Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Processsevenbridges.ncl-coll.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/... · 2018. 7. 24. · Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process Ian Johnston

ISSN: 2516-6190 (Print) 2516-7219 (Online) http://sevenbridges.ncl-coll.ac.uk

Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process

Ian Johnston

Seven Bridges, Vol. 6 (2018)

Published on: 05/07/2018

To cite this article: Johnston, I. (2018) Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process. Seven Bridges, 6, pp.17-27.

• View the full issue. • Submit to Seven Bridges.

Seven Bridges is published by: Newcastle College Rye Hill Campus Scotswood Road NE4 7SA

17

Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process

Ian Johnston

BSc (Hons) Applied Sports Coaching and Development

Newcastle College

ABSTRACT

This paper is a series of critical assessments across three areas of theoretical study; Defining

the Coaching Process, Questioning as a Coaching Behaviour and Modelling the Coaching

Process. Research and practical implementation for each topic is far wider than can be covered

in this article, with each considered from a high level together with signposts to other sources.

KEYWORDS: Coaching Process, Pedagogy, Questioning, Modelling.

DEFINING THE COACHING

PROCESS

Sport science was considered to exclusively

consist of physiology, sports psychology

and biomechanics (Kidman and Hanrahan,

2011). The coaching process (CP) emerged

in the late 1990s as an autonomous

discipline as other didactic themes became

prominent (Cross and Lyle, 1999). Coaches’

personal idiosyncrasies, behaviours, social,

cultural, ethical and other characteristics

were newly ameliorated and actively

appraised (Potrac et al., 2000) alongside

existing, objectively measured in-situ

practice have been a catalyst for said other

didactic themes increasing in prominence.

Accordant consensus regarding CP’s

definition and coaching quality have not yet

been fully agreed, with multiple mechanical

methodologies plus abstruse social

interactions coalescing as reasons for

multiple non-identical definitions (Côté and

Gilbert, 2009; Lemyre et al., 2007; Vinson

et al., 2016; Cross and Lyle, 1999). More

recently, collective thinking has codified

definition into four discrete coaching

dispositions – psychology, modelling,

sociology and pedagogy – reported by

multiple researchers including Bush (2013).

Psychological

This approach focuses on the coaches’

cognitive process, behaviours and decision-

making, and their impact on their

relationships with the athlete. Disparate

qualitative methods are used to measure this

approach, many based on subjective

observational studies of elite coaches

(Bloom et al., 1999) such as basketball

coach, Jerry Tarkanian.

Research considers this theme a simple sub-

category of sports psychology, meaning it is

not so universally accepted in its own right

(Smith and Small, 1993). The assertion that

conventional psychological understanding

applies, such as the impacts upon player

self-esteem, (Smoll et al., 1993), is

routinely cited to corroborate that belief.

Modelling

Having a defined model is a desirable facet

of CP, coupled with sports’ national

governing bodies (NGBs) and individual

organisations to measure the quality of

coaches, and define the CPs they espouse

Ian Johnston

18

(Abraham et al., 2007). Early models (Fairs,

1987) proved too simplistic for what is a

complex process and were superseded with

more granular, though not yet mature,

models (Jones and Wallace, 2005).

Sociological

Coaching should be considered a social

activity (Wenger, 1998) because it consists

of procedural actions delivered within a

social framework (ibid.). Its manifestation

in CP endorsed in newer research, including

explaining successful coaching necessitates

prominent social behaviours such as

leadership, empathy, honesty,

responsiveness, and an adaptable and caring

nature of coaches (Jowett and Cockerill,

2003; Côté and Gilbert, 2009).

Myriad behaviours determine how the

coach appropriates these social

relationships - their commitment,

conscientiousness, investment of elevated

levels of time and energy, and felicitous

ethical behaviour are significant examples

(Bergmann Drewe, 2000a; Jones, 2006;

Hardman et al., 2010).

