The coach developer, the umbrella term (e.g., Cushion, Griffiths & Armour, 2019; Stodter & Cushion, 2019) for a number of associated roles such as coach educator, tutor, facilitator, and trainer (International Council for Coaching Excellence, 2014; Trudel, Culver & Werthner, 2013), has a prominent role in coach learning (Cushion et al., 2019). Many national governing bodies (NGBs) have employed coach developers to support coaches’ learning and development in formal (i.e., coach education courses) and informal learning contexts (i.e., interaction with other peer coaches). As these roles have become more established, research interest has also increased, as exemplified by a special issue in the International Journal of Sport Coaching, dedicated to the coach developer (Callary & Gearity, 2019). What has become clear from this work is that, for coach developers to most effectively support coaches, they need a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of learning and pedagogy (e.g., Leeder, Russell & Beaumont, 2019; Stodter & Cushion, 2019).
While there are some similarities in the knowledge requirements and function of a coach and coach developer (i.e., sport-specific, pedagogical, interpersonal and contextual knowledge), it’s been acknowledged that coach developers require different knowledge and skills compared with coaches if they are to effectively support coach learning (Abraham et al., 2013; Cushion et al., 2019). This is an important point given that many coach developers have transitioned into this role from serving as coaches and so carry with them their coaching biographies (Cushion et al., 2019; Stodter & Cushion, 2019). These biographies have served as powerful determinants of how coaching takes place and are likely do the same for how coach development is implemented. For this reason, the development of the required pedagogical content knowledge and understanding of learning is neither simple nor straightforward (Stodter & Cushion, 2019). To address this, coach developers would appear to need specific training to support them in developing the necessary knowledge and skills for this role.
The rise of a coach developer workforce across sports and contexts has seen an increase in professional development opportunities (e.g., U.K. Coaching’s “Training the person in front of you” and the “Post Graduate Certificate in Coach Development” that the participants of this study undertook). However, little is known about coach developers’ learning and development from continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities (Stodter & Cushion, 2019). The purpose of this study began as an exploratory investigation into a CPD course that 23 English coach developers undertook, and their pedagogical knowledge and its application in working practice. Argyris and Schön’s ideas on theories in practice were then introduced during the data analysis stage, discussed in the theoretical framework, and make a significant contribution in understanding how coach developers use their respective theories of learning in their own coach education delivery and support. This research makes an original contribution by investigating coach developers’ engagement with a formal, longitudinal, professional development programme aimed to increase their knowledge and understanding of learning and its application in their working practice.
Methodology
The CPD Programme and Participants
As researchers, we positioned ourselves as interpretivists; therefore, we explored the coach developer’s knowledge and understandings achieved through the multiple, subjective, and socially constructed considerations of their development (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The CPD course was designed by a U.K. higher education university, but in collaboration with an NGB, with the aim of enhancing coach developers’ understanding of learning and awareness of implementation into working practice. The learning outcomes for the Postgraduate Certificate (PG Cert.) in Coach Development course were to (a) critically examine personal practice and resources to expose uncertainty and generate new insights and ways of working; (b) critically review and refine the understanding of formal and informal coach education curriculum to plan, intervene, and support course development and coach learning; and (c) conduct an extended enquiry in an area of interest and generate knowledge, or a product based on knowledge, that has clear, justifiable value to coach developers. This research focuses on two separate cohorts that enrolled on the CPD course, which in total, included 23 coach developers (Table 1). The coach developers on the CPD course studied three modules and came together 12 times over a period of 12 months for taught sessions and workshops delivered by two higher education university tutors. Between face-to-face contact time, the coach developers were set tasks by the course tutors to complete (e.g., reading journal articles and providing a written interpretation). Each of the modules had assessments that the coach developers had to complete (e.g., a written piece on a topic area that the individual coach developer wanted to explore about their working practice).
