sing ‘Coach Developers’ to Facilitate Coach Learning and Development

Reprinted from

International Journal of

Sports Science & CoachingVolume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

Using ‘Coach Developers’ to FacilitateCoach Learning and Development:Qualitative Evidence from the UKby

Julian North

Using ‘Coach Developers’ to FacilitateCoach Learning and Development:

Qualitative Evidence from the UKJulian North

Sports Coach UK, Cardigan Road, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 3BJ, UKE-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

In the United Kingdom (UK), a significant Government investment was

made into recruiting, developing and deploying 45 ‘Coach Development

Officers’ (CDOs). One of the CDOs’ roles was to provide 1:1 development

support to coaches – therefore establishing relations with, and facilitating

and directly providing development opportunities for, practicing coaches.

This article provides evidence of impact of the CDO’s ‘coach developer’ role

using qualitative interviews with 46 coaches who had received CDO

support. The evidence suggests that the CDOs provided a range of

services including access to information and signposting (for example, to

workshops and mentoring opportunities), and direct support. It was these

direct services – support through Training Needs Analysis (TNAs), Personal

Development Plans (PDPs), observing sessions and providing feedback,

and being an informal mentor or critical friend – which were the most valued.

Key words: Informal Learning, Mentoring, Personal Development Plan,

Sports Coaching, Training Needs Analysis

INTRODUCTIONThere are 1.11 million individuals undertaking coaching in the United Kingdom (UK),providing sporting opportunities and guided development to around 5 million children, adultparticipants and talented and high-performance athletes [1]. A significant majority of theseindividuals are volunteers, have no licence to practice, and just over half have a coachingqualification – the majority of which are Level 1 or Level 2 [1]. In other words, there are alarge number of ‘coaches’, working with a large number of participants in the UK, wherethere is uncertainty about the quality of the sporting provision being undertaken.

In Government and policy circles, concerns related to the development and qualificationof UK coaches have been recognised at least since the late 80s/early 90s [2, 3, 4]. In 2002,the main Government department for sport in England, the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport (DCMS), launched a report – The Coaching Taskforce [5] – and committed £28million (US$45 million) to the ‘Coaching Project’. The Coaching Project established thefollowing programmes: 3,000 Community Sports Coaches, the United Kingdom Coaching

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010 239

Reviewers: Wade Gilbert (California State University Fresno, USA)Keith Lyons (Australian Institute of Sport, Australia)

Certificate (UKCC), the 45 Coach Development Officers, and research. The investment andassociated interventions were intended to provide a ‘step change’ in the UK coaching systemby creating full-time coaching opportunities, a consistent and accredited coach qualificationsystem, bespoke coach development opportunities, and an expanded evidence base withparticular regard to workforce issues [5].

More or less over the same period, there has been increased academic interest in coachingpractice, coaching expertise, and how this practice/expertise is refined and developed [e.g.,6, 7, 8]. Specifically, this work has touched on definitions of coaching practice and howthese definitions relate to coach development [9, 10], and specific discussions of howcoaches develop and learn [11, 12]. Regarding the latter, there has been increased utilisationof theory and evidence from the wider learning literature [e.g., 13, 14], and an increasingbody of evidence from within the coaching domain – though this evidence has often beendrawn from specific coaching contexts; e.g., elite coaching in the UK and developmentcoaching in North America (see [11] for a comprehensive review). Particular attention hasbeen given to the types of learning sources and environments that coaches should and do use– for example, it is often argued that coaches use a mix of informal, non-formal and formalmethods to develop their coaching practice [11, 12]. There has been a lack of research onhow coaches extract and utilise information from these learning sources and experiences(there are exceptions [e.g., 15]).

On balance, the coaching research literature has emphasised the importance of informalmethods; for example, learning by doing (i.e., coaching), watching other coaches, receivingsupport from a mentor; over non-formal and formal methods; for example, workshops andcoaching qualifications [11]. The arguments relate to how coaches practice, and thepropensity or otherwise of informal, non-formal and formal methods to provide relevant anduseful information to this practice [e.g., 10]. Informal learning opportunities – such asobserving other coaches – are seen to provide coaches with knowledge and experienceswhich are grounded in the realities of day-to-day coaching practice, whereas non-formal andformal learning is seen as being abstract, impractical and lacking relevance [16, 17].

Although there is an increasing recognition that the case for informal vs. formal methodsmay have been overstated [18, 19], that the arguments also may have been situated in amisrepresentation of how each can contribute to coach development, and that bothapproaches could be utilised more effectively [6], there certainly has been merit to coachdevelopment provision from this critical attention [11]. This attention has resulted in anincreasing recognition that the development of coaches requires a mix of informal, non-formal and formal learning that builds upon the experience of the coach and is related to therole they are asked to play. In the UK, the Coaching Project provided the impetus andresource to review coaching qualifications, which, at least in part, attempted to address someof the weaknesses cited [5]1. For example, the new coach qualification system was designedto be more ‘coach and participant centred’, with less emphasis on technical and tacticalinformation, more emphasis on pedagogical and critical thinking skills, and a greater

240 Coaching Learning and Development

1The Coaching Taskforce appears to have relied on ‘expert’ advice from the ‘Taskforce Group’ as well aninternational review of coaching systems in four European countries. There is no explicit reference to the researchliterature in the report, but it is clear that the diagnosis and prescriptions emerging from the ‘practitioner’ and‘research’ sides were leading to similar conclusions. The implementation of the Coaching Taskforcerecommendations certainly involved using research academics and articles to shape programme design and delivery.For example, UKCC developers at Sports Coach UK utilised the services of Dave Collins and Rod Thorpe.

emphasis on learning through practice, and less on workshop provision [20]2. Similarly, theCoaching Project established the need and resource for a network of 45 ‘Coach DevelopmentOfficers’ (CDOs) across England with a specific remit to work directly with coaches to‘improve access to high-quality coach education and coach development at the local level’[21]. The programme design had a clear resonance with the principles of individualisedlearning and mentoring from the wider learning and coach development literatures.