Pedagogical

Some teaching-specific concepts

(Bergmann Drewe, 2000b) have only

recently been considered desirable for

coaching, where customarily only the

physical aspects had this association.

However, more recent research (Jones,

2006) reinforces the understanding that

coaching is also a cognitive practice,

sharing attributes with teaching.

Traditional coach education, consisting of

lecture style teaching and observation of

expert coaches, is now routinely

complemented with best practices

developed in educational settings (Nelson

and Cushion, 2007). Two attributes in

particular, mentoring and reflective

practice, are now considered essential for

developing expert coaches.

Synopsis

Although ongoing research and

improvements to CP are now prevalent, it

remains complex, its components not yet

universally agreed or understood.

Convincing research and erosion of

outdated views and practices will serve to

promote greater understanding and its

enhanced application.

QUESTIONING AS A COACHING

BEHAVIOUR

Background

Observing behaviours is a well-established

method of improving teaching performance

and, more recently, coaching, with multiple

systems used to interpret results, e.g. the

CAIS system (Hughes and Franks, 2015;

Brewer and Jones, 2002; Cushion et al.,

2012). Using bespoke systems is promoted

because common behaviour categorisation

is both subjective, it is relatively immature,

and intra-study clarification is required

(Mayer, 2004; Kirschner et al., 2006).

Instruction, praise and silence are the

historically the most common desirable

behaviours (Vinson et al., 2016). In a 1996

study, it was found that questioning by ice

hockey coaches was not recognised as an

independent category – demonstrating the

limited historical referencing and

understanding for over 20 years.

Questioning has only recently been notated

individually and widely where previously it

was prevalent only amongst the most highly

successful elite coaches (Cope et al., 2015;

Vinson et al., 2016; Claxton, 1988; Bloom,

et al., 1999).

The Football Association developed its 21st

Century flagship qualification, FA Youth

Award (The Football Association, 2010),

Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)

19

incorporating questioning as one of six main

topics, further suggesting its greater

importance than before.

Usefulness

Questioning develops cognition when used

as part of an overall athlete-centred

approach to coaching, critical in ensuring

ongoing athlete motivation, success,

enjoyment, and participation (Cope et al.,

2015). The practice also helps demonstrate

the athlete is valued, and their needs are

being addressed, particularly when their

learning is prioritised over the coaches’

needs (Cope and Foster, 2017; Cushion et

al., 2012).

Questioning is well established as a tool to

develop athletes’ problem solving and

decision-making skills (Hopper and

Kruisselbank, 2001), its application,

however, is less so. Affirmed in one study

indicating only 3.22% of recorded

behaviours amongst professional rugby

coaches (Granger and Rhind, 2017), another

demonstrated its low significance in elite

performance settings (d’Arrippe-

Longueville et al., 1998). A study into

professional football coaches (Cope et al.,

2016) surmised low capability in

techniques, preference for immediate

response, using leading questions to coerce

desired responses and a teacher-pupil type

relationship as likely reasons for exiguous

use of high calibre questioning.

Future use

Several recent studies recognise

shortcomings and potential causes of

questioning; tone of voice, formation of

questions, environmental circumstances,

and nature of participants to name a few

(Brownstein, 2001; Pearson and Webb

2008; Erickson and Côté, 2015; Sports

Coach UK, 2016; Cope et al., 2016).

The value of questioning is in accordance

with both psychological theory and the

objective measurement successful

coaching, although its use not necessarily

the panacea for inadequate coaching.

Research indicates the willingness to adopt

this paradigm, albeit with insufficient

quality at present, but with effective training

(Brownstein, 2001) and increased

application (Hopper and Kruisselbank,

2001), it can certainly supplement a coach’s

portfolio of skills (Hughes and Franks,

2015).

MODELLING THE COACHING

PROCESS

Background

Conventional learning theory (Dewey,

1938) explains that observation and

judgement are crucial to the learning

process, encouraging incorporation of such

thinking in standardised models. Initially,

simplistic cyclical models were proposed,

reactive in nature (Stratton et al., 2004) and

of a three stage ‘experience-reflection-plan’

or four stage ‘experience-reflection-

conclude-plan’ (Kolb, 1984; Gibbs, 1998).

