Understanding coaches' learning: process, practice and impact

Although it seems clear that coaches become effective practitioners through idiosyncratic combinations of learning experiences (Werthner & Trudel, 2009), little is known about how and why this occurs and impacts on coaching knowledge and practice (Cushion et al., 2010). This research sought to understand the processes and impact of coaches learning in the context of UK youth football coaching, specifically centring on a formal education course. The research process utilised a pragmatic and integrated perspective, influenced by impact evaluation frameworks (e.g. Coldwell & Simkins, 2011). A group of 25 coaches were investigated at different points over a period of a year and a half, using a mixture of semi-structured interviews, systematic observations, video-based stimulated recall interviews and course observations, to build up increasingly in-depth levels of data. Using the principles of grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) as well as mixed analyses of variance (ANOVA), changes in the knowledge use and practice behaviours of course candidates, and equivalent coaches not undertaking formal education, were compared. The course had subtle impacts on coaches knowledge conceptions in interaction with wider knowledge sources, yet impact on practice was generally demonstrated only in the areas of questioning content and individually directed coaching interventions. Mismatches between the espoused theory of the course and what the candidates actually perceived, as well as a lack of individualised support to overcome disjuncture (Jarvis, 2006) created barriers to learning, preventing integration of theoretical conceptions into altered coaching practice. A substantive grounded theory was generated to explain the underpinning double-loop cognitive filter and reflective feedback processes involved in coaches learning. The model demonstrated that practitioners learning, guided by existing biography and driven by a practical focus on what works , was heavily influenced by context. Meaningful learning connected knowledge with implementation in practice through reflection. These processes help explain uneven learning across individuals; addressing for the first time questions of what works , how , 'why', and for whom in coach learning (McCullick et al., 2009). Thus the results generate an understanding of coaches learning which can be practically relevant in fostering better opportunities to enhance the development of capable and creative coaches

What works in coach learning, how, and for whom? A grounded process of soccer coaches' professional learning

Research into sport coaches’ learning previously relied on descriptive learning histories and retrospective coach perceptions that revealed little detail about the processes and outcomes involved. More recent nuanced approaches have started to evidence the idea that coaches actively integrate multiple experiences as interconnected modes of learning, influenced by pre-existing biography. A learning theory specific to coaching that can explain how practitioners dynamically interact with learning environments is a necessary addition to advance understanding, inform professional development opportunities and move the field forward. This research aimed to address this gap by investigating the learning of 25 English youth soccer coaches. Longitudinal semi-structured interviews and video stimulated recall interviews were used to elicit knowledge use in practice, associated sources of learning, and moderating factors. Data were organised and analysed using techniques and principles of grounded theory. A substantive grounded theory is presented to explain the filter process whereby individuals adopted, adapted and rejected elements of their experiences, leading to uneven learning in apparently similar situations. The findings suggest that coaches actively constructed and experimented with knowledge for use in socially situated coaching practice, through double-loop individual and contextual level filters, and ‘reflective conversations’. Questions of ‘what works’, how and for whom in this context of coach learning are addressed for the first time. Elucidation of these processes can enhance professional learning and practice through advancing evidence based ‘theory in context.

Evidencing the impact of coaches' learning: Changes in coaching knowledge and practice over time

It is clear that sport coaches learn from multiple interconnected learning experiences, yet there is limited direct evidence to elucidate what is learned and how these combined experiences shape coaches’ knowledge and day-to-day practice. This research aimed to investigate the impact of the learning of two groups of English youth soccer coaches over a period of a year and a half. Using the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS) and associated video-stimulated recall interviews, changes in the practice behaviours and knowledge use of coaches completing a formal coach education course, and equivalent coaches not undertaking formal education, were compared. Data indicated that the learning period had a different effect on coaches taking part in formal coach education versus those not in education. Changes in the use of knowledge about individual players and tactics were reflected in increased behaviours directed towards individuals, and an altered proportion of technical to tactically related questioning, linked to coaches’ participation in education. Overall, more change was evident in coaching knowledge than in practice behaviours, suggesting an absence of deep learning that bridged the knowledge-practice gap

Layers of learning in coach developers’ practice-theories, preparation and delivery