This article examines the role and impact of the CDO programme, using new primaryqualitative data, to explore how specific Government investments meet coaches’development needs both in terms of quality and coverage. In doing so, it reflects on the stateof coaching and coach development in the UK; the ability and willingness of Government toaffect change, and the position of contemporary coaching research in relation to these widermacro conditions.

COACH DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS AND THE ‘COACHDEVELOPER’ ROLEThe CDO programme was established in April 2004 to provide two main roles: coachdeveloper and coaching systems development. Initially, the CDOs were to focus onproviding 1:1 support to coaches through needs analysis and planning (known formally asTraining Needs Analysis (TNA) and Personal Development Plans (PDPs)) which would leadeither to direct support from the CDO; for example, mentoring and observation; or thesignposting of services such as workshops, mentoring, working with other coaches.

Eventually the CDOs were to withdraw from 1:1 support and provide more strategic andoperational advice to local coaching deliverers; for example, in building coach developmentand support infrastructure. For example, the CDOs would support the development ofcoaching strategies with local partners; become involved in undertaking workforce auditingand planning; provide training to local coaching support staff on specific aspects of coachemployment and development; and recruit, employ and deploy coaches. In theory, oncethese structures were developed then local ‘coach developers’ would take on the 1:1 role[21].

The reality of the programme, however, was a significant demand from coaches for 1:1services – the CDOs provided support to over 13,000 individual coaches in the three yearsApril 2004 to March 2007 – but a less enthusiastic response from local coaching deliverers[22]. Although there were some notable successes at the ‘systems level’, there appeared tobe a lack of capacity and willingness among local partners to work with the CDO programme[22].

A recent review of the programme noted the good work being undertaken by the CDOsin relation to the 1:1 support of coaches, but recommended a re-focus on the systems buildinglevel [22]. The rationale was that greater benefit would be realised for coaches in the longterm by the CDOs moving to the strategic level and helping develop more effective andcomprehensive coach development systems, than by simply continuing to provide servicesdirectly to coaches. An implication of the move, however, was the immediate removal ofresource from around the coaches – a gap which, it appears, has yet to be filled [23]. This


2Whether the good intensions for the UKCC outlined at the strategic/policy level have been transferred into changesin practice at the delivery level remains subject to ongoing research. It is not the purpose of this article to undertakea review of UKCC principles, or its impact on system change and practice; however, Sports Coach UK hasestablished a programme of research which has begun to unpack these issues.

article focuses on the coach developer role as practiced by the CDOs, but the above providesuseful background information on resource allocation for coach development, and theproblems coaches experience in accessing support services, that will be referred to in theconcluding section.

METHODThe results described in the next section are based on a stand-alone project to collectqualitative evidence on the impact of the coach developer role as practiced by the CDOs.The study focused on a small sample of coaches who had used CDO services and providessome very detailed information about coach-CDO relationships, attitudes towards and use ofcoach learning and support, and perceptions of impact of coach learning provision.

PARTICIPANTSData were collected from 46 coaches; 21 were female and 25 were male, and the mean agewas 33 years. The coaches had coached for an average of 9.5 years (range 1 to 34 years).51% of coaches were full-time, 38% were paid part-time and 12% were volunteers; 34 of the46 coaches (74%) were coaching almost ‘every day’. A majority of the coaches coached atbeginner and club level (36 coaches). However, a number of coaches coached county (5coaches), regional (1 coach), and national/international level (4 coaches) athletes.

A majority of the coaches coached children, especially children under 12, but other groups– older children, young people and adults – were also covered. In terms of sports, the mostfrequently mentioned were multi-skills (6), athletics (5), cricket (5), associationfootball/soccer (5), and netball (5) – gymnastics, rugby league, tennis, canoeing, disabilitysports, golf, hockey, movement and dance, multi-sport, rowing, rugby union, squash,swimming and volleyball were also represented. Almost all the coaches had a coachingqualification (44 out of 46); most coaches were Level 1 or 2 (73%); though 23% were Level3, and 4% Level 43.

INSTRUMENTATIONA semi-structured interview schedule was developed based on themes identified as pertinentto understanding the role and impact of the CDO programme. These included the coaches’involvement in coaching, coaching activities, qualifications, development opportunities inthe last 12 months, establishing a relationship with the CDO, services accessed throughCDOs, and overall views on CDO service provision.

PROCEDUREAll interviews were conducted using a face-to-face semi-structured approach and wereundertaken by Sports Coach UK’s Research Team plus supporting officers betweenDecember 2007 and January 2008. Interviews lasted from 35 minutes to 1 hour 40 minutes.Interviews were tape-recorded and partially transcribed depending on the simplicity orcomplexity of the discussions being undertaken. For example, for simple descriptivequestions such as ‘how long have you been a coach?’ the answer was simply noted. Forcomplex experiential and attitudinal questions, such as ‘in what way has working with theCDO influenced your development as a coach?’, the answer was transcribed. The data was


3 In the UK, the main qualification system is the United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC). Assessment isbased on four functional levels – Level 1: Assistant Coach (supervised); Level 2: Session Deliverer (independentdeliverer); Level 3: Annual Planner; and Level 4: Long Term, Specialist and Innovative Coach.

stored and coded in Excel using a manual approach. There were 120 pages of coded andtranscript data.

