Generated drawing is a specific instructional approach that has been investigated in academic settings. However, in sports, tactical drawings are often presented based more on coaches’ preferences than on empirical evidence. This study examines the impact of coach’s drawing and the moderating role of Visuospatial Abilities (VSA) on soccer tactical memorization and visual attention. A total of 54 male university students, all novices in soccer, were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the static-drawing condition, participants viewed a pre-drawn tactical diagram while listening to an oral explanation. In the dynamic-drawing condition, they observed the coach actively drawing the diagram while providing the same explanation. Initially, individuals’ VSA were assessed through a control test. Subsequently, in a main test, participants memorized and reproduced the tactical scene while their gaze was recorded with an eye-tracking system. Key findings reveal a moderating effect of VSA, as high-VSA participants benefited more from the dynamic-drawing condition and showed more effective visual processing, supporting the ability-as-enhancer hypothesis. In contrast, low-VSA participants showed no significant benefit from the coach’s dynamic-drawing and demonstrated less effective visual processing, indicating difficulties in extracting and interpreting diagram elements. These results highlight the importance of adapting instructional drawing strategies based on individual cognitive characteristics, particularly VSA, to optimize visual attention and memorization from narrated tactical diagrams.
BaddeleyA. (1999). Essentials of human memory (pp. 45–70). Psychology.
2.
Ben MahfoudhH.ZoudjiB. (2020). The role of visuospatial abilities in memorizing animations among soccer players. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 15(1), Article 20200002. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2020-0002
3.
Ben MahfoudhH.ZoudjiB. (2022). The role of visuospatial abilities and the level of expertise in memorising soccer animations. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 1033–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1940240
4.
Ben MahfoudhH.ZoudjiB. (2024). The use of virtual reality for tactical learning: The moderation of expertise and visuospatial abilities. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2024.2380693
5.
Ben MahfoudhH.ZoudjiB.Ait El CadiA. (2021). The effects of visual realism and visuospatial abilities on memorizing soccer tactics. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 16(1), Article 20210007. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2021-0007
6.
Ben MahfoudhH.ZoudjiB.PintiA. (2022). The contribution of static and dynamic tests to the assessment of visuospatial abilities among adult males. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2029460
7.
BerneyS.BétrancourtM.MolinariG.HoyekN. (2015). How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(5), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1524
8.
BlackA. A. (Jill). (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.402
BruckerB.ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2014). Learning with dynamic and static visualizations: Realistic details only benefit learners with high visuospatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.077
11.
Castro-AlonsoJ.AyresP.SwellerJ. (2019). Instructional visualizations, cognitive load theory, and visuospatial processing. In Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 111–143). Springer International Publishing.
12.
ChenY.-C.YangF.-Y. (2014). Probing the relationship between process of spatial problems solving and science learning: An eye tracking approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9504-y
13.
ChikhaA. B.KhacharemA.TrabelsiK.BragazziN. L. (2021). The effect of spatial ability in learning from static and dynamic visualizations: A moderation analysis in 6-year-old children. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 583968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.583968
14.
ChikhaH. B.ZoudjiB.KhacharemA. (2024). Coaches’ pointing gestures as means to convey tactical information in basketball: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(1), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2022.2138498
15.
CierniakG.ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020
16.
ÇöltekinA.FranceletR.RichterK.-F.ThoresenJ.FabrikantS. I. (2018). The effects of visual realism, spatial abilities, and competition on performance in map-based route learning in men. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 45(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2017.1344569
17.
Di StasiL. L.Álvarez-ValbuenaV.CañasJ. J.MaldonadoA.CatenaA.AntolíA.CandidoA. (2009). Risk behaviour and mental workload: Multimodal assessment techniques applied to motorbike riding simulation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(5), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.02.004
18.
Di StasiL. L.AntolíA.CañasJ. J. (2011). Main sequence: An index for detecting mental workload variation in complex tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 42(6), 807–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.01.003
19.
Di StasiL. L.CatenaA.CañasJ. J.MacknikS. L.Martinez-CondeS. (2013a). Saccadic velocity as an arousal index in naturalistic tasks. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(5), 968–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.03.011
20.
Di StasiL. L.MarchittoM.AntolíA.CañasJ. J. (2013b). Saccadic peak velocity as an alternative index of operator attention: A short review. European Review of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.09.001
21.
D’OliveiraT. C. (2004). Dynamic spatial ability: An exploratory analysis and a confirmatory study. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap1401_2
22.
DongW.ZhengL.LiuB.MengL. (2018). Using eye tracking to explore differences in map-based spatial ability between geographers and non-geographers. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(9), 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7090337
23.
EhmkeC.WilsonS. (2007). Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of HCI 2007 the 21st British HCI group annual conference university of Lancaster, UK (pp. 119–128). British Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/HCI2007.12
24.
EisenbergM. L.ZacksJ. M. (2016). Ambient and focal visual processing of naturalistic activity. Journal of Vision, 16(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.2.5
25.
ElgortI.BrysbaertM.StevensM.Van AsscheE. (2018). Contextual word learning during reading in a second language: An eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000109
FiorellaL. (2021). Multimedia learning with instructional video. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 487–497). Cambridge University Press.
28.
FiorellaL.MayerR. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065
29.
FiorellaL.StullA.KuhlmannS.MayerR. (2019). Instructor presence in video lectures: The role of dynamic drawings, eye contact, and instructor visibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1162–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000325
30.
FiorellaL.StullA.KuhlmannS.MayerR. (2020). Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000408
31.
GalleyN. (1993). The evaluation of the electrooculogram as a psychophysiological measuring instrument in the driver study of driver behaviour. Ergonomics, 36(9), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967978
GohK. N.ChenY. Y.LaiF. W.DaudS. C.SivajiA.SooS. T. (2013). A comparison of usability testing methods for an e-commerce website: A case study on a Malaysia online gift shop (pp. 143–150). IEEE.
