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).
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment