Critically review the premise of using sport psychology with children and young people in sport.

Introduction and rationale

In modern coaching practice the concept of sport psychology within the setting of children is already considered to be an option.  Empowerment, coaching pedagogy and psychology of learning are all offered as tools which a coach can use.  To answer the question in the title, sports psychology is all ready being used within coaching practice of children. The argument could be how much sport psychology should be used by with children and young people in sport.  As current literature has shown, sport has a negative perception on the use of psychology.  Many barriers have arrived, including financial constraint; playing experience; trust and fear to use a sport psychologist, are just a few.  However the Football Association has been operating its ‘psychology for football’ strategy.  The aim of which, was to increase the awareness and application of sport psychology within youth academies.  The strategy is part of a long – term development of players and coaches in England.

Predominately using sport psychology with children and young people can be initiated by a coach.  Children and young people when involved in sport will have a coach majority of the time, whether it comes in the form of a P.E. lesson or an after school club. 

There are many ways psychology can portrayed in sport and the role it plays within a sporting practice. Gill (2007:1) describes sports psychology as a discipline with sport science that demonstrates the study of human behaviour in sport and the practical application of the knowledge required to understand that sport. A connection with the roles a coach plays within a sport may also be identified. Traditionally, a coach has a prescribed number of roles, which typically includes a planned, coordinated and integrated program of athlete preparation (Lyle, 2002). The mental preparation and learning plays a dominant part in preparing a training program or practice session. Traditionally, coaching-related research has been rooted in the principal sport science fields, with psychology in particular being considered its parent discipline (Gilbert and Trudel, 2004). This continues to be the case, although its appreciation as both a critical sociological and pedagogical concept has begun to challenge the tendency to portray it in terms of single variables and unproblematic models. The role of sport psychologists can be revealed by Bull (1991) as: practical consultancy; psychological support; performance enhancement training; team-building and social development; lifestyle management training; dealing with injury and coach education. Due to the range of duties a sport psychologist can perform, it becomes easier to make misconceptions regarding to the nature of a consultation. Thus the FA has created a ‘Psychology Football Strategy’ to increase awareness within professional clubs (Pain & Harwood, 2004). However this development evidently fails to address the psychological needs of the player and instead demonstrates the negative perceptions football coaches have of sport psychology.

Children and young people may also come into contact with sport psychology in the P.E. lessons. Traditionally coaching has being viewed as training and attainment of skills, compared to teaching which has been seen to be about the total development of the individual (Jones, 2006). ‘P.E. is essentially an educational process, whereas the focus in sport is on activity’ (Capel, 2000; 137).  Hargreaves (2001) argues that schools are largely governed by a curriculum that is designed around teaching. 

However recent interview data from elite coaches, has demonstrated that they view their role not as physical trainers but as educators (Jones et al 2004). E.G. British Lions rugby coach Ian McGeecan talks about a learning environment to ‘grow players’. Similarly Graham Taylor suggests that ‘coaching really is a form of teaching’ as it primarily involves communicating, learning, and maintaining positive relationships with those being taught (Jones et al 2004:21).  The concepts of Learning environments, learning discourse and relationships all play a part in sport psychology. The relationship between coaching and teaching is vital to the understanding of learning and the psychological needs of children.  As both Jones and Capel have highlighted there are similar characteristics regarding developing individuals mentally.

 
Discussion and reviewing the evidence

Sports psychology can be defined in many different ways.  In light of a connection between sport psychology and coaching Rejeski and Brawley, (1983, p.239) define the educational, scientific and professional contribution of psychology to the promotion, maintenance and enhancements of sport related behaviour.  Thus underpinning a planning process to help athletes best prepare for there sports. The AAASP support Rejeski and Brawley by defining the roles of a sport psychologist as teaching participants specific cognitive, behavioural, psychosocial, and affective skills for application in exercise, physical activity, and sport contexts. Such teaching could focus, for example, on relaxation, concentration, imagery, or moral reasoning.  Understanding how children learn and then implanting the chosen theory, demonstrates how psychology is used in learning environments that are direct or indirect.  Coaching is a cognitive activity that requires practitioners to make decisions based upon a multitude of dynamic situational factors (Jones et al., 2003).  The role of sport psychology already is demonstrated by a coach himself and not directly on the children he or she coaches.  Thus sport psychology affects both the coach and the child because their connection in personal development.  The coach uses the child to develop themselves, which is demonstrated by the development of the child. A mutual relationship in development is created and sport psychology is a factor.

Psychology of learning is demonstrated by coaches when their players “experiment”.  This active experimentation should be encouraged and children in sport should be allowed to make mistakes and for coaches to create a supportive environment whereby mistakes are seen as learning opportunities.  However as highlighted by Piggot (2007) only a few open – minded coaches are likely to change their philosophy.  The reasoning behind this logic is supported on the assumption that any coaching philosophy should be backed up by a pedagogical theory.  This must be linked in an understanding of how young people learn: a psychological theory of learning.  As Wikeley and bullock (2006) have demonstrated ‘coaching requires an understanding of the complex business of how people learn.’ This can also be supported by figure 1. created by Piggot (2007).  How people learn, is very important in developing a coaching philosophy and coaches use psychological tools booth to aid their coaching styles and to integrate their knowledge of learning concepts.

