- Home
- Coaching and Officiating
- Coach Education Essentials
In Coach Education Essentials, leading coach educators and professionals from around the world cover the core elements of coach education and development, and describe how best to understand, cultivate, and evaluate quality coaching.
Edited by Kristen Dieffenbach, PhD, and Melissa Thompson, PhD, this text is the most authoritative resource on the topic ever assembled, and the book’s contributors represent a who’s who of coach education:
John Bales
Gordon Bloom
Trey Burdette
Penny Crisfield
Edward Cope
Kristen Dieffenbach
Lori Gano-Overway
Brian Gearity
Wade Gilbert
Daniel Gould
Matthew Grant
Stephen Harvey
Luke Jones
Cameron Kiosoglous
Clayton Kuklick
Sergio Lara-Bercial
Sarah McQuade
Jenny Nalepa
Christine Nash
Matt Robinson
Ronald Smith
Frank Smoll
Melissa Thompson
Cecile Reynaud
Charles Wilson Jr.
Grounded in current research and emerging trends in the field of coach education, Coach Education Essentials adheres to the guidelines for coach education and development established by the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) and is consistent with the ICCE’s International Sport Coaching Framework.
The chapters cover the roles and responsibilities of the coach across various levels of sport, ranging from prepubescent participation to Olympic-level competition; current models of coaching education, training, and certification used by leading international sport organizations; and the evaluation of coach education.
Coach Education Essentials is a comprehensive, insightful, and practical resource for those invested in the development and advancement of quality coaching and coaching education. It will be an asset to all who promote coaching as a profession.
Chapter 1. Frameworks for Coach Education and Development
Kristen Dieffenbach
The Intersection of Sport Culture and Coaching
Coaching Education: Time for an Upgrade
Future Directions
Summary
Chapter 2. Ethical and Philosophical Grounding of Coaches
Melissa Thompson
Ethics in Sport Coaching
Approaches to Understanding Ethics
Developing Ethics
The Coaching Philosophy
Summary
Chapter 3. Holistic, Athlete-Centered Coaching Orientation
Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
Coaching in the Real World
Foundations of HACC
Becoming a Holistic, Athlete-Centered Coach
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
Challenges to Holistic, Athlete-Centered Coaching
Conquest Coaching
Summary
Chapter 4. Athlete Development Process and Coaching
Matt Robinson
Athlete Development
Athlete Development Defined
Status of Athlete Development in the United States
The Role of the Coach in the Developmental Stages
The Role of the Coach in Athlete Development
Coaching in an Athlete Development Model
The Five-by-Four Coaching Model
Summary
Chapter 5. Coach Instruction for Effective Athlete Instruction
Matthew A. Grant
What Coaches Should Know
What Coaches Should Do
Summary
Part II. Teaching Coaches to Excel Within Their Context
Chapter 6. Educating Youth Sport Coaches: An Empirically Supported Training Program
Frank L. Smoll and Ronald E. Smith
Theoretical Model and Research Paradigm
Measurement of Coaching Behaviors
Coach Behaviors and Children’s Evaluative Reactions
Achievement Goal Theory and Coaching
Translating Basic Research Findings Into a Coach Intervention
Outcome Research
Dissemination
Summary
Chapter 7. Coaching Club and Interscholastic Sports
Daniel Gould and Jenny Nalepa
Characteristics of Scholastic and Club Athletes
Participation Effects or Outcomes
Best Coaching Practice
Challenges, Barriers, and Key Issues
Implications for Guiding Practice
Summary
Chapter 8. College and High-Level Amateur Sports
Cecile Reynaud
High-Level Amateur Sports
Collegiate Coaching
Set the Vision and Strategy
Shape the Environment
Build Relationships
Conduct Practices and Structure Competitions
Read and React to the Field
Learn and Reflect
Summary
Chapter 9. Coach Education of Professional- and Olympic-Level Coaches
Cameron Kiosoglous
Defining and Understanding the Context of Professional and Olympic Sports
Understanding Deliberate Practice in the Context of High-Performance Coaching
Defining Sport Coaching Success
Excelling Within This Context
Application in Practice
Summary
Chapter 10. Paralympic Sport Coaching
Gordon A. Bloom
History of Paralympic Sport
Career Progression and Learning of Paralympic Coaches
Paralympic Coach Leadership
Summary
Part III. Developing the Best Coaches
Chapter 11. Current Models of Coach Education, Training, and Certification
Sarah McQuade
The United Kingdom
South Africa
New Zealand
Canada
Summary
Chapter 12. International Coach Education and Development: A Case Study
Sergio Lara-Bercial and John Bales
The International Council for Coaching Excellence
The International Sport Coaching Framework
Examples of a Framework Approach to Coach Education and Development
Implementation Challenges
Summary
Chapter 13. Professional Development Opportunities for Coaches
Christine Nash
A Professionalism Approach
Transitions to Expertise
Career Transitions in Coaching: The Importance of Context
Summary
Chapter 14. Career Guidance and Mentorships for Coaches
Clayton R. Kuklick and Brian T. Gearity
Types of Sport Participation
Types of Knowledge Needed for Effective Coaching
How Coaches Learn to Be Effective
Career Development
Summary
Chapter 15. Long-Term Coach Development Process
Penny Crisfield
The Complexity of Coaching: The Changing Role of Coaches, Coaching, and Coach Development
Developing Coaching Expertise
How a Professional Learns: Opportunities for Improving the Current Approach
Exploring New Models of Learning Within Sport Coach Education
Coach Developers
Summary
Part IV. Evaluating the Impact of Coach Education
Chapter 16. Reflection on Accreditation and Endorsement of Coach Education and Development Programs
Lori A. Gano-Overway
Accreditation: What It Is and Why It Is Important
Insight Into Accreditation and Endorsements: What It Looks Like Now
Coach Learning and Development: Issues and Concerns for Accreditation and Endorsement Programs
Sport Coaching Standards and Competencies: Issues and Concerns for Accreditation and Endorsement Programs
Future Considerations for Accreditation and Endorsement Schemes
Summary
Chapter 17. Standards for Coaching Effectiveness
Wade Gilbert
The Journey From Coaching Legend to Scientific Frameworks for Quality Coaching: Learning From the “Coach of the Century”
Scientific Frameworks and Standards for Coaching Effectiveness
Measuring Standards of Coaching Effectiveness
Summary
Chapter 18. Coach Behavior and Performance Analysis
Stephen Harvey, Edward Cope, and Luke Jones
Coaching Behavior
A Rationale for Performance Analysis Practices in Coaching
Summary
Appendix A. The Role of the National Standards for Sport Coaches in Coach Learning
Appendix B. Coaching Education Program Accreditation Requirements
Appendix C. Bachelor Degree Coaching Education Program Guidelines
Kristen Dieffenbach, PhD, is an associate professor of athletic coaching education at West Virginia University. She earned her doctorate in exercise science with an emphasis in exercise and sport psychology from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She is the president of the United States Center for Coaching Excellence and has served as a member of the executive board of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP). She also serves on the research committee for the International Council for Coaching Excellence.
Dieffenbach’s areas of educational, research, and consultation concentration include coaching education, professional issues in coaching, ethics in coaching, performance enhancement, and long-term athlete talent development. She has worked on numerous grants, projects, and consultations in these areas for the U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, United States Tennis Association, USA Cycling, USA Hockey, USA Triathlon, U.S. Paralympics, USA Swimming, USA Water Polo, Peaks Coaching Group, and Carmichael Training Systems.
Dieffenbach has published research articles in scientific journals, authored and co-authored numerous book chapters, and written for applied publications such as Olympic Coach, VeloNews, and Dirt Rag. She has also served as an expert panelist for the Outdoor Life Network and for publications such as Runner’s World, Performance Conditioning for Cycling, Backpacker, Bicycling, and Adventure Sports.
