Learning to Coach: Linking theory and practice, novice and expert.

Research evidence suggests that coaches learn largely from their experiences, (e.g., Cushion et al., 2003; Gould et al., 1996; Gilbert & Trudel, 2001) so intuitively a more experiential way of educating coaches seems appropriate. What is not always clear in this process is how trainees achieve a level of expertise when experience alone provides no specific guidance on dealing with situation specific decision-making. It could be argued that coaching knowledge is practical know-how acquired without any conscious theoretical understanding, through experience in specific learning situations, and not simply through the passage of time. Indeed, “it would be a relief to believe that one need only to spend a certain amount of time teaching or coaching and the lessons learned in the experience would elevate one to the next level of expertise. Unfortunately, that is not the case” (Bell, 1997, p. 35). Clearly, learning from experience that is both effective and useful must contribute to that experience being transformed into knowledge and expertise. In addition, simply observing and working with experienced peers or mentors could be problematic when they themselves use their craft knowledge so instinctively that they may not be able to elucidate the steps leading to their decision making (Field, 2004).

This is not to down play coaches practical knowledge, which does however, represent ‘expertise'. For example, a pool or billiards player has qualitative knowledge superior in practice to that of a physicist or mathematician who undertakes theoretical analysis of patterns of ball movements (Field, 2004). The performers knowledge contrasts with that of the scientist in both style and ability to deal with complexity. This is not to say that one type of knowledge is more useful or valuable, nor does it mean that theory should be abandoned. Indeed research would suggest that in a variety of practise domains it is necessary to link theory with practical knowledge for effective action (McCormick, 1999).

So how can coach education with experiential learning be best carried out utilising experienced peers/mentors and theory, to ensure a transition from novice to expert? Reflective practice is one approach that is being promoted and the development of ‘reflective' approaches are widely advocated (e.g., Cushion et al., 2003; Gilbert & Trudel, 2005). Reflection is undoubtedly useful but, arguably, remains dependent on adequate practical experience, and a significant other with sound theoretical knowledge to support the coach. Without these prerequisites, arguably, much reflection can remain superficial, with the real danger being that the subsequent learning results in defective assumptions and decisions based upon inadequate reflections.

In developing coach education with an emphasis on experiential learning we return in part to the original question, by asking is learning to coach a mental process alone or is it part of a broader enculturation into a broadly social processes? I, among others, have advocated coaching to be a largely social process (e.g., Cushion et al., 2003; Jones, 2000; Potrac, et al., 2000), but in learning to coach, it seems that both positions seem to apply. This is well illustrated in looking at the so called ‘theory-practice gap'. For example, there remains for many coaches a difficulty of transferring knowledge learned in one situation to similar but different situations (for example from a practical coaching course to an individuals coaching context, or working with different levels of athletes). It would seem that there is a requirement to ‘situate', individually constructed knowledge learned from a variety of sources. However, it could be argued that generally more ‘social' approaches to learning fail to address the reciprocal relationship between theory and practice. Moreover, an uncritical adoption of ‘situated learning' may lead to perpetuation or repetition of perhaps undesirable behaviour or practice as ‘hidden curriculum' (Field, 2004).

One possible solution to bridging this theory-practice gap and to facilitate situated social learning, would be that coach educators need to be immersed in practice themselves. Arguably, this would enable coach educators to identify learning opportunities for the application, analysis and synthesis of information that gives coaches the understanding of what coaching is about. Rogoff and Lave (1984), adopting a Vygotskian approach, argues that individual cognition is intricately interwoven with the context of the problem to be solved. This means in coaching that conceptual and physical dimensions are embedded within a given social milieu, so context becomes an integral part of learning. To grasp both subject and knowing the learning clearly needs to be situated, so that the practices and perspectives of the community can be taken into account (Greeno et al., 1999). This then leads to an active construction of knowledge rather than passive acquisition. Key to this learning is being able to identify the salient points of practical situations. Rogoff (1990), goes on to argue that developing practice should stress contextual learning, which includes guided participation activities and intersubjectivity, the sharing of focus and purpose between learner and more skilled partner. These ideas connect well with notions of experiential learning based in practice but grounded in theoretical underpinning provided by Vygotsky.

