Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Masters of Applied Science by Research
Faculty of Health
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences
Queensland University of Technology
Stephanie Sweeper
2017
Non-formal Coach Education in a Secondary School High Performance Volleyball
Academy
2
This masters has been a four year challenge. Balancing study with full time work as a physical education teacher and sports master, tutoring at university, getting married, being married, playing sport, coaching school and representative teams, gaining a level three coaching accreditation in volleyball, raising a puppy as a new addition to the family and maintaining somewhat of a social life has been difficult and at times very trying. Motivation levels varied however there was a core group of people who provided me with the guidance, support and resilience to see this process through.
To my husband Rob, you have been my rock. Despite knowing how well I can procrastinate, your support never wavered even if it meant (at one stage) being the sole income earner with a mortgage, turning into a domestic Goddess, helping me edit long winded academic speak and on occasion assisting me in the mountains of marking that always seems to be left to the last minute. Your support and encouragement is invaluable in this process.
To my Principal Supervisor, Dr Lee Wharton, thank you for offering this opportunity through QUT to complete a masters, thank you for your guidance, ideas and consistently being able to lower my stress levels. Most of all, thank you for your belief in my ability to do this and your unbelievable commitment even when you brake and dislocate both legs at once, have multiple surgeries and suffer from a severe staph infection, you still manage to find the time to supervise this process and maintain a positive and inspiration mindset. I would have never started, nor finished this thesis without you.
Thank you to my Associate Supervisor, Associate Professor Tony Rossi you have been a fountain of knowledge, particularly in the field of action research and providing much needed guidance during this masters journey.
To the lecturers within the Faculty of Health, thank you for your ongoing support and guidance. In particular, Dr Ian Renshaw, having an expert in the field of which I am researching is a luxury most researchers would not have access to. I am very appreciative of your advice and feedback regarding non-linear pedagogy, constraints-led approach and ecological dynamics theory.
Thank you to my school Principal, Mark Farwell, for your support, approving my leave of absence and signing off and writing letters to satisfy the ethical approval process. My Head of Department Bruce Mann, and my HPE colleagues for supporting me and playing an active role in this adventure, for allowing this study to take place in our volleyball program and provided an insight and inspiration for change. As well as this you have all been a sound board for ideas, guidance, questions and at times an avenue to vent frustrations. I value and appreciate your support, opinion and your time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
3
The most challenging aspect of sports coaching is not the process of teaching players the rules, the technical elements or even the underpinning strategies of the game, but rather developing an understanding of when, where and how to engage these principles to enable effective decision making during gameplay. This qualitative study identifies two significant failings in the current practices framing coach education. The first shortcoming is a failure by coaching education service providers to draw on the rich and current research that continues to advance the field of coaching practices. The second, is a failure by national sporting organisations and coaching accreditation bodies to address the shortcomings associated with formal coach education programs and recognise the strengths of non-formal and informal coach education pathways. Research by a number of academics, including but not limited to Chow, Davids, Button and Renshaw (2016), Davids (2012) and Handford, Davids, Bennett, and Button (1997) suggests the need for coach education programmes and in particular those at the developmental to high performance end of the coaching spectrum need to shift from the traditional, reductionist approach to a less traditional, non-linear approach. From an administrative viewpoint the research of Chow and colleagues is reinforced by Cushion, Armour and Jones (2006) and Nelson, Cushion and Potrac (2006) who each promote the merits of Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The CPD model espoused by the aforementioned researchers aligns well with Mallett, Rynne and Tinning’s (2010) model of non-formal education. Mallett, et al. (2010) suggest that coaches learn best through coaching and consequently are more likely to construct meaning from personal experiences rather than through participating isolated formalised learning opportunities.
Using a participatory action research methodology, a coaching education intervention embracing the organising principles of a CPD and the skill acquisition principles of non-linear pedagogy was designed and implemented to determine if the behaviours and coaching practices of coaches could be enhanced. Two volunteer coaches within a volleyball school of excellence academy who demonstrated a traditional reductionist approach to coaching participated in two reflective research cycles. The findings from this participatory action research aims to inform the fields of sports coaching education, coaching practices, sports pedagogy, as well as provide a practical example of Ecological Dynamics Theory and specifically a non-linear pedagogy: the Constraints-Led Approach to enhance coaching practices and player learning.
ABSTRACT
4
1.0 Context of the Research ............................................................................................... 8
1.1 Key Words and Definitions ....................................................................................... 8
1.2 Introduction ...........................................................................................................12
1.3 Motivation for the Study ........................................................................................14
1.4 History of the Program ...........................................................................................17
1.5 Identifying the Problem ..........................................................................................19
1.6 Research Questions ................................................................................................22
2.0 Literature Review ......................................................................................................25
2.1 A Historical View Of Coaching: The Traditional Appoach .......................................25
2.2 The Coaching Process .............................................................................................31
2.3 Coaching Knoweldge ..............................................................................................34
2.4 Coaching Education ................................................................................................41
2.5 Effective and Efficient Coaching .............................................................................46
2.6 Education vs Learning: Informal, Formal and Non-Formal Learning ......................49
2.7 Continuing Professional Development (How Coaches Learn) ................................55
2.8 Theoretical Framework .........................................................................................58
2.9 John Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ Approach .............................................59
2.10 Non-Linear Pedagogy: Constraints-Led Approach ................................................61
2.11 Ecological Dynamics Theory .................................................................................66
2.12 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................69
3.0 Research Methodology ..............................................................................................73
3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................73
3.2 Qualitative Approach .............................................................................................73
3.3 Participatory Action Research ................................................................................75
3.4 Scope of the Participatory Action Research ...........................................................78
3.5 Intended Sample ....................................................................................................78
3.6 Research Methods ..................................................................................................79
3.7 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................80
3.8 Ethical Issues ..........................................................................................................82
4.0 Intervention ..............................................................................................................82
4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................82
4.2 Context for the Intervention ..................................................................................85
4.3 Structure of the Intervention .................................................................................85
4.4 Intervention Objectives ..........................................................................................86
4.5 Structure of the Initial Workshop ...........................................................................86
CONTENTS PAGE
5
4.6 Cycle One ................................................................................................................92
4.6.1 Critical Reflexivity Interview and Initial Survey ...............................................92
4.6.2 Strategic Action Plan .......................................................................................93
4.6.3 Implementation and Observations..................................................................94
4.6.4 End of Cycle One Interview .............................................................................94
4.7 Cycle Two ...............................................................................................................95
4.7.1 Stratigic Planning Activity ................................................................................95
4.7.2 Second Implementation and Observations .....................................................96
4.7.3 End of Cycle Two Interview .............................................................................96
4.8 Conclusions.............................................................................................................97
5.0 Analysis of Data ..........................................................................................................99
5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................99
5.2 The Process of Thematic Analysis...........................................................................99
5.3 Initial Interview Finidings: ....................................................................................101
5.3.1 What aspects of the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach do you find interesting? ............................................................................................................102
5.3.2 Is this approach to coaching different from your current approach? If yes how/which aspects? ...............................................................................................104
5.3.3 Previous to this workshop, how have you gained your coaching knowledge? ................................................................................................................................106
5.3.4 How do you currently structure your training sessions? ..............................109
5.3.5 What aspects of coaching do you wish to improve on? ...............................111
5.3.6 Which aspects of the game do you want your players to improve on? .......112
5.3.7 How do you find the delivery of the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach? ................................................................................................................................114
5.4 End of Cycle One Findings Field Notes Summary, Survey and Interview Responses: ....................................................................................................................................115
5.4.1 Field notes summary During cycle one .........................................................115
5.4.2 Summary of Survey findings .........................................................................118
5.4.3 Did you find this new approach difficult to implement? ..............................121
5.4.4 Over the course of this training program, have you seen an improvement in player performance? ..............................................................................................123
5.4.5 Have you noticed any changes in the level of concentration in the players? ................................................................................................................................124
5.4.6 Which aspects of the training program lacked an effect or had a negative effect on player performance? ...............................................................................126
5.4.7 Do you feel you improved on (aspects of coaching indicated through answering Q5 of CRI) of coaching? .........................................................................127
6
5.4.8 Did you find this process of coach education has had an impact on the way you coach? .............................................................................................................129
5.5 End of Cycle Two Findings Field Notes Summary, Survey and Interview Responses: ....................................................................................................................................131
5.5.1 Field notes summary during cycle two .........................................................131
5.5.2 Summary of Survey Findings ........................................................................134
5.5.3 Do you feel your coaching practices and processes have improved during this 8 week program? ...................................................................................................138
5.5.4 Do you feel the players have progressed and improved their performance outcomes? ..............................................................................................................140
5.5.5 How much of an impact did this change in your coaching practices and processes have on the improvements of your players’ performance outcomes? .142
5.5.6 Which aspects of the training program lacked an effect when aiming to improve player performance? ................................................................................143
5.5.7 Will you continue using the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach in your future coaching practice? .......................................................................................145
5.5.8 Do you have any final comments or questions regarding this process, coach education, player development, player performance outcomes, etc? ..................146
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................148
6.1 Conclusions...........................................................................................................148
6.2 Answering Research Question One ......................................................................148
6.3 Answering Research Question Two ......................................................................150
6.4 Recommendations ...............................................................................................153
References ......................................................................................................................157
Appendix One: Intervention Power Point Slides ............................................................171
Appendix Two: Booklet Accompanying Intervention Power Point ................................176
Appendix Three: Survey conducted with both coaches During both cycles ..................190
7
"The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made."
QUT Verified Signature
Steph Sweeper
Date October 2017
STATEMENT OF ORGINAL AUTHORSHIP
8
1.0 CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH
1.1 KEY WORDS AND DEFINITIONS
It is important to establish an understanding of the key words and their
definitions in order to establish both the meanings and context of which
they are used. The following key words will be used throughout this thesis:
Education: The process by which one learns. Within the
context of this thesis the most effective form of
educating skill acquisition and decision making
skills in the sport of volleyball will be explored.
Learning: The acquisition of knowledge and
understanding. In a volleyball context, the aim
of a coach is to ensure the players are
constantly learning and being challenged. In
order to improve, the players will require
activities and opportunities to learn and better
understand the game.
Effective Coaching: The ability of a coach to improve the way of
which their players’ perform during a volleyball
game. This can be measured by a number of
ways which will be explored through this thesis.
Efficient Coaching: Refers to the concept of becoming well
practiced or rehearsed in the structure and
delivery of the coaching practice.
Coach Education: Usually delivered within a formal context, coach
education refers the process of developing the
knowledge of a coach. The intention is to
improve coaching practice and the effectiveness
of the coach.
9
Participation Coaching: The level of coaching that deals with players
who are not necessarily competitive, but
looking for a fun way to engage with others
while developing their skills.
Performance Coaching: The level of coaching that looks to develop
competitive high performance athletes.
Coaching Knowledge: Encompassing three major element including
sports specific knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge and knowledge of the “ologies”
(physiology, kinesiology, psychology and
sociology), a coach must develop all three
elements in order to become knowledgeable.
High Performance
Team:
Volleyball teams who compete at a
representative level; State or national levels.
Developmental Teams: Volleyball teams who consist of school aged
players who are competitive at a state and
national level. These include teams who
compete in:
• Highest divisions at Senior Schools Cup
(Organised by Volleyball Queensland)
• Highest divisions at Junior Schools Cup
(Organised by Volleyball Queensland)
• Highest divisions at the Australian
Volleyball Schools Cup tournament (Organised
by Volleyball Australia)
Game Related Decision
Making:
Refers to the decisions a player must make
during a game in order to successfully execute a
skilled performance. The types of decision
making a volleyball player will encounter
includes:
• Judging the flight of the ball (also
10
referred to as ‘tracking’)
• Ability to read the play, closely
associated with the concept of Imminent
Awareness.
Imminent Awareness: Reading the play; the players’ ability to
identifying the cues early, therefore make
decisions earlier and moving into position –
often described as “ahead of the play”.
Formal Learning: Defined by the environment the learning occurs
within, formal learning is organised and
structured within a formal setting, usually
leading to formal recognition such as a diploma,
certificate or level of accreditation. From the
learner’s perspective, learning is the desired
outcome from intentionally participating in
formal learning.
Informal Learning: Is often referred to as experiential learning and
can, to a certain degree, be understood as
accidental learning. The learning experiences
may result from daily life activities related to
work, family or leisure. It is not structured in
terms of learning objectives, learning time
and/or learning support. Typically, it does not
lead to certification. Informal learning may be
intentional but in most cases it is non-
intentional, incidental or random.
Non-formal Learning: Occurs through planned activities that are not
explicitly designed for learning, however may
still contain an important learning element.
Non-formal learning is intentional from the
learner’s perspective.
11
Continuing Professional
Development:
Consists of any type of professional
development or learning undertaken by
coaches beyond initial certification, including
assistant coaching, mentoring and professional
conversations.
Linear Paradigms: Refers to the process of skill acquisition through
a progressive, step by step approach. Often
initially beginning with learning motor skills
through isolated drills, mastering skills in
isolation before progressing to open, complex
environments that require decision making.
Non-linear Paradigms: Refers to the process of skill acquisition through
the modified constraints of the gameplay
environment. Skills are not practiced in
isolation to the complexities of the game;
however the constraints of the environment are
manipulated and modified by the coach to suit
the skill set and ability of the athletes.
Ontology: Refers to the study of being, or the existence of
a particular element of nature. Ontology
embodies understanding what is, and the
concepts of existence.
Epistemology: Is the clarification of how we develop our
understanding? Epistemology embodies what it
means to know. It underpins research by
providing a philosophical grounding for deciding
the possibilities, usefulness and validity of the
different kinds of knowledge.
Qualitative Research: Research that values and analyses the social
complexities in order to understand the
interactions, processes, lived experiences and
12
belief systems that are a part of individuals’
lives, groups of people such as institutions and
particular cultural groups or even the social
interactions that occur every day.
Participatory Action
Research:
As a qualitative methodology, participatory
action research is a very broad concept
stemming from the central idea whereby
‘action’ and ‘research’ are combined together
to produce a practical solution to a problem
evident in society.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The most challenging aspect of coaching is not the process of teaching the
technical elements of the game but developing within the players an
understanding of when, where, how and why these techniques are used.
13
Moreover, it is an even greater challenge helping players develop a sense
of contextual awareness which ultimately enables these technical elements
to manifest as skilled performances in specific periods of a contest. While
the notion of skill acquisition has been extensively addressed in a myriad of
coaching manuals, much of this reflects a traditional interpretation of a
coaching process and by association is ground in the principles of
reductionism; an approach that has been recently challenged (Bagnell,
2005). This point is further reinforced by Gordon (2009) who suggests that
much of the literature surrounding the development of expert
performance has been limited by a profession that struggles to
differentiate between effective coaching practice and expert coaching
practice. Building onwards from the work of Côté and Gilbert (2009),
Araujo, Davids and Hristovski (2006) and Gilbert and Trudel (2006) each
propose the answer to player development may lie in a mechanism that
separates the “good” players from the “smart” players. More recently this
has been identified as Emergent Decision Making (Wharton, 2014;
Wharton & Rossi, 2015).
More often than not, coaching is narrowly perceived as a developmental
process that rises from a sequential and or experiential approach to skill
acquisition. As mentioned above, this approach is linked to the principles
of reductionism and as such presents only a shallow interpretation of a
complex process. More concerning to this research, Cushion, Nelson,
Armour, Lyle, Jones, Sanford and O’Callaghan, (2010) point out that current
research suggests many coaches continue to practice without reference to
any coaching model or understanding of a coaching process. In terms of
Queensland volleyball, Lortie and Clement (1975) suggests that
developmental practitioners are encouraged to base their own pedagogical
philosophies and practices on their personal experiences. Cushion, Armour
and Jones (2006), Knowles, Tyler, Gilbourne and Eubank (2006) as well as
Gilbert, & Trudel (2001) have each disagreed with the views of Lortie and
Clement (1975) and highlight the need for coaching to be understood as a
14
multifaceted process involving complex interactions of many variables. As
such, it can be suggested for the purposes of improving player
performance, coaching practice and the development of coaching
practitioners could benefit from a systematic review.
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
As a full time physical education teacher, with the extra-curricular
responsibilities of coaching and assisting in the coordination of a high
performance volleyball academy, in addition to state volleyball coaching
commitments, my motivation for this study was relatively simple. Being
time poor but happily committed to a competitive sporting system, I began
to wonder if there were other, more effective methods of coaching
developmental teams in an elite high school volleyball program. After
critically reflecting on my personal coaching practice I began to question
my effectiveness as a coach. Each year in the current program, I have
noticed that the players I coached understood how my training sessions
were structured and were able to complete the activities I had planned,
however it was when I reflected on the improvements of the players’ skills
and performance in games that I began to question my own coaching
practice. Was I an effective coach or was I just more efficient at delivering
each coaching session? I began to ask myself why I coach the way I coach.
This process of critical reflection led me to question my own coaching
philosophy, my coaching practices and to seek more effective methods of
coaching.
While reflecting on my own coaching practice I began to observe the
practices of other coaches involved in our academy. Much of what I
witnessed reinforced my own sense of self-worth, but failed to address any
of my earlier concerns regarding the effectiveness of the practices used to
deliver on the academy’s wider objectives. As I assist in the coordination of
the volleyball academy, I am responsible for appointing the coaching staff
15
that works within the Academy. Although I engage each of these persons
as a volunteer, I cannot accept a lack of remuneration is an excuse for ill-
considered coaching practice. Recently, I have begun to perceive the
ineffective coaching practices of others as an indictment of my own efforts
within the academy. This personal awakening regarding ineffective
coaching practice is further exacerbated by my own observations of a
reoccurring pattern of shortcomings emerging in the individual
performances of many of our long term players. I quickly realised that
these sorts of problems are greater than the flaws of any one coach but
stem from enduring flaws within the academy’s coaching program.
Needless to say, I again began to question why I coach the way I do and
why others coach the way they do? My answer to this question and the
answers offered to me by my colleagues are not surprising – we coach the
way we do because this is how we were coached. Sadly it appears that
when we first begin to function as coaching practitioners, coach
accreditation and knowledge of coaching practice becomes a distant
second to one’s availability. This ‘monkey see, monkey do’ approach to
coaching practice is cyclic and at best can only reproduce experiential
knowledge and practices – whether they be effective or ineffective.
After giving the flaws of my own coaching history some consideration, I
began to realise the opportunity that this situation presented. Like a light
bulb moment I began to see the potential, and the urgent need for a
participatory action research project. A research project, that aims to
review and improve the practices of the volunteer coaches. This would
involve a process of balancing interactive inquiry with research for the
purpose of better understanding the causes of the problems and enabling
us to implement devices that will lead organisational change. At this early
stage I would envisage that such devices take the form of a coaching
education intervention, designed to shift the coaches’ philosophies,
processes and practices from a traditional approach grounded in
16
experiential understanding of skills towards a system of coaching built
around a more progressive evidence based model.
A brief review of the literature used in the coaching education courses
offered in the sport of volleyball clearly demonstrates a strong link to the
previously mentioned reductionist approach to teaching and learning
(Kaiser, 2013). The reductionist approach promotes the learning of
complex phenomena such as gameplay through breaking each skill down
into the simplest form. In the field of motor learning, the reductionist
approach is most often associated with linear interpretations of skill
acquisition. This point is well reinforced by the work of Paul Fitts (1964;
Fitts and Posner, 1967) and the seminal work of Donders (cited in Schmidt
and Lee, 2005) who each advocate a linear model of skill acquisition and
information processing. In the practical terms of sports coaching, we are
more familiar with the real life practices of a reductionist perspective than
we are at understanding the reasons for such an approach. For example,
we unknowingly accept that coaching practice involves a series of
simplified skills that are exercised in isolation to one another and magically
put together at a later date as the basis for learning a more complex
movement task. The academic justification for dividing a complex
movement task into a subset of simplified tasks is to enable the athlete the
opportunity to align the perceptual and cognitive components that
combine to produce the desired motor response. As a qualified and
experienced secondary Physical Education Teacher, I am very aware of the
ineffectiveness of such an approach to learning; however, I cannot even
begin to comprehend how such an approach, which is routinely discarded
by the educators, has gained such prevalence in coaching and coaching
education circles.
One of the philosophical differences between the traditional coaching
process (a reductionist approach) and a ‘more progressive model’ is a shift
in focus from technique and the execution of isolated skills to developing
an individual’s capacity for coupling the dynamical properties of the
17
neuromuscular system with the physical properties of environmental
information. This notion of coupling actions with environmental
information resonates strongly with any number of the non-linear
paradigms and is strongly supported by Hodge, Starkes and MacMahon’s
(2006) who propose the use of alternative paradigms in order to more
efficiently acquire and effectively apply movement solutions to complex
motor tasks. This argument for alternative frameworks is further
reinforced by the work of Jones, Armour and Potrac (2003) who suggest
that even elite players demonstrate a disconnection between performing a
skill in a practice environment to performing the same skill in a game.
To suggest that every learner will progress equally through an ordered
sequence of learning phases is beyond question. Research in the fields of
cognitive psychology and education has long noted the misgivings
associated with ‘a one size fits all’ approach to learning. McLeod and
Reynolds (2000) suggest that every learner is an individual and therefore
the rate at which they learn and the style of instruction that they find most
effective will be unique to that learner. Human movements systems are
inherently non-linear in character and therefore a non-linear approach to
coaching is logical. Chow, Davids, Button, Shuttleworth, Renshaw and
Araújo (2006) suggest a non-linear approach to learning and coaching
encourages the manipulation of constraints that frame a learning
experience to facilitate the emergence of functional movement patterns
and decision-making behaviours in different sports and physical activities.
Using the literature to build on my current understanding of physical
education and coaching my motivation is to improve, not only my own
coaching practices but the standard of coaching within my school’s
volleyball academy.
1.4 HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM
The site for this study is a Volleyball Academy located within a Brisbane
based state secondary school. The school was established in 1975 and the
18
volleyball program was developed in 1980 by a physical education teacher
and rugby league enthusiast. This teacher modified his Rugby League
coaching approach to the context of volleyball. In 1985 the school
competed in the second annual Australian Volleyball Schools Cup and has
competed every year since.
With more than 490 teams coming from 133 schools around Australia and
New Zealand, the Australian Volleyball Schools Cup is the largest school
based sporting event in the southern hemisphere (AVSC, 2016). To
compete in the highest divisions teams must rank top three at the
respective state tournaments. Queensland has the highest number of
participating schools attending the Australian Volleyball Schools Cup with
330 schools and 3797 participants involved in the qualifying state
tournament (Kelly, 2016). This high level of involvement in a grassroots
tournament is having a flow on effect to higher representative levels as
Queensland based players currently account for more than 57% of the
current Men’s Volleyroos and 25% of the Women’s Volleyroos Australian
National squads.
In 2006 a new HPE Head of Department was appointed to the school and
this person initiated the transition from a volleyball program to an
academy. 2007 saw the first volleyball class included in the academic
program. This enabled students to enrol to learn volleyball as a subject
instead of the key learning area of Health and Physical Education. To
complement this initiative all players involved in the academy attend
trainings twice a week outside school hours. Within the last six years the
school has been ranked number one in Queensland and consistently
achieved top three ranking at a National Level. Since its establishment, this
volleyball program has produced 8 open age Australian representatives,
including three Olympians and four coaches at an international level.
Currently the program has more than 150 students participating and within
this cohort, 13 have represented their region at a state carnival, 12 have
19
represented Queensland at a national tournament and 5 have represented
Australia in an international tournament.
Prior to 2006 all volleyball coaching was done outside school hours and the
founder of the program, then Head of the Health and Physical Education
Department, coached the majority of teams. After the 2007 transition from
an extra-curricular activity to an Academy, so did the coaching staff.
Currently there are 20 people who fulfil the coaching roles within the
Academy, 5 of which are practicing teachers, 15 are past students who
have made the transition from player to coach with no formal training or
support.
Volleyball is a passion shared by the coaches and teaching staff and this
passion is instilled into the participating students. Since commencing my
teaching career, volleyball has grown to be a passion of mine and one that
has inspired this project.
1.5 IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
At an elite level, coaches can afford the time and cost of professional
development. Unfortunately coaches at a grass roots level are usually
volunteers who are time poor and often cannot justify spending the time
or money on coaching education programs (Cross and Lyle, 1999). Due to
these reasons coaches of youth teams are often under-qualified if not
unqualified. While the intentions of these coaches are morally just and
their intentions true, they often lack the capacity to formulate evidence
based coaching philosophy or even grasp an understanding of skill
acquisition let alone address the attributes of effective coaching practices.
In consideration of the research group at hand, like most other high school
programs and state developmental programs, each of the coaches are
former high school players who enjoyed their personal experience within a
volleyball program and as such return to the school environment as
20
volunteer coaches. The coaches involved in this case study are not
qualified teachers and while understandable, it is this lack of any sort of
formal coaching accreditation and therefore theoretical foundation to build
their coaching knowledge and practice upon that raises my concern.
Without an evidence based approach to coaching practice, the coaches’
perspective of coaching in general, along with their perception of an
appropriate coaching process will be limited to the individual’s personal
experience of preparing for and playing the game.. This problem is further
heightened by the lack of professional development opportunities for
coaches at this level and similarly for coaches in the less popular sports to
develop their knowledge and skill set.
As a beginner, a coach will often draw on their knowledge of how and what
they were taught as a player. This form of knowledge and understanding of
a subject matter is referred to as experiential knowledge (Gould, Giannini,
Krane & Hodge, 1990). It is common practice among beginning coaches to
refer back to their own playing experiences as means of sourcing activities
to fulfil a coaching session as these are the only knowledge structures they
possess. The problem arises when the coach fails to understand the true
purpose of the activity and the context in which this activity should be
used. The beginning coach may deliver a drill effectively, they may even
understand how it works and can explain this to their players, but an
enhanced performance will not eventuate if the drill lacks relevancy to the
game. It is this contextual connection between task and the environment
demands of the game that is often lost on beginning and less educated
coaches.
As suggested above, a lack of opportunity to participate in coaching
education appears to be the main reasons why beginning coaches fail to
implement effective coaching practices or even reflect on their own
performances as a coaching practitioner. Côté & Sedgwick (2003) and
Cassidy, Jones, and McKenzie (2006) each suggests that coaches without
access to quality coach education programs fail to improve as coaching
21
practitioners. However, despite the aforementioned research of Côté and
Cassidy and their colleagues, there is a more recent body of research to
suggest that even with access to coaching education programs many
practitioners still fall short of effective coaching practice. It is clear in the
work of Cross and Lyle (1999) and more recently Wharton (2014), that
formal community based coaching courses, particularly those addressing
participation and developmental coaches, fail to recognise the need for
coaching to be perceived and developed as a multidimensional process.
Similarly, the research of Saury and Durand (1998) and Werthner and
Trudel (2006) also suggests that formal coaching educational programs
deal in knowledge structures that are often disparate, compartmental and
generally poorly delivered. Despite the aforementioned research, the
formal coaching education programs delivered by the Australian Sports
Commission’s; National Coaching Accreditation Scheme (ASC: NCAS)
remain as the only valid means of accessing formal coaching education
opportunities to beginning volleyball coaches in Australia. Moreover,
progress through these courses only requires participants to recall
information and perform skills as the key indicators of coaching
performance (Kaiser, 2013).
Beyond the difficulties associated with formal coaching education
programs in Australia, many coaches experience difficulty in transitioning
from player to coach. Jones and Turner (2006) suggest that much of this
difficulty can be linked to a beginning coaches’ lack of understanding
regarding the multifaceted tasks of being a coach. This lack of
understanding regarding the role of the coach paired with an absence of
coach education ensures the maintenance of traditional reductionist
coaching practices. Too often coaches will apply concepts or theories
based on experiential knowledge without considering the unique and
differing requirements of their specific team. Each team brings with it a
myriad of variables that can impact or determine the success of an activity
or game. Before planning a session, applying a coaching process or
22
adopting a knowledge structure, a coach must first consider the variables,
the complexities and the requirements of the team at hand. This very
point explains why a ‘one size fits all’ reductionist approach to coaching is
more often than not ineffective.
Consequently the impetus for this study is twofold; first is the shortfall in
knowledge and understanding of effective coaching practices by beginning
coaches and second is locating an effective means of coaching education
and or development that will contribute positively to the development of
beginning coaches in the sport of volleyball.
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions developed for this participatory action research
study are based on a combination of the perceived needs of the Volleyball
Academy in which I coach, and am responsible for the developmental
needs of the volunteer coaches. Responding to the consistent and
reoccurring in situ problems that I have identified in chapter 1.5 and similar
problems that have emerged from a preliminary review of the literature
has been the force that configured this study. Through a culmination of
these aspects I have developed two research questions to stimulate a
positive change in the development of coaching practitioners and their
practice in the school’s volleyball excellence program.
The first research question (see below) seeks a better understanding of
effective coaching development and in particular development that has the
capacity to evoke a positive change in coaching practices. After reading
widely on the effectiveness of formal, non-formal and informal education
(see chapter 2.6), a self-governed Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) (see chapter 2.7) program seemed to be most likely to address the
contextualised needs of the coaches involved in the school’s volleyball
excellence program. A CPD by nature is a program that can only be
23
implemented in situ which is appropriate for a participatory action
research study.
The second research question (see below) focuses on appraising the
coaches’ response to the change that occurs in their coaching practices as a
response the CPD. This participatory action research study will provide the
coaches a CPD that advocates for evidence based pedagogy as an
alternative to the reductionist approach they currently use. The review of
literature that follows will shed light on the limitations of a reductionist
approach to coaching and draw attention to an alternative non-linear
paradigm, one that challenges the linear approach underpinning the
reductionist approach currently being used. This Non-Linear approach to
volleyball coaching is a sport specific example of a Constraints-Led
pedagogical approach to coaching (see chapter 2.10) which has its
foundations firmly attached to Ecological Dynamics Theory (see chapter
2.11).
Based on the strengths of a CPD and an evidence based pedagogical
approach to replace the currently practiced traditional reductionist
approach to coaching, the following two research questions will be
addressed through this participatory action research study.