Together with Steve McCauley, Dieffenbach co-authored Bike Racing for Juniors, a book for coaches, parents, and young cyclists. She has also written or co-authored chapters for U.S. Tennis, USA Cycling, and the U.S. Marine Corps. As an AASP-certified consultant, Dieffenbach works with a wide range of athletes and coaches as a consultant and educator.
As a coach, she holds an elite-level USA Cycling license and has earned a level 2 endurance specialization from USA Track and Field. She has coached at the high school, collegiate, and elite levels. Currently, she coaches both semi-professional and professional road cyclists, mountain bikers, and adventure racers. She specializes in working with junior and Espoir elite athletes, and she runs a mountain bike development camp for USA Cycling.
A former Division I runner and road cyclist, Dieffenbach now enjoys endurance and ultra-endurance multi-sport racing. She specializes in 24-to-72-hour adventure racing events.
Melissa Thompson, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, where she has coordinated the sport coaching education program since 2008. She instructs sport psychology and sport coaching courses at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels. She was appointed director of student-athlete development for the university’s athletic department when the program was established in 2017.
Thompson is a board member of the United States Center for Coaching Excellence. She is certified by the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, the International Council for Coaching Excellence, and the National Strength and Conditioning Association, and she is a member of the U.S. Olympic Committee Sport Psychology Registry and several other organizations. She previously served on the national sport steering committee for SHAPE America as the coaching representative, a position that allowed her to co-author the alliance position statement on minimum levels of coaching education for all levels of sport. Her publications, in both scholarly and trade journals, are focused on coach development and are a combination of empirical research and application-based articles.
From 2007 through 2008, Thompson served as a lead graduate teaching assistant at Florida State University, where she earned her doctorate of philosophy in educational psychology with an emphasis in sport psychology. She received her master of science degree in kinesiology from Georgia Southern University, where she also served as an assistant softball coach. Thompson was a member of the women’s softball team at Rockford University (Illinois), where she graduated magna cum laude with a double major in psychology and elementary education.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Create the Right Motivational Climate and Culture
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols’ (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint.
By Charles H. Wilson Jr. and Trey Burdette
How can coaches improve the motivational climate of their teams? Nichols' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) provides a blueprint. AGT focused on two terms, task involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement refers to individuals seeking mastery by improvement. Ego-involved individuals interpret ability by how it compares to others. In a sport context, a task-involved coach or athlete would be concerned with learning new skills independent of winning or placing ahead of other athletes. Ego involvement in sport would be reflected in an athlete or coach seeking validation about performance only if winning or placing ahead of a competitor occurs. For our purpose, ego-involved coaches would utilize the win-at-all-cost mentality, whereas the task-involved coach would display a more athlete-centered and holistic view. Let's dispel the notion that holistic, athlete-centered coaches do not want to win. They want to win just as much as every other coach or athlete. The difference is the holistic coach's primary focus is the development of the athlete.
Possibly the single best expression of a holistic, athlete-centered coaching philosophy, and arguably the most crucial part of the process, is developing an appropriate motivational climate or culture. Many benefits, including intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and moral sport behavior seem to be connected to a supportive climate (see chapter 2). If coaches can cultivate the appropriate motivational climate, athletes will benefit more from sport participation. The holistic coach uses task orientation, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem, and athletes feel competent because self-improvement is the goal rather than winning or high rankings. The question for coach developers: How do I help coaches create the right motivational climate?
- Redefine success. Success should not be defined by whether one wins or loses. It should be evaluated on self-improvement. Self-improvement, mastery, and competence, all tenets of task orientation, motivate athletes for the long term and increase confidence. Self-referenced improvement also allows the athlete to feel a sense of autonomy; they have control over their development. Smoll and colleagues (1993) examined youth athletes' self-esteem using a social support training intervention for youth sport coaches. The training intervention aimed to teach coaches to redefine success to maximum effort (holistic approach), use positive approaches, and increase relationships within the team. They found that players rated trained coaches as better teachers, had more fun playing the sport, and were attracted to the relationships on the team. For more on this research, see chapter 6.
