The Similarities between Learning & Development for Teachers and Coaches

Hey everyone thanks for taking the time to read my article and I hope this might give coaches a different perspective on assessing the attainment of skill. Please leave some feedback, I would love to know your thoughts. Collaboratively 'WE CAN' make a difference by 'keeping our eyes and minds open'.

The Beginning

I am a sports lecturer at ______ ______ College and come from a coaching back ground. It was through my coaching experience that opened the pathway for me to become a sport lecturer.

Traditionally, a divide has existed between perceptions of sports coaching and teaching, with coaching being viewed as training and attainment of skills, whereas teaching has been seen to be about the total development of the individual (Jones, 2006). This divide is highlighted by such definitions of sport and physical education as ‘Sport covers a range of physical activities in which adults and young people may participate, P.E., on the other hand, is a process of learning’ (DES/WO 1991:7); and ‘P.E. is essentially an educational process, whereas the focus in sport is on activity’ (Capel, 2004; 137). Throughout this research project I will be looking at the similarities between coaching and teaching in a pedagogical stance. I believe the speed of my development in teaching has stemmed from my coaching background and my strengths in the classroom overlap that of a coaching nature.

Pedagogy is defined as ‘any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another’ (Watkins & Mortimer, 1999: 3) has therefore tended to lie outside the traditional concept of sport coaching.

Rationale

I am studying the pedagogical similarities between coaching and teaching because I want my department to be stronger in sporting practical and active lesson structures. The Sports BTECS at ______ ______ College; all incorporate at least two from ten modules surrounding coaching knowledge or leadership in sports practical. Therefore the need to be a coach clearly links to that of  teaching with regards to learning.

Recent interview data from elite coaches, however, has demonstrated that they view their role not as physical trainers but as educators (Jones et al 2004). For example, British Lion’s rugby coach Ian McGeechan 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, 2004:21).

Other research has found that good coaches act like good teachers, as they care about those for 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 more important role in preparing coaches.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to analyse the similarities in learning and development that are shared between coaching and teaching. The key pedagogical concepts that could be used to inform coaching and teaching are learning theories; teaching styles and motivational climate.  The similarities between teaching and coaching should be evaluated consistently and relate to my practice, in order to justify the pedagogical stance. My research will be of a review of current literature surrounding both teaching and coaching. I will start my study by exploring the three types of learning theories and draw similarities from those into a coaching context.

Behavioural Learning Theory

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 tennis forehand shot to complete beginners, the coach would not simply demonstrate the full shot and wait until it is performed perfectly to reinforce the learner. Rather the coach would first reinforce the correct grip of the racket, then the stance, and then the contact point and so on until the complete stroke is performed. Therefore the individual’s technique is being improved by reinforcing the individual steps towards the final goal.

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 within Teaching and Coaching

Social learning theory accepts most of the principles of behavioural theories but concentrates more on observational learning or modelling (Bandura, 1977). Although it is relevant to athlete or student learning, it has to date been more common cited as an explanation of how coaches and teachers develop their own methods and style.

Self-regulation is another important concept in social learning theory (Schunk, 1999). 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 learning of a particular learning outcome within a teacher’s lesson. Thus, self-regulation involves a thought process and begins to bridge the gap between the behavioural perspective and the constructivist approach to learning in both classroom activities and practical coaching.

Constructivist Learning Theory

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 (1896-1934), 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). Four key principles from Vygotsky’s ideas have helped shaped constructivist theories. Firstly he proposed that children learn through social interaction with adults and more capable peers, which links closely with social learning theory. Thus mixed ability groups and cooperative learning situations, where individuals are exposed to the thinking of the range of others, are promoted by constructivists. An example of this is the coaching situation would be set a group task that involves mixed ability teams working cooperatively to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition, and devising strategies and tactics to outwit them.

A second key concept is the idea that children learn best when they are engaged in tasks that they cannot do alone but can with the assistance of adults or peers; a learning space known as their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Individuals should be challenged at different levels as the zone of proximal development will differ between them.

