Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the effects of an instructor's pointing gestures on learning performance across a wide range of academic domains. There are, however, few clear instructional guidelines for enhancing learning from this visual guidance. This study tested the combined effects of the coach's pointing gesture and gaze guidance on attention and recall performance in field-based sports. This study used a 3 (control vs. gesture vs. gesture/gaze) × 2 (novice vs. expert) between-subjects factorial design. Results showed a significant interaction effect between expertise level and experimental conditions on visual attention and memorization performance. Novice players scored higher after studying tactical instructions with pointing gestures and gaze guidance than players who studied the same instructions with pointing gestures, who in turn performed better than players who received instructions without cues. Expert players showed the same level of performance when they received the instructions without cues and with pointing gestures. However, they showed lower performance (notably in the visual attention and the mental effort measures) when they received the video with pointing gestures and gaze guidance compared to the instructions without gestures and with pointing gestures. These results suggest that the effectiveness of nonverbal visual guidance changes depending on the players’ level of expertise.
CamerinoOCastañerMAngueraTM.Mixed methods research in the movement sciences: Case studies in sport, physical education and dance. CamerinoOCastanerMAngueraTM (eds). London, England: Routledge, 2014.
2.
EvansBReynoldsE. The organization of corrective demonstrations using embodied action in sports coaching feedback: corrective demonstrations in sports coaching. Symb Interact2016; 39: 525–556.
3.
Ben ChikhaHZoudjiBKhacharemA.Coaches’ pointing gestures as means to convey tactical information in basketball: an eye-tracking study. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. Epub ahead of print 31 October 2022. doi:10.1007/s00426-023-01806-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197x.2022.2138498
4.
KaoS-FHsiehM-HLeeP-L. Coaching competency and trust in coach in sport teams. Int J Sports Sci Coach2017; 12: 319–327.
5.
KlingnerFCHuijgenBCHDen HartighRJR, et al.Technical–tactical skill assessments in small-sided soccer games: a scoping review. Int J Sports Sci Coach2022; 17: 885–902.
6.
Schütz A and Kaul C.Means of verbal and non–verbal communication in coaching. In: Siegfried Greif, Heidi Möller, Wolfgang Scholl, Jonathan Passmore, Felix Müller (eds) International handbook of evidence-based coaching. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 565–575.
7.
BerntsenHKristiansenE. Successful coach learning: digital workbook informed by pedagogical principles. Int J Sports Sci Coach2019; 14: 310–323.
8.
KrauseDWeigeltM. Mental rotation and performance in basketball: effects of self-controlled and externally controlled time constraints on the processing and execution of tactic board instructions with varied orientations. Ger J Exerc Sport Res2020; 50: 354–365.
9.
KhacharemAZoudjiBKalyugaS, et al.The expertise reversal effect for sequential presentation in dynamic soccer visualizations. J Sport Exerc Psychol2013; 35: 260–269.
10.
KhacharemAZoudjiBKalyugaS. Perceiving versus inferring movements to understand dynamic events: the influence of content complexity. Psychol Sport Exerc2015; 19: 70–75.
11.
SchnotzWLoweR.A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In: LoweR (ed.) Learning with animation: research implications for design, New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, 2008, ix, p. 304–356.
12.
WangJAntonenkoPD. Instructor presence in instructional video: effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Comput Human Behav2017; 71: 79–89.
13.
Van WermeskerkenMVan GogT. Seeing the instructor’s face and gaze in demonstration video examples affects attention allocation but not learning. Comput Educ2017; 113: 98–107.
14.
ColonnesiCStamsGJJMKosterI,et al.The relation between pointing and language development: a meta-analysis. Dev Rev2010; 30: 352–366.
15.
Tuddert-KennedyM. Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Lang Speech1994; 37: 203–209.
16.
ValenzenoLAlibaliMWKlatzkyR. Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: a lesson in symmetry. Contemp Educ Psychol2003; 28: 187–204.
17.
SingerMAGoldin-MeadowS. Children learn when their teacher’s gestures and speech differ. Psychol Sci2005; 16: 85–89.
18.
KoumoutsakisTChurchRBAlibaliMW, et al.Gesture in instruction: evidence from live and video lessons. J Nonverbal Behav2016; 40: 301–315.
19.
OuwehandKVan GogTPaasF. Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. J Educ Techno Soc2015; 18: 78–88.
20.
PiZZhangYZhuF, et al.Instructors’ pointing gestures improve learning regardless of their use of directed gaze in video lectures. Comput Educ2019; 128: 345–352.
21.
WakefieldENovackMACongdonEL, et al.Gesture helps learners learn, but not merely by guiding their visual attention. Dev Sci2018; 21: e12664.
22.
CongdonELNovackMABrooksN, et al.Better together: simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learn Instr2017; 50: 65–74.
23.
KellySD. Broadening the units of analysis in communication: speech and nonverbal behaviours in pragmatic comprehension. J Child Lang2001; 28: 325–349.
24.
SekineKKitaS. The listener automatically uses spatial story representations from the speaker’s cohesive gestures when processing subsequent sentences without gestures. Acta Psychol (Amst)2017; 179: 89–95.
25.
YeoALedesmaINathanMJ, et al.Teachers’ gestures and students’ learning: sometimes “hands off” is better. Cogn Res Princ Implic2017; 2: 41.
26.
OuwehandKVan GogTPaasF. Effects of gestures on older Adults’ learning from video-based models: gestures in instruction for older adults. Appl Cogn Psychol2015; 29: 115–128.
27.
GullbergMHolmqvistK. What speakers do and what addressees look at: visual attention to gestures in human interaction live and on video. Pragmat Cogn2006; 14: 53–82.
28.
LangtonSRWattRJBruceII. Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends Cogn Sci2000; 4: 50–59.
29.
StreeckJ. Gesture as communication I: its coordination with gaze and speech. Commun Monogr1993; 60: 275–299.
30.
StullATFiorellaLMayerRE. The case for embodied instruction: the instructor as a source of attentional and social cues in video lectures. J Educ Psychol2021; 113: 1441–1453.
31.
StullATFiorellaLMayerRE. An eye-tracking analysis of instructor presence in video lectures. Comput Human Behav2018; 88: 263–272.
32.
WangHPiZHuW. The instructor’s gaze guidance in video lectures improves learning. J Comput Assist Learn2019; 35: 42–50.
33.
MayerREFiorellaLStullA. Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educ Technol Res Dev2020; 68: 837–852.
34.
CliffordCWGPalmerCJ. Adaptation to the direction of others’ gaze: a review. Front Psychol2018; 9: 2165.
35.
SwellerJ. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci1988; 12: 257–285.
36.
SwellerJ. Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educ Technol Res Dev2020; 68: 1–16.
37.
Castro-Alonso JC, Ayres P and Sweller J.Instructional visua lizations, cognitive load theory, and visuospatial processing. In: Juan C. Castro-Alonso (eds) Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 111–143.
SwellerJVan MerriënboerJJGPaasF. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educ Psychol Rev2019; 31: 261–292.
40.
AyresPSwellerJ. The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In: MayerR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.206–226.
41.
MayerRE. Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In: MayerR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.345–368.
42.
Atkinson R, Lin L and Harrison C.Comparing the efficacy of different signaling techniques. In: G Siemens and C Fulford (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Waynesville, NC. Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2009, Jun 22, pp. 954–962.
43.
PiZHongJYangJ. Effects of the instructor’s pointing gestures on learning performance in video lectures: pointing gestures enhance learning in video lectures. Br J Educ Technol2017; 48: 1020–1029.
44.
Castro-AlonsoJCWongRMAdesopeOO, et al.Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: a meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev2021; 33: 989–1015.
45.
MayerRE. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
46.
De KoningBBTabbersHKRikersRMJP, et al.Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educ Psychol Rev2009; 21: 113–140.
47.
BetrancourtM. The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In: MayerR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.287–296.
48.
AlibaliMWNathanMJWolfgramMS, et al.How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: a corpus analysis. Cogn Instr2014; 32: 65–100.
49.
BarsalouLW. Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol2008; 59: 617–645.
50.
GlenbergAM. Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology: embodiment as a unifying perspective. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci2010; 1: 586–596.
51.
FrischenABaylissAPTipperSP. Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychol Bull2007; 133: 694–724.
52.
FoxNABakermans-KranenburgMJYooKH, et al.Assessing human mirror activity with EEG mu rhythm: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull2016; 142: 291–313.
53.
FogassiLFerrariPFGesierichB, et al.Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science2005; 308: 662–667.
54.
RizzolattiGCraigheroL. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci2004; 27: 169–192.
55.
BinderEDovernAHesseMD, et al.Lesion evidence for a human mirror neuron system. Cortex2017; 90: 125–137.
56.
Van GogTPaasFMarcusN, et al.The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educ Psychol Rev2009; 21: 21–30.
57.
ChenOKalyugaSSwellerJ. The expertise reversal effect is a variant of the more general element interactivity effect. Educ Psychol Rev2017; 29: 393–405.
58.
KalyugaS. The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In: MayerR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.576–597.
59.
Sweller J, Ayres P and Kalyuga S.The expertise reversal effect. In: John Sweller, Paul Ayres, and Slava Kalyuga (eds) Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer New York, 2011, pp. 155–170.
60.
KhacharemA. Top-down and bottom-up guidance in comprehension of schematic football diagrams. J Sports Sci2017; 35: 1204–1210.
61.
HomerBDPlassJL. Expertise reversal for iconic representations in science visualizations. Instr Sci2010; 38: 259–276.
62.
KhacharemAZoudjiBSpanjersIAE,et al.Improving learning from animated soccer scenes: evidence for the expertise reversal effect. Comput Human Behav2014; 35: 339–349.
63.
KalyugaSSwellerJ. The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In: MayerR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.247–262.
64.
RichterJScheiterKEitelA. Signaling text–picture relations in multimedia learning: the influence of prior knowledge. J Educ Psychol2018; 110: 544–560.
65.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerA,et al.Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods2009; 41: 1149–1160.
66.
PaasFG. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol1992; 84: 429–434.
67.
PaasFRenklASwellerJ. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ Psychol2003; 38: 1–4.
68.
De JongT. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci2010; 38: 105–134.
69.
SchadDJVasishthSHohensteinS, et al.How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: a tutorial. J Mem Lang2020; 110: 104038.
70.
Arslan-AriI. Learning from instructional animations: how does prior knowledge mediate the effect of visual cues?J Comput Assist Learn2018; 34: 140–149.
71.
KhacharemAZoudjiBKalyugaS. Which representation is best for communicating dynamic information?Memory2019; 27: 943–951.
72.
Ben ChikhaHZoudjiBKhacharemA.Using pointing gestures to convey tactical information: investigating the roles of expertise and complexity. Psychol Res. Epub ahead of print 22 February 2023. doi:10.1007/s00426-023-01806-y
73.
McNeilNMAlibaliMWEvansJL. Role of gesture in children's comprehension of spoken language: now they need it, now they don't. J Nonverbal Behav2000; 24: 131–150.