- Set proper goals.Focus on performance and process goals rather than outcome goals. Performance goals are associated with achieving a performance objective such as running a certain time or making a certain free throw percentage in basketball. Process goals are ones that focus on execution of a skill or performance such as keeping the elbow high when throwing a ball or rotating the hips when swinging a golf club. Kingston and Hardy (1997) and Pierce and Burton (1998) both found in their respective experiments that focusing on performance and process goals improved the performance of the competitive athletes. Outcome goals, or goals associated with winning, are valid and should be in your program. However, conquest coaches only value outcome goals. Winning and losing is a function of many factors: your performance, your opponents' performance, luck, etc. Performing well and not winning a game or contest should not be deemed a failure. Therefore, the focus should remain on goals that you can control. Performance and process goals are the focus of holistic coaches.
- Include democratic processes. Holistic coaches will allow athletes to have some decision-making responsibilities. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was developed by Ryan and colleagues (1997) and examined self-regulation and autonomy as a piece of intrinsic motivation. They developed three psychological needs, Relatedness, Competency, and (relative to this section, most important) Autonomy. Autonomy can be simply described as an individual having some ownership over their course of action. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that this ownership or autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation. Enter the democratic process: the ownership element can be manifested in numerous ways. For example, athletes may have a say in the rules and consequences of a program. Athletes might choose the uniform for a given game or lead warm ups. Using a democratic process gives the athlete autonomy, teaches responsibility, and reinforces accountability. Mallett (2005) concurred, concluding a paper on enhancing quality coaching by stating coaches should create an autonomy-supportive environment because of the resulting increased sport performance.
Democratic Processes → Increased Autonomy → Enhanced and Sustained Intrinsic Motivation
- Provide proper feedback. Coaches are teachers. This means that coaches must provide appropriate feedback in order for athletes to grow to their potential.
- Use a positive approach. Utilize a positive approach with your athletes. All too often, coaches only recognize athletes when they make a mistake. A positive coach makes an effort to reinforce the good things athletes do and by default, encourage athletes. An example is, “Virginia, excellent throw. This time, open your hips to have more velocity on the throw. Keep up the great work!” In this example, not only is the coach correcting points of performance, but also reinforcing the great effort being shown by the athlete. Negative coaches affect motivation, confidence, and performance. Positive coaches not only increase these, but athletes like playing for positive coaches.
- Focus on informational feedback. The feedback holistic coaches provide is high in information. They do not ignore mistakes and they sparingly give only general praise such as “good job” or “nice.” Great teachers give informational feedback such as, “Way to shuffle your feet, Mia” or “Lila, excellent job keeping your elbow tucked.” Smith and colleagues (2005) found that perceived encouragement and positive feedback from coaches were interpreted by athletes as creating a task-oriented culture, and Weiss and colleagues (2009) found that positive and informational feedback increased athletes' competence, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, provide informational cues to create a task-oriented environment and increase the quality of feedback.
Previous Sporting Experiences and Desire to Coach Disability Sport
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport.
By Gordon A. Bloom
To bridge the gap in coaching research and to develop an understanding of coaches in disability sport, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) offered one of the first examinations of the career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches in disability sport. A total of six swimming coaches (one with a disability) were interviewed and all six of them began by coaching able-bodied swimmers. None of the coaches intended to coach swimmers with a disability and only began doing so when an athlete with a disability arrived at one of their training sessions and asked to participate along with their able-bodied swimmers. Furthermore, the six participants had very diverse experiences in aquatics that ranged from one former Paralympian, to two who competed nationally in able-bodied swimming, to three who had little to no competitive able-bodied swimming experiences.
Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead (2015) recently interviewed seven current Paralympic coaches across four individual and three team sports. The coaches were able-bodied individuals who had extensive competitive sport experiences ranging from varsity to regional and national levels. They had not been Olympic athletes. The participants described different pathways to becoming a Paralympic coach. Some migrated from nondisability sports while others accepted job opportunities based on their interest in coaching athletes with a disability. Another study, from Fairhurst, Bloom, and Harvey (2017), interviewed six male Paralympic coaches from various individual, team, and co-acting sports who averaged 12 years of coaching experience and who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in Canada. The coaches were all born able-bodied, played a variety of sports throughout their youth, and reached varying levels of competition. One participant began his athletic career as an able-bodied athlete but sustained a life-changing injury as a teenager, and subsequently competed as a Paralympian. Five of the participants began coaching in able-bodied sport contexts. They were exposed to disability sport through postsecondary adaptive physical activity courses or by having an athlete with a disability approach them about their coaching services. One able-bodied participant began his coaching career in disability sport. He had intended to become a physical education teacher, but was exposed to disability populations during his postsecondary education, which led him to pursue coaching in the disability sport context.
Tawse and colleagues (2012) completed one of the few studies of Paralympic coaches where the majority of the sample had a physical disability. They interviewed four male participants (three with a disability) who were identified as the top wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada. Because wheelchair rugby had only recently emerged as a high-performance sport at the time of the study, previous elite athletic experience in wheelchair rugby for these participants was not possible. However, all of the coaches were involved in elite sport at various times in their lives. Interestingly, one participant in this study had a congenital disability and participated in both able-bodied and disability sports growing up, which included two appearances at the Paralympics. Two participants were classifiable in wheelchair rugby after they acquired a spinal cord injury in their twenties. The one able-bodied participant competed at the University level in basketball. Tawse and colleagues also found that three of the four participants did not initially intend to coach wheelchair rugby. They fell into the coaching role either out of obligation when their current coaches resigned or to fulfill a job requirement at a provincial wheelchair sports association.
An even more unique sample of participants came from a recently published study by Douglas and colleagues (2018) who purposefully selected and interviewed five Paralympic head coaches who had all previously competed as United States Paralympic athletes. All the participants won numerous World Championship and Paralympic medals, ranged in age from 36 to 58, coached both individual and team sports, and had head coaching experience at the Paralympic level ranging from 2 to 12 years, with an average of just under six years. The participants were first asked to coach by their current or former head coaches. Interestingly, three of them were still training and competing as Paralympians when they were asked to be assistant coaches on their national team. While some were hesitant about their knowledge and preparation to become coaches, they all accepted the invitation and they all commented on the positive impact their athletic careers had on their evolution as coaches—both in their understanding of the Paralympic sport context and in the personal connections they had accumulated as athletes that would open more doors for them and help them rapidly progress up the coaching ladder. More precisely, the results found that parasport coaches with a disability who were Paralympians were fast-tracked directly into national team coaching opportunities. Consequently, aspiring parasport coaches with a disability who never competed as Paralympians may need to invest considerably more time and effort toward their coaching evolution and development.
In conclusion, the results from research in this area appear to differ from research on elite able-bodied coaches, where the majority personally sought out coaching careers in their desired sport and that elite athletic experiences were important to their career development and success (i.e., Gilbert, Côté, and Mallett 2006; Schinke, Bloom, and Salmela 1995). It appears that many Paralympic coaches do not initially seek out coaching roles in disability sport. These coaches initially worked with able-bodied athletes and became involved in disability sport as a result of chance (e.g., an athlete with a disability asked to be coached by them), or from personal exposure to disability sport, or due to other connections to the sport, and subsequently became motivated to become successful disability sport coaches, despite not having previous athletic experience in disability sport. The results also suggest that elite athletic experiences in disability sport are not a pre-cursor for coaching success, which may not be surprising since few of them (i.e., 5 of the 23 coaches in the four studies cited in this section—Cregan et al. 2007; Fairhurst et al. 2017; Falcão, Bloom, and Loughead 2015; Tawse et al. 2012) had a disability and/or competed in disability sport. The one difference came from the Douglas et al. (2018) sample, which found that previous sporting experiences as a Paralympian gave those individuals quicker access to a high-performance coaching position in the parasport context. Given the small sample of individuals who are coaching elite disability sport and who have a disability, it would be interesting to continue studying their career paths and to see if changes occur as more people with disabilities begin to purposefully enter this coaching field.