1. What is the effect of non-formal coach education as a process of
CPD, in creating meaningful change in practices?
2. How do coaches respond to change in coach practice: from
reductionist to a non-linear approach?
Using a participatory action research methodology, an intervention
program has been developed and will be delivered to two coaches who
have been using only the traditional coaching approach for the past three
years in their roles as coaches within a high performance Volleyball
academy. Initially, the coaches participate in CPD workshop that
introduced them to the key concepts of a non-linear pedagogy (this study
will use John Kessel’s ‘principles before methods’ approach) in a non-
24
formal learning environment. Following the initial workshop, the research
group will be mentored on an individual basis throughout the season in
order to ensure understanding of the concepts and how they can be put
into practice. Data will be gathered through interviews, surveys and field
notes before, during and after each research cycle. This data will be
triangulated and used to gauge the success of the coaches’ educational
program and their transition from the traditional approach to the Kessel
approach and therefore provide a response to the research questions.
25
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 A HISTORICAL VIEW OF COACHING: THE TRADITIONAL
APPOACH
In general terms, sports’ coaching has not been perceived as a complicated
task. It has for too long been assumed that the knowledge and
understanding of pedagogical practice in the field of education is simply
and directly transferable to sports coaching (Gilbert and Trudel 2006).
Historically speaking, the role of the coach was simply to improve team
outcomes; traditionally this was achieved through an autocratic coaching
style and a coaching process (Cross, 1991; Lombardo, 1987). This now
outdated perspective is most clearly reinforced in the work of Batty (1980)
who suggests that ‘a coach must be a God’. Fortunately the efforts of
coaches and academics alike have ensured that our expectations of a coach
and our understanding of the coaching process have evolved considerably
since 1980. Of particular note, are advances that have been recorded in the
development of three aspects of coaching practice: the role of the coach,
coaching styles and the coaching process. However, questions remain
concerning whether or not the field has evolved sufficiently to reflect the
status and performance expectations that accompany developmental and
high performance sports coaching.
A great deal of research on sports coaching practice has been published
between the late 1970s through to the mid-1990s. Much of this published
research exposes the now obvious flaws of the authoritarian approach to
coaching (see Anshel and Singer, 1980; Lombardo, 1987; Cross, 1991; Hogg,
1995). Depending on the attitudes and or personality type of the coach,
26
the autocratic or authoritarian approach to coaching practice was mostly
appealing to those coaches who seek a greater degree of control or as
Cross (1991) describes, the coach with an ‘I know best’ attitude. In a
similar vein, but more specific to the outcomes generated by the
authoritarian approach, Hogg (1995) suggests that such a domineering
approach limits the players’ choices and opportunities of self-
determination. From a professional viewpoint, Lombardo (1987) has noted
that ‘the goals of the athletic leader are too often in conflict with those of
the athletes’ and suggests that it is this conflict that poisons the
relationship between player and coach and therefore affects the players’
ability to develop and improve. Despite this chequered past, the research
of Gordon (2009, p3) highlights the evolution of coaching research by
stating, “No longer can we view a coach simply as the individual with a
stopwatch barking out lap times, or just as the mentor who offers training
advice to groups of athletes. The role of the coach has become still more
complicated and diverse.”
Perhaps it could be argued that it is a lack of understanding about the
multifaceted nature of coaching practice that has led to the prevalence of
authoritarian coaching styles. Historically, coaches had not valued coach
education or were even aware of alternate coaching processes. During the
1800s, coaching was largely practiced by ex-university athletes who had
adapted their wealth of experiential playing knowledge to assist in the
preparation of other athletes (McNab, 1990). During this time there was no
coaching education system for those who coveted the role of coaching
practitioner. Those who yearned to be a coaching practitioner were
required to learn as much as they could through a quasi-apprenticeship
system that was preoccupied with principles of diet and exercise (McNab,
1990). However, despite such a history and an influx of formal coaching
education courses throughout the 1980s and 1990s, a coach’s experiential
knowledge, which is largely drawn from a successful playing career,
remains the most highly valued trait of the modern day coach (Wharton,
27
2014; Mielke, 2007). This proclivity for a successful playing history remains
in spite of the research of Carter and Bloom (2009) that indicates that an
elite playing career is no guarantee of a successful transition from player to
coach. Saury and Durand (1998) attribute this phenomenon to the one-
dimensional nature experiential knowledge of the elite player and a
subsequent shortcoming in understanding the metacognitive processes
that influence actions. Experiential knowledge, although valuable, will not
guarantee effective coaching practice.
When coaching a beginner or developing player in any sport, the first
phase of a standard traditional coaching pedagogy will involve breaking the
game into a series of isolated and often decontextualized skills. This is
followed by a suite of premeditated drills, designed to target and
supposedly develop a single and specific motor skill. Luft and Buitrago
(2005) liken motor skill acquisition to learning a musical instrument,
suggesting simple music for novice musicians and slowly progressing to
more complex pieces as the musician develops. However, Nelson and
Cushion (2006) have argued that some exponents of this traditional
approach have taken the concept of reductionist too literally and by
default achieve little more than reinforcing an unqualified performance
monism. A key criticism of this coaching strategy and the replication of
‘gold standards’ is that the end product is an athlete that is dependent
upon a singular technical performance and has difficulty adjusting to the
contextualised demands of the game environment.
In volleyball, the traditional approach for a beginning coach usually
commences with the selection of one specific skill and using a repetitive
drill to help a group of players refine and reinforce the movements that are
required to perform the desired motor task. In fact the research of Davids
and colleagues (2007) has labelled this a skills based approach to coaching
and suggests that this method is well used by experienced coaches as well.
However, although the intention of these coaching practitioners may be to
simplify the movement, this approach actually funnels the participant’s
28
focus of attention away from the information available within the
immediate environmental, towards a narrow internalised interpretation of
a movement pattern. Similarly, Nelson and Cushion (2006) suggests that
this inclination for simplification is the major downfall of the reductionist
approach. Similarly Cassidy, Jones and Potrac (2008) propose that a
reductionist approach to coaching controls the environmental information
to such a degree that participants fail to recognise the value of other
environmental, task or human factors. It is this propensity for
simplification and a misdirection of focus that is contributing most to the
reductionist approach’s failure to generate noteworthy transfer of
technique or movement patterns from the training courts to the
performance arena.
Unfortunately, coaches often fail to reflect on the effectiveness of the drills
they are implementing in training or in pre-game warm up sessions. This
could be attributed to the fact that much of their understanding of
coaching practice, the theoretical frameworks underpinning coaching
pedagogies and to a lesser extent their understanding of skill acquisition,
are based on experiential knowledge rather than an evidence based
approach to coaching. To further reinforce this point, Nelson and Cushion
(2006) have suggested that coaches who practice without reflection and
adopt such isolated approaches share a common frustration regarding
their players’ inability to transfer skills into the game environment. In
order to become an effective coaching practitioner and improve player
performance, coaches must develop a stronger understanding of the
various coaching pedagogies and enhance their own coaching knowledge
structures.
Although there is already a large body of published research that addresses
the notion of effective coaching, there is a rapidly evolving body of more
current body of research that questions the virtues of the skills based
approaches that have underpinned past sports coaching practices. Nelson
and Cushion (2006), Jones and Turner (2006) and Farrar and Trorey (2008)
29
have each reinforced this point with suggestions that the traditional skills
and drills reductionist approach to coaching is more often than not proving
ineffective. To a certain degree it can be argued that not only can this
approach be considered ineffective but can result in players’ experiencing
performance plateaus and even regressing.
The suggestion that a skill based approach to coaching produces an
isolated performance is best understood by considering the adaptability of
the athlete. It is likely that a player will underperform in a competitive
environment if they have not previously been exposed to, or are required
to perform a certain skill in similar environmental conditions to that of the
competition. Nelson and Cushion (2006) reinforce this point with their
suggestion that traditional drills that develop technical movement patterns
in complete isolation from the game will not be readily transferred to a
game situation. Schmidt and Lee (2005) refer to this phenomenon as
“negative transfer” of skill acquisition. More specifically Schmidt and Lee
(2005) state that transfer of skill is not always positive and that loss can
occur in one skill as a result of experiencing another. In accord with
Schmidt and Lee, and their notion of negative transfer, Nelson and Cushion
(2006) assert that the traditional based approaches to coaching are
contrary to the underlying goals of coaching practice, which are
fundamentally based on improving player performance.
This notion of associating traditional coaching approaches with isolated
practices and negative transfer of skill acquisition can be likened to Cassidy,
Jones and Potrac’s (2008) concepts of ‘mindless’ teaching and ‘non-
thinking’ teaching:
“The concepts of ‘mindless’ teaching and ‘non-thinking’
teaching refer to the lack of consideration given to the teaching
and learning process before beginning the act of teaching itself.
The concepts attest to a lack of understanding of how students
learn and why, of the micro and macro variables that impinge
30
on this learning and how teachers can best manage their
complex and dynamic working environment to achieve desired
results. Equally, coaches are guilty of giving little if any
attention to understanding the teaching and learning process,
what shapes it and subsequently, how it can be done better.”
It is without question, coaches should be developing their players’ ability to
execute the required movements within all relevant contexts and
environments. However, Farrar and Trorey (2008) suggest that coaches
who practice according to the principles of a reductionist approach are
failing to develop an appreciation of the underlying flaws that plague a
performance monism.
The concern above regarding mindless practice can be directly related to
the continuation of ineffective coaching practices. Farrar and Trorey (2008)
go beyond the standard denunciations of limited knowledge and a poor
understanding of a coaching process to suggest that the continuation of
ineffective coaching practices are driven by an equally draconian idea of
what constitutes the traditional structure of a training session. Traditionally
the structure of a training session would consist of a warm up, followed by
skills and drills, then a game play at the end (Bompa and Buzzichelli, 2015).
While this appears sound at a superficial level, the research of Locke (1977)
looks a little more deeply into the structure of training sessions to report
that the skills and drills that frame a traditional approach are little more
than simple time filling activities. The very fact that the research of Locke
occurred forty years ago would suggest that a vacuum exists between
coaching research and coaching education service providers.
In order to improve a players’ performance a coach must prepare a training
program that requires the athlete to perform tasks in an environment that
reflect the contextual demands the competition. This point is supported by
Erickson, Côté and Fraser-Thomas (2007) who first introduced the idea of
‘imminent awareness’ (see also Wharton 2014 for a more developed
31
analysis of this idea). A player who demonstrates a capacity for ‘imminent
awareness’ is often referred to as a smart player or a player that is capable
of intelligent performance. To create players that are capable of intelligent
performance, a coach must create an environment that fosters learning
around the experiences that reflect the contextual boundaries that are
likely to experience during a game. Such a learning environment not only
allows players to rehearse and develop valuable decision-making
processes, but also affords the athlete the opportunity to apply and adapt
skills and movement patterns to meet the ever-changing demands of
sporting contests. However, before we can set about building such learning
environments, coaching practitioners need to be aware of the
shortcomings of the reductionist’s interpretation of traditional coaching
practices. As such, before advances can be made in the field of coaching
practice, academics and coaches alike need to re-evaluate the existing
custodial approach that frames coaching practice and coaching research,
recognise the multifaceted nature of coaching and commence preparations
for the formation of coaching pedagogies.
2.2 THE COACHING PROCESS
Since John Lyle first started researching the subject area of sports coaching
in 1986, researchers have used the term a coaching ‘process’
interchangeably with coaching ‘practice’ and coaching ‘style’. In simple
terms, the coaching process can be defined as the progression, designed
and initiated by the coach, to improve the athletes’ skill set (Knowles,
Borrie and Telfer, 2005). While such a definition may seem overly simple
and open to interpretation, perhaps the problem discussed above in
section 2.1 rests not with semantics but rather education. For example
recent research suggests that many coaches do not consider or appreciate
how a solid understanding of a coaching process can enhance an athletes
performance (Cushion, Nelson, Armour, Lyle, Jones, Sandford and
32
O’Callaghan, 2010; Gilbert, & Trudel, 2001; Jones, Armour and Potrac,
2004; and Cushion, Armour and Jones, 2006). Despite mounting evidence,
coaches continue the repetitious cycle of experiential knowledge, which
usually originates from the cast of a traditional and reductionist approach
to coaching.
The persistence of these questionable approaches that still plague current
coaching practices appear to stem from a phenomenon of players
transitioning to the role of coaches. Carter and Bloom (2009) describe this
player coach transition as an uneven distribution of coaches who have
made the switch to elite coaching roles soon after concluding a playing
career. Even more concerning, Cushion, et al. (2006) suggests many
coaches who have made the transition from playing ranks do so without
any reference to a coaching process model. Instead of a well-structured
understanding of a coaching process or even experiential coaching
knowledge many coaches are forced to base their practice on gut feelings,
intuitions, and personal experiences of playing. Too often a coach,
particularly inexperienced volunteer coaches, will deliver a training session
that is unplanned or so narrow in focus that the skill is practiced in isolation
to the context of the game (see page 17).
Without question it is the simplicity of the reductionist approach as well as
the seemingly logical idea of a skill acquisition occurring through a linear
sequence of learning experiences that has attracted beginning coaches to
adopt a traditional interpretation of a coaching process. Cushion, Armour
and Jones (2006), suggest that much of the research surrounding a
traditional coaching process had reduced the complexity of the subject
matter in order to control the parameters of the research. Even the earlier
definition offered by Knowles, Borrie and Telfer (2005, see page 29) limits
the coaching process to the development of one individual through a series
isolates training session that are only lightly connected by a single
objective. Perhaps it is a lack of belief in their own ability to execute the
practices that produce the desired performances within a group of players,
33
or perhaps it is just a lack of coaching knowledge. Whatever the reasons,
there is a clear disconnect between what the research proves to be
effective and the continuation of ineffectual coaching practices.
Researchers and coaches alike must now perceive the coaching process to
be a concept that involves a broader reference than the sum of each single
training session. Many of the academics that are currently researching in
the field of sports coaching refer to this attempt to understand a complex
skill through the analysis of its individual parts as a core concept of the
positivist paradigm (see Wharton, 2014; Kahan, 1999; Lyle and Cross, 1999;
Brustad, 1997). By nature, this paradigm provides the coach with a closed,
predictable and controllable environment to guide the understanding,
developing and measuring of skill. However Cushion et al. (2006) suggest
that in the reality of game performance the underpinning features of the
positivist paradigm become irrelevant. The need or desire for a coach to
improve the whole skill by analysing the individual parts is understandable
yet illogical considering the myriad of variables present in a game situation.
When considering a coaching process, it is important that the coach first
considers the multifaceted nature of coaching as well as the specificity of
the environment that the coach will be working within. Jones and Turner
(2006) support such a view but warn that viewing coaching as a complex
social process will involve a myriad of interacting variables. When
developing a coaching process, the starting point must begin with
developing an understanding of the context and the environment in which
a coach is working. Once the coach understands the complexity of the
situation they will be better equipped to develop an appropriate process
by which to coach.
It appears logical and good practice to first understand the context and the
environment when developing a coaching process to support coaching
practice. However, Schon (1983) puts forward the notion of a process
being fluid, a work in progress, always changing and being modified to the
34
specific context, much like a swamp; it should never be considered
absolute. Rossi & Cassidy (1999, p195) add to this description by suggesting
that a process is like “shifting sands constantly shaped by competing and
complementary elements”. The analogies offered by Schon and Rossi and
his colleague are effective in illustrating the fluidity of coaching. Coaching,
like the nature of interceptive sports, is highly contested. Consequently the
coaching process employed by one coach will not only be specific to the
context and environment but it will also need to be fluid enough, to be
receptive of the ever-changing nature of a game and the infinite number of
interacting variables that can impact on a game.
Perhaps it is this complex nature of coaching that has perplexed researches
and coaches alike. The benefits of progressing our understanding of the
concept of a coaching process has been highlighted by the work of Jones et
al., (2003). Jones and his colleagues note that when considering the
published research at hand, it has been too easy to overlook the contextual
reality that underpins sports coaching and particularly a coaching process.
Heng (2008) further argues this point by declaring our current
understanding of a coaching process and coaching practices are grounded
in a body of reductionist research. Therefore, as a result of these
reductionist foundations, there is a plethora of research that erroneously
identifies individual aspects of the coaching process as indicators of good
coaching practice. While this body of research has advanced our
understanding of generic coaching practice, it fails to acknowledge the
importance of considering the complexities that are unique to the
environment and context in which the coaching process is to be applied.
2.3 COACHING KNOWELDGE
Within the context of coaching, there is no single definition of
“knowledge”. However despite a wide range of definitions, the academic
community has routinely recognised Anderson’s (1982) broad
35
conceptualisation of knowledge as a benchmark for understanding
coaching knowledge (Côté and Gilbert, 2009; Abraham, Collins and
Martindale, 2006; Cassidy, et al. 2009). Much of the appeal of this
benchmark definition can be linked to Anderson’s recognition of the
relationship between declarative and procedural knowledge. Anderson’s
definition combines two very broad understandings of coaching; the
knowledge of knowing and the knowledge of doing. A coach will not only
need to have a foundation of knowledge to work from, but also the
capacity to be able to put that knowledge into practice and impart that
knowledge onto others. There is a distinct difference between being
knowledgeable and being able to teach.
When exploring the development of coaching knowledge, there has been a
great deal of research over the last forty years that has drawn on the
parallels between coaching and teaching – particularly physical education.
Although clear parallels have been established between coaching and
education research, it is important to acknowledge that the constraints and
environments that coaches work within are significantly different to that of
a school teacher. Unfortunately these differences have been put aside too
quickly with a body of research that has resulted in little more than
conflation whereby the two seemingly related concepts of education and
coaching have been unwittingly brought together to form one identity with
the significant differences discarded (for example see Cassidy, et al. 2009).
Due to a longer history and a broader range of academic literature to draw
upon, Hollenbeck, Moon, Ellis, West, Ilgen, Sheppard, and Wagner (2002)
describes this juxtaposition of education research with coaching as a
‘research funnel’ that draws upon a questionable definition of relevant and
relatable findings from the field of education. Similarly Mallet, Rossi and
Tinning (2007) argue that due to the variable constraints and significantly
different environments, coaching research should and can stand alone,
separate to education research. In a less critical summation of the
research merging the two concepts, Wharton (2014) suggests that
36
education research findings can be relevant at a participation level of
coaching. Although there is a growing body of research that questions the
value of blindly linking the knowledge structures from one field to the
practices of another, it is important to acknowledge that this same
research has laid the foundation of which coaching research has been born.
Across the literature, parallels have been made between physical
education teaching and sports coaching. Physical education teachers are
assumed to have an established level of declarative knowledge regarding
sport, exercise and human moment, much like coaches are expected to
have declarative knowledge regarding the specifics of their sport, such as
improving skill, technique and tactics (Nash & Collins, 2006). According to
Kreber and Cranton (2000) teaching has been classified into three separate
types of knowledge; instructional, pedagogical and curricular. Similarly
Nash and Collins (2006) have identified three types of coaching knowledge.
Nash and Collins have described these three types of knowledge as; sports
specific knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and finally understanding and
application of the “ologies”, such as physiology, kinesiology, psychology
and sociology.
Figure 1 – Nash and Collins (2006)
proposed coaching knowledge system,
37
adapted from Kreber and Cranton
(1997).
Although appearing distinctly separate in the illustration above, Nash and
Collins (2006) discusses the notion of coaching knowledge being made up
of three interacting elements, as opposed to the development of three
separate types of coaching knowledge. Nash and Collins (2006) argue that
the development of coaching knowledge is a process or system that
requires an understanding and appreciation for all three elements and how
these elements intertwine within each other.
Along with Nash and Collins, the likes of Abraham, Collins and Martindale
(2006) have also explored knowledge structure and the formation of the
professional knowledge associated with coaching. Borrowing from
Collinson’s (1996) concept of professional knowledge, Abraham and
colleagues suggest that expert coaching knowledge consists of a
combination of declarative knowledge, sport-specific knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge and an overarching ability to apply this knowledge.
The parallels between Abraham et al. (2006) concept of expert coaching
knowledge and Nash and Collins (2006) proposed coaching knowledge
system are closely related. Even though the model proposed by Abraham
and colleagues mentions declarative knowledge, both views consider
coaching knowledge to go beyond simply understanding of content or
subject matter, referred to as declarative and or sport specific knowledge,
to include a capacity for adapting and applying the aforementioned
knowledge structures in a procedural manner.
Until recently this notion of procedural knowledge and the blending of
knowledge structures had not figured on the coaching education
landscape. In fact Trudel and Gilbert (2006) and Abraham et al. (2006) have
each identified a number of existing practices that wrongly position one
38
knowledge structure as more important than others. This point is made
most clear by Wharton (2014), Becker (2009), Rieke, Hammermeister and
Chase (2008) and Trudel and Gilbert (2006) who each suggests that
declarative or sport specific coaching knowledge are wrongly used as
measures of learning in coaching education programs and thereafter as
indicators of expertise among coaching practitioners. The sport specific
knowledge structures described by Abraham et al. (2006) and Nash and
Collins (2006) respectfully refer to the coach’s empirical understanding of
the game and the underlying tactics, strategies and technical plans.
Although these knowledge structures remain highly valuable, their true
value can only be determined by how well a coaching practitioner can use
and apply this knowledge to their advantage. With this in mind it would be
safe to suggest that if any one knowledge structure should take
precedence it would be procedural knowledge, the one knowledge
structure that enables a practitioner to apply and make the most of all the
other knowledge structures.
There are number of assumptions surrounding the expected success of an
ex-elite athlete turned coach. The most common assumption is in respect
to the assumed level of sport specific knowledge. According to Mielke
(2007) the role of a professional coach is usually appointed to former
athletes. The assumption is made that by means of a lengthy and
successful playing career, the former athlete has acquired a highly
advanced archive of sport specific knowledge and this alone is the key to a
succeeding as a high performance coach. Côté and Gilbert (2006) suggests
that this phenomenon of falsely assuming former athletes will become
effective coaches, spans across all levels of sport and is not exclusive to
professional coaches or coaches functioning at a developmental level.
More specific but still adding to Côté and Gilbert (2006) criticisms of elite
players and their limited understanding of coaching knowledge structures,
Sloane (2008) suggests that the elite player transitioning to coaching often
lacks the necessary interpersonal or intrapersonal knowledge skills to
39
succeed as a coaching practitioner. Much like the aforementioned positivist
paradigm (see page 30) underpinning coaching research, existing empirical
interpretations of what makes an effective coaching practitioner also needs
to be challenged.
The final example of the previously mentioned practices that misrepresent
coaching knowledge relates directly to the very process that is responsible
for the generation of coaching knowledge, formal coach education courses.
Saury and Durand (1998) contend that coaching practitioners, particularly
those at the performance end of the coaching continuum, require different
types of knowledge structures to those offered in formal coach education
courses. More recently, Werthner and Trudel (2006) have also supported
such a viewpoint by suggesting that current models of formal coaching
education proactively encourage participants to be compliant consumers
of empirical knowledge. Such an approach to knowledge development
appears contrary to Ericsson and Smith’s (1991) much earlier proposal that
coaching practitioners, particularly those involved in team sports need
open ended knowledge structures to interpret and respond to the highly
fluid nature of contested game play. Each of the aforementioned
researchers argues that the existing model of formal coaching education is
failing to prepare coaching practitioners for the challenges presented in
competitive interceptive games.
Ericsson and Smith’s notion of open ended knowledge structures provides
an interesting segue into better understanding how coaching knowledge is
formed and used. Even before the aforementioned work of Ericsson and
Smith (1991), Chi, Glasser and Farr (1988) proposed that high end
knowledge structures are framed by an individual’s ability to monitor and
apply problem solving strategies. Interestingly this idea of monitoring one’s
own problem solving strategies gives momentum to the argument of a
meta-cognition. Quite clearly, if we are to accept the fact that coaching is a
decidedly complex and contested process then we must also begin to
consider the limitations of the conceptual frameworks of declarative and
40
procedural knowledge structures. In fact the work of Ferrari, Didierjean
and Marmeche (2008) offers some great insight into the creative and highly
adaptive meta-cognitive processes that Grandmasters use to solve complex
problems in chess. Researchers need to understand that if they are to
uncover the mystery that is tacit knowledge and esoteric reasoning, then
ideologies like meta-cognitive knowledge structures may need to be
explored.
To add further support to the recognition of a meta-cognitive knowledge
structure is the work of educational psychologist John Dewey who led the
argument that learning is more than the act of stockpiling declarative
knowledge (Rodger, 2002). Dewey proposed the notion of creative
intelligence and drove the notion learning involves a process of changing
concepts (Rodger, 2002). Similarly Werthner and Trudel (2006), describe
the process of learning as an interchanging network of knowledge, feelings
and other abstract qualities. These qualities represent what the
practitioner knows on any given day, but are flexible and open enough to
change when they are confronted with challenges. While Werthner and
Trudel describe this interplay of old and new knowledge structures as a
cognitive structure, Côté et al., (2009) have more recently labelled their
description of interacting knowledge structures as ‘Integrated Knowledge’.
Regardless of the label, the fact that each of these authors suggests that
the knowledge structure guides coaching action would indicate that they
are ascribing a meta-cognitive knowledge structure.
Although the majority of the foundational research addressing expertise in
coaching knowledge has been drawn from education, this process has only
served to conflate the idiosyncrasies of the coaching process with
education. Unfortunately it is this process of conflation that is blurring our
ability to recognise the unique features that separate coaching with those
features that are unique to the teaching learning exchange within the
confines of formal education institutions. An example of the unique
differences between these two paradigms is beginning to emerge in
41
current coaching research that recognises the importance of coaching
specific knowledge structures (see Cushion Armour and Jones 2003, 2006).
Moving beyond the traditional domain specific structures other research
suggests that athletes are unique individuals with unique learning styles
and consequently are capable of creating new ways to solve the movement
challenges that are infamously addressed by reductionist strategies (see
Araujo, Fonseca, Davids, Garganta, Volossovitch, Brandao, and Krebs,
2010). Moreover, it has been the revelations and claims of those from the
non-linear end of the skill acquisition continuum that has provided
momentum for others to consider the notion of a coaching meta-cognition
(see Wharton 2014, Feltovich, Prietula and Ericsson, 2006). While there
hasn’t been a significant body of research carried out on the idea of
coaches evolving professionally on their capacity for meta-cognition the
field could certainly benefit from further research and academic debate.
2.4 COACHING EDUCATION
A reoccurring issue in the research addressing coaching practice and
coaching knowledge is the concern regarding the effectiveness of large
scale, coach education programs. Lyle (1986) first raised concerns
regarding the most effective mode of program delivery in a paradigm
paper that suggests a decentralised mode of delivery may prove more
effective than a bureaucratic model. Prior to the 1970’s the seminal model
for coach education programs was a state-financed and a very much state-
controlled model of education that existed primarily in the eastern bloc
countries of Europe. This model was heavily aligned with scientific
intervention and government regulation. However, since this point in time
there has been an inclination among a number of first world countries
outside of Europe (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and
Canada) to adopt similar centralised programs of coach education.
42
From a bureaucratic perspective, centrally controlled and delivered coach
education programs offer ease of access to coordinated management and
collaborative practices. Gilbert et al., (1999) support such a view by
suggesting that coaches who participate in coaching education course
delivered according to the principles of large scale community based
programs are supposedly exposed to similar course infrastructure and
hypothetically the same knowledge structures. Under such a centralised
mode of delivery, it is expected that developments in coaching knowledge
structure would not be isolated add-ons in an already full curriculum but
rather a vital extension and purposeful expansion of a national sporting
agenda. As such, coaching education courses delivered according to a
centralised program would offer a form of congruency in relation to
organisation, arrangement, content and assessment.
Contrary to the ideologies of sporting bureaucracy, and their penchant for
a large scale, community based coach education programs, the growth of
subsequent formal coach education programs have preceded relatively
unimpeded by time or advancements in knowledge or education and
learning. Interestingly, this maintenance of the original model has
remained despite the efforts of Siedentop (1990), Douge & Hastie (1993)
and Gilbert et al., (1999) who have each commented on the irony of
centrally governed education programs that continue to proceed without
formal and impartial evaluation. Nelson and Cushion, (2006) adopt a
similar stance and even suggest that such a void in critical reflection is a
fundamental oversight. Nelson and Cushion are suggesting that
stakeholders invested in the existing models of coach education are more
interested in meeting the benchmarks of bureaucracy than they are at
delivering a quality education program.
From a structural perspective, there are similar concerns regarding the
inability of the traditional large scale coach education programs to locate
the participant at the centre of the learning process. After analysing the
United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC) program, Nelson et al., (2006)
43
concluded that each of the first three levels within the UK hierarchical
system focused only on the distribution of declarative knowledge. Similar
to Australia’s National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, the UKCC scheme
displays a propensity for the reproduction of craft skills and the
reproduction of a performance monism. The problem with this approach is
simply one of relevancy. It would appear that large coach education
programs seem satisfied with a shallow understanding of only some
declarative knowledge structures. In principle, the distribution of isolated
chunks of ‘trade secrets’ would appear to fulfil the requirement of building
upon a coaches’ knowledge base; however, research indicates that the
acquisition of declarative knowledge in sterile environment can lead to a
practitioners inability to adapt such information to meet the idiosyncratic
needs of an environment.
In Australia, the argument against the delivery of formal coach education
program is further highlighted by issues concerning the duplication of
content in courses offering higher levels of accreditation. Borrowing from
the work of Lyle (2002) and his three tiered definition of coaching,
Erickson, Côté and Fraser-Thomas (2007) and Gilbert et al., (1999) suggest
that a fundamental knowledge difference between participation and
performance coaching would necessitate different knowledge structures.
The traditional format of the large scale community focused coach
education programs remains obstinate to such ideals. Gould et al., (1990)
make a clear reference to the fact that hierarchical systems of education
perceive student progression through levels of accreditation which clearly
involves the reproduction of some material. Such a criticism strikes a chord
with Nash and Collins (2006) who suggest that there is no true
developmental pathway for aspiring performance coaches. Evidently, it is
Nash and colleague’s belief that isolated and decontextualized knowledge
structures alone will not create revolutionary practitioners or create any
degree of new knowledge.