There is some confusion over the terms teaching style and teaching methods. Siedentop (1991) defines teaching style as the interaction between teacher and pupil, whereas he describes teaching method as an instructional format. Contrary to this Mossoton (1966) contends that teaching styles are independent of personal idiosyncrasies, hence viewing them as methods. For the purpose of this Independent Learning Module, Mosstons definition of teaching style will be adopted, which is synonymous with teaching methods.

Teaching Styles

 Figure 1. Decision involved in learning and teaching

Mosstons spectrum of teaching style, as demonstrated by figure 1, is a continuum categorised according to the decisions made by the teacher or learner in the planning (Pre impact), teaching (impact) and evaluation (Post impact) phases of a lesson (Mosston, 1966). At one end of the spectrum is command style in which the teacher makes all the decisions across all three phases. At the other end is the learner initiated style in which the learner makes almost all the decisions and the teacher acts as a consultant. Between these two Mosston and Ashworth systematically identified a series of other styles, each with its own decision making autonomy.

Table 1. Teaching Styles (After Mosston and Coffield 2004)

In a study that focused on teacher education, Pichet et al (1976) found that teachers trained in how to use Mossoton’s teaching Spectrum gave more individual feedback, displayed less domination of lessons and allowed more time on task. Similarly, Ashworth (1983) found that teachers who had been given Spectrum training engaged learners in more time on task, used more feedback, engaged in more private and individual interaction with pupils, gave fewer negative statements, circulated more among children and altered their teaching method more frequently. These behaviours are closely associated with positive motivational climate (Ames, 1992b).

 

Table 2. Teaching Styles Continued (After Mosston and Coffield 2004)

According to Metzler (2000) the selection of a particular teaching style is dependent on a number of factors including the intended learning outcomes, the teaching context and environment and the learners’ development stage, this can be highlighted by table 1 and 2.

Although learning outcomes are the most important reason for selecting the appropriate style, as Metzler (2000) suggests, the teacher should also consider the learners development stage and teaching environment.

An important factor in deciding how to coach is that a session may include different delivery styles depending on the intended learning outcomes of each phase of that session. In fact, the best practitioners can change their style to suit the situation and have the flexibility to use several different styles in one session (Mawer, 1995).

Consistent with a learner-centred philosophy of coaching, Kay (2008) argues that effective learning in sport and PE should involve participants in planned activities that develop four central domains: the physical, social, cognitive and affective, which he terms ‘whole learning’. Such an approach echoes Jones (2006) aforementioned concept of coaches as educators as opposed to physical trainers. The development of the physical domain is the most obvious one and should involve the development and application of core techniques and skills and the application of these to specific competition situations (Kay, 2008). In order to develop the social domain participants should be involved in interacting with others in cooperative situations as already discussed in constructivist learning theories and teaching styles such as reciprocal and discovery. Cognitive development refers to knowledge and understanding of physical concepts, strategies and tactics, and can be developed by the implementation of productive styles of teaching such as guided and divergent discovery or individual programme. Finally, development of the affective domain should involve helping all pupils to develop self-esteem through successful individual experiences in social, cognitive and physical aptitude (Kay, 2008). Teaching styles to facilitate such a development could also include inclusion and self-check. Arguably, the more traditional direct teaching styles have focused on developing the physical domain to the exclusion of the social, cognitive and affective domains. Consequently, in order to promote whole learning, coaches and teachers need increasingly adopt a teaching style that focuses on the individual being taught and not the activity.

 Coffield states it is possible to explain the main dimensions that underpin different approaches to learning styles. Nevertheless, the competing theories and techniques of measuring them, and the effectiveness of such measures are so varied and contested that simple choices about the most suitable are difficult to substantiate.

