761 Hits
Arjun lc
Aug 17, 2023, 11:49 AM
Previous Next
The role of coach education in coaching philosophy development and implementation: A dual case study
Authors: Kim Ferner1, Lindsay Ross-Stewart2, and Drew Dueck2
1Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas
2Department of Applied Health, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Corresponding Author:
Kim Ferner, MS
1155 Union Circle #310769
Denton, TX 76203-5017
Kimberly.Ferner@unt.edu
843-331-2876
Kim Ferner, MS is currently faculty and a Psychosocial Aspects of Sport doctoral student at the University of North Texas in Denton, TX. Her research area includes coach education, coaching philosophy, and coach expectations of sport psychology services.
Lindsay Ross-Stewart, PhD, CMPC® is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Health at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in Edwardsville, IL. Her research area includes a focus on sources of efficacy for athletes, including the impact of coaches on athlete development.
Drew Dueck, MS is a recent graduate from the Exercise and Sport Psychology graduate program at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He is a track and field coach who is interested in coaching philosophy development, leadership, confidence, and motivation.
The role of coach education in coaching philosophy development and implementation: A dual case study
ABSTRACT
Developing a coaching philosophy (CP) is important due to the influence coaches have in creating positive sport environments for their athletes. Despite the numerous benefits identified in literature for developing a CP, limited research exists on whether coaches implement their philosophies, which has created a gap in the coaching literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore coaches’ perceptions of their coach education (CE) experiences and the influence this has had on their CP development and implementation. A secondary purpose was to understand athletes’ perceptions of their head coach’s CP through their experiences with their coach. A case study methodology, which is useful when exploring experiences and perceptions, was employed for this study. Two NCAA head coaches—one female and one male, along with two athletes from each coach’s team, were recruited for this study. The researcher conducted a semi-structured interview with each participant and examined the data with thematic analysis. The current study identified four themes: Comprehension of CP, Influences on CP, Communication of CP, and Coaching Goals. A discrepancy between CP theory and practice was observed via the disconnect in athlete and coach responses. Coaches’ reported experiences with CE were also found to impact their CP development and implementation. These findings indicate having a well-developed CP and positive CE experiences may lead to athletes having a better understanding of their coach, which may lead to a more positive sport experience. This study may be of use to coaches and coach educators interested in CPs and highlights the need for future research with larger, more inclusive samples.
Key Words: coach development, coach perceptions, athlete perceptions
INTRODUCTION
The importance of coaches developing a coaching philosophy (CP) should not be overlooked; CPs aid coaches in decision-making (7, 9), boost confidence (10), and help to establish consistency in coaches’ actions (7, 9, 19). A CP has been defined as “the beliefs a coach has about strategies, methods, and preparation” (25), “a set of beliefs and principles that guide behaviors” (7, 9), “a plan that coaches should follow when making decisions” (29), and “a view that coaches hold about coaching” (17, 19). The multiple definitions of what a CP encompasses has led to confusion as to how to develop and utilize a CP effectively (15-16). Consequently, the amount and quality of research focused on CPs in action may be more limited than previously thought.
Regardless of these shortcomings, researchers are in agreement that CPs offer many benefits to coaches via improved decision making and eliminating situation-specific, reactive decisions that contradict a coach’s values or beliefs (e.g., 7, 9), while promoting consistency throughout coaches’ decisions (7, 9, 19). CPs also act as a source of confidence for coaches in their leadership abilities, along with their overall self-confidence (10). Therefore, it is important for coaches to develop a CP.
The development of a CP can be influenced by a coach’s work experience, vicarious learning, literature, and former athlete experiences (1). However, prior to developing a CP, a coach must develop self-awareness. Self-awareness was found to be key in developing a CP in two ways: 1) being aware of how true one stays to their CP through their actions, so any inconsistencies could be overcome, and 2) receiving feedback from others, so that others may either reinforce the coaches’ beliefs, or point out where the coach may be acting inconsistently (7). The common theme to becoming self-aware is for coaches to engage in self-reflective practices (7; 25).
For example, novice coaches struggled to identify their own values or methods used in coaching (30). Since a coaches’ values are an important part of CP development, this uncertainty may cause coaches to avoid creating a CP. In addition to uncertainty, novice coaches face many tasks and often do not realize the importance of developing a CP; instead prioritizing tangible aspects of their profession, such as structure of practice or organizational matters (30). Although these tangible aspects matter, developing a CP should not be forgotten. Without self-awareness and engagement in self-reflection, a coach may struggle to identify and develop their values and CP (7).
