Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
Although substantial empirical evidence underscores the benefits of external focus instructions in enhancing motor performance and learning, recent findings indicate many coaches still predominantly employ internal focus cues during training sessions. This inconsistency may stem from athletes’ familiarity with internal instructions and coaches’ tendency to reinforce what they perceive as athletes’ preferred instructional style. While laboratory research on attentional focus has advanced considerably, there remains a significant gap in understanding coaches’ natural instructional behaviors in authentic sporting environments. Moreover, the variation in instructional content relative to athletes’ skill levels remains insufficiently explored, particularly in technically demanding sports such as tennis. Given that vague or internally directed cues—for example, "bend your knees"—may impair performance, it is essential to analyze the actual language coaches use during practice.
This study investigated the frequency and nature of attentional focus cues—categorized as internal, external, and holistic—used by tennis coaches and examined whether these patterns differ among beginner, skilled, and advanced players. The findings aim to enrich coach education and foster more effective communication strategies.
 Methods
This observational study was conducted within a naturalistic tennis training context to assess the frequency and types of attentional focus instructions provided to players of varying skill levels. The sample comprised 36 tennis players (both male and female; mean age 23.08 ± 1.89 years) and five coaches (mean age 29.81 ± 2.93 years) holding level-one coaching certifications and averaging 6.83 ± 1.61 years of coaching experience. Players were categorized as beginner (n=12), intermediate (n=18), and advanced (n=6) based on coaches’ evaluations and the International Tennis Number (ITN) ranking system.
After obtaining written informed consent, coaches wore wireless lapel microphones connected to smartphones, which recorded all verbal interactions during standard outdoor training sessions. Coaches were instructed to maintain their usual instructional behaviors without alteration. To minimize participant bias, the study’s specific aims were withheld. Across summer 2023, recordings were collected from 47 training sessions (mean duration 13.45 ± 3.45 minutes).
Audio data were transcribed verbatim and subjected to a structured three-step coding process: statements were first divided into those related or unrelated to motor performance; motor-related statements were then labeled as instructional or non-instructional; finally, instructional statements were categorized by attentional focus type—internal focus of attention (IFoA), external focus of attention (EFoA), holistic/general focus of attention (HFoA), or neutral focus of attention (NFoA).
The primary researcher performed coding, with validation by two movement science experts utilizing a critical friend method to ensure reliability. Relative frequencies were calculated to adjust for session length variations. Mixed-effects models analyzed differences in attentional focus usage across skill levels, treating player skill and instruction type as fixed effects and coach identity as a random effect.
 Results
From a total of 15,529 coach-player statements, 13,455 (86.64%) related to motor performance. Of these, 8,535 were instructional, subdivided into attentional focus instructions (6,143; 71.97%) and non-attentional instructions (2,392; 28.03%). Within attentional cues, external focus (EFoA) occurred most frequently (2,860; 46.56%), followed closely by internal focus (IFoA) (2,732; 44.47%), with holistic/general focus (HFoA) considerably less common (551; 8.97%).
No significant main effect of player skill level on instruction frequency was observed, F(2, 99) < 1, p > 0.05. However, instruction type exerted a significant main effect, F(2, 99) = 257.90, p < 0.0001, η² = .88. Pairwise comparisons revealed that coaches used EFoA instructions more frequently (M = 48.18, SD = 10.99) than IFoA (M = 42.76, SD = 10.76), t(99) = 2.90, p = 0.0125, and substantially more than HFoA (M = 9.06, SD = 4.34), t(99) = 20.96, p < 0.0001. IFoA was also significantly more frequent than HFoA, t = 19.99, p < 0.0001.
A significant interaction emerged between instruction type and player skill level, F(4, 99) = 18.80, p < 0.0001, η² = 0.43. Pairwise analyses indicated:

Beginners received more IFoA cues than EFoA and HFoA, with EFoA exceeding HFoA;
Intermediate and advanced players received more EFoA cues than IFoA and HFoA, with IFoA also exceeding HFoA.

All pairwise contrasts in these patterns reached significance (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between EFoA and IFoA within intermediate and advanced groups (p > 0.05), nor among HFoA usage across skill levels (see Figure 1).
 

Conclusion
This study examined how tennis coaches naturally tailor their attentional focus instructions according to players’ skill levels in authentic training environments. Overall, coaches favored external focus cues significantly more than internal or neutral ones; yet, the employed cue type varied systematically with player proficiency. Specifically, internal focus instructions predominated for beginners, aiding their understanding of basic movement mechanics. Conversely, external focus cues were emphasized with skilled and advanced players, supporting automaticity and refined performance. This instructional pattern aligns with literature asserting that the efficacy of attentional focus hinges on the athlete’s development stage.
Despite robust empirical support advocating external focus for motor learning, it remains insufficiently applied, especially with novice players. Bridging this research-practice gap necessitates targeted coach education programs emphasizing strategic deployment of external focus cues to optimize learning and performance at all expertise levels.
Article Message
The study revealed that the content of tennis coaches’ verbal instructions differs according to player skill. Beginners receive more instructions promoting an internal focus of attention, while advanced players are predominantly cued towards external focus. This pattern reflects the unique cognitive and motor demands of tennis, where the use of an external implement (racket) and directing the ball to external targets encourage coaches to prioritize external attentional cues for skilled players and internal cues to support foundational skills for novices.
Ethical Considerations
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Isfahan.
Authors’ Contributions
This manuscript represents a fully collaborative effort; all authors contributed equally to the study and the preparation of the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the voluntary participation and cooperation of the tennis players and coaches involved in this research.