This article was downloaded by: [ ]

On: 14 November 2012, At: 08:30

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sport, Education and Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

Developing coaching pedagogy: seeking

a better integration of theory and
practice
a

Robyn Jones , Kevin Morgan & Kerry Harris

University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Cardiff, UK

Version of record first published: 14 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Robyn Jones, Kevin Morgan & Kerry Harris (2012): Developing coaching
pedagogy: seeking a better integration of theory and practice, Sport, Education and Society, 17:3,
313-329
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.608936

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Sport, Education and Society

Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2012, pp. 313
329

Developing coaching pedagogy: seeking

a better integration of theory and
practice
Robyn Jones*, Kevin Morgan and Kerry Harris

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Cardiff, UK

Despite evidence that experience within practical coaching contexts serves as the principal
knowledge source for coaches, academic (and professional) coach education programmes continue
to be heavily taught along didactic lines. Such courses are often considered as fine in theory but
divorced from the gritty realities of practice. The aim of this article was to construct and evaluate a
pedagogical framework (delivered through an MSc unit) drawn from tenets of both action research
and communities of practice as a means through which the practice-theory gap can be somewhat
addressed. The unit in question involved students being introduced to a particular theoretical
position with the expectation that they would integrate that theory into their practice in the
upcoming week. The students then shared their experiences in structured discussion groups during
the following class. Data on student learning were gathered both through on-going observations,
and focus groups interviews with staff and students at the end of the unit. The data were
inductively analysed. Findings revealed that the students were generally stimulated by and, hence,
generally positive about the pedagogical approach experienced. This was specifically in terms of
better ordering the knowledge they had as well as developing new insights about coaching practice.
Although not unproblematically, the staff were also positive about the unit; citing better and more
continuous student engagement as a result of it.

Keywords: Pedagogy; Action research; Communities of practice; Coaching; Qualitative

Introduction
Recent research has confirmed interactive experience within practical coaching
contexts as the principal knowledge source of both neophyte and experienced
coaches (Nelson & Cushion, 2006; Chesterfield et al., in press). Despite this
recognition, the vast majority of academic (and professional) coach education
programmes continue to be taught along traditional didactic lines (Jones & Turner,
2006; Chesterfield et al., in press), with any student
coach involvement being
restricted to isolated quickie self-reflective exercises (Cassidy et al., 2009). Not only
is the opportunity for thoughtful depth inadequate, but is also limited to working
within existing knowledge; that is, what the learners already know. Unsurprisingly,
such programmes have been criticised for being divorced from the knotty reality of
practice and of not developing new, progressive knowledge, thus not fulfilling their
*Corresponding author. Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Cardiff
CF23 6XD, UK. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1357-3322 (print)/ISSN 1470-1243 online/12/030313-17 # 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.608936

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

314

R. Jones et al.

intended developmental function (Jones & Turner, 2006). Clearly then, echoing the
previous call of Jones and Turner (2006), means must be found whereby cutting
edge content is made relevant to student
coaches so that it can be readily integrated
into practice. The aim of this study was to construct and evaluate a pedagogical
framework in response to such a challenge. In principally drawing on elements from
action research and student communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), the
subsequent curriculum (implemented through a Coaching Science MSc unit) was
established around a set of theoretically driven practical experiences and discussion
groups. The basic intent here was to develop in students an integrated, realistic
knowledge base of how theory can and should be reflected in practice.
The significance of the work lies in providing student-centred learning opportunities inclusive of an explicit nexus between theory and practice. It was considered
that such an innovative pedagogy would allow students an opportunity to better
engage in the process of their own learning, thus increasing the relevancy of the
experience (Jones & Turner, 2006). Developing the perception of relevance is
crucial, as commitment to continuing professional development in any real sense is
largely dependent upon the inclusion of meaningful activities (Chen, 1998). Echoing
Greenwood and Levins (2003) critique of the applicability of social research in
general, we consider that a key challenge for coach education is to construct learning
situations where theoretical and craft knowledge are put to use in addressing real-life
problems. The case example presented in this article was an attempt to contribute to
this process. The purpose here then was not the production of universal knowledge
to be generalised to all contexts. Rather, in following an interpretive-constructivist
epistemology, it was to stimulate further reflection. . .optimizing opportunities to
learn (Stake, 1995, p. 42). The value of the paper also lies in response to the earlier
work of Culver and Trudel (2006), Nelson and Cushion (2006) and Ollis and
Sproule (2007) among others who called for greater developmental research, where
coaches engagement with the real world needs to be better monitored, understood
and evaluated; information which, in turn, can be fed back into improved coach
education programmes. In terms of structure, following this introduction, an
exploration and explanation of the pedagogical framework adopted is given,
particularly in the ways it can assist in developing coaches. This is followed by an
outline of the precise method used within the project, before the results of the
evaluation are presented. A theoretical discussion of the findings is then embarked
upon before a conclusion is drawn together the principal points made.

