SportaPolis

Column - "The New P.E. & Sports Dimension" - # 3 September 2001

The column that opens your day by opening your mind

"Coaching Research and Coach Education:

Do the sum of the parts equal the whole? (Part 1)"

Dr. Chris Cushion, Department of Sport Sciences, Brunel University, UK.

To start with the discussion and how to: click here

Working as both a coaching practitioner and as an academic, teaching and researching in the field of coaching puts me in a somewhat unusual position. Gifted or cursed, I sit at the nexus between academic and practitioner, between theory and practice. From this position it has been possible to consider how these two distinct worlds, co-exist, interact, conflict, and serve one another. What struck me immediately was the bewildering variety of approaches to, and perspectives on, understanding coaching, the coach's role and the coaching process, a feeling shared in the literature in discussions regarding coaching (Lyle, 1992; Mathers, 1997; Woodman. 1993). This is not aided when key terms such as, coaching, coaching process and coaching context are used interchangeably in some instances and defined differently in others. It therefore makes sense to begin with, to clarify my position on these terms. From my own and others' coaching experience I am acutely aware that, as Borrie (1996) asserts, coaches have to manipulate a wide range of variables within and beyond practice and competition. This web of complex, context-dependent, and interdependent activities, come together to form the holistic coaching process (Cushion, 2001). Whereas, coaching or coaching practice is the specific work of the coach in sessions or competition to enhance performance. The coaching process and coaching practice are situation specific and occur in a given context, the practical coaching context. In essence, the practical coaching context is the interaction of the coach, player and club environment ( Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria., & Russell, 1995; Smith & Smoll, 1993; Saury & Durand, 1998).

Over time, it has been possible to witness and experience the remarkable complexity, intricacy and yet coherence of the coaching process. At the same time, I have been acutely aware of the myriad of individual variations that each coach, player and club environment adds to the blend, in the construction of the practical coaching context and the coaching process.

Yet how much does existing knowledge understand about the coaching process and its inherent complexity? To begin with, within the existing coaching literature there is a tendency to claim priority for one aspect of the coaching process over others. For example, Fuoss and Troppman (1981) identify effective communication as the key ingredient of effective coaching. Indeed, Carreim Da Costa and Pieron (1992) argue "that there is no more important task within the wider coaching process than that of communication" (cited in Jones, 1997, p.27). Furthermore, Carreim et al. (1992) contend that within the area of communication, it is the quality of feedback which is central to coach effectiveness a feeling shared by several authors (Horn, 1984, 1992; Mancini & Wuest, 1987; Solomon, Striegel, Eliot, Heon, Maas & Wyda, 1996; Stewart & Corbin, 1988). Tinning (1982) however, considers instruction to be the most significant aspect of the coach's role, while Fischman and Oxendine (1993) argue that "at the core of successful coaching is an understanding of the motor learning process." (P.11). In yet another approach, Chelladurai (1993) focuses upon coach-athlete interaction and decision-making styles, reflecting a belief that coaching is "in essence the art and science of decision making" (p.99). So priorities of coaching seem to depend largely on the field of expertise or sub-discipline of the expert conducting the enquiry. These scholars are, of course, all right and, at the same time, all wrong. These approaches, whilst undoubtedly contributing to existing knowledge, and to a certain extent aiding practitioners, remains limited. Coaching practice, as most coaches would testify, is infinitely complex and often problematic, and not as straightforward as is often assumed. We are left therefore, with expansive literature, emphasising coaching 'episodes', arguably at the expense of holistic coaching practice, with the coaches broader and necessary skills relegated to the fringe (Cushion, 2001; Lyle, 1999).

In its construction of course content, coach education draws upon the existing literature. For me, taking part in and delivering coach education brought this meeting of the theoretical, empirical, and the practical sharply into focus. Immediately apparent was that content, understandably, was directed toward the promotion of athletic achievement, with a dominant focus on performance enhancement (Luikkonen, Laasko, & Telamal, 1996). Coaching as a process received less attention than the study of performance. We are coaching the coaches to coach the performer, but are we coaching the coaches? Coach development programmes sub-divide coaching into components relating to, for example, skill acquisition and areas of sport science. Coaching is broken up into parts to be re-assembled later. This is perhaps unsurprising since the expansion of empirical interest into coaching, as both an academic and practical subject, has been characterised by a focus on distinct and fragmented categories within the broad coaching field (Jones, 1999). Indeed, McDonald and Tinning (1995) contend that this fragmentation of knowledge reflects an increasing 'product' view, resulting in coaching, not unlike physical education, being viewed as an "autonomous body of facts passed through generations" (McKay, Gore, & Kirk, 1990, p.62).

This rational and mechanistic approach to coaching results in a de-contextualised view (Turner & Martinek, 1995) where the coaching process is presented as two-dimensional and compartmentalised, without offering any real comprehension of the dynamic human context (Jones, 1999). This view presents coaching, for example, in coach education, as a logical set of 'episodes' (e.g. planning, communication, motivation, instructing, goal setting, etc.) that can be isolated for analysis then re-assembled later. This, of course, has implications for coaches, with coaching practitioners being regarded as "merely technicians engaged in the transfer of knowledge" (McDonald & Tinning, 1995, p.98) in a process that is viewed as unproblematic as long as the coach follows an appropriate systematic 'model'. Coaching in practice, sometimes termed the 'art of coaching', becomes marginalised with the complexity inherent in the coaching process under represented. There remains a flawed assumption that experience can be created through acquisition of technical skills alone.