Coach Developers’ Biographical Information
| Participant and cohort | Gender | Years since last formal education (years) | Highest coaching qualification | Highest level of formal education |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD A, Cohort 2 | Female | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD B, Cohort 2 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD C, Cohort 2 | Female | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD D, Cohort 2 | Male | <5 | Level 4 qualified coach | College |
| CD E, Cohort 2 | Male | <5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University postgraduate |
| CD F, Cohort 2 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD G, Cohort 2 | Female | <5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University undergraduate |
| CD H, Cohort 2 | Female | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University undergraduate |
| CD I, Cohort 2 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD J, Cohort 2 | Female | <5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University postgraduate |
| CD K, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University undergraduate |
| CD L, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD M, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD N, Cohort 1 | Female | <5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD O, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD P, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University postgraduate |
| CD Q, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University undergraduate |
| CD R, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 4 qualified coach | College |
| CD S, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | School |
| CD T, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | University undergraduate |
| CD U, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD V, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
| CD W, Cohort 1 | Male | >5 | Level 3 qualified coach | College |
The participant coach developers in this research were employed by one NGB. The coach developers who held a minimum of a level-three coaching qualification had the responsibility of educating and supporting coaches through coaching qualifications that prepared coaches to coach in grassroots sport. As part of a coach developer’s role with the NGB, they had the option of undertaking CPD. Therefore, in addition to their day job, supporting coaches, these coach developers chose, as part of their role, to undertake the PG Cert. for their own CPD. All of the PG Cert. participants were given information leaflets and asked if they would like to be involved in this research study. All of the coach developers agreed to take part and gave their informed consent. For 15 of the participants, the PG Cert. was the first and only formally recognised higher education qualification studied (Table 1). The coach developers who enrolled on this CPD highlighted a mix of reasons for registration, including the course being recommended by colleagues and/or they had been requested to do so by senior staff. From the 23 coach developers, five of these participants were purposively sampled to investigate further their experiences of the course and its influence on their working practice. These five participants were selected because they had all been employed as a coach developer at the NGB for 6 months or more and also were deemed to have a clear understanding of their job role. The purpose of this sampling was also to discover, understand, and gain insight from the participants deemed most able to inform the research question(s).
Although the research project gained ethical approval at Edge Hill University and could be seen as a static event, it was important to consider ethics throughout as “a continuous process” (Sparkes & Smith, 2014, pp. 206). Due to the complexities of ethics as a process in the field, it was necessary to engage in situational ethics (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Therefore, as researchers, we were flexible and open to studying ethical issues from the coach developer’s perspective. For example, it was important during data collection to check with individual coach developers, that they were comfortable with the information provided being included, especially regarding their employees. To try and protect the coach developer’s identity, no reference to their seniority is included, and pseudonyms replace names.
Methods and Procedures
As interpretivist researchers, our intentions were to understand the meanings that the coach developers attached to their own and others’ interpretations of the CPD course and working practice. The data were then collected over a 16-month period using multiple methods, which were focus groups, observations, semistructured interviews, and a review of relevant documents. The combination of methods allowed a move “from basic description to analysis at increasingly abstract levels, concentrating on contexts, conditions and consequences” (Stodter & Cushion, 2014, pp. 67). All 23 coach developers took part in the focus groups, and five of these participated in observations and interviews.
Focus groups
Focus groups were used so coach developers could collaboratively share feelings and perceptions of teaching and learning, and the CPD course. The semistructured focus groups involved all 23 participants, but were split into smaller groups of between 4 and 6 coach developers. Eight focus groups took place during the research project, ranging between 94 and 127 min, totalling 440 min.
Field note observations
As highlighted by Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan (2003), the only way to determine a participant’s theories-in-use may be through observations of them in practice. Therefore, the five purposively sampled coach developers were observed on three separate occasions as they delivered their coach education courses to learning coaches in situ. Observations also took the place of the CPD course and the two higher education teaching tutors’ (e.g., CPD tutors) pedagogic approaches on 4 separate full days of delivery. The purpose here was to understand how the course was conducted and how the CPD tutors interacted with the coach developers.
Interviews
Not everything is observable, for example, the theory that determines coach developers’ educational practices, such as feelings, thoughts, and intentions (Patton, 1990). Therefore, one-to-one semistructured interviews with coach developers were used to provide an understanding of how they constructed pedagogic strategies to educate coaches through the development of knowledge and understanding of learning while studying the CPD course, given their individual interests, purposes, and past experiences (Sparkes, 1992). Five of the 23 coach developers, the same who were observed delivering coach education, took part in semistructured interviews ranging between 35 and 90 min and totalling 339 min.
