high score served as a confidence booster, reinforcing their readiness to begin playing.

Cons:

While the first iteration was strong, I identified several key areas for improvement. One major gap was the lack of coverage on different chess time controls, such as bullet, blitz, rapid, and classical, which are essential to understanding how time impacts gameplay. Additionally, although the existing interactive activities were beneficial, I realized that adding more hands-on engagement would further enhance confidence and retention.

Another missing element was a more in-depth exploration of special moves and piece usage. Important concepts like castling and additional examples of how to use pieces strategically were not included. Lastly, I recognized the need to introduce fundamental strategic principles, such as controlling the center, piece development, and king safety. These strategies would help players navigate situations where the path to victory is unclear and would require additional interactive activities and visual reinforcements.

NEXT STEPS

Based on this evaluation, I identified the following improvements for the next iteration:

  • Add a Section on Time Formats

  • Introduce different chess time controls (e.g., bullet, blitz, rapid, classical).

  • Increase Interactive Activities

  • Incorporate more hands-on exercises to reinforce learning and enhance user confidence.

  • Provide additional examples of how to use each piece effectively.

  • Introduce an interactive lesson on castling and other key techniques.

  • Expand Coverage of Special Moves & Piece Usage

  • Teach fundamental chess strategies (e.g., controlling the center, piece development, king safety).

  • Include interactive drills to help users apply strategic concepts in real game situations.

  • Introduce Basic Strategic Techniques

ITERATIVE PROTOTYPING - PROTOTYPE 2

After evaluation of the first working prototype, the layout of the second was as follows:

Lesson 1: Overview

  • Learning objectives

  • What is the object of the game?

  • Checkmate: A position where a player's king is under attack and has no legal moves to escape, resulting in an immediate loss.

  • Resignation: A player voluntarily concedes defeat, typically when they believe their position is hopeless.

  • Timing Out: A player loses the game by exceeding the allotted time on their clock without making a move.

  • Time formats introduced.

Lesson 2: Basic Rules

  • Each player gets on move per turn. Once a player has moved it is their opponent’s turn.

  • Captures: Taking an opponent’s piece by moving onto its square.

  • Castling: A special move where the king and rook move at the same time to improve safety.

  • Checks: When the king is attacked and must escape or be protected.

  • Interactive activities for each included.

Lesson 3: Piece Importance and Capabilities

  • How does each piece move?

  • What is the relative importance of each piece?

  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of each piece?

Lesson 4: Basic Strategy and Techniques

  • Pins: Image

  • Batteries: Activity

  • Double checks: Image

  • Forks: Activity

  • Danger Levels: Image

Lesson 5: Finding the best moves

  • Each player will be given a handful of random positions where they will be asked to complete increasingly complex tasks in increasingly complex situations.

  • Move a piece to capture an opponent’s piece (bishop and knights).

  • Move a piece to put the king in check.

  • Move your pieces to find the checkmate.

Final Quiz

Conclusion

EVALUATION - PROTOTYPE 2

Cons:

While the content regarding chess fundamentals was solid, there were a few accessory elements that could enhance the overall experience. First, I felt that a brief section at the beginning of the course, providing a history of chess, would be beneficial. Although this content wouldn’t directly impact the learning outcomes, it would appeal to users’ curiosity and offer an interesting overview of how chess evolved into the game we know today. It could provide context and enrich the experience, making it more engaging for learners. However, it’s important to ensure that this section remains concise and doesn't distract or disengage users before they dive into the main content.

Second, I saw value in adding a starter quiz before the main training begins. While the final quiz was effective in measuring the learner’s progress, an introductory quiz could serve as both a baseline for comparison and a motivator for users. It would help highlight their starting point and give them a clear measure of improvement when they retake the quiz at the end of the training. This additional quiz could increase the impact of a good final score and make the training feel more rewarding. It would also provide me with valuable data, showcasing the effectiveness of the training content and validating its success in helping users grasp the core concepts.

Pros:

This iteration of the program was much more comprehensive and engaging than the first prototype. The addition of information about time formats was an important enhancement, providing users with a clearer understanding of the different types of chess games they might want to play. It also demonstrated how "timing out" as a win condition can vary depending on the game format. The increased number of interactive activities boosted engagement and kept the learning experience dynamic. From a user’s perspective, having activities to look forward to, rather than only listening to a narrator, added a refreshing change and helped maintain interest throughout the course.

