Effect of presentation format and expertise on attacking-drill memorization in soccer

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 234-248

  Khacharem, Aïmen ^a   Zoudji, Bachir ^b   Ripoll, Hubert ^a  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE VALENCIENNES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012527949     PISSN: 10413200     EISSN: 15331571     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2012.718312     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science, 14, 427-432.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
4. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2003-09576-009
5. Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2007). The conditions under which instructional animation may be effective. Paper presented at an International Workshop and Mini-conference, Open University of the Netherlands: Heerlen, The Netherlands.
6. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695-700.
7. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135-146). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 4, 828-839.
9. Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students' thinking and motivation. Computers & Education, 56, 839-846.
10. Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2007). The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory. In N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, & D. E. Mark (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 57-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369-388.
12. Bravo, M. J., & Nakayama, K. (1992). The role of attention in different visual-search tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 465-472. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1594436
13. Chandler, P. (2009). Dynamic visualizations and hypermedia: Beyond the 'wow' factor. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 389-392.
14. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
15. Cheng, P. C. H., Lowe, R., & Scaife, M. (2001). Cognitive science approaches to understanding diagrammatic representations. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15, 5-27. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/peterch/papers/Cheng-AIRE-Preprint.pdf
16. Clarke, T.A., Ayres, P. L., & Sweller, J. (2005).The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 15-24. Retrieved November 25, 2011 from http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/index.asp
17. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68-82.
18. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114.
19. Cronbach, L. (1967). How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 23-39). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
20. Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1969). Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Stanford, CA: School of Education, Stanford University.
21. Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2003). Moving and looming stimuli capture attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 1-12. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://viscog.psych.northwestern.edu/publications/FranconeriSimons Motion.pdf
22. Glaser, R. (1977). Adaptive instruction: Individual diversity and learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
23. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Templates in chessmemory: Amechanism for recalling several boards. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 1-40.
24. Godijn, R., & Theeuwes, J. (2002). Oculomotor capture and inhibition of return: Evidence for an oculomotor suppression account of IOR. Psychological Research, 66, 234-246.
25. Halabi, A. K., Tuovinen, J. E., & Farley, A. A. (2005). The cognitive load of computer based learning materials for introductory accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 20, 21-32. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from http://aaahq.org/pubs/issues.htm.
26. Hegarty, M. (2004a). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. In A. Blackwell, K. Mariott and A. Shimojima (Eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2980 (pp. 1-13). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
27. Hegarty, M. (2004b). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343-351.
28. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
29. Hidrio, C., & Jamet, E. (2002). Compréhension d'un dispositif technique: Apports d'une illustration dynamique et des traitements multiples. Psychologie Française, 47, 61-67.
30. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: Ameta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
31. Jamet, A., & Arguel, E. (2009). Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 354-359.
32. Kalyuga, S. (2005). Prior knowledge principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325-337). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539.
34. Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 852-861.
35. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptivemultimedia learning. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.
36. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31.
37. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558-568.
38. Kalyuga, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: Introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science, 38, 209-215.
39. Kirschner, F., Paas, F. & Kirschner, P.A. (2011). Superiority of collaborative learning with complex tasks: A research note on an alternative explanation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 53-57.
40. Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, & E. de Corte (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
42. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225-244.
43. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
44. Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive Interference in Multimedia Learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 795-809.
45. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promotes active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 256-265.
46. Meyer, K., Rash, T., & Schnotz, W. (2010). Effects of animation's speed of presentation on perceptual processing and learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 136-14.
47. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002).Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 279-315.
48. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics:Acognitiveload approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434. Retrieved September 10, 2010 from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1993-13061-001
49. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
50. Paas, F., Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Wouters, P. (2007). Instructional efficiency of animation: Effects of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static key frames. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 783-793.
51. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61-86.
52. Rieber, L. (1991). Animation, incidental learning and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318-328.
53. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S. C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14, 307-323.
54. Ripoll, H., Zoudji, B., & Lluica, L. (2009). Utiliser des images pour entraner au football. In B. Zoudji (Ed.), Science & Football: Recherches et Connaissances Actuelles (pp. 355-361). Valenciennes: Valenciennes University Presses.
55. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47-58.
56. Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 46-52.
57. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 185-233.
58. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
59. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
60. Tuovinen, J. E., & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 32, 133-152.
61. Tversky, B., Heiser, J., Mackenzie, R., Lozano, S., & Morrison, J. (2008). Enriching animations. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animations: Research implications for design (pp. 263-285). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
62. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
63. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16-26.
64. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.
65. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of guided search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
66. Yantis, S., & Egeth, H. E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 661-676.