Coaching Principles and Practice - Essay Example

Coaching Principles and Practice Introduction Many terms have been used to describe what it is that the coaches actually do. Two terms that are often mistakenly used similarly and interchangeably are 'styles' and 'methods'. When Lyle (2002, p. 156) discusses coaching styles he is referring to 'the distinctive aggregations of behaviours that characterise coaching practice' although he does recognise that they are 'not simply about instructional behaviour. Others refer to styles as 'a manner of self-expression peculiar to the individual teacher [read coach]' (Tinning et al. 1993, p. 118). In the same manner, Siedentop and Tannehill (2000, p. 281) contend that style 'refers to the instructional and managerial climate for learning; and is often most easily seen through the teacher's [read coach's] interactions'. This article particularly explores coaching methods, which Tinning et al. (1993, p. 118) call 'principles in action', in illustrating some of the practices that coaches could adopt, and examine the consequences of adopting particular methods. Those who have participated in sports, either as a coach, athlete or spectator, will have witnessed, and/or experienced, a variety of coaching methods. As such, many people are knowledgeable about coaching methods and have opinions about what methods are successful and what are not. Despite the variety of coaching methods that coaches could demonstrate, anecdotal evidence suggests that the majority of the methods adopted by coaches can be broadly classified as authoritarian. This straightforwardly mean that many coaches still position themselves, and are positioned by others, as the 'boss' or 'expert' of the coaching and game sessions. Perhaps, this positioning of coaches, and the consequences it has on coaching practice, may be part of the reason why some young people drop out of sport. If increasing the number of people participating in sport, reducing drop-out rates, enabling people to gain more enjoyment and success from playing sport and improve sporting performance is considered important, then maybe it is time to scrutinise the taken-for-granted coaching methods and explore other possibilities. Coaching Methods Many coaches never make a conscious decision regarding the coaching method(s) they adopt, or could adopt. Often coaches adopt methods they experienced as athletes, or as a consequence of watching other coaches, maybe as a spectator, or as an assistant coach. This approach to learning how to coach is often called the apprentice model because the learning occurs 'on the job' and at the side of a more experienced coach. This model may work well if the exemplar coach is a quality coach and has the time to spend with the apprentice coach, but many times this is not the case and the result is that undesirable coaching practices continue to be reproduced. The work of Tinning et al. (1993) reminds against slipping into the belief that methods exist separately from the coach, and that they can be simply implemented unproblematically by the coach. Coaching is a social practice, and this implies the involvement of the whole person, in relation to specific activities as well as social communities. Thus, methods can be viewed not as a "set of strategies which can be successfully or unsuccessfully implemented by a teacher [read coach], they are more like a set of beliefs about the way certain types of learning can best be achieved. They are as much statements about valued forms of knowledge as they are about procedures for action" (Tinning et al. 1993, p. 123). Characteristics of Coaching Methods Direct Method The direct method of coaching involves the coach to do the following: Providing the information and direction to the group/individual Controlling the flow of information Privileging the demonstration, (it can be given by the coach or the athlete, or be on video) (Kirk et al. 1996) Giving little recognition to the diverse needs of the athletes Behaving in ways that can be categorised as managerial and organisational Setting goals that are specific and criterion based. A coach adopting a direct method is a very common sight, possibly more so with junior or less experienced athletes, where the coach is positioned and positions herself/himself as the knowledgeable one. An example of this in a basketball context is where the coach wants to teach the players how to dribble the basketball. After identifying five key elements of dribbling and demonstrating the skill, the coach outlines a drill that requires the players to practice dribbling in various poses, changing their pose on the sound of the whistle. Task Method The characteristics of a task method include many of the characteristics of the direct method but also include the coach: Designing the learning environment so that it has several different tasks Designing the session so that the tasks are performed simultaneously, not sequentially Organising the content of the stations so that they are slightly shifted towards recognising the needs of the athletes Designing the sessions so that the players can, at times, work independently from the coach (Kirk et al. 1996) This method could be adopted in a soccer context where the aim of the coach is to improve the players' ball dexterity. To achieve this aim the coach organizes the session so that there are a number of stations positioned around the field. The instructions at each station require the players to perform a different task. While the tasks are different (e.g. dribbling around cones, juggling the ball), they all reflect the aim of the coaching session. The players have five minutes at each station before they change (on the coach's commands) to work at another station. When they are at the stations they work by themselves, or with team mates, and the coach wanders around the various stations providing specific feedback or answering