 

 Table 3. TARGET Behaviour

Based on Epsteins’ (1989) work, Ames (1992b, 1992c) suggested that task authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation and time structures (TARGET) of the learning environment can be manipulated by the teacher to promote a mastery motivational climate. In accordance with Ames’s suggestion in order to develop a mastery climate the tasks within coaching sessions should be designed to emphasise self-referenced improvement goals, variety, novelty and differentiation. Consistent with a constructivist perspective and the concepts of empowerment (Kidman, 2001) and shared leadership (Jones & Standage, 2006) the authority structure involved here should include participants in the learning process by providing them with choices and opportunities to make decisions. The group structure should focus on cooperative group learning and the use of mixed ability and varied grouping arrangements. Recognition and evaluation should be focused on individual effort and improvement, and be given privately when possible, thus providing all participants with equal opportunity of success. Finally, activity and learning time in sessions should be maximised and individuals should be allowed flexible time to complete tasks. Such mastery focus teaching intervention has been found to enhance pupils’ motivational responses in PE and sport settings (Morgan and Carpenter, 2002; Solomon, 1996; Treasure, 1993). In contrast, a performance climate emphasises unidimensional (the same task for all), competitive tasks, teacher authority, normative public based recognition and evaluation ability groups and inflexible time to practise.

Recently, Morgan et al. (2005a) have used the Behavioural Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies (BEST) (Sharpe & Koperwas, 1999) software to develop a computer based observation measure of the TARGET behaviours (Ames, 1992b). This measure allows researchers to film coaching sessions and to systematically code and analyse the coaching behaviours that impact upon athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. In a study the combined motivational climate and teaching styles in PE, Morgan et al (2005b) used the behavioural measure to investigate the effects of different teaching styles on motivational climate and athlete’s subsequent responses. Results revealed that Reciprocal and guided discovery teaching styles resulted in more mastery focused TARGET behaviours leading to enhanced athlete motivation as seen in table 4. In a subsequent study Morgan and Kingston (in press) developed an intervention programme for physical education practitioners and addressed its effect on TARGET behaviours and pupils motivation. This intervention was found to improve teachers reflective abilities in developing their own contextual strategies in relation to utilising mastery focus TARGET behaviours whilst enhancing the motivation of the more disaffected pupils in the class.

Conclusion

To conclude coaching is about teaching and learning, and key pedagogical concepts, theories and research can easily be applied to the coaching environment.

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, better practitioners.

As a department we should realise the learners come with a range of experiences. Experience has a subjective nature, and only becomes useful to the learner when they attach meaning to it in a process of reflection and change. Coaches need to understand and build on their existing knowledge and experience. Existing knowledge base will be a limiting factor in learning.  The learning domains need robust definitions with knowledge and skills identified from these to inform curricula. The environments in which these domains are facilitated also need to be appropriate. Knowledge needs to be contextualised and the mode of learning and the environment should align, for example reflection and problem based learning are not developed in short superficial learning episodes; active engagement impacts learning. Coaches need to engage in practice and these needs to be supported. This type of learning as well as other experience needs to allow meaningful reflection. Learning is largely an individual experience; however, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant learning styles as a key tenet of coach learning. Indeed, the complexity of this is highlighted by Coffield et al (2004a) who propose that “previous learning experiences and other environmental factors may create preferences, approaches or strategies rather than styles, or that styles may vary from context to context or even from task to task” (p. 2).

Scholarly Development

As with a number of domains, there is a tendency to look at „second order‟ research that has taken ideas from „first order research‟. Uncritically recycling theory and learning approaches into coaching, runs the risk of compounding limited thinking. This study has been a long journey in my development within my literature search and wider reading. Looking across a range of literature in both coaching and teaching contexts has strengthened my knowledge on behaviour techniques which stem from the behaviour theory. My methods used in the study aid my understanding of key academic terms that I have adapted into assessment methods in my own teaching style. The use of action research and experimental style methods; all were used in the search for pedagogical stances of my own lessons and sessions in teaching and coaching.  My confidence to enhance my English language skill to use short and long quotations has been created from this research study and my main source of knowledge came from government publication sites. I have never used online sources before to find research and found electronic educational press a large beneficial factor in the success of my study. However I have not discovered the conference papers surrounding coaching and teaching and the similarities and differences between the two. I found Sharpe (2009) model on ‘deciding what to do’ very helpful within my study and I use it to demonstrate how to begin research assignment with my learners. Throughout this study I have not discovered how to conduct a survey and the use of a survey in a research project. I could have changed my study to involve sport lecturers and ask them to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of coaching within their own practice. Combining the survey with my current literature research would have strengthened knowledge surrounding coaching and teaching pedagogies. This would also have had an impact on my methodology, which I could have developed my experience of experimenting with surveys and developing my quantitative method techniques. However highlighting the strengths of my research my techniques into qualitative data analysis has developed by using Bundy (2004) literacy framework. This allowed me to demonstrate the strength of the theories I selected and researched.