ANALYTIC METHODSimple descriptive data were compiled and analysed using basic quantitative techniques (forexample, on how the coaches were introduced to the CDO with the section on ‘Building aRelationship’). More complex experiential and attitudinal data were coded in Excel using a‘units of meaning’ approach similar to that proposed by Miles and Huberman [24] toestablish the main themes and to provide a structure to the report writing (Figure 1). Thedata were consolidated and analysed by the author, but the themes were also checked foraccuracy of interpretation and consistency by members of Sports Coach UK’s ResearchTeam who were involved in the research. Given the straightforward nature of most of thedata, there were no disagreements to speak of.

RESULTSThe results are presented in five themes – building relationships; CDO service provision;impact of CDO services; problems with, and improvements to the CDO programme; andsatisfaction with CDO services (Figure 1).

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPSThe coaches were asked to report when they first established a relationship with their CDOand how the relationship came about. The relationships were established throughout theperiod April 2004 to March 2007, and, at the time of the research, a majority of therespondents had known and worked with their CDO for two or more years. About half ofthe coach-CDO relationships were established through the coaches’ employer (22 mentions),in particular, through County Sports Partnerships coach meetings, where the coaches had anopportunity to meet their CDO. The CDOs were responsible for initiating about a quarter ofthe relationships (12 mentions), with other pathways (clubs etc.) being less important. Therewas only one instance where a coach initiated the relationship.

The coaches were asked to describe the reason for the initial contact. Most coaches wereaware that the CDOs were there to facilitate their development and improve their practice(20 mentions). However, since many relationships were established through the coaches’employer, or by the CDO, it is not surprising that some coaches were initially unsure aboutthe reasons why (19 mentions).

“With all these things, I was not really sure at first, I suppose I thought I would seewhat came out of our initial discussion and take it from there!” (Coach 18)

Indeed many coaches were instructed to meet the CDO as part of their induction training, orwere approached by the CDO without any clear knowledge of what they did. This is notperhaps surprising since there has been little previous support to UK coaches outside thecontext of coach qualification provision with larger scale formal mentoring programmes, and1:1 support initiative being a relatively recent phenomenon. This situation is reflective of arelatively immature system for the support of coaches, whether by sport governing bodies orby the network of agencies working at county and regional level. Without exception, all thecoaches reported that it was easy to contact and meet up with/speak to their CDO. Thefrequency of meetings between coaches and CDOs (for those who provided specificinformation) was just under once per month (or 11 times a year). The range was from



Fig

ure

1. C

oa

ch

es’

Pe

rce

ptio

ns

an

d E

xpe

rien

ce

s o

f th

e C

DO

Pro

gra

mm

e

No

te: T

he

nu

mb

ers

in b

rac

kets

re

fer

to t

he

nu

mb

er

of

me

ntio

ns

of

ea

ch

un

it o

f m

ea

nin

g.

‘infrequently’ to ‘once a week’ – most coaches met formally from 4 to 6 times a year, but feltthey could e-mail/ring whenever they needed advice.

There were evident complexities in the relationships between the coaches and CDOs.Some coaches, and presumably CDOs, were happy to maintain a professional instrumentalrelationship most likely based on personal preference and the parameters of the role:

“[The CDO was] professional, open, relaxed.” (Coach 31)

“The CDO was engaging, supportive and motivational.” (Coach 36)

Other coaches, however, appeared to value the relationship in a very personal and involvedway:

“Having someone there to talk to has been great, someone outside of my workprogramme who can take a more objective view on things has been helpful. I havehad a few issues with club personnel, so it has been good to talk confidentially withthe CDO and they have helped me to work out what I need to do to confront someof these issues and helped me find solutions.” (Coach 1)

“Of course I am satisfied with the relationship, which has moved from being totallywork orientated, but now has an element of friendship in which I feel at ease.”(Coach 19)

“Good to have someone to talk to about work related matters that doesn’t actuallywork with you.” (Coach 26)

Evidence from the UK Coach Tracking Study, and later in this article, suggests that manyUK coaches feel isolated in their coaching environments; for example, in their clubs, withlimited opportunity to discuss their coaching problems with ‘friends’ who are notcompromised, or have a good understanding of the issues involved [25]. The evidence fromthe current study suggests that the CDOs played a very useful friend/mentor role – inproviding a sounding board, advice, and support that was not influenced by the immediatecoaching environment of the coach.

CDO SERVICE PROVISIONThe coaches were asked to describe the services they received from their CDO (Figure 1).The results suggest that the coaches received two levels of service – direct support (deliveredto them directly by the CDO) and signposted support (the CDO refers the coach to anotherindividual/agency for service provision). In terms of direct services, the results suggest thatthe coaches were most likely to receive TNAs (25 mentions) and PDPs (24 mentions). Thecoaches also reported receiving mentoring support from their CDO (outside the TNA/PDPsrelationship – 2 mentions), and a number reported having their coaching sessions observed(11 mentions). In terms of signposted services, the coaches reported workshops (28mentions) and mentoring (7 mentions) being most frequent. However, the coaches alsoaccessed working with/observing other coaches, conferences and new learning resourcesthrough their CDO. The coaches articulated significant benefits from this service provision– the TNA and PDP process, mentoring opportunities, observation opportunities andworkshops as the evidence now suggests.