There are gaps in our existing knowledge, in particular, concerning the complexity inherent in the coaching process, and the interaction of the coach, performer and coaching context, in practice. The 'model' approach, finding a conceptual link between performer learning and coach effectiveness remains a pre-occupation of coaching research. And, in part, because of the need for efficient research design, presents coaching as a logical set of 'episodes'. However the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. This approach undoubtedly moves our knowledge and understanding forward, albeit in a creeping, haphazard and disjointed fashion. It reveals only a small part of the complexity inherent in coaching practice and the coaching process, and remains unfulfilling for coaching practitioners and coach education in the development of sophisticated coaching practice.

Borrie, A. (1996). Coaching Science. In T. Reilly, (Ed.), Science and Soccer (pp. 243- 258). E & F.N Spon.

Carreim Da Costa, F. & Pieron, M. (1992). Teaching effectiveness: Comparison of more and less effective teachers in an experimental teaching unit. In T. Williams, L. Almond, & A. Sparkes (Eds.) Sport and Physical activity: Moving towards excellence. (pp. 169-176). London, E & FN Spon.

Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York, Macmillan.

Cote, J. Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A. & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model; A grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches knowledge. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17 (1), 1-17.

Cushion, C. J. (2001). The coaching process in elite youth football: An ethnography of practice. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Brunel University, UK.

Fischman, M.G., & Oxendine, J.B. (1993). Motor skill learning for effective coaching and performance. In, J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal growth to peak performance. Mountain View CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Fouss, D.E., & Troppman, R.J. (1981). Effective coaching: A psychological approach. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Horn, T.S. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic setting: Methodological considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 60-76.

Horn, T.S. (1992). Leadership effectiveness in the sport domain. In T.S. (Ed.) Advances in sport psychology, (pp 181-200). Champaign Ill, Human Kinetics.

Jones, R.L. (1999). Toward a sociology of coaching. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Jones, R. L. (1997). 'Effective' instructional coaching behaviour: A review of literature. International Journal of Physical Education, 24(1), 27-32.

Luikkonen, J., Laasko, L., & Telama, R. (1996). Educational perspectives of youth sport coaches: Analysis of observed coaching behaviours. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 439-453.

Lyle, J. W. B. (1999). The Coaching Process: Principles and Practice. In N.Cross & J.Lyle (Eds.), The coaching process: Principles and practice for sport. (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lyle, J.W.B. (1992). Systematic coaching behaviour: An investigation into the coaching process and the implications of the findings for coach education. In T. Williams, L. Almond & A. Sparkes (Eds.). Sport and Physical activity: Moving towards excellence (pp. 463-469). London: E & FN Spon.

Mancini, V.H., & Wuest, D.A. (1987). Coaches' interactions and their high and low- skilled athletes' ALT-PE: A systematic perspective. In G.T. Barrette, R.S. Feingold, C.R. Rees and Pieron (Eds.). Sport Pedagogy: Myths, models and methods. Champaign, IL. : Human Kinetics.

Mathers, J. (1997). Professional coaching in Golf: Is there an appreciation of the coaching process? Scottish Journal of Physical Education, 25(1), 23-35.

McDonald, D., & Tinning, R. (1995). Physical education teacher education and the trend to proletarianisation: A case study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 98- 118.

McKay, J., Gore, J. M., & Kirk, D. (1990). Beyond the limits of technocratic physical education. Quest, 42(1), 52-76.

Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On site study of coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 254-266.

Smith, R.E. & Smoll, F.L. (1993). Educating youth sport coaches: an applied sport psychology perspective. In J. M. Williams (Ed.) Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (2nd ed., pp. 36-57). Mountain View, CA. Mayfield.

Solomon, G. B., Striegel, D. A., Eliot, J. F., Heon, S. N., & Maas, J. L. (1996). The self fulfilling prophecy in college basketball: Implications for effective coaching. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 44-59.

Stewart, M. & Corbin, C. (1988). Feedback dependence among low cofidence pre- adolescent boys and girls. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 160-164.

Tinning, R. (1982). Improving coaches' instructional effectivenss. Sports Coach, 5(4), 37-41.

Turner, A. & Martinek, T. (1995). Teaching for understanding: a model for improving decision making during game play. Quest, 47, 44-63.

Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A Science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 1-13.

1.Coaching Research and Coach Education: Do the sum of the parts equal the whole?

2. Bearing in mind the inherent complexity of the interaction between coach, performer and the environment, alongside the fact that even in the same sport, coaches, players and their working environments are highly variable. How can governing bodies justify a singular 'model' of coach education, on a 'one course fits all' basis?

3. Compared with the vast sporting experiences of coaches as both players and coaches, coach education is relatively low impact. When on coaching courses are the coaches own powerful experiences explored, understood and directed toward improving practice?

How to participate with the discussion ?

- just drop your thoughts to Guy Van Damme: guy.vandamme@skynet.be

- he collects your replies and will submit these to Dr. Chris Cushion.

- The author reads your ideas/reactions and if needed will add his feedback.

- This all - your reactions and feedback - will be submitted to Guy and he will post it again onto the list.

October - Dr. Christine Nash will start with a new article.

Have a good discussion,

co-ordinator

Guy Van Damme