Theoretical framework
As previously stated, the structure for the developed unit in question was drawn
predominantly from tenets of action research and communities of practice (Wenger,
1998). Recent years have seen a growth in the popularity of action research as a
means of investigation. Borrowing from Lewin (1946), it was initially defined as a
method that enabled theories produced by the social sciences to be applied in

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Developing coaching pedagogy

315

practice and tested on the basis of their practical effectiveness (Carr, 2006, p. 423).
In the UK, however, action research subsequently took on an interpretive (as
opposed to a US favoured positivistic) guise, focussing on the perspectives of social
actors (Kemmis, 1988). It also adopted educational practice as its focus: the objects
of educational action research are educational practices (Kemmis, 1988, p. 44).
Hence, the perspective moved away from assessing the practical utility of scientific
theory, to a means whereby practitioners could test the educational theories
implicit in their own practice by treating them as experimental hypotheses to be
systematically assessed (Carr, 2006, p. 424). This marked a shift away from the
more traditional research-development-diffusion (RD & D) model to one where an
extended pedagogic professional could and should be researching his or her own
practice (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
Despite differing perspectives, a consensus related to alternating action and
systematic reflection in a cyclic or spiral process was and is generally agreed upon.
Such a spiral, driven by the collaboration and empowerment of participants, involves
basic cycles of observation, interpretation, action and reflection (Masters, 1995).
This allows for the continuous construction and testing of explanations in practice,
leading to improved understanding and learning (Tsai et al., 2004). According to
Dick (1997), drawing somewhat on Lewins initial vision, the purpose here through
critical and considered reflection is to allow both tacit and explicit knowledge to
inform each other in order to better deal with complex real-life problems. It is to help
people recognise thorny practical issues as they arise and to devise pragmatic
responses: to deconstruct set assumptions thus enabling a more creative dialogue
with other people and the situation. In doing so, action research allows us to cope
with the kind of organised complexity facing our everyday lives in the real world
(Allen, 2001). Action research is also considered a collaborative or joint enterprise;
not only between facilitator and participants, but also between and among
participants themselves: the aim is to involve participants in communication,
mutual understanding and consensus (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 199). Here, the
approach is considered emancipatory, although it can (and perhaps for some should)
still involve a discussion of theories to aid understanding of the (pedagogic) process
and issues under reflection (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
Sharing and, hence, developing knowledge is also a fundamental component of
Etienne Wengers (1998) notion of a community of practice. A community of
practice has been defined as a group of people who share a common concern, set of
problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise
in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). Learning is
seen as being an essentially social phenomenon, reflecting our own deeply social
nature as human beings capable of knowing (Wenger, 1998, p. 3). The question
then becomes related to what is required to support that learning? (Wenger, 1998,
p. 3). The answer for Wenger lay in bringing people together in common activities,
then discussing and deconstructing what they learn through their mutual engagement in those activities (Wenger, 1998). Consequently, members become involved in

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

316

R. Jones et al.

a set of relationships over a given time, with communities developing around things
that matter to people (Wenger, 1998).
A key characteristic of both action research and developed communities of practice
lies in the collaboration between the participants. Such cooperation enables the
development and acceleration of mutual understanding particularly in relation to
developing action (Oja & Smulyan, 1989). Both methods, therefore, can be seen as
cogenerating knowledge through collaborative communication, where the diversity
of experiences within a group is viewed as a catalyst for enrichment (Greenwood &
Levin, 2003). Both, to various degrees, also recognise that people learn through the
active adaptation of their existing knowledge in response to their contextual
experiences, and the subsequent sharing of that knowledge. Such experiences may
be engagement with new knowledge, explicitly through theory or through shared
discussion with others. This experiential learning process is a natural one for most
people; where a structured pedagogy of practice can help in providing a framework
for formalising and making this process more effective. The collaborative aspect also
allows the time and provides the support required to make fundamental changes in
individuals practice which often endure beyond the life of any research project (Oja
& Smulyan, 1989).

Methodology
The unit in question
The unit in question, through which the developed pedagogical framework was
delivered, formed part of MSc (Coaching Science) post-graduate programme at
UWIC. Of eight students who came from a variety of backgrounds; two were
teachers, two were professional coaches whilst the other four were full-time students.
However, they all had to secure a work placement for the purposes of the module if
they were not already coaching. Four staff were involved in delivering the unit. Two
of the staff had been instrumental in conceptualising and developing the unit, while
the involvement of the other two was limited to delivering and facilitating discussions
on their areas of theoretical expertise.
The introductory lecture highlighted the units aims, learning outcomes, assessment procedures and teaching method. The second weeks session was split into two.
The first half focussed on reflection; its purpose, limitations and value. This was
done not only in respect of raising current knowledge to consciousness but also of the
need to reflect with new knowledge in practice. The second half of the session was
then given over to an explicit theory, with the students being asked to implement it
the best they could in their following weeks practice and to produce a written log in
relation to their experiences. To assist in this process, the students were given
possible hooks on which to peg their reflections. For example, with regards to
implementing aspects of role theory and impression management (Goffman, 1959),
the students were asked to focus on what kind of an image did they want athletes to
have of them? Could they use the role of the coach to get athlete compliance? How?