Another important aspect of CP development is flexibility (9). There are many moving parts (e.g., players, personalities, social interactions, etc.) involved in coaching that exist outside of the coach and their CP (14, 42). Arguably, a large portion of coaching research lacks contextual transference because the research disregards these external factors (21). For example, coaches face a unique win-loss scenario: attaining athlete-oriented goals while being judged on athlete performance (22). The pressure to win is one of the biggest reasons coaches make choices contrary to their values and beliefs (33). When developing CPs, coaches do not think about the pressures of competition and sport (9). This leads to some coaches adopting their CP superficially, citing a lack of confidence in their CP and a belief that it has minimal real-life application. Therefore, CPs should be flexible to the demands and ever-changing environment of the coaching profession.
Despite the highlighted importance of a CP informing coaching practice, it is common for coaches to not enforce their CPs daily (9). Multiple studies have found a disconnect between what a coach says and what a coach does (9, 28, 42), creating a gap between CP in theory and CP in practice. This gap in research demonstrates the lack of understanding of the role that a CP has in applied practice (16, 26, 34). Once a coach understands the role a CP plays in their approach to coaching, then CPs can be used to help coaches grow professionally (33). One solution to this is introducing CPs to coaches through coach education.
Coach Education Programing
Many coach education (CE) programs elaborate on what a CP is and how it can be developed (26) . However, many current CE programs fail to show coaches how to effectively implement a CP in practice (23, 30). This may be why coaches have not been found to attribute their CP development to CE (30). Producing effective CE programs is important due to the influence these programs have on CP development (11). Without CE, neophyte coaches may be left to come up with their own CP (33)—if they even choose to develop one.
Attempting to use a top-down approach (i.e., scientist to practitioner model) with CE to find clear, linear answers to best coaching styles and practices is unsuitable for the complex, ever-changing coaching profession (12, 21). Instead, CE programs may want to embrace the informality of the coaching profession and match this environment by employing informal learning experiences (e.g., 8, 20, 16, 26). If CE incorporated coaching experiences into programs, this could allow coaches to test their philosophies in practice (31). Consequently, coaches may view CE programs more favorably and understand this information is applicable to their coaching practice.
Informal CE may help bridge the gap between theory and practice. In 2006, Nelson and Cushion (31) identified informal learning as structured, educational learning that exists outside the formal education system—e.g., classes, courses, and certifications, and informal learning as continuous learning that people experience daily, such as mentoring and self-reflection. A major way that coaches learn is through self-reflection and informal learning via experiences of trial and error (8, 16, 26). Informal learning may be especially helpful with experienced coaches, who often contest information that contradicts their current ideas and model, due to their developed habits (13). Utilizing CE as a tool for self-reflection may impact coaching behavior by identifying what guides their behavior (31).
Due to the importance of self-reflection when developing a philosophy and the lack of self-awareness (34, 40, 42), it is not surprising that informal learning has been most influential on coaching behavior and CP development (31). Integrating reflection with CE programs properly allows coaches to analyze their coaching behaviors and how this aligns with their CPs (13, 18). This process allows for coaches to be more self-aware and act intentionally, rather than subconsciously (13).
As previously stated, coaches learn predominantly through observation and experience (13, 31, 34). However, this model of coaching—where coaches “copy and paste” from other coaches’ frameworks, instead of developing their own CPs, stunts growth in the field (33). This “copy and paste” model can cause coaches to adopt a coaching style out of convenience rather than developing their own thoughts, values, and coaching styles. Therefore, formal CE should not be entirely replaced by informal learning experiences, but rather introduced early on in a coaches’ career. Since neophyte coaches rely on vicarious learning experiences (13), early CE programs would be one way to help coaches understand and mold their philosophies (41). This would promote professional growth individually and in the field of coaching.
The research on CP demonstrates the impact of formal and informal CE experiences on CP development and use. Specifically, formal education early on and informal education throughout a coach’s career, such as self-reflection and mentoring, have been deemed important. However, to date, all these areas have not been assessed in a single study. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to investigate coaches’ experiences with CE and its impact on their CP development and utilization. A secondary purpose was to explore athletes’ understanding of their head coach’s CP.
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to explore the coaches’ perceptions of their coach education experiences and the impact this has on their coaching philosophy development and utilization. In order to address this purpose, two case studies were conducted on two head coaches and two of their athletes—four athletes total. The case study methodology was chosen due to the role case studies play in the pursuit of knowledge (35). The case study methodology has also displayed many strengths and is informative of peoples’ experiences and perceptions (43). In addition to these strengths, a case study methodology is useful when there is not an abundance of research on a topic (36).
