Uncovering the Role of Different Instructional Designs When Learning Tactical Scenes of Play through Dynamic Visualizations: A Systematic Review.
cognitive load theory
dynamic visualizations
instructional designs
learning
team sports
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 12 2020
31 12 2020
Historique:
received:
25
11
2020
revised:
23
12
2020
accepted:
28
12
2020
entrez:
5
1
2021
pubmed:
6
1
2021
medline:
23
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dynamic visualizations such as videos or animations have been developed to exchange information that transforms over time across a broad range of professional/academic contexts. However, such visual tools may impose substantial demands on the learner's cognitive resources that are very limited in current knowledge. Cognitive load theory has been used to improve learning from dynamic visualizations by providing different instructional designs to manage learner cognitive load. This paper reviews a series of experimental studies assessing the effects of certain instructional designs on learning of tactical scenes of play through dynamic visualizations. An electronic database search was performed on the Web of Science and PubMed/Medline databases from inception to July 2020 using a combination of relevant keywords. Manual searches were also made. The search was limited to English language. A total of 515 records were screened by two researchers using the Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome(s) (PICO) criteria. The quality and validity of the included studies were assessed using "QualSyst". Learning indicators in students and/or players (male and female) at any age category and competitive level were considered. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, which focused on the effects of four instructional designs (i.e., using static visualizations, employing sequential presentation, applying segmentation, and decreasing presentation speed) on learning various game systems through dynamic visualizations. These studies indicate that (i) the effectiveness of all instructional designs depend upon the level of learners' expertise when learning soccer/Australian football scenes through animations/videos, (ii) the effectiveness of using static visualizations instead of animations/videos showing soccer/basketball scenes depend upon the type of the depicted knowledge (i.e., motor knowledge or descriptive knowledge) for novice learners, (iii) the effectiveness of employing static visualizations and decreasing presentation speed when learning soccer/basketball scenes from animations/videos depend upon the level of content complexity, for novice learners. The current review demonstrated important practical implications for both coaches and physical education teachers using either animations and/or videos to communicate game systems. Indeed, findings suggested that adapting instructional designs to the level of learners' expertise, type of depicted knowledge, and level of content complexity is a crucial part of effective tactical learning from dynamic visualizations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33396511
pii: ijerph18010256
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010256
pmc: PMC7794790
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Annu Rev Psychol. 1996;47:273-305
pubmed: 15012483
J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2013 Jun;35(3):260-9
pubmed: 23798589
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169-92
pubmed: 15217330
Brain Lang. 2004 May;89(2):370-6
pubmed: 15068920
Nutrients. 2020 May 28;12(6):
pubmed: 32481549
Brain Lang. 2009 Jan;108(1):10-21
pubmed: 18082250
J Sports Sci. 2019 Nov;37(21):2403-2410
pubmed: 31280685
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Oct;4(10):829-39
pubmed: 14523382
Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008 Jun;79(2):268-73
pubmed: 18664051
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Nov;28(6):1035-50
pubmed: 12450330
Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 22;10:2356
pubmed: 31695646
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0174311
pubmed: 28355263