Coaching theorists initially adopted

rudimentary models (Fairs, 1987; Crisfield

et al., 1996; Sherman et al., 1997), see

Figures 1 and 2 below, though

contemporary thinking did develop once

scale, complexity and understanding of

coaching began to mature (Cushion et al.,

2006).

Figure 1. Simplistic 4 Stage Cyclical Coaching Model

Source: Franks, I.M., Goodman, D. and Miller, G. (1983).

Analysis of performance: qualitative or quantitative.

Ian Johnston

20

Figure 2. Simplistic Plan-Do-Review Model

Adapted from Jones (2006). How can Educational Concepts

Inform Sports Coaching?

Realisation that such simplistic thinking

was not widely using or directly relevant to

coaching (Cushion et al., 2003) led to new

research (Groom et al., 2011) aimed at

incorporating dynamic reticulation of

psychological and social processes within

models. It has gradually become clear that

creating and implementing a settled process

is desirable for effective coaching (Côté et

al., 1995; Bloom and Salmela, 2000;

Cushion et al., 2006), though not in

isolation (Nelson et al., 2012).

Complexities

Leading research suggests that successfully

creating an all-encompassing process is too

complex, the underlying rationale pervasive

(Cushion, 2010). Sophisticated social

interactions (Jones and Wallace, 2005) and

regular instantaneous in-session changes

(Saury and Durand, 1998) explain real-time

intricacies. Additionally, conflicting model

definition at both session level and wider CP

level (Cushion, et al., 2006), conflicting

design for performance or participation

settings (Lyle, 2002), ongoing coaching

improvements (ibid.), and undefined

structures (Wenger, 1998; Jones, 2006;

Cushion et al., 2006) all compound

complexity.

Early coaching models, pertinent to

traditional coaching apprenticeships (i.e.

rudimentary observation of experts) and

extremely simplistic in nature, merely

reproduced existing practices, good or bad.

This helped perpetuate long-standing “If it

ain’t broke, don’t fix it” allegories (Cassidy

et al., 2009). The too-simplistic nature of

these models, without sufficient detail or

robust review, served to suppress any

benefits of using such models.

Bourdieu (1977) proposed that, because

coaching could be defined as “structured

improvisation”, it is an art and not a defined

science. Cushion et al. (2003) were then

prompted to say that, since coaching

practice consists of many elements, not all

of which can be easily modelled, either

individually or collectively, creating an all-

encompassing model is impossible or near

impossible to achieve.

Effective modelling

Coach education of the recent past has

largely consisted of classroom-based

learning plus teacher-pupil type practical

observations (Jones, 2006). It is argued that

ongoing, specific and targeted coaching

model training (Côté et al., 1995) will

improve coach education, as will broader

use of the plan-do-review methodology

(Côté and Gilbert, 2009; Hardman et al.,

2010) - see Figure 3. Gaining that sound

understanding (Cross and Lyle, 2008) will,

in turn, improve coaching practice.

There is difficulty in identifying an all-

encompassing coaching model

(Poczwardowski et al., 2002; Lyle, 2007).

Accordingly, to the development of models,

bespoke to an individual sports

organisation, its coaches and idiosyncrasies,

appears propitious (Lemyre et al., 2007) -

see Figure 3:

Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)

21

Figure 3. Theoretical Coaching Model, Bespoke to Single

Country Professional Athletes

Adapted from Bennie and Connor (2010). Coaching

Philosophies: Perceptions from Professional Cricket, Rugby

League and Rugby Union Players and Coaches in Australia

COACHING vs TEACHING

PEDAGOGIES

Theory

Determining differences between coaching

and teaching pedagogies is complicated.

Even establishing if either or both demand a

behaviourist or humanist approach for best

practice is ambiguous, as are the attempts to

define and differentiate the terms

“educator”, “coach” and “teacher”

(Bergmann Drewe, 2000b). Prior to

becoming a successful, well researched elite

basketball coach, John Wooden, was a well-

renowned teacher (Côté and Gilbert, 2009).

He described himself an educator (Wooden,

1997), but neither a coach nor a teacher.

Differences

A direct-instruction classified approach

(Lodewyk, 2015), originating from

behaviourist theory (Watson, 1913), is the

most common delivery style of physical

education teachers and coaches (Butler,

2005). The practice is characterised by

inflexibly structured physical instruction,

prioritisation of skill mastery and technical

execution in isolation. This lack of

engagement and purposeful interaction

ultimately cultivates disaffected

participants (Azzarito and Ennis, 2003),

perhaps defining the different approaches of

teachers and coaches (and physical

education teachers).

The theories of Maslow and Rogers

regarding humanistic ideals (Lombardo,

1978), such as holistic treatment and

development of the athlete/student, were

previously considered incongruous to sports

coaching and performance (Lyle, 2002),

though now feature highly in effective

professional coaching. These traditional

beliefs of the cognitive approach to

coaching not delivering ‘serious training’

(Cassidy et al., 2009), had restricted wider

accession of this thinking. Amineh and

Davatgari Asl (2015) tell us that being

leaders and facilitators is more likely to help

athletes learn independently, challenging

their own values, views and methods only

recently thought to be essential for sporting

performance (Williams, 2013).

It has been argued that, because of diverse

environmental factors (location, desired

outcomes, etc.) there is additional context

surrounding coaching when compared to

classroom teaching (Cassidy et al., 2009),

effectively perpetuating or extending

divergent descriptions. An example of how

the contexts differ was depicted by

Gallimore and Tharp (2004); they

commented that Wooden’s precise

preparation and extensive use of micro-level

detailed plans differentiated his teaching

from his coaching - devoting the same

amounts of time to preparation and delivery

is something impossible to achieve in

teaching.

Similarities

A successful athlete-centred approach

encompasses quality of practices

(McCloskey, 1999), enhanced two-way

athlete communication (Mahoe, 2007) and

athlete motivation (Hansen et al., 2003)

Ian Johnston

22

alongside the long-established components

of physical skills development and a strong

knowledge of the sport (Schempp et al.,

2006; Abraham et al., 2007). This athlete-

centred approach enables acceptance of

responsibility for self-learning and so the

ability to build self-awareness, a better

capacity for learning, ongoing participation

and enjoyment (Kidman et al., 2010).

Research has shown that a prerequisite for

effective coaching is the ability to work with

people (Bennie and Connor 2010) allied to

a reduced emphasis on technical and tactical

elements, further suggesting congruence.

Manifestation of ethical behaviours,

including habitual principled virtues and

taking responsibility for moral education

(Hardman et al., 2010), the development of

two-way trust and likeability - seen to help

construct effective leaders - (Hardman et

al., 2010) apply equally to coaching and

teaching. There are other expedient areas

where innate and desired traits are shared.

For example, hard work, positive approach,

not being over-paternalistic (Hardman et al.,

2010) and the ongoing application of best

practice are common across both.

Additionally, frugal use of extrinsic

rewards, which can suppress

athletes/students becoming motivated by

end rewards (Kidman and Hanrahan, 2011)

and avoidance of sanctioned physical or

impersonal punishment, (Kidman and

Hanrahan, 2011), both desirable to prevent

the perception of authoritarianism.

Summary

The pedagogies of teaching and coaching

share many characteristics, e.g. it is

accepted the cognitive approach is likely to

generate more success in both fields

compared to instruction style (Bruning et

al., 2011). Providing nuanced differences

are acknowledged, Wooden’s extensive pre-

planning being a high-profile example, it

could be suggested that the pedagogies of

are so similar they are simply variations of

each other.

REFERENCES

Abraham, A., Collins, D., and Martindale,

R. (2007). The coaching schematic:

Validation through expert coach consensus.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(6).

Amineh, R. and Davatgari Asl, H. (2015).

Review of Constructivism and Social

Constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences,

Literature and Languages, 1(1), pp.9-16.

Azzarito, L. and Ennis, C.D. (2003). A

sense of connection: Toward social

constructivist PE. Sport, Education, and

Society, 8, pp.179–198.

Bennie, A. and O'Connor, D. (2010).

Coaching Philosophies: Perceptions from

Professional Cricket, Rugby League and

Rugby Union Players and Coaches in

Australia. International Journal of Sports

Science & Coaching, 5(2), pp.309-320.

Bennie, A. and O'Connor, D. (2011). An

Effective Coaching Model: The

perceptions and strategies of professional

team sport coaches and players in

Australia. International Journal of Sport

and Health Science, 9, pp.98-104.

Bergmann Drewe, S. (2000a). Coaches,

ethics and autonomy. Sport, Education and

Society 5(2), pp.147-162.

Bergmann Drewe, S. (2000b). An

Examination of the Relationship Between

Coaching and Teaching. QUEST, 52,

pp.79-88.

Bloom, G.A., Crumpton, R., and Anderson,

J.E. (1999). A systematic observation study

of the teaching behaviours of an expert

Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)

23

basketball coach. Sport Psychologist,13,

pp.157-170.

Bloom, G.A. and Salmela, J.H. (2000).

Personal characteristics of expert team

sport coaches. Journal of Sport Pedagogy,

6(2), pp.56-76.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of

Practice. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Brewer, C.J. and Jones, R.L. (2002). A

five-stage process for establishing

contextually valid systematic observation

instruments: The case of rugby union. The

Sport Psychologist, 16(2), pp.138-159.

Brownstein, B. (2001). Collaboration: "The

foundation of learning in the future"

Education, 122(2), p.240.

Bruning, R., Schraw, G., and Norby, M.

(2011). Cognitive Psychology and

Instruction. Boston: Pearson.

Bush, A. (2013). Sports Coaching

Research. New York: Routledge.

Butler, J.I. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: Old

dogs, new tricks, and puppy school. PE and

Sport Pedagogy, 10, pp.225–240.

Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., and Potrac, P.

(2009). Understanding sports coaching: the

social, cultural and pedagogical

foundations of coaching practice.

Claxton, D.B. (1988). A systematic

observation of more and less successful

high school tennis coaches. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 7, pp.302-

310.

Cope, E. and Foster, A. (2017). A critical

discussion of what approach coaches

should adopt when coaching children.

Education and Health Journal, 35(1).

Cope, E., Harvey, S., and Kirk, D. (2015).

Reflections on using visual research

methods in sports coaching. Qualitative

Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,

7(1), pp.88-108.

Cope, E., Partington, M., Cushion, C.J.,

and Harvey, S. (2016). An investigation of

professional top-level youth football

coaches’ questioning practice. Qualitative

Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,

8(4), pp.380-393.

Côté, J. and Gilbert, W. (2009). An

Integrative Definition of Coaching

Effectiveness and Expertise. International

Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,

4(3), pp.307-323.

Côté, J., Saimela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A.,

and Russell, S. (1995). The Coaching

Model: A Grounded Assessment of Expert

Gymnastic Coaches’ Knowledge. Journal

of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1),

pp.1-17.

Crisfield, P., Houlston, D., and Simpkin,

A. (1996). Coaching Sessions; A Guide to

Planning and Goal-Setting. Leeds: The

National Coaching Foundation.

Cross, N. and Lyle, J. (1999). The

Coaching Process: Principles and Practice

for sport. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Cushion, C. (2010). The coaching process

in professional youth football: an

ethnography of practice.

Cushion, C., Armour, K., and Jones, R.