44
Research identifying the characteristics of centrally governed coach
education programs is both rational and plentiful. However, the same
cannot be said for the alternative: decentralised coach education
programs. While the stakeholders of a centralised product are sure to claim
deregulation through the appointment of localised leaders, research
indicates that this only creates a multitude of other infrastructural issues
(see Campbell, 1993 and Gilbert et al., 1999). The reality is that there is
very little published research that reports on coach education programs
that are governed at a local level. This is due to the fact that very few
examples of such a system exist. The United States’ National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA); however, is one exception.
In 1976 the NCAA created the role of Graduate Assistant Coach, an in-
house education program based on experiential learning and the individual
needs of the host university. Under this initiative individual universities are
afforded the responsibility of using senior coaching appointments as
mentors for designing, implementing and monitoring the education of their
own Graduate Assistant Coaches. As a result, Dunn and Dunn (1997)
reports that the experiences gained by participants of the Graduate
Assistant Coaches program have proven to be a crucial stepping stone for
those seeking a full-time coaching position. However, Dunn and Dunn’s
research also suggests that not all universities invested similarly in
preparation and delivery of a comprehensive learning experience. Some
participants of the Graduate Assistant Coaches program recorded negative
experiences suggesting that they were used as gofers. This research by
Dunn and Dunn proves incredibly valuable. While the flaws of large scale
centrally governed coaching education programs are widely recognised,
the grand benefits of the alternative can be easily eroded by ill-conceived
and poorly delivered localised programs.
In light of the disparaging research surrounding the centralised governance
and delivery of large scale, community based coach education programs it
would appear that any program is better than none at all. Gould et al.,
45
(1990) however, have used their research of 130 elite performance
coaches in the United States to demonstrate that communities without
either centralised or decentralised controlled coach education programs
are equally flawed. Quite surprisingly, this research by Gould and
colleagues discovered that 46% of elite performance coaches in the United
States were unaware of the fact that information regarding the coaching
process and coaching principles actually exists. As such this research, at the
very least, would suggest that a national and centralised model of coach
education programming is beneficial in the dissemination of rudimentary
coaching concepts.
As indicated above there is insufficient evidence to warrant a substitution
of a centralised model with a decentralised version coaching education
programs. However, Lyle’s paradigm paper (1986) does highlight two
crucial points underpinning the debate surrounding coaching education
programs and their mode of management. Firstly, there is ample research
to suggest that service providers and the governing bodies of national
sporting organisations have a great deal of work to do if they are to ensure
program efficiency and effectiveness. Most importantly however, is the
realisation that this concern has be discussed openly for more than thirty
years and we are still here having the very same debate. It is time for
action and the industry now requires researchers and administrators who
are prepared to build the link between theory and praxis - if coaching is to
advance as a profession.
The review of literature highlights the lack of conclusive evidence to
indicate the most effective means of educating coaches. This point has
been reinforced by a 2009 special edition of the International Journal of
Sport Science and Coaching which focused the coaching education debate
specifically on the merits of Formal, Informal and Non-Formal coach
education (for a more detailed explanation see section 2.6). Despite the
above-mentioned research the debate regarding a bureaucratic controlled
and centrally governed body administering formalised coach education or a
46
deregulated delivery of a national model addressing the specific needs of
the participants involved is ongoing. However, what can be drawn from
this review of the literature is that there remains three points of concern
regarding the larger nationally governed model of coach education. First,
the existing hierarchical model of formal coach education has resulted in a
regular duplication of content across more than one level of accreditation.
Second, inconsistencies in the interpretation and delivery of the desired
learning outcomes result continue to erode the objectives of a national
agenda. Final, concerns regarding the administrative intent regarding the
issue ‘revenue raising’ over accreditation continue to challenge the
involvement of participants. Although the current body of research has
acknowledged the weaknesses of formal coach education programs and
failed to provide a definitive alternative, the recent work of Kathleen
Armour and other on the virtues of Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) may provide further insight into debate if not provide an alternative
means of developing a more effective model of coach education (see 2.7
Continuing Professional Development).
2.5 EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT COACHING
The idea of determining effective practice in the realm of sports coaching
has proven to be challenging. In a similar manner to the ambiguity
surrounding the notion of a coaching process, the idea of determining the
traits of effective coaching practice has long been the focus of sports
coaching research. Despite over 40 years of published research and
academic discussion, there still remains a gap in understanding of exactly
how the term effective coaching practice can be defined. Within a recent
issue of the ‘International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching’ there
were five different articles relating to ‘good’ coaching. However, no two
articles used the same criteria to identify the key indicators of ‘effective’
47
coaching practice. Labels such as ‘successful’, ‘experienced’, ‘elite’, ‘expert’
and ‘great’ were used within the articles.
Perhaps the difficulty in determining a concise understanding of what
actually constitutes effective coaching practice is due to language barriers
and complications with describing esoteric practices. Nash and Collins
(2006; 2008) and Hollenbeck, et al. (2002) each reinforce this point with
suggestions that many coaches experience significant difficulty when asked
to verbalise the internal processes they use when analysing the game play
or calculating interventions. Although these studies added to our
understanding of general coaching practice, particularly in regards to
specific knowledge structures like management, communication, sports
science and fundamental skills, our understanding of the most effective
means of developing the players’ decision making skills within a game
context remains unclear within the research.
Over the last 40 years, several conceptual models have been developed
based on research into a wide range of coaches from various sporting
backgrounds (Horn, 2008; Lyle, 2002; Côté, et al. 1995; Chelladurai, 2007;
Jowett, 2007; Mageau and Vallerand, 2003; Smoll and Smith, 2002). This
research has been conducted from a variety of theoretical perspectives
including motivation, leadership, coach-athlete relationship, expertise and
education. Although all of these perspectives are important when
developing an understanding of the complex nature of coaching, focussing
the research on one specific aspect of coaching will therefore narrow the
parameters as well as limit the overall understanding of effective coaching
practices. Notwithstanding the disparities caused by the design of the
research, three commonalities were found that affect the work of a coach;
coaching process, coaching knowledge and the coach’s behaviour. It can
be agreed upon that these aspects of coaching will have a direct effect on
the coach’s success and ability to be effective.
48
There is much research in the educational field (Gilbert and Trudel, 2001;
Carreiro de Costa, & Pieron, 1992) that reflect the distinct parallels
between teaching and coaching, particularly Physical Education. This is
helpful when attempting to establish a research based approach to
coaching as the field of education has a much longer and broader range of
academic literature to drawn upon. In saying this, even within the realm of
education and teaching, the ambiguity of “effective” teaching and an
“expert” teacher still remains vague and unclear (O’Sullivan and Doutis,
1994). There are copious amounts of research discussing expert and
effective coaches, however similar to the field of education, there is very
little research sets about qualifying an expert or an effective coach.
Attempts at clarifying the ambiguity surrounding the factors that qualifying
an effective coach have been based on the idea of experience equating to
expertise. Ericsson and Smith (1991) discusses the notion of an Expert
Performance Approach which in essence is a framework used to evaluate
the expertise of a coach based on the number of years or hours of
experience. Ericsson and Smith (1991) proposes that 10 years or 10 000
hours of experience equates to coaching expertise, while Gobet and Simon
(1996) suggest that the coach’s ability to apply their coaching knowledge in
a relevant and meaningful way is more important than years or hours of
experience. Moreover, Hornton, Baker & Deakin (2005) argue that neither
experience nor coaching qualifications automatically equate to coaching
expertise.
While it can be acknowledged that many coaches who are regarded and
respected as experts in their field have more than 10 000 hours of
experience, the notion that a particular number of hours or years of
experience can determine expertise is problematic. Nash and Collins (2006)
for example have put forward the notion of greater demarcation over
definition by proposing two types of coaching expertise; Role and Adaptive
coaching expertise. Despite the obvious appeal offered by broadening the
49
spectrum of expertise, perhaps there is still a more accurate means of
determining effective or expert coaching.
2.6 EDUCATION VS LEARNING: INFORMAL, FORMAL AND NON-
FORMAL LEARNING
When discussing effective classifications of learning, there is a need to
acknowledge the issues surrounding conflation. Mallett, Trudel, Lyle and
Rynne (2009) consider the language used within this content, particularly
the use and relationship of the words ‘education’ and ‘learning’. Mallett,
et al. (2009) stress the need for clarification of the two terms in order to
decipher their meanings to determine if the two terms can be considered
synonymous or not.
The education/learning framework by Coombs and Ahmed (1974) is often
cited as the first attempt to classify the difference between the two terms.
Coombs and Ahmed aimed to construct what they called a ‘functional view
of education’, which started with a shift in focus from education, to the
needs of the learner. They challenged the notion of traditional education
being confined to a structural, institutional approach that must be planned
and administered. Arguing with conviction, Coombs and Ahmed (1974, p.8)
stated:
“Education can no longer be viewed as a time-bound,
place-bound process confined to schools and measured by
years of exposure. These considerations led us to adopt
from the beginning a concept that equates education with
learning, regardless of where, how or when the learning
occurs.”
Coombs and Ahmed (1974) establish, that although ‘education’ and
‘learning’ do not have the same meaning, they suggest that education
offers the opportunity for learning. They firmly establish that learning
50
emerges from education which is not confined to the traditional structures
or institutions. Coombs and Ahmed (1974) look to shake the notion of
education being limited to what is understood as a ‘formal learning’
environment. The importance for education to be considered as more than
only taking place in a school, university or institutionalised environment
was very much highlighted by Coombs and Ahmed (1974).
The notion of a symbolic relationship between the narrow concepts of
education and learning has proven problematic for researchers. According
to Jarvis (2006), particularly in Western countries, the terms ‘education’
and ‘learning’ are very much differentiated. “Traditionally education has
been regarded as the institutionalisation of learning – learning is the
process which occurred in individuals and education is the social provision
of the opportunities to learn (and be taught) formally” (Jarvis, 2006 p.63).
These narrow concepts are problematic particularly within the coach
education context.
The most important aspect of coach development is the ongoing process of
learning. Many educational institutions have endorsed the idea of lifelong
learning. Colardyn and Bjornavold (2004) describe lifelong learning as the
notion of constructing meaning through a variety of settings and contexts.
Within the context of coaching, the concept of lifelong learning will occur
through a variety of formal, informal and non-formal means.
To develop into an effective coach, there must be opportunities to interact
with effective learning experiences specifically relating to the sport and
coaching. There are three widely used and accepted classifications of
learning experiences; informal, formal and non-formal (Colardyn and
Bjornavold, 2004; Rynne et al., 2010; McKenna, 2009; Mallett et al. 2009;
Bjornavold, 2000). According to Coombs and Ahmed (1974) Making
Learning Visible, the three classifications of learning can be defined by the
structure or environment of which learning occurs and the intentions of
the learner.
51
• Formal Learning will occur within an organised and structured
context (formal education, in-company training), with the intended
purpose of learning. Completing the requirements of formal
learning may lead to a formal recognition (diploma, certificate).
From the learner’s perspective, learning is the desired outcome
from intentionally participating in formal learning.
• Non-formal Learning occurs through planned activities that are not
explicitly designed for learning, however may still contain an
important learning element. Non-formal learning is intentional from
the learner’s perspective.
• Informal Learning is often referred to as experiential learning and
can, to a certain degree, be understood as accidental learning. The
learning experiences may result from daily life activities related to
work, family or leisure. It is not structured in terms of learning
objectives, learning time and/or learning support. Typically, it does
not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in
most cases it is non-intentional, incidental or random.
It is important to understand that learning will occur in a variety of
contexts provided by formal, non-formal and informal learning
environments. The discussion surrounding the most effective learning
environment is sparked when one type of learning environment has
greater emphasis or is used to measure the worth or credibility of a coach.
Currently, it appears the most valued environment is determined not by
which is most effective as a learning experience, but the environment that
provides the highest level of measurable accreditation. Despite the formal
environment’s perceived value, more importantly the most effective
learning environment requires clarity. There is an established imbalance of
what is valued and what is effective when considering the three
classification of learning environment within the context of coach
education.
52
Particularly within the context of high performance and developmental
coaching opportunities, the level of an individual’s formal learning is highly
valued and regularly used as a means for measuring and comparing
coaches’ credibility. Unfortunately this measurement is without
consideration of other important aspects of the coach (Mallett et al. 2009).
Despite the already sizable and still growing body of research (see Billett et
al. 2005; Rynne, et al. 2010; Cushion et al., 2010; Trudel and Gildbert,
2006) that suggest the lack of quality learning experiences provided by
formal learning environments, such as coaching accreditation courses, the
credibility of a coach is still often measured by their level of accreditation.
Traditionally, learning is perceived as the result of an organised, structured
activity, however recent research has explored other environments as a
means to provide quality learning experiences. Rynne, et al. (2010)
highlights the shift in coach education being a formalised process towards
learning through informal and non-formal settings. Moreover, Billett and
colleagues (2005) describes the transition from learning ‘for’ work to
learning ‘in’ work, arguing for the notion of the workplace to be considered
a ‘relevant and genuine’ means of learning. The workplace has often been
overlooked as an avenue for research into effective learning experiences,
particularly within the context of coaching. There are few opportunities to
participate in formalised coaching education programs, however when
offered, those who participated have been very critical of both the content
and the design of the course (Rynne, et al. 2010). Formal education
programs are commonly used for coach education purposes with the intent
to disperse fundamental knowledge; however the delivery of content can
be over simplified and disengaging.
Although widely accepted as a means of education, the effectiveness of
formalised coaching programs are often questioned by the coaching
community. The traditional style of formal coach education has been
found to be largely ineffectual and also not highly regarded by high
performance coaches (Cushion, et al., 2003; Trudel and Gildbert, 2006).
53
This can be attributed to the nature of formal learning environments.
Merriam et al., (2007) define formal learning as, highly institutionalised,
bureaucratic, curriculum driven, and formally recognised with grades,
diplomas or certificates. The coaches who participate in these courses are
forced to be passive in this learning environment. Wharton (2014) refers to
these learners as ‘compliant’ in that they may not be learning, however
many coaches realise to receive their desired accreditation they are not
required to have learnt or even value what is presented but be able to
recite the ‘right answers’. This is problematic as the accreditation may not
be a quality learning experience or valued by the coaches participating,
however it is a means of measuring quality.
Levels of coaching accreditation can be considered unguided and un-
informed when used as a criteria for coaching appointments. The
completion of a course and therefore a particular level of accreditation
cannot guarantee the quality of coach or compatibility between the team
and the appointed coach. Mielke (2007) suggests this may explain the high
turnover rates of coaches, and furthermore highlight the need for a shift in
valuing formal learning over informal and non-formal learning.
By nature the content presented through formal learning environments,
such as coaching accreditation courses, is predetermined and delivered by
a designated presenter with some form of recognisable qualification or
status (Mallett et al. 2010). This can be problematic, as the control of the
learning experience is removed from the learner, therefore the focus is not
on the learner’s needs but to fulfil the requirement to deliver the content,
which may or may not be relevant (Moon, 2004). Majority of formal
learning environments such as coaching accreditations require the learner
to play a passive role in the learning process. Much like a sponge, the
learner is expected to passively gain knowledge through listening to the
content of the presentation. Despite significant research (Cushion et al,
2010; Dickson, 2001; Lyle, 2002; Trudel & Gilbert, 2006) showing formal
learning environments are not valued by the learner, the vast majority of
54
coaching accreditations and coach education opportunities are presented
through a formal learning environment. It is not surprising that formal
learning environments are not valued by learners as a learning experiences,
however governing coaching bodies such as the National Coach
Accreditation Scheme in Australia require a means to differentiate coaches
at different levels, hence why a learning environment that can be
standardised and tested is the chosen and continued. The motivation of
coaches who participate in coaching accreditation courses is less likely to
be about the potential learning experience but to become accredited.
The purpose of most formalised coaching courses or education programs’
is often limited to only developing the coaches’ professional knowledge
rather than the interpersonal or intrapersonal knowledge that enhances
the coaches’ ability to better develop a positive rapport with the athletes
as well as understand and practice critical self-reflection. The previous
arguments highlight both the need for reform of coach education programs
and the value placed on accreditations through the completion of
standardised courses. The work of Wharton (2014) states that two thirds
of high performance coaches interviewed described formal learning coach
accreditation courses as jumping through hoop or ticking boxes, the
coaches stated that the course offered nothing new and lacked relevance
to their field of practice.
Perhaps, now more than ever, the current coaching literature is
encouraging the broader coaching community to devalue formal learning
environments while emphasising the significant impact informal and non-
formal learning environments can create. Rynne et al. (2010) advocates for
the consideration of the workplace as a legitimate means of learning as it
creates a unique opportunity of in situ learning that is extremely relevant
for sports coaches. This array of literature opens opportunities to shift the
culture and attitudes of coach education away from formalised structured
courses to develop through continuing professional development.
55
2.7 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (HOW COACHES
LEARN)
Rising from the concerns regarding the validity of existing models of formal
coach education programs, a number of alternative learning environments
have emerged from education and coach education literature. One such
model gaining significant interest of late is Craft’s (1996) model of
Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Craft describes his
interpretation of Continuing Professional Development as a process by
which an individual or individuals take control of their own learning and
development following the completion of their initial training. Admittedly
much of Craft’s work on CPD is centred on the professional development of
teachers. However, more recently Armour and Yelling (2004) have adapted
existing models of CPD to examine the practices of Physical Education
Teachers while Cushion, Armour and Jones (2006) and later Nelson,
Cushion and Potrac (2006) have each adapted Craft’s definition to enable
its application within a sports coaching context. The adaptation of Craft’s
definition of CPD has emerged through necessity, the findings of recent
research and the ongoing debate around the merits of formal, informal and
non-formal learning in sports coaching (see Chapter 2.6) attests to the
need for a fresh approach to coach education, and most importantly to
respond to the learning needs of practicing coaches.
As mentioned in chapters 2.1 and 2.2 coaching and coaching education is
often reduced to a series of isolated experiences. By design such
approaches fail to neither designate context nor prepare coaches to
function within a specific context. Following on from the Continuing
Professional Development framework offered by the aforementioned
researchers it is proposed that CPD should offer three main points of
difference to the traditional models of formal coach education. Such
points include ensuring that the learner is in control of their learning, that
56
the CPD experience is holistic and inclusive of all element of the
practitioners work life balance, and finally that the CPD program is forward
looking and develops skills that can be used by the practitioner in the
future. The catalyst triggering the CPD’s development stems from the
current dissatisfaction felt by the majority of coaches participating in
formal coach education courses. Instead of focusing on learning, coaches
are using their personal experiences as a filter to evaluate the teachings
provided by generic formalised coaching education courses.
The generic nature of formal coaching education programs are presented
in such isolation few coaches consider these programs as learning
experiences. When attending coach education programs, particularly
established high performance coaches, bring with them a long-standing
and deep-rooted habitus, a set of beliefs and disposition that guides their
actions and judgement of the course content (Cushion, Armour and Jones,
2006). Cushion, et al., (2010) and Saury and Durand (1998) argue that
intended learning outcomes of coaching courses presented in a formalised
environment are unable to compete with the established beliefs and
perceptions conceived from personal experience. More specifically the
work of Wharton (2014) states that two thirds of coaches who participated
in his research on expertise in interceptive sports coaching stated that their
experiences of formal coach education courses failed to build upon their
knowledge as well as lacked relevance to their particular coaching
situation. Moreover, the same research cohort offered the following
explanations as reasons for justifying participation in these formal coaching
education courses: ‘ticking the required boxes’ or ‘jumping through hoops’.
One of the conclusions that Wharton had drawn from this research
suggests that existing coaches perceive that they will not be awarded
future coaching positions without higher levels of accreditation (Wharton,
2014). More importantly, it is obvious from Wharton’s findings that high
performance coaches are asking for more control over coach education
course particularly in regards to relevance and personalisation.
57
Coaching is by nature, both an individual and social process that is
influenced by a myriad of constraints and opportunities based on human
interaction. Cushion, Armour and Jones (2003) acknowledge coaching at
its core is based around establishing a positive rapport between the athlete
and coach within a wider context. As Lawson (1990) attests, there is no
one size fits all when it comes to pedagogy, therefore coach education
programs must reflect the delicate and unique social nature of the
coaching process. The current criticism of formal coach education courses
revolve around the content’s narrow scope as well as seemingly ignoring
the specific social context coaches work within (Cushion, et al., 2006).
Much like the development of a coaching process, Continuing Professional
Development needs to reflect holistically the social complexities with
which the coach will be working.
The CPD permits for the establishment of genuine dialogue between
coaches and their mentors allowing for the consideration of social
complexities when developing the knowledge, understanding and practice
of coaching in any given environment. This aspect of the CPD encapsulates
the third and final element that differentiates it from formal professional
development environments regarding the CPD’s capacity to be ongoing and
developmental. Gobet and Simon (1996); Nash and Collins (2008) and
Ferrari, Didierjean and Marmeche (2008) all discuss within their coaching
research the importance of coaches to develop effective decision making
skills. The aforementioned researchers put forward the notion of Forward
Reasoning as an explanation of how expert coaching practitioners
processes information provided by the game environment to enable
tactical decision making in attacking and defensive situations. Unlike the
generic nature of formal coaching education courses, the CPD provides an
opportunity to develop Forward Reasoning within a valid environment
sensitive to the specific social complexities within the coaching context.
The CPD addresses the three main points of difference to the traditional
models of formal coach education. Unlike formal learning environments,
58
the content and structure of the learning experiences within the CPD is not
prescribed or structured by the presenter, rather by nature, ensures that
the learner is in control of their learning. The CPD experience is holistic
and inclusive of all element of the practitioners work life balance and the
coach participates in this professional development in situ, perceived to be
of more valid and influential as a learning experience. As well as this, the
CPD program is forward looking and develops skills that can be used by the
practitioner in the future, such as Forward Reasoning. Considering these
three points, the Continuing Professional Development concept will be
used as a framework for this participatory action research intervention.
The coaching practitioners sampled will interact with the CPD model and
will reflect on any changes that occur within their coaching practice.
2.8 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
While parallels are often drawn between the fields of Physical Education
and sports coaching, there has been criticism amongst academics from
both fields regarding the absence of an evidence base approach when
establishing pedagogical practices (Newell and Rovegno, 1990, Lyle, 2002).
Unlike Physical Education, the profession of coaching consists of
predominately volunteer practitioners working at a participation level
(Lyle, 2002). The majority of coaching practitioners have grounded their
knowledge and coaching practices in their personal experiences of playing
the game, rather than evidence based pedagogical practices (Renshaw,
Davids, Shuttleworth and Chow, 2009). According to Thorpe (2005), too
often practitioners are more concerned with how ‘we’ coach, rather than
how ‘they’ learn. Shared with the criticism surrounding pedagogical
knowledge, both Lyle (2002) and Martens (2004) have suggested that
coaches are more likely to lack direction and succumb to external pressures
when their coaching philosophy is not guided by and evidence based
theoretical framework.
59
A theoretical framework is imperative as it provides this participatory
action research study with an evidence based approach to volleyball
coaching that may enhance coaching practices, knowledge and
philosophies as well as provide research based explanation to address the
current frustrations and lack of player development shared within school of
which I teach and coach. The theoretical framework used for this
participatory action research project will link together Ecological Dynamics
Theory, Non-linear: Constraints-Led Approach and world renowned
Olympic volleyball coach John Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’
approach. In essence, research based theories and pedagogies will be used
to explain the success and validity of the Kessel’s ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach and therefore the underpinning theoretical framework
for this participatory action research project.
2.9 JOHN KESSEL’S ‘PRINCIPLES BEFORE METHODS’ APPROACH
With over 45 years of coaching experience ranging from under 7 age
groups, through to the Olympic level, Kessel uses his experiential
knowledge to justify his approach rather than theories supported by
empirical research. While listening to Kessel explain his ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach to volleyball coaching during a Volleyball Symposium
held at the Australian Institute of Sport, it became apparent how aligned
this approach was with non-linear pedagogy (Chow, et al. 2015). Although
not specifically created in reference to a non-linear pedagogy, Kessel uses a
logical and reflective practice to create the ‘Principles before Methods’
approach to volleyball coaching.
Within the volleyball context, the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach
promotes the notion of establishing the purpose or why the activity should
be practiced before the method or how the activity will be performed.
Kessel advocates for coaches to think critically about why they do what
they do and directly questions the relevance of isolated drills which are
60
consistently replicated during training sessions. Kessel’s coined the term
‘grills’ to shift the coaching focus from drills in isolation, promoted by a
linear approach to skill acquisition, to a modified game with a clear focus
performed within the constraints and context of the game.
Kessel’s game-like drills or “grills” concept directly opposes the reductionist
approach to skill acquisition, which mirrors a linear progression. As
described by Luft and Buitrago (2005), skill acquisition through a linear
progression begins with practicing closed skills, in a simple, controlled and
isolated environment. Kessel (2015) described the process of teaching
skills in isolation to the environment as useful as teaching a person to drive
by letting them turn the steering wheel, push the brakes and accelerator,
change gears and indicate all while the car is parked in the driveway and
turned off. Kessel’s argument stems from the lack of relevance those
experiences would have on a person actually learning to drive. Instead of
isolating all the required driving skills and practicing them separately in the
driveway, Kessel suggest modifying the environment of which all skills are
practiced, perhaps in a deserted car park, then on quiet back streets.
Kessel’s (2015) point is that skills should not be taught in isolation but the
environment the skills are performed in should be modified, this can be
done in a volleyball context by playing modified games, rather than one
training session complete dedicated to a particular volleyball skill.
Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ approach suggests the learner requires
experiences with the emerging nature of game structures and exposure to
the tactical patterns that underpin the game before they can develop game
specific decision making skills. Similarly Erickson and colleagues (2007)
suggest the best way to create effective movement in sport is not to
practice the related movements in isolation to the context of the
performance but within the context of the game. To elaborate on this
notion of aligning decision making with emergent game structures of
volleyball, Kessel has introduced a volleyball specific language. For
example the label ‘Grills’ (Kessel, 2013) is one of the many terms, phrases
61
and concepts coined by Kessel to emphasise the need to shift from the
traditional drill-based approach to a more dynamic or non-linear approach.
While the term ‘grills’ is strictly an organising label that Kessel uses to
describe a suite of modified games that enable decisions and subsequent
movement patterns to emerge from gameplay, the defining feature of
these grills that links this approach to the non-linear paradigm is the idea
that beginning and developmental players experience these activities prior
to being subjected to any performance monism or gold standard to
replicate.
With a strong focus on the learning environment, the ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach looks to manipulate the learners’ environment in order
to effectively develop the athletes’ understanding of the game, while
allowing the athletes the freedom to physically experience and develop the
required motor skills to play the game. During the Volleyball Symposium,
Kessel emphasised the need to be mindful of the environment and to
ensure it is game-like, with appropriate modification to ensure the athlete
is required to think and make decisions while practicing the required skills.
While Kessel has a bachelor degree, his approach to coaching is not from a
theoretical perspective, rather a practical approach developed through
cycles of critical self-reflection and trial and error, developed much like
Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU).
Although developed through a similar fashion Kessel’s approach differs
from TGfU. While the TGfU approach looks to let the game teach the game
through a linear six step model (Renshaw, Araujo, Button, Chow, Davids
and Moy, 2015), the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach takes on a non-
linear form better aligned with the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA).
2.10 NON-LINEAR PEDAGOGY: CONSTRAINTS-LED APPROACH
There are a number of different approaches coaching practitioners utilise
when developing motor skills within a sporting context. According to
62
Chow, et al. (2016) many coaching practitioners rely on their past
experiences as a player to develop their coaching processes and do not
have a knowledge or understanding of theories that underpin human
movement sciences and sport pedagogy. Developing an appropriate
approach to coaching underpinned by relevant theory will assist coaching
practitioners in creating clear achievable goals and enhance learning
outcomes through an effective process of skill acquisition. It is imperative
to link theory and practice in order to develop and evaluate effective
coaching practices.
Under the umbrella of the ecological dynamics theory (see chapter 2.12),
non-linear pedagogies such as CLA directly challenge the traditional linear
approach to developing skill acquisition. Referred to within the cognitive
sciences as an information-processing approach to skill acquisition, the
traditional linear approach has been consistently questioned by academics
within the field (Chow, et al., 2016; Davids, 2012; Handford, Davids,
Bennett, and Button, 1997). The traditional linear approach to skill
acquisition suggests learning occurs through a progression of steps or
stages. Luft and Buitrago (2005) compare motor skill acquisition to
learning a musical instrument, during the initial stages of learning, simple
music is required for novice musicians before they can slowly progress to
more complex pieces. Conversely, the CLA suggests motor skill acquisition
relies on the learner performing within the context and constraints
provided by the game environment, rather than in isolation (Chow, et al.,
2016). Although Kessel actively developed an approach to volleyball
coaching that directly challenges the widely practiced traditional linear
approach, it can be argued that the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’
approach naturally aligns with the CLA rather than the TGfU as a
pedagogical framework.
Although at a glance, there are similarities between TGfU and the
‘Principles before Methods’ approach, at its core the ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach shares more commonalities with CLA. Kessel
63
developed a method of coaching grounded in fundamentally similar
motivations to Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) TGfU. Both Kessel and Bunker
and Thorpe came from the perspectives of a practicing coach and physical
educators respectfully, who identified a pedagogical problem within their
fields of expertise. Both aimed to address the problem through a practical
solution, rather than developing a strategy rich in theory, and etched in
academic rigor. The problem both Kessel and Bunker and Thorpe identified
concerned the poor performance outcomes demonstrated in game
situations following the traditional method of teaching skills in isolation to
the game environment. Thorpe (2009) has suggested that practitioners are
too concerned with how to coach rather than develop an understanding of
how athletes learn. While Kessel’s approach is similar, Kessel still
emphasises the important role a coach plays in the teaching learning
exchange (Kessel, 2015). Kessel (2013) suggests that the role of the coach
is to facilitate activities that guide the learner’s discovery. Like TGfU,
Kessel advocates to match the coach designed training activities with the
current capabilities of the participating learners. Although these are some
of the similarities Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ approach share with
TGfU, at its core, it naturally aligns itself with CLA.
