The Sports Coach as Educator Coach Development Day Cedars Coaching Academy

The Sports Coach as
Educator
Coach Development Day
Cedars Coaching Academy
19th April 2010
David Pears
• Professor Robyn Jones - UWIC
Routledge
ISBN 9780415367608
Workshop Aims
• 1) To examine the concept of the sports
coach as an educator,
• 2) To examine how this concept and some
of the related knowledge can/may impact
on your coaching,
• 3)To (hopefully) meet your expressed
needs.
Task
• To help me get to know you quickly and
perhaps for you to meet each other –
please complete the task I am about to set
entitled – ‘Coat of Arms’.
What I do
Qualifications
Academic
Practical
David Pears
What do you hope to get out of this
workshop? (Your expressed needs)
Task
• Write down a drill / practice / game that
you commonly use in your coaching. You
only have 2 minutes, but try to be as
detailed as possible – organisation,
progressions etc.
• We’ll come back to this later.
• What makes a good coach?
• What makes a good teacher?
• Any similarities?
Pedagogy for Coaches
• The best coaches are good teachers – Sir
Clive Woodward.
Cain (2004)
Do you agree / disagree?
Why?
Introduction/Rationale
• Teaching and coaching seen as different
in the past
• PE – Education / Learning
• Sport/Coaching – Performance / Physical
activity
Pedagogy
• ‘any conscious activity by one person
designed to enhance learning in another.’
Watkins & Mortimer (1999)
• Therefore pedagogy seen as outside of
the coaching process.
Jones (2006).
However…
• Coaching…establishing a learning
environment to ‘grow’ players
• Coaching individuals to understand
something
• Coaching really is a form of teaching as it
primarily involves communicating, learning
and maintaining positive relationships with
those being taught.
• from Jones et al. (2004)
Also…
• Gilbert & Trudel (2001) found
– that good coaches act like good teachers.
• They care about those over whom they have
responsibility and constantly engage in reflection
on what they do and how they do it.
• Jones (2006) therefore suggests that
“athlete learning as opposed to
mechanistic performance is at the heart of
coaching” and that pedagogic theory could
play a central role in coaching and coach
ed.
Questions
• Do we all agree that there are
many similarities between
coaches and teachers?
• Do we all agree that learning is at
the heart of coaching?
Teaching Styles
• The term itself has no agreed definition
but the more widely accepted
definitions refer to it as "a set of
teaching tactics" (Galton et al, 1980)
"instructional format" (Siedentop,
1991).
• In PE circles the definition of it is "the
general pattern created by using a
particular set of strategies" (BAALPE,
1989, p.9).
Teaching Styles
• Mosston and Ashworth (2002) - Spectrum of
Teaching Styles.
•
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Teacher’s decisions
Learner’s decisions
•
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
• Teaching and learning is based
on decision making – What to
teach/learn? when to teach/learn?
how to present/acquire the
ideas/skills etc? At one end of the
spectrum the teacher makes all of
the decisions at the other end, the
learner. In between are a range of
styles that can be used.
• Style A Command - Coach makes all decisions
• Style B Practice - Athletes carry out coachprescribed tasks
• Style C Reciprocal - Athletes work in pairs: one
performs, the other provides feedback
• Style D Self-check - Athletes assess their own
performance against set criteria
• Style E Inclusion – Coach-planned. Coach
provides alternative levels of difficulty for athlete.
• Style F Guided Discovery – Coach plans a
target and leads the athletes to discover it.
• Style G Convergent Discovery - Coach
presents a problem and athletes provide the
correct solution.
• Style H Divergent Discovery – Coach presents
a problem and athletes find their own solution.
• Style I Individual Programme - Coach
determines content. Athlete plans the
programme.
• Style J Learner Initiated – Athlete takes full
responsibility for the learning process.
Your coaching
• Which of these do you recognise
from your coaching?
Task
• In groups of 3-5 complete the task I am
about to give you.
• You have 5 minutes.
• We will then discuss your answers.
BTW
• What did you talk about?
• How did you decide?
• What sort of teaching style did I use?
Discussion
• Do you think there might be particular
sports or activities that are better
suited to one (or more) of the identified
styles in the spectrum?
• If so, why is this?