questions. Reciprocal Method The characteristics of the reciprocal method reflect some of the characteristics of the above two methods in that the coach is still responsible for selecting and sequencing the content. However, where the reciprocal method differs from the previous two methods is that the coach: Requires the athletes to work with each other Designs the content of the session to suit the athletes' abilities and needs Requires an athletes' peer (ideally one who is more skilled and knowledgeable) to become responsible for demonstration and feedback Encourages the athlete to develop feedback and social skills (Kirk et al. 1996) Many semi-professional or professional teams have squads which are made up of the 'first-string' and the 'off-the-bench' athletes. This type of arrangement enables a coach to easily adopt a reciprocal approach to coaching. For example, a rugby union coach who wants to improve the ability of his players to throw the ball into the line-out could use a reciprocal coaching method by using the two hookers (the players who throw the ball into the field of play) to work together with the locks (generally those who catch the ball). While it could be expected that the more experienced players would provide the majority of the feedback, each athlete could take turns to provide performance-related feedback, as well as develop new, or adapt existing throwing options to suit their respective strengths. Guided Discovery The characteristics of the guided discovery method include the coach: Incorporating activities that require the athletes to become more independent Requiring the athletes to more through a series of tasks, in response to a number of questions, with the goal of discovering a predetermined solution Asking in-depth, challenging questions to guide the athlete to a predetermined end (Kirk et a. 1996) A guided discovery method can be seen in tennis when a player comes to the side of the court having completed the first set. At this point the coach, who wants to improve the percentage of winning shots, asks the player some specific open-ended questions. For example, 'What action could you take if your opponent lobbed the return to the middle of the court Why' Or 'Can you tell me where you would place the ball if your opponent was standing on the base line covering her back hand Why' Or 'What happens when your opponent returns the ball to your back hand How can you make the situation better' While the coach knows the answer to the question, she encourages a response from the player, believing that the process of answering the questions will enhance the latter's understanding of the situation. Problem-solving Method The characteristics of the problem-solving method are similar to the guided discovery method except that they include the coach: Establishing the problem, which may come from a situation the team/athlete has experienced Accepting that outcomes may be more varied Accepting that there is not necessarily one right solution to the problem Encouraging the athletes to be responsible for the process of finding solutions Enabling work to be individualised or performed in groups Recognising the athletes' background knowledge and preferred pace of learning, and the media through which they prefer to learn Recognising that problem solving demands tasks that require more cognitive processes (Kirk et al. 1996) Having a debrief at the end of the problem-solving scenario so that the athletes can review what has been learned A coach can adopt a problem-solving method when he or she wants the athletes to apply their understanding to a game-like scenario. For example, a netball coach may design a scenario along the following lines: the defensive players in the team are required to play the defensive pattern of the forthcoming opposition. The attacking team has the centre pass off and they are told that there are 15 seconds left on the clock until the final whistle sounds and the score is tied. The problem to be solved is: develop three options of breaking the defence and score a goal within 15 seconds. The coach tells the team that they have 10 minutes to come up with some solutions. At the end of 10 minutes the coach brings the group back together and proceeds to ask the team questions about what happened, what worked, what did not work and what are the options they could try in the forthcoming match and why. Assessing Coaching Methods Most often coaches do not rely totally on one method, rather they draw on various methods to suit their objectives. Some coaches may draw on the direct and task methods while others may combine direct and guided discovery methods. This has to be kept in mind when considering the following discussion on the consequences of the various methods. A consequence of a coach adopting a direct method is that the athletes are not perceived to be active learners. Rather they are expected to memorise and repeat information provided to them by the coach instead of developing an understanding of the nuances of the game or activity (Kidman 2001). In addition, because the coach controls the flow of information there is little new knowledge produced, rather the whole experience reproduces existing knowledge. Coaches often adopt the direct method when they are teaching young and/or inexperienced athletes. The rationale often given for doing so is that the athletes do not have the knowledge or skills to play the game. It is interesting to note that much of a youngster's learning prior to the age of five (or when they go to school) does not occur via a direct method but rather through guided discovery or problem-solving methods. One possible consequence of predominantly adopting a direct method with youngsters is that their problem-solving and creative abilities are not encouraged. Since common characteristics exist between the direct and task methods they also share the consequences of adopting the particular