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Developing coaching pedagogy

317

Were they acting in ways the athletes expect? Did they want to change? How else
could they act?
Week 3 began with a structured discussion on the student
coaches implementation of the theory given the previous week, and lasted approximately 45 minutes. The
students here were split into two smaller groups and shared their experiences relating
to which aspects of the theory worked well for them, which did not and why, in
addition to how problematic they found its general implementation. The small group
work later gave way to a full class discussion where the topics raised were further
debated. The second half of the session was given over to presenting the next theory.
The remainder of the module followed this bi-weekly cycle covering eight separate
theories and discussions groups until a final session concluded and formally
evaluated the unit. The eight theoretical perspectives given to the students included,
firstly, orchestration. Taken from the work of Wallace on complex educational
change, orchestration refers to how individuals manage others in a dynamic, fluid
world. It gives credence to steering as opposed to controlling the behaviours of
others, and to invest efforts where they can have the most impact (Jones & Wallace,
2005, 2006). The second theory presented was that related to social role and
impression management (Goffman, 1959). The position taken here is that social
interaction is largely driven by the impression we want others to have of ourselves;
notions which have increasingly found their way into coaching research (e.g. Jones
et al., 2004). This was followed by an examination of virtue theory (MacIntyre,
1985), which is tied to notions of both moral (i.e. patience, courage and generosity)
and intellectual (i.e. practical skill, intuition and resourcefulness) virtue. Teaching
styles were fourthly explored through Mosston and Ashworths (2002) spectrum,
ranging from the teacher command style to that of student self-teaching. Ideas
surrounding shared leadership or athlete empowerment (Jones & Standage, 2006)
were then discussed and, in particular, their relevance for everyday coaching
practice. This was followed by work associated with developing a favourable
motivational climate for learning (Ames, 1992), while the seventh theory given
examined the concept of developing followership (Russell, 2003) in athletes; a notion
gaining increasing credence in both coaching and management. Finally, social
exchange theory (Blau, 1986) was explored, particularly in relation to how it can
reconceptualise the coaching role (i.e. that all social relationships are predicated on
an exchange) and how we go about it. Our choice here was influenced both by a
consideration of current directions in coaching and to personal interest in including
positions we thought would be fascinating and relevant. The make up of the smaller
discussion groups varied in the first few weeks in order to gauge who worked best
with whom. Following this, where possible, particular students were grouped
together in order to encourage better debate, and to avoid students slipping into
the background and withdrawing from the larger group discussions.
It could be argued that the structure adopted here centred more on group
reflection on situated learning, a process grounded more in the communities of
practice framework (Wenger, 1998) than action research. Indeed, the democracy
advocated by some action researchers between us, the tutors, and the students was

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

318

R. Jones et al.

considerably diluted due to our selection of the theoretical perspectives presented.

There was no discussion here. We considered this somewhat unavoidable, as a
principal intention was to engage the student
coaches with theoretical positions new
to them; forcing them to address familiar issues through fresh eyes (Duckworth,
1997). Here, we drew on the earlier conceptualisation of action research as a means
by which social scientific theories could be reflected on in practice (Carr, 2006),
whilst not divorcing ourselves (or the students) from the interpretive position where
they had to make sense of and share their pedagogical experiences. Although this, to
a degree, leaves us open to charges of methodological imprecision (in relation to
action research), the primary purpose here was to advance knowledge by encouraging practitioners to engage with both what they already tacitly knew, and new
knowledge (Carr, 2006). Previous assumptions then were not only questioned, but
new theoretical knowledge also given as signposts to different horizons. Consequently, although the group work held obvious potential for the rise of a community
of practice, what was considered of equal if not greater importance was the students
reflective engagement with new theoretical knowledge in practice. Several fundamental action research tenets were therefore upheld. For example, through the
discussion group work, the student experience remained collaborative, communicative, communitarian and context centred (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 49),
while the central action research parameter of potential knowledge generation
though action and experimentation in context (Greenwood & Levin, 2003, p. 148)
followed by structured reflection on that action to generate progressive social
practice, was also adhered to.

Procedures
The principal methods utilised to gather data on the student learning experience
were those of observations and interviews. Participant observation can be described
as a form of subjective sociology (Hamersley & Atkinson, 1983). This is not because
the researcher aims to impose his or her beliefs on the respondents but to understand
the social world from the subjects point of view. Through such observation it was
anticipated that a picture of the student
coaches on-going learning as a result of the
injection of various theory into their respective practice would emerge. Here, one of
us sat in all the unit sessions, recording observations and chatting informally to the
students as appropriate. During the observations, field notes were made and
significant issues were recorded, coded and analysed, and used to inform subsequent
discussions.
In addition to observation techniques, the views of both students and teachers
were canvassed post unit through the use of semi-structured focus group interviews. Each
focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes. The focus groups discussions were
structured around the learning outcomes of the module with students questioned on
the effectiveness and relevance of the pedagogical approach used. Similarly, a staff
focus group was conducted comprising the four staff who had taught on the module.

Developing coaching pedagogy

319

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

This was similarly structured around the learning outcomes of the unit. The
interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, in order to ensure a complete
and accurate record. The interview transcripts were subsequently checked by the
research team for confirmation of accuracy, not only from the viewpoint of words
spoken but also to elicit the meaning of what was expressed (Stake, 1995). Any grey
areas were then addressed with the participants to avoid misinterpretation. In this
respect, taking the findings back to the field was not seen as a test of truth but an
opportunity for reflexive elaboration (Sparkes, 2000). In line with the Universitys
approved ethics procedure, all participants gave informed consent to participate in
the interviews in line with the institutions research ethics policy. Additionally, the
students were reassured that non-participation would not influence their final grade
in any way.

Data analysis
Charmazs (2006) inductive procedure was adopted to analyse the field notes and
interview data, particularly in relation to initial, focused and theoretical coding.
During initial coding, fragments of data were examined line-by-line for their analytic
import. In this way, categories were developed, in terms of the participants acts and
accounts, for further analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Although an element of open coding
was present here, the conceptual categories arrived at were framed by and located
within the studys aims. Similar to Glaser and Strauss (1967) foundational work, a
constant comparative method was employed to discover and ascertain similarities
and differences within the data. Following this initial phase, an element of focussed
coding was embarked upon where the most frequent or significant earlier codes were
used to further sift through the data thus refining the initial assumptions (Charmaz,
2006). Finally, theoretical coding was undertaken which examined possible relationships between categories, adding an element of precision and clarity to the results
(see Charmaz, (2006) for a fuller discussion here).

Results
Coaching insight, professional development and linking the theories
The students were unanimous in their agreement that the module had given them a
better insight into their own coaching. This response was summed up well by one of
them, Peter (all the names used are pseudonyms):
Its given me a better understanding of all the different aspects that come into
coaching, the different types of theories and how they can be used. I can pull things
out now. I might have been doing them anyway but not been aware of it.

Being able to identify a theory that enabled them to put a label on certain coaching
practices catalysed the further development of the students knowledge. In the words
of Simon, Once youve put a name on it you can identify it and read up on it so it

320

R. Jones et al.

develops more, it gets better; and Tom; its what I do anyway in many ways; but it
was good to understand it better. There was thus a recognition that the content had
contributed to some new insights.
The students undoubtedly found some of the theories easier to implement than
others depending on their circumstances and context. This forced them to think
harder about the theories given as working tools not behavioural prescriptions;
something they initially struggled with but eventually came to increasingly
appreciate. Virtue theory (MacIntyre, 1985) was a good example of this, where
the lecture focused on internal and external goods in the coaching environment:

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

It (virtue theory) just seemed irrelevant at the start; you have your values and the
ways that you do things and its great that we talked about it, but really getting
down to it, I didnt really see that as actually helping me in my coaching (Tom)
I agree that it is difficult to apply, but I felt that it was like a philosophy, my virtues
were sort of encased and the methods that I could use were within it. However. . .if
you compromise your virtues then people will soon get wind of that and the virtue
and ethics will drop, as well as the standards (Peter).

The struggle here was also evident in the field notes as the following excerpt
illustrates:
Journal entry (4)
Morgan led the group discussion. He kept reiterating that its just practical to think
this way. . .bending the rules is not immoral, its gamesmanship. Other voices
emerged that (eventually) disagreed (Alex: when it comes to man-management, I
try to be virtuous). Kate agreed on the need to be a role model, which forced
Morgans view (and voice) into the background. Once it was obvious that the
conversation had gotten beyond the superficial, Morgans comments became less
frequent but more considered.

The students found other theories much easier to apply. For example, in relation to
Mosston and Ashworths (2002) teaching styles, John commented on his growing
awareness of need to use a variety if pedagogical styles in his practice to match the
needs of the context (theres no one way of coaching all the time). He also felt that
this new knowledge had made him more accountable for his coaching actions and the
participants learning: if somebody cant do something which is within their
capability it may be something that I am doing wrong and Ive got to go back and
look at what Im doing.
Leadership and followership (Russell, 2003) theory was another that led to the
enlightenment of coaching practice as exemplified by Simon, who said that following
the lecture, application, reflection and discussion, he was able to identify the traits of
leadership in other players that were not noticeable before. Similarly, motivational
climate theory (Ames, 1992) and its link with approach and avoidance behaviours
made Jenny, a very experienced coach, more aware of the possible reasons why
competition works well for some children but not for others:
Ive always had variable results using competition and Ive never got to grips with
why, whether its the age of the kids I am working with? Ive never understood why

Developing coaching pedagogy

321

sometimes it works brilliantly and at other times it falls completely flat, so its (the
theory) been a big help.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Data from field notes indicated that as the weeks progressed, the students
discussions became increasingly informed not only by the theory given the previous
week, but by those also given in the preceding weeks (Journal entry [6]: they were
citing theories from a couple of weeks ago to solve that problem!). This, somewhat
inadvertently, addressed a primary concern of the staff; that is, if and how students
would be able to actually make links to practice across the theoretical positions given.
The overall (pleased) feeling amongst the staff was that by the end of the module the
students were able to make the links between the different theories effectively as a
result of their practical application and the set readings. In the words of Phil (a
tutor):
Coming to the last session, I thought the students were able to draw from other
lectures in their discussions so it wasnt just, You gave us this last week, and this
was what we talked about with you, and the other bits were all separate pockets.
They were able to dip into the other sessions and draw on them. . . It was probably
as a result of their reading. By reading as much as theyve had to in the module they
see how each of those actually contributes to the larger whole.