The CLA centres on the mutual relationship that emerges from interactions
between individuals and the performance environment (Renshaw, et al.
2015). This creates a learner-centred pedagogy that empowers the learner
by offering opportunities to explore, make decisions, identify challenges
and problem solve while acquiring the required physical skills of the game.
Through Kessel’s description of the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach
to volleyball coaching deep parallels can be drawn with many aspects of
the CLA. The key differences between TGfU and Kessel’s ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach and therefore the key aspects of alignment with CLA
consist of the intended pedagogical goals, the use of questioning as a
pedagogical tool, use of progression and skill interjections.
64
As a physical education practitioner, Thorpe’s intended pedagogical goals
of TGfU were twofold, the main objective was to foster an intrinsic,
motivation for future participation in physical activity and the secondary
aim was to improve player performance (Thorpe, 2009). On the contrary,
while the importance of positive learning environment that is fun and
inclusive for its participants is acknowledged, the main objective of Kessel’s
‘Principles before Methods’ and the CLA approach is to enhance player
understanding including knowledge of performance and knowledge about
performance (Renshaw, et al. 2015; Araujo, Davids, Chow and Passos,
2009). Kessel (2013) advises coaches that a player who knows why is more
valuable than a player who knows how.
The use of questioning as a pedagogical tool is also a point of difference
between TGfU and the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ and CLA
approach. With the TGfU pedagogical method of teaching sport, the
optimal goal is to let the game pose the questions and therefore be the
teacher (Thorpe, 2009). Whereas the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’
and CLA approach requires verbal instruction in most instances, to explain
the constraints and allow group and individual reflection on the constraint,
problem solving and decision making tactics and strategies (Renshaw, et
al., 2015). Kessel (2015) suggests to coaches to give feedback on where to
look but not what to find. By this, Kessel is suggestion for coaches to guide
the athletes through a critical reflective process, while avoiding the desire
to reflect for them.
Consisting of a six step progressive-linear cycle, within which the
complexities of the games and challenges increase as the learners develop,
the use of progression in the TGfU differs from the Kessel’s ‘Principles
before Methods’ and CLA approach. According to Chow and colleagues
(2006), although there are three stages of learning within the CLA, these
stages are not nested together, nor are they sequential. The three stages
are concurrent and involve a process of exploration and reinforcement,
they include; search, discover, exploit (Renshaw, 2015). During the ‘search’
65
stage involves intentional constraints to allow the emergence of
perception-action coupling (see chapter 2.10) during learning. The
‘discover’ stage identifies how to overcome the constraint in order to
achieve the intended goal. Using goal directed behaviour, the learner is
able to identify solutions and attempts to stabilise them by re-organising
the previously exaggerated constriction of degrees of freedom (Vereijken,
Van Emmerik, Whiting and Newell, 1992). Although Kessel’s approach is
not embedded in the evidence-based academic foundation as the CLA the
underpinning concepts are very much aligned. Kessel (2013) actively
encourages coaches to create learning environments suited to the learners’
ability and need, while guiding the learners through similar phases of
exploration and reinforcement offered by the CLA.
TGfU aims to teach the required skills through carefully planned small sided
or modified games, TGfU also advocate for the development of technical
skills outside of the games context (Butler, 2014; Bunker and Thorpe,
1986). This practice of injecting between the introductory and final game
play for the purpose of developing technique is present in the TGfU,
however the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ and CLA approach look to
simplify the environment rather than remove the skill from the context
(Renshaw, et al., 2015). Renshaw and colleagues (2015) suggest it is the
key information provided by the learning environment that guides the
actions and the technical skills are easier to acquire through the
manipulations of key constraints such as rules, space, time and equipment.
Kessel’s (2015) teaching the skills of driving a motor vehicle, mentioned
earlier is an example of the mind set and teaching philosophy that
underpins the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to volleyball coaching.
Non-linear pedagogy is an effective teaching strategy that recognises and
understands the complexities of human movement and the need to design
meaningful and purposeful learning experiences. Chow and his colleagues
(2016) suggests non-linear pedagogies such as the Constraints-Led
Approach addresses the inherent complexities of the learning environment
66
and aims to develop functional movement patterns and allow movement
behaviours to emerge. By learning in the environment of which the game
is played, the learner will be exposed to behavioural trends and begin to
recognise particular cues that will allow the learner to pre-empt the play,
Kessel (2015) refers to this skills as reading. Kessel (2015) also suggests
that the learners taught in isolation will never be exposed to these
movement behaviours and therefore never be exposed to the cues
provided by genuine gameplay, hence why many coaches experience the
frustration of skills developed in an isolated drills not transferring to a
game situation.
2.11 ECOLOGICAL DYNAMICS THEORY
A theoretical rationale is required to confirm the validity of any
pedagogical approach. In this case, the non-linear pedagogical approach to
skill acquisition is underpinned by the ecological dynamics theory. In
relation to skill acquisition, ecological dynamic theory is used to explain the
relationship between human performance and the information offered by
the performer’s environment (Chow, Davids, Button and Renshaw, 2016;
Chow, Davids, Hristovski, Araujo and Passos, 2011; Davids and Araujo,
2010). Originally established through the studies in the field of natural
sciences, specifically animal-environment relationships, Gibson (1979)
provided a theoretical rationale to explain the relationship between animal
and human behaviours and their environment. Using this research
platform provided by Gibson, academics can draw parallels from the
natural sciences and apply these findings within the field of skill acquisition
and sports psychology.
The ecological dynamics as a theoretical approach to skill acquisition
clarifies how the learner learns as well as how learning may occur within
the context of a sporting environment. This approach suggests the
performer’s behaviour and their process of learning is directly influenced
67
by the environment of which they perform (Chow, et al., 2016). Gibson
(2015) refers this as the theory of direct perception, a fundamentalist
approach suggesting that human and other animal behaviours are directly
influenced by their perception of elements and events within their
environment. Within a skill acquisition context, examples of environmental
elements and events could be ground surfaces, objects, equipment,
opponents and competition (Araujo, Davids, and Hristovski, 2006). It is the
complementary relationship between the perception of the environment
and the person that provides opportunities for action which allows learning
to occur. Gibson (2015) refers to this as perception-action coupling, born
through direct perception theory.
Human perception and action are functionally interdependent, information
is received by an organism’s functionally adapted sensory-movement
systems, the information is processed and a locomotor reaction occurs.
Gibson suggested that the physical properties of the environment coupled
with the need to locomote for survival served a role in the evolution of
integrated perceptual and action systems (Warren, 1998). Due to these
lawful relationships between the environment and the structure of the
surrounding energy flows, Warren (1998) argues that the environment can
unambiguously inform the animal about the motion and location of objects
and their own self-motion. This translates from the animal kingdom to the
field of motor-learning via the parallels in the perception and processing of
ones’ environment to determine an appropriate locomotor action. Gibson
(1979) proposed it is the mechanisms for how humans perceive the
information in the environment that results in an attempt to coordinate a
contextualised, role specific action. In essence, the notion of perception-
action coupling reiterates the emphasis CLA and Kessel places on learning
within the constraints, context and environment of the game.
It is this openness to the surrounding information flows that allows non-
linear pedagogies, such as CLA to emerge as an evidence-based and
research rich pedagogical framework. According to Ecological Dynamics
68
Theory, an effective individual is able to detect the affordances for action.
Gibson and Pick (2000) define an affordance as the ability for an individual
to identify a property of the environment which can be provide
information used to support an action. The role of the learner is to identify
affordances that specific environments offer them, some affordances will
require a significant amount of time to allow the learner to explore,
practice identifying the affordances and enabling action (Gibson and Pick,
2000). The role of the facilitator is important as they are required to
accurately identify the key perception information sources in the
performance environment (Davids, Button, Ara, Renshaw and Hristovski,
2006), allowing opportunities to enable to learner to become attuned to
specific information sources from within the game environment.
At its core, Gibson’s 1979 theory of direct perception refers to the process
of information driving physical movement as well as how movement can
influence the information picked up by the performer. The research into
perception-action coupling is important when considering an evidence-
base pedagogical framework of which to teach skill acquisition. The CLA
and Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ approach both use the strategy
referred to by Davids and colleague (2007) as ‘task simplification’ rather
than the traditional reductionist approach of ‘task decomposition’. Task
simplification signifies that the information-movement couplings utilised
during performance are preserved by requiring the learner to practice in
simulated performance conditions, or within a modified learning
environment. On the contrary, task decomposition is commonly used in the
traditional linear-approach to skill acquisition as a strategy of breaking up
the actions into arbitrary units, where no decision making skills are
required and no perception-action coupling can occur (Renshaw, et al.,
2015). Hence why skills that practice repetitively in a drill within a closed,
isolated learning environment often do not successfully translate into a
game environment.
69
As described previously, Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to
volleyball coaching is centred on the important role the environment plays
within a game setting. The opponents, the court surface, the team
dynamics, the skills within a rally and the constant decision making athletes
are required to make all contribute to the quality of the performance
outcome. Kessel (2015) and arguably the aforementioned academics
would suggest the contextual features provided by the gameplay
environment must play a role during motor learning, as it is the variables
within the environment that ultimately informs the decision making and
consequently skill execution of the performer.
2.12 CONCLUSIONS
Despite the mounting evidence provided by the findings of academics
within the field of coaching research, there is very little published research
highlighting advances being made by service providers and governing
authorities. As highlighted through this literature review two major gaps
can be identified. The first is in regard to the clear disconnect between
coach education programs and effective learning experiences currently
offered to coaches. The second refers to the copious amount of research
emphasising the importance of a contextualised learning environment, yet
coaching courses and many practicing coaches continue to reinforce the
use of a traditional, reductionist based approach to coaching.
While some of the research in this review dates back more than thirty
years, it has been included for that very fact. How long must we continue
to talk about the necessary change before change is enacted? Moreover
and more recently, in 2009 the International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching drew international attention to the debate surrounding coaching
education with a special issue dedicated to formal vs informal vs non-
formal learning environments. The very presence of such a special issue
serves to highlight the significance of further research that examines the
70
effectiveness of formal coaching education courses as a quality learning
tool while strongly promoting the use of informal means to create a more
effective learning environment.
What sparks my interest is the lack of action or connection between the
growing body of literature and practicing coaches. Dating back to 1999
Cross and Lyle discuss the mounting research into ideological or
philosophical approaches in coaching, but remain puzzled by the lack of
studies which have dealt with coach education, roles and behaviour in situ.
Eighteen years on from that publication, seemingly no significant change
has occurred in the coaching profession or at an organisation level.
Volleyball Queensland and Volleyball Australia are still providing coaching
accreditation courses entrenched in formal learning and advocating the use
of a linear paradigm. Neither organisation is listening to the needs of the
coaches, heeding the advice of publications regarding effective coach
education or the content being delivered. The use of a linear pedagogy
continues to be reinforced despite the mounting research that proves a
non-linear approach to be more effective.
Drawn from revolutionary studies of animal behaviour, the importance of
the learning environment is highlighted by the nexus at which ecological
dynamics theory connects with non-linear pedagogies in sports coaching to
produce the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to volleyball
coaching. Although Kessel created this approach independently, the
justifications and reasoning behind his methods undoubtedly parallel the
research findings and literature informing the fields of non-linear
paradigms, such as CLA. Kessel has unknowingly built a mental bridge
between the research behind a Constraints-Led Approach and effective
coaching practice. As an All American Hall of Fame volleyball coach, Kessel
views his world and justifies his decisions through a practical means of trial
and error involving critical self-reflections.
71
As a coach, denying exposure to the variables also denies the athletes the
ability to practice the required skills within the complexities of the game,
without this learning experience during trainings the learner’s first
experience of the game environment’s variables will be during a game. This
is likely to result in poor performance outcomes and frustration on the part
of the coach and the athlete (Kessel, 2015). Kessel (2015) and arguably the
academics who inform the fields of ecological psychology and non-linear
paradigms would attest to the importance of the learning environment, it
cannot be undervalued by a coach as it is what the athletes need to feel
comfortable and familiar with in order to perform at their peak.
The literature reviewed in this chapter overwhelmingly indicates two
major issues within the realm of coach education, the lack of opportunities
provided for coaches to engage with an effective learning experience and
concerns regarding the validity of the content being delivered through
these coach education programs. It is the intention of this participatory
action research study to address both these issues identified through the
review of literature by answering the two proposed research questions
detailed in chapter 1.6:
1. Can an intervention based on a Continuing Professional
Development program assist in the transition of coaching practice
from the reductionist approach to the Kessel’s based ‘Principles
before Methods’ approach?
2. What is the capacity of the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’
approach to improve performance outcomes in junior (school age)
volleyball players?
The primary focus will be on developing the participating coaches’ practice,
knowledge and process, within their specific coaching environment. As
suggested by the literature, presenting the educational experience in situ,
through a CPD, will acknowledge and address any social constrains specific
to the coaching context as well as allow the coach to develop confidence
72
and critical self-reflection skills. The secondary focus will be reviewing the
use of a non-linear pedagogical approach to volleyball coaching.
This participatory action research overarching aim is to create and provide
a valid and relevant means of coach education. The potential for this
participatory action research is to influence and help sporting organisations
like Volleyball Queensland and Volleyball Australia to adapt and evolve
with the requirements and needs of coaches looking to be educated as well
as aligning with the current coaching research findings from the fields of
non-linear pedagogies and Ecological Dynamics theory.
73
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The main aim of this study was to investigate the social phenomenon of
coaching practices by implementing an effective of coach education
program into a High Performance Volleyball Academy. The objective was to
use the research findings from the fields of effective coach education and
non-linear paradigms to design and implement an intervention that aims to
bring about effective coaching practice. On the strength of these
intentions it was clear that this study aligns with a qualitative research
methodology. This decision is supported by the research of Gray (2009)
suggesting the strength of the qualitative research agenda is the underlying
theoretical perspectives which have the potential to provide complex
contextual descriptions of how individuals experience a specific event.
From a personal perspective it would appear that a quantitative
methodology, which holds a preeminent disposition for the measurement
of a select number of variables, would prove ineffective at uncovering an
understanding of the complex social context in which coaching
practitioners function and in particular the relationship that underpins the
learning exchange that occurs between a coach and an athlete. There still
remains much to be learned about effective and ineffective coaching
practices and by default effective coach education programs. However, as
Patton (1990) suggests, in order for the research of social phenomena to
be reliable it must be qualitative by nature and captured in situ.
3.2 QUALITATIVE APPROACH
As recently as thirty years ago qualitative research was the domain of only
a very small percentage of academics, most of whom were involved in the
fields of sociology or anthropology. According to Barbour (2008) over the
last twenty years qualitative research has rapidly established itself as an
74
acceptable approach within a broader range of disciplines. Much of the
academic fraternities’ recent acceptance of the qualitative paradigm hinges
on a growing awareness for diversity of knowledge, and the fact that
qualitative research openly perceives the reality being studied as a socially
constructed, dynamic and circumstantial environment.
Arguably much of the apprehension surrounding the merits of a qualitative
framework can be attributed to concerns regarding the validity of the data
collected and the analysis of this data. This is exacerbated when qualitative
methods are compared to the traditional scientific rigors adopted by those
favouring a quantitative framework. Stebbins (2001) further reinforces this
difference between the two research paradigms by suggesting quantitative
researchers perceive the world as stable and quantifiable, whereas
qualitative researchers see the world as being dynamic, changeable and
most often unpredictable. Gray (2009) raisers concerns regarding the
internal validity of qualitative research. However, these can be put to rest
by the researcher maintaining a strong sense of critical self-reflection to
ensure that internal validity is achieved by repeated checks of the
researcher’s interpretation of data.
This notion of self-critical reflectivity plays an important role in qualitative
research. Eliott and Timulak (2005) forewarn that if a researcher is to
uncover a socially constructed interpretation of a phenomenon, they need
to be mindful that they too were an instrument and an actor in the
discovery and cannot simply be a separated from the data set post
collection. The researcher cannot objectively consider themselves to be
external to the research process or inherently subjective, as all data
requires interpretation (Reichardt & Rallis, 1994). Qualitative researchers
ground their study based on all people involved being social actors who
interpret and reinterpret the world to create social order. This is why the
analysis of data and patterns that emerge in the data will be validated
according to the three principles of content analysis (refer to chapter 3.7).
75
Arguably, in the pursuit of effective research, research has been over
simplified by controlling particular variables. It is the overpowering desire
for unquestionable ‘credibility’ or ‘proof’ that lures researchers to
quantitative methodologies and its’ stringent control of variable. However,
Kahan (1999, p.42), suggests that by using such quantitative measures
would be ‘incongruous with, and insensitive to, the peculiarities of
coaching and the unique conditions under which coaches act’. A
quantitative research approach does not take into consideration the
various aspects of life that are very much dependent on the social
interactions of the people involved in the study. Coaching by nature is a
social process, therefore to use a quantitative research approach would be
to miss the purpose of the study altogether, hence the use of a qualitative
research approach for this thesis.
3.3 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Participatory action research was the methodology used for this study.
Unlike traditional action research, participatory action research, in this
study placed the volunteer coaches at the centre of the research cycles,
whereas traditional action research uses the researcher as the focus for
action to occur. As a qualitative methodology, participatory action
research and action research share the same broad conceptual approach,
whereby ‘action’ and ‘research’ are combined together to produce a
practical solution to a problem evident in society (Punch, 2014). According
to Stringer (2013, p3) “action researchers engage in careful, diligent
inquiry, not for the purpose of discovering new facts or revisiting accepted
laws or theories, but to acquire information having practical application to
the solution of specific problems related to their work.” Through its
cyclical nature, participatory action research reflects the notion of working
various solutions to solve a problem central to the participants of the study
(Kemmis, 2014). In this case, the principal problem requiring a solution is
76
centred on volunteer coaches requiring professional development in order
to be more confident and competent within their multifaceted role of an
effective high performance school volleyball coach.
The description used by Kemmis, McTaggart and Nixon (2006) of the
‘cyclical nature’ of participatory action research and action research
conveys the idea that one aspect of the research can lead to a set of
actions, these actions will be reflected on by the researcher and the
participant used to prompt the development of further research, leading to
further actions which in turn require further reflection, and so on.
Although it can be difficult to describe, Kemmis and McTaggart (2000,
p.595) suggest that central concept of action research is a “spiralling
process of self-reflective cycles”. Various professional development
strategies were offered to the participating volunteer coaches. After
undertaking the professional development opportunities, data was
gathered, analysed and reflected on in order to develop further
professional development opportunities and strategies, continuing the
participatory action research cycle.
The very nature of the action research cyclical process allows the research
to be guided as new knowledge emerges. O’Leary (2010) explains the
premise of participatory action research permits the researcher to learn,
initiate an intervention, observe, reflect, improve the intervention and
repeat. The researcher and participants, therefore worked through a
series of continuous improvement cycles that aimed to converge towards
the desired improvement. Participatory action research can therefore be
seen as an experiential approach that requires continuous refinement of
the cycle’s processes aiming to achieve the desired improvement. O’Leary
(2010) concurs with Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2000) aforementioned
description of the spiralling cycles of self-reflection. The cycles in
participatory action research are presented in figure 2, encompassing
various phases that are repeated with a refined focus.
77
Figure 2: Cycles in participatory action research (O’Leary, 2010 p.150)
The cycles demonstrated in figure 2 can be defined in various ways,
however generally they consist a of process beginning with observations,
followed by reflections that shape the planning phase, and finally the
refined plan is implemented as an action to complete each cycle (O’Leary,
2010).
Throughout these cycles, the researcher is seen as an agent of change.
McTaggart (1997) suggests the researcher and the participants involved in
the intervention must have a democratic partnership whereby both parties
are engaged in an authentic experience and immersed in the focus of the
enquiry. The primary aim of a participatory action research project should
be to transform situations or social structure in an egalitarian manner.
O’Leary (2010) emphasises the key to a successful participatory action
research program hinges on the quality of the collaborative relationship
between the researcher and the subjects involved.
78
3.4 SCOPE OF THE PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Participatory action research by nature can be developed through a variety
of disciplines of organisational behaviour, education and community
development, each with its own priorities and emphases. According to
O’Leary (2010), the desire for a real and immediate change involving the
engagement of the research’s stakeholders is a common divergence across
participatory action research studies. This particular study is no different.
The participating volunteer coaches are stakeholders who were engaged
with the intervention aiming to improve their coaching practice and
processes through a proactive, relevant and individualised education
program which aimed to ultimately result in improvements in coaching
knowledge, practices and processes.
Within this participatory action research the stakeholders interacted with a
mentor who used the Continuing Professional Development concept
discussed in chapter 2.7 as a framework for the coach education program.
While the goals of any single participatory action research project may
encompass an individual focus, it is not uncommon for participatory action
research studies to simultaneously work towards achieving a number of
goals (O’Leary, 2010). Although fluid by nature, initially this participatory
action research project worked towards developing a more effective
means of coach education by offering a more effective approach to
building a coach’s capacity to provide a valid and relevant learning
environment that reflects the variables present in a competitive game
environment.
3.5 INTENDED SAMPLE
The intended sample size was flexible throughout the duration of this study
as more coaches join the program or decide to be part of the study. The
initial workshop was presented as professional development and offered to
79
all coaches within the volleyball academy. From this group an expression
of interest was offered to all coaches to engage as active participants in
this participatory action research study. From the group of coaches who
expressed their interest, two coaches were selected based on the following
set of criteria:
• Be responsible for different teams within the volleyball academy
• Not have a bachelor level degree in Education
• Have a successful playing history for example experiences at
National Schools Cup, state or national representation
• Hold a current level one volleyball coaching accreditation
• Have experience as a player within the volleyball academy within
the last five years
As the coaches within this volleyball academy are required to coordinate
trainings at least twice a week within school term dates, there were many
opportunities to gather data throughout the season. As the intervention
program proposed was quite thorough and individualised, a sample size of
sixteen was unrealistic to manage. Although the larger population of
coaches could, arguably, benefit from an intervention program two of the
sixteen coaches without a formal teaching degree were be selected as
active participants while two more were selected as passive participants
using the aforementioned criteria to ensure a random sampling was
achieved.
3.6 RESEARCH METHODS
Qualitative data was gathered through interviews, field notes and surveys
prior to, during and post intervention in order to capture the coaches’
experience and perspective in relation to interacting with the coaching
education program implemented by this study. To complement the data
provided by the interviews and surveys completed by the coaches,
80
observations in the form of field notes were used by the researcher. The
information gathered through interviews conducted with the coaches and
the field notes collated by the researcher is qualitative data.
In order to triangulate this data with data collected through surveying the
coaches blur the lines of qualitative and quantitative data. Knudson (2013),
advocated for a qualitative approach to analysing the complexities of
physical movement through a Qualitative Movement Diagnosis (QMD).
This survey has been constructed to reflect Knudson’s (2013) qualitative
approach to evaluating physical movement in a sporting environment. The
coaches were asked to nominate a percentage of time particular events
occur throughout gameplay, this was used to gage the coaches’ opinion
regarding improvement of gameplay. Although this takes the form of a
numerical amount (percentage) it is merely used to analyse and clearly
define the coaches’ perception of improvement regarding the standards of
gameplay displayed by the team they coach. These various forms of data
collection strategies are required when investigating within the
methodology of participatory action research. Participatory action research
in essence works as a cycle of planning, action, collecting data, reflecting,
replanning, action, collecting data, reflecting and so on (Punch, 2014). Due
to the nature and accessibility of the research site and the participants,
interviews, surveys and field notes as a means of data collection were the
most effective strategies to use for this participatory action research
project.
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis strategy to be used within this case study was
triangulation. Triangulation complements the participatory action research
approach as it has the ability to corroborate, elaborate and particularly
initiate commonalities in the analysis of data (Rossman and Wilson, 1985).
Corroboration refers to the original purpose of triangulation, verifying the
81
data or establishing a measurement of validity. Using three different
means to collect data; interviews, surveys and field notes, allows the data
the opportunity to corroborate the data from each source. Although this
may occur, Rossman et al., (1985) suggests, even if corroboration does not
occur elaboration and initiation will still provide valuable information that
can be used in the researching and data collection process. Elaboration
occurs when the data collected through various means expands the
researcher’s understanding and perspective of the phenomenon (Blaikie,
2000), meaning if the data collated from the interviews, surveys and the
field notes did not align, this information will still be relevant by providing a
wider lens with varying perspectives, developing a broader understanding
to view the case study with. The potential varying data may lead to the
initiation of new research areas or the discovery of a possible new solution
within the participatory action research methodology. As Punch (2014)
suggests, although participatory action research is considered a qualitative
research approach, it allows for the use quantitative data to compliment
the qualitative data whenever applicable.
The data analysis strategy of triangulation lends itself well to the chosen
methodology of participatory action research as various forms of data were
compared in order to verify findings, analyse the outcome of the proposed
solutions and enable the modification and further development of the
elements within the cyclical nature of the participatory action research
methodology. Triangulation also aligns itself seamlessly with process of
thematic analysis (see 5.2) designed to draw connections across and
between sets of data. The processes of thematic analysis allows the
researcher to identify patterns and themes to ultimately achieve a more
comprehensive understanding of data, its’ meaning and impact on the field
of research (Clarke and Braun, 2006). By nature, thematic analysis
compares and contrasts various sets of data, hence the seamless alignment
with triangulations as the primary method of data analysis.
82
3.8 ETHICAL ISSUES
Due to the nature of this participatory action research case study, there
were minimal ethical issues to be addressed. The anonymity of the
students involved within the school teams were imperative, and the
identity of the two coaches are irrelevant to this case study.
Confidentiality of all identifiable information was secured in a locked filing
cabinet on Education Queensland property to ensure the anonymity of all
participants. The participating coaches agreed and volunteered to be a part
of this participatory action research project and shared an interest in
improving their confidence and competency when coaching at a high
performance school level. The consent processes and documentations
complied with QUT Ethical Considerations.
4.0 INTERVENTION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This study comprised of two participatory action research cycles, with each
cycle consisting of four distinct phases of action (see figure one). As
discussed in chapter 2, coaching is an individualised and social process that
is affected by a myriad of variabilities. It is for this reason that an in situ
study using a participatory action research approach was deemed the most
appropriate methodology. As Lawson (1990) attests, there is ‘no one size
fits all when it comes to pedagogy’, and therefore coach education
programs must reflect the delicate and unique social nature of the
coaching process. Although the initial phase of the first participatory
action research cycle was primarily focused on disseminating new ideas
and different coaching processes, the information presented was in a non-
formal learning environment. The purpose of this was to allow the
participating coaches the opportunity to interject, ask clarifying questions
83
and request examples that were relevant to their coaching situation
throughout the workshop. This flexibility in content and structure aimed to
engage the coaches by tailoring the information to suit their particular
coaching context. As established throughout the Literature Review (see
Chapter Two), every coaching context is different. It was the ability of a
coach to adapt and modify their training sessions to meet the needs of the
players who attend that posed the biggest challenge for volunteer coaches.
This intervention aimed to modify the traditional approach to coach
education and to provide ongoing support to ensure the coaches
understanding of the information presented during the initial workshop.
Within the context of the volleyball academy, the participating coaches
were exposed to the commencement phase of the first cycle in the form of
a coach education workshop. The primarily focus of this workshop was to
disseminate information quickly and effectively to the coaches through a
non-formal learning environment. From the researchers’ perspective this
initial phase was very important as it was during this phase of the
intervention that the foundations of a non-linear pedagogy and its
suitability as a coaching pedagogy for indirect interceptive sports teams
was established. Following this initial phase, the coaches expressed their
interest for participating in this study. Using the selection criteria outlined
(see Chapter 3.5 Intended Sample) two coaches were selected as active
participants. These two coaches then had the opportunity to critically
reflect on the workshop discuss any concerns or questions through a
recorded semi structured interview.
84
Figure One: Participatory Action Research Cycles
Initial Exposure to the Alternative Paradigm
(workshop)
Critical Reflexivity (Reflective Interview and survey)
(See Chapter 4.6.1) Implementation
(application of new knowledge) (See
Chapter 4.6.3)
Observe (See Chapter 4.6.3)
Reflect (Semi- Structure Interview
1 and survey) (See Chapter 4.6.4)
Cycl
eO
ne
Strategic Action Plan (Periodised Training
Program) (See Chapter 4.6.2)
Plan Required Modifications (Training Structure and Program)
(See Chapter 4.7.1)Observe (See Chapter 4.7.2)
Reflect (Semi-Structured Interview 2 and survey) (See
Chapter 4.7.3)Cycl
eTw
o
2nd Phase of Implementation (application of modifications)
(See Chapter 4.7.2)
Initi
al W
orks
hop
85
4.2 CONTEXT FOR THE INTERVENTION
The Volleyball Academy consists of over 150 students and 20 volunteer
coaches working with a variety of teams and players ranging from novice to
national (and occasionally international) levels of experience. Five of these
coaches are practicing teachers and two of which have over 30 years of
coaching experience at the Australian Volleyball Schools Cup with some
experience coaching at a regional and state representative level. The
remaining 15 coaches are past academy players most of whom have
recently graduated from high school. Of these 15 coaches, 13 have played
volleyball at representative level ranging from the regional level to junior
Australian teams competing in international tours. All coaches within the
program have a deep understanding of the game, however imparting and
developing that knowledge and understanding into the players presented
more of a challenge. Although all coaches were welcome to attend, the
school based innovation was targeting the 15 coaches who are not formally
trained and practiced educators.
4.3 STRUCTURE OF THE INTERVENTION
The structure of this intervention revolved around two four week
participatory action research cycles. The intervention was required to have
minimal impact on the day to day running and organisation of the
volleyball academy. It was collectively decided through collaborative
discussions between the researcher and the head of the academy that two
cycles of a four week mentoring program would be the most appropriate
for both the academy, the performance related goals of the academy and
the requirements of the research. Due to the research design and the
structure of the academy’s training schedule, the researcher was required
to attend four training sessions per week for each week of the two cycles.