Often in experiential learning situations the teaching and learning activities are perceived to take place the coaching has been completed (Field, 2004). Learning and coaching are thus viewed as separate. This suggests a lack of explicit connection between theory and practice. Coaches need to perceive when they are learning practically in coaching practice, and as such, potential learning experiences need to be highlighted when formulating objectives of the session. The experienced peer, mentor, or coach educator plays a crucial role in this process in not only highlighting potential learning experiences but by also making explicit the connections to knowledge and underpinning theory. In particular, Rogoff (1990) argues that skilled partners help novices with difficult problems by structuring sub-goals or problem solving to help the novice focus on manageable aspects of the problem, and goes on to advocate the importance of routine but skilled cultural activities. Moreover, Lauder et al. (2003) in discussing developing practice have formulated a strategy for linking situated and cognitive learning together, where such things as problem based learning, dialogue between practitioners, and connecting evidence to practice are utilised. Lauder et al. (2003) also contend that individual monitoring and reflection on personal learning enables theory and practice knowledge to build. However, the authors note that the practitioners in this case despite being experienced, needed considerable support to develop appropriate learning strategies

A ‘traditional' view of the person as a primarily ‘cognitive' individual tends to promote an impersonal view of knowledge, skills, tasks and learning, with the resulting theoretical analysis and subsequent ‘instruction' driven by knowledge domains alone (Lave & Wenger, 1996). And this approach is well evidenced in coach education. However, by situating learning within social and cultural contexts the individual is less involved with objective de-contextualised knowledge acquisition, but is constructing knowledge through direct experience of social practice (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). This can be seen as an active process, with coaches seeking out information related to the task and the given context, and testing this within the context formed by the task and the environment. The role of coach education in this process, is to facilitate construction of knowledge through experiential, contextual and socio-cultural methods in real-world communities. The learning environment should reproduce key aspects of the practice, such as authentic activities, sequenced in complexity, multiple experiences and examples of knowledge application, access to experts, and a social context in which learners collaborate on knowledge construction.

Bell, M. (1997). The development of expertise. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance , 68 (2), 34-38.

Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding Sports Coaching; The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice . London : Routledge.

Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest , 55 , pp. 215-230.

Field, D. E. (2004). Moving from novice to expert-the value of learning in clinical practice: a literature review. Nurse Education Today , 24 , pp. 560-565.

Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 21 , 16-34.

Gould, D., Gianinni, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S. national Pan American and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 9 , 322-344.

Greeno, J., Pearson, P., & Schoenfeld, A., (1999). Achievement and theories of knowing and learning. In, McCormick, R., Paechter, C. (Eds.), Learning and Knowledge . Paul Chapman Ltd: London , England .

Jones, R.L. (2000). Toward a sociology of coaching. In R.L. Jones, & K.M. Armour(Eds.), The sociology of sport: Theory and Practice , (pp.33-43). London : Addison Wesley Longman.

Lauder, W., Sharkey, S., & Booth, S. (2003). A case study of transfer of learning in a family health nursing course for students in remote and rural areas. Nurse Education in Practice , 4 , pp. 29-44.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge , Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1996). Practice, person, social world. In H. Daniels, (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp143-150). London : Routledge.

McCormick, R. (1999). Practical knowledge: A view from the snooker table. In, McCormick, R., & Peachter, C. (Eds.). Learning and knowledge . Paul Chapman Ltd, London : England ..

Potrac, P., Jones, R.L., Brewer, C., Armour, K. & Hoff, J. (2000). Towards an holistic understanding of the coaching process. Quest , 52 , pp. 186-199.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking . Oxford University Press, New York .

Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). (Eds.) Everyday cognition: Its development in a social context. Harvard University Press: Cambridge .

Salmela, J. H., & Moraes, L. C. (2003). Developing expertise, the role of coaching, families, and cultural contexts. In J. L. Starkes, & K. Anders Ericsson (Eds.), Expert Performance in Sports: Advances in Research in Sport Expertise (pp. 275-294). Champign , IL : Human Kinetics.

1. How did you learn to coach?

2. What experiences have you had of transferring skills or knowledge between domains?

3. How has theory been linked to practice in coach education?

First copy the above questions ( you'll paste them into the reply form of the discussion forum) and then ...

Just click onto this link