This opinion was supported by the students, as illustrated by Tom when he said,
thats where the step comes in, linking them to get the best out of each of the
different theories. Similarly Sarah felt that that the module gave her a complete
notion of all of these coaching theories and when you combine them its more
effective, more productive.

Reflection and clarifying personal coaching philosophies

One of the main aims of the module was to develop reflective practitioners, and the
students were unanimous in agreeing that this had been achieved. One student, Tom,
captured the mood well in this regard when he commented that we have to be
reflective to be in line with what we are doing in the module, the whole process is
geared towards that. He went on to say, you are evaluating yourself as you go along,
and when you finish you are a lot more aware of your practice. Peter also revealed a
change in his reflective commitment by saying that, because I have an insight into
some of the theories, my reflection can be done a lot quicker now and can have a
name. In a similar vein, Simon felt that this type of approach would be very
beneficial to coach education courses:
There are a lot of these (theories) that would be ideal for seminars to bring younger
coaches on. They have to do a workshop every year once they are a level 2 coach; a
couple of these would be ideal to get them thinking, get them on board with ideas
and get them reflecting about their own coaching.

Here, the students thought that it is important for them not only to think about what
they do, but what they do in terms of something (i.e. a new perspective). It was a
tendency also reflected in the field notes:

322

R. Jones et al.
Journal entry (5)
The general discussions are much more theoretical informed than at the start of the
course (which tended to relate to experience). Alex came to see me in the break (for
the first time!). In discussing the value of the course he was keen to point out that
what he liked was that, although some of the stuff is a bit heavy, it certainly gets me
thinking and trying new things.

When asked about whether the module had helped to enhance and develop their
personal coaching philosophy, Tom echoed the sentiments of most of the group:

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

I think it gives you an overall awareness of what you are doing as a coach and
whether what you are doing is in line with what you want to be doing. You have a
philosophy and an idea of what you want to be achieving in coaching and the
awareness covered in the module gives you methods you can use to get in line with
that.

Similarly, Jenny stated that it reinforced the way I believe I want to coach helping to
formalize and put a framework on it. For her, however, it also started a process of
furthering her coaching philosophy as evidenced by her statement that, prior to the
module, Ive never actually sat down and thought this is my coaching philosophy.
I actually started thinking on the course about how I would write down a
philosophy. For Sarah also, the module was instrumental in developing a personal
philosophy that she had never been able to previously identify:
I always tried to learn from other coaches but this was difficult because every one of
them had their own personal notions, their personal thoughts, so I was completely
confused. This module has helped me identify what is important and what I have to
do.

Similar themes to those identified by the students emerged from the staff focus
group; amongst them, reflective practice and the opportunity to discuss the
application of theory. For example, Mark, one of the tutors commented; the idea
of trying to get them to embed possible theoretical issues in a practical situation was
really good and even though the feedback I got from my session was that they found
it difficult to do, just the act of reflecting on that was no doubt valuable. Overall, the
students progress in their ability to reflect on their practice showed a marked
improvement over the duration of the module. The general feeling amongst them
was that the module was making them more knowledgeable and reflective.

Social learning
In addition to the requirement to apply the theories to their coaching practice, the
sessions were also designed to include follow-up, small group discussions of the
participants coaching experiences. This interactive student-centred focus was seen
as a vital part of the module by the students, and contrasted sharply with previous
learning encounters. In Peters words:
I personally learn more when its interactive, it keeps you interested, instead of just
being spoon fed by a lecturer who just stands up and talks for an hour, then goes

Developing coaching pedagogy

323

away. If you are being made to talk about it you come out with a better
understanding. . . if you dont understand something you can spend time on a
certain area.

In agreement with this, Tom noted that:

I found it really beneficial to listen to what everyone else had experienced, how they
perceived the theory and how they went away and put it into practice. . ...I then
thought, Well, I can use that and that, I made notes on it and asked questions
during that time and got to know a bit more.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Social learning, where students shared each others experiences of applying the
theories on a weekly basis in their different sports was, therefore, a key element of the
module and developed something akin to a genuine community of practice amongst
the group. In the words of Scott and Glyn:
I got the feeling in those sessions that you jumped into the mind of the person.
Because we got to know each other more and more each week you could almost be
in there with them and see how they were travelling through the course. I could see
the kids they were teaching. I could visualize it and it was almost like I was on a
journey with them through their learning process as well (Scott):
Through the sharing of knowledge and discussing different things, it was like a light
(being switched on). I came in with sort of tunnel vision, you know, Ive got all this
sussed, then someone made a good point and changed the way I was thinking. You
realize that theres not just one way to do things and you are never going to know it
all. Its a voyage of discovery where you keep learning and its great (Glyn).

At times, the social learning process differed between participants as a consequence

of their coaching contexts. For example, Jenny an individual sports coach gave an
interesting insight into her application of shared leadership and empowerment theory
(Jones & Standage, 2006) in comparison with team sports coaches:
I was trying to think of empowerment in a team situation. You couldnt just say Ok
go off and do what you think is right, you have to say, Ok go off and do what you
think is right within this boundary. You cant just totally empower people, but in
my situation thats what I try to do because Im trying to get them into a situation
where they can go off on their own, so I dont want to set a boundary for them, I
actually want them over the boundary. So thats quite interesting, to try and think
how these theories fit me and others.

The students learning experience also seemed to generate its own momentum and
direction. For example, even though the discussions were initially pre-structured by
us, the tutors, they soon followed the students experiences of everyday coaching.
There was also a feeling that it was vital to attend all sessions for fear of missing out
on the learning experience (Scott; I missed a session and its deeply debilitating:
Simon; You just cant miss a session; for me personally it spoils the movement
through the course). The students thus felt obliged and engaged within an on-going
learning process, where it was deemed important to experience every step.
The structure incorporating follow-up sessions was also considered to be a major
strength by staff, in terms of realising the modules stated learning outcomes. Here,
Mark went on to explain the impact of this approach on his own teaching:

324

R. Jones et al.
Whats good about the way that we taught this is that usually when you leave a
lecture or teaching session youve no real idea of how its been used or accepted.
Here, you have the following week where you think that, although there may have
been a bit of resistance last week, when theyve come back and have done the work
you start seeing the relevance of what youve got. As a teacher, its quite nice that
you dont have to wait until the end of the module to see the effect of the learning.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

The follow-up session, therefore, was considered to be a crucial facet of the teaching
approach. Indeed, Ian felt that it required him to work extra hard in thinking
specifically about the follow up, and that he was always thinking a week ahead. In
his own words, I had to invest a lot more in the unit than if I was up there for just an
hour and a half then gone. From both learning and teaching standpoints this was a
key aspect which resulted in some staff members feeling more involved and
accountable for their sessions.

Constraints, barriers and future developments

The unit was not universally perceived as positive however, as there were some
aspects which the students considered to be in need of improvement. Having
sufficient time to integrate the theory into practice and reflect on it on a weekly basis
emerged as a constraint within one of the focus groups. As Glyn suggested:
We could have applied some of the theories over a month or even longer. You found
that you could have gone away and done something and come back and had a
discussion then gone away and done it again, because when you came back in and
talked about it there were elements you hadnt considered.

John too found it difficult to plan a session really well and put it all into practice
before the weekend. Time for planning and integrating the theory into the coaching
sessions was also an issue for Simon who noted that, It does take longer now that I
put more into it (planning a session) because of these theories. . ..there is so much, that
I think Ill have to cut some of it down because Im not going to make it in an hour.
Not all students agreed with time being a constraint, however. Indeed, closely
related to the interlinking of the various theories, Tom saw the whole module as
merging into one overall opportunity to apply the different theories:
If you are doing ten hours of coaching you can play around with different things
that are relevant to your session. I think that theyve (the theories) been relatively
easy to apply in sessions because they are things that relate to the way you should be
coaching anyway.

The students experiences here then, were variable.

One of the final discussion points within the staff focus group centred on future
developments for the module. A theme debated was the potential use of observational analysis of student coaching episodes to further develop the reflective process
within the cohort. As Neil suggested; Im thinking about whether we make it
compulsory for everybody to be videoed on one session and then share that with the
group as a further means of reflection. Mark agreed and commented that:

Developing coaching pedagogy

325

If they were willing to have a 10 minute snapshot, we could say to them, Look, out
of the video that youve done this week identify 10 minutes that you think display
where youve specifically met the theoretical outcomes here. Explain to us what
youve done and how youve done it.

Other suggestions for future developments included one to embed electronic

discussion boards related to the use of the different theories into the module delivery
to further secure and stimulate the shared learning experience. Overall, however,
there was a feeling amongst the group that the module had been successful in
achieving the Masters level learning outcomes and that, consistent with some of the
students opinions, it could also be a very effective CPD course for more experienced
coaches.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Tentative discussion and conclusions

Similar to the social workers in Na rhis (2002) study and the coaches in Cassidy et al.
(2006) work, through progressive engagement with new theoretical concepts and
each others experiences, the coaches within this project came to increasingly
recognise the specificity and limitations of their own knowledge. Indeed, according
to Wenger (1998, p. 5), although the results from such a process are perhaps not
foreign, new light is shed on our world. In this way, our intuitions are pushed,
deepening our understanding of familiar phenomena. This certainly seemed to
happen to the students, as they were better able to problematise, deconstruct and
subsequently order what they still recognised as known practice (I might have been
doing them anyway but not been aware of it). Here, by exploring concepts and
experiences more systematically, a sharpening of perceptions in relation to existing
experiences, making them more useful as thinking tools, resulted (Wenger, 1998, p. 7).
Although some examples were given, most notably in reference to motivational
climate, the students preferred to talk in generalities here in turn of the value of
theoretical input to their practice. Far from being a limitation on their part, this was
in line with the aims of the study; that is, to explore the worth of the pedagogical
format as opposed to particular theories, or parts of theories, for students coaching.
On reflection, however, more specific clues about what particularly resonated with
the students could have given us, as researchers, further food for thought. Still, the
broad action research structure of the unit, in terms of forcing critical reflection on
practice, certainly gave credence to the students existing coaching knowledge with
the subsequent impact being an improved ability to conceptualise that knowledge
(Elbaz, 1983).
This raised awareness of practice also helped the students to clarify personal
philosophies. In this respect, the theories debated gave the students a means of
reflecting methodically upon familiar experience and the previously vague notions
about what they considered their individual philosophies to be. The students
engagement in terms of critically reflecting on their actions in light of previously
unconsidered theoretical frameworks certainly appeared to give them new insights; a
melding of professional and local knowledge which lies at the heart of action research