Application
• Metzler (2000)
–A particular style is selected based
on;
• The intended learning outcomes
• The teaching context and
environment
• The learner’s developmental
stage
NB
• No style is right or wrong
• The framework is meant to enable
understanding and improve practice
• A pick and mix approach is advocated
• However, most effective learning takes
place at the learner-led end of the
spectrum.
BSc Sport Science and Coaching
at UoB
• Which teaching / coaching style do we
advocate?
– Pick and mix – but…
– Most effective learning takes place at
the learner-led end of the spectrum.
• How do we make this happen?
Whole Learning (Kay, 2003)
• The following domains must be developed;
– Physical
– Social
– Affective
– Cognitive
FA Learning
(The Football Association)
• The Football Association advocate a
similar approach.
• 4 corners of development
– Physical
– Technical
– Social
– Psychological
Whole Learning (Kay, 2003)
• The following domains must be
developed;
– Physical inc. Technical
– Social
– Affective
Psychological
– Cognitive
Learning Styles
• Visual – learn by seeing
• Audio – learn by hearing
• Kinaesthetic – learn by feeling (doing)
• We all learn using all styles, but one or
more are often preferred.
Who would you consider to be more intelligent?
Multiple Intelligences
• To maximise learning we need to take into
consideration learners’ intelligences.
• This is also closely linked to learning
styles.
• If you are working with a group you should
try to ‘hit’ all intelligences and learning
styles.
• BTW – What about this workshop? – up to
now which teaching / learning styles did I
consider?
Motivational Climate
• Task and ego-goal involvement states are
created from goal orientations and the
motivational climate (adapted from
Harwood and Biddle, 2002, p. 60).
Achievement
Goal Orientation
Achievement
Goal State
Perceived
Motivational Climate
Achievement Goal Theory
• Achievement Goal Theory centres on
the supposition that motivation should
be viewed in terms of individual
perception and that individuals judge
or define success and competence in
different ways.
• Maehr and Nicholls, (1980, p 228)
suggest that, “…success and failure
are not concrete events. They are
psychological states consequent on
perception of reaching or not reaching
goals.” These judgements or
definitions are critical antecedents in
the motivational process.
• Goal perspectives are divided into two
types;
• task-oriented goals
• and ego-oriented goals (Nicholls, 1984,
1989).
Achievement Goal Orientation
• Task Orientation - Maehr and Nicholls, (1980, p239)
suggest that task-oriented goals reflect a perception of
success where, “… the primary goal is to produce an
adequate product or to solve a problem for its own sake
rather than to demonstrate ability.” Perceptions of
success are therefore based on behaviours such as
completion of tasks, gaining new skills or knowledge,
showing effort, or giving of their best. [Self referenced]
• Ego Orientation - However, Maehr and Nicholls, (1980,
p237) stated that ego-oriented goals reflect a perception
of success where, “… the goal of the behaviour is to
maximise the subjective probability of attributing high
ability to oneself.” Perceptions of competence in relation
to these goals are concerned with social comparisons of
one’s ability with others. [Comparative]
Motivational Climate
• We can affect the motivational climate and
therefore the goal state
Achievement
Goal Orientation
Achievement
Goal State
Perceived
Motivational Climate
•(adapted from Harwood and Biddle, 2002, p. 60).
How do we create a self referenced
(mastery) climate?
• Task – self referenced goals, differentiated
• Authority – give responsibility, leadership
• Recognition – private recognition of
improvement and effort
• Grouping – mixed ability & cooperative
groups
• Evaluation – self referenced, private
• Time – flexible time for task completion
How do we create a self referenced
(mastery) climate?
• Task – self referenced goals, differentiated
• Authority – give responsibility, leadership
• Recognition – private recognition of
improvement and effort
• Grouping – mixed ability & cooperative
groups
• Evaluation – self referenced, private
• Time – flexible time for task completion
Link to Mosston & Ashworth
• Which teaching styles would help us with
this TARGET approach?
• Remember - self referenced,
differentiated, responsibility, leadership,
private recognition, mixed ability,
cooperative and flexible were used on the
previous slide.
What does the research say?
• Research has shown that reciprocal and
guided discovery styles of
teaching/coaching result in a more
mastery-focused TARGET behaviours and
lead to enhanced athlete motivation.
• Morgan et al. (2005b)
• Style A Command - Coach makes all decisions
• Style B Practice - Athletes carry out coach-prescribed
tasks
• Style C Reciprocal - Athletes work in pairs: one
performs, the other provides feedback
• Style D Self-check - Athletes assess their own
performance against set criteria
• Style E
Inclusion – Coach-planned. Coach
provides alternative levels of difficulty for athlete.
