Beyond the Meshing Hypothesis: Self-Efficacy as a Mechanism Linking Preference-Aware Multimodal Coaching, Peer Support, and Collegiate Tennis Performance

College tennis involves complex skill development within socially interactive learning environments while requiring athletes to make independent decisions, regulate emotions, and execute technical and tactical actions under pressure. Although previous research has examined instructional approaches, peer support, and self-efficacy in sport learning, these perspectives have rarely been integrated into a coherent theoretical framework. A central challenge concerns the continued influence of fixed visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning-style assumptions in coaching practice. Existing evidence provides limited support for the meshing hypothesis, which proposes that athletes learn more effectively when instruction is matched to their presumed learning styles. However, rejecting fixed learning categories does not eliminate the importance of responsive and adaptive coaching. This conceptual paper addresses this issue by distinguishing learning-style matching from multimodal coaching and proposing self-efficacy as the key psychological mechanism linking instructional and social environments to tennis performance. Drawing on social cognitive theory and research on motor learning, feedback, and peer support, the paper argues that multimodal coaching and supportive peer interactions enhance mastery experiences, observational learning, verbal encouragement, and adaptive emotional regulation. These experiences strengthen tennis-specific self-efficacy, which contributes to persistence, attentional control, tactical engagement, and performance development. The proposed framework integrates coaching practices and peer support within a self-efficacy-based model and provides a theoretical explanation of why learner-responsive approaches may benefit collegiate tennis development without relying on fixed learner labels. The paper offers implications for evidence-informed coaching and identifies directions for future empirical investigation.

tennis performance; self-efficacy; peer support; multimodal coaching

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bilić, Z., Dukarić, V., Šanjug, S., Barbaros, P., & Knjaz, D. (2023). The concurrent validity of a mobile application for tracking tennis performance. Applied Sciences, 13(10), 6195. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106195 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bresnahan, C., Grossnickle Peterson, E., & Hattan, C. (2024). Why educators endorse a neuromyth: Relationships among educational priorities, beliefs about learning styles, and instructional decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1407518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1407518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Clinton-Lisell, V., & Litzinger, C. (2024). Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1428732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1428732 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Deng, N., Soh, K. G., Huang, D., Abdullah, B., Luo, S., & Rattanakoses, W. (2022). Effects of plyometric training on skill and physical performance in healthy tennis players: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, 1024418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.1024418 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Human Kinetics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fernandez-Fernandez, J., Sanz-Rivas, D., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2009). A review of the activity profile and physiological demands of tennis match play. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 31(4), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181ada1cb [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2009). How does perceived support lead to better performance? An examination of potential mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903222913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fuelscher, I. T., Ball, K., & MacMahon, C. (2012). Perspectives on learning styles in motor and sport skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. He, K., Li, W., & Li, Z. (2023). Relationship between family background and self-efficacy in adolescent table tennis players: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1125493. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1125493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kovacs, M. S. (2007). Tennis physiology: Training the competitive athlete. Sports Medicine, 37(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kwon, T., Shin, S., & Shin, M. (2022). The effect of observational learning on self-efficacy by sport competition condition, performance level of team members, and whether you win or lose. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10148. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lambrich, J., & Muehlbauer, T. (2022). Physical fitness and stroke performance in healthy tennis players with different competition levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0269516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608908 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education—Is the learning styles “myth” important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 5, 602451. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Parma, J. O., Miller, M. W., & Bacelar, M. F. B. (2024). OPTIMAL theory’s claims about motivation lack evidence in the motor learning literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 74, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level sports performers. The Sport Psychologist, 14(4), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.14.4.327 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Reid, M., Crespo, M., Lay, B., & Berry, J. (2007). Skill acquisition in tennis: Research and current practice. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037478 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sampaio, T., Oliveira, J. P., Marinho, D. A., Neiva, H. P., & Morais, J. E. (2024). Applications of machine learning to optimize tennis performance: A systematic review. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5517. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Simonton, K. L., Solmon, M. A., & Garn, A. C. (2021). Exploring perceived autonomy support and emotions in university tennis courses. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(1), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1623285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Sun, R., Li, T., Li, M., & Meng, L. (2025). The effects of tennis on depressive symptoms and pro-social behaviors in university students: The mediating role of appreciative social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1428977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1428977 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.8.3.221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382–1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Wu, Q., Han, Z., Hao, Z., Chen, J., & Pan, Y. (2025). Impact of flipped classroom method in physical education on the intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and learning satisfaction: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 20(5), e0324609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492–526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yao, L., Zhou, K., Zhou, Y., Kueh, Y. C., Xu, T., Pan, M., Abdul Majeed, A. P. P., Liu, Z., & Kuan, G. (2024). Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of Social Support for Exercise Scale among adolescents in China. PLOS ONE, 19(6), e0299497. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zou, Y., Liu, S., Guo, S., Zhao, Q., & Cai, Y. (2023). Peer support and exercise adherence in adolescents: The chain-mediated effects of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Children, 10(2), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar