A little less conversation; a little more (relational) action please. A fictional dialogue of integrating theory into coaching practice

Abstract

This paper presents a fictional dialogue that supports the application of theory in coaching pedagogy. The 'constraints led approach' (CLA) is promoted throughout in conversation form, providing pedagogic solutions in response to the decaying performance levels of a fictitious football team. This deterioration is linked to 'poor' coaching and the merits of a more innovative pedagogy through a discussion between 'manager' and 'coach' are presented. Recommendations are made with particular reference to developing games players, who are skilful, perceptive and intelligent, through being able to initiate and modify actions in dynamic contexts. Substantiating a platform for both changing perceptions about coaching practice and challenging assumptions about learning. Whereby such accessibility to unfamiliar knowledge(s) can allow coaches to clearly consider possibilities for change. It is further suggested that through embracing the use of novel methodologies to consider unfamiliar theoretical territory, this demonstrates a responsibility to close and not widen a theory-practice gap. Acutely aware that when considering the wider context, current mainstream approaches to coach education are largely inefficient in overcoming a hardened realism gained in the field. Through presenting Mark (coach) as 'theoretical negotiator', this paper emphasizes the potency of experimenting with nuanced methods that can be part of an academic process to help shape more theoretically literate coaches.Keywords: constraints led approach (CLA); sport coaching; coach education; coach learning; theory-practice. IntroductionThe impact of coach education has received significant attention from the academic community in recent years (for example see: Cushion & Hull, 2013;Nelson, Cushion & Potrac, 2012; Piggott, 2015; Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003;Mallett, Trudel, Lyle & Rynne, 2009; Bush, Silk, Andrews & Lauder, 2013). Multiple criticisms have come to the fore, but in the main, it has been noted that attempts to provide sufficient learning opportunities in large scale coaching programmes through accumulating hours in practice, is at best considered dated (Piggott, 2012; Morgan, Jones, Gilbourne & Llewellyn, 2013). Despite these approaches being sanctioned by National Governing Bodies (NGB's), this linear process of 'brick by brick' development is responsible for producing a specific type of coach, one considered a kind of 'robotic practitioner' (Cassidy, 2004). It is still unclear as to how the current content of coach education actually leads to increased coach learning. Furthermore how we best educate coaches' remains an ongoing cause for concern (Cassidy, Potrac & McKenzie, 2006; Townsend & Cushion, 2015). Certainly in terms of how this learning transfers and remains robust in the 'real world' where very little impact has been reported (Piggott, 2012; Cushion & Hull, 2013). Moreover, when the critical indices of delivery, learning and impact, a "bleak situation" is acknowledged (Nelson, Cushion, and Potrac, 2013, p.205) and a gr...

Exploring sports coaches’ experiences of using a contemporary pedagogical approach to coaching: an international perspective

“…Coaches expressed how these approaches could lead to more adaptive, engaged, versatile, autonomous, and skilled athletes. Despite the coaches receiving some positive reactions and contemporary approaches being well supported in coaching and motor learning literature, they are still not widely accepted within some applied coaching settings (Williams, Alder, and Bush 2015) as evidenced by reports of a wide range of negative outcomes from interactions with NGBs, athletes, parents, and other coaches. This sample of coaches were experienced and knew how to stick to their own philosophies.…”

“…Traditional culture. The dominant learning approach employed in the coaches' experiences suggest that traditional coaching practice based on coach-led, instructional approaches to athlete learning, involving provision of large amounts of specific instructions, repetitive technique rehearsal allied to corrective feedback, are still prevalent in many coaching environments (Williams, Alder, and Bush 2015) as this golf coach outlined:…”

“…For a wider adoption of such approaches, applied scientific research, demonstrating the benefits of taking up such approaches (e.g., Fitzpatrick, Davids, and Stone 2018), should be developed to provide practical evidence to support the continued development of contemporary approaches. The coaches' experiences of using a non-traditional approach often highlighted an issue with adopting a more learner-centred, less autocratic style, in which coaches can be perceived as "just standing around not doing much" (Williams, Alder, and Bush 2015). Coaches explained how people looking at their sessions would say 'it looks like The coaches interviewed here, seem to have overcome previous issues with a change in cultural shift associated with such approach, such as feeling a loss of credibility in a new facilitative role (Roberts 2011) and not knowing when to intervene (Thomas, Morgan, and Mesquita 2013).…”

Empowering Athletes with the Sport Education Model in Youth Soccer

“…Although most evidence in the literature at this moment has been from elite sports, Chow [20] noted that "it must be recognized that nonlinear pedagogy does not advocate a fixed 'progression' on how teaching and learning should occur" (p. 481). Williams et al [21] also indicated that promoters of nonlinear pedagogy acknowledge that learning is not predictable and therefore cannot be illuminated through simplified instructional strategies. However, the most common way in which coaches and teachers have attempted to improve learning is typically by manipulating task constraints [22][23][24].…”