http://coachesinfo.com/category/becoming_a_better_coach/13/

Keyw ordSearch:

Search Query >

Home About Submission Other Sports Links

<< Back to Becoming a Better Coach

Printable version

Should boys & girls be coached the same way? Dr. Craig Stewart - Professor, Department of Health & Human Development, Montana State

University

o Introduction - Pupose of this Study

o Methodology

o Discussion

o Conclusions

Introduction

"Should I coach girls differently than boys?" That is a question often heard in the private

conversations between coaches. Coaching has survived a period in which that question,

regardless of its legitimacy, would have instigated ridicule. The mere implication that there might

be different methods for coaching the two genders was characterized as an assault on all

females.

But as the number of athletic opportunities for females increased, the louder the question has

become. It is not being asked to identify either gender as less competitive than the other, but by

dedicated coaches who sincerely desire to use the best methods to prepare female athletes.

1

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if gender differences existed in former athletes in

their perceptions of 'favorite and least favorite' coach characteristics. Former athletes have been

identified as valuable sources of information from which little information has been gathered

(Anshel, 1990). Smoll and Smith (1996) related athletes' memories and perceptions of coaching

behaviors to coaching effectiveness, and stated that the psychological impact of sport

participation on athletes could be examined by how players and former players remember their

coaches' behaviors. Kenow and Williams (1999) found that surprisingly little research has been

reported on the effects of coaching behaviors and its effectiveness. In their study, they found

players who perceived their coaches as being more compatible, evaluated their communication

ability and player-support levels of the coach more favorably. Conversely, if athletes disagreed

with the coach's goals, personality, and/or beliefs, some psychological needs of the athletes

were not met. That failure often resulted in frustration and a loss of self-concept by the player.

Therefore, it was hypothesized that if differences existed in how male and female athletes

remembered their favorite and least favorite coach, understanding those differences would

assist professionals in coach education in the preparation of future coaches. It would assist in

clarifying any differences between genders in how each valued specific coaching

characteristics, thus contributing to whether one should alter coaching behaviors dependent

upon the gender of the athletes. Conversely, if no differences were gleaned in this comparison,

that too, would provide valuable insight in coaching methods.

Holbrook & Barr, (1997) stated that while coaching females is not significantly different than

coaching males, gender differences occur in some psychological domains. They wrote that

there are differences in the manner women respond to positive feedback. Also, females seem to

value personal improvement over winning more than males, and regard team unity as a

stronger motivating factor than males. The authors were adamant, however, that these

differences have nothing to do with the female athletes' skill levels, desire and willingness to

work, capacity to learn, and mental toughness.

The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Report on Physical Activity & Sport in

the Lives of Girls (1997) supported Holbrook and Barr that there are more similarities between

the genders than differences. However, the report identified specific areas of differences

requiring coach awareness. According to the report, females, in general, are more internally

motivated by self improvement and goals related to team success and appear more motivated

by a cooperative, caring, and sharing team environment. The authors cited Garcia (1994) that

some female athletes actually can be 'turned off' by coaches who over emphasize winning. It is

2

not that female athletes want to win any less, but may approach competition differently than

male athletes. In some competitive circumstances, female athletes place more emphasis on

sportspersonship and 'playing fair', than males. When their team loses, females have a

tendency to blame themselves first for the poor performance. Under similar circumstances,

males appear to be more 'self' or 'ego' oriented and tend to be more 'win at any cost' in their

approach to sport. Males are more apt to break rules to achieve their goals and blame others

(the referee, the weather, the coach) when they fail. The causes for the psychologically

differences are unknown. They could be gender related, but could also be highly influenced by

social or cultural expectations (Gill, 1994).

If differences exist, coaches need to be aware of them. That awareness could assist coaches in

varying coaching styles to meet the individual needs of the gender being coached. If

individualization is achieved, coaches would be assisting both the team, and the individual

player, in achieving the highest performance possible. It could also reduce the frustration

experienced by coaches who switch between teams of different genders.

Methodology

Students in two, college, coaching classes were asked to complete an in-class assignment. In

the assignment, they stated their gender, total number of years they had played organized

sport, their main sports, and the highest level they had played. They were then asked to list both

the positive qualities of their favorite coach and the negative qualities of their least favorite

coach (Stewart, 1993).

The descriptive statistics are presented in Tables 1 & 2. The coaching qualities were recorded

and categorized following the guidelines of Neuman (1997). The categorization process allowed

the author to quantify the final results as the percent of total responses, by gender, in each

area.

3

4

Discussion

The positive category, PERSONALITY, received the most references by both genders (males =

27.8% & females = 19.6%). Within this category were specific behaviors interpreted as being

related to a coach's personality (or that which made that coach a unique person)- assertive,

cooperative, determined, respected (& respectable), willing to help, dedicated, a quality person,

great personality, 'cool' under pressure, responsible, liked coaching, a role model, energetic,

and wanted to be there. Likewise, PERSONALITY also was the most frequent reference in the

negative responses (males = 32.1% & females = 24.5%). In addition to being the opposite of the

positive personality characteristics previously mentioned (unwilling to help, not a role model, not

a nice person, not focused, not personable, and a 'jerk' ) other negative behaviors which

represented personality were arrogant, disrespectful, indecisive, lazy, too much ego, too

relaxed, rude, thought he was God, unreliable, weak willed and irritating.