The needs analysis and planning process is not a new one for coaches, but the way inwhich it was formalised into the work programmes of the CDOs was. In many respects, theTNA/PDP process was core business for the CDOs – the opportunity to work with coaches,to analyse their current knowledge and skill-sets, to put in place a course of action, and towork with the coach to deliver this. The coaches’ comments on the TNA/PDP process wereless concerned with the process itself than what it implied: 1:1 support, mentoring andsupport services:

“The process was 1:1 and it really empowered me to develop to my requirementsand to my needs.” (Coach 4)

“For me it has been a very positive interaction, as I work a great deal on my ownand therefore having someone to ask questions, and to bounce off ideas, hasenabled me to improve the quality of coaching within our club. Very rewarding.”(Coach 18)

“Have been able to talk with someone with more knowledge around coaching.”(Coach 24)

The coaches valued the chance to talk to, be observed by, and receive feedback from amentor (11 mentions). This was evident in the 1:1 relationships they established with theirCDO and others (see ‘Impact of CDO Services’), and the knowledge and skills they obtainedfrom it. For example, the coaches reported developing new coaching ideas/skills – rangingfrom sport specific technical knowledge to generic skills such as communication. Thecoaches also reported that it helped to confirm what they knew, and in that sense gave themmore confidence in their coaching. Mentors were also useful in providing support withqualifications. One coach reported that it was not what she expected, but still learned fromthe experience:

“I had very specific requirements for my mentoring and didn’t want just anyone tomentor me. Through the CDO and the mentoring project with Lane 4, I was givenaccess to a high quality mentor which has made a huge difference to my coaching.”(Coach 35)

The coaches were positive about the opportunity to observe other coaches undertakingcoaching sessions (5 mentions). The benefits of observation were layered. On one level, thecoaches used the opportunity to gain new ideas for their own coaching; for example, ideasabout drills, or how to communicate with players. However, on another level, the coachesused observation as a benchmark against their own coaching – either challenging them toimprove; confirming their own practice and giving them confidence; and, indeed, enablingthem to identify bad practice which they should steer clear of. The role of observation instimulating reflection and building confidence was clearly very important to the coaches.Finally, the coaches also used observation as a means of identifying other coachingpossibilities and career pathways:

“The sessions were very beneficial for my own coaching as it made me think abouthow I do things. It did not influence any development directly, but gave meconfidence.” (Coach 11)


“This I feel has made me more confident in the way in which I approach my owncoaching and gets me to self-analyse better.” (Coach 19)

“Was able to observe both good practice and bad practice and learn from it. It alsohelped to confirm knowledge with some different ways of doing things.” (Coach 39)

The majority of coaches were positive, some very positive, about coaching workshops (18mentions), but there were a minority of dissenting voices (4 mentions). The coachesappeared to use workshops to improve their coaching knowledge across a range of areasincluding participant development, sports science, ‘how to skills’ and equity. The coachessuggested that this information helped to provide them with new ideas, as well as updatingand refreshing their thinking. The opportunity to network with other coaches was also seenas beneficial, as was obtaining the latest learning resources (9 mentions). Many coachesspoke of workshops as providing them with confidence in their own coaching practice (8mentions). On the other hand, the coaches were keen to ensure that the content and delivery(i.e., quality of the tutor) was appropriate (2 mentions). A number of coaches mentionedenjoying the practical sessions in workshops (2 mentions). A small number of coachessuggested they did not learn anything from the workshops or that they were “not hugeinfluence” (2 mentions).

“Most workshops have given a really good base knowledge of certain subjects. Itwas great to meet other coaches and pick up loads of information.” (Coach 3)

“As with most of these workshops, you get out what you put in, so I tend to go inwith a positive attitude to learn some new things. I suppose, they have helped tosupport what I now do good.” (Coach 19)

“Workshops differ depending on who is tutoring but for the most part they werereally good.” (Coach 3)

IMPACT OF CDO SERVICESThe coaches were asked to reflect on the CDO-coach relationship and services they hadreceived. From the data it was possible to identify two main levels of impact: impact ondevelopment and on practice.

CDO Impact on Development. The coaches identified a number of ways in which theybelieved the CDO impacted on their development. For example, the CDO played a strongrole raising the coaches’ awareness of, and access to, specific development opportunities (15mentions):

“I had no idea how much support is actually out there and it is great that we canaccess so much local training to support our development … The CDO has helpedme to focus on where I am and where I want to go as a coach and helped me setrealistic goals that have been regularly reviewed.” (Coach 1)

“Provided me with information about CPD opportunities that I may not have hadthrough [the Governing Body] and the club. Has been a point of contact when I’veneeded advice and has helped to facilitate my change in career direction.” (Coach 5)


“Would not have been aware of the opportunities unless it was for the CDO.”(Coach 5)

The CDOs also played a strong role in making the coach see the benefits of CPD, in takingCPD more seriously, and taking a structure approach (10 mentions):

“The support from the CDO has really helped me focus on what I need to do andgiven me a framework to work within so I have realistic timescales and know whatpriorities to set myself. It has been a huge learning curve for me the past 2-3 yearsbut the CDO has provided valuable guidance throughout.” (Coach 1)