References

Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunck (Eds.) Student perceptions in the classroom (pp 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ashworth, B. Developing coaching pedagogy: seeking a better integration of theory and practice, Sport, Education and Society, 17, (3) 2012

Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall).

Bundy. A (Ed) 2004 Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework Underdale University of South Australia.

Cassidy, T., Jones, R. & Potrac, P. (2004) Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice .London, Routledge.

Capel, S. (2004) Learning to teach physical education in the secondary school: a companion to school experience 2nd edition (London, Routledge).

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004a) Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice (London, Learning and Skills Research Centre).

DES/WO, (1992).  Physical Education in the National Curriculum.  London: HMSO.

Epstein, J, L. (1989). School Programs and Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner – City Elementary and Middle Schools, The Elementary School Journal, 91, (3), pp. 289 - 305

Gilbert, W.D. & Trudel, P. (2001) Learning to coach through experience: reflection in model youth sport coaches, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34.

Jones R.L., & Standage, M. (2006). First among equals: Shared leadership in the coaching context. In: Jones RL (ed) The sports coach as educator re-conceptualising sports coaching , London: Routledge, pp 65-76.

Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. & Potrac, P. (2004) Sports coaching cultures: from practice to theory (London, Routledge Watkins C and Mortimer P (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In Mortimer P (Ed) (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on teaching. (pp 1-19) London: Chapman.

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 A, Harlow A, and Cowie B (2006) New Zealand teachers’ experiences in Implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14(2): 101–119.

Kay, T., Armour, K., Cushion, C, Thorpe, R. & Pielichaty, M. (2008) Are we missing the coach for 2012? Sportnation research executive summary (Loughborough: Loughborough University).

Kidman, L. (2001) A self-reflective analysis process for coach education, Pedagogy in Practice, 3(1), 18-36.

Mawer, M.,  (1993). Editorial:  Teaching Styles, Teaching Strategies and Instructional Formats in Physical Education: ‘Total Teaching’ or Ideology?  The British Journal of Physical Education. 24 (1). 5-9.

Mawer, M., (1995).  The Effective Teaching of Physical Education.  London: Longman.

McGeecan, I., (2009). ‘The Next Step’. Rugby World Magazine, June Issue.

Metzler, M (Ed.) (2000) ‘The physical education teacher education assessment project’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (special edition), 19(4).

Morgan, K. & Carpenter, P.J. (2002). Effects of manipulating the motivational climate in Physical Education lessons. European Physical Education Review, 8 (3), 207-229.

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Skinner, B.F. (1951) How to teach animals, Scientific American, 185(6).

Pichet P, Morrison K, Rheault I, Tremblay A (1999) Analysis of total mercury and methylmercury in environmental samples. In: Lucotte M, Schetagne R, The´rien N, Langlois C, Tremblay A (eds) Mercury in the biogeochemical cycle, natural environments and hydroelectric reservoirs of Northern Que´bec. Springer, New York, pp 41–52.

Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., & Kavussanu, M. (1997).  Motivation in physical activity contexts:  An achievement goal perspective.  In P.R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr, (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 413-447), Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT:  JAI Press.

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

Sharp. J 2009 Success With Your Education Research Project Exeter Learningmatters.

Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed.).. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Sharpe, T. & Koperwas, J. (1999). BEST: Behavioural Evaluation Strategy and Taxonomy software. Sage Publications, Inc.

Slavin, R. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice and Practice, 7th.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. From: Mind and Society (pp.79 -91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walker, J, F. and Shea, T, M. (1999) Behaviour management: A practical approach for educators, Teaching; Behaviour modification; Individualized instruction; Problem children; Education; United States (6) 384p.

White, A. G., & Bailey, J. S. (1990).  Reducing disruptive behaviors of elementary physical education students with sit and watch.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 353-59.

Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (3rd edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.  (Pearson Prentice Hall).