As Noted by Wikeley and Bullock (2006) there is no consensus on how people learn.  However there are three theories cited in current literature though they actually refer to slightly different aspects of learning. Cognitive psychology relates to the idea of human perception, thought and memory and learners are seen as active processors of information.  Cognitive approaches tend to scrutinize internal mental structures and see learning as transforming those structures (Brockbank & Magill, 2007): Behavioural psychology emphasises the outward behavioural aspects of learning and dismisses the inward process (Allpress, 2006). In a behaviourist approach, learning should be progressed step by step building on previously learned material (Armitage et al., 2007). There is an association between the stimulus and the response: While humanists change the ethics of teaching and learning.  Humanists however do not help answer the question thus will be ignored.

 

The two theories of cognitive psychology and behavioural psychology will be contrasted due to their roles in coaching.  The cognitive theory depicts the learner as a bucket (Popper, 1981).  A bucket described as an empty vessel where information can be poured in.  The information received by the child or young person is connecting in the brain and stimulus – responses (S-R) bonds are formed.  For example, a centre half might be taking part in a practice that requires them to receive a long pass from a full back then deliver a long pass into the penalty area for an on rushing striker.  According to the ‘bucket theory, they learn by creating links between the parts of information they receive: in relation to the example, the flight and direction of the pass and the movement they make to control the ball.  If they were to control the ball successfully, it would be noted that the S – R bond is strengthened and that learning has occurred.  The centre half may then turn (open there body) and analysis the area in front on him or her and see the striker making a run behind the oppositions centre half.  They play a long pass perfectly and a goal is scored: and again the S – R bonds are strengthened, (S) observing the run made by the centre forward and (R) long pass.  The more occasions a player successfully completes a series of skills or techniques, the stronger the S – R bonds become and it can be seen that they have ‘learned well’ or become ‘skilled’ at a particular task (e.g.  Receiving and passing the ball).

 

A fundamental error to note is that some people do not simply receive information from their environment.  If this were the case, how would a player know in which direction to look to see the all coming, or which foot to rise in order to control the ball successfully?  According to Pooper (1981), people actively construct a ‘toy’ environment in the brain based on expectations about the world around them.  This internal environment helps the player to direct their attention and is accurate enough for the player to act with confidence consistently.  This is the truth underpinning the ‘searchlight’ theory.  Here the learner is active rather than passive, guided by expectation which metaphors as the searchlight, highlighting possible solutions to problems in the environment.

 

An example would be, a young midfield player analysing the field ahead of them.  Their gaze is directed to the expected position their team – mates will be running into; the section of pass is based on the expectation that a through ball played on the deck, given the position of defenders and the run on the striker, will lead to a goal scoring opportunity.  This is a tentative potential solution to the problem they are confronted with, based on expectations which are, in turn, based on prior experiences.  Only by trying out a solution can they know if it was the right decision.  Poppler (1981), goes on to describe that people are creative animals who learn from making and testing ideas and solutions in the environment (Figure3 above demonstrates R = successful results and N = negative results).  By eliminating the false theories and retaining the successful ones, it becomes possible to learn from previous mistakes.

Implications for coaches (referring to figure 1) to change their philosophy and coaching practice is guided by some type of pedagogical stance.  The searchlight theory assumes their players are problem solvers with the capacity to learn from their own errors would adopt a different coaching style compared to the coach who adopts the bucket theory.  The searchlight theory coaching session would be structured around problems.  Changes to the environment and techniques challenges players to solve the task.  The coach encourages creativity and novel solutions and players would be allowed time and space to make mistakes – as long as they were not repeating the same ones.  Allpress (2006, explained the implications: “Coaches are not there primarily to show or tell players what they know; they are there to create environments for learning that challenge the players...” Allpress further noted that experimenting helps develop creativity, innovation and inventiveness.  However when an athlete chooses to experiment, possible mistakes are made.

Sport and physical activity offer a range of experiences for children, while increasing their self – esteem and decreasing their stress (Karoly, 1993).  Gilman (2001) suggests that structured sport was associated with higher life satisfaction among youth, and increase in participation lead to an increase in life satisfaction.  As subjective well – being or happiness has long been considered a central component to optimal development and a good life (Park, 2004), these results demonstrate the additional role of sport involvement in youths’ positive development.

 

The negative and psychological outcomes of youth sport have earned considerable attention in youth sport literature in recent years.  Wankel and Mummery (1990) highlighted that youth often feel excessive pressure to win, perceive themselves a s having poor abilities, feel unattached to their teams, and feel vulnerable in the pre – sense of team mates.  These experiences have lead youth to under go low self – confidence and low self – esteem (Martens, 1993).  Athletic burn out is another psychological concern that has gained the attention (Coakley, 1992).   Within modern research, there is some disagreement on the nature of athletic burnout.  Smith (1986, P.37) describes burnout as a psychological, emotional and at times physical withdrawal from a formerly pursued and enjoyed activity, while Coakly (1992) argues that social organisations of high performance sport, rather than individual stress – based problems are responsible for athlete burnout.

The use of sport psychology can be formed in many different methods, creating different results in different situations. Three important areas of the distribution of sport psychology have been identified by figure 4.

Has discussed earlier, a football coach would use indirect, informal and non conscious means of psychology.  Where as, a sport psychologist employed by a football club would lean towards a direct, formal, conscious method.  However, the figure demonstrates flexibility in methods of using sport psychology.  For example, a sport psychologist could use a more indirect, formal and non conscious method, when dealing with a specific developing age group.

As shown in figure 6, Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development, stage three to five represent the general age children start their participation in sport, to the end of their childhood ‘18’, where they are legally adults.  The psychosocial theory is best suited to answering the question due to its similarity to the use of methods in psychology (figure4).  Together both models create guidelines which sport psychologists should follow when dealing with children.  Not necessarily a code of conduct but formalising the informal methods of sport psychology with children. That will have an impact of potential barriers surrounding fear, team politics and changing beliefs about sport psychology.

