A large amount of coaching science research is dedicated to understanding how coaches learn to coach ( Gilbert & Trudel, 2004 ). According to Nelson, Cushion, and Potrac ( 2006 ), coaches learn in three different situations: (a) formal learning (i.e., large-scale curriculum-based education), (b
Matthew A. Grant, Gordon A. Bloom and Jordan S. Lefebvre
Martin Camiré, Kelsey Kendellen, Scott Rathwell and Evelyne Felber Charbonneau
( 2016 ), the national federation for high school sport, declares that its mandate is to “promote and advocate for positive sportsmanship, citizenship and the total development of student athletes through interscholastic sport”. The Canadian school sport system is overseen by 52,000 volunteers who coach
Emily Kroshus, Sara P.D. Chrisman, David Coppel and Stanley Herring
athletes ( Lopez & Levy, 2013 ; Mahoney, Gucciardi, Ntoumanis, & Mallet, 2014 ; Moreland & Coxe, 2018 ; Putukian, 2016 ). Coaches play a key role in shaping a team’s culture related to help seeking ( Coyle, Gorczynski, & Gibson, 2017 ; Fenton & Pitter, 2010 ; Kroshus, Baugh, Hawrilenko, & Daneshvar
Ted F. Burden and Marlene A. Dixon
Numerous studies have shown the high level of influence interscholastic coaches’ yield at their respective campuses (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007; Fredericks & Eccles, 2006; Greendorfer, 2002). This influence is not confined to athletes only, but extends to a large portion of the general student body as well. Coaches, especially interscholastic coaches, can become centers of influence (COI) for physical fitness and physical activity participation throughout the entire student body. This often unsolicited influence can have dramatic effects on how non-participants view initiatives and opportunities encouraged by “their” coach. For example, coaches can personally recruit new athletes, provide mentoring, and/or encourage participation in after-school activities.
Katie Dray and Kristy Howells
Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in coach education has, in recent years, become part of the learning experience for many coaches. In their recent review, Cushion and Townsend ( 2019 ) highlight that the use of TEL in coaching may provide opportunities to expand our models of coach education, but
Mustafa Sarkar and Nathan K. Hilton
promoted facilitative responses that led to the realization of optimal sport performance. Interestingly, it was observed that coaches played an important role in athletes’ resilience and thus, Fletcher and Sarkar ( 2012 ) noted that “future research . . . should consider the perception of significant
Maria Kavussanu, Ian D. Boardley, Natalia Jutkiewicz, Samantha Vincent and Christopher Ring
Research on the conceptual model of coaching efficacy (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999) has increased dramatically over the past few years. Utilizing this model as the guiding framework, the current study examined: (a) coaching experience and sex as predictors of coaches’ coaching efficacy; (b) sport experience, sex, and the match/mismatch in sex between coach and athlete as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s effectiveness on the four coaching efficacy domains; and (c) whether coaches’ reports of coaching efficacy and athletes’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness differed. Coaches (N = 26) and their athletes (N = 291) from 8 individual and 7 team sports drawn from British university teams (N = 26) participated in the study. Coaches completed the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES), while athletes evaluated their coach’s effectiveness using an adapted version of the CES; coaches and athletes also responded to demographic questions. Results indicated that, in coaches, years of coaching experience positively predicted technique coaching efficacy, and males reported higher game strategy efficacy than females. In athletes, sport experience negatively predicted all perceived coaching effectiveness dimensions, and the mismatch in sex between athletes and their coach negatively predicted perceived motivation and character building coaching effectiveness. Finally, on average, coaches’ ratings of coaching efficacy were significantly higher than their athletes’ ratings of coaching effectiveness on all dimensions. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for coaching effectiveness.
The purpose of this article is to review the challenges that women coaches must overcome and to discuss coach education strategies for facilitating the development of women coaches. Changes in representation of women in positions of leadership in sport have created a social context in which the experience of female coaches is referenced from a predominantly male perspective. As such, recurring issues elicited by attendees at the USOC/NCAA sponsored Women in Coaching Conferences are discussed. Coach education strategies are addressed in three main areas: (a) the continuation of women and sport programs, (b) restructuring the work environment to recognize and value relational work skills, and (c) relational mentoring models to navigate career and life transitions and advocate for change.
Graig M. Chow, Matthew D. Bird, Stinne Soendergaard and Yanyun Yang
negative consequences such as experiencing blackouts, which are red flags for developing alcohol addiction, as well as academic and athletic performance consequences ( Hainline, Bell, & Wilfret, 2014 ; Brenner & Swanik, 2007 ). Given the potential negative impact on performance, coaches have an
Tarkington J. Newman, Fernando Santos, António Cardoso and Paulo Pereira
Positive youth development (PYD) highlights the need to consider how youth develop continuously through constant interactions with environmental systems (e.g., sociopolitical history, culture), external assets (e.g., coaches, parents), and internal predispositions (e.g., individuals’ contribution