Documents
The PG Cert. in Coach Development CPD learning resources (e.g., module booklets, key readings, and teaching content) were examined. The learning resources designed and implemented by the coach developers to help support their coach education delivery (e.g., teaching content and handouts) were also reviewed. The analysis of the CPD documents sensitised the researchers to the course, and reviewing the coach developers’ resources helped when constructing the semistructured interview questions (e.g., Why was that learning resource designed in such a way?). The review of learning resources included discussions in regard to the content and purpose of the course, by the first, second, and third authors.
Data collection process
Stage 1: Review and discussion of the PG Cert. learning resources.
Stage 2: Focus groups with all the coach developers’ predelivery of the CPD course.
Stage 3: Observation of 2 whole days, including taught sessions delivered by the two higher education teaching tutors (e.g., CPD tutors).
Stage 4: Focus groups with all the coach developers middelivery of the CPD course.
Stage 5: Observation of 2 whole days including taught sessions delivered by the two higher education teaching tutors.
Stage 6: Focus groups with all the coach developers postdelivery of the CPD course.
Stage 7: Observations of five different coach developers on three full days of their coach education delivery. These five coach developers’ learning resources were also reviewed.
Stage 8: Semistructured interviews with the five coach developers who were observed delivering coach education.
Data Analysis
A phronetic-iterative approach to data collection and analysis was adopted. The research questions for the study were guided by the programme learning outcomes of the CPD course. However, the empirical data were used to drive the process of thematically analysing the data (Tracy, 2018, pp. 65). Member reflections (Smith & McGannon, 2018) were undertaken with participants and across the research team at the end of each round of focus groups and the individual interviews. Here, additional data and insight were generated by acknowledging and exploring with participants the existence of contradictions and differences in the interpretations of different research team members across and within each focus group. During each stage of the data collection process, the research team met regularly as critical friends to offer different perspectives and reflexively acknowledge multiple “truths” (Smith & McGannon, 2018, pp. 117), and to consider appropriate theoretical frameworks. This led to agreements and disagreements in deliberation between the research team members, which informed an initial descriptive “primary cycle coding” or “open-coding” process (Tracy, 2018, pp. 65). The initial basic codes developed through this process included, for example, “coach developers articulated theory not matching articulated practice,” “the course helping coach developers understand learning theory,” “CPD tutors creating a challenging but safe environment,” and “important to understand the organization” and determined which data were important and how the primary codes were developed in the process of “secondary cycling” (Tracy, 2018, pp. 66). A secondary coding cycle was then conducted. Here, tentative links to a variety of possible theoretical interpretations were debated further (Tracy, 2018) as the research team considered a range of theories related to the findings through an emic and etic reading of the data (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). This iterative process allowed the research team to build in theoretical probes and prompts to inform new lines of inquiry into the second and then subsequent round of focus groups, semistructured interviews, and field note observations at each round of data collection (Tracy, 2018). At this point, readings of the data with more focus on the relevant explanatory frameworks pertaining to Argyris and Schön’s (1974) theory in practice were undertaken concurrently between the research team (Tracy, 2018).
Theoretical Framework: Argyris and Schön’s Theory in Practice
. . . when someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may or may not be compatible with his espoused theory; furthermore, the individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories. (p.7)
Explicitly understanding, and when appropriate separating, espoused theories and theories-in-use gives means for maintaining some kinds of consistency of practice within certain boundaries in a particular setting and situation (Argyris & Schön, 1974). For example, Stodter and Cushion (2019), from tracking three coach developers delivering formal coach education, identified an epistemological gap between the espoused theories (i.e., what people say they do) and the theories-in-use (i.e., what they actually do). Similarly, in education, teachers have been identified as having a gap between theory and practice (Houchens & Keedy, 2009). However, some education studies (e.g., Chen & Ennis, 1996, Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan, 2003) suggest a consistent alignment between teachers’ articulated theories and their practices. The purpose of the course under review for this study was to increase the coach developer’s knowledge and understanding of learning and its application into practice, thereby supporting coach developers to move from espoused theories to theories-in-use.
