If teachers wants students to get better at reading, they often devote more instructional time to reading. To get better at math, common sense tells us, our students should practice math. How controversial can this be?
I wrote two weeks ago about one catch in this logic: students who spent an extra 30 minutes/day on social studies improved at reading more than those who didn’t. In this (very large) data set, “more time studying ELA” didn’t necessarily translate into “better reading scores.”
I’ve found another study that offers a different angle on this question. Once again, it forces us to rethink the “more instructional minutes = more learning” equation.
“What else might help?” you ask. How about playing board games…
The Concept, the Execution
You read that right: board games. As in: “roll the dice, move your token forward five squares, and choose a card from the green deck.”
This research group hypothesized that playing board games gives children time to practice core executive functions:
- working-memory updating
- inhibition
- cognitive flexibility/shifting
This EF practice, in turn, could result in better academic outcomes. The instructional equation here is not
“More instructional time → more learning”
but
“Board game play → accelerated EF development → more learning”
With this hypothesis in mind, the researchers pursued a straightforward research plan. Roughly fifty students, aged 6 – 12, spent class time playing board games — two hours a week for six weeks. The researchers chose commercially available, age-appropriate board games. The teachers encouraged their students to play the games, but otherwise let them play independently.
Both before and after the board game phase, researchers measured all those EFs, as well as the students’ reading fluency, mathematical fluency, and calculation. They hypothesized that board-game players would improve in all those categories faster than their control-group peers.
What did they find?
Learning and Beyond
First headline: students in both groups made — on average — substantial academic progress. The researchers didn’t find evidence that replacing 12 hours of class time with board games caused students to fall behind.
Second headline: board game play might have improved some EFs — in particular, cognitive flexibility. However — and this is a big however — we can’t say with statistical confidence that they improved more than in the control group.
(I want to emphasize that the data can’t be interpreted to say that playing board games improved working memory. I often hear that claim, and this study does not support it.)
We might be tempted to conclude: “this study was a bust.” The research team hypothesized that board game play would speed up development of executive functions, and those would — in turn — enhance learning. The data don’t support either claim. The EF results were mixed or inconclusive, and we certainly can’t say that they resulted in greater learning.
That conclusion, in my view, misses an essential point: students in the board game group spent less time on academic tasks but made academic progress broadly similar to their control-group peers. Let me turn that finding around:
Over six weeks, an extra 12 hours spent on conventional academics didn’t clearly produce more learning, at least not in the categories that the researchers measured.
This interpretation of the study prompts me to speculate…
Possibilities, Possibilities
When teachers swapped 12 hours of instruction time for board-game time, researchers found — very roughly speaking — no statistically impressive differences in the variables they measured. But — now I’m starting to speculate — what about the variables that the researchers DIDN’T measure? Did this classroom change create differences not captured in the data?
Strictly speaking, the answer is: we have no way of knowing. But for just a moment, I want to open the conversation to teacherly experience and ask: “how would your students respond if they got to play the occasional game of Spot It! or Uno or Guess Who? in class?” I’m guessing that they would enjoy the games, and perhaps even enjoy class just a little bit more. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that the addition of board games would make students feel happier and more welcome in class.
And — remember — students made roughly equivalent academic progress even though they spent less time on academics.
If I’m right — students progress as much and feel happier and more motivated — then the exchange of academic study for board games seems like a very good bargain indeed.
And here again, we have reason to push back against the claim that “more time on task automatically results in more learning.” Schools are not factories; children are not widgets. When we get the balance right, we can blend learning and enjoyment in a healthier balance.
Vita-Barrull, N., Estrada-Plana, V., March-Llanes, J., Guzmán, N., Fernández-Munoz, C., Ayesa, R., & Moya-Higueras, J. (2023). Board game-based intervention to improve executive functions and academic skills in rural schools: A randomized controlled trial. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 33, 100216.
