Mobile learning has increasingly become interwoven into the fabric of learning and teaching in the United Kingdom higher education sector, and as technological issues become addressed, this phenomena has accelerated. The aim of the study was to examine whether learning using a mobile learning device (Samsung NC10 Netbook) loaded with interactive exercises promoted learning compared with a traditional library exercise. Using a randomized trial, 55 students from an undergraduate sports science course (n = 28) and medical course (n = 27) volunteered to participate in this study. A mixed-model design ANOVA was used to examine the percent change in test score after a 3-wk intervention. Results showed that there was a significant difference between the two courses (P < 0.001), methods (P = 0.01), and trials (P < 0.001). The findings suggested that both methods augmented student knowledge and understanding in sports science and medical students. The sports science group demonstrated proportionally greater increases in test performance when exposed to the mobile interactive intervention compared with the traditional library approach. Qualitative data suggest an increased level of engagement with the Netbooks due to the stimulating interactive content. In conclusion, the Netbooks were an effective additional learning tool, significantly enhancing knowledge and understanding in students. Further research should ensure that participants are assessed for preferred learning styles, the subjective task value of expectancy value, and readiness for mobile learning to ascertain if this has an effect on the potential for using mobile learning and interactivity.

This study examined the team-serving attributional bias (TSAB), and moderators of this bias, in sports team players. The authors predicted that, in line with a motivational explanation for TSABs, members of successful teams would make more internal, stable, and controllable attributions than would members of unsuccessful teams, but only after an important match. The authors also examined the impact of gender. After a competitive match, 528 athletes completed a Causal Dimension Scale for Teams and measures of perceived success and match importance. A series of hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that perceptions of success were positively associated with stable, internal, and externally controllable attributions. The authors also found that stability attributions were moderated by gender and match importance, with perceptions of success being positively associated with stable attributions for males regardless of match importance but positively associated with stable attributions only for those females who perceived the match to be important. The results, therefore, provide support for the use of TSABs within sports teams but also indicate that their use may be moderated by gender and match importance.

As part of the current strategy, the SGCP has been reviewing its standards. Considered as fundamental to this journey, we have also taken the opportunity to revisit the nature of coaching psychology. What is ‘coaching’? How does it differ from ‘coaching psychology’? In this paper we aim to provide a short review of definitions and offer thoughts on a new definition for coaching psychology.

As the British Psychological Society establishes a new Division of Coaching Psychology and routes to chartered membership for coaching psychologists, we revisit the ongoing dialogue into the professionalisation of coaching psychology, with a specific focus on practice in the United Kingdom (UK). We attempt to make distinctions between the practice of a coaching psychologist and a professionally qualified coach. First, we offer an overview of the development of coaching psychology over recent years, contemplating the need to regulate it as a profession. Following that, we consider some of the main coaching and coaching psychology definitions in an attempt to delineate the practice of coaching psychologists from that of non-psychologist coaches. Next, we compare approaches to training and some of the differences between coaching and coaching psychology, as well as the need for an ethical framework and supervision for coaching psychologists. Finally, we conclude by offering a final thought about who is a coaching psychologist.

No abstract