As espoused theories are somewhat an image of self, moving to theories-in-use requires an alignment between an individual’s beliefs and what they want to show in practice. While espoused theories are explicit, idealised explanations of the world, theories-in-use are experientially developed and refer to actions in context (Eraut, 2000). Argyris (1990, 1991) identified that the gaps between espoused theories and theories-in-use were caused by inadequate training or organisational control by superiors. This separation between espoused theories and theories-in-use is a problem in any professional practice by potentially limiting learning opportunities, as well as being a source of uncritical acceptance and reproduction of knowledge, understanding, and practice (e.g., Cushion et al., 2019; Leeder et al., 2019; Stodter & Cushion, 2019). A person’s espoused theories then may or may not match their observed theories-in-use in practice. Argyris and Schön’s (1974) ideas around the importance of understanding the organisation’s context, including the espoused theories and theories-in-use, would seem useful when investigating coach developers’ understanding of learning and alignment to their working practice. The association between articulated theory and practice needs exploring in greater depth, specifically, how coach developers learn to underpin their practice in a socially impacted world.
. . . theories are theories regardless of their origin: there are practical, common sense theories as well as academic or scientific theories. A theory is not necessarily accepted, good, or true; it is only a set of interconnected propositions that have the same referent the subject of the theory. (p. 5)
However, theories are mediums for explanation, prediction, or control (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Despite theories being a deep set of underlying beliefs, they are still situationally dependent on the specific practice and organisational setting. Argyris and Schön (1974) went on to define “a practice is a sequence of actions undertaken by a person to serve others, who are considered clients” (p. 6). All people operate in practice based on a number of different theories and, whether conscious of it or not, they control their outcomes in various situations. Argyris and Schön (1974) highlighted how a theory of practice has interconnected theories of action that specify practice for certain situations. Theories of practice can then help describe coach developers’ pedagogical processes and knowledge about learning linked to implementation of behaviour for dealing with different situations and organisational settings.
Argyris and Schön (1974) indicated how their ideas could be used to “understand the nature and learning processes of social units larger than one individual” (p.137), in this case, the CPD course the coach developer participants took part in. When looking at learning, it is important to recognise and include professional practice, professional institutions, and professional learning environments when investigating the development of individuals by comprehending what underpins and guides their practice, as well as their understanding of theory with practice. Argyris and Schön (1974, pp. xi) “defined learning in terms of outcomes and processes” in which individuals are ultimately responsible for the impact of the environment because they learn from personally constructed experience, and how people experience the environment depends on how they construct it. Through this constructed learning process, it is important for learners to confront defensiveness when testing theories-in-use, as defensive routines such as “thoughts and actions used to protect individuals’, groups’, and organizations’ usual way of dealing with reality” (Argyris, 1985, pp. 5) are “anti-learning, overprotective, and self-sealing” (Argyris, 1990, pp. 25). In summary, we believe that Argyris and Schön’s ideas on theory in practice that include espoused theories and theories-in-use, outlined above, have much to offer to the critical examination of coach developers’ learning, understanding of theories on learning, and implementation into practice.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the CPD of two NGB coach developer cohorts who undertook a PG Cert. in Coach Development and to also understand their pedagogical knowledge and application to practice in their associated roles. The three themes identified from the iterative analysis of the data and theorisation are now presented. The three themes were (a) the coach developers recognising and understanding what theories of learning did and did not actually inform their working practice, (b) the CPD tutors’ pedagogic approaches supported and challenged the coach developers, and (c) the importance of understanding the organisation and working environment of the coach developers to influence learning and practice. Each theme is explained to demonstrate how the coach developers’ involvement in the CPD course connected to their understanding of learning and coach education delivery.
Coach Developers Understanding Their Espoused Theories and Moving to Theories-in-Use
So, has it altered your practice? (Interviewer)
It’s made me more aware of the depths you could go to, definitely . . . I feel I have a grasp on what learning is. (CD O, Cohort 1, focus group interview)
I feel the course has certainly allowed me to recognise what I do when delivering [coach education courses]. I understand why I do what I do. (CD R, Cohort 1, focus group interview)
I suppose we used the term constructivism before the course without real good knowledge on the matter and how it transfers. (CD A, Cohort 2, focus group interview)
Challenge our thinking (CD E).