The chosen methods may also reflect the negative perception place on the discipline.  Pain and Harwood (2004) highlight important negative perceptions of psychology in sport.  These perceptions are: Lack of psychological knowledge, relationship with the players, coaching, practical complaints and perceived value of psychology.  All these findings share the potential barriers when using sport psychology with children. 

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

Players learn through creating cautious solutions to problems, based on expectations about the environment and eliminating those that are unsuccessful.  If the search light theory of learning is accepted by coaches, it means they should react in a way as to facilitate this process.  As mentioned earlier, the best way to demonstrate this is to let young people and children in sport to make mistakes and learn from errors.  In practice the coach is setting problems rather than telling players ‘the answer’ and replacing repetitive drills with conditional games and activities that encourage creative problem solving.  Thus the coach is undertaking a psychologist role by understanding the way young people and children learn through sport and applying their knowledge to a practical that develops their understanding of that sport.  Jones (2006) best describes this coaching transformation as a shift from ‘omniscient dictator’ to ‘orchestrator’ or ‘more capable other’ (Potrac and Cassidy,2006).

Despite the continued success of sport psychology across sport, negative connotations of the field still exist.  Particularly in sports that tend to resist change, for example football.  If the FA’s psychology strategy can deliver the appropriate education to the football community in England, and if consultants can continue to demonstrate their worth within challenging culture of football, it could be possible that the barriers will begin to be overcome.

The first major practical outcome of the FA’s psychology strategy has been launch of training course designed to introduce the concept of sports psychology to football coaches, parents and players.  The FA’s understand the properties of a sport psychologist could benefit the development of children in football. This can be applied to all sports.  To benefit sport with children, Allpress (2006) and Piggot (2007) best describe how methods of coaching can change to accommodate the needs of children and understanding how they learn.  Learning theory and methods of how psychology can be used in sport, creates option for coaches, sports clubs and even parents and teachers to help develop young people and children in sports psychosocial skills.  To better deal with the negative perception sport psychology in sport, the code of conduct needs to be better understood from sports clubs.  As highlighted by Pain and Harwood (2004), a lack of knowledge of sport psychology appears to underpin some of the most significant barriers.  If sports clubs had a better understanding of the roles and ethical issues within the code of conduct, perhaps they would feel safer to be open to the use of sport psychology.

The important concepts in sport psychology are already in place within sports.  The methods vary, however the purpose is the same within all sports regarding children.  To develop their psychosocial need as highlighted by Erikson and to ‘grow players and coach’, sport psychology can continue to develop new practices around the needs of children with sporting environments.

 References

Allpress, J. (2006) Smart Coaching: Managing Mistakes to the Players’ Advantage! Insight: The F.A. Coaches association Journal, spring and Summer.

Armitage, A, Bryant, R, Dunnill, R, Renwick, M., Hayes, D, Hudson, A, Kent, J, & Lawes, S. (2007) Teaching and training in post-compulsory education 2nd edition (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Brockbank, A. & Magill, I. (2007) Facilitating reflective learning in higher education, Second Edition (London, Open University Press).

Bull (1991) Sport Psychology: A Self-Help Guide. Brighton: Sports Dynamics

_ Bull, S.J., Albinson, J.G. and Shambrook, C.J. (1996) The Mental Game Plan: Getting Psyched for Sport. Cheltenham: Sports Dynamics.

Capel, S. (2000) Physical education and sport, in S. Capel and S. Piotrowski (Eds.) Issues in Physical Education, London: Routledge, pp. 131-143.

Coakley, J. J. (1992) Burnout among adolescent athletes: a personal failure or social problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271–285.

Gilbert, W and Trudel, P (2004) The role of the coach: How model youth team sport coaches frame their roles. The Sport Psychologist 18, 21-43.

Gilman, R. (2001) The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent students, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 749–767.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056–1080.

Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. & Potrac, P. (2003) Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a top-level professional soccer coach, Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 213-229.

Jones, R. And Turner, P. (2006) Teaching coaches to coach holistically; can Problem Based Learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11 (2), 181 – 202.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view. Annual Review of Psychology,44, 23–52.

Lyle, J (2002) Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. London:

Routledge.

 

Martens, R. (1993) Psychological perspectives, in: B. R. Cahill & A. J. Pearl (Eds) Intensive participation in children’s sports (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 9–18.

Pain, m. & Harwood, C. (2004) Knowledge and perceptions of sport psychology within English soccer, Journal of sports science,2004,22, 813 - 826

 

Park, N. (2004) The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25–39.

 

Piggot, D. (2007) The psychology of “managing mistakes”: some implications for coaches and managers, Lecturer in Sports Coaching and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.

 

Popper, K. R. (1981) Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Potrac P, & Cassidy, T. (2006) The coach as „more capable other‟, in: R.L. Jones (Ed) The sports coach as educator re-conceptualising sports coaching (London, Routledge) pp.39-50.

Rejeski, W. J., & Brawley, L. R. (1983). Attribution theory in sport: Current status and new perspectives. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 77–99.

Smith, R. E. (1986) Towards a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout, Journal of Sport

Psychology, 8, 36–50.

Wankel, L. M. & Mummery,W. K. (1990) The psychological and social benefits of sport and physical activity, Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 167–182.

Wikeley, F. & Bullock, K. (2006) Coaching as an educational relationship, in: R. L. Jones (Ed) The sports coach as educator: reconceptualising sports coaching (Abingdon, Routledge).

 

Websites:

www.sportscoachuk.com

http://irs.sagepub.com/

www.humankinetics.com/TSP/journalAbout.cfm

 

 

The Inverted Pitch

The Inverted Pitch.