“[The CDO] ... has given me a logical way to develop my coaching. Having awritten PDP has been really good as given me a plan to guide my development.”(Coach 2)

“The session helped plan my development year by year. The CDO was a catalyst forthe development programme.” (Coach 4)

CDO Impact on Coaching Practice.The coaches identified a number of ways in which theybelieved the CDO impacted on their coaching practice. The data are presented around the‘plan’, ‘deliver/do’, ‘evaluate/review’ process [e.g., 26], but the coaches also mentioned theCDOs had a significant impact on their confidence. The CDO helped the coaches to focus ontheir planning of sessions (9 mentions):

“The CDO has particularly helped me to realise I need to make time for myplanning/preparation as this is something I have found hard whilst trying to run afamily and juggle coaching with looking after my two children, etc. The CDOsuggested I block out time in my diary each week to plan and do admin and that Ido this away from home so I don’t get distracted – this has been very useful.” (Coach 1)

“Think more about why I’m doing something rather than merely filling session withdrills.” (Coach 20)

Significantly more comments were made about delivery with the CDOs either playing adirect role, or signposting the coach to a service, which made a difference to how theycoached (13 mentions). When thinking about the CDOs’ impact on their delivery, thecoaches tended to focus on the development of their ‘how to’ skills – e.g., utilising differentmethods of delivery and/or improving their communication skills – an area which has beencriticised as lacking in existing coach development provision (notably in coachqualifications):

“More and new ideas; it has helped me to be more creative; for example, ideasabout enthusiasm, warming up, and keeping children involved. It has helped tokeep my coaching tempo up and gave different ideas for group coaching.”(Coach 7)


“Improved my communication skills and ability to manage others.” (Coach 16)

“Without doubt the CDO has helped me to develop my skills as a coach. It has alsogiven me the confidence to be able to challenge myself in areas that I have not beentotally comfortable with; i.e., working with teenage girls.” (Coach 18)

“Significant influence in helping me to realise my style of coaching. My ‘how to’skills have improved. I liked the way he made me feel when being observed and wasalways positive in what he had to say and how he fed back to me. He wasmotivational and helped me to influence others.” (Coach 36)

“I was able to use the new ideas in coaching to improve it. Felt the observation andfeedback was of great value and helped me become a better coach.” (Coach 38)

Previous evidence suggests that UK coaches generally under-prioritise evaluation andreflection compared to other coaching-related activities [27], despite this being a well-recognised and important step in the development of coaching practice [15]. The researchsuggests that the CDOs were encouraging the coaches to consider evaluation and reflection(7 mentions):

“Working with the CDO has enabled me to work at a higher level. It has alsoenabled me to analyse my own skills, step back and look at myself, give myself timeto reflect. With her support and guidance I have come a long way in two years.”(Coach 19)

“I regularly self reflect and try to set myself goals.” (Coach 29)

“Made me more aware of my actions as a coach.” (Coach 30)

“The CPD days have made me reflect on my coaching practice and made mestronger as a coach.” (Coach 33)

The coaches were also keen to cite the benefits the CDO provided in terms of raising theirconfidence levels. In some instances, the CDO may not have led the coach to makesignificant differences in their coaching practice, but the increase in confidence andreinforcement was an important part of their development:

“I have more confidence and have widened my knowledge in many new areas. Ifeel my coaching has improved so much over the past 2-3 yrs.” (Coach 2)

“My coaching has not changed, but it certainly has matured, giving me theconfidence to deliver in settings that initially I would have found difficult. I nowdeliver in more professional manner.” (Coach 4)

“Not hugely, it has mainly reinforced what I have been doing.” (Coach 6)

“I am more confident and take the lead more. I now know what I am capable of andtry to sustain good practice.” (Coach 11)


“I think she has confirmed that I am a good quality coach and has given meconfidence.” (Coach 24)

PROBLEMS WITH, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO, THE CDO PROGRAMMEAlthough most of the coaches were complimentary about the CDO programme, theyprovided some important critical feedback, which will assist with the future development ofthe ‘coach developer’ role. These comments are reported according to the following themes:uncertainty about what the CDO programme is for; lack of opportunity to access 1:1 support;and lack of opportunity to be observed and receive feedback.

Uncertainty about What the CDO Programme is for. A number of coaches never managedto be convinced of the CDO role with particular regard to purpose and function (4 mentions).Others suggested that coaches should be made more aware of the role:

“Not really, still not sure what CDO does; other people I know can do the same.”(Coach 9)

“Limited functionality and restrictions put on the CDOs.” (Coach 35)

“You don’t know it’s there (the CDO programme) unless you’re told about it by youremployers and I’m pretty sure there are loads of coaches who don’t get anythingnear this kind of service.” (Coach 3)

Lack of Opportunity to Access 1:1 Support. At peak levels of recruitment, the 45 CDOs werepotentially covering 930,000 coaches across England [1]. Within each county, each CDOcould potentially be providing services to between 3,000 (Berkshire) and 143,000 (London)coaches [28]. It is estimated that the CDOs may have come into ‘contact’ with anywhere upto 25,000 English coaches4. CDO management information suggests that the CDOs‘provided support’ to 13,000 coaches over three years of the study – this equates to 100coaches per CDO per year.