OK. So, challenge your thinking, in what way? (Interviewer)
Questioning why we do what we do (CD E)
I think we’re all quite comfortable with our view on what learning is and how our thinking now applies. We’ve all been practitioners in our own field for a long time. Not just defining what you do and maybe get a consolidation of what you do, but also maybe improving your practice as well. Certainly, the course, has helped my understanding of learning and how that applies to my delivery [coach education]. (CD G, Cohort 2, focus group interview)
After the coach developers in Cohort 1 had completed their CPD course, they communicated that how they felt at the beginning was “reflecting at a surface level” (CD P, Cohort 1, focus group interview), which moved to a more “critical level” (CD L, Cohort 2, focus group interview). According to Argyris and Schön (1974), spending time thinking about and describing theories-in-use is a necessary step in developing these.
Before this course my delivery on courses was based on what I have seen. What I have taken part in. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
I have been delivering courses with experienced coach developers and liked the questions they ask and then used them. I also implement what and how they [National Governing Body] want. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
I suppose before this [CPD course] I haven’t actual thought in detail about what guides how I deliver. In the past I just picked up on stuff and I used that. I thought it linked but looking back I am clearer now. (CD H, Cohort 2, interview)
The tasks coach developers were engaged in, as highlighted above, also enabled them to bring their tacit knowledge to a greater level of consciousness. Tacit knowledge is what is displayed in practice but cannot be put into words (Nash & Collins, 2006). Linking to theories-in-use about learning, coach developers were practicing in a particular way, but could not clearly articulate their practice. When the coach developers formulated their theories-in-use during the CPD course by making explicit their tacit knowledge, they were able to clearly implement chosen pedagogical approaches into their working practice, underpinned by their own and the organisation’s theories-in-use. Having opportunities to explicitly understand and state their theories-in-use allowed “conscious criticism” (Argyris & Schön, 1974, pp. 14). Understanding theories-in-use and being able to reflect and compare alternative practices associated with this understanding, suitable for a specific organisation and situation, was expressed as being important for their development.
Two CPD tutors and twelve coach developers are sat on chairs in a circle taking turns to discuss the question “what is learning?” which is written on the whiteboard at the front of the room. (Cohort 2 CPD course, observation field note)
I couldn’t answer this is my view of learning. I can give you some sort of waffle and spiel about it, but I wouldn’t have a finalised view of it.
Whereas now I could probably start to talk about making people curious about the topic for them to go and explore more, and then as a, link it to my role as a coach developer is then how do I spark individuals’ curiosity to go, how does it fit to you, what’s your rationale, why are you doing it? Why are you doing this and not doing this for that particular team, person, whatever it is? (CD H, Cohort 2, interview)
It was all about papers and learning theories and stuff in discussions. That taught us much more about how, with us all working in the organisation for so long and different times and frames . . . I’ve been in it for a while, now, and I’m trying to get away from using that word, “brainwashing.” I’m not, it’s not brainwashing, but I’ve potentially just gone along with stuff without knowing the full extent as to why, previously, whereas this has now given me a thing to look at and go. Okay, I agree with that for x, y, and z reasons, and I disagree with that, now. So, just that underpinning of learning and how that’s done as the organisation and how I deliver it as a tutor. (CD G, Cohort 2, observation and interview)
It is constantly being challenged to have an opinion, and back it up and weigh things up. Don’t take stuff on surface value. I have equated it to being a detective, trying to seek out the truth if you like. So, if there was one consistent message that was coming back throughout the whole course, that was it. (CD I, Cohort 2, Focus Group Interview)
It really helps understanding where it has come from, I feel now more confident if asked any questions about the information we have to deliver. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
This course has given us a lot of different, extra knowledge, if you like, of the benefits and trade-offs of different types of learning. (CD M, Cohort 1, interview)
You alter your style based on the content you’re delivering, the learners that are in front of you, but I’ve been fixed to one style. (CD N, Cohort 2, focus group interview)
The alignment of the coach developers’ practice theories and clarity of their developed theories-in-use was articulated as beneficial to their coach education delivery and when supporting individual learners on their courses. As a consequence of the CPD course, coach developers expressed feeling more competent in supporting and developing coach learning. As Argyris and Schön (1974) suggested, “to be effective, a person must be able to act according to his theories-in-use clearly and decisively, especially under stress” (p. 27).