Just a taste of my consultancy work.

Any enquiries please contact myself at johnnyhy@yahoo.co.uk

RESEARCH PROPOSAL: Could video analysis explore reflective practice within coach development within football?

In the summer of 2006 Stuart Pearce (England Under 21 Head Coach) was quoted “Players need to have access to quality coaches, coaches WHO have the mentality of self improvement. If we can become better teachers of the game, we will produce better players’’. Today the Coaching structure within the Football association has developed, and offers more detailed coaching qualifications with coaching specific age groups. This has developed the coaching pathway.  However there is no current support system in place to benefit coaching development. Central to the FA national faculty is the desire to help coaches become effective learners. Claxton (2005) characterises an effective leaner as one who:

1. takes risks,
2. persists with difficulty,
3. learning from drafts and mistakes
4. ask searching questions
5. tries things out and dig  for understanding
6. make connections with previous learning
7. think clearly
8. use imagination; i.e. both strategic and opportunist
9. learn alone or with others.

 

These characteristics all relate to the change that is necessary in order to grow as a coach. Coach educators must move beyond traditional education structures and processes to embrace what other professionals already recognize, namely that reflection has to be actively developed to maximise learning.   

 

Lyle (2002) also highlights that coach education must create opportunities for developing coaches:

That will enable the coach:

• to move beyond existing practice
• to innovate
• to experiment
• to adapt
• to reflect
• to build underpinning knowledge and skills for the requirements of ‘higher levels’ of coaching

There are many similarities between Claxton’s characteristics of effective learning and Lyle’s desired opportunities for coaches.  Current research demonstrates a lack of clarity in different means of learning.

Smith (2004), in his generic tutor training manual, provides a structured guide for effective learning. The guide includes the notion ‘learning to learn’. Along with this is the developing concept of empowering the coach to become strategically aware of one’s own learning.  Consequently there is a strong emphasis on the coach to understand and value in particular the processes related to critical reflection.  This understanding may come in different forms of learning.  Within sport Reflection has become a widely used tool to help understanding and development, and is utilised to evaluate personal performance.

Reflective practice can show its importance in Blooms taxonomy (1956) of learning objectives.  Resulting in evaluation and critique, this is placed at the highest educational objective.  In contrast Biggs (1999) aligns the process of reflection to the highest extended abstract level of learning, often described as deep learning.  Although Bloom and Biggs agree that reflection should be placed at the ‘highest’ order, it is Briggs who highlights that it is a method of learning and not necessarily an objective.  Reflection is far more personal than just an objective, and there are many characteristics that are highlighted in Claxton (2005) that demonstrate similar characteristics involved within coaching pedagogy. Lives, social and cultural contexts, personal experiences, philosophies and professional practice are all interrelated in formations that challenge our traditional perception of coaching practice.  Jones (2006) describes coaching pedagogy as four interlinked elements of coaching, learning, knowledge base and learning environment. This element matches the characteristics of an effective learner (Claxton, 2005) and combined with the empowerment of self learning (Smith, 2004), makes reflective practice a valuable idea.  This is because the process of ‘sifting’ and ‘sorting’ to make sense of personalised learning.

The effectiveness of coach education programmes has been identified as a key factor in the development of quality coaches.  In recent years strategic appraisals of coaching and coach education have contributed to the emergence of national benchmarks / standards for practice in amateur to elite coaches.  In a study by Knowles et al (2006) six NGB coach education programmes were examined to ascertain whether they actively attempted to develop either reflective or critical thinking skills in coaches and thereby maximising experiential learning (figure1.)

	Appearance of Categories  in   Programmes
Theme	Category	NGB-A	NGB-B	NGB-C	NGB-D	NGB-E	NGB-F
Aims and learning outcomes	Reflection/ reflective skills				*		*
Content	Evaluation of sessions Underpinning concepts of reflection Teaching reflective skills	*	*	*	*	*	*
Subject focus	Technical content of sessions Values and beliefs	*	*	*	*	*	*
Programme activities	Logged coaching experience Mentoring		*		*		*
Knowledge bases	Underpinning concepts of knowledge					*	*

(Figure1.  Knowles, 2006)

In terms of programme subject and content it was clear that primary curriculum emphasis was on delivery of technical information, development of sport specific technical skills and evaluation of specific sessions.  Programmes focused on the evaluation of sessions and programmes, which specific attention being direct to session construction and technical content.   Issues of value and belief about coaching, which can have an immense impact upon practice, were not dealt with in any programme apart from discussions of coaching philosophy within lower level coaching awards (Knowles et al 2006).  As identified in the FA level 2 Coaching Award, it’s all about the session, technique and skill and nothing on reflection or how to reflect or develop as a coach.  This supports previous observations by Abraham and Collins (1998).  Equally, Miles (2001) noted that the advent of the competency – based NVQ process in coach education has increased emphasis on the importance of what coaches should be able to do rather than focusing on what they should know.