Additionally, the new section on basic strategy and techniques added valuable depth to the training, providing users with concrete objectives and strategies to improve their gameplay. This gave them a clearer sense of purpose and a strategic edge when playing the game.

NEXT STEPS

Based on this evaluation, I identified the following changes for the next iteration:

  • Include a brief overview of chess history, explaining how the game started and how it became the international sport it is today.

  • Adding a Section After Displaying the Learning Objectives

  • Introducing a Starter Quiz

  • Add a quiz after the history section that mirrors the final quiz taken at the end of the training.

  • This quiz will establish a baseline of the user’s knowledge and allow for easy measurement of improvement by the end of the program. It will also enhance the reliability and validity of the training.

ITERATIVE PROTOTYPING - PROTOTYPE 3 (FINAL)

After evaluation of the second working prototype, the layout of the third was as follows:

Lesson 1: Overview

  • Learning objectives

  • Brief History (Time: 1min, 44secs)

Lesson 2: Object of the Game

  • What is the object of the game?

  • Checkmate: A position where a player's king is under attack and has no legal moves to escape, resulting in an immediate loss.

  • Resignation: A player voluntarily concedes defeat, typically when they believe their position is hopeless.

  • Timing Out: A player loses the game by exceeding the allotted time on their clock without making a move.

  • Looking to beat the opponent in one of three ways:

  • Time formats introduced.

Start Quiz

Lesson 3: Basic Rules

  • Each player gets on move per turn. Once a player has moved it is their opponent’s turn.

  • Captures: Taking an opponent’s piece by moving onto its square.

  • Castling: A special move where the king and rook move at the same time to improve safety.

  • Checks: When the king is attacked and must escape or be protected.

⦁ Interactive activities for each included.

Lesson 4: Piece Importance and Capabilities

  • How does each piece move?

  • What is the relative importance of each piece?

  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of each piece?

Lesson 5: Basic Strategy and Techniques

  • Pins: Image

  • Batteries: Activity

  • Double checks: Image

  • Forks: Activity

  • Danger Levels: Image

Lesson 6: Finding best moves

  • Each player will be given a handful of random positions where they will be asked to complete increasingly complex tasks in increasingly complex situations.

  • Move a piece to capture an opponent’s piece (bishop and knights).

  • Move a piece to put the king in check.

  • Move your pieces to find the checkmate.

End Quiz

Conclusion

With this final iteration of the training design, I believe I was ready for final roll out and implementation.

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical framework that classifies learning objectives into different levels of cognitive complexity, helping educators design effective instructional strategies. The six categories, from lower to higher order thinking, are Remember (recalling facts), Understand (explaining concepts), Apply (using knowledge in new situations), Analyze (breaking down information into parts), Evaluate (judging based on criteria), and Create (producing new work or ideas).

I mentioned previously that it was important to make these learning objectives “measurable” and what I mean by this formulating these objectives with verbs that are link to specific actions, rather than generalized goals. For example, the foundation concepts state the users should “understand” the basic rules and objectives of the game, but what does “understand” truly mean? How can it be measured directly to show the learner has achieved the desired objective? Instead, a better form of this objective is “Users should be able to explain the basic rules and objective of the game”.

Prototype 1

The first iteration of the learning objectives came from these foundational concepts:

  • Understanding the basic rules and objective of the game

  • Understanding the value of each piece, their movements and their strengths and weaknesses

  • Using the knowledge gained from the previous two ideas to evaluate chess positions and to move the pieces in such a way to gain a strategic advantage in the game.