• Style F
Guided Discovery – Coach plans a target and
leads the athletes to discover it.
• Style G Convergent Discovery - Coach presents a
problem and athletes provide the correct solution.
• Style H Divergent Discovery – Coach presents a
problem and athletes find their own solution.
• Style I
Individual Programme - Coach determines
content. Athlete plans the programme.
• Style J
Learner Initiated – Athlete takes full
responsibility for the learning process.
• Style A Command - Coach makes all decisions
• Style B Practice - Athletes carry out coach-prescribed
tasks
• Style C Reciprocal - Athletes work in pairs: one
performs, the other provides feedback
• Style D Self-check - Athletes assess their own
performance against set criteria
• Style E
Inclusion – Coach-planned. Coach
provides alternative levels of difficulty for athlete.
• Style F
Guided Discovery – Coach plans a target and
leads the athletes to discover it.
• Style G Convergent Discovery - Coach presents a
problem and athletes provide the correct solution.
• Style H Divergent Discovery – Coach presents a
problem and athletes find their own solution.
• Style I
Individual Programme - Coach determines
content. Athlete plans the programme.
• Style J
Learner Initiated – Athlete takes full
responsibility for the learning process.
Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGFU)
“The TGFU approach is described by Bunker
and Thorpe (1986) as game centered games
teaching where the WHY of game playing is
taught before the HOW of skills to play the
game. … This appreciation invites the children to
realise tactical awareness of how to play a game
to gain an advantage over their opponents. With
such a tactical awareness children are capable
of making appropriate decisions about "what to
do" and "how to do it." For children, increased
decision making encourages them to become
more aware of the possibilities innate in their
game playing.”
Hopper (1998)
Task
• Remember the drill / practice / game that
you commonly use in your coaching.
• Can we spend 10 minutes looking at this
again? Can we try to apply some of what
we have covered today?
FINAL POINTS
• Coaching is about teaching and learning and
therefore the key concepts of pedagogy apply
equally as much to coaching as they do to PE or
any other branch of education.
• This is one (albeit long) workshop – pedagogy is
a massive subject. There is much more out
there.
• If we understand how people learn and how we
can play a part in that then we can hopefully
make that learning most effective. This
knowledge will help us to select the most
appropriate teaching styles for example.
Take Home Messages – your
contribution
Bibliography
British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical
Education (1989). Teaching and Learning Strategies in
Physical Education.
Leeds: White Line Press.
Cain, N. (2004) Question time for coaches: The six men
plotting their countries’ fortunes on the best and worst of
their jobs. The Sunday Times, Sport Section, February
8th, p19.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article1014385.ece
Galton, M., Simon, B. & Croll, P. (1980) Inside the Primary
Classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
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.
Harwood, C., & Biddle, S. (2002) The application of
achievement goal theory in youth sport. In I. Cockerill
(Ed.), Solutions in Sport Psychology. London: Thomson.
Jones, R.L. (2006). How can educational concepts inform
sports coaching? In R.L. Jones (Ed.) The Sports Coach
as educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching.
London: Routledge.
Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & Potrac, P. (2004).
Sports Coaching Cultures: From Practice to
Theory. London: Routledge.
Kay, W. (2003). Lesson planning with the NCPE
2000 – The revised unit of work. Bulletin of
Physical Education, 39 (1), 31-42.
Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and
achievement motivation: A second look. In N.
Warren (Ed.), Studies in Cross-cultural
Psychology (Vol. 2, pp221-267). New York:
Academic Press.
Morgan, K., Sproule, J., & Kingston, K. (2005b).
Teaching styles, motivational climate and pupils’
cognitive and affective responses in physical
education. European Physical Education Review,
11 (3), 257-286.
Metzler, M. (2000). Instructional Models for Physical
Education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2002) Teaching
Physical Education (5th edn). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984a). Conceptions of ability and
achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.). Research on Motivation in Education:
Student Motivation. (Vol. 1, pp. 39-73). New York:
Academic Press.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The Competitive Ethos and
Democratic Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing Teaching Skills
in Physical Education. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Watkins, C., & Mortimer, P. (1999) Pedagogy:
What do we know in P. Mortimer (Ed.)
Understanding pedagogy and its impact on
learning. London: Paul Chapman.