(2003). Coach Education and Continuing

Professional Development: Experience and

Ian Johnston

24

Learning to Coach. QUEST, 55(3), pp.215-

230.

Cushion, C., Armour, K., and Jones, R.

(2006). Locating the coaching process in

practice: models ‘for’ and ‘of’ coaching.

Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy,

11(1), pp.83-99.

Cushion, C., Ford, P.R., and Williams,

A.M. (2012). Coach behaviours and

practice structures in youth soccer:

Implications for talent development.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15),

pp.1631-1641.

Cushion, C.J., Harvey, S., Muir, B., and

Nelson, L. (2012). Developing the Coach

Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS):

Establishing validity and reliability of a

computerised systematic observation

instrument. Journal of Sports Sciences,

30(2), pp.203-218.

d’Arrippe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J.F.,

and Dubois, A. (1998). The perceived

effectiveness of interactions between

expert French judo coaches and elite

female athletes. The Sport Psychologist,

12, pp.317-332.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and

education.

Erickson, K. and Côté, J. (2015). The

Intervention Tone of Coaches' Behaviour:

Development of the Assessment of

Coaching Tone (ACT) Observational

Coding System. International Journal of

Sports Science & Coaching, 10(4), pp.699-

716.

Fairs, J. (1987). The coaching process: The

essence of coaching. Sports Coach 11.

Franks, I.M., Sinclair, G., Thomson, W.,

and Goodman, D. (1986). Analysis of the

coaching process. Science, Periodical,

Research Technology and Sport, 1, pp.1–

12.

Franks, I.M., Goodman, D., and Miller, G.

(1983). Analysis of performance:

qualitative or quantitative.

Gallimore, R. and Tharp, R. (2004). What a

Coach Can Teach a Teacher, 1975-2004:

Reflections and Reanalysis of John

Wooden’s Teaching Practices. The Sport

Psychologist, 18(2), pp.119-137.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A

Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods.

Granger, A. and Rhind, D. (2017). A

preliminary investigation of coach

behaviour in professional rugby union.

Graduate Journal of Sport, Exercise &

Physical Education Research, 2014(2),

pp.54-66.

Hansen, B., Gilbert, W., and Hamel, T.

(2003). Successful coaches’ views on

motivation and motivational strategies.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation

and Dance, 74(8), pp.44–48.

Hardman, A., Jones, C., and Jones, R.

(2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and

emulation. Physical Education and Sport

Pedagogy, 15(4), pp.345–359.

Hopper, T. and Kruisselbrink, D. (2001).

Teaching Games for Understanding: What

does it look like and how does it influence

student skill acquisition and game

performance? Journal of Teaching Physical

Education.

Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)

25

Hughes, M. and Franks, I. (2015).

Notational analysis of sport. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Jones, R.L. (2006). How can Educational

Concepts Inform Sports Coaching? in:

Jones, R.L., The Sports Coach as Educator:

Re-Conceptualising Sports Coaching,

Routledge, London, pp.3-13.

Jones, R.L. and Wallace, M. (2005).

Another bad day at the training ground:

Coping with ambiguity in the coaching

context. Sport, Education and Society,

10(1), pp.119-134.

Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I.M. (2003).

Olympic medallists’ perspective of the

athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 4, pp.313–331.

Jowett, S. (2002). The Coach–Athlete

Relationship Questionnaire and dyad maps

manual (Research Monograph No. 1).

Kidman, L. and Hanrahan, S.J. (2011). The

coaching process: a practical guide to

becoming an effective sports coach, 3.

London: Routledge.

Kidman, L., Lombardo, B., and Jones, G.

(2010). Athlete-centred coaching.

Worcester: IPC Print Resources.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark,

R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An Analysis of

the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,

Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-

Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist,

41(2), pp.75–86.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning:

experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., and Durand-Bush,

N. (2007). How Youth-Sport Coaches

Learn to Coach. The Sport Psychologist,

21(2), pp.191-209.