With the above figures in mind, it is not surprising that the coaches complained about lackof access to CDO services (6 mentions). The potential change in CDO objectives also led toconcerns amongst the coaches:

“The services I received were beneficial to the role I was going into. It would benice to see the CDO more often than 3-4 times in the 1st year and possibly a further2-3 times in my second year.” (Coach 24)

“I’ve been lucky to have the CDO as a key part of my development as a CommunitySports Coach, but I’m sure there are hundreds of coaches out there who haven’tbeen as lucky as me in knowing that this service is out there. Every coach shouldhave a CDO to work with as part of their coaching whether they are paid or not.It’s an essential tool in getting better qualified and better quality coaches”(Coach 3).


4 Data from the Coaching Workforce 2009-2016 document suggests that there are about 66,000 coaches in the CDOsprincipal target group; i.e., ‘qualified coaches and head coaches’, in ‘Governing Body and Coaching SupportNetworks’ in England. Data from the Year UK Coach Tracking Study [27] suggests that 37% of coaches had contactwith a CDO. This (somewhat rough and ready) calculation suggests about 25,000 English coaches may have hadcontact with a CDO.

“More 1:1 contact time. The most beneficial input has been from a personal 1:1approach. This is something that could and should be addressed for as manycoaches as is possible.” (Coach 13)

Lack of Opportunity to be Observed and Receive Feedback. The results suggest that theCDOs were mainly involved in undertaking TNAs and PDPs, and signposting coaches toworkshops. Although these services were valued, they were not necessarily the ones valuedthe most.

The results suggest that coaches valued other services such as being observed, receivingfeedback, observing and networking with the coaches (6 mentions). This fits with what isknown from the wider coach development literature:

“Would like to have had more than one observed coaching practice.” (Coach 25)

“It would be great to get a CDO into a big club and inspire like our CDO did.Sometimes its better coming from someone outside of the club to make impact,rather than me who lives and breathes the club! Great examples from the CDO wasgiving feedback session where you were only allowed to give feedback at certaintime and in certain ways. Made a great impression on me.” (Coach 36)

“It would be great to arrange with top quality coaches to go and observe sessionsmore formally. I feel this would further improve my coaching and those of similarlevel and standard to me. Lower level coaches and new coaches observe me and Idon’t mind this at all.” (Coach 38)

“Would be good to set up more networking opportunities for coaches in Norfolk andgetting coaches from other outdoor education facilities working together andsharing good practice.” (Coach 1)

SATISFACTION WITH CDO SERVICESThe coaches were asked to report how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the servicesprovided by the CDOs. Before presenting the results, it is important to note that the coacheshad very little to compare the CDO role with; i.e., for many coaches this was the first timethey would have received any specific 1:1 coach development support and, therefore, werelikely to be grateful for this attention.

Of those coaches who expressed a view, 41 were satisfied (including 19 coaches whowere ‘very satisfied’). Thus about 90% of the coaches interviewed appeared very favourabletoward to the CDO programme:

“Very satisfied and happy with the service. It works really well and feel she is thereif I need her.” (Coach 37)

“Very satisfied with the support provided ... I don’t think I would have accessed somuch good training without the CDO signposting me to relevant courses.” (Coach 1)

“The service really does meet my needs, the system has enabled me to look verypositively towards developing myself into a career in coaching.” (Coach 4)


“Yes, it’s great having someone to talk to about your coaching and yourdevelopment.” (Coach 21)

DISCUSSIONThere has been an increasing recognition of the role and reach of UK coaches in stimulatingand sustaining participation [29], and contributing to talent development [30, 31]. At thesame time, there have been genuine concerns about the abilities of the 1.1 million UKcoaches to deliver this provision to a level which confers the potential benefits of highquality coaching [2-5].

A recent UK Government programme and associated investment – the DCMS ‘CoachingProject’ – has attempted to address this problem through the development of a newqualification system (the UKCC) and the provision of 1:1 coach development support forcoaches (the CDOs). Implicit in the programme planning, and explicit in the programmedesign and implementation (at least), of these interventions is the recognition that there ismore to coach development than coaching qualifications, and that personalised support basedon a kind of ‘mentor’ relationship is highly beneficial.

An examination of a sample of UK coaches’ experiences and views on the impact of thecoach developer/CDO role was undertaken and the results were very positive. The CDOplayed an important supporting and brokering role for the coaches they worked with,mediating the appropriate mix between informal, non-formal and formal learning. Notably,the confidence and empowerment of coaches appeared to be enhanced through regularcontact with the CDO. In many respects, the results provide additional empirical support formany of the main themes to emerge from the coaching development research literature. Forexample, the coaches were very supportive of the opportunity to receive mentoring eitherfrom their CDO, or from a designated other [7, 16, 32, 33]. The CDO/mentor relationshipfulfilled a number of roles, but an important theme appeared to be the opportunity for thecoach to engage in friendly supportive relations outside his/her immediate coachingenvironment. Many coaches in the UK complain about being ‘isolated’ and the CDOsprovided a very useful opportunity to share ideas and problems without feelingcompromised.

The coaches were also very supportive of the opportunity to work with, and observe, othercoaches from within and outside their sport [10, 16, 18, 34, 35]. As with mentoring, the CDOeither fulfilled this role directly, or provided other opportunities. The benefits of observationwere layered with the coaches gaining new ideas, benchmarking their practice, and helpingto build confidence in their approach. The coaches were also supportive of workshopprovision in terms of gaining new knowledge [18, 36] and the opportunity to network withother coaches [37], while recognising their place and limitations.

