Conceptualising decision-making and its development: a phenomenographic analysis

Abstract

A novel phenomenographic approach was used to examine how former elite players who had all subsequently become elite coaches conceptualise three sets of phenomena related to decision-making in football: what it is; what constitutes a good decisionmaker; and how is decision-making developed. Participants were interviewed and their responses to questions were recorded, transcribed and coded. An iterative analysis revealed conceptions of each of the three phenomena, ranging from simple and narrow to more sophisticated and holistic. In the narrower conceptions, coaches viewed decision-making as a collection of judgments leading to given outcomes that could be correct or incorrect. More holistic conceptions of decision-making reflected several sources of complexity arising from various contingencies within the game (e.g., speed of play, team dynamics). Participants' conceptions of good decision-makers reflected the broadening range of abilities required of players. In the most elaborate conceptions, the participants conceived of players as having to predict what happens next, based on their knowledge, as well as having to collaborate with teammates when on-the-ball and off-the-ball, within an ever changing environment. Participants highlighted their conceptions of how decision-making may be developed, emphasising the importance of: playing with others; effective communication; balancing structure and autonomy; knowledgeable inspiration from other players and coaches; and a focus on improvement rather than winning. In future, research is needed to better understand how a coach's conceptualisation of decision-making impacts on his/her ability to create effective environments to promote skill development in players.

Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Using Systems Archetypes to Understand Common and Recurring Issues in Sports Coaching

“…The problem symptom demonstrated ( Figure 7A ) relates to players making poor decisions. To quickly fix the problem symptom coaches begin to make decisions for the players, either by direct verbal instruction, or by using isolated practice drills with continuous and direct instruction (Cushion, 2010 ; Light et al, 2014 ; O'Connor et al, 2017 , 2018 ). On the surface, making decisions for the players enables training to flow better, looks good to the onlooking parents, and provides the coach with a sense of control over the training environment (Potrac et al, 2007 ).…”

The Practice Environment—How Coaches May Promote Athlete Learning

“…This is inclusive of instruction styles, modeling, feedback, questioning, and observation either during or outside of activity (Cushion and Jones, 2001;Cushion, 2010;Ford et al, 2010;Partington et al, 2014;Cope et al, 2017;O'Connor et al, 2018a). Coaching behaviors have been evaluated using the Coach Analysis Intervention System (CAIS) (Cushion et al, 2012b) or a modified version (Partington and Cushion, 2013;O'Connor et al, 2018b), and is designed to provide operational definitions of a variety of coaching behaviors and measure their incidence within a practice session. In this review we are focusing on instruction, feedback and questioning as these behaviors tend to be most observed and therefore reviewed thoroughly within the research (see Table 2) (Partington and Cushion, 2013;Partington et al, 2014;O'Connor et al, 2018a).…”

“…Youth coaches have indicated a preference to using positive forms of feedback with negative feedback being the least used (Partington et al, 2014;O'Connor et al, 2018a). Although the dominant form of feedback tends to be general positive (Partington et al, 2014;O'Connor et al, 2018b), which promotes self-confidence, it provides little if any meaningful information pertaining to the athlete performance (Horn, 1987). Alternatively, corrective feedback which is deemed more task specific and relevant to athlete learning is used consistently less throughout training periods than general positive and even positive specific feedback (O'Connor et al, 2018a).…”

“…As coaches are constrained by the amount of time they have with their athletes, they need to consider strategies to reduce inactivity, so athletes have greater opportunities to engage in active practice. This could include reducing the amount of direct instruction (e.g., using analogies to direct athletes to an external focus of attention, Otte et al, 2020), using brief cues or prompts; allowing the activity to progress longer to see if athletes can correct their own errors or find solutions before stopping to ask questions and provide feedback (O'Connor et al, 2018b); and where appropriate, providing feedback on the run to individual athletes rather than stopping the activity. Coaches need to consider where they want to provide the feedbackeither in a huddle which takes time but has the athletes' attention compared to athletes "freeze where you are" and whether all athletes can see and hear (O'Connor et al, 2018b).…”

What Cognitive Mechanism, When, Where, and Why? Exploring the Decision Making of University and Professional Rugby Union Players During Competitive Matches

“…This approach conforms to variable design principles such as non-linear pedagogy ( Chow, 2013 ; Correia et al, 2019 ) in that practice provides frequent exposure to the perception of information in order to identify invariances between the information perceived and the action planned ( Bar-Eli et al, 2011 ). Furthermore, in such uncertain environments, coaches should consider guiding players to adopt ‘take-the-first’ heuristics ( Raab and Laborde, 2011 ; Raab and Gigerenzer, 2015 ) through exploratory coach behaviours (e.g., divergent questioning; Cushion et al, 2011 ; O’Connor et al, 2018 ) and practice manipulation (e.g., rule modifications; Passos et al, 2008 ; Chow, 2013 ; Balagué et al, 2019 ; Ashford et al, 2020 ).…”