The use of conceptual models of reflection (Gibbs 1988), to underpin reflection is usual. These models depict the characteristics and process of reflection, enable the practitioner to ‘know’ what it means to reflect, and yet such models are not used in coaching programs. A failure to provide an underpinning structure to support experimental learning is unlikely to allow coaches to explore the nuances of their own practice, access and develop tacit knowledge and be creative in their application of sport specific technical knowledge.  Cox (2005) describes reflection as a widely employed tool to aid understanding and development and is utilized by coaches to evaluate personal performance.  Reflection is a development in accessing experience within coaching.  As a tool, reflection supports the learning process as demonstrated by Gilbert and Trudel (2004).  It could be justified that coach reflection is better suited to novice or inexperienced coaches to benefit their learning development. However what Current research fails to highlight is the link between coaching pedagogy with reflective practice to enhance coaches thinking at all levels.  Anderson et al. (2004) suggests that reflective process requires the practitioner to be questioning his or her practice while examining each component in detail.  Coaching is about teaching and learning.  This can easily be applied to the coaching environment.  Byra (1996) utilised video reflection of personal teaching practice within the education of pre service physical education teachers. Byra identified a greater depth of analysis was presented rather than a simple description of the performance.  Video has also been used to explore the cognitive aspects of coaching.  However even with the data analysis of the video, it is the pedagogy that surrounds the tool that creates an environment for the growth of coaches.

Jones (2005) summary of coaching pedagogy as a concept of multidimensional and connective and centrally about learning justifies Andersons empower of self learning. 

There are a number of methods and theories related to the process of reflection.  Gibbs’ cyclical model identifies six stages within a progressive structure, while Hoover (1994) suggested a number of specific questions that would encourage sport coaches to initiate reflective practice.  Other methods of reflection include journal writing; mentoring support; shared learning experiences and initiated learning experiences.  All methods share a common aim to facilitate self – development.  Research has found that good coaches act like good teachers, as they care about those whom they have responsibility and constantly engage in reflection on what they do and how they do it (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). This suggests that athlete learning as opposed to mechanistic performance is at the heart of coaching and therefore pedagogy should play a role in preparing coaches.  Cox (2005) describes professional growth and increased understanding of personal performance can be developed through the utilization of reflective process.  Both Growth and understanding are concepts used within coaching pedagogy. Coaches create environments to ‘grow player’ (British lions rugby coach Ian McGeecan) and this theory can also be used to nurture coaches of any level of experiences.  Coaching pedagogy better allows coaches to understand the environment they create to facilitate a players learning.  Without this facilitation the relationship between player and learning becomes distant.  There is a direct relationship between a coach ‘learning to learn’ (Smith, 2004) and using reflective practice to best understand how a player or an athlete’s learns.

Rather than ignoring or avoiding specific instances that have occurred within a practice, reflection encourages the coach to resolve the issues and to work through a process either to remove debilitating practice or increase facilitative practice.  Anderson et al (2004) proposed that reflection on decisions and experiences augments the understanding and learning process of the practitioner.

Learning is a broad and complicated subject. It is a contested topic ranging from three key theories: behaviourism, cognitivism and social/constructivism.  Thus there is no all encompassing learning theory in which to base coach development on.  Approaches to coach learning remain largely uninformed. Most learning is undertaken within a cluster of ideas or experiences.  All theories of learning are based on assumptions concerning the individual, the world and the relationship between the two (Jarvis, 2004).

Behavioural theorist suggests that if an individual enjoys the sport coaching and competition environments they are more likely to continue to participate and succeed within them. Creating a rewarding and enjoyable climate would then appear to bean an important element of good coaching. However what constitutes as enjoyable and rewarding will not be the same for everyone. In behavioural learning theory, new skills are taught or shaped through a series of small reinforcing steps towards the final desired action (Walker and Shea, 1999) E.G. when teaching a grounded pass to complete beginners, the coach would not simply demonstrate the full pass and wait until it is performed perfectly to reinforce the learner. Rather the coach would first reinforce the correct position of the foot (Instep), then the stance, and then the contact point and so on until the complete strike is performed. Therefore the individuals’ technique is being improved by reinforcing the individual steps towards the final goal. Applying this theory to sporting context is not easy. E.G. what acts as a reinforce for one person may be a punisher for another. Previous experience from significant others (Parents, friends etc) may also play a part in the individuals response to praise and criticism.

These considerations and others may affect the coaches’ application of behavioural theory. Subsequently it is only through knowledge of individuals and situation variables, along with reflection on previous experience that the best coaches learn to adopt the most effective behaviours and strategies to suit different coaching situations.

Social learning theory accepts most of the principles of behavioural theories but concentrates more on observational learning or modelling (Bandura, 1986). Although it is relevant to athlete learning, it has to date been more common cited as an explanation of how coaches develop their own coaching methods and style. I this later respect, it is akin to serving an apprenticeship (Cassedy et al, 2004).  In relation to the teaching and learning relationship, Bandura (1986) describes modelling as a four stage process: attention, retention, motor production and motivation. In the attention stage, the best coaches position themselves appropriately for the group, communicate effectively whilst focusing on a few key coaching points, and demonstrate several times whilst letting the learners know exactly what to look for ( Weinberg & Gould, 2003). The second stage of retention involves memorising the observed act, which might include mental practice or question and answer by the coach to help the learners remember the key points. Physical practice is then required for an effective motor reproduction stage, so that individuals learn to coordinate their muscle actions with their thoughts. In order for this phase to be effective, skill progression and optimal practice time is required. The final stage is motivation, without which the other phases will not be effective. This involves the learners imitating a model because they believe it will it will increase their chances of gaining success.  Self regulation is another important concept in social learning theory (Schunk, 20099). According to Bandura (1977a) people consider their own behaviour, judge it against their own standards and reinforce or punish themselves accordingly. In order to achieve this we need an expectation of our own performance. Coaches can foster self regulation by getting athletes to set self referenced goals before and during competition and training sessions (Ames, 1992b). Such goals could be to improve performance of a particular technique or skill, or to reduce the number of errors made. Thus, self regulation involves thought process and begins to bridge the gap between the behavioural perspective and the constructivist approach to learning.

