Perceiving versus inferring movements to understand dynamic events: The influence of content complexity

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

Volumn 19, Issue , 2015, Pages 70-75

  Khacharem, Aïmen ^a,b,c   Zoudji, Bachir ^b,c   Kalyuga, Slava ^d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS EST CRÉTEIL   (France)

^b UNIV LILLE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE VALENCIENNES   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Animation; Arrow symbols; Cognitive load; Content complexity; Diagram; Learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925636813     PISSN: 14690292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Betrancourt M. The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 287-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816819.019.
2. Chase W.G., Simon H.A. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 1973, 4:55-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2.
3. De Koning B.B., Tabbers H.K., Rikers R.M., Paas F. Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review 2009, 21:113-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7.
4. Ericsson K.A., Simon H.A. How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1998, 5:178-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3.
5. Gopher D., Braune R. On the psychophysics of workload: why bother with subjective measures?. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 1984, 26:519-532. 10.1177/001872088402600504.
6. Hegarty M. Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction 2004, 14:343-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007.
7. Hegarty M., Kriz S. Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. Learning with animation: Research implications for design 2008, 3-29. Retrieved from. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2007-14750-001.
8. Heiser J., Tversky B. Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:581-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_70.
9. Horn R. Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century 1998, MacroVU, Bainbridge Island, WA.
10. Imhof B., Scheiter K., Edelmann J., Gerjets P. Learning about locomotion patterns: effective use of multiple pictures and motion-indicating arrows. Computers & Education 2013, 65:45-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.017.
11. Jian Y.C., Wu C.J., Su J.H. Learners' eye movements during construction of mechanical kinematic representations from static diagrams. Learning and Instruction 2014, 32:51-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.005.
12. Kalyuga S. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:509-539. 10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3.
13. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., Sweller J. Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38:23-31. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
14. Khacharem A., Spanjers I.A., Zoudji B., Kalyuga S., Ripoll H. Using segmentation to support the learning from animated soccer scenes: an effect of prior knowledge. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2013, 14:154-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.006.
15. Khacharem A., Zoudji B., Kalyuga S. Expertise reversal for different forms of instructional designs in dynamic visual representations. British Journal of Educational Technology 2015, (in press). 10.1111/bjet.12167.
16. Khacharem A., Zoudji B., Kalyuga S., Ripoll H. The expertise reversal effect for sequential presentation in dynamic soccer visualizations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 2013, 35(3):260-269. Retrieved from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23798589.
17. Khacharem A., Zoudji B., Ripoll H. Effect of presentation format and expertise on attacking-drill memorization in soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 2013, 25:234-248. 10.1080/10413200.2012.718312.
18. Khacharem A., Zoudji B., Spanjers I.A., Kalyuga S. Improving learning from animated soccer scenes: evidence for the expertise reversal effect. Computers in Human Behavior 2014, 35:339-349. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.021.
19. Kriz S., Hegarty M. Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2007, 65:911-930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005.
20. Leahy W., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2011, 25:943-951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787.
21. Lewalter D. Lernen mit Bildern and Animationen 1997, Waxmann, Münster.
22. Lin L., Atkinson R.K. Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education 2011, 56:650-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007.
23. Lowe R.K. Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 1999, 14:225-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf03172967.
24. Lowe R.K. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:157-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00018-x.
25. Lowe R., Boucheix J.M. Cueing complex animations: does direction of attention foster learning processes?. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21(5):650-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.002.
26. Monmonier M. Strategies for the visualization of geographic time-series data. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 1990, 27:30-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/u558-h737-6577-8u31.
27. Münzer S., Seufert T., Brünken R. Learning from multimedia presentations: facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences 2009, 19:481-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.001.
28. Paas F.G.W.C. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 1992, 84:429-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.84.4.429.
29. Paas F., Tuovinen J.E., Tabbers H., Van Gerven P.W. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38(1):63-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8.
30. Paas F.G., Van Merriënboer J.J. The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 1993, 35:737-743. Retrieved from. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-32093-001.
31. Paas F.G., Van Merriënboer J.J., Adam J.J. Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1994, 79:419-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419.
32. Pollock E., Chandler P., Sweller J. Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12:61-86. 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0.
33. Raab M. T-ECHO: model of decision making to explain behaviour in experiments and simulations under time pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2002, 3:151-171. 10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00014-0.
34. Raab M. Decision making in sports: influence of complexity on implicit and explicit learning. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2003, 1:406-433. 10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671728.
35. Sweller J., Ayres P., Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory 2011, Vol. 1. Springer.
36. Sweller J., Van Merrienboer J.J., Paas F.G. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 1998, 10:251-296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205.
37. Tversky B., Heiser J., Mackenzie R., Lozano S., Morrison J. Enriching animations. Learning with animations: Research implications for design 2008, 263-285. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. R. Lowe, W. Schnotz (Eds.).
38. Van Gog T., Kester L., Nievelstein F., Giesbers B., Paas F. Uncovering cognitive processes: different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25:325-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021.
39. Van Gog T., Paas F. Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist 2008, 43:16-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756248.
40. Van Gog T., Paas F., van Merriënboer J.J., Witte P. Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2005, 11:237-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.11.4.237.
41. Wildbur P., Burke M. Information graphics: Innovative solutions in contemporary design 1998, Thames and Hudson.
42. Williams A.M., Hodges N.J., North J.S., Barton G. Perceiving patterns of play in dynamic sport tasks: Investigating the essential information underlying skilled performance. Perception 2006, 35:317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p5310.