methods. Two consequences more specific to adopting the task method are that a coach begins to recognize that the athletes are capable of some degree of self management, and hence provides the opportunity for athletes to work in the various stations away from his or her direct gaze. This freedom, albeit rather limited, also provides an opportunity for the athletes to assess the requirements of the task and modify them, if need be, to their own specific needs, thereby developing new understandings or knowledge. Nevertheless, because the coach determines the content of the stations the practices still, to a large extent, reproduce existing knowledge. The direct and task methods provide little opportunity to develop a social dimension to the coaching process. Some of the consequences of adopting a reciprocal method relate more to developing the social aspect of team dynamics. Having the athletes work together, and provide feedback to each other, can improve their physical skills as well as their social and cognitive abilities. The latter abilities are enhanced because the athletes work closely with each other, and they have to develop movement analysis skills, as well as communication skills, if they are to provide concise and meaningful feedback to their peers. Because the coach sets the content of the session, adopting a reciprocal method can continue to reproduce existing knowledge. Nonetheless, because of the interaction between the athletes it is possible that new knowledge can be produced. Developing the cognitive abilities of athletes is also a consequence of adopting a guided discovery method. For athletes to be actively involved in their learning the coach is required to construct the practice sessions in ways that enable the athletes to gain an understanding of why they are doing what they are doing. Although the coach does ask the athletes questions in an effort to get to a predetermined solution, the athletes do have an opportunity to answer the questions in ways that are unique to them and their situation. As such there is the possibility that athletes will arrive at new knowledge. However, because the coach asks the athletes questions about what they think is happening, and what could happen, the coach does not establish him- or herself as the 'expert'. One consequence of this is that some athletes, especially those who have been successful under a more orthodox approach to coaching, may challenge the coach's ability. The consequences of adopting the problem-solving method are similar to those associated with the guided discovery approach, in that the coach recognizes the athletes as active learners and that setting problems for them to solve assists in the production of new knowledge. Using this method may also mean that the ability of the coach will be questioned, especially if he or she sets irrelevant problems and accepts all solutions. But, adopting a problem-solving method does not mean that the coach abdicates all responsibility to the athletes. Quite the opposite, setting up relevant problem-solving scenarios, and expertly debriefing the scenarios at the completion of the exercise, requires knowledge of the content and context as well as considerable communication and interpersonal skills. Conclusion From the above report, there are apparently plenty of reasons why some coaches find it difficult to embrace a variety of methods. Coaches will not necessarily adopt a new method of coaching based on a convincing rational argument. This reluctance to change is partly due to the culture associated with the sport or activity. It is possible that coaches may be reluctant to challenge taken-for-granted practices of a sporting culture, especially if they have been a successful participant in the culture, even if coaches are prepared to challenge some of the taken-for-granted practices, maybe as a consequence of enrolling in tertiary study of professional development, it is possible that the athletes they are coaching, or the administrators of the sport may not wish the practices to be challenged. In order to overcome the barriers put in place by the athletes and administrators, coaches may have to prove themselves to be adept at using the more orthodox methods associated with the culture of the sport or activity. By working adeptly within the orthodoxy the coaches may gain the credibility to enable them to experiment with so-called 'alternative' methods. However, gaining this credibility may take some time. Even when coaches feel that the athletes and administrators may be open to some experimentation in relation to methods it is still wise to tread slowly and carefully as the latter two groups have been socialized into what it means to be a coach and therefore have certain expectations. If expectations are challenged 'overnight', it is possible that coaches could experience a degree of resistance. To reduce the possibility of resistance occurring it is useful for coaches to explain why they doing what they are doing. It is also good practice to introduce the 'new' method in only one activity at a time, to allow athletes and administrators the opportunity to become used to the different expectations placed upon them, and to feel comfortable about having different expectations of the coach. References Kidman, L. (2001). Developing Decision Makers: An Empowerment Approach to Coaching. Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Press. Kirk, D., Nauright, J., Hanrahan, S., Macdonald, D. and Jobling, I. (1996). The Sociocultural Foundations of Human Movement. Melbourne: Macmillan. Lyle, J. (2002). Sports Coaching Concepts. A Framework for Coaches' Behaviour. London: Routledge. Siedentop, D. and Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education. 4th edn, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Tinning, R., Kirk, D. and Evans, J. (1993). Learning to Teach Physical Education, London: Prentice Hall. Read More