The coaches were able to identify many benefits from working with the CDOs. Forexample, the coaches talked about their knowledge of, and appetite for, coach developmentopportunities being stimulated by the 1:1 support – this is important because UK researchsuggests that coaches’ knowledge and use of, and commitment to, development opportunitiesis low [28]. The coaches also talked about the benefits of the 1:1 support and serviceprovision in terms of practice improvements – greater attention to planning, greater varietyand more attention to participant need in coaching delivery, and greater awareness of theneed to review and learn from coaching experiences.

The positive messages emerging from the coaches about the CDO programme have to bequalified. There is little doubt that coaches value, for example, 1:1 support, mentoring andobservation and feedback opportunities, but these relationships and interventions will not be


without problems – problems which are not easy to establish in research designs of this type.Not all mentoring relationships are positive [38]. Some coaches may be as likely to observeand model good coaching as bad [39].

There is a sense, however, that the 1:1 support, wider service provision, and ‘friendship’offered through the CDO programme – even if it is variable in quality (which there was nosignificant evidence of) – stands in stark contrast to the ‘normal’ levels of service provisionoffered to UK coaches; i.e., no provision (the ‘isolated coach’) and workshops associatedwith qualifications. In this sense, it is not surprising that the coaches were positive about theCDO programme because it represented a level of ‘attention’ and service they had notpreviously been afforded. Furthermore, there was evidence that the CDO programmeenabled coaches to develop mentor relationships that were positive and worked for them byvirtue of the way the CDO role was set-up. That is, the programme was not set-up explicitlyto develop mentored relationships but these relations could evolve if the knowledgeexchange and the people match were right for the coach. Since the CDOs worked as anetwork, they could also ensure that each individual coach’s needs were met by the widerknowledge and skill sets of the team. This informal, self-selecting, team-based approach tomentoring seems a very interesting avenue for future interventions and research.

In this sense, the Government’s decision to invest in the CDO programme has beenvindicated both by its alignment to existing research prescriptions, and by an evaluation ofpractice. The ‘coach developer’ can be added to the ‘recipe’ of individuals and interventionsthat sit around, and benefit, the coach and his/her development. Indeed, it would seem to fitwell within the ‘learning communities’ concept proposed by Gilbert et al. [40]. Yet, itappears that despite the benefits of this (one-off) investment in the UK, the provision of 1:1coach developer services remains a rare and valued commodity. Those coaches who werelucky enough to receive 1:1 services have now been deprived of these services as the CDOshave moved to the strategic level; there were never enough CDOs in the first place to meetthe demand and service provision was spread very thinly. A vast majority of UK coachesnever got anywhere near receiving coach developer support. Although the programmeimplies significant resource commitment, the Government and the coaching community(e.g., governing bodies and local coaching providers) have important decisions to make. Ifwe are to be serious about coach development, and wish to put in place interventions whichgenuinely work, then the role, and benefits associated with, ‘coach developers’ and the likeneed to be acknowledged and invested in. In the UK context, at least, there appears to beevidence that the good work occurring in the mid 2000s is now dissipating [23].

There are several limitations in the study; for example, the research is based on ananalysis of coaches’ perceptions only. One limitation is particularly worthy of mention,however: the research does not say anything (outside the coaches’ perception) about theCDOs’ competency to perform their role effectively, and the training and developmentopportunities they received. There was anecdotal evidence in the study that the coaches wereseeking to be more learner centred, to vary the coaching delivery, and to spend more timedeveloping as a result of the CDO interventions – but the evidence needs to be stronger.Although there was evidence that the CDOs were given training on how to conduct a TNAand develop a PDP, and information about the services on offer, there was no evidence thatthey were provided training on how coaches learn. If the CDOs were trained to think aboutlearning design, and learning integration – i.e., blended learning – then they may be able todirect the coach not only to useful interventions, but also to interventions that complimenteach other.


There is a significant gap between the aspirations of the coaching research literature, andthe practicalities of coach development provision on the ground. It is important for coachingresearchers to identify the ‘gold standard’ for coach development – and as suggested abovethis should continue – but there are concerns about how it relates to the average coach on theground. The definition of coaching in terms of coaches’ roles and range of activities adoptedin some quarters [e.g., 41], and coach development practitioners are clearly different.Questions need to be asked about how much contemporary coaching research is helping toimprove the majority of individuals who coach, but there are exceptions (particularly in aNorth American context e.g., [40]).

CONCLUSIONThe CDO programme contains exactly the kind of support that agencies should provide tocoaches in facilitating their development. The programme is supported by research, andthrough the feedback of service recipients. Yet, there is a sense that the good work associatedwith the programme will be lost unless Government, Governing Bodies and othersunderstand and resource interventions of this type. Furthermore, it is important forresearchers and practitioners to think more creatively about how appropriate developmentenvironments can be created with the resources available.

REFERENCES1. North, J., Coaching Workforce 2009-2016, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2009.

2. Sports Council, Coaching Matters: A Review of Coaching and Coach Education in the United Kingdom,Sports Council, London, 1991.

3. UK Sport, The UK Vision for Coaching, UK Sport, London, 2001.

4. Sports Coach UK, UK Coaching Framework, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

5. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS),The Coaching Task Force – Final Report, Department forCulture, Media and Sport, London, 2002.