Pedagogy to Identify Practice Theory: Understanding the “How” and “Why”
Six coach developers and one of the CPD tutors are sat around in a circle. They take it turns to discuss about how they create a learning environment suitable for their coach education learners. The CPD tutor asks questions such as: “What do you mean?” and “How do you that.” One of coach developer is asked a question they time to think and then respond. (Cohort 2, field note observation)
One of the assignments that we did we’ve identified that we wanted to improve on, so I suppose that’s where that came from. We did quite a few self-assessments looking at our own understanding of learning. It was good that it was about me and my role, what I do. It meant something and had a purpose. (CD O, Cohort 1, focus group interview)
We did quite a few self-assessments looking at different personality traits and that sort of thing and that’s where the Johari window came from. I just thought I’d try and get a little bit of 360 feedback from some of the people. And I guess when it came in with some of the words, and my role as a mentor, and especially they mentioned adults forced to talk a lot around being empathetic, building the core, being approachable, so I suppose when some of those words didn’t come back, that was probably a bit of a reality check for me in terms of what the mentoring stuff was probably about. I think everybody comes into these mentoring jobs as coaches, and we get very little support in terms of what is actually mentoring and what does mentoring look like, so that’s where that Johari window came from, off the back of that, I suppose it was just about me making a more conscious effort when I was out with mentors and working with them, that it wasn’t just totally work driven. (CD N, Cohort 2, observation and interview)
The course tutors are really probing with questions about the theories that underpin their specific behaviours in practice. The course tutors are probing CD X about why he asks questions. What is his purpose? Why does he use that method? (Cohort 2 CPD course, field note observation).
We as people [coach developers] have started to unpick why we do what we do. Delve a bit deeper into how much of an impact we have on learners or candidates or people that we touch or work with throughout our day to day. (CD F, Cohort 2, focus group interview)
These discussions, in a safe environment with working colleagues and the CPD tutors, allowed alignment of articulated understandings about learning and what coach developers actually implemented in practice. However, it is important to note here that, if only the espoused theories are reviewed, then the theories-in-use stay the same, so both together need critical consideration. The identification of espoused theories and the (re)construction of theories-in-use in a learning environment that includes collaboration, challenge, inquiry, and trust has the potential for a more “effective” working practice (Argyris & Schön, 1974).
The CPD tutors’ practices also created an environment that allowed an “openness” and feeling of being comfortable sharing insecurities with colleagues to flourish. This reduced the coach developers’ defensiveness, which means there was a tendency to help others, have more open discussions, exhibit reciprocity, and feel free to explore different views and express risky ideas. In the course of helping individuals unfreeze their defensive reasoning, they learn to think more rigorously and productively (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Also, authenticity, autonomy, and internal commitment will tend to increase in an open and comfortable learning environment (Argyris, 1971). Linking back to the sports coaching literature, poor self-awareness, epistemological gaps, and folk pedagogy identified in empirical research (e.g., Partington & Cushion, 2013; Stodter & Cushion, 2019) and, in this research implicit espoused theories regarding learning, could reduce and then pave the way for an opportunity to (re)construct theories-in-use that clearly support practice. To support this process, nurturing relationships of trust, collaboration, experimentation, and risk taking between the coach developers and the CPD tutors meant the CPD course became a learning environment of inquiry, rather than a target of change. Therefore, the CPD course had the capacity for the coach developers to achieve a greater understanding of their theories in practice (Houchens & Keedy, 2009). As similarly identified in this research, to support learners’ development, it is important to help “individuals gain insight into the conditions under which their defences as well as their theories-in-use inhibit and facilitate their growth” (Argyris & Schön, 1974, pp. 39). The way the CPD tutors challenged coach developers to understand more deeply their implicit theories and then to create opportunity to develop an understanding of theoretical frameworks, all based on critiqued day-to-day experiences, was seen as effective CPD (Abraham et al., 2013).
Understanding the Organisational Context
They get it . . . they know what we can do on courses. That helps. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
I think it’s really important that [the CPD tutors] know the [organisation] but also that they are not directly apart. We have great chats about what we can and cannot do. It’s a great place to discuss openly. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
If everyone is singing off the same hymn sheet it helps to implement what you want now it has been confirmed [on the CPD course]. (CD N, Cohort 1, interview)
The CPD course brought coach developers together to discuss and better understand organisational policy. In this way, this course may have gone some way in responding to Dempsey, Cope, Richardson, Littlewood, and Cronin’s (2020) calls for a consideration of how policy is cascaded down and filtered through an organisation.