There is compromise of opinion that we do not learn by receiving passively and then recalling what we are taught. Instead, learning involves actively constructing our own meaning linked to what we already know. Constructivist learning theory draws heavily on the work of Piaget (1896-1980) and Vygotsky (1978), both of whom argued that a process of disequilibrium in the light of new information is required in order for effective learning to take place (Slavin 2003).

Hammond (2004) ascertained that performance analysis techniques utilised to develop athletic performance were also beneficial to sports coaching.  Coaches use video analysis to benefit their players learning experience; the same method could be used to aid a coaches learning experience.

Franks and miller (1991) identification that coaches are less than 45% correct in post - performance analysis and feedback therefore use of video analysis can be greatly supportive in reflective practice.  In general post – performance reflection could be based on only partial information and as a result vital information maybe lost or overlooked.  Most literature discussing the use of video analysis within reflective practice has encouraged the analysis of experienced performers and neglects the benefits of personal experience.

To conclude coaching is about teaching and learning; key pedagogical concepts, theories and research can easily be applied to the coaching environment.  Jones and Turner (2006) suggest that any coach education program should be based on improving the participants’ ability to deal with the dynamic nature of coaching. Although greater knowledge of the coaching process allows more detailed analysis, the use of video analysis demonstrates important strengths and weaknesses of practice.  The development of technology to assist coach development is increasing and online resources being used as coaching aids or tools to improve their coaching performance.  The ability to analysis and reflect accurately, should allow for better cognitive understanding of the coaching process. 

Video has also been used to explore the cognitive aspects of coaching, however even with the data analysis of the video; it is the pedagogy that surrounds the tool that creates an environment for growth of coaches.

Although it has been suggested that individuals learn most in a constructivist way, it is important to acknowledge that good coaching practice also draws on many aspects of behaviourist and social learning theories, particularly in the feedback and evaluation process. Similarly the best coaches draw upon a range of learning theories and from both reproductive and productive teaching styles to achieve their learning outcomes in successfully dealing with different coaching scenarios.

The key message is that coaches should continually evaluate their sessions within a broad pedagogical theoretical framework which will enable them to become more reflective practitioners.

 A statement of the research question.

After analysing current research surrounding coach development within football, reflective practice act as indirect, informal and a conscious method of learning.  As highlighted by Knowles (2005) only two from six national governing bodies demonstrate a formalised method of reflective practice within its curriculum.  Hoover (1994), considers that writing about solving problem improves the whole process of problem solving.  Indeed, Connolly and Clandinin (1994) contend that reading and writing one’s own narrative of practice helps us arrive at a deeper understanding of ourselves and our own practice.  However neither authors recognise the use of video analysis to benefit there development.  Hammond (2004) encourages the use of video within reflective practice, in order to encourage a more ‘holistic’ evaluation of the instructional process.  Watkins, Carnell, Lodge and Whalley (2001) developed the notion of meta – learning i.e. making sense of one’s experiences of learning.  Combing a method of formal education with personal coaching experiences and using a method of notational analysis, Can resolve the problem surrounding casual conclusions.  Brewer et al. (1993) suggests that retrospective approaches can be influenced by the event outcomes achieved, leading to a vague and bias conclusion being made. 
 Figure2. What is known and where are the gaps?

Active experimentation should be encouraged and coaches in sport should be allowed to make mistakes to create a supportive environment whereby mistakes are seen as learning opportunities.  Figure two highlights a brief paragraphs on what is known about issues surrounding reflective practice (In blue writing), compared to the gaps in current research (in purple writing).  The relationship between athlete and coach is mutual when regarding to development.  Allpress (2006), explained: “Coaches are not there primarily to show or tell players what they know; they are there to create environments for learning that challenge the players...” If Coaches facilitate their own learning environment where by the player is challenged, should ensure both occupational and individual standards are achieved. 

 

Epistemological position

Constructivism of Constructionism.

The aim of the interview is to gather knowledge from previous experience to create a meaning around notational analysis and how it could benefit reflective practice.

Theoretical Perspective

Interpretivism Phenomenology

Phenomenology is concerned with the study of experience from the  perspective of the individual (Lester, 1999, p1).

However, as stated by Hycner (1999, p. 143), a potential problem with phenomenolgy, it can focus on specific steps. 

Methodological approach

Phenomenological research

Pure phenomenological research seeks essentially to describe rather than explain, and to start from a perspective free from hypotheses or preconceptions (Husserl 1970).

How would a coach see the use of notational analysis on their practice?

Phenomenological research can be robust in highlighting the presence of factors and their effects in coach’s individual cases.

Method

Semi –structured interviews with a list of key themes, issues, and questions to be covered. Purpose sampling ensured a representative group of participants that included the manager and coach of the football club.  The target for the sampling strategy was to maximise the variation (Patton, 2000) in the sampling by selecting participants who had a wide range of experience at an elite level of football.

While identify that the goal of this study was not generalisability, by adding variability into the sampling the potential for a range of opinions to emerge was optimised.

Ethical issues and how they will be managed

In conducting interviews, ethical issues are one of the major issues. Confidentiality must be given. Respondents “should not be harmed or damaged in any way by the research … It is also important that interviews are not used as a devious means of selling something to the respondent” (Gray, 2004 p. 235). If respondents are nervous and become distress, the interview can be cancelled or postponed. The following is a list of some of the issues and suggested ethical solutions (Patton, 2000, p. 404-5 and Gray, 2004 p. 235).

• Explain purpose. Explain the purpose of the inquiry interview and the relationship with the purpose to football.

• Promises and reciprocity. State what the respondent will gain from the research and the knowledge they have to add to the study.