6. Abraham, A., Collins, D., Morgan, G. and Muir, B., Developing Expert Coaches Requires Expert CoachDevelopment: Replacing Serendipity With Orchestration, in: Lorenzo, A., Ibanez, S. J. and Ortega, E., eds.,Aportaciones Teoricas Y Practicas Para El Baloncesto Del Futuro [Theoretical and Practical Contributionsfor the Basketball of the Future], Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva, Sevilla, 2009.

7. Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. and Potrac, P., Sports Coaching Cultures: from Practice to Theory, Routledge,London, 2004.

8. Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W., Coaching and Coach Education, in: Kirk, D., Macdonald, D. and O’Sullivan, M.,eds., The Handbook of Physical Education, Sage Publications, London, 2006, 516-539.

9. Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L., Locating the Coaching Process in Practice: Models ‘For’ and‘Of’ Coaching, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2006, 11(1), 83-99.

10. Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. and Potrac, P., Constructing Expert Knowledge: A Case Study of a Top-LevelProfessional Soccer Coach, Sport, Education and Society, 2003, 8(2), 213-229.

11. Cushion, C., Nelson, L., Armour, K., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R. and O’Callaghan, C., Coach Learningand Development: A Review of the Literature, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2009.

12. Nelson, L.J., Cushion, C.J., and Potrac, P., Formal, Nonformal and Informal Coach Learning: A HolisticConceptualisation, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2006, 1(3), 247-259.

13. Lave, J. and Wenger, E., Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1991.

14. Schön, D.A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, 1983.

15. Gilbert, W.D. and Trudel, P., Learning to Coach Through Experience: Reflection in Model Youth SportCoaches, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2001, 21, 16-34.


16. Irwin, G., Hanton, S. and Kerwin, D.G., Reflective Practice and the Origins of Elite Coaching Knowledge,Reflective Practice, 2004, 5(3), 425-442.

17. Lemyre, F., Trudel, P. and Durand-Bush, N., How Youth-Sport Coaches Learn to Coach, The SportPsychologist, 2007, 21, 191-209.

18. Erickson, K., Bruner, M., MacDonald, D. and Côté, J., Gaining Insight into Actual and Preferred Sources ofCoaching Knowledge, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2008, 3(4), 527-538.

19. Werthner, P. and Trudel, P., A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to Coach,The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 198-212.

20. Lyle, J., UKCC Impact Study: Definitional, Conceptual and Methodological Review, Sports Coach UK,Leeds, 2007.

21. Roberts, J., 45 Coach Development Officers – Version 9, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2004.

22. Sports Coach UK, 45 Coach Development Officer Workstrand Evaluation Report, Sports Coach UK, Leeds,2007.

23. Timson-Katchis, M. and North, J., UK Coach Tracking Study, Year Two Headline Report, Sports Coach UK,Leeds, 2010.

24. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London, 1994.

25. Timson-Katchis, M., UK Coach Tracking Study: Qualitative Evidence, Unpublished Report, Sports CoachUK, Leeds.

26. Woodman, L., Coaching: A Science, an Art, an Emerging Profession, Sport Science Review, 1993, 2(2), 1-13.

27. Timson-Katchis, M. and North, J., UK Coach Tracking Study: Year One Headline Report, Sports Coach UK,Leeds, 2009.

28. Townend, R. and North, J., Sports Coaching in the UK II, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

29. North, J., Increasing Participation in Sport: The Role of the Coach, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

30. Bloom, B.S., Developing Talent in Young People, Ballantine, New York, 1985.

31. Martindale, R.J.J., Collins, D. and Daubney, J., Talent Development: A Guide for Practice and ResearchWithin Sport, Quest, 2005, 57, 353-375.

32. Bloom, G.A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. and Salmela, J.H., The Importance of Mentoring in theDevelopment of Coaches and Athletes, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1998, 29, 267-281.

33. Salmela, J.H., Learning from the Development of Expert Coaches, Coaching and Sport Science Journal,1995, 2(2), 3-13.

34. Abraham, A., Collins, D. and Martindale, R., The Coaching Schematic: Validation through Expert CoachConsensus, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2006, 24(6), 549-564.

35. Wright, T., Trudel, P. and Culver, D., Learning How to Coach: The Different Learning Situations Reportedby Youth Ice Hockey Coaches, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2007, 12(2), 127-144.

36. Schempp, P.G., Templeton, C.L. and Clark, B., The Knowledge Acquisition of Expert Golf Instructors, in:Farrally, M. and Cochran, A.J., eds., Science and Golf III: Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress ofGolf, Human Kinetics, Leeds, 1998, 295-301.

37. Armour, K.M., and Yelling, M.R., Effective Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers: TheRole of Informal, Collaborative Learning, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2007, 26, 177-200.

38. Jones, R.L., Harris, R.A. and Miles, A., Mentoring in Sports Coaching: A Review of the Literature, PhysicalEducation and Sport Pedagogy, 2009, 14(3), 267-284.

39. Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L., Coach Education and Continuing Professional Development:Experience and Learning to Coach, Quest, 2003,55, 215-230.

40. Gilbert, W., Gaillimore, R. and Trudel, P.A., Learning Community Approach to Coach Development in YouthSport, Journal of Coaching Education, 2, 2, 1-29.


41. Lyle, J. and Cushion, C. Narrowing the Field: Some Key Questions about Sports Coaching, in: Lyle, J. andCushion, C. eds., Sports Coaching: Professionalisation and Practice, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, InPress.


Documents

sing ‘Coach Developers’ to Facilitate Coach Learning and Development