This was to enable the researcher the opportunity to implement the
intervention individually with the two participating coaches. This enabled
86
the researcher to work with the participating coaches concurrently over
the eight week timeframe. Not including the time taken for the initial work
shop, both the researcher and head of the academy agreed that a period of
eight weeks was ample time to implement the intervention, mentor the
participating coaches as individuals and collect the required amount of
data to answer the research questions.
4.4 INTERVENTION OBJECTIVES
Keeping in mind the development range of teams the coaches were
working with, the leaders of this school based innovation, initially kept a
general approach to coach education. Led primarily by the researcher and
supported by the head of the volleyball academy and another senior coach,
the innovation was created to aid the volunteer coaches in their processes
and practice. This innovation had three clear objectives:
• Create a whole academy approach to coaching practice
• Increase the quantity and quality of reflective practice
• Use mentoring as a means of ongoing professional development
Although initially, the objectives can be individualised to the specific needs
and desires of the coaches involved, the innovation was designed to be
inclusive and broad to begin with but still allowed the coaches to be paired
up with a mentor coach who was able to narrow the scope of the
innovation to suit the needs of the coach and their team.
4.5 STRUCTURE OF THE INITIAL WORKSHOP
The structure of the initial workshop was divided into three sequential
sections presented over two afternoons outside of school hours and
scheduled training times. The initial phase was through the mode of a
power point presentation accompanied by a work booklet for the coaches
87
to fill out and take notes (see Appendix for power point slides and booklet).
This initial phase involving theoretical content was followed by a practical
on court session which was concluded with debrief from mentors to ensure
that the mental bridge between the theoretical and practical knowledge
structures had been established. This initial workshop was conducted in
the training hall used by all the coaches within the program and the
adjacent classroom with projection screen facilities.
The initial presentation in the form of a power point was used as an
introduction to theoretical concepts and proved an effective means of
disseminating information quickly. A review of content garnered from the
AIS Volleyball Symposium and the specifics of the key note speaker, John
Kessel was provided. In addition to this, it was also important at this point
to identify the flaws in current coaching practice and promote the
consideration of alternate methodologies i.e. non-linear pedagogies, and
the benefits of critical reflective practices to become more attuned to the
developmental processes that accompany participatory action research.
Due to a lack of experience with any form of coach education it needed to
be established early that mindless practice (see Chapter 2.1) was not
acceptable. The major themes were presented at this time in a theoretical
form to create a foundation to build upon during the next phase, the on
court practice section.
Following the classroom session, the coaches were given the opportunity
to put these theories into practice on the court. The coaches played the
role of players and the leaders demonstrated the new coaching paradigm.
On court practice demonstrated how to transform and implement the
theories practice. Clear demonstrations of poor practice were compared
with effective practice, learning through the game and promoting John
Kessel’s philosophy of “grills not drills” (see page 60). Five different “grills”
(modified games) were demonstrated with the coaches playing the role of
the players to promote an interactive learning experience. Each of the five
grills had a specific purpose and focus and therefore means of feedback
88
from the coach to the players. This activity lead into a conversation about
how each coach could adjust those five grills (and other grills previously
discussed in the workshop but not practically analysed on this day) to suit
the specific needs and skill level of the team they coach. At this point the
coaches were assigned their mentors and split into their coaching age
groups to discuss in smaller groups the appropriate modifications required
for their team.
The following table (Table One) outlines the power point presentation slide
by slide to demonstrate what content was being delivered and the practical
implications of this content delivered through this course:
89
Table One: Content covered by the initial workshop power point and accompanying booklet
Power
Point Slide
Number
Correlating
page in
coaches’
booklet
Content Practical Implementation
1 1 Welcome, brief introduction Orientation
2 2 List of objectives Provide purpose and direction for the intervention.
3 3
Discuss the attributes of a “good” player.
This is an introduction to critical reflection.
As coaches we need to be aware of what we want from our
players and? Begin to reflect on the players within their own
teams.
4 3
Discuss the attributes of a “good” player.
This is an introduction to critical self-reflection.
Once the coach is aware of what they want from their players
they need to work out what is the best way to make that
happen? Therefore, the coach needs to critically self-reflect
on their own practices they have been using.
5 4
During slide 5 the coaches watch a video of a
commonly used drill for the purpose of critical
reflection.
The coaches were asked to critically reflect on the purpose of
the drill and the effectiveness of preparing their players’ to
demonstrate the attributes of a “good” player listed earlier.
90
6 4
Initial introduction presenting the merits of shifting
from a traditional, reductionist, linear approach to
coaching to a non-linear approach.
Although not explicitly discussed, the coaches are asked to
question the merits of a linear, reductionist approach to
coaching compared to a non-linear approach. The coaches are
asked to interact with the concept of relevance of their
coaching practices in reference to a game.
7 5/6/7/8
Brief discussion regarding the purpose and
importance of planning. Must involve the three
listed parameters:
- Must use the net
- Must be competitive (scored with a winner
and loser)
- Must have a clearly articulated purpose
that the coach will use to provide feedback
Two training session plans are provided on pages 6,
7 and 8 for the coaches to use as a template to
help structure a training session
Coaches were asked to fill in the timeline for their team’s
respective tournaments for the year. They were also asked to
reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their team and to
brainstorm some ideas on how to address the listed strengths
and weaknesses.
Coaches were provided with two examples of training
sessions for discussion.
8 9
Coaches were provided with a list of suggested
modified training activities or ‘grills’ to help the
coaches plan a training session that would be
appropriate for their team.
Coaches were asked to consider these ‘grill’ for their own
team and asked how they could modify these ‘grills’ for
different age groups, different levels of ability and various
group sizes (number of players training).
91
9 – 14 10/11
Each listed ‘grill’ was discussed as a group and the
coaches were asked what the purpose of each
‘grill’ was and if it aligns with our three previously
discussed training parameters.
Coaches were on the courts physically interacting with the
intended content. These coaches are kinaesthetic learners as
the research outline in Chapter 2 suggests, coaches are more
likely to rely on personal experiences rather than theories
delivered through a formal learning environment. This
practical experience of interacting with the ‘grills’ listed was a
way of ensuring the coaches understand the purpose as well
as how to deliver and modify each ‘grill’ to suit the needs of
their teams
15 12/13
To extend the coaches’ understanding of the
purpose and intent of this coaching education
program the coaches were asked to create their
own ‘grill’.
The coaches were asked to create their own training ‘grill’
which addressed one or more of the previously identified
strengths or weaknesses. The coaches were able to work
together to help address the needs of their respective teams.
92
4.6 CYCLE ONE
4.6.1 CRITICAL REFLEXIVITY INTERVIEW AND INITIAL SURVEY
Once the coaches have a chance to digest the new information with the
specific needs of their team in mind, individual semi-structured interviews
and initial survey will take place. These interviews and surveys were used
to gauge the initial feelings of the coaches as well as assist in the
individualisation of the strategic action plan. A list of core questions were
asked, however by nature the semi-structured interview, the questions
varied and evolved throughout each interview.
1. What aspect of the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach do you
find interesting?
2. Is this approach to coaching different from your current approach?
If yes how/which aspects?
3. Previous to this workshop how have you gained your coaching
knowledge?
4. How do you currently structure your training sessions?
5. What aspects of coaching do you wish to improve on?
6. Which aspects of the game do you want your players to improve
on?
7. How did you find the delivery of the initial workshop?
At the conclusion of the Critical Reflexivity Interviews the coaches were
asked to complete a survey to determine their initial thoughts on the
standard of gameplay their teams display as well as provide a tool for the
coaches to clearly indicate improvements or regression. In order to
accurately gauge any form of change, similar to the interviews, the same
questions were posed throughout the research cycles (see appendix three).
This ensured the survey data can be used the triangulate the interview
responses and the field note observations gathered at the beginning,
during and conclusion of each cycle. Underlying the ability to use the
‘surface rules’ of language and of cultural norms for behaviour there must
93
be a set of competences involving a grasp of procedures whereby the
experience can be interpreted. This entails the ability to see or read
particulars of an event as examples and sub sections of categories and in
doing so assign meaning to a particular phenomenon. In this case the
notion of what is 30% and 40% and what is the tangible difference in
interactive sport is not a numerical value, but rather it is ‘surface rule’ that
each participant can use to demonstrate that they have interpreted an
improvement or regression in the performance of their athletes.
4.6.2 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
The strategic action plan in this study took on the form of an individualised
training program. Using both the information presented through the initial
workshop and the information the researcher acquires through the critical
reflexivity interview, a four week training program was collaboratively
developed. The importance of developing the training program as a
collaborative process was twofold. Firstly the researcher was required to
ensure the direction and activities within the training program aligned with
the content presented in the initial workshop. Secondly, the coach was
required to ensure the planned activities were specific, individualised and
appropriate for the team of which they are coaching.
The development of the strategic action plan would occur directly
following the critical reflexivity interview. The coach had the options of
providing their own training program template, use the template provided
by the researcher, or collaboratively develop a structure that compliments
the purpose as well as the specific requirements of the team. Once the
coach and the researcher were satisfied with the developed plan,
implementation could then take place.
94
4.6.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND OBSERVATIONS
The implementation phase was simply the delivery of the strategic action
plan (the training program) during the two assigned training sessions a
week for each team. The respective coach of the team was the primary
presenter of the content, however the researcher was present to offer
assistance if required. The primary role of the researcher during the
implementation phase of the participatory action research cycle was to
assist the coach as required as well as collect data through observations of
the trainings. These observations were collated in the form of field notes,
no video recording or recording of any kind was used during training
sessions or gameplay. Prior to the commencement of the implementation
phase a short survey was conducted, whereby the coaches were asked to
estimate the levels of player performance outcomes based on five criteria.
This use of a quantitative tool is not to be construed as an unconscious
move away from the qualitative paradigm framing this research but rather
a conscious endeavour of authenticating reoccurring patterns in the field
notes. Moreover, with a degree of apprehension of imposing a priori
assumptions on the data the researcher has adopted the approach offered
by O’Leary (2012) and implemented a survey as a simple means of
triangulating the reoccurring themes and sub themes that had emerged
through the analysis of the field notes. The coaches used the survey to
indicate their estimation as a percentage based on their observations of
their teams during gameplay situations. This data has been used for
triangulation purposes, as well as a means to gauge the coaches’ opinion
regarding performance outcome improvements.
4.6.4 END OF CYCLE ONE INTERVIEW
Following the four week implementation phase at the end of cycle one, an
interview was conducted to provide further qualitative data. Similar to the
95
critical reflexivity interview (CRI), this end of cycle one interview was
conducted on an individual basis, in a semi-structured manner. The
purpose of this interview was to formally reconnect with the coach to
discuss the coach’s perspective on the process of coach education and the
development of their players. Based on the coach’s answers from the CRI,
a list of core questions was asked, however by nature the semi-structured
interview questions varied and evolved throughout each interview.
1. Did you find this new approach to coaching difficult to implement?
2. Have you notice an improvement in the players’ performance
during cycle one?
3. (Based of the aspects of the game the coach indicated in Q5) Do
you feel (aspects) have improved within the players on your team?
4. Which aspects of the training program lacked an effect or had a
negative impact on the players’ development?
5. What aspects of the training program requires modification? Why?
6. Do you find this process of coach education has had any effect on
the way you coach? If so how/in what ways? If not, why?
At the conclusion of this interview the coaches were asked to complete a
survey to gauge their opinions regarding performance outcome
improvements. Using the same criteria as the survey completed prior to
the commencement of the implementation phase, this data was again used
to triangulate the observations taken by the researcher as well as the
responses offered during the end of cycle one interview.
4.7 CYCLE TWO
4.7.1 STRATIGIC PLANNING ACTIVITY
96
Similar to the strategic action plan phase of the first cycle, the revised and
modified training program was a culmination of the original objectives
outlined in the initial workshop, the observations by the researcher taken
during the implementation phase of cycle one and the findings and
opinions expressed by the coach during the end of cycle one interview. By
culminating these aspects, the second implementation phase of the cycle
aimed to maintain the identified strengths and improve the identified
weaknesses. This process was collaborative, involving both the coach and
researcher, conducted at the conclusion of the end of cycle one interview.
4.7.2 SECOND IMPLEMENTATION AND OBSERVATIONS
Second implementation phase was again primarily presented by the coach
during their two designated training sessions times each week. The
researcher continued observations throughout these training sessions and
offered assistance when required by the coach. The coach implemented
the collaboratively revised and modified training program developed
during the previous phase of the participatory action research cycle. The
purpose of repeating cycle one was to improve any shortcomings identified
by the coach and/or the researcher with the aim of achieving the
objectives outlined in the initial workshop.
4.7.3 END OF CYCLE TWO INTERVIEW
At the conclusion of the second cycle, the researcher conducted a final
semi-structured interview with the coaches for the purpose of thanking
them for their time, a final opportunity to collect data and to offer
suggestions for the future. Based on the coaches’ answers from the end of
cycle one interview and further build on the answers from the initial CRI, a
list of core questions were asked, however by nature the semi-structured
interview questions did vary and evolve throughout each interview.
97
1. Do you feel you improved further on (aspects of coaching indicated
through answering Q5 of CRI) of coaching?
2. (If the coach answered “yes” to Q2 of the CRI and “Yes” to Q2 of the
end of cycle one interview) Do you still find this approach to
coaching difficult? Why/Why not?
3. (Based of the aspects of the game the coach indicated in Q6 during
the CRI) Do you feel your players have improved (listed aspects)
over this 8 week block of training?
4. Do you find this process of coach education has had any effect on
the way you coach? If so how/in what ways? If not, why?
5. Which aspects of the training program (as a whole – 8 week block)
had a positive effect on the players’ development?
6. Which aspects of the training program (as a whole – 8 week block)
lacked an effect or had a negative effect on the players’
development?
7. Will you continue coaching using the Kessel’s ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach? Why/Why not?
8. Have you found this process of coach education productive? If yes,
which aspects? If no, why?
At the conclusion of this interview the coaches were asked to complete the
final survey to gauge their opinions regarding their respective team’s
performance outcome improvements. The same criteria was used across
all three surveys in order to compare and gauge the coaches’ view of their
players’ improvements. This data was be used to triangulate the
observations taken by the researcher as well as the responses offered
during the end of cycle two interview.
4.8 CONCLUSIONS
By nature this participatory action research study the intervention
consisted of the two cycles (see 4.1 Figure One). Although the cycles may
98
seem repetitious, cycle two was a modified and revised version of cylce
one. As it has been established in chapter 2 of the literature review,
coaching is a social process that requires the consideration of a myriad of
variabilities. In order to accommodate these variabilities, the two cycles
were tailored to the specific needs of the two teams as perceived by their
respective coaches. In conjunction with this, the aforementioned work of
Mallet, et al. (2009) on the validity of formal, non-formal and informal
learning environments highlights the need for this study to be conducted in
situ and therefore justifying implementation of a CPD trial through a
participatory action research methodology. Every coaching context is
different; therefore, this should be reflected coaching education programs.
99
5.0 ANALYSIS OF DATA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The intention of this participatory action research project was to answer
the two research questions posed earlier in in Chapter 1 (see Chapter 1.6
Research Questions). To answer these questions the data gathered
through semi-structured interviews, surveys and observations, will be
presented following the three distinct phases of the participatory action
research cycle (see Figure One: Participatory Action Research Cycles,
Chapter 4.1). The three phases of data collection will be presented in this
chapter as: Initial Interview findings, End of Cylcle One Findings and End of
Cycle Two Findings. Each phase of data collection established distinct
themes through both the coaches’ responses and the observations taken
during the implementation phases of both cycles, although discuessed
throughout these three sections, the emerging themes will be summarised
and concluded in the final section of this chapter (5.5 Emerging Themes
and Conclusions).
5.2 THE PROCESS OF THEMATIC ANALYSIS
Due to the nature of qualitative research data collection involving non-
numerical measures such as survey responses, semi-structured interviews
and observations, the process of data analysis was to develop an
understanding through identifying patterns, themes and commonalities in
the data. Unlike quantative research, qualitative research offers an insight
into real world experiences, social contexts and social phenomenons
(Williams, 2003). Although there are a myrid of processes on offer to
analyse qualitative data such as checklist matrix, phenomenological anylsis
and discourse analysis, for this research study thematic analysis was
chosen as the process of data analysis.
The purpose of using a thematic analysis method when interacting with
qualitative data allows the researcher to draw connections between
100
various types of data sets. Ultimately this method of data analysis seeks to
gain knowledge and understanding through identifying patterns and
themes within the data using a theoretically flexible approach (Clarke and
Braun, 2006). According to Clarke et al. (2006), thematic analysis is a
qualitative method of identifying, analysising and reporting themes within
data by organising and describing the data in detail. A ‘theme’ is
determined by the connection of captured data relating to the research
question and represents a level of patterned response or meaning within
the set of data (Clarke et al., 2006). These themes are identified through a
rigorous process of data familiarisation, data coding, theme development
and revision (Smith, 2015). Although there are various approaches to
thematic analysis coding, this research study used an inductive method of
coding the data, whereby coding and theme development are directed by
the content of the data.
According to Clarke and colleague (2006) there are six phases of
conducting thematic anaysis:
1. Becoming familiar with the data
2. Generating initial codes
3. Searching for themes
4. Reviewing themes
5. Defining and naming themes
6. Producing the report
By following this process outlined by Clark et al., (2006) the researcher was
able to ensure rigor and validation of the data analysis process and
therefore the production of credible findings and answers to the proposed
research questions (see chapter 1.6). By utilising the inductive method of
coding, the researcher was able to sift through the data collected through
the semi-structured interviews, the surveys completed by the participating
coaches and the observations taken by the researcher in the form of field
notes throughout the two cycles of participatory action research.
101
After employing the six steps outlined by Clarke et al., (2006), in order to
create transparency in the analysis of data, the report was strucutred
around the three distinguishable phases of the participatory action
research. The data captured during the initial interview findings and
throughout cycle one and two of the participatory action research was
thematically analysised within those phases and the emerging themes have
been identified mirroring the two proposed research questions (see
Chapter 1.6). These themes emerged through the results collected through
data coding and triangulation. The themes are presented within each
phase of the participatory action research throughout this chapter and
have been summarised in reference to the research questions in the final
chapter, Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations.
5.3 INITIAL INTERVIEW FINIDINGS:
The first phase of data collection occurred following the initial workshop in
the form of semi-strucutred interviews with the two participating coaches.
Conducted separately, these interviews that started with a base of seven
open-ended questions for each coach to discuss with the opporutnity for
the researcher to ask further clarifying questions. The initial interview with
the two coaches ranged from twenty to thirty minutes and not all
questions and responses were included in the Initial Interview Findings
section. The purpose of this interview allowed the researcher to gain an
insight into the preliminary thoughts and mindset of the participating
coaches and their reaction to the initial workshop including the mode of
delivery, the content and the possible application of the content to their
coaching processes, philosophy and knowledge. As well as this the
researcher aimed to establish the current coaching processes, philosophy
and level of knowledge of the participating coaches to estabish if they are
using the traditional based apporach. This information established the
foundations of the strategic action plan in the form of a four week training
102
program specifically designed to cater for the teams under each of these
coaches.
5.3.1 WHAT ASPECTS OF THE ‘PRINCIPLES BEFORE METHODS’ APPROACH DO YOU
FIND INTERESTING?
This was the initial question posed to the participating coaches. Both
coaches had varying views, however it was expected the coaches were
interested in learning more about the approach as their participation after
the initial workshop was voluntary. Coach one (C1) discussed how this new
approach differred from their current coaching philosophy and general
understanding of how the coaching process works.
C1’s response:
“I found the lack of focus on skills and technique directly
challenges how I learnt to play, how I coach and how I am
coached now. I have played at an international level,
representing Australia and currently I am in the Queensland
State team and even at that level we still need to practice
perfecting our technique… this is done through lots and lots of
reps (repetitions), passing, passing, passing. It’s the only way I
know how to improve skill levels. In saying that, I like the idea
of developing the player as a whole, and I found the concept of
developing the players’ ability to read the game very
interesting.”
In C1’s response they have established their exposure and use of the
traditional approach to coaching. C1 describes the process of skill
acquisition through issolation and repetition both at a novice and expert
phase. Although this coach’s personal experiences are meaningful and
guides the way they currently coach, C1 has indicated an interest in
developing the players’ ability to read the game. By volunteering their
103
time, C1 has indicated an interest in learning and improving their current
coaching practice. While C1 has demonstrated an open mind to new
coaching ideas, Rynne et al. (2010) suggest that particularly in the field of
sport coaching, practitioners are most likely to construct meaning from
personal learning experiences they perceive as positive and effective.
Presenting new ideas in a workshop environment will not change the
coaching processes C1 is currently using, however as the coach continues
to participate in this Continuing Professional Development program, C1 will
have the opportunity to evaluate the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach
through their own mentored, coaching experiences. While C1 appears to
be more reserved in their judgement of the ‘Principles before Methods’
approach to coaching, coach two (C2) described their motivation and
positivity in moving forward as a volunteer in this process.
C2’s response:
“To be honest, I had a lightbulb moment. To the point of which I
feel stupid for not realising it before this workshop. It makes
sense that technique and skills performed in isolation are not
valuable in a game situation. The power point slide you had up
that said ‘If you play like you train, should we train like we
play?’ was when the lightbulb lit up for me. Apart from serving,
every skill in volleyball is dependent on the quality of the touch
before it. For example, it is very difficult to spike a ball if the set
is terrible. And at school level the set is usually average and
inconsistent at best. However, even now we practice spiking by
having one person (usually me) throw a ball up in the same spot
every time for every player to cycle through to hit, the players
are fantastic at spiking a ball that I have thrown consistently.
However, when it comes to a game they never spike, or when
they do it is miss-timed and very unsuccessful. The idea of
reading the play and developing reading as a skill I predict will
104
be the key to success. If you could teach me how to teach
reading, I will be a successful coach.”
Similar to C1, C2 acknowledges their current use of the traditional
approach to coaching through teaching skills through isolation. When
discussing their current coaching processes, C2 demonstrated an element
of frustration with the performance of their volleyball team, suggesting
that although the players are able to perform the skill of spiking in isolation
they are not able to replicate the same standard in a game situation. C2
also demonstrated their understanding of the concept of reading and the
predicted the potential success for the team and their own coaching
processes. The mindset of C2, at this point, seems to be very open and
willing to take on feedback. C2 demonstrated a high degree of
commitment and enthusiasm to learn and implement the ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach to volleyball coaching.
5.3.2 IS THIS APPROACH TO COACHING DIFFERENT FROM YOUR CURRENT
APPROACH? IF YES HOW/WHICH ASPECTS?
Despite both coaches referring to their current coaching practices in their
previous answer, the researcher’s intention is to be clear in establishing an
understanding of both C1 and C2’s current coaching processes. This
question was posed to clarify both coaches’ previous responses.
C1’s response:
“Yes, very different. As I said this approach ignores the
importance of teaching proper technique. I find this a very
challenging concept to comprehend, from my experience as a
player learning the game, technique was paramount and is,
what I believe, the key to my personal level of success in
representative teams. The way I coach is the way I was
coached, and I experienced a great deal of success through this
105
means of coaching, so naturally I want the players that I coach
to experience success too. I know not everyone I learnt to play
volleyball initially achieved the same levels of representation
that I have, but I believe that is because I had better technique
and was able to successfully execute the required skills to a
higher standard. I can only assume that is because of the way I
was coached, I am often described as a ‘smart’ player on court…
that means I am instinctual and usually one or two phases in
front of the players around me. I suppose that is what you
mean by the term ‘reading’ the play. I don’t recall every being
taught to ‘read’ the play so I guess it was something that came
naturally to me, combined with my level of technique I think
that is how I achieved Australian representative levels. The
prospect of being able to teach reading as a skill is exciting and
something that I think will definitely help my players experience
success.”
C2’s response:
“Yes, quite different. I started playing a number of years ago,
and if I am being honest I can’t accurately remember how I
learnt to play volleyball. My understanding of coaching
volleyball is based on the belief that if a player cannot perform
the required skills in a simple (isolated) environment, there is
no point to play a game because they will not have the skill set
to be successful. Up until now, that seemed like a pretty logical
thought process, however from what I understand, the
‘Principles before Methods’ approach suggests to more or less
do the opposite of how I have been coaching. I think the new
approach encourages coaches to put the players into game-like
situations and learn the skills in an environment similar to that
of a game as early as possible. It sounds simple and logical and
I think that is why I am excited to try it out and see if it works.”
106
The responses provided by both C1 and C2 established the use of the
traditional approach to coaching. While both coaches have differing
reasons for using the traditional approach, both coaches have indicated an
interest in teaching the concept of reading to their players. C1’s response
reiterates Rynne et al. (2010) concept of constructing meaning through
their own personal experiences of being player and experiencing different
coaches at a variety of representative levels, it is these experiences for C1
that has shaped their current coaching process, philosophy and practice.
Whereas C2’s response indicates the use of logic and reflection to
construct a coaching process, philosophy and practice. Although C2 has
emphasised the importance for the coaching process to appear logical as a
concept, at this point, it is unclear where C2 has constructed their coaching
knowledge.
5.3.3 PREVIOUS TO THIS WORKSHOP, HOW HAVE YOU GAINED YOUR COACHING
KNOWLEDGE?
Through their previous responses, C1 has indicated the importance of
personal experience, while it remains unclear how C2 has gained their
coaching knowledge. It is important to establish how the coaches have
gained their coaching knowledge as it will give the researcher an insight on
the best way to teach these coaches. C1 has established that they are a
kinaesthetic learner and values personal experience, despite this, the
researcher wanted to clarify if there was one inspirational coach or if a
combination of coaches were used as an inspiration to develop their
coaching practices, processes and philosophies.
C1’s response:
“I think, as I am still playing the game, the way I am coached
now definitely has an impact on how I coach my team. Even
though the team I coach is only at a school level and there is a
wide range of novice to skilled players in my squad. I like to
107
train them as if they are an elite squad because they need to be
challenged. I guess the coaches I have now are most influential
because it is what I am experiencing now, but I still use bits and
pieces from other coaches I have had in the past… I sometimes
borrow drills and skills activities I experienced way back when,
but mostly I just simplify what I am doing at rep or club training
because it’s fresh in my mind and I am confident it works.”
C2’s response:
“Partly I have used the experiences I had as a player, however
I think I learn a lot from seeing other coaches coach. Even
though they are coaching teams different to mine, I watch
how they structure their trainings, the way they set up
different drills and the sequencing of drills. I then just pick and
choose who I listen to and what I apply to the team I am
coaching. Overall I think it is a combination of what I have
experienced as a player and learning from the coaches around
me.”
Through these responses it is clear C1 uses their personal experiences as a
player to gain coaching knowledge, while C2 values the experience of the
coaches around them as well as their own experiences as a player. What
the researcher found most interesting is that both coaches are accredited
level one coaches, yet neither coach attributed their coaching knowledge
to this course. Following their responses to these questions, both coaches
were asked to clarify their experiences and knowledge gained by
participating in a level one coaching course.
C1’s response:
“My rep coach was an accredited assessor so he upgraded me
to a level one without doing the course. He said that I’d know
everything that’s presented so I didn’t have to go. I only asked
108
for it so I could be paid at a higher rate when I coach at
_________ (private school). I don’t have any intention of ever
doing a coaching course because from what I hear they are a
waste of time.”
C2’s response:
“I have done a level one coaching course, mainly to put
something extra on my CV rather than it looking particularly
blank. But when I went along, the person presenting the course
is a member of the club I play for and he asked me to help
present the content. So apart from having the opportunity to
practice presenting information to a group of people it was
somewhat of a waste of time. I am glad I have the accreditation
for my resume and now when I coach at private schools they
pay me at a higher rate, but I would not call it a learning
experience and I would not attribute any of my coaching
knowledge to that one day course. However, it was good for
networking purposes, meeting different coaches and hearing
about their thoughts on coaching was a positive experience.”
The responses of both coaches are very interesting in regards to their
opinions of the current level one coaching accreditation courses. The
opinions express by both coaches align with the current literature published
on this topic, particularly the work of Piggott (2012) who suggest that
coaches are becoming increasingly frustrated with sporting associations
that place undue emphasis on the machinations of formal learning
environments. As a result of the efforts of Piggott and others we are
becoming more accustomed to the fact that quality learning can occur in
environments other than those offered in formal settings, such as
accreditation courses. Indeed, it is this notion of creating meaningful,
organised and individualised learning experiences for coaches that is the
inspiration for this participatory action research project.
109
5.3.4 HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY STRUCTURE YOUR TRAINING SESSIONS?
It is important to establish how the coaches structure their training
sessions prior to engaging in this CPD so the researcher can verify the
required changes to be made to the coaching processes, including the
current structure of the training sessions. This information was used later
to compare the progression or regression of the players’ performance,
including physical performance outcomes, decision making skills and the
players’ ability to read the game play. To answer this question both
coaches were asked to write down a generalised structure that they apply
to most of the training sessions they conduct.
C1’s response:
Time laps of average training
Timeframe 0-15m 15m-
30m
30m
–
45m
45m
– 1h
1h –
1h15m
1h15m
–
1h30m
1h30m
-
1h45m
1h45m
– 2h
Activity: Running
stretching
warm up
Shoulder
warm up
(with a
ball) and
pepper
Drill activity
one with a
break at the
end for a
drink
Drill activity two
with a drink
break at the end
6v6 game play
C2’s response:
Time
(approximately)
Activity Details
20 minutes Setting up the net/
Warm up (without a
ball)
360 shuttle runs,
Stretching
15-20 minutes Triangle passing, 100 repetitions of passing and
110
setting and pepper setting before pepper (dig, set,
spike) in pairs
5 minutes Drinks break Discuss the planned activities for
this session
30 minutes Drill 1
(usually passing or
serving)
E.g. serving to targets – I put out
markers/chairs/ whatever I can
find and create a points scoring
system and the players just
focus on serving.