The Lost Continuum of Physical Education and Sport
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best.
By Kristen Dieffenbach
In the past, in many countries, sport coaching training had connections with physical education teacher training. Currently, these bonds are often tenuous at best. And in many places the connections between the two areas of professional preparation seem all but forgotten, disregarded by both sides (Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010).
As noted, outside the physical education classroom and away from individuals trained in youth development, youth sport experiences have increasingly adopted many of the characteristics of professional sport entertainment. Globally, matching uniforms, youth scouts, manicured fields, and intensive practice and travel schedules have turned what was once a youth pastime into a booming global industry. We now see international youth competitions such as the Youth World Series and Youth Olympics, web-based high school sport channels, and youth sport scouting reports. While these are not in and of themselves negative, the outcome-oriented emphasis inherent in them overshadows the greater values of developing physical literacy, sport participation skills, and lifetime athleticism. Further, the emphasis has been placed on the development of perceived “elite talent” at a young age rather than on a system that seeks to develop athleticism in order to facilitate talent development with age. This has led to a system that encourages and rewards early specialization, a reduction of recreational sport participation opportunities, and an increase in youth athlete injuries, all at the expense of the athlete (e.g., Brenner 2007; Caine, DiFiori, and Maffulli 2006; DiFiori et al. 2014). This influence can also be seen in the approach youth sport coaches take, running youth practices and employing training and competition strategies more appropriate for far more advanced
players.
As sport participation models evolved in many parts of the world, an early uncoupling of sport coaching from formal physical education teacher preparation began. As Lyle (2005) noted, sport coaching has overwhelmingly been viewed through a one-dimensional lens rooted in a tradition of coaching based on one's own sport experiences. This coach preparation approach has been perpetuated by the athlete-turned-coach formula used to fill coaching roles at the youth through elite levels of sport. This myopic approach has led to an “I played therefore I am sufficiently prepared to coach” myth similar to but less well documented than the “subjective warrant” often seen in pre- and early-career physical educators. The concept of subjective warrant in teaching is concerned with “individual's perceptions of skills and abilities necessary” (Dewar and Lawson 1984). In the physical education setting, that warrant is often influenced by early experiences as a student or participant rather than by formal, evidence-based education.
The “personal experience as adequate preparation to coach” bias skews away from a perceived need for or valuation of formal coaching education and training, deferring instead to hands-on experiences and apprenticeships. This is not to say that hands on learning is not valuable, as both can be potentially valid approaches. However, when unregulated, concerns arise regarding the consistency and quality of these experiences, whether athlete learning will occur (depending on the individuals involved), and whether quality and depth of knowledge of a profession can be developed properly without a learning framework (Kuhn 2008; Young and Baker 2004).
Unfortunately, the mentality that unmediated, informal, self-selected learning experiences are sufficient to prepare someone to be an effective coach has been noted not only in coaches and spectators, and at the sport organizational level, but in research as well (Sheehy, Dieffenbach, and Reed 2018). Such research has documented coach “learning preferences” without significantly challenging whether an individual's preference is sufficient preparation for such a complex task. While this lack of informed preparation approach has not always been the case (see Dieffenbach and Wayda 2010 for a review of the 1960s separation of physical education teacher education and coach education in academia in the United States), a similar bias can be seen in current academic physical activity teaching training programs as well (Schoenstedt, Vickers, and Carr 2016).
Interestingly, in discussing the development of expertise in coaching, Schempp, McCullick, and Mason (2014) note that the “I played” mindset is a hallmark of the novice, with higher-order professional development being distinguished by a quest for new ideas and knowledge from multiple sources outside one's self and one's own experiences. It could, by extension, be argued that a similar lack of sophistication or maturity in thinking related to coach professional development can be found in many sport programs and organizations.
Related Books
