This study examined the effect of participation in a coaching education program compared to a control group on coaches’ perceived coaching efficacy. The program consisted of two 6-hour sessions. The Coaching Efficacy Scale was used to determine the impact of the program on perceived coaching efficacy. Forty-six Michigan high school coaches and 14 coaching preparation students were recruited for the experimental (n = 36) and control groups (n = 24) for this study. The participants were asked to respond to pretest and posttest CES questionnaires that examined how confident they were in influencing the learning and performance of their athletes in four dimensions of coaching: character building, motivation, strategy, and technique. Results showed a significant effect for a coaching education program on the perceived efficacy levels of the trained coaches compared to control coaches.
Leapetswe Malete and Deborah L. Feltz
Melissa Murray, Kristen Dieffenbach and Rebecca Zakraj sek
According to the National Coaching Report (NASPE, 2008), over 57 million youth participated in organized sport in 2006, with around eight million of those participating in interscholastic sport. While the NFHS has been a major advocate for coaching education in the interscholastic setting, the other 87% of the youth sport participants are likely being serviced by ill-prepared coaches. In response to the 1970s call for more prepared coaches (NASPE, 2008), collegiate institutions have created academic programs in coaching education. These academic programs seek to prepare qualified coaches at all levels of competition (e.g., youth, interscholastic, intercollegiate, professional, elite). In an effort to provide students with hands on, applied experiences, academic programs generally require some sort of internship. In a recent study, coaching education students reported having numerous opportunities to motivate, encourage, and build confidence in athletes during their internships (Dieffenbach, Murray, & Zakrajsek, 2010), all of which are interpersonal interactions. Given that interpersonal interactions are one of the most significant factors impacting athlete development and the athlete – coach relationship (Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003), student coaches are in a critical position. Therefore, these findings beg for a system of checks to be in place within the internship process, namely background checks, required health insurance, and university waivers. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the regulations and policies in place to protect the student-athletes, student coaches, and university programs during internships in coaching education. Issues like legal responsibilities of the universities, background check policies and procedures, school district-specific requirements, and other policies in place will be discussed in an interactive session. The discussion will also highlight what other organizations (NGBs, NFHS) are doing or could be doing to aid in the protection of their athletes and coaches.
Ciria Margarita Salazar C., Pedro Julian Flores Moreno, José Encarnación Del Río Valdivia, Lenin Tlamatini Barajas Pineda, Julio Alejandro Gómez Figueroa and Martha Patricia Pérez López
The purpose of this paper is to describe the profile of coaching and coach education in Mexico. Mexico currently plays a prevailing sport role at a Pan-American level. Five types of coaches exist in Mexico: professional, amateur, personal or private, schooling and plainspeople. Each one is defined by the scopes, knowledge and its application, and sporting results achieved. The development of Mexican coaches is based on a traditional training model. It is important that coach developers in Mexico observe the progresses of countries that have advanced in the development of academic improvement programs and coach development opportunities offered through institutes of higher education.
Nichola Callow, Ross Roberts, Joy D. Bringer and Edel Langan
Two studies explored coach education imagery interventions. In Study 1, 29 performance coaches were randomly assigned to either an imagery workshop group (n = 13) or an imagery-reading comparison control group (n = 16). Pre and post intervention, coaches completed the CEAIUQ (Jedlic, Hall, Munroe-Chandler, & Hall, 2007) and a confidence questionnaire designed for the study. Further, coaches’ athletes completed the CIAIUQ (Jedlic et al., 2007) at pre and post intervention. Due to a poor response rate (n = 9), an exploratory case study approach was employed to present the data. Results revealed that, while all coaches found the workshop to be interesting and useful, with certain coaches, encouragement of specific aspects of imagery decreased as did confidence to deliver imagery. To overcome the limitations of Study 1, Study 2 employed a needs based approach. Five elite coaches completed a performance profile related to imagery and the CEAIUQ. Four individualized sessions were then conducted. Inspection of post intervention data indicated that the intervention increased encouragement of imagery use, imagery constructs identified as important by the individual coaches, and, when identified, confidence to deliver imagery. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of coach education from both an applied and research perspective.
Karen Collins and Russell Medbery
The coach-athlete relationship is an important determinant in creating a healthy sport environment. Educating coaches is a critical component of cultivating a positive coach-athlete relationship. It is through systematic coaching education programs that positive coaching skills are learned (Smith & Smoll, 1997). It is equally important to accurately assess current needs and demands of state high school coaching education programs. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to systematically assess the current state of coaching education. This needs assessment included descriptions of athletic departments, funding, quality, type, and content of coaching education programs, as well as the level of satisfaction with the current coaching education delivery system. The needs assessment was conducted via a survey that was mailed to every athletic director in the state of New Hampshire. There was a 49% (n = 46) return rate after two follow-up reminders. Results were organized in four categories: financial overview, sport organizational structure, coaching education requirements, and coaching education curriculum content. Overall, results indicated: a clear need to re-evaluate the New Hampshire state requirements for coaching education; how the requirements are met; the content of state coaching education,; and how coaching education is supported financially.
Lea-Cathrin Dohme, Alexandra J. Rankin-Wright and Sergio Lara-Bercial
of research conducted within coach education and development (CED) contexts ( McQuade & Nash, 2015 ). Much of this research has focussed on how coaches learn, providing detailed insight into the sources and ways of learning coaches value throughout their development ( Deek, Werthner, Paquette
John Stoszkowski and Dave Collins
After a long stagnant period, coach education has recently received an input of some theory driven progression ( Cushion et al., 2010 ). For example, the recognition of coach development as an aspect of adult learning has led to greater consideration of andragogy (the art and science of adult
Judith L. Smith and Dina M. Hayduk
This paper follows a coaching education program at a four-year institution from its inception to NCACE accreditation in 2005 and looks forward to reaccreditation and examines how the program changed to meet the National Standards of Sport Coaches. Along with curriculum changes, the major of the students selecting the coaching program has also changed. Lastly, the attainment of this national accreditation certification has influenced this coaching education program in terms of benefits, challenges, accountability and marketability.
Lawrence W. Judge, Kimberly J. Bodey, David Bellar, Christine Brooks and Terry Crawford
In recent years, large scale sport organizations and national governing bodies have produced coaching education programs to prepare coaches to teach and mentor athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine: a) track & field coaches’ familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, b) the alignment of United States Track & Field (USATF) Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, and c) the alignment of USATF Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with coaches’ perceived needs for subject matter training. A 39-item survey was administered during a USATF certification course to measure coaches’ familiarity and perceptions. The results showed the vast majority of coaches (75.2%) were not familiar with the National Standards. At the time of assessment, the Developmental, Level I, and Level II courses were partially aligned with 25 of 40 standards at the Level 1, Level 3, or Level 5 accreditation levels. The courses were not aligned with 15 of 40 standards at any accreditation level. The majority of deficiencies existed in Domain 2: Safety and Injury Prevention, Domain 7: Organization and Administration, and Domain 8: Evaluation. While the USATF coaching education curriculum is partially aligned with many, but not all, of the national standards, the curriculum appears to contain subject matter training that coaches perceived as needed. Curricular revisions, including future directions of the USATF coaching education program, such as new courses and innovative use of technology, are presented.
Scott Douglas, William R. Falcão and Gordon A. Bloom
through three pathways: formal, nonformal, and informal. These pathways offer benefits and drawbacks for coaches of athletes with disabilities, as demonstrated within the literature. First, formal learning pathways are mostly represented by coach education courses and certifications developed and