I’ve done it and then we, learnt about learning and different learning theories and you go, oh, I do that, but then taking it to another level. (CD M, cohort 1, interview)
They [coach developer’s organisation] use constructivism. The thing for me is, actually, now I have a better understanding of what constructivism is. Some of the stuff I’ve read is around how education’s taking it. It’s probably not, kind of, how it actually was initially with us at the front delivering and the learners just copying. So that helps me understand a little better about what I’ve been doing and why some candidates might be getting a little bit confused. (CD C, Cohort 2, interview)
It was important for the coach developer to become aware of both the espoused theories and the tacit knowledge of the organisation that govern their behaviour to then (re)construct their understanding, aligning their theories-in-use with those of the organisation. Being able to align the theory, learning, and practice within coach education helps garner this learner-centred approach to understanding, which advocates and allows for meaningful engagement with their learning experiences and supports their professional development (Paquette & Trudel, 2018a). Such careful consideration must be acknowledged in relation to coach education programmes and their focus and strategies to impact learning and empower coaches with autonomy (Paquette & Trudel, 2018b), while obtaining perceptions and experiences needed to continue to refine, shape, and also construct delivery for coach developers (Paquette, Trudel, Duarte, & Cundari, 2019). As Argyris and Schön (1974) suggested, “understanding how we diagnose and construct our experience, take action, and monitor our behaviour while simultaneously achieving our goals is crucial to understanding and enhancing effectiveness” (p. xxxii). Therefore, creating opportunities for coach developers to take time to deconstruct their espoused theories, the organisation they work for and also practice is an important process to undertake (Dempsey et al., 2020). From here, coach developers can (re)construct theories-in-use that align with practice and the organisation.
Conclusion
This study aimed to understand how 23 coach developers reconsidered their practice theories during a formal CPD course. Challenging and understanding coach developers’ practice theories, how they are constructed through experience, and then understanding theories-in-use associated with learning perceived to help them in their workplace. The CPD tutors’ understanding of the coach developers’ job and their workplace proved valuable in supporting their development. This occurred, first, by recognising the espoused theories and then, second, understanding theories about learning that they wanted to underpin their practices. In this research, although complex, active, and individualised, the pedagogic approach taken by the CPD tutors helped coach developers understand learning and gain the confidence needed to carry this into their delivery of coach education. Moving forward, it is important that coach developers periodically examine and critique their theories-in-use and consider how these drive their interactions with coaches. This continued intentional self-reflection and analysis of assumptions about coaching practice, coach education, and their organisation will support the coach developers’ understanding and implementation in future working practice.
Author Biographies
Dr. Mark Partington is a senior lecturer in sports coaching at Edge Hill University, researching coaching behaviour and practice, “coaching philosophy,” coach learning, and coach education. Mark has been a professional coach in participation, development, and performance sport domains. He currently coaches in a professional English youth football academy and supports coaches’ development in a number of different environments.
Dr. Jimmy O’Gorman is a Senior Lecturer in Sports Development, Management and Coaching at Edge Hill University. His research interests include implementation and enactment of sport policies to support coaching.
Kenny Greenough is Programme Leader of Coaching degree courses, Senior Lecturer in Sports Coaching and University Learning and Teaching Fellow at Edge Hill University. He is a UEFA ‘A’ Licenced Coach, qualified Coach Educator, and a Senior Fellow of Teaching and Learning (UKPSF). Kenny’s research interests align with coaching, pedagogy, and applied practice, as well as the development of both player and coach learning.
Dr. Ed Cope is a Lecturer in Sport Coaching at Loughborough University. Research interests are based on investigating coaching behaviour and practice and learning design and development to support coach learning.
References
Abraham, A., Morgan, G., North, J., Muir, B., Duffy, P., Allison, W., & Hodgson, R. (2013). Task analysis of coach developers: Applications to the FA Youth coach educator role. In H. Chaudet, L. Pellegrin, & N. Bonnardel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on naturalistic decision making (NDN 2013), Marseille, France, 21–24 May 2013 (pp. 21–24). Paris, France: Arpege Science Publishing.