• Risk assessment. Consider in what ways the interview might put the respondent at risk in terms of stress, legal liabilities, ostracism or political repercussion.

• Confidentiality. Reflect on the extent to which promises of confidentiality can be met. All transcripts or tape messages should be erased or destroyed post research

• Inform consent. The respondent should agree to and sign a consent form before starting the interview

• Data access and ownership. Evaluate who has the right to access data and for what purpose.  In the case of research state in the consent the purpose of the study and that should clarify ownership of the data to the researcher.

• Mental health. Consider how interviewer and interviewee mental health may be affected by conducting the interview.  Personal question should be taking into account and the interviewer should not probe too deep into the coaches past experiences of their personal life.

• Advice. Appoint an adviser on ethical matters during the course of the study.  And question regarding ethical issues, a consultation with my tutor will be made to solve such issue.

• Data collection boundaries. What lengths will you go to in trying to gain access to data you want? What won’t you do? 

• How hard will you push interviewees to respond to questions about which they show some discomfort?

When an interview has been completed and is considered a good interview, the respondents should know more about themselves and their situation. However, the researcher must remember that the purpose of research is to collect data and not to change the respondents or their opinions (Gray, 2004 p. 235).

Participant recruitment / sampling procedures

The target for the sampling strategy was to maximise the variation (Patton, 1990) by selecting participants who had a wide range of experience at an elite level of football combined with a range of coaching at different levels. However coaches were selected due to their involvement within a football academy. 

While identifying that the goal of this study was not generalisability, by adding variability into the sampling the potential for a range of opinions to emerge was optimised.

The sample of coaching staff (n= 3) had a mean age of 40 years and 20 years of experience coaching at an elite level.  The coaches who are currently still playing (n= 3) had a mean age of 21.5 and had 6 years of elite level experience.  Informed consent was received from participants before proceeding with data collection.

Methods of data collection

Data was collected using qualitative methods, namely a interview.  Within the introduction of the interview guide, the researcher explained the purpose of the interview, and how the results might be used.  Reassurance of confidentiality and the participants’ rights to drop out at any time were explained.  The questions contained within the protocol were formed from a review of the available literature (in particular Krueger and Casey, 2006).  Coach interview protocol varied in certain respects and these are described below.

Coaches were asked to talk about their past experiences and how they perceive video analysis. The topics that were talked about from a coaches’ perspective were classified into three Sections:

1. Resources and background knowledge surrounding video analysis (e.g. when did you first hear about the use of video analysis within football?  What do you feel is the scope for using video analysis in the academy?’).
2. The content and delivery of video analysis services (e.g. ‘how much is video analysis used within the academy? How would you use video analysis to benefit your coaching practice?’).
3. The effectiveness of video analysis (e.g. ‘to what extent do you feel that video analysis helps the coach to perform better?  In what way, if any, does the video analysis help or hinder you as a coach?’).

Coaches who still play football followed a similar protocol in which individual’s performance was also explored (‘well, do you feel like that pressurised you to perform?  Earlier you said about yourself being ‘in their shoes’. How did you think that improves the understanding of the player’s perception of a coach and how would that impact your performance?’).

One pilot interview with a coach educator was conducted to gain experience in controlling topics and probing in order to gain more specific examples.  Feedback was also received, concerning content of the topics in the interview conversation.

Research phases

Interviews were conducted at the end of the football season 2009/10.  In line of the overall sampling strategy, coaches were chosen with over 5 years of experience in elite football to give a range of coaching styles, club philosophies and environments.  The coaches also selected, undertook their coaching qualifications at the London FA.  Therefore they had trust within the coaching organisation and could also build a quick rapport. 

The interviews were loosely structured and lasted from 20 to 30 minutes.  Interviewees were told that the purpose of the interview was to discuss the factors influencing video analysis to facilitate a coaches’ education.  In both interview groups, probing questions (‘how would you deal with the situation?  How would that make you feel?’), clarification probes (‘I don’t quite get it, tell me again? What do you mean by…?’), and elaboration probes (‘Tell me more about that?’) were used to determine true opinions and to ensure that responses obtained were as consistent as possible in terms of depth and complexity (Patton, 1990).  Although interviewing in person is preferable, the geographical spread of the participants and their other commitments made these difficult to schedule.  Telephone interviews are accepted as an alternative and suitable methods (Marcus and Crane,1986) and one of the four interviews were conducted in this manner.  The interviewee gave their verbal consent to have the interview recorded and confidentiality was assured.  The interview lasted 15 minutes.  The interview was conducted by a male who was trained in qualitative research methodology, had 5 years experience at playing elite football and was a UEFA B qualified football coach.

Methods of data analysis

The interviews were video recorded, transcribed, and content analysed using the procedures recommended by Patton (1990) for inductive content analysis. 

The process involves organising raw data into interpretable and meaningful themes and categories that emerge from quotations (Patton, 1990).  In the present study, the primary researcher first coded themes using a priori code based on the research objective: explore the use of video analysis as a reflective tool within football.

These raw data themes were clustered around underlying uniformities from which first – order of themes then emerged.  Common second - order themes were then identified and the hierarchical induction continued until it was no longer possible to create a new level of thematic representation.  The highest – level themes were labelled as general dimensions. 

In view of the researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation, the analysis process was inevitably influenced by preconceived ideas and values (Rees and Hardy, 2000).

Finally deductive analysis was performed to check the validity of the inductive process by rereading the transcripts, while keeping the higher order themes in mind to ensure they were all present.  The credibility of the findings would be assessed by checking through feedback given to national coaches at follow – up meetings.