30 minutes Drill 2
Some sort of hitting
drill
Practicing A hit (fast tempo)
Get three chairs, evenly spaced
across the net, one player
standing on each chair holding a
volleyball up in the air, every
player rotates through and hits
the ball out of the players’ hand
15-20 minutes (if
there is time)
6 v 6 game play
Play a game until time runs out
(only if the players have
completed the previous drills to
a high standard – game play is a
reward for hard work and
effort).
Once again the responses provided by both coaches demonstrate the use
of the traditional approach to coaching. More importantly than that, the
structure provided by both coaches demonstrates a lack a game play
throughout the training. When discussing the structure of their training
sessions both coaches described the use of game play as “carrot” or reward
for the players, to help them stay focused on refining the skill targeted
during the previous drills. Both coaches clarified that the drills completed
111
during the middle phases of the training sessions focus on one skill and are
usually performed in isolation to the other skills of the game.
5.3.5 WHAT ASPECTS OF COACHING DO YOU WISH TO IMPROVE ON?
Both coaches expressed an interest in improving particular aspects of their
coaching. The responses to this question demonstrate a willingness to
learn and take on feedback which is an important attribute in the teaching
and learning process. The information gathered through the responses to
this question were used in the strategic planning phase to begin cycle one
of the participatory action research process. The coaches’ responses
helped the researcher establish any changes that need to be made or
aspects of the coaching process that may need to be modified or improved
upon. This information allowed the training program to be individualised
to suit the specific needs of each team, determined by their coaches.
C1’s response:
“I am finding it difficult to keep the players focused on what we
are doing. They seem to get bored very quickly and I find it
difficult to cater for large numbers with only one court. I am
also interested in learning how to teach reading as a skill. I like
it as a concept, just not sure how I would do it with my team.”
C2’s response:
“Reading! I’m really interested to see how I should be
structuring my training sessions to teach reading as a skill. Will
it be 100% game play? If so, how will I control the training? How
can I modify it to suit the needs of my team? At the moment it
feels like my team is just not improving. It’s like they (the
players) are all switching off and I don’t know how to draw
them back in. Coaching can be frustrating in that regard so I
112
think this is the breath of fresh air I need and the players’
need.”
There are two distinct themes emerging from the coaches’ response to this
question. The first in regards to the lack of focus, boredom and a plateauing
effect in the players’ performance. The first theme is become evident
through C1’s reference to a lack of focus and a level of boredom at
trainings, and in C2 description of a plateauing effect of player
performance. Both coaches make reference to their players becoming
disengaged and both coaches appear to be frustrated by this. These
responses could be attributed as a symptom of the traditional approach to
coaching. The players’ are becoming disengaged or bored with the
perceived lack of relevance or disconnect from what they practice in
training to what they need in a game.
The second theme emerging from the coaches’ response to this question
refers to their desire to teach the skill of reading. C2’s response in
particular seems to be motivated and excited by the prospect of teaching
reading to their team. C1 clarifies their interest in learning about reading,
however C1 appears to lack confidence in the application of this concept.
Perhaps this is due to the lack of C1’s personal experience of explicitly
teaching or learning reading as a skill. The ‘Principles before Methods’
approach looks to address both these emerging themes by engaging the
players through modified game-like environments that present the players
with scenarios that require higher order thinking, decision making and
problem solving skills. Issues of boredom, lack of focus and plateaus in
performance will be address by aligning the requirements and
environments of a game into training.
5.3.6 WHICH ASPECTS OF THE GAME DO YOU WANT YOUR PLAYERS TO IMPROVE
ON?
113
In order to create a training program suited to the needs of their teams,
the coaches were asked specifically which aspects of the game they want
their players improving. The responses allowed the researcher to develop
collaboratively an individualised training programs tailored to meet the
needs of the respective teams while embedding the ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach into the program.
C1’s response: C2’s response:
• Serve receive
• Transition to attack
• More hitting options
• Any drills that include
more player to avoid time
off task
• Rotations
• Positioning on court:
o Serve receive
o Free ball
o Down ball
o Basic defensive
positions
• Transition from defence into
attack
At the conclusion of this interview both the coach and the researcher used
the above information along with the responses noted in 5.2.5 to create a
training program for each team. This was a collaborative process whereby
the coach and the researcher presented ideas, discussed and agreed on the
structure, sequencing and content of the training programs. It was
explained that these training programs can be used as a guide and are
flexible and fluid by nature, if the coach or the researcher during the
training program felt that a particular aspect of the program needed more
or less time, adjustments can be made.
114
5.3.7 HOW DO YOU FIND THE DELIVERY OF THE ‘PRINCIPLES BEFORE METHODS’
APPROACH?
This question was posed to measure the coaches’ levels of engagement
and general thoughts on the mode of delivery. Particularly following their
previous comments regarding coach education programs they have
previously participated in, the researcher was interested to gauge how
successful the workshop was as an educational tool for coaches.
C1’s response:
“I enjoyed how interactive it was, I tend to tune out when I feel
like I’m being lectured to. However, I found this workshop
required a lot of audience participation which meant that I had
to be listening and contributing. While that was happening I
was learning about this new approach, which sounds pretty
interesting. I particularly enjoyed the practical elements, which
meant I could get in and try out some of this new ‘grills’. I have
to admit they are pretty fun.”
C2’s response:
“This should be the level one coaching course! It’s relevant,
hands on, open for questions, you are consistently encouraged
to discuss how we could apply these concepts to the team we
are coaching. It definitely helps that the presenter and my
peers of this workshop know each other and each other’s
teams, this makes the group discussions real, like there is no
need to talk in the hypothetical sense as you know the strengths
and weaknesses of each team and what their coach would be
going through twice a week at trainings. Yeah, overall it was a
very worthwhile experience, I learnt a lot and enjoyed it very
much.”
115
It is evident that both coaches had a positive experience during the initial
workshop. This was expected as following the workshop the coaches’
participation is voluntary, therefore it is unlikely that the coaches would
choose to continue their participation if they did not enjoy or have a
positive learning experience.
5.4 END OF CYCLE ONE FINDINGS FIELD NOTES SUMMARY, SURVEY AND
INTERVIEW RESPONSES:
5.4.1 FIELD NOTES SUMMARY DURING CYCLE ONE
During cycle one of this action research, two distinct themes emerged
through the summary of the field notes. The researcher attended both
coaches’ training sessions each week to observe and assist where possible.
Throughout each training session the researcher noted observations in the
form of field notes regarding the body language and comments offered by
the players within the training environment. This section will present a
summary of the observations and more specifically elaborate on the two
emerging themes. The first theme, although more evident in C1’s than C2’s
training sessions, refers to the improved levels of team morale and team
cohesiveness. The second theme applies to the improved levels of
structural gameplay and quality of player performance outcomes.
Through the strategic planning phase, at the start of the participatory
action research cycle, the coaches were open to the concept of modifying
the structure of their training session. A similar structure for both coaches
were negotiated and applied during cycle one. The coaches were asked to
use the whiteboard near the volleyball courts to write the objectives and
the training sessions activities, until cycle one this was not common
116
practice for the coaches. The whiteboard was used as a point of references
for the players to inform them of the activities to come, the relevance of
these activities to the game as well as a procedural instruction and an
outcome based goal. The aim of this was to give the players a clear outline
of what training will look like, how the planned activities will help them in a
game situation, a goal or aim for each activity and a strategy to assist in
achieving that common goal. During the initial implementation of this new
structure players from both teams were commenting on their engagement
levels and general enjoyment throughout the training sessions.
C1 player A (C1PA) comment:
“That was the best warm up ever! Are we keeping that as our
warm up? Why have we been wasting our time with stupid
running and stretching for so long?”
Through this comment, C1PA expressed their enjoyment for the change in
warm up and clarified their dislike for the previous standard warm up. A
number of players in attendance supported C1PA’s comments by asking
the same question regarding keeping the new warm up as their standard
practice routine. When the coach assured the team this was how trainings
will be structured for the next 4 weeks the team collectively hi fived each
other and the coach.
C2 player A (C2PA) comment occurred during the second training within
cycle one while the coach was explaining the relevance of the first activity
written on the whiteboard:
“We’ve done something similar to this before but I never know
that’s why we practice it.”
A number of the players around C2PA nodded their heads in agreement to
the above statement. This highlighted to the researcher the previous
disconnect the players were experiencing as well as the perceived lack of
117
relevance training had to the game of volleyball. To increase engagement
levels, the players must value participating in the planned training
activities, this can be achieved if the players understand the relevance to
the game. As well as the positive comments made by the players during
cycle one, player attendance (particularly for coach 1’s team) was another
indicator of the positive shift in team moral. During the strategic planning
phase of cycle one C1 informed the researcher of the usual rate of
attendance at trainings. C1 keeps a roll of the players and stated twelve to
fifteen of the eighteen players in the squad are usually in attendance.
These rates of attendance were observed by the researcher in the first
three trainings, however by the end of week two of cycle one seventeen of
the eighteen players were consistently attending training. The improved
rate of attendance, along with positive comments during training
demonstrated to the researcher the levels of player satisfaction and
enjoyment during trainings had increased.
C1 player B (C1PB), during a competitive modified gameplay situation,
asked the coach:
“Can we make up a team name and a matching cheer for the second
set?”
Coach 1 allowed both teams one minute to come up with a team name and
cheer before the start of second phase of the gameplay. The players
appeared to be particularly excited and created a team name and matching
movement that they then used to celebrate each point that they won. The
second phase of gameplay, despite using the same modified rules, was
performed with more rigour and intensity then the first phase. The players
had the opportunity to build a connection within their teammates, which
increased the levels of communication during play. This increase in
communication created clarity of the roles of each player on the respective
teams and in turn increased the standard of structured gameplay. This
particular observation demonstrates both emerging themes and suggests a
118
direct correlation between player morale and standards of physical
performance.
5.4.2 SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
Prior to week one of the implementation phase of participatory action
research cycle one, the coaches were asked to complete a survey to gauge
their players’ current levels of physical performance. Four weeks later,
following the final training session for both teams the same survey was
repeated to gauge the coaches’ opinion regarding their players’ levels of
physical performance improvements. Knudson (2013), advocated for a
qualitative approach to analysing the complexities of physical movement
through a Qualitative Movement Diagnosis (QMD). This survey reflects
Knudson’s (2013) qualitative approach to evaluating physical movement in
a sporting environment. The coaches were asked to gauge the
improvements as a percentage based on five criteria.
Table Two: Survey Results Spanning participatory action research Cycle
One
Gameplay Survey
Criteria:
Coach 1’s
Team
Coach 2’s
Team
Reference
number Description
Cycle One Survey Cycle One Survey
Start Finish Start Finish
1
% of gameplay consisting of
controlled dig, set, spike structure
30% 40% 45% 55%
2 % of points won through attack
(serve, spike, tip) 5% 20% 15% 30%
3 % of points lost
due to direct error, e.g. service error,
85% 75% 80% 65%
119
net infringement, hitting error, free
ball error
4
% of passes (only in serve receive)
rated higher than 1.5 on a standard 3 point passing scale
35% 40% 45% 45%
5 % of defensive digs converted into an
attack (spike or tip)2% 7% 5% 10%
The survey results of both teams’ demonstrated similar trends. After four
weeks implementing the strategic action play C1’s team improved across
all five indicators and C2’s team improved in four out of five indicators of
gameplay analysis. Overall the survey results demonstrate C2’s team
started at higher standard of gameplay than C1’s team. However, it should
be noted, on average the players within C2’s team have had one year of
volleyball experience more than C1’s team. These volleyball experiences
consist of approximately 150 hours of training and 12 days of tournament
play. The researcher expected higher results from C2’s team due to the
player’s increased exposure to the game.
Gameplay survey criteria one and two reflect the structure of gameplay,
this includes level of control and accuracy in skill execution as well as the
players’ ability to apply basic attacking strategies during rallies. Both C1
and C2’s teams improved by 10% and 15% in criteria one and two
respectfully. This could be reflective of the amount of gameplay or
modified gameplay practiced during training. By increasing the players’
exposure to the environments experienced in a game situation, the players
become more familiar and confident to adjust and adapt during a rally.
Previous to implementing this training program, the players were rarely
presented with an opportunity to practice their skills in the variable
environment the game offers. The consistent improvement across both
120
teams in both indicators suggests practicing the skills of volleyball within a
game environment is more successful than practicing the skills in isolation
to the context of a game.
Gameplay survey criteria three refers to the percentage of unforced errors
a team sacrifices during gameplay. These errors consequently award the
opposing team ‘free’ points and are often the catalyst in a shift of
momentum favouring the opposition. This percentage is expected to be
high at school level volleyball, however by the end of cycle one, 75% and
65% are exceptionally high for points lost due to direct, unforced errors.
This element of the game will be discussed with the coach and addressed
during the strategic phase in cycle two of the participatory action research
intervention.
Criteria four specifically analyses the quality of the passing skill in a serve
receive situation. Increasing the quality of the serve receive pass will
increase the chances of constructing an effective attack and siding out to
win the point as well as the serve back. Without a quality pass in a serve
receive situation a team is likely to concede many points and loose
moment within the phase of a set and potentially be the turning point of
the game. Considering the importance and frequency of this element
during gameplay, it is essential for any volleyball team to become efficient
and effective in passing the serve. The data illustrates the coaches
perception of improvement is minimal in C1’s team with respect to serve
receive passing, however it was C2’s opinion that their team did not
improve within this criteria. Similar to indicator three, the element of
serve receive will be discussed with both coaches and addressed during
cycle two’s planning phase.
The final gameplay criteria refers to the percentage of defensive digs
converted into an offensive attack. This is commonly referred to as the
process of ‘transitioning’, describing the transitioning between defending
an opposition’s attack (spike) and converting the defensive phase into a
121
return attack. This aspect of the game is considered to be difficult to
master, as previously mentioned, at a school level the expectations for
success in this area needs to be realistic. Both coaches suggest their
respective team have demonstrated improvements in this element of the
game, however it would be expected this continues to improve during the
next cycle of the participatory action research intervention.
5.4.3 DID YOU FIND THIS NEW APPROACH DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT?
As both coaches previously indicated in their response outlined in 5.2.2,
the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to coach is very different to the
way the coaches were delivering their training sessions prior to this
intervention. With this in mind, the researcher posed this question to
gauge the coaches’ confidence levels during the first cycle.
C1’s response:
“To be honest, at first I was unsure how this would go, mainly
because it is so different to how I have experienced training as a
player and how I have been running trainings as a coach. I was
nervous to start with, however having you (the researcher)
there to bounce ideas off and the support gave me the
confidence to continue through the training program. I felt I
was asking fewer questions and relying on you less as towards
the end of the four weeks.”
C2’s response:
“I was excited by the challenges and was interested to see if the
theories and concepts would stand up to the realities of
coaching my team. Having a clear plan for each training session
122
and a cohesive progression for the eight training sessions made
life easy. I found the concept of changing the way I coach
challenging but I wouldn’t say I found this approach difficult to
implement.”
As expected both coaches in their responses acknowledge some forms of
apprehension in regards to changing their coaching processes. C2’s
response articulated this clearly when explaining the challenges that
emerged from the process of changing the way they coach rather than the
implementation of this particular approach. While C1’s apprehension
stemmed from the lack of personal experience using or interacting with the
‘Principles before Methods’ approach. C1’s apprehension reiterates with
the previously mentioned research (see 1.5 Identifying the Problem) of
Gould, Giannini, Krane & Hodge (1990), who explain that it is the common
practice of beginning coaches to refer back to their own playing
experiences as means of sourcing training activities as these are the only
knowledge structures they possess. As explained by C1, the apprehension
stems from the lack of personal experience with the new paradigm.
Interestingly, both coaches overcame their feelings of apprehension
through different means.
Despite both C1 and C2 feeling apprehensive about changing their coaching
processes both coaches found the confidence to apply the ‘Principles
before Methods’ approach from different sources. C1’s confidence
developed through the support given by the researcher’s presence,
allowing C1 to sound their ideas and seek advice in the moment,
throughout training sessions. C1 also acknowledged their developing
independence from the researcher towards the end of the first cycle,
explaining that their reliance on the researcher’s presence regressed
towards the end of cycle one. On the other hand, C2’s confidence was
built upon a clear progressive training plan. C2 stated it was not the new
approach to coaching but the challenge of changing the processes of
coaching they were familiar with which caused the nerves. To lift the
123
confidence levels, C2 asked many clarifying questions throughout the
planning phase of cycle one. C2 also used visual cues in the planning
process as well as key words to ensure their understanding of the activities
planned for the team. It is clear from C2’s response that a comprehensive
plan was how this coach developed the confidence to change their
coaching process.
5.4.4 OVER THE COURSE OF THIS TRAINING PROGRAM, HAVE YOU SEEN AN
IMPROVEMENT IN PLAYER PERFORMANCE?
In conjunction with the gathering of data through observations and the
surveys, the coaches’ response to this question played a pivotal role in
answering research question two. The capacity for the ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach is being tested through every training session for each
coach. At its core, the role of a coach is to improve player performance.
This series of eight strategically planned training sessions are expected to
improve player performance, however the coaches’ perception of their
team’s performance plays a significant role in distinguish if the rate of
improvement is higher than the improvement rate of the players prior to
the intervention.
C1’s response:
“Yes, I think they have. Particularly in their ability to string a
dig, set, spike together. The players seem more confident to
make the 3rd touch aggressive rather than safe, like a freeball.
Their ability to adapt during a rally has definitely improved and I
think that has had a positive impact on their confidence and
ability to connect the skills into a structured rally.”
C2’s response:
“Yes, I think overall my players are having longer rallies and
seem to be more strategic and actually think about what they
124
are doing as opposed to a hit and hope strategy they seem to
use in the past.”
Both coaches respond to this question in a positive way and reiterate the
data gathered by the researcher during the trainings. The coaches also
make comparisons to the performance characteristics their respective
teams have improved since the start of cycle one. C1 discussed the
improvements the team has made, particularly in their ability to construct
a controlled structured rally with increased aggression. This demonstrated
the players within C1’s team are developing the confidence to take risks to
win the point, this is something difficult to instil in developing players who
have a strong fear of failure or being responsible for losing the point for
their team. Whereas C2 discussed the duration and quality of the rallies
the players within the team were creating. C2 referred to the players’ lack
of thought process prior to cycle one, this highlights the improvement
made by the players in the quality, structured play and strategy
demonstrated by the end of cycle one. Erickson, et al. (2007) describes this
developing aspect of the athletes’ game as ‘imminent awareness’ (see
Chapter 2.1 Historical View of Coaching). The development of ‘imminent
awareness’ is the by-product of players’ opportunity throughout trainings
to analysing and evaluating their own performance as well as developing
and implementing strategies.
5.4.5 HAVE YOU NOTICED ANY CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF CONCENTRATION IN
THE PLAYERS?
The ability of junior players to concentrate for an entire training session
can be challenging. This was a concern acknowledged particularly by C1
during their initial interview (see Chapter 5.2.5) where the coaches
discussed the lack of focus and rising levels of boredom during training
sessions. Although not specifically acknowledged as a problem during the
initial interview prior to cycle one, C2’s response to this question indicates
125
improvements have been made in the team’s ability to concentrate for
longer periods of time.
C1’s response:
“Yes, my players are more focussed and motivated to train. I
have found not only has their attendance improved but so has
their ability to take on feedback. Generally, they seem
interested in the activities we are doing at training and seem
more willing to learn. I feel like they listen to me more and
demonstrate positive body language rather than the
disinterested body language that was occasionally happening
before hand.”
C2’rs response:
“Yes, I think the players are able to focus for longer because
they have a goal to work towards. My team is quite competitive
by nature so adapting the trainings to include more competitive
activities have really satisfied my players. They seem to enjoy
trainings and I think they can feel that they are improving and
this is motivating them further.”
The responses offered by both coaches’ indicate a noticeable improvement
in the player’s ability to focus and concentrate. In the response C1 offered,
the coach also describes in improvement in the players’ overall
coachability. The concept of coachability is based on an individual player’s
ability to focus, receive and apply feedback. Coachability is not dependent
on the player’s physical ability but mental capacity and confidence to
process constructive criticism without becoming defensive or submissive.
126
C1 inferred in their response to this question that the players were not
listening to C1 enough when giving instructions or feedback, and suggested
that the players occasionally appear disinterested. In contrast to C1’s
response, C2 suggests the improvements made by the players are due to
motivating factors such as goal setting and creating a competitive
environment.
5.4.6 WHICH ASPECTS OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM LACKED AN EFFECT OR HAD
A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON PLAYER PERFORMANCE?
The reflection phase of the participatory action research process allows the
coach and the researcher to explore aspects of the intervention requiring
improvement through modification or removal. Although both coaches
were pleased with the results from the first cycle it is important to critically
reflect in order to improve. As previously discussed (see Chapter 2.4 Coach
Education and Chapter 2.6 Education vs Learning), according to Knowles,
Borrie, and Telfer (2005) reflective practice is a key skill used by coaches to
enhance their learning and educational experiences. In their response to
this question C1 focuses on a concern raised prior to cycle one’s
implementation, whereas C2’s response reflected on the performance of
the players within the team.
C1’s response:
“I don’t think there were any players who performed worse by
the end of the training program. But I do worry about neglecting
aspects of their technique. I still think repetition is the best way
to practice technique, in saying that the improvement in their
game play can’t be ignored. It’s just an aspect I think should be
included somewhere, somehow into their training program.”
C2’s response:
127
“I think all of my players have improved their ability to play in
one or more aspects of the game, none of them have regressed
their skill set levels. In saying that, I would like to see a greater
improvement in our passing. It is such an important aspect of
the game, I feel it needs to be addressed in the next training
plan.”
It is interesting to note the difference between the reflections of these two
coaches. Despite acknowledging the improvements the players have
made, C1 feels it is important to include aspects of the traditional,
reductionist approach. Whereas C2 acknowledged the positives while
addressing as aspect of the game in their opinion requires more attention.
As discussed earlier (see Chapter 2.2 The Coaching Process and Chapter 2.4
Coaching Education) Knowles, Gibourne, Borrie and Nevill (2001) suggested
accurate and critical reflection is vital to the teaching and learning process
for coach education. Critical self-reflection is a skill that coaches are
required to develop in order to continue progressing and advancing as a
coach. During this interview and throughout the planning phase of cycle
two, C1 prioritised the aspects of the game that required improvement.
Between the researcher and C1, an agreement was made that technical
adjustments to individual players could be made throughout training
session without dedicating an activity to purely practice technique in
isolation. As this was not an issue for C2, adjustments were made to
include a stronger focus on passing in serve receive as per the reflections of
C2 and the data gathered through the researcher’s field notes.
5.4.7 DO YOU FEEL YOU IMPROVED ON (ASPECTS OF COACHING INDICATED
THROUGH ANSWERING Q5 OF CRI) OF COACHING?
During their initial interview, prior to the commencement of cycle one the
coaches were asked to discuss the aspects of coaching they wish to
improve on. While both coaches discussed the notion of reading, C1
128
specifically was seeking help to engage a large number of players to avoid
boredom with the limiting use of one volleyball court. C2 discussed and
asked questions about teaching reading as a skill to his players, this was the
sole focus for C2’s improvement of coaching practices.
C1’s response:
“Yes, the combination of a higher attendance rate and
improved skills is a testament to my coaching improvements. I
can see how making trainings game-like is more fun for the
players and when the players are having fun they are more
relaxed and more likely to be learning, I thought I was making
training fun before but I can see how changing my coaching has
effected the players performance in a positive way.”
C2’s response:
“Yes, ‘train the way you play’, that is how you teach players how
to read. I think the advice of ‘tell the players where to look but
not what to see’ allow the players to learn through their own
experiences. It is important that the coach allows the players
the opportunity to problem solve and create their own
strategies and tactics. For me, I was just unsure how to create
that environment at training, now that I understand it, I feel
much more confident in my coaching ability.”
In their response, both coaches indicated a positive change in their
coaching practice as a result of participating in this coach education
program. Although the primary role of a coach is to improve the
performance outcomes of their players, a coaching education program’s
role is to improve the coaching practices of the participants. As explained
in the review of literature (see Chapter 2.4 Coaching Education) it is
important that the coaches are improving their practice through effective
processes, including detailed and progressive planning, meaningful and
129
relevant activities, and critical self-reflection (Jones and Turner, 2006). The
purpose of using a CPD mentoring method for developing these aspects of
the coaches is to demonstrate, monitor and eventually create
independently effective coaches.
5.4.8 DID YOU FIND THIS PROCESS OF COACH EDUCATION HAS HAD AN IMPACT
ON THE WAY YOU COACH?
The first research question posed by this thesis seeks to clarify the
effectiveness of a mentoring method called Continuing Professional
Development (CPD). This question was posed to the coaches to gauge their
thoughts on the CPD they have experienced thus far. As the coaches’
participation in this research is voluntary, it is expected their responses to
be in a positive light.
C1’s response:
“Yes, I have never had someone to ask advice in the moment
before. I know I have had the opportunity to ask after training
but that requires me to explain the situation, the team
dynamics and the issue and then receive hypothetical advice.
After that, I am only able to apply the advice the next time that
exact or similar situation happens again. I just feel like I have
been able to adjust, react and learn quicker when I have
someone to back me up or to bounce ideas off. I definitely
would not have changed the way I coach this much without
someone here helping me. I see coaching in a different light
now. I feel like I am thinking more about what I am doing and I
think that is reflected in the levels of engagement my players
have at training now. It’s all a learning process and I feel that I
am improving as a coach from this experience.”
C2’s response:
130
“Definitely. Well, I have completely changed the way I coach to
‘train the way we play’. This approach has completely changed
the way I think about coaching and training. It’s so logical and
simple and so far it’s working for my team. I knew coming into
this it would be a challenge but if you’re not being challenged,
you’re not learning. I think that’s what was happening in the
trainings I was running before, I was comfortable and so were
the players, we were all just cruising along together without
much stimulation. I can feel it in myself, I am more excited
about coaching and the players are more excited about training
too. This is definitely a feeling I never experienced after the
level one coaching course. It’s just too impersonal and
irrelevant. But this, this couldn’t be more personal, a one on
one assistant coach for eight weeks… yes please – how could
you not improve as a coach with that kind of assistance?”
From these responses it is clear that both coaches have valued the support
provided by the researcher during their training sessions. Both coaches
have also referred to their own improvements and have indicated a high
level of motivation during this process. To complement their heightened
levels of motivation, both coaches have discussed the positive learning
experiences they have had as a result of their participation. C2 goes
further still, comparing their experiences during cycle one to the lack of
learning and motivation provided by the level one coaching course the
coach had previously participated in. C2 explains that their opinion was
based on the relevance and individualisation provided by this CPD and
described the level one as ‘impersonal and irrelevant’. Through their
responses both coaches have indicated the positive impact cycle one has
had on their coaching development, with this in mind the researcher aimed
to continue this positive learning experiences for both coaches into cycle
two.
131
5.5 END OF CYCLE TWO FINDINGS FIELD NOTES SUMMARY, SURVEY
AND INTERVIEW RESPONSES:
5.5.1 FIELD NOTES SUMMARY DURING CYCLE TWO
As used in cycle one, the same process of gathering data through
observations of player interaction and behaviour recorded in the form of
field notes as well as the use of surveys and semi-structured interview
were used during cycle two. The two themes which emerged through the
researcher’s observations during cycle one, have continued and evolved
throughout cycle two. The first of the two themes identified centred
around morale and team cohesiveness. The second emerging theme
applies to the improved levels of structural gameplay and quality of player
performance outcomes.
The first of the two continuing themes have evolved from improved moral
and team cohesiveness to a deeper understanding of the team based
tactics and strategies. This theme was observed in both teams’ training
session and demonstrates a developing understanding of the game and an
improved ability to communicate and work as a team. These observations
were recording in the field notes as scenarios. There were a number of
scenarios that demonstrate the players improved understanding of the
game and teamwork, however the following two scenarios particularly
highlight this first theme.
Scenario One:
During C1’s training the planned activated was a modified game whereby
every player who performed a forearm pass when playing at the ball was
required to run off court and touch the back wall before re-entering the
rally. The player who forearm passed the ball cannot play at the ball until
they have touched the back wall. The constraints put in place are used to
encourage the players to spike the ball on the third touch as well as take
the first ball and second touch on their hands (using a setting action). The
consequence of forearm passing creates gaps on the court. The coach was
132
looking to see if the players could be strategic in their placement of the
ball, aiming for the gaps in the other team’s defence as well as
communicating effectively to cover their own gaps on court. Following a
first to five points, introductory game the squad that had been split into
two team were given two minutes to think of some tactics and strategies to
beat the opposing team. During this timeout led by the players the
following statements were made by players within the two teams.
Player One: “So we don’t want to create gaps on our court so
we need to really try to set the first ball that comes over.”
Player Two: “Yep, everyone need to be closer to the net to
make it easier to set that first ball, if we all stand back like we
usually do to pass we will get caught passing every time!”
Player Three: “Hey guys, coach never said we had to use three
touches, so if you see a gap on the other teams’ court, even on
the first or second touch - just get the ball there in any way
possible, even if you have to pass it because we can still cover
you.”
Player Four: “It might be a good idea to call out ‘back wall’ to let
us know that your area of the court will be a gap and “thanks
(whoever)” to let that person know you’re on your way back.
Just so we have all our gaps covered.”
It should be noted that although all of these statements demonstrate a
deep understanding of the game as well as effective tactics and strategies
to win, most of the players were not able to consistently enact these
suggestions. Perhaps after more exposer to these types of modified games
the players will find it easier to adapt to different constraints.