34.
GoldbergJ. H.KotvalX. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00068-7
35.
GoldbergJ. H.StimsonM. J.LewensteinM.ScottN.WichanskyA. M. (2002). Eye tracking in web search tasks: Design implications. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications - ETRA ’02, 51, 51. https://doi.org/10.1145/507072.507082
36.
GuoP. J.KimJ.RubinR. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning @ scale conference (pp. 41–50). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
HayesA. (2013). The process macro for spss and sas(version 2. 13) [software]. [Logiciel]. Guilford.
39.
HayesA. F.MontoyaA. K.RockwoodN. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: Process versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001
40.
HaysT. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.2190/60Y9-BQG9-80HX-UEML
41.
HegartyM. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447–465). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.029
42.
HegartyM.KrizW. (2008). Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 3–29). Cambridge University Press.
43.
HegartyM.SimsV. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200867
44.
HelmertJ. R.JoosM.PannaschS.VelichkovskyB. M. (2005). Two visual systems and their eye movements: Evidence from static and dynamic scene perception. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 27, 953–958.
45.
HöfflerT. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7
46.
HöfflerT. N.LeutnerD. (2011). The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations – Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042
IsaakM. I.JustM. A. (1995). Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(6), 1391–1408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.6.1391
49.
JohnsonA.OzogulG.ReissleinM. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12078
50.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
KaushalR. K.PandaS. N. (2019). A meta analysis on effective conditions to offer animation based teaching style. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2019.16.1.6
53.
KhacharemA. (2017). Top-down and bottom-up guidance in comprehension of schematic football diagrams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(12), 1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1218034
54.
LiaoH.DongW.PengC.LiuH. (2017). Exploring differences of visual attention in pedestrian navigation when using 2D maps and 3D geo-browsers. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(6), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1174886
55.
LinnM. C.PetersenA. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
56.
LiuP.-L. (2014). Using eye tracking to understand learners’ reading process through the concept-mapping learning strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.011
57.
MahfoudhH. B.ZoudjiB. (2022). Improving soccer players’ memorization of soccer tactics: Effects of visual realism, soccer expertise, and visuospatial abilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 129(3), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125221076448
58.
MallickR.SlaybackD.TouryanJ.RiesA. J.LanceB. J. (2016). The use of eye metrics to index cognitive workload in video games. In 2016 IEEE second workshop on eye tracking and visualization (ETVIS) (pp. 60–64). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETVIS.2016.7851168
59.
MayerR. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press.
60.
MayerR. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
61.
MayerR. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 345–370). Cambridge University Press.
62.
MayerR.FiorellaL.StullA. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(3), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
63.
MayerR. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
64.
MayerR. E.AndersonR. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.484
65.
MayerR. E.ChandlerP. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.390
66.
MayerR. E.SimsV. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389
67.
NegiS.MitraR. (2020). Fixation duration and the learning process: An eye tracking study with subtitled videos. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.6.1
68.
OomsK.De MaeyerP.FackV.Van AsscheE.WitloxF. (2012). Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(10), 1773–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.642801
69.
OuwehandK.van GogT.PaasF. (2015). Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 78–88.
70.
PaasF. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
71.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press; Clarendon Press.
72.
ParkB.KorbachA.BrünkenR. (2015). Do learner characteristics moderate the seductive-details-effect ? A cognitive-load-study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 24–36.
73.
PeckE. M.YukselB. F.HarrisonL.OttleyA.ChangR. (2012). Towards a 3-dimensional model of individual cognitive differences: Position paper. In Proceedings of the 2012 BELIV workshop: Beyond time and errors - Novel evaluation methods for visualization (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2442576.2442582
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
76.
RaynerK. (2009). The 35th sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461
77.
RoachV. A.FraserG. M.KryklywyJ. H.MitchellD. G. V.WilsonT. D. (2017). Different perspectives: Spatial ability influences where individuals look on a timed spatial test. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(3), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1654
78.
Sáiz-ManzanaresM. C.PérezI. R.RodríguezA. A.ArribasS. R.AlmeidaL.MartinC. F. (2021). Analysis of the learning process through eye tracking technology and feature selection techniques. Applied Sciences, 11(13), 6157. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136157
SmeetonN. J.WardP.WilliamsA. M. (2004). Do pattern recognition skills transfer across sports? A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641494
81.
StullA. T.FiorellaL.MayerR. E. (2018). An eye-tracking analysis of instructor presence in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.019
SwellerJ.van MerriënboerJ. J. G.PaasF. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
85.
TabbersH. K. (2002). The modality of text in multimedia instructions: Refining the design guidelines. Open Universiteit.
86.
ToivainenT.PanniniG.PapageorgiouK. A.MalanchiniM.RimfeldK.ShakeshaftN.KovasY. (2018). Prenatal testosterone does not explain sex differences in spatial ability. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 13653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31704-y
87.
TuovinenJ. E.PaasF. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021813.24669.62
88.
TürkayS. (2016). The effects of whiteboard animations on retention and subjective experiences when learning advanced physics topics. Computers & Education, 98, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.004
89.
UttalD. H.MeadowN. G.TiptonE.HandL. L.AldenA. R.WarrenC.NewcombeN. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446
90.
Van AsselenM.SampaioJ.PinaA.Castelo-BrancoM. (2011). Object based implicit contextual learning: A study of eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0047-9
91.
VandenbergS. G.KuseA. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
92.
Van WermeskerkenM.RavensbergenS.Van GogT. (2018). Effects of instructor presence in video modeling examples on attention and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.038