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

326

R. Jones et al.

(Greenwood & Levin, 2003). It also gave them a renewed sense of responsibility over
their coaching delivery, a development encouraged through the adoption of a process
of self-monitoring (the thing about being reflective is that you then take
responsibility for what you do). This was not only in relation to clarifying what
they already knew, but also, through the learning and implementation of new
knowledge, in becoming aware of alternative progressions and horizons. The
approach, therefore, gave the students a greater sense of empowerment to inquire
and self-regulate their own development (Ollis & Sproule, 2007); a central tenet of
first person action research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001).
Similarly, the units teachers also felt a raised degree of responsibility. This was not
so much in relation to their content delivery which had always been well evaluated,
but by the subsequent student learning. They took greater care to listen and react to
group interactions, recognising that their (non) interventions at (in) appropriate
times could genuinely affect and frame ensuing students discussions and perceptions. Additionally, there was a recognition by the students that the theories
presented were not prescriptions, but a guide to practice; a tendency towards what
Schofield (2003) referred to reinstating vagueness. As opposed to working within
some abstract, imprecise or indistinguishable position, Schofields notion here
referred to treating theory as living, useful frameworks that can guide, but not
dictate, everyday action. It is a position which also echoes that of Schons (1987, p. 25)
reflective practitioner, in that simply learning a theory and applying it to practice is
insufficient. Rather, what is required is for practitioners to construct an integrated
knowledge-in-action approach, much of which is spontaneous, reflecting a professional artistry in practice (Scho n, 1983). In line with recent research (e.g. Jones
et al., 2004), such a development echoes the realisation that coaching knowledge is
constructed in context; being both the product of where it takes place, and coaches
engagement with each situations enablers and constraints. Consequently, a realistic
perception of theoretical relevance was developed and maintained by the students,
helping to develop a more credible working praxis.
Within Etienne Wengers (1998) seminal work on communities of practice,
learning is not viewed as an individual process and the direct result of teaching.
Rather Wengers stance is based on the assumption that engagement in social
practice is the fundamental process by which we learn. The students experience
within such a community, which was conceived as a joint enterprise, gave support to
such a position. Indeed, building in an element of group discussion into the unit
which gave rise to the sharing of experience was founded on Wengers thinking; the
problems of practice then, and in particular how theory could help address them,
were something the students negotiated both individually and together. In Wengers
(1998) terminology, the students colluded, collided, conspired and conformed in
developing their understanding of coaching. As is the intention with communities of
practice, the students acted as resources for each other, making sense of situations,
sharing new tricks and ideas (Wenger, 1998, p. 47). This function was reinforced
through the action research related format, in that follow-up sessions allowed
progressive structured discussion on practiced concepts; an aspect that the units

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Developing coaching pedagogy

327

tutors considered crucial for continuing student engagement. It is a finding which

builds on the work of Cassidy et al. (2006), where coaches considered conversations
grounded in everyday issues with peers and colleagues as being vital in their
professional development.
Although the opportunity to discuss theoretical implementation was considered
critical and enjoyable by the students, their evaluations were not universally positive.
For one, more time to engage with the theories given would have been beneficial,
allowing further exploration and subsequent reflection upon the nuances of each
position. Additionally, there was some tension between the needs of the individual
and the dominant voice of the group. Meanwhile, the tutors concerns centred on
ensuring that the students created links between the variety of theories given, and
then used them as more general reflective tools. Such issues, however, were focussed
on structure, content and practical delivery as opposed the units philosophy, or
problems with the realisation of the learning aims. The result here then was a
seeming convergence of practice and theory, which has obvious implications for
coach development. This is not only in ensuring that we provide and encourage
contexts and structures within which professional communities of practice can
develop and prosper, but also in giving coaches access to the theoretical resources
necessary to learn what they need to learn in order to take actions and make
decisions that fully engage their own knowledgability (Wenger, 1998, p. 10). In this
way, practice and theory can become mutually informed and constructed by coaches
in action. The findings here also give weight to Ollis and Sproules (2007) belief in
the importance of challenge in development, although care has to be taken in
relation to how that challenge is framed, and the support given to learners in dealing
with it.
As with previous pedagogical experimentation (Jones & Turner, 2006), we
recognise the limits of what can be achieved by, and claimed for, the teaching
approach undertaken in a small scale study. The pedagogical framework adopted was
also not without its shortcomings, while a small group of generally engaged postgraduate students are not altogether reflective of a wider student
coach cohort. No
doubt further challenges remain in relation to the saliency of such an approach as a
pedagogy to teach coaching, which could include greater use of videoed examples of
coaching behaviour to be collectively deconstructed thus providing further opportunities for cooperative progression. Additionally, better insight into coaches microabilities to understand and utilise theory in the complex, adaptive, non-linear system
of coaching (Ollis & Sproule, 2007) is required before the conclusions from this
study can be treated as anything but tentative signposts. Nevertheless, we believe
enough promise exists to warrant further investigation of the potential of the outlined
framework to teach coaching. This is particularly in developing personal transferable
knowledge, a sense of empowerment and critical reflection in student
coaches,
particularly in relation to improving individuals understanding of their own
practices and the situations in which such practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis,
1986).