Despite the centrality of coach developers to formal coach education settings, only a handful of studies have begun to touch upon the role they play in mediating quality learning, while links between different layers of learning and impact on coach learners remains underexplored. This research explored English coach developers’ understanding of learning, and the learning frameworks taught to them, through unstructured interviews and participant observation of a generic coach developer training course. Three coach developers were observed delivering formal coach education, to elucidate how understanding was applied in practice. Supporting interviews with 16 coaches attending the course gave an indication of reactions to developers’ practice. Combined layers of data were analysed using a three-phase integrated analytic process. In the absence of pertinent evidence-informed coach developer training course design and delivery, implicit ‘practice-theories’, based on participants’ experiences as coaches and coach developers, appeared to inform understanding and practices. Despite acknowledging ‘learner centred’ learning principles, coach developers experienced challenges implementing these in practice and coach learners perceived confusion and contradictions. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary ideas around coaches’ and coach developers’ learning, to highlight potential ways that coach developers could be more effectively prepared and supported

Thinking again about the use of think aloud and stimulated recall methods in sport coaching

Understanding sport coaches’ thought processes in situ is a developing area within both research and applied practice. Research methods such as the Think Aloud protocol (TA) and Stimulated Recall (SR) interviewing have been used to gain qualitative insights into cognitive and behavioural aspects of coaching practice, offering value in moving beyond popular yet somewhat simplistic, traditionally decontextualised uses of standard interview-based methods. However, TA and SR have limitations when used in isolation, and their application has been varied. This article provides an overview of both methods, comparing the practicalities of using each, as well as paradigmatic considerations, applications and considerations for extending their use in sport coaching research. We suggest that with appropriate critical appraisal of some of the methodological issues raised, researchers can use both methods to better understand, integrate and develop collaborative theory-in-action, research and practice in sport coaching

Layers of Learning in Coach Developers’ Practice-Theories, Preparation and Delivery

Despite the centrality of coach developers to formal coach education settings, only a handful of studies have begun to touch upon the role they play in mediating quality learning, while links between different layers of learning and impact on coach learners remains underexplored. This research explored English coach developers’ understanding of learning, and the learning frameworks taught to them, through unstructured interviews and participant observation of a generic coach developer training course. Three coach developers were observed delivering formal coach education, to elucidate how understanding was applied in practice. Supporting interviews with 16 coaches attending the course gave an indication of reactions to developers’ practice. Combined layers of data were analysed using a three-phase integrated analytic process. In the absence of pertinent evidence-informed coach developer training course design and delivery, implicit ‘practice-theories’, based on participants’ experiences as coaches and coach developers, appeared to inform understanding and practices. Despite acknowledging ‘learner centred’ learning principles, coach developers experienced challenges implementing these in practice and coach learners perceived confusion and contradictions. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary ideas around coaches’ and coach developers’ learning, to highlight potential ways that coach developers could be more effectively prepared and supported

The state of play for contact training and coaching in women's rugby

This article aims to review and comment upon the current “state of play” for research around contact and tackle training in women's rugby, covering tackle injury risk, match contact demands, players' experiences of contact coaching and contact skill preparation. In women's rugby, the tackle is the most common match technical‐physical contest, accounting for around two‐thirds of all injuries and carrying the greatest injury burden. Players' experience and technical abilities are key determinants of tackle safety and performance. Despite this, there is limited research available that connects insight into women's rugby contact demands with the how and why of effective tackle and contact training and coaching in context. This review suggests that adapting and adopting progressive tackle skill training frameworks and gender‐responsive coaching practices can aid tackle skill learning in women's rugby. Creative transdisciplinary research and more effective translation and implementation activities that take place within the vibrant and growing context of women's rugby can enhance science and safety whilst working as a medium for social change

Problematizing the Adoption and Implementation of Athlete Development ‘Models’: A Foucauldian-Inspired Analysis of the Long-Term Athlete Development Framework

The purpose of this paper is to problematize the continued adoption and implementation of Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) framework (Balyi et al., 2005; 2014) as an increasingly orthodox conception of the athlete development process and for underpinning and designing sport coaching practice. In adopting a post-structuralist, Foucauldian perspective and drawing upon empirical interview data with Balyi and colleagues, senior government officials and sport administrators, our analysis examines some of the potential limitations for adopting and implementing LTAD as a conception of the athlete development process. In particular, we highlight the potential issues and contradictions linked to adopting such conceptions, namely their (mis)use as mechanisms of social control (i.e. governmentality), delimiting the ability of athletes and sport practitioners to think otherwise (i.e. disciplining and docility), and the potential to marginalize alternative ways of thinking. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for managerial and coaching practice