5

Other positive categories for females which appeared most frequently were COMMUNICATION,

POSITIVE and CARED. For males, the next most frequent were CARED, MOTIVATION and

KNOWLEDGE. For males, COMMUNICATION (problems), TEACHING SKILLS (lack of), and

(playing) FAVORITES were the next most frequent responses in the negative category. For

females, NEGATIVE, TEACHING SKILLS, and COMMUNICATION were negative categories

mentioned most.

Though impossible to verify statistically, perhaps the best representations of similarities and

differences between the genders are presented in Tables 3a-4b. Tables 3a and 3b present the

frequency of positive responses in percentages of both female and male athletes. In Tables 4a

and 4b, the negative responses of the genders are presented.

In the positive responses, the greatest numerical differences between the genders occurred on

COMMUNICATION, EMOTION, and POSITIVE characteristics of coaches. The females

recorded those characteristics more than males. On the other hand, males recorded more

responses in positive coaching characteristics in WINNING.

The frequency of NEGATIVE coaching characteristics can be found in Tables 4a and 4b with an

apparent difference between genders in one area. Only in the category, NEGATIVE, does there

appear to be a visible difference between genders with females recording more responses than

males.

Conclusions

In the examination of gender differences in sport behavior, Gill (1994) stated that investigation

of these factors is more related to social and psychological characteristics than behaviors

directly associated with a specific gender. In addition, she wrote that behaviors and

characteristics are neither dichotomous nor biologically based, and the attempt to investigate

them is elusive at best. As the society changes in which athletes exist, so do the gender roles of

the athletes.

The results of this study appear to support that belief. There were more similarities in how males

and females remembered and characterized their favorite and least favorite coaches than

differences. Both genders valued 'personality' above any characteristic as a positive attribute.

While personality is a broad, general descriptor, it certainly provides future coaches with specific

behaviors that players remember. Athletes of both genders characterized their favorite coaches

as those who were assertive, cooperative, determined, respected (& respectable), willing to

help, dedicated, a quality person, great personality, 'cool' under pressure, responsible, liked

6

coaching, a role model, energetic, and wanted to be there. The memories of those athletes can

provide future coaches with behavioral guidelines by which to develop their coaching styles.

Other positive characteristics which were similar between genders were CARED AND

COMMUNICATION. With both genders, these characteristics were remembered by coaching

behaviors such as cared for me as a person, cared away from the game, talked to me about

school, and asked me about things away from my sport.

In contrast, males valued KNOWLEDGE (of the sport) and TEACHING SKILLS more than

females. Females appeared to value EMOTION and POSITIVE characteristics of coaches more

than males. These findings appear to support the thesis that females tend to be more

internalized than males in some motivational aspects of sport. Females are apt to valued

performance improvements based upon positive interactions and self-comparisons, while males

base some motivational factors on externalized factors which would be impacted by a coach's

KNOWLEDGE of the sport and the ability to TEACH. However, females remembered the lack of

TEACHING SKILLS as a frequent negative characteristic just as male athletes had.

In the comparison of negative memories, the genders were even more similar than with positive

attributes of their former coaches. The only obvious differences were in NEGATIVE (more

frequently noted by females) and WINNING (more with males). However, those differences

were very small. These results seem to accentuate the similarities between the genders.

Certainly being remembered as 'favorite' or 'least favorite' coach is not, in itself, an absolute

measure of coaching effectiveness. However, since the subjects in this study were experienced

athletes with extensive backgrounds in traditional sports, their input should be valued in the

determination this area.

It has been stated that, in general, most coaches do not understand female athletes as well as

they should. That very likely remains true today. Sport clinicians and coach educators should

spend more time exploring gender differences among athletes and emphasizing working with

young female athletes more. Continued examination will assist coaches, and those who train

them, in working with all athletes effectively.

Finally, although qualitative data is difficult to analyze statistically, it does provide information

that is valuable to provide coaches with knowledge on how players perceived and remembered

their behaviors. This study represents but a small contribution to the determination of how best

to coach athletes of either gender. Additional work like this is needed to establish other areas of

similarities and differences.

7

References

Anshel, M. (1990). Sport psychology; From theory to practice. Scottsdale, Az.; Holcomb Hathaway Publishing.

Center for Mental Health Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. (1997). The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Report on Physical Activity & Sport in

the Lives of Girls. Retrieved October, 1999 from World Wide Web: http://www.kls.coled.umn.edu/crgws/pcpfs/sxn1.html.

Garcia, C. (1994). Gender differences in young children's interactions when learning fundamental motor skills. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (3), 247-255.

Gill, D.L. (1992). Gender and sport behavior. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 143-160).

Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics Publishers.

Gill, D.L. (1994). Psychological perspectives on women in sport and exercise. In D.M Costa and S.R. Guthrie (Ed.)

Women and sport: Interdisciplinary perpective (pp. 253-284).

Holbrook, J. E. & Barr, J. K. (1997). Contemporary coaching: Trends and issues.

Carmel, In.; Cooper Publishing Company

Kenow, Laura. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athlete's perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport

Behavior, 22, (2), 251-259.

Neuman, W.L (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, Ma.; Allyn & Bacon.

Smoll, F.L. & Smith, .E. (1996). Children and Youth in Sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Madison, Wi.; Brown &

Benchmark Publishing.

Stewart, C. (1993). Coaching behaviors: "The way you were, or the way you wished you were". Physical Educator, 50 ,

23-30.

8