Setting
Two coaches were interviewed, along with a total of four athletes (two from each coach’s team) who were part of the same NCAA Division One (DI) program in the Midwest. Both coaches had been coaching at this program for over five years. One coach was a female who coached a team sport, and the other was male, who coached an individual sport. The athletes interviewed consisted of two lowerclassmen and two upperclassmen. Both coach interviews, along with athlete interviews, were conducted in one month in the spring during COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants
For this study, two NCAA coaches were interviewed. Four athletes were also interviewed—two athletes from each coach’s team. Coach One (C1) was a male, who coached a men’s individual sport at a Division One university. Athlete One (A1) and Athlete Two (A2) were on C1’s team. Coach Two (C2) was a female, who coached a women’s team sport at a Division One university. Athlete Three (A3) and Athlete Four (A4) were on C2’s team. A total of six interviews were conducted: two coaches and four athletes. The coaches picked two athletes from their team to participate in this study, knowing that they would be interviewed. The coaches did not know what questions the athletes would be asked during their interviews. The athletes were also aware that their coaches were being interviewed but did not know what their coaches were being asked during their interviews. All participants were aware of the purpose of this study prior to participating.
Sampling, Recruitment, and Consent
Coaches were recruited by one of the researchers via convenience sampling and asked if they would be willing to participate, and if they would be able to secure two athletes from their team—one upperclassman and one lower classman. A separate researcher, not personally known by the participants, conducted the interviews. Prior to the interview, the participants gave consent to participate and verbal consent to record the interviews through Zoom and turn the transcriptions on during the call. Zoom interviews with two coaches and two athletes from each coach’s team were conducted. Transcripts were reviewed by both the interviewer and a research assistant, who listened to the audio recordings to fix any errors in the transcripts.
Data Collection Tools
Due to lack of established coaching philosophy measures, this qualitative study used open-ended questions presented in a semi-structured interview to gather data. Semi-structured interviews “…can produce powerful data that provide insights into the participants’ experiences, perceptions or opinions” (35). Zoom was the chosen platform to facilitate a conversation for participants to ask questions, elaborate on their ideas and to participate regardless of their location. Interviews were conducted to better understand coaches’ views on coaching philosophy and coach education, as well as athlete perceptions of their coach’s CP. Questions were posed as open-ended questions and aimed to avoid any language that may have been suggestive. The interviews with coaches asked them to identify different aspects related to their coaching philosophy and what their experiences were with coach education. Some examples include questions such as “What are the most impactful learning experiences you have had when developing as a coach?” and “What are your goals for your athletes?” and “Does your philosophy impact how you promote these goals?”. The interview with athletes asked questions related to their coach’s behaviors, goals, and CP. Example questions include “How important do you think winning is to your coach?” and “Has your coach ever gone over their coach’s philosophy with the team?”. Questions often had follow-up questions and/or clarification, based on the responses given by participants.
Data Analyses
A six-phase model of reflexive thematic analysis (TA) was the chosen methodology for data analysis in this study, along with the chosen inductive approach to coding (2-4, 6). The phases include the following: familiarizing, coding, theme development, refinement, naming, writing up. First, the transcripts were read, reviewed, and analyzed multiple times to allow researchers to familiarize themselves with the data. Researchers wrote down initial thoughts about the data but did not assign codes. The researchers coded the data with a semantic focus, which had the researchers analyze the data based on what the participant was explicitly stating. The researchers used the “bottom up” or inductive approach – allowing the data to drive the analysis, rather than the researchers using a framework to interpret the data. This was chosen in order to limit biases when interpreting and analyzing the data. Recurring and related codes were then developed into themes, with sub-themes constructed as necessary. Each developed theme was reviewed to ensure that it was centralized around a consistent, distinct concept. Then researchers evaluated each theme to ensure relevancy to the research questions posed. Theme names were then assigned, with the goal of including all coded concepts into the theme name. To ensure thematic analysis is meaningful and themes are not just reiterating the data, researchers related findings back to the research purpose. The researchers established the link between the themes identified and research questions through analytic commentary (41).
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness was assessed using guidelines for best practice in the field (3-5, 24, 32). In addition to an acknowledgement of the researcher’s viewpoint and the reality that all researchers’ perspectives impact their analysis, both coders of the data assessed their own views and were systematic in assessing the impact of these views throughout the research. Furthermore, the two independent coders engaged in Negative Case Analysis to assess any divergent data and discuss these findings to make sure they were appropriately accounted for in the data coding. Internal auditing was also done by a researcher who did not conduct the interviews or the coding to address any potentially biased interpretations of the data. To address issues of transferability, thick description was used in this report of the data, following the guidelines of using a 50:50 ratio of text and analytic commentary, which was considered in the results and discussion sections (3). Finally, confirmability is addressed by giving a detailed account of the research process in this manuscript.
RESULTS
Four major themes were identified in the data: Comprehension of Coaching Philosophy, Influences of Coaching Philosophy, Communication of Coaching Philosophy, and Coaching Goals. The Influences of Coaching Philosophy theme warranted three sub-themes: Informal Coach Education, Formal Coach Education, and Trauma.
Read More