Scenario Two:
A modified game to encourage the setters to use the middle players more
during a rally was implemented into C2’s training session. The game is
133
called AFL and requires two extra antennas to be placed on the net
indicating the “middle” portion of the net. Much like the traditional game
of AFL any kill hit through the middle antennas was awarded six points, any
points scored either side of the middle antennas but within the existing
sideline antennas was awarded one point. This game is designed to
develop and engage the middle player more, while balancing the decision
making of the setter. For example all the players on the court know that
the first option in offense will be through the middle so if the defensive
team has set a double or even triple block, one of the outside hitters must
be unmarked and therefore if set, there will be no block to hit against. This
game requires a high level decision making and the opportunity for
combination plays (not yet explicitly taught). With these elements in mind,
these are some of the comments and suggestions made by the players
during a player led timeout.
Player One: “We need to be careful to not over use our middles because
the other team will just keep putting up triple blocks. We need to look for
some easy points, let them think that we are mainly going to our outside
hitters to get point then WHAMMY – we kill it through the middle.”
Player Two: “I don’t think there was any restrictions put on back court
hitting, so let’s run some pipes and win some big six pointers through the
back court.”
Player Three: “So to win a six point play, anyone can kill it through the
middle section – it doesn’t have to be a middle, right? So if the pass into
the setter is good let’s get the pass hitter to run a three ball over the top of
the middle running an A ball. The block should be on its’ way down when
the pass hitter hits the three.”
Much like scenario one, the players in C2’s team were able to suggest
strategies and tactics of a higher order thinking capacity, however they
lacked the consistency in applying these strategies into the game.
Occasionally, the players implemented their strategies and the team
134
morale and motivation rose, however the inconsistency in the control and
structure of the play limited the players’ capacity to implement their
discussed tactics.
These two scenarios demonstrate the players’ within both teams’ ability to
identify how the modification in the game play works, develop ideas to
overcome this restriction, and communicate their ideas, strategies and
tactics. With continued experiences like these, whereby the players are
forced to problem solve and work together, team cohesion and a positive
morale is developed. Both of these teams are demonstrating signs of
improvement, particularly in their understanding of the game and ability to
problem solve, all that is required now is more time to practice in this
game-like environment.
5.5.2 SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
In order to maintain consistency in analysis and evaluation, the same five
gameplay criteria used during the first cycle are repeated in the second. As
indicated by the coaches’ survey results, both teams improved across all
five gameplay indicators, however the levels of improvement are varied.
In saying this, there is an identifiable trend relating the proportion of
improvement between cycle one and cycle two is consistently less for both
teams. Across most indicators and both teams, the improvements
between week one and the end of cycle one are generally greater than the
improvements between the ends of cycle one and cycle two. This could be
due to factors such as the improvement in gameplay is more likely to be
dramatic during the initial phase of change and begin to plateau once the
players are more familiar with the new structure of training. This could
also be an indication of trainings, perhaps, not challenging the players’
enough to allow improvements to be made. Modifications of training
activities may have to increase in difficulty in order to maintain a steady
level of improvement.
135
Table three displays the results of all three surveys taken prior to and
following each cycle. Both coaches were asked to continue the use of a
percentage method in order to clearly identify their opinions regarding
athlete physical performance and improvement.
136
Table Three: Survey Results Spanning the Two participatory action research Cycles
Gameplay Survey Criteria: Coach 1’s Team Coach 2’s Team
Reference
number Description
Week 1
Cycle One
End of
Cycle One
End of
Cycle Two
Week 1
Cycle One
End of
Cycle One
End of
Cycle Two
1
% of gameplay consisting of
controlled dig, set, spike
structure
30% 40% 50% 45% 55% 60%
2 % of points won through attack
(serve, spike, tip) 5% 20% 25% 15% 30% 35%
3
% of points lost due to direct
error, e.g. service error, net
infringement, hitting error, free
ball error
85% 75% 70% 80% 65% 60%
4
% of passes (only in serve
receive) rated higher than 1.5
on a standard 3 point passing
scale
35% 40% 45% 45% 45% 50%
5 % of defensive digs converted
into an attack (spike or tip) 2% 7% 10% 5% 10% 12%
137
As previously discussed in Chapter 5.3.2, gameplay analysis indicators one
and two reflect the structure of gameplay. Ideally a structured rally is
consists of a controlled first touch, usually a pass, followed by a strategic
set to a player who attacks the ball. Both teams improved in this
categories, C1’s team by 10% and 5% and C2’s team by 5% and 5% in
indicators one and two respectfully. In comparison, cycle one’s results for
both teams were 10% and 15% respectfully, these rates of improvement
are significant and it would be unrealistic to expect maintain these
increases across both indicators of both teams. However, the consistent
increases suggest the training program’s opportunity to practice
constructing dig, set, spike rallies continues to develop the players’
gameplay ability.
The third gameplay indicator relates to the percentage of direct errors,
including service errors, net infringements, or control errors such as hitting
into the net or out. These errors are deemed to be controllable and
therefore avoidable. By minimising these direct errors, the opposition
have to work harder to gain a point and this allows the team to build
momentum. C1’s team have reduced their direct errors from 75% at the
end of cycle one to 70% at the end of cycle two. Over the course of the
eight week training program these error have been reduced by 15% for
C1’s team. C2’s team started at 80%, in eight weeks the team have
reduced their direct errors to 60%. Although these statistics are positive,
the reality in maintain these improvement rates would be unrealistic.
Despite this, at a school level a successful team should be able to minimise
their direct error rate to below 50%, this percentage would be a good
target for both teams to aim for in the future.
According to the data surrounding gameplay indicator four, C2’s team did
not improve during the first cycle in their ability to consistently perform a
quality pass in a serve receive situation. However, after creating serve
receive passing as focus during the second cycle, C2’s team were able to
138
improve their results by 5%. C1’s team were able to improve their serve
receive passing consistently by 5% through each cycle.
Defensive digs converted into an attack is a difficult skill to develop,
however if successfully executed is able to shift the momentum of a point,
set and even game. Both teams were able to demonstrate a slow
progression in this aspect of the game and this can be attributed to the
development of gameplay indicator one. The increase in the number of dig
set spike structured rallies have provided the teams with more
opportunities to practice defending the spike as well as converting that
defensive dig into an attack. Gameplay indicator four is reliant on the
continuation and development of gameplay indicator one. As
demonstrated in table three both of these indicators have improved
throughout cycle one and cycle two.
At the end of the implementation phase of the participatory action
research cycles, using these five gameplay indicators, it can be concluded
that in the opinion of the respective coaches, the standard of gameplay of
both of these teams have improved across all categories. Although the
rate of improvement is varied across the five gameplay indicators as well as
across both cycle one and two, overall improvement is evident.
5.5.3 DO YOU FEEL YOUR COACHING PRACTICES AND PROCESSES HAVE
IMPROVED DURING THIS 8 WEEK PROGRAM?
The reflection phase of cycle two involved the coaches evaluating their
own practices and processes. An interesting theme that has emerged from
both coaches’ responses to this question stems from a reflection on their
personal learning. The processes of coach education and development
hinges on the coach’s ability and open-mindedness to learn. Although the
coaches reflect on aspects of their learning both coaches focus on slightly
different aspects of the learning process. C1 reflects on their personal
139
learning style, while C2 reflects on their motivation, barriers, a change in
philosophy and the desire to continue learning.
C1’s response:
“Yes, I think my coaching practices and processes have
improved during this time. I feel like I understand coaching a
bit better now than before this experience. I realise now, I was
purely mimicking what I have experienced as a player. In saying
that, I’m not going to throw it all out the window but I think I’m
now better equipped to make decisions on what I accept and
reject as a coach when I am experiencing or observing others
coach. I have also realised through this experience that I learn
through doing, someone can tell me all about it but I won’t be
confident or understand it until I do it. Knowing this, now my
challenge as a coach is to keep trying new things despite not
having experience in that particular activity or modified game.
Overall, yes I feel like my coaching has improved over the
course of this program.”
C2’s response:
“Absolutely. My main motivation for participating in this
program was to improve my coaching ability. Before
participating, I was concerned with the levels of development
and improvement my players were lacking through training.
Although it’s obvious now, I really did feel stuck and was unsure
how to improve. I think this experience has changed my
coaching philosophy. It used to be restrictive, believing the
players must demonstrate skills in drills before being able to
play a game. Now my philosophy is train the way you play. This
experience, particularly having a mentor, has definitely
140
improved my coaching ability and I hope to continue to learn
and improve as a coach.”
The coaches’ reflections reinforce the reviewed literature on coaching
processes and coach education. The responses offered by the two coaches
suggests the importance of the shift in coaching practices and processes is
outweighed by their personal learning experience. As cited previously (see
Chapter 2.2, The Coaching Process) Cushion, et al. (2006) suggests
beginning coaches rely heavily on their gut vibe, intuition and personal
experiences rather than a structured, research based coaching process.
This point raised by Cushion and colleagues is reiterated by importance C1
places on personal experiences and their kinaesthetic learning style.
Whereas, C2 reflected on the influence a mentor has had on their learning
experience as well as the importance of contextualising the training
experiences for their athletes. C2’s response to this questions is also
reflected in the literature review, particularly resinating with the works of
Knowles, Borrie and Telfer (2005) who discuss issues of contextualising
learning experiences as well as the research into problem based learning
by Jones and Turner (2006). Although the question posed to the
participating coaches was not intended to focus on the learning processes
of the coaches, it is interesting to note their response emphasised the
importance of the genuine learning experiences and quality coach
education.
5.5.4 DO YOU FEEL THE PLAYERS HAVE PROGRESSED AND IMPROVED THEIR
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES?
To gauge the effectiveness of the coach education program implemented
though this participatory action research project, the progression and
improvements in player performance must be analysed. Although the data
collected through the observation during cycle one and two illustrate the
141
improvements across both teams using five criteria, it is important to
consider the coaches’ opinions and observations to verify the statistics.
C1’s response:
“I have noticed a higher standard of gameplay. The players
seem to be more likely to take risks and play aggressively. At
the start I thought it was more about the skill of hitting, but I
think it is more about adapting to the set that gives my players
the confidence to hit and to be aggressive.”
C2’s response:
“Yes, I can see and hear (through their conversations) they are
thinking, analysing and evaluating the gameplay that is
happening around them. It is almost feels like they have been
in a tournament. So far I found most teams improve their
understanding of the game exponentially during a tournament
but I think through the planned activities they have had to
implement their problem solving skills they are able to bring
into a game, here at training.”
The common theme emerging from the responses offered by the coaches,
concern the notion of playing the game rather than developing individual
skills within the game. This theme is particularly significant in answering
the research questions initially posed by this masters (see Chapter 1.6
Research Questions), as well as reiterating the research surrounding
improving player performance by shifting from a reductionist approach to
a non-linear paradigm (see Chapter 2.1 A Historical View of Coaching and
Chapter 2.10 Non-Linear Pedagogy: Constraints-Led Approach). In their
142
responses, both coaches emphasise the improved standard of gameplay
rather than the athletes’ improvements in skills concur with the research
findings presented by the likes of Cassidy, Jones and Potrac (2009), Becker
(2008), Nelson and Cushion (2006) and Erickson, Côté and Fraser-Thomas
(2007) (see Chapters 2.1 A Historical View of Coaching, 2.2 The Coaching
Process and 2.4 Coaching Education). In particular, C1’s comment
describing the athletes’ ability to adjust to the constraints of their
environment and C2’s comparison to improvements made throughout a
tournament, aligns seamlessly with the notion of ‘imminent awareness’
initially put forward by Erickson et al. (2007) and developed further by
Wharton (2014).
5.5.5 HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT DID THIS CHANGE IN YOUR COACHING
PRACTICES AND PROCESSES HAVE ON THE IMPROVEMENTS OF YOUR PLAYERS’
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES?
Although C1 was more reluctant to acknowledge the change in coaching
practices, both coaches acknowledge the improvement made since the
start of the intervention.
C1’s response:
“My team has improved since the start of this program. I think
they can string a dig, set, spike together more consistently and
confidently than before. I think their serving has improved and
I think their general understanding of the game has improved
too.”
C2’s response:
“I think the changes I have made in my coaching has definitely
improved their performance outcomes. Not only have their
general skills improved like passing, setting, serving, hitting and
blocking, their ability to make decisions, problem solve and
143
develop strategies have really enhanced and improved their
skills set.”
The emerging theme in the coaches’ response to this particular question
concerns the shift in focus from analysing player performance through
individual skills to the quality and standards of which the athletes can play
the game. Although both coaches mention the improvement in individual
skills, they emphasised what C1 referred to “understanding of the game”
and C2 referred to “ability to make decisions, problem solve and develop
strategies”. These responses align with the works of Cassidy, Jones and
Potrac (2008) regarding the reductionist coaching approach failing to
recognise the impact of environmental factors present within gameplay
situations. This theme provides further evidence towards encouraging a
positive shift from the traditional reductionist coaching approach to a non-
linear paradigm (see Chapters 2.1 A Historical View of coaching, 2.2 The
Coaching Process, 2.5 Effective and Efficient Coaching and 2.10 Non-Linear
Pedagogy: Constraints-Led Approach).
5.5.6 WHICH ASPECTS OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM LACKED AN EFFECT WHEN
AIMING TO IMPROVE PLAYER PERFORMANCE?
An important part of developing effective coaching processes and practices
is to acknowledge and address any limitations, this question was posed to
both coaches to establish the aspects of the training program that may
have lacked an effect when aiming to improve player performance.
C1’s response:
“I think it helped that the team had a good understanding of
basic techniques before starting a game play heavy training
program. I probably would not have introduced it this much
this early because I think young players need to develop good
technique before bad habits emerge. I believe this program in
144
its original form did not include the required opportunities to
focus on technique, however as I delivered the training
program, I modified the focus of my feedback to emphasise
technique. This was the only aspect I felt was lacking in the
originally proposed training program.
C2’s response:
“The motivation for volunteering for this program was because
my players were not improving at the rate I knew they could
have been. I believe changing the focus, method and delivery
of the training activities addressed the plateauing problem my
team was experiencing. I still think my team can improve more
in serve receive, and originally this weakness was not being
addressed by the first four week training program, I believe it
was more effective and had a greater focus in the second
training program.”
In previous responses, C1 expressed concerns regarding the lack of focus
on skill technique within this new, non-linear paradigm (see 5.2.1, 5.2.2
and 5.3.6). Despite this, by the end of cycle two, C1 was able to apply
new paradigm while still providing the players with feedback regarding
their technique. It was C1’s ability to modify their coaching practice and
processes that C1 was able to address the perceived lack of technical
instruction. Whereas C2’s concerns centred on a particular aspect of
gameplay, sever receive. Initially identified as an area requiring focus in
the initial interview phase (see 5.2.6), following the observations collected
the field notes in 5.3.1, the survey results in 5.3.2 and in C2’s discussion in
5.3.6, serve receive was not as aspect of the team that was improved
within the first cycle. During the reflection and planning phases between
145
the implementation phases of cycle one and cycle two, both the
researcher and C2 explicitly addressed serve receive into the training
program implemented. As a result of addressing the limitations of cycle
one, by the end of cycle two C2 perceived serve receive had improved by
5%.
5.5.7 WILL YOU CONTINUE USING THE ‘PRINCIPLES BEFORE METHODS’
APPROACH IN YOUR FUTURE COACHING PRACTICE?
To measure the impact this coach education experience has had on the
coaches, the researcher posed this question to gauge their intentions for
implementing the ‘Principles before Methods’ as their approach to
coaching in the future.
C1’s response:
“Yes, I think I will. I has challenged the way I think about
coaching and has giving me the confidence to try new things
without experiencing them first. Coaching is a lot of trial and
error and unless you trial something new you don’t know if the
way you are currently coaching is the best. I would never have
brought in this much gameplay this soon, but I’m glad I did and I
will keep learning and develop my coaching in the future.”
C2’s response:
“Yes, I will be continuing this method and philosophy of
coaching in the future. I have really enjoyed seeing the positive
effect it has had on my player’s performance and
understanding of the game. I love the ‘train the way you play’
philosophy, I don’t see that changing. I have really enjoyed this
146
learning experience and I am hungry to keep learning, adapting
and modifying the way I coach to continue to improve.”
As previously discussed (see Chapter 2.1 A Historical View of Coaching)
Cassidy, Jones and Potrac’s (2008) discussed the concepts of ‘mindless’
teaching, it could be suggested that the coaches who volunteered to be a
part of this research project were aware but did not know how to change
from their ‘mindless’ practice. As indicated by their positive responses to
this questions, clearly a new perspective has been created and a degree of
open-mindedness has overcome old coaching habits and learned
behaviour. The most significant theme to emerge from the coaches
responses is their willingness to continue to learn and improve their
coaching practices and processes.
5.5.8 DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
PROCESS, COACH EDUCATION, PLAYER DEVELOPMENT, PLAYER PERFORMANCE
OUTCOMES, ETC?
Two very different topics were discussed when responding to this final
opportunity to express any comments, statements and questions.
C1’s response:
“Something that I have noticed, is the effect it has had on me as
a player, I am different player to coach now that I have
coached. I’m more strategic and constantly evaluating the
gameplay and my own decision making. I think it would be a
good idea for player development to get them to coach or assist
a coach on a younger team.”
C2’s response:
“I have been coaching a while now and I think this has been
such an influential experience for me. I am now reading more
about coaching, through books and online. I’m also seeking out
147
coaches with more experience than me and asking them
questions about the way they coach and their coaching
philosophies. I feel like the more I learn the more I realise I
don’t know very much at all about coaching. Not in a “I’m a
terrible coach” kind of way, but I feel like I have more of an
open mind and I’m wanting to fill it. Prior to this experience I
thought I was a confident coach, but I never realised how much
about coaching I didn’t know and still don’t know.”
The responses vary in the perspectives of which these coaches coach, for
example it was made clear by C1 that they are still an athlete of the game
at a competitive level and use those experiences as a player to develop
their coaching practices (see 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). What is interesting is
the impact coaches has had on their personal ability to play the game.
Perhaps an area of consideration for future research projects. On the
other hand, C2 described an enlightenment of self-awareness. It is
important to acknowledge potential gaps in knowledge and understanding
in order to have an open mind to learn. It is this willingness to learn that
stems from an awareness of needing to learn. C2 demonstrates a positive,
open and growth mindset conducive to effective learning practices.
148
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
This study has added to the current understanding and research in the
fields of coach education, application of non-linear paradigms, continuing
professional development strategies and effective coaching practices and
processes. The purpose of this participatory action research was to
establish a theoretical base for the Kessel’s ‘Principles before Methods’
approach to volleyball coaching as well as answer the two research
questions posed in chapter one through a thematic analysis of the data
collected. The first of the research questions posed, seeks to clarify the
effectiveness of a non-formal coach education program based on a
Continuing Professional Development program. The second looks to
establish how coaches respond to changing their coaching practices to a
‘Principles before Methods’ approach from a traditional, reductionist
approach to coaching. Following the clarification of the responses to these
two research questions, recommendations will be advised for the purpose
of improving future studies.
6.2 ANSWERING RESEARCH QUESTION ONE
The first phase in designing this participatory action research intervention
was establishing an effective means for coach education. As the coaches
who volunteered had only experienced coaching as the recipient they had
established their coaching practices, processes and approaches on the
strength of these experiences. Consequently, the challenge was to create
an education program designed to personally engage each participating
coach as an individual and ultimately challenge their established traditional
approach shift this belief towards a ‘Principles before Methods’ approach.
With this in mind the first question reflects the effect that a non-formal
coaching education intervention can have as a meaningful learning
149
experience and present change as a consideration if not possible outcome.
The intervention was based on the previously mentioned principles of
Continuing Professional Development program (see Chapter 2.7). The
initial research question posed is:
1. What is the effect of non-formal coach education as a process of
CPD, in creating meaningful change in practices?
Clearly established through a review of the literature presented in chapter
2, coaching is an individualised and social process. It is unrealistic to expect
the first or even second cycle of this participatory action research
intervention would instigate a genuine change of coaching practice across
the academy. As Lawson (1990) attests, there is no one size fits all when it
comes to pedagogy, therefore coach education programs must reflect the
delicate and unique social nature that constitutes a coaching environment.
Using a mentoring system with two of the academy’s coaching staff allows
for a continuation of professional conversation, support and learning on an
individual level, aligning with Cushion, Armour and Jones (2006) and later
Nelson, Cushion and Potrac adaptation of Craft’s (1996) model Continuing
Professional Development.
Following the initial workshop, the opportunity for participatory action
research in this context is evident. As the researcher within this initiative, I
was assigned as a mentor across two age groups within the academy. This
initiative allowed greater access and communication across coaching levels
and promoted critical self-reflection. Most players who return to the
academy to coach are active, social people, therefore this form of non-
formal coach education that includes on court training and dialogue with
mentors and other coaches was widely accepted and valued as a learning
experience. This theme was evident in the coaches’ responses detailed in
5.2.7, 5.4.6 and particularly in 5.3.8 where C1 stated “I have been able to
adjust, react and learn quicker when I have someone to back me up or to
bounce ideas off.” As reported in the literature review (see 2.4 Coach
150
Education) Dunn and Dunn’s (1997) research into the Graduate Assistant
Coaches mentoring program was a crucial in the effective development of
sports coaches and has been proven to be a valuable experience for
coaches seeking a full-time coaching position. The value of the mentoring
processes within a coach education context is considerably undervalued,
underused and fails to be recognised by coaching accreditations and
sporting affiliations across Australia.
Although the answer to this research question is by no means conclusive, it
paves the way for future research concerning coach education programs.
There remain a considerable gap between theoretical literature suggesting
the merit and validity of formal and non-formal coach education, and the
lack of opportunities for coaches to engage in such educational programs.
The concern this researcher has, refers to the disconnect between theory
and practice. Perhaps there is a need for more research that is specific to
particular coaching environments to better inform particular associations
such as Volleyball Queensland and Volleyball Australia. Both organisations
have the capacity and are responsible for the coach education programs
within their sport, yet have done very little to bridge the gap between
research and practices. Greater consideration of non-formal coach
education research could act as the catalyst for change that is so
desperately needed in the profession of coaching. Without more
opportunities for genuine learning, the profession of coaching will not
progress.
6.3 ANSWERING RESEARCH QUESTION TWO
The second question aimed to gauge the response of coaches as they
interacted with an intervention that encouraged a change in coaching
practice. The coaches participated in two cycles of the participatory action
research project and during this time the coaches and players were
observed by the researcher and these observations were recorded as field
151
notes, the coaches participated in three surveys based on their
observations of player performance as well as participating in three semi-
structured interviews, before during and after the completing the two
participatory action research cycles. The data gathered, coded and
triangulated through a process of thematic analysis used to answer
research question two.
2. How do coaches respond to change in coach practice: from
reductionist to a non-linear approach?
Question two was developed through responding to the problem outlined
in the Context of the Research (see 1.4). The frustrations of the coaches,
coupled with poor athlete performance outcomes led to the motivation for
this study. The reasons for the frustrations and poor performance in game
situations became apparent while researching the theoretical framework.
Using research informing the field of ecological dynamics theory and non-
linear pedagogy outlined in the theoretical framework, a coach education
program was created as the intervention for this study.
Despite the short duration of the four week participatory action research
cycles, qualitative data was gathered via three sources indicating a positive
response from the coaches. Field notes were used to as observational data
and through the use of semi-structured interviews the researcher was able
to gauge the coaches’ opinions regarding impact of shifting their coaching
practices from a reductionist to a non-linear, constraints-led approach.
The coaches’ responses offered indicated a positive impact particularly in
the coaches’ perceptions of their respective team’s physical performance
outcomes (see 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.4.1, 5.4.2). All three data sources triangulate
to provide evidence that suggests a positive response from the coaches
when shifting to the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to volleyball, in
particular the improve in player performance, which ultimately was the
goal of the coaches. Based on the survey results, by the end of both
participatory action research cycles, all five physical performance criteria
152
listed in the coaches’ survey had increased. The researcher’s observations
of the players within gameplay situations demonstrated a greater level of
understanding and comprehension of the game, particularly in their ability
to be tactical during gameplay.
The participating coaches have indicated through their reflection interview
responses three reoccurring themes regarding their athletes’ performance.
The first of these themes reflects the levels of engagement displayed by
the athletes as a result of shifting from a reductionist to a non-linear
approach to coaching practices. Building onwards from this first theme is
the concept of increased of engagement and consequently the second
theme refers deeper understanding and tactical awareness in gameplay.
The final theme the coaches discussed referred to the improvement in the
athletes’ physical performance during gameplay. The culmination of these
three themes indicated a positive response from the two participating
coaches in this participatory action research study. The coaches were
particularly positive when asked to reflect on the improvements in physical
performance of their athletes as a result of shifting their coaching practices
to the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to volleyball coaching.
During the initial interview the coaches both indicated a lack of focus
within their team as well as feeling frustrated with the levels of athlete
engagement. C1 particularly referred to athletes appearing disinterested
and unable to focus for a whole training session (see 5.2.6, 5.3.6).
Although not initially flagged by C2, the response when directly asked (see
5.3.6) indicated a noticeable improvement in player concentration and
motivation. In their response, C2 attributed this improvement to the
Principles before Methods’ approach catering for the competitive needs of
the athletes. Not only did C1 notice the same improvements, but also
commented on the athletes’ improved ability and willingness to take on
feedback. Arguably, these improvements noted by the coaches have
contributed to the improvement in the athletes’ understanding of the
game.
153
The improvement in the athletes’ understanding of the game have been
observed by both coaches and the field notes recorded by the researcher.
Specific scenarios have been identified in the field notes section at the end
of both cycles (see 5.3.1 and 5.4.1). In these scenarios the athletes were
able to identify the purpose of the modification in the gameplay, develop
ideas to overcome the constraint and communicate their ideas, tactics and
strategies. Experiences like these provide opportunities for the athletes to
problem solve and work together, these attributes contribute to
developing positive team cohesion as well as develop a deeper
understanding of the game. During the participatory action research cycles
both coaches commented on the athletes’ improved ability to problem
solve (see 5.3.6, 5.4.5 and 5.4.6). This can be directly attributed to a deeper
understanding of the game and a continuation of the ‘Principles before
methods’ approach in order to maintain a game-like environment.
The comments offered by the coaches parallel the observations detailed in
the field notes regarding the improvements in athlete performance
outcomes. The observations by the coaches and the researcher indicated
the athletes improved in both their physical performance outcomes as well
as their ability to read, pre-empt and problem solve during gameplay
scenarios. Outlined in Chapter 5 (see 5.3.1, 5.3.5, 5.4.1 and 5.4.5) the
athletes have demonstrated improvement in not only the level of
execution of the required skills but displayed higher levels of confidence,
team cohesion and independence from the coach in regards to problem
solving and developing tactics and strategies. The coaches’ perceive the
‘Principles before Methods’ approach to coaching as a positive and rich
learning experience. This is reiterated by their desire to continue to use
this approach to build upon the levels of improvement displayed by the
athletes throughout this participatory action research intervention.
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
154
As an initial study, the first of its kind testing the Kessel’s ‘Principles before
Methods’ approach in field of Volleyball, the findings of this participatory
action research can be considered an indication rather than comprehensive
account. As summarised in the previous three sub-headings, there are firm
links between the research surrounding effective means of coach
education and the effectiveness of a CPD - and the real world example of
this is the participatory action research provided here within. Also,
ecological dynamics theory and non-linear pedagogy has been established
as a justifiable theoretical framework that validates the Kessel’s ‘Principles
before Methods’ approach to volleyball. Furthermore, the findings from
this participatory action research intervention indicates the potential
impact shifting from the traditional coaching approach to the ‘Principles
before Methods’ approach generates a positive response from the coaches
and can provide an opportunity to improve athletes’ performance
outcomes.
Although the findings from this study are consistently indicating these
themes, there are three major recommendations to consider if further
research is to be continued. The first of these recommendations requires a
broader scope for the research, perhaps a whole academy approach or the
inclusion of different schools to increase the number of actively
participating coaches. The second recommendation refers to improving
the validity of measuring player improvement, with particular focus on
movement patterns and decision making skills prior, during and post
intervention. The last aspect to be considered would be extending the
duration of both participatory action research cycles. Applying these three
recommendations would improve the validity of the research findings and
therefore better inform the current research and coaching practice used
within volleyball academies, schools, clubs and representative teams.
To create a comprehensive foundation of evidence more coach participants
would be required to broaden the scale of the research findings. It is
recommended to educate and include all coaches within the Volleyball
155
Academy. Creating a whole academy approach would extend the research
participants from two to twenty. Extending the coach participation base
would increase the credibility and validity of the research findings and
therefore have a more significant contribution to the current research in
this field. To achieve this, a team of expert coaches in non-linear
paradigms, more specifically the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach,
would need to be assigned as coaching mentors as this would be too
difficult to manage as a single person.
Currently, the survey results presented in the findings of cycle one and
cycle two (see 5.3.2 – Table Two, 5.4.2 – Table Three) compare player
performance from the first week of the first cycle to the end of each cycle.
To improve the validity of this data, it is recommended that a cause and
effect methodology be adopted, rather than action research, in order to
directly link the adoption of the ‘Principles before Methods’ approach to
positive performance outcomes. This would allow for the opportunity to
collate quantitative data, perhaps by means of video recording and
analysis. The potential effects of this recommendation are two fold, not
only could the results be more reliable and validity improved but also used
as a means of critical reflection on the coaches’ decision making during
gameplay as well as reflect on the athletes’ decision making during
gameplay.
The last recommendation posed refers to the duration of the participatory
action research cycles. Although four week cycles was enough time during
this initial study to establish a positive impact on physical player
performance outcomes, it would be advised to extend the duration to a
more considerable timeframe. Perhaps extend the study to encompass the
whole training season. Combining this recommendation with the second
recommendation which refers to video analysis and critical reflection of
gameplay, the potential impact on coaching practices, self-critical
reflection and the performance outcomes of the players could be
156
significantly greater than the improvements demonstrated in this initial
study.
This study has added to the current research in several coaching fields. To
increase the impact and validity of this study’s findings it is recommended
that three aspects of the participatory action research study are adapted.
These recommendations will further verify this initial findings of this
research and continue to inform the fields of coach education, the
application of non-linear paradigms and effective coaching practices and
processes. It is also the intention of this study to inform relevant the
governing bodies, such as Volleyball Queensland and Volleyball Australia,
to assist in the development of the current and future coaches and athletes
of Volleyball and therefore improve the quality and standard of Volleyball
in Australia, both at a grassroots level and representative level.
