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 a Robyn Jones , Kevin Morgan & Kerry Harris a a 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. 313329 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 studentcoach 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 studentcoaches 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 Levin’s (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 Lewin’s 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 Wenger’s (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 unit’s aims, learning outcomes, assessment procedures and teaching method. The second week’s 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 week’s 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 studentcoaches’ 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 Ashworth’s (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 studentcoaches 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 subject’s point of view. Through such observation it was anticipated that a picture of the studentcoaches’ 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 University’s approved ethics procedure, all participants gave informed consent to participate in the interviews in line with the institution’s research ethics policy. Additionally, the students were reassured that non-participation would not influence their final grade in any way. Data analysis Charmaz’s (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 study’s 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): It’s 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 you’ve 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; ‘it’s 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 it’s great that we talked about it, but really getting down to it, I didn’t 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 ‘it’s just practical to think this way. . .bending the rules is not immoral, it’s 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 Morgan’s view (and voice) into the background. Once it was obvious that the conversation had gotten beyond the superficial, Morgan’s comments became less frequent but more considered. The students found other theories much easier to apply. For example, in relation to Mosston and Ashworth’s (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 (‘there’s 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 can’t do something which is within their capability it may be something that I am doing wrong and I’ve got to go back and look at what I’m 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: I’ve always had variable results using competition and I’ve never got to grips with why, whether it’s the age of the kids I am working with? I’ve never understood why Developing coaching pedagogy 321 sometimes it works brilliantly and at other times it falls completely flat, so it’s (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 student’s 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 wasn’t 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 they’ve 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, ‘that’s 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 it’s 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, ‘I’ve 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 Peter’s words: I personally learn more when it’s 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 don’t 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 other’s 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, ‘I’ve got all this sussed’, then someone made a good point and changed the way I was thinking. You realize that there’s not just one way to do things and you are never going to know it all. It’s a voyage of discovery where you keep learning and it’s 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 couldn’t 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 can’t just totally empower people, but in my situation that’s what I try to do because I’m trying to get them into a situation where they can go off on their own, so I don’t want to set a boundary for them, I actually want them over the boundary. So that’s 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 it’s deeply debilitating’: Simon; ‘You just can’t 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 module’s stated learning outcomes. Here, Mark went on to explain the impact of this approach on his own teaching: 324 R. Jones et al. What’s good about the way that we taught this is that usually when you leave a lecture or teaching session you’ve 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 they’ve come back and have done the work you start seeing the relevance of what you’ve got. As a teacher, it’s quite nice that you don’t 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 hadn’t 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 I’ll have to cut some of it down because I’m 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 they’ve (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; ‘I’m 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 you’ve done this week identify 10 minutes that you think display where you’ve specifically met the theoretical outcomes here. Explain to us what you’ve done and how you’ve 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¨ rhi’s (2002) study and the coaches in Cassidy et al. (2006) work, through progressive engagement with new theoretical concepts and each other’s 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 unit’s 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, Schofield’s 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 Scho¨n’s (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 situation’s 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 Wenger’s (1998) seminal work on ‘communities of practice’, learning is not viewed as an individual process and the direct result of teaching. Rather Wenger’s 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 Wenger’s 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 Wenger’s (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 unit’s 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 unit’s 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 Sproule’s (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 studentcoach 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 studentcoaches, 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), 161176. 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), 421435. 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, 145161. 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), 285306. 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), 299314. 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), 97112. 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), 4753. 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), 131166. 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), 6576. 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), 181202. 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), 119134. 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), 5164. 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), 173179. Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2.4, 3346. 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), 317336. Nelson, L. & Cushion, C. (2006) Reflection in coach education: the case of the national governing body coaching certificate, The Sport Psychologist, 20, 174183. 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, 114. 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), 145157. Schofield, B. (2003) Re-instating the vague, The Sociological Review, 51(3), 321338. 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), 2839. 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).