Search Results

You are looking at 71 - 80 of 202 items for :

  • "coach education" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Wade D. Gilbert and Guest Editor

Open access

Hedda Berntsen and Elsa Kristiansen

the quality of coach education can be improved when CDPs focus on: (a) coaches’ interpersonal knowledge ( Lefebvre et al., 2016 ) and (b) developing and implementing CDPs that are grounded in theory ( Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Côté, 2017 ; Evans et al., 2015 ). Lefebvre et al. ( 2016 ) classified

Restricted access

Loel Collins, Howie J. Carson and Dave Collins

Previous research has emphasised the dynamic nature of coaching practice and the need to consider both individual performer needs and necessary contextual trade-offs in providing optimum solutions. In this regard, a Professional Judgment and Decision Making framework has been suggested to facilitate an optimum blend of actions against these complex and dynamic demands. Accordingly, we extend this work and address recent calls for greater focus on expertise-oriented assessments, by postulating on the aspirant/developing coach’s capacity for and development of metacognition (i.e., active control over cognitive processes) as a ‘tool’ within the reflective process. Specifically, we propose that metacognition enables essential active cognitive processing for deep learning and impactful application, together with construction and refinement of useable knowledge to inform coaching decisions. Metacognition, therefore, helps to contextualise knowledge provided in training, further optimising the experience, particularly before certification. Finally, we exemplify how metacognition can be developed in coaches through the use of cognitive apprenticeships and decision training tools; and evaluated via a series of observed coaching episodes, with reasoning articulated through pre and postsession interview. Despite challenging traditional competency-based approaches to coach education, we believe that a considered mixed approach represents a vital next step in further professionalising sports coaching.

Restricted access

Thomas M. Leeder, Kate Russell and Lee C. Beaumont

support rather than challenge existing ideologies, potentially contributing to the reproduction of pre-existing coaching cultures and practices ( Griffiths, 2013 ). In contrast, formalised coach mentoring programmes have grown in prominence and are regularly incorporated into coach education provision

Restricted access

Terilyn C. Shigeno, E. Earlynn Lauer, Leslee A. Fisher, Emily J. Johnson and Rebecca A. Zakrajsek

take a deeper look into the implications of coach education programs targeted toward moral growth. For example, some researchers (e.g.,  Turnnidge & Côté, 2017 ) have begun to expand coach training by developing CDPs which provide coaches with applied learning opportunities to address coaching

Restricted access

Larissa R. Galatti, Yura Yuka Sato dos Santos and Paula Korsakas

Unlike other countries, coaching in Brazil is recognized as a profession since the legal regulation of physical education (PE) in 1998 ( Law 9696, September 1, 1998 ). This makes our coaching system unique and demands new approaches to coaching education ( Milistetd et al., 2016 ; Milistetd

Restricted access

Laurie B. Patterson, Susan H. Backhouse and Sergio Lara-Bercial

( Fjeldheim, 1992 ; Mandic, Peric, Krzelj, Stankovic & Zenic, 2013 ; Sajber, Rodek, Escalante, Olujic´, & Sekulic, 2013 ; Rodek, Sekulic & Kondric, 2012 ). A similar rate of engagement with formal learning has been found across National Governing Body-led coach education ( North, 2009 ). In the absence of

Restricted access

Tammy Sheehy, Sam Zizzi, Kristen Dieffenbach and Lee-Ann Sharp

initiated recognition of coaches’ need for professional development to perform optimally ( Mallett, Rynne, & Dickens, 2013 ). These advancements have been most notable in the establishment of international coaching organizations dedicated to the enhancement of high-quality coach education programs

Open access

Lindsey E. Eberman, Kimberly J. Bodey, Rebecca Zakrajsek, Madeline McGuire and Adam Simpson

Background:

The National Standards for Sport Coaches (2006) acknowledges that differences exist in athletes’ ability to tolerate heat. As such, Domain 2: Safety and Injury Prevention (S7-10), Domain 3: Physical Conditioning (S12-13), and Domain 7: Organization and Administration (S34) list expectations for coaches’ ability to recognize and respond to heat illness. However, only the American Red Cross of Greater Indianapolis (Domain 2 specific) and 13 programs are accredited by NCACE. Moreover, on-line trainings frequently used to educate novice interscholastic and recreational sport coaches provide only a cursory review of heat illness precautions, symptoms, and remedies.

Objective:

The purpose of this exploratory study is to identify changes in coaches’ actual and perceived knowledge after an on-line educational intervention, as well as determine whether the educational intervention will decrease the knowledge gap.

Research Design:

A pre-test/post-test design was used to identify the effect of an educational intervention on perceived and actual knowledge of sport coaches.

Participants:

Coaches (n=19; male=14, female=5) were solicited via email made available by the Indiana High School Athletic Association and the Indiana Youth Soccer Association – Olympic Development Program.

Instrumentation:

The Perceived Knowledge Questionnaire (five-item survey) and an actual knowledge assessment (two versions of 19-item quiz) were used to measure the coaches’ perceived and actual knowledge about the prevention, recognition, and treatment of exertional heat illnesses. Participants completed the “Beat the Heat: Be a Better Coach in Extreme Environmental Conditions” educational intervention.

Procedures:

Coaches completed the on-line educational module including pre-test and post-tests evaluations of actual and perceived knowledge.

Statistical Analysis:

Researchers performed three separate paired t-tests to identify the effect of the educational intervention on the dependent variables: actual knowledge, perceived knowledge, and knowledge gap. Significance was set a-prior at p<0.05.

Results:

Participants demonstrated a significant 18.1% improvement (t18=-4.877, p<0.001, ES=0.62) in actual knowledge scores. Perceived knowledge also significantly improved (t18=-2.585, p=0.019, ES=0.25). Knowledge gap, the difference between actual knowledge and perceived knowledge, became significantly smaller (t18=4.850, p<0.001, ES=0.63).

Conclusions:

Results indicate the on-line educational intervention improved actual knowledge, perceived knowledge, and decreased the knowledge gap. Additional large scale study of this intervention is warranted.