328

R. Jones et al.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

References
Allen, W. J. (2001) Working together for environmental management: the role of information sharing and
collaborative learning. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.
Ames, C. (1992) Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes, in: G. C.
Roberts (Ed.) Motivation in sport and exercise (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 161
176.
Blau, P. (1986) Exchange and power in social life (Edison, NJ, Transaction Publishers).
Carr, W. (2006) Philosophy, methodology and action research, Journal of Philosophy of Education,
40(4), 421
435.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research (Lewes,
Falmer).
Cassidy, T., Jones, R. L. & Potrac, P. (2009) Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and
pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd edn) (London, Routledge).
Cassidy, T., Potrac, P. & McKenzie, A. (2006) Evaluating and reflecting upon a coach education
initiative: the CoDe of rugby, The Sport Psychologist, 20, 145
161.
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis
(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Chen, A. (1998) Meaningfulness in physical education: a description of high school students
conceptions, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(4), 285
306.
Chesterfield, G., Potrac, P. & Jones, R. L. (2010). Studentship and impression management:
coaches experiences of an advanced soccer coach education award, Sport, Education and
Society, 15(3), 299
314.
Culver, D. M. & Trudel, P. (2006) Cultivating coaches communities of practice: developing the
potential for learning through interaction, in: R. L. Jones (Ed.) The sports coach as educator:
reconceptualising sports coaching (London, Routledge), 97
112.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2003) Locating the field, in: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds) The landscape
of qualitative research: theories and issues (2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage), 47
53.
Dick, B. (1997) What is action research? Occasional pieces in action research methodology, 2.
Available online at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arm/op002.html
Duckworth, E. (1997) Teacher to teacher: learning from each other (New York, Teachers College
Press).
Elbaz, F. (1983) Teacher thinking: a study of practical knowledge (London, Croom Helm).
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research (Chicago, Aldine).
Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life (Reading, Penguin Books).
Greenwood, D. & Levin, M. (2003) Reconstructing the relationship between universities and
society through action research, in: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds) The landscape of qualitative
research: theories and issues (2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage), 131
166.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: principles in practice (London, Tavistock
Publications).
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2004) Sports coaching cultures: from practice to theory
(London, Routledge).
Jones, R. L. & Standage, M. (2006) First among equals: shared leadership in the coaching context,
in: R. L. Jones (Ed.) The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching (London,
Routledge), 65
76.
Jones, R. L. & Turner, P. (2006) Teaching coaches to coach holistically: the case for a ProblemBased Learning (PBL) approach, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 181
202.
Jones, R. L. & Wallace, M. (2005) Another bad day at the training ground: coping with ambiguity
in the coaching context, Sport, Education and Society, 10(1), 119
134.
Jones, R. L. & Wallace, M. (2006) The coach as orchestrator, in: R. L. Jones (Ed.) The sports coach
as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching (London, Routledge), 51
64.

Downloaded by [ ] at 08:30 14 November 2012

Developing coaching pedagogy

329

Kemmis, S. (1988) Action research, in: J. P. Keeves (Ed.) Educational research, methodology and
measurement: an international handbook (Oxford, Pergamon Press), 173
179.
Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2.4, 33
46.
Masters, J. (1995) The history of action research, in: I. Hughes (Ed.) Action research electronic reader
(Sydney, University press). Available online at: http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/
Reader/rmasters.htm (accessed 17 March 2010).
MacIntyre, A. (1985) After virtue (London, Duckworth).
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2002) Teaching physical education (5th edn) (Columbus, OH,
Merrill).
Na
rhi, K. (2002) Transferable and negotiated knowledge: constructing social work expertise for
the future, Journal of Social Work, 2(3), 317
336.
Nelson, L. & Cushion, C. (2006) Reflection in coach education: the case of the national governing
body coaching certificate, The Sport Psychologist, 20, 174
183.
Oja, S. N. & Smulyan, L. (1989) Collaborative action research: a developmental approach (London,
The Falmer Press).
Ollis, S. & Sproule, J. (2007) Constructivist coaching and expertise development as action
research, International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2, 1
14.
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001) Handbook of action research (Sage, London).
Russell, M. (2003) Leadership and followership as a relational process, Educational Management
and Administration, 31(2), 145
157.
Schofield, B. (2003) Re-instating the vague, The Sociological Review, 51(3), 321
338.
Scho n, D. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
Scho
n, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (New York, Basic
Books).
Sparkes, A. (2000) Autoethnographies and narratives of self, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17(1), 21

43.
Stake, R. (1995) The art of case study research (London, Sage).
Tsai, S. D., Pan, C.-Y. & Chiang, H.-Q. (2004) Shifting the mental model and emerging innovative
behaviour: action research as a quality management system, Emergence: Complexity &
Organization, 6(4), 28
39.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, University
Press).
Wenger, E., McDermott, A. A. & Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to
managing knowledge (Harvard, MS, Harvard Business School Press).