Lodewyk, K.R. (2015). Relations Between

Epistemic Beliefs and Instructional

Approaches to Teaching Games in

Prospective Physical Educators. Physical

Educator, 72(4), pp.677-700.

Lombardo, B.J. (1987). The humanistic

coach: From theory to practice.

Springfield, Ill: C. C. Thomas.

Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts:

A framework for coaches’ behaviour.

London: Routledge.

Lyle, J. (2007). Modelling the complexity

of the coaching process: A commentary.

International Journal of Sports Science and

Coaching, 2(4), pp.407-409.

Mahoe, S. (2007). Five ways to improve

communication with your players. Coach

and Athletic Director, 76(7), p.44.

Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a

three-strikes rule against pure discovery

learning? American Psychologist, 59(1),

pp.14–19.

McCloskey, M.J. (1999). Successful sports

coaching: Guidelines for adults in

children’s recreational activities.

Childhood Education, 75(5), pp.308–310.

Nelson, L. and Cushion, C. (2006).

Reflection in Coach Education: The Case

of the National Governing Body Coaching

Certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20(2),

pp.174-183.

Ian Johnston

26

Nelson, L., Cushion, C. and Potrac, P.

(2012). Enhancing the provision of coach

education: the recommendations of UK

coaching practitioners. Physical Education

& Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), pp.204-218.

Pearson, P. and Webb, P. (2008).

Developing effective questioning in

Teaching Games for Understanding

(TGfU).

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E. and

Henschen, K.P. (2002). The athlete and

coach: Their relationship and its meaning.

Results of an interpretive study.

International Journal of Sport Psychology,

33, pp.116-140.

Potrac, P., Brewer, P., Jones, R., Armour,

K., and Hoff. (2000). Toward an holistic

understanding of the coaching process.

QUEST, 52, pp.186-199.

Saury, J. and Durand, M. (1998). Practical

Knowledge in Expert Coaches: On-Site

Study of Coaching in Sailing. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3),

pp.254-266.

Schempp, P.G., McCullick, B., and Mason,

I.S. (2006). The Development of Expert

Coaching, in: Jones, R.L., The Sports

Coach as Educator: Re-Conceptualizing

Sports Coaching, pp.145-161.

Sherman, C., Crassini, B., Maschette W.,

and Sands, R. (1997). Instructional sports

psychology: a reconceptualisation of sports

coaching as instruction. International

Journal of Sports Psychology, 28(2),

pp.103–125.

Smith, M. and Cushion, C.J. (2006). An

investigation of the in-game behaviours of

professional, top-level youth soccer

coaches. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24,

pp.355-366.

Smith, R. and Smoll, F. (1993). Educating

youth sport coaches: an applied sport

psychology perspective: An Applied Sport

Psychology Perspective. Applied Sport

Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak, 2,

pp.36-57.

Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., and

Everett, J.J. (1993). Enhancement of

children's self-esteem through social

support training for youth sport coaches.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4),

pp.602-610.

The Football Association. (2010). The FA

Youth award. [online]

http://www.thefa.com/get-

involved/coach/courses/all-courses/the-fa-

youth-award-assessment [Accessed 21

December 2017].

Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W. (2006).

Coaching and Coach Education. In: Kirk,

D., MacDonald, D. and O’Sullivan, M.,

The Handbook of Physical Education,

London, pp.516-539.

Trudel, P., Côté, J., and Bernard, D.

(1996). Systematic Observation of Youth

Ice Hockey Coaches During Games.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 19(1).

Vinson, D., Brady, A., Moreland, B., and

Judge, N. (2016). Exploring coach

behaviours, session contexts and key

stakeholder perceptions of non-linear

coaching approaches in youth sport.

International Journal of Sports Science &

Coaching, 11(1), pp.54-68.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the

behaviorist views it. Psychological Review,

20, pp.158-177.

Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)

27

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of

Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wooden, C. (1997). Wooden: A Lifetime

of Observations and Reflections On and

Off the Court. New York: Contemporary

Books.