157
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation
through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(6), 549-564. doi:
10.1080/02640410500189173
Abraham, A. a. C., D. (1998). Examining and Extending Research in Coach Development.
Quest, 50, 59-79.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
Anshel, M. H., & Singer, R. N. (1980). Effect of learner strategies with modular versus
traditional instruction on motor skill learning and retention. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 51(3), 451-462.
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making
in sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 7(6), 653-676. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.002
Araujo, D., Davids, S., Chow, J. and Passos, P. (2009). The Development of Decision Making
Skill in Sport: An Ecological Perspective. In D. Araújo, Ripoll, H. and Raab, M. (Ed.),
Perspectives on Cognition and Action Sport (pp. 119-131). New York: NOVA
Sciences Publishers.
Araújo, D., Fonseca, C., Davids, K., Garganta, J., Volossovitch, A., Brandão, R., & Krebs, R.
(2010). The role of ecological constraints on expertise development. Talent
Development & Excellence, 2(2), 165-179.
Armour, K. M., & Yelling, M. R. (2004). Continuing professional development for
experienced physical education teachers: Towards effective provision. Sport,
Education and Society, 9(1), 95-114.
AVSC. (2016). What is it? , from http://www.avsc.org.au/about-us/avsc-what-is-it
Bagnell, K. (2005). Recent trends in coach education. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review,
1(1), S9.
Barbour, R. S. (2014). Introducing qualitative research: a student's guide (Vol. Second).
London: SAGE Publications.
Batty, E. (1980). Soccer coaching the European way: Dial Press.
Becker, A. J. (2009). It's Not What They Do, It's How They Do It: Athlete Experiences of
Great Coaching. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING,
4(1), 93-119. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.93
158
Becker, A. J., & Solomon, G. B. (2005). Expectancy information and coach effectiveness in
intercollegiate basketball. Sport Psychologist, 19(3), 251-266.
Becker, A. J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of
legendary collegiate basketball coach pat summitt. Sport Psychologist, 22(2), 197-
211.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In Pursuit of the Expert Pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7),
5-13. doi: 10.2307/1175505
Berliner, D. C. (1991). EDUCATIONAL-PSYCHOLOGY AND PEDAGOGICAL EXPERTISE - NEW
FINDINGS AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THINKING ABOUT TRAINING.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 26(2), 145-155.
Billett, S. (2000). Guided Learning at Work. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee
Counselling Today, 12(7), 272-285. doi: 10.1108/13665620010353351
Billett, S. (2001). Learning Throughout Working Life: Interdependencies at work. Studies in
Continuing Education, 23(1), 19-35. doi: 10.1080/01580370120043222
Billett, S. (2004). Workplace Participatory Practices: Conceptualising Workplaces as
Learning Environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312-324. doi:
10.1108/13665620410550295
Billett, S. (2006). Relational Interdependence Between Social and Individual Agency in
Work and Working Life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 53-69. doi:
10.1207/s15327884mca1301_5
Billett, S., Smith, R., & Barker, M. (2005). Understanding work, learning and the remaking
of cultural practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(3), 219-237. doi:
10.1080/01580370500376564
Bjornavold, J. (2000). Making Learning Visible: Identification, Assessment and Recognition
of Non-Formal Learning in Europe: ERIC.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: advancing knowledge (Vol. 2nd).
Cambridge: Polity.
Bompa, T., & Buzzichelli, C. (2015). Periodization Training for Sports, 3E: Human kinetics.
Bowes, I., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Working at the edge of chaos: Understanding coaching as
a complex, interpersonal system. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 235-245.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can ‘‘thematic analysis’’offer health and wellbeing
researchers? International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being,
9.
159
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brustad, R. J. (1997). A critical-post modern perspective on knowledge development in
human movement. In J.M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in
human
movement, physical education, and sport . Albany: State University of New York.
Bunker, D. a. T., R. (1986). The Curriculum Model. In R. Thorpe, Bunker, D. and Almond, L.
(Ed.), Rethinking Games Teaching (pp. 7-10). Loughborough: University of
Technology Loughborough.
Bunker, D. a. T., R. . (1982). A model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools. The
Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
Buttler, J. (2014). TGfU- Would You Know It If You Saw It? Benchmarks from the Tacit
Knowledge of the Founders. European Physical Education Review, 19(4), 451-471.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 5(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(89)90018-8
Campbell, S. (1993). Coaching education around the world. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 62-
74.
Carreiro da Costa, F., & Pieron, M. (1992). Teaching effectiveness: Comparison of more
and less effective teachers in an experimental teaching unit. Sport and physical
activity: Moving towards excellence, 169-176.
Carter, A. D., & Bloom, G. A. (2009). Coaching knowledge and success: going beyond
athletic experiences. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32(4), 419.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: the social,
cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (Vol. 2nd). New
York;London;: Routledge.
Cassidy, T., Potrac, P., & McKenzie, A. (2006). Evaluating and Reflecting Upon a Coach
Education Initiative: The CoDe^ 1 of Rugby. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 145.
Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2008). Understanding sports coaching: The social,
cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice: Routledge.
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. Handbook of Sport Psychology, Third Edition,
111-135.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise: Psychology Press.
160
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). non-linear pedagogy in skill
acquisition: an introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2006). non-
linear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of
game play and movement skills. non-linear dynamics, psychology, and life
sciences, 10(1), 71-103.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). non-linear pedagogy:
Learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in
Psychology, 29(2), 189-200. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.10.001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Colardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal
learning: Policy and practices in EU member states1. European journal of
education, 39(1), 69-89.
Collinson, V. (1996). Becoming an Exemplary Teacher: Integrating Professional,
Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal Knowledge.
Common, D. L. (1989). Master teachers in higher education: A matter of settings. The
Review of Higher Education, 12(4), 375.
Connolly, G. J. (2016). APPLYING HUMANISTIC LEARNING THEORY: The "Art" of Coaching.
Strategies, 29(2), 39.
Coombs, P. H., & Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking Rural Poverty: How Nonformal Education
Can Help. A Research Report for the World Bank Prepared by the International
Council for Educational Development.
Cote, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and
Expertise. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING, 4(3), 307-
323. doi: 10.1260/174795409789623892
Coté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., & Baria, A. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded
assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology.
Cote, J., & Sedgwick, W. A. (2003). Effective behaviors of expert rowing coaches: A
qualitative investigation of Canadian athletes and coaches. International Sports
Journal, 7(1), 62.
Craft, A. (2000). Continuing professional development: a practical guide for teachers and
schools (Vol. 2nd). New York;London;: Routledge/Falmer in association with the
Open University.
161
Cross, N. (1991). Arguments in favour of a humanistic coaching process. Swimming Times,
LXVIII, 11, 17-18.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the
research process. Thousand Oaks, Calif;London;: Sage Publications.
Cushion, C., Nelson, L., Armour, K., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R., & O’Callaghan, C.
(2010). Coach learning and development: A review of literature. Leeds: Sports
Coach UK.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-
230.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Locating the coaching process in
practice: models 'for' and 'of' coaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
11(1), 83-99. doi: 10.1080/17408980500466995
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level
youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(4), 354.
Davids, K. (2012). Learning design for non-linear dynamical movement systems. The Open
Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1), 9-6.
Davids, K., Araujo, D., Button, C and Renshaw, I. (2007). Degenerate Brains, indeterminate
behhaviours; and representative tasks. In G. a. E. Tenenbaum, R. (Ed.), Handbook
of Sports Psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Davids, K., Button, C., Araújo, D., Renshaw, I., & Hristovski, R. (2006). Movement models
from sports provide representative task constraints for studying adaptive
behavior in human movement systems. Adaptive behavior, 14(1), 73-95.
Demers, G., Woodburn, A. J., & Savard, C. (2006). The development of an undergraduate
competency-based coach education program. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 162-173.
Dickson, S. (2001). A preliminary investigation into the effectiveness of the national coach
accreditation scheme.
Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sport Science Review.
Drewe, S. B. (2000). An Examination of the Relationship Between Coaching and Teaching.
Quest, 52(1), 79-88. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2000.10491702
Dunn, T. P., & Dunn, S. L. (1997). The graduate assistant coach: role conflicts in the
making. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 260.
162
Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative
research. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology,
147-159.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 28(2), 26-28. doi: 10.1108/DLO-02-2014-0007
Erickson, K., Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Sport experiences, milestones, and
educational activities associated with high-performance coaches' development.
Sport Psychologist, 21(3), 302-316.
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and
limits: Cambridge University Press.
Farrar, N., & Trorey, G. (2008). Maxims, tacit knowledge and learning: developing
expertise in dry stone walling. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 60(1),
35-48. doi: 10.1080/13636820701828812
Farrow, D., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Do expertise and the degree of perception - Action
coupling affect natural anticipatory performance? Perception, 32(9), 1127-1139.
doi: 10.1068/p3323
Feltovich, P. J., Prietula, M. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of Expertise from
Psychological Perspectives.
Ferrari, V., Didierjean, A., & Marmeche, E. (2008). Effect of expertise acquisition on
strategic perception: The example of chess. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 61(8), 1265-1280.
Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. Categories of human learning, 47, 381-
391.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance.
Ford, P., Coughlan, E., & Williams, M. (2009). The Expert-Performance Approach as a
Framework for Understanding and Enhancing Coaching Performance, Expertise
and Learning. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING, 4(3),
451-463. doi: 10.1260/174795409789623919
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What Makes
Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi:
10.3102/00028312038004915
Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and
development: Oxford University Press, USA.
163
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception (Vol. Classic). New York:
Psychology Press.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). Framing the construction of coaching knowledge in
experiential learning theory. Sociology of sport online, 2(1).
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in
model youth sport coaches. Journal of teaching in physical education, 21(1), 16-
34.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004a). Analysis of coaching science research published from
1970-2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(4), 388-399.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004b). Role of the Coach: How Model Youth Team Sport
Coaches Frame Their Roles. Sport Psychologist, 18(1), 21-43.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2005). Learning to Coach through Experience: Conditions that
Influence Reflection. Physical Educator, 62(1), 32.
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). The roles of recognition processes and look-ahead search
in time-constrained expert problem solving: Evidence from grand-master-level
chess. Psychological science, 52-55.
Gordon, D. (2009). Coaching science. Exeter [England]: Learning Matters.
Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite US national
team, Pan American, and Olympic coaches. Journal of teaching in physical
education, 9(4), 332-344.
Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing research in the real world (Vol. First). London: SAGE.
Gummerson, T. (1992). Sports coaching and teaching: A & C Black.
Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport: Some
applications of an evolving practice ecology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15(6),
621-640. doi: 10.1080/026404197367056
Heng, H. H. (2008). The conflict between complex systems and reductionism. Jama,
300(13), 1580-1581.
Hodges, N. J., Starkes, J. L., & MacMahon, C. (2006). Expert Performance in Sport: A
Cognitive Perspective.
Hogg, J. M. (1995). Mental skills for swim coaches: Sport Excel Publishing.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., . . . Wagner III,
J. A. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences:
164
examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 599.
Horn, T. S. (2008). Advances in sport psychology (Vol. 3rd). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horton, S., Baker, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Expert in action: a systematic observation of 5
national team coaches. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36(4), 299.
Irwin, G., Hanton, S., & Kerwin, D. G. (2005). The conceptual process of skill progression
development in artistic gymnastics. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(10), 1089-1099.
doi: 10.1080/02640410500130763
Jarvis, P. (2006). Lifelong learning and the learning society: volume 1, Towards a
comprehensive theory of human learning. New York;London;: Routledge.
Jones, R. L. (2006). The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching. New
York;London;: Routledge.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2002). Understanding the Coaching Process: A
Framework for Social Analysis. Quest, 54(1), 34-48. doi:
10.1080/00336297.2002.10491765
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case
study of a top-level professional soccer coach. SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY,
8(2), 213-229. doi: 10.1080/1357332032000106518
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: from practice to
theory. New York;London;: Routledge.
Jones, R. L., & Turner, P. (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: can Problem-Based
Learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 181-202. doi:
10.1080/17408980600708429
Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence Analysis and the 3+ 1Cs in the Coach-Athlete
Relationship.
Kahan, D. (1999). Coaching behavior: A review of the systematic observation research
literature. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 17-58.
Kaiser, N. (2013). Australian Volleyball Coaching Level 3 Course. Paper presented at the
National Volleyball Symposium, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra.
Kelly, J. (2016). [Membership Database Administrator].
Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory participatory action research and the public sphere.
Educational Action Research, 14(4), 459-476. doi: 10.1080/09650790600975593
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory Action Research. In Denzin, N. & Licoln,
Y. (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research.
165
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The participatory action research planner:
doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
Kessel, J. (2013). Understanding the Role of Coaches and Train the Way You Play. Paper
presented at the Volleyball Symposium, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra.
Kessel, J. (2015). Specificity and Whole Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyE1aWfldEQ
Knowles, Z., Borrie, A., & Telfer, H. (2005). Towards the reflective sports coach: Issues of
context, education and application. Ergonomics, 48(11-14), 1711-1720.
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A., & Nevill, A. (2001). Developing the Reflective Sports
Coach: A study exploring the processes of reflective practice within a higher
education coaching programme. Reflective Practice, 2(2), 185-207. doi:
10.1080/14623940123820
Knowles, Z., Tyler, G., Gilbourne, D., & Eubank, M. (2006). Reflecting on reflection:
exploring the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practice, 7(2), 163-
179.
Knudson, D. V. (2013). Qualitative diagnosis of human movement: improving performance
in sport and exercise: Human Kinetics.
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (1997). Teaching as scholarship: A model for instructional
development. Issues and inquiry in college learning and teaching, 19(2), 4-13.
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Higher
Education, 476-495.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New
York;Cambridge [England];: Cambridge University Press.
Law, H. (2014). The psychology of coaching, mentoring and learning (Vol. Second;1.
Aufl.;1;). Malden, MA;Chichester, West Sussex, UK;: Wiley Blackwell.
Lawson, H. A. (1990). Sport Pedagogy Research: From Information-Gathering to Useful
Knowledge. Journal of teaching in physical education, 10(1).
Lebed, F. (2007). A dolphin only looks like a fish: Players' behaviour analysis is not enough
for game understanding in the light of the systems approach - a response to the
reply by McGarry and Franks. European Journal of Sport Science, 7(1), 55-62. doi:
10.1080/17461390701216856
Locke, L. F. (1977). Research on teaching physical education: New hope for a dismal
science. Quest, 28(1), 2-16.
166
Lombardo, B. J. (1987). The humanistic coach: From theory to practice: Charles C Thomas
Pub Limited.
Lortie, D. C., & Clement, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study: JSTOR.
Luft, A. R., & Buitrago, M. M. (2005). Stages of motor skill learning. Molecular
neurobiology, 32(3), 205-216.
Lyle, J. (1986). Coach Education: Preparation for a Profession. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the VIII Commonwealth and International Conference on Sport,
Physical Education, Dance, Recreation and Health Conference, Glasgow.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches' behaviour. New
York;London;: Routledge.
Lyle, J., & Cross, N. (2000). The coaching process; principles and practice for sport (Vol.
15). Portland: Ringgold Inc.
Lyle, J., & Cross, N. R. (1999). The coaching process: Principles and practice for sport:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Macdonald, D., Kirk, D., Metzler, M., Nilges, L. M., Schempp, P., & Wright, J. (2002). It's All
Very Well, in Theory: Theoretical Perspectives and Their Applications in
Contemporary Pedagogical Research. Quest, 54(2), 133-156. doi:
10.1080/00336297.2002.10491771
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883-904. doi:
10.1080/0264041031000140374
Mallett, C., Rossi, T., & Tinning, R. (2007). AFL research report: coaching knowledge,
learning and mentoring in the AFL: The University of Queensland, St. Lucia.
Mallett, C. J., & Dickens, S. (2009). Authenticity in formal coach education: Online
postgraduate studies in sports coaching at The University of Queensland.
International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(2).
Mallett, C. J., Trudel, P., Lyle, J., & Rynne, S. B. (2009). Formal vs. Informal Coach
Education. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING, 4(3),
325-337. doi: 10.1260/174795409789623883
Martens, R. (2004). Successful coaching. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
McCaughtry, N., Sofo, S., Rovegno, I., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2004). Learning to Teach Sport
Education: Misunderstandings, Pedagogical Difficulties, and Resistance. European
Physical Education Review, 10(2), 135-155. doi: 10.1177/1356336X04044068
167
McKenna, J. (2009). Formal vs. Informal Coach Education: A Commentary. INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING, 4(3), 353-357.
McLeod, J., & Reynolds, R. (2000). Planning for Learning. Sydney, Australia: Social Sciene
Press.
McNab, T. (1990). Chariots of fire into the twenty first century. Coaching Focus, 13(1), 2-5.
McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and
consequences: SUNY Press.
Mellalieu, S. D., & Hanton, S. (2015). Contemporary advances in sport psychology: a
review. New York;London;: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2006). Learning in adulthood: a
comprehensive guide (Vol. 3rd;3;). San Francisco: John Wiley.
Mielke, D. (2007). Coaching experience, playing experience and coaching tenure.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2(2), 105-108.
Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: theory and practice
(Vol. 1). New York;London;: RoutledgeFalmer.
Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). Educating the reflective teacher: An essay review of two
books by Donald Schon. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(1), 71-80.
Nash, C., & Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: Science or art? Quest,
58(4), 465-477.
Nater, S., & Gallimore, R. (2010). You haven't taught until they have learned: John
Wooden's teaching principles and practices. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C., & Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal coach
learning: A holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 1(3), 247-259.
Nelson, L. J., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: The case of the
national governing body coaching certificate. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 174.
Newel, K. M., & Rovegno, I. (1990). Commentary—Motor learning: Theory and practice.
Quest, 42(2), 184-192.
O'Sullivan, M., & Doutis, P. (1994). Research on expertise: Guideposts for expertise and
teacher education in physical education. Quest, 46(2), 176-185.
O’Leary, P. M., Cockburn, M. K., Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2010). Head Start
teachers’ views of phonological awareness and vocabulary knowledge
instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 187-195.
168
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods: SAGE Publications, inc.
Peel, D. (2005). The significance of behavioural learning theory to the development of
effective coaching practice. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 3(1), 18-28.
Piggott, D. (2012). Coaches' experiences of formal coach education: a critical sociological
investigation. Sport, Education and Society, 17(4), 535-554.
Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K., & Hoff, J. (2000). Toward an holistic
understanding of the coaching process. Quest, 52(2), 186-199.
Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education: Sage.
Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994). The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New
Perspectives. New directions for program evaluation, 61, 1-98.
Renshaw, I., Araújo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Moy, B. (2015). Why the
constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: A clarification.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-22.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K. W., Shuttleworth, R., & Chow, J. Y. (2009). Insights from ecological
psychology and dynamical systems theory can underpin a philosophy of coaching.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(4), 540-602.
Rieke, M., Hammermeister, J., & Chase, M. (2008). Servant leadership in sport: A new
paradigm for effective coach behavior. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS
SCIENCE & COACHING, 3(2), 227-239.
Rodger, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 140(4), 842-866.
Rossi, T., & Cassidy, T. (1999). 10 Knowledgeable Teachers in Physical Education: A View of
Teachers’ Knowledge. Learning and teaching in physical education, 188.
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words combining quantitative and
qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation review,
9(5), 627-643.
Rynne, S. B., Mallett, C. J., & Tinning, R. (2010). Workplace learning of high performance
sports coaches. Sport, Education and Society, 15(3), 315-330.
Salmela, J. H. (1996). Great job, coach!: getting the edge from proven winners: Potentium.
Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On-site study of
coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 254-266.
Schmidt, R. L., T. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
169
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol.
5126): Basic books.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Siedentop, D. (1990). Commentary: The World According to Newel1. Quest, 42(3), 315-
322.
Sloane, P. (2008). Coaching experience, playing experience and coaching Tenure: A
commentary. Internation journal of sports science and coaching, 2, 117-118.
Smith, J. A. (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods: Sage.
Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (2002). Coaching behavior research and intervention in youth sports.
Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective, 2, 211-234.
Starkes, J. (2000). The road to expertise: Is practice the only determinant? International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 31(4), 431-451.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48): Sage.
Stewart, B. (2004). Australian Sport--better by Design?: The Evolution of Australian Sport
Policy: Psychology Press.
Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research: Sage Publications.
Thorpe, R. (2009). Game Sense: What is it? Paper presented at the Beijing and Beyond:
Developing our Future Champions, AUT, Aukland.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and coach education. Handbook of physical
education, 516-539.
Vella, S., Crowe, T., & Oades, L. (2013). Increasing the effectiveness of formal coach
education: evidence of a parallel process. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 8(2), 417-430.
Vereijken, B., Van Emmerik, R., Whiting, H. and Newell, K. (1992). Free(z)ing Degrees of
Freedom in Skill Acquisition. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 24, 133-142.
Warren, W. H. (1998). Visually controlled locomotion: 40 years later. Ecological
Psychology, 10(3-4), 177-219.
Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2006). A new theoretical perspective for understanding how
coaches learn to coach. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 198.
Wharton, L. (2014). Expert coaching practice: Emergent decision making; imminent
awareness and forward reasoning.
170
Wharton, L., & Rossi, T. (2015). How would you recognise an expert coach if you saw one?
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCE & COACHING, 10(2-3), 577-588.
Williams, M. (2003). Making sense of social research (Vol. 1). London: SAGE.
Williams, A. M., Ericsson, K. A., Ward, P., & Eccles, D. W. (2008). Research on expertise in
sport: Implications for the military. Military Psychology, 20(S1), S123.
Wright, T., Trudel, P., & Culver, D. (2007). Learning how to coach: the different learning
situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 12(2), 127-144.
171
APPENDIX ONE: INTERVENTION POWER POINT SLIDES
Slide 1
Principles before Methods
Volleyball Coach Education
Slide 2
Objectives
• Create a whole academy approach to coaching
• Increase the quality and quantity of reflective practice
• Use mentoring as a means of ongoing professional development
Slide 3 What are the attributes of a “good” volleyball player?
• Disciplined • Coachable – has a
desire to improve• Team player –
positive influence• Effective
communicator• Ability to read and
play the game effectively
Challenge for us is how do we develop these attributes in our players?
172
Slide 4
What are the attributes of a “good” coach?
Slide 5
Lets start thinking critically…• List all the positives and negatives of this warm up:
Slide 6 If we play like we train, should we train like we play?
Scenario: In a game In your training
Start a rally Serve
Coach touches a ball Against the rules (never)
Ball crosses the net during the rally
Unless due to a mistake always
Results and consequences Form of point per rally
Players feeling pressure Likely if participating in a meaningful tournament
Problem solving as a team Establishing weaknesses in the opposition
Reading the opposition Required to be successful in a game
173
Slide 7
Planning your sessions:
• If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.• Plan on paper with space for reflection (see handout)• Every phase should involve:
• The net• Be game-like (competitive)• Clear focus – your avenue as a coach to provide feedback
Slide 8
Competitive Modified Games
• Tennis – focus on reading freeballs and communication• BlindVolley – focus on reading and using different senses to read• Back wall challenge – focus on communication, spatial awareness• +2/-3 – focus on maintaining or breaking momentum as well as serve
and serve receive• No es Justo – focus on maintaining momentum, serve/serve receive• Speedball
Slide 9
Tennis• Focus on reading and pre-empting
where the ball will go• Communication – who is on, who
will take the ball, where should the ball go
• Skill is restricted to passing only• Point per rally, freeball to start• Add an extra ball per team that
cannot touch the ground
174
Slide 10
Blind Volley
• Cover the net with anything that will block the player’s view
• Focus will be on using other senses to aid the reading process, as well as highlight the importance to reading
• Communication will be key in this game
• Unrestricted skills• Point systems can be modified for kills
and aces
Slide 11
Back wall challenge
• Every touch that is a underhanded dig or pass, that player must run and touch the back wall before playing at the ball again
• Focus on communication and spatial awareness
• Scoring systems can vary depending on the specific focus of the coach
Slide 12
+2/-3
• Number of players per team can be flexible as well as number of challenging teams
• Scoring systems can vary and focuses on different aspects of the game can be scored differently
• Coach can graph the momentum of the scoring team for discussions
Scoring side
Challenging Team
Challenging Team
Challenging Team
175
Slide 13
Speedball
• King of the court but serving from either end
• winning team stays where they are• Loosing team is replaced by a team
on the side line• Point system can be modified by the
coach• Focus: serve and serve receive,
breaking and maintaining momentum
Team Weet-bix
Team Coco Pops
Team Special K
Team Fruit
Loops
Slide 14 No es Justo (It’s not fair)
• Small sided game• Team wins when there are no
more opponents • Team wins they stay on and
receive serve• Team looses they swap sides to
the other end of the court (baseline of the winning team)
• Focus: Serve and serve receive –breaking and maintaining momentum
Team waiting area
Team waiting area
Slide 15
Make your own grill…
• Think of a clear focus – weakness or strength you want to develop within your team
• Develop a competitive game that uses the net to develop that aspect of your team
• Be creative…
176
APPENDIX TWO: BOOKLET ACCOMPANYING INTERVENTION POWER POINT
Principles before Methods Approach to Volleyball Coaching
Name: __________________________
Academy Logo
Action photos of the past coaches while they were playing
177
Initial Workshop Objectives:
• Create a whole academy approach to coaching • Increase the quality and quantity of reflective practice • Use mentoring as a means of ongoing professional
development
178
What are the attributes of a “good” volleyball player?
What are the attributes of a “good” volleyball coach?
179
Let’s start thinking critically Positives Negatives
If we play like we train, should we train like we play?
Scenario: In a game In your training
Start a rally Serve
Coach touches a ball Against the rules (never)
Ball crosses the net during the rally
Unless due to a mistake always
Results and consequences
Form of point per rally
Players feeling pressure Likely if participating in a meaningful tournament
Problem solving as a team Establishing weaknesses in the opposition
Reading the opposition Required to be successful in a game
180
Planning your sessions:
Competition Timeline:
May June July August September October November December
Strengths Weaknesses
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
Ideas on how to maintain strengths and improve weaknesses
•
•
•
•
• Training Session Example:
181
OPEN GIRLS QUOTE “Success is where preparation and opportunity meet” – Bobby Usner (Indy car Driver)
FOCUS Introduction & Routine Establishment
Element Activity Time Information Welcome,
See the Quote/Board Water Bottles and Towels on tables This year our focus is on competition and results. We will choose our strongest team that works together. Looking to split into teams as soon as possible, so trials start today.
Skill Repetitions
- Line & Triangle20 – 20 = 2 minutes 15 – 15 no stopping. How many rounds can you do in 8 minutes - 3 ball setting Person in middle stays square. Outside players toss own ball, set and catch. 2 mins each. Square to 4. 2 mins each Effective communication??? Record Winners
Pairs/Threes - 3 players work both sidesPASS (B/R) – SET – SET Aims 10 teams within 10mins PASS (B/R) – PASS (B/R) – SET Aims 10 within 10mins
+3 -2
2 v 3 / 4 Teams need an Animal team name. First team to 4 wins.
Bongo
First team to three little points receives a serve for a big point. 1st to 7 First ball is straight over, then play. Every cross from your side is also a rotation. 30 seconds to organise your team’s tactics. Think about second ball and attacking options.
6v6
No positions. Just play. Extras rotate on to serve. Serving team receives three free balls after each point.
182
Aim for 3 points to earn 1 big point. Receiving team aims to stop the serving team from earning big point. First to 5 B/P Rotate through and change teams
Review & Reminders/Next session
Our Team & Training Focus for term 1 is Fitness, Intensity and Competition. Now for yourself is to think, How can I contribute to achieving the teams focus? Training will start at 6:40, and you should be ready and warm. What does that mean? 6:20 arrival, 6:30 set up net! You are seniors now, which means time management and organisation is on you. Again we are focusing on being competitive so we will be choosing what we see are the best teams for us to be competitive and achieve results. We will take notes after every session on what can help us decide those teams.
Notes from Session
183
Training Session Structures: Phase/Time Description Reflection/comments Warm Up 6:45 – 7am
Speedball First to 11, teams of three
Back court attack/defence 7:05 – 7:30
4v4 rotating every cross of the next – play every position (3, 1, 6 & 5) Only backcourt attack allowed. Rally starts with a serve. First team to 15 points 1 point for a backcourt attack in play 3 points for backcourt attack clean kill 3 points for kill block (only position 3) Non attacking win is a wash Team Niki: Team Mizuno: Lucy TammySarah Billie Kara Tina Holly Nelly Dulcie Bernadette Suzie Beatrice
+3/-2 Back court focus 7:35 – 7:45
Teams of two 2 points for b/c kill hit or block 1 point per rally Cannot attack in the front court Lucy & Beatrice Suzi & Tammy Sarah & Bernadette Dulcie & Billie Kara & Nelly Holly & Tina
6v6 Play all positions 7:50 – 8:05
First to 25 Back court kills =3 points Point per rally Rotations must play where you stand Choc Chip
184
Peanut butter swirl Lucy Dulcie Beatrice Billie Suzi Nelly Tammy Kara Sarah Holly Bernadette Tina
6v6 8:10 – 8:30
Change make up of the teams Positions can be allocated Point per rally
185
Plan your own Training:
186
Grill Ideas:
187
188
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
189
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
190
APPENDIX THREE: SURVEY CONDUCTED WITH BOTH COACHES DURING BOTH CYCLES
Mark on the following continuum the percentage of gameplay your team completes with a dig, set, spike structure: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mark on the following continuum the percentage of points your team wins through a dig, set, spike structure: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mark on the following continuum the percentage of points lost due to your team conceding points due to direct errors, eg service errors, net touches etc. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mark on the following continuum the percentage of passes (in serve receive) rated higher than 1.5 on a standard 3 point passing scale. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mark on the following continuum the percentage of defensive digs converted into an attack (spike or tip). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