To stay aligned with the hierarchical framework and to incorporate all six categories, I created these learning objectives:

  • Remembering: Define the objective of chess and describe the three ways a game can end: checkmate, resignation, and timing out. (Lesson 1, assessed in final quiz)

  • Understanding: Identify the basic rules of chess, including turn-taking, capturing pieces, castling, and checks. (Lesson 2, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Applying: Demonstrate the correct movement of each piece and recognize the relative importance, strengths, and weaknesses of different pieces in a game scenario. (Lessons 3&4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Analyzing: Evaluate different chess positions to identify potential threats and opportunities, such as capturing an opponent’s piece or putting the king in check. (Lesson 4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Evaluating: Assess a given board position and determine the best move to progress toward checkmate. (Lesson 4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Creating: Strategically arrange pieces in a way that leads to checkmate or a dominant board position. (Lesson 4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

Prototype 2

After evaluation of the first prototype, the key takeaways were the following:

  • Add a Section on Time Formats: Introduce different chess time controls (e.g., bullet, blitz, rapid, classical).

  • Increase Interactive Activities: Add more hands-on exercises to reinforce learning and boost user confidence.

  • Expand Coverage of Special Moves & Piece Usage: Provide additional examples of how to use each piece effectively. Include an interactive lesson on castling and other key techniques.

  • Introduce Basic Strategic Techniques: Teach fundamental strategies (e.g., controlling the center, piece development, king safety). Include interactive drills to help users apply strategic concepts.

Using the previously established content and the additions to the program, the learning objectives were adjusted to reflect these changes:

  • Remembering: Define the objective of chess and describe the three ways a game can end: checkmate, resignation, and timing out, including different time formats used in competitive play. (Lesson 1, assessed in final quiz)

  • Understanding: Explain the fundamental rules of chess, including turn-taking, capturing pieces, castling, and checks. (Lesson 2, assessed in interactive activities and final quiz)

  • Applying: Demonstrate the correct movement of each piece and recognize their relative importance, strengths, and weaknesses in a game scenario. (Lesson 3, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Analyzing: Evaluate different chess positions to identify potential threats and opportunities, such as capturing an opponent’s piece, putting the king in check, or utilizing basic tactical patterns. (Lessons 4 & 5, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Evaluating: Assess a given board position and determine the best move by applying fundamental tactics, including pins, batteries, double checks, forks, and danger levels. (Lesson 4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Creating: Develop and execute a strategic sequence of moves that leads to checkmate or a dominant board position in increasingly complex scenarios. (Lesson 5, assessed in activities and final quiz)

Prototype 3

After evaluation of the second prototype, these were the key takeaways:

  • Adding a section after displaying the learning objectives: This section would be brief and detail how chess started and how it became the game we know today

  • Adding a baseline quiz after the history section and the same quiz after the final lesson: This quiz would serve to display the user’s base level of knowledge and their improvement by the end of the training, as well as show me the validity and reliability of the training.

Using the previously established content and the additions to the program, the learning objectives were adjusted to reflect these changes:

  • Remembering: Define the objective of chess and explain the three ways a game can end: checkmate, resignation, and timing out, including different time formats used in competitive play. (Lesson 2, assessed in the start quiz and final quiz)

  • Understanding: Explain the fundamental rules of chess, including turn-taking, capturing pieces, castling, and checks. (Lesson 3, assessed in interactive activities and final quiz)

  • Applying: Demonstrate the correct movement of each piece and recognize their relative importance, strengths, and weaknesses in a game scenario. (Lesson 4, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Analyzing: Evaluate different chess positions to identify potential threats and opportunities, such as capturing an opponent’s piece, putting the king in check, or utilizing basic tactical patterns. (Lessons 5 & 6, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Evaluating: Assess a given board position and determine the best move by applying fundamental tactics, including pins, batteries, double checks, forks, and danger levels. (Lesson 5, assessed in activities and final quiz)

  • Creating: Develop and execute a strategic sequence of moves that leads to checkmate or a dominant board position in increasingly complex scenarios. (Lesson 6, assessed in activities and final quiz)

RESOURCES

Allen, M. W. (2012). Chapter 5: The Successive Approximation Model. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 141–156). Routledge.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (1st ed.). Longman Group.

DeVellis, R. (2017). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 4th Edition. Sage Publications. IBSN: 9781506341569

Gender, A. (2019, September 12). A brief history of chess - Alex Gendler. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeB-1F-UKO0&feature=youtu.be

Thomas, L. (2025). What Magnus Carlsen’s jeans have to do with chess. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/what-magnus-carlsens-jeans-have-to-do-with-chess?