While this study has engaged in consensus validation techniques in order to satisfy qualitative validity criteria (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990), it is believed that the reader should also be given the opportunity to interpret the data in a way that may be more meaningful to them (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003).  Consequently, the findings are reported using a combination of hierarchical content trees and direct quotes from the focus group transcripts.  This is to enable the reader to empathise with, and immerse their selves in, the participants’ perceptions and thereby better understand the complexity of the issues being investigated.  

References

·         Abraham, A. and Collins, D. (1998), Examining and extending research in coach development, Quest, 50, 59 – 79.

·         Allpress, J. (2006) Smart Coaching: Managing Mistakes to the Players’ Advantage! Insight: The F.A. Coaches association Journal, spring and Summer.

·         Ames, C. (1992b) ‘Achievement Goals and the Classroom Motivational Climate’, in J. Meece and D. Schunck (eds) Student Perceptions in the Classroom, pp. 327–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

·         Anderson, A., Knowles, Z., and Gilbourne, D. (2004) Reflective practice for applied sport psychologists: a review of concepts, models, practical implications and thoughts on dissemination. The Sport Psychologist, 18, p.p 188-201

·         Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

·         Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

·         Berger, B.; Pargman, D.; Weinberg, R,(2003).  Review of 'Foundations of Exercise Psychology'. The Sport Psychologist, Vol 17(2), Jun,. pp. 244-245.

·         Brewer, B., Van Raalte, J. and Linder, D. (1993) ‘Athletic Identity: Hercules’ Muscles or Achilles ‘Heel?’ International Journal of Sport Psychology 24: 237–54.

·         Biggs, j., (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University.  Gt.  Britain: SRHE and Open university Press.

·         Byra, M. (1996), Postlesson Conferencing Strategies and Preservice Teachers’ Reflective Practices, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, , 16, 48-65.

·         Cassidy, T., Jones, R. and Potrac, P. (2004)., Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice, Routledge, London,

·         Claxton, G. (2005), Seminar notes.  The Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers (SCETT) Conference.  Learning styles:  an aid to understanding or another means to label?, NATFHE Conference Centre, London, 14th April.

·         Connolly, F., Clandinin, DJ. (1994), Telling teaching stories Teacher Education quarterly.  21(1), 145 – 158.

·         Cox, E. (2005) Adult learners learning from experience: using a reflective practice model to support work-based learning. Reflective Practice. 6(4), p.p. 459-472

·         Franks, I.M. and Miller, G. (1991), Training Coaches to Observe and Remember, Journal of Sports Sciences, , 9, 285-297.

·         GIBBS, G., (1988), Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods (Oxford: FE Unit, Oxford Polytechnic).

·         Gilbert, W. and Trudel, P. (2001), Learning to Coach Through Experience: Reflection in Model Youth Sport Coaches, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, , 21(1), 16-34.

·         Gilbert, W and Trudel, P (2004) The role of the coach: How model youth team sport coaches frame their roles. The Sport Psychologist 18, 21-43.

·         Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. London: SAGE Publications.

·         Hoover, L, (1994), Reflective writing as a window on pre – service teachers’ thought processes, Teaching and teacher Education. 10: 83 – 93.

·         Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans).  Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.

·         Hycner, R. H. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In A. Bryman & R. .G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 143-164). London: Sage.

·         Jarvis, P. (2004) Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice 3rd edition (London, Routledge).

·         Jones, R.L. & Turner, P. (2006) Teaching coaches to coach holistically: can problem-based learning (PBL) help?, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 181-202.

·         Jones, R. And Turner, P. (2006) Teaching coaches to coach holistically; can Problem Based Learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11 (2), 181 – 202.

·         Knowles, Z., Borrie, A. & Telfer, H. (2005) Toward the reflective sports coach: issues of context, education and application, Ergonomics, 48(11-14), 1711-1720.

·         Knowles, Z., Tyler, G., Gilbourne, D., and Eubank, M. (2006) Reflecting on reflection: exploring the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practice. 7(2), p.p. 163-179

·         Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A. (2000), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, .

·         Lester, Stan, (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research, Stan Lester Developments, Taunton.

·         Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, London, New Delhi.

·         Lyle, J (2002) Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. LondonRoutledge. 210 – 232 (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann).

·         Marcus, A. and Crane, L. (1986). Telephone surveys in public health research. Medical Care, 24, 97–112.

·         Miles, A., (2001), Supporting coach education: towards reflective practice. Faster Higher Stronger, 10, p. 15.

·         Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

·         Patton, M.Q., (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn., Sage, New Park, CA, 68-73.

·         Patton, Q.M., (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, second ed. Sage Publications Inc., Newsbury Park, London, New Dehli.

·         Patton, Q.M., (1987). How to use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage Publications Inc., Newsbury Park, London, New Dehli.

·         Piaget, J., Gruber, H. (Ed.), & Voneche, J. J. (Ed.). The essential Piaget (100th Anniversary Ed.). New York: Jason Aronson.

·         Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level sports performers. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 327–347.

·         Schunk, D.H. (2009) Learning theories: an educational perspective International edition 5th edition (Pearson Prentice Hall).

·         Slavin, R. (2003) Educational Psychology, 7th Ed. Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: PearsonEducation, Inc.

·         SMITH, A. 2004, Learning to Learn,  Generic Tutor training handbook, London; FA learning.

·         Vygotsky, L, (1978), Mind in Society: the Development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

·         Walker,, J E. (1980). "Behaviour modification. A practical approach for educators." Behaviour modification. A practical approach for educators.

·         Watkins, C., Carnell, E., Lodge, C., Whalley, C, (2001), Learning about learning.  London: Routledge