Argyris, C. (1971). Management and organizational development: The path from XA to YB. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change & defensive routines. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Facilitating organizational learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, May-June. https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bailey, R.P., Madigan, D.J., Cope, E., & Nicholls, A.R. (2018). The prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas and neuromyths among sports coaches, Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
Callary, B., & Gearity, B. (2019). Coach developer special issue: Global perspectives in coach education for the coach developer. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(3) 261–262. doi:10.1123/iscj.2019-0067
Chen, A., & Ennis, C.D. (1996). Teaching a value-laden curriculum in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(3), 338–354. doi:10.1123/jtpe.15.3.338
Cope, E., Cushion, C., Harvey, S., & Partington, M. (2020). An evaluation of a Freirean informed coach education programme. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(1):65–78. doi:10.1080/17408989.2020.1800619
Cushion, C. (2013). Applying game centered approaches in coaching: A critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change, Sports Coaching Review, 2(1), 61–76. doi:10.1080/21640629.2013.861312
Cushion, C.J., Griffiths, M.G., & Armour, K. (2019). Professional coach educators in-situ: A social analysis of practice. Sport, Education and Society, 24(5), 533–546. doi:10.1080/13573322.2017.1411795
Dempsey, N.M., Cope, E., Richardson, D.J., Littlewood, M.A., & Cronin, C. (2020). Less may be more: How do coach developers reproduce learner-centred policy in practice? Sports Coaching Review. doi:doi:10.1080/21640629.2020.1866851
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136. doi:10.1348/000709900158001
Houchens, G.W., & Keedy, J.L. (2009). Theories of practice: Understanding the practice of educational leadership. Journal of Thought, 44(3–4), 49–61. doi:10.2307/jthought.44.3-4.49
International Council for Coaching Excellence, Association of Summer Olympic International Federations, & Leeds Metropolitan University. (2014). International coach developer framework v1.1. Leeds, UK: International Council for Coaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.icce.ws/_assets/files/documents/PC_ICDF_Booklet_Amended%20Sept%2014.pdf
Leeder, T.M., Russell, K., & Beaumont, L.C. (2019). ‘Learning the Hard Way’: Understanding the workplace learning of sports coach mentors. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(3), 263–273. doi:10.1123/iscj.2018-0069
Nash, C., & Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: Science or art? Quest, 58(4), 465–477. doi:10.1080/00336297.2006.10491894
Partington, M., & Cushion, C.J. (2013). An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(3), 374–382. PubMed ID: 22092356 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative researching. London: SAGE Publications.
Paquette, K., & Trudel, P. (2018a). The evolution and learner-centered status of a coach education program. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5(1), 24–36. doi:10.1123/iscj.2017-0038
Paquette, K., & Trudel, P. (2018b). Learner-centered coach education: Practical recommendations for coach development. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5(2), 169–175. doi:10.1123/iscj.2017-0084
Paquette, K., Trudel, P., Duarte, T. & Cundari, G. (2019). Participating in a learner-centered coach education program: Composite vignettes of coaches’ and coach educators’ experiences. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(3), 274–284. doi:10.1123/iscj.2018-0085
Smith, B., & McGannon, K.R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
Sparkes, A.C. (1992). Research in physical education and sport: exploring alternative visions. London: Falmer Press.
Sparkes, A.C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London: Routledge.
Stodter, A., & Cushion, C.J. (2014). Coaches’ learning and education: A case study of cultures in conflict. Sports Coaching Review, 3(1), 63–79. doi:10.1080/21640629.2014.958306
Stodter, A., & Cushion, C. (2019). Layers of learning in coach developers’ practice-theories, preparation and delivery. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(3), 307–316. doi:10.1123/iscj.2018-0067
Stodter, A., Cope, E., & Townsend, R. (2021). Reflective conversations as a basis for sport coaches’ learning: A theory-informed pedagogic design for educating reflective practitioners. Professional Development in Education. doi:10.1080/19415257.2021.1902836
Tracy, S.J. (2018). A phronetic iterative approach to data analysis in qualitative research. Journal Qualitative Research, 19(2), 61–76.
Trudel, P., Culver, D., & Werthner, P. (2013). Looking at coach development from the coach-learner’s perspective: Consideration for coach development administrators. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 375–387). London: Routledge.
Tsangaridou, N., & O’Sullivan, M. (2003). Physical education teachers’ theories of action and theories-in-use. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(2), 132–152. doi:10.1123/jtpe.22.2.132
