CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONOURS)
SPORTS COACHING
TITLE
THE EXTENT TO WHICH COACH EDUCATION HAS
AN IMPACT ON ‘EVERYDAY’ COACHING, IN
FOOTBALL.
NAME
STEVEN JAYE
UNIVERSITY NUMBER
ST09002129
STEVEN JAYE
ST09002129
SCHOOL OF SPORT: UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE, CARDIFF
THE EXTENT TO WHICH COACH EDUCATION
HAS AN IMPACT ON ‘EVERYDAY’ COACHING,
IN FOOTBALL.
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd
Certificate of student
I certify that the whole of this work is the result of my individual effort, that all
quotations from books and journals have been acknowledged, and that the word
count given below is a true and accurate record of the words contained (omitting
contents pages, acknowledgements, indexes, figures, reference list and
appendices).
Word count:
11,919
Signed:
S.N.Jaye
Date:
6th March 2012
Certificate of Dissertation Tutor responsible
I am satisfied that this work is the result of the student’s own effort.
I have received a dissertation verification file from this student
Signed:
Date:
Notes:
The University owns the right to reprint all or part of this document.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
CHAPTER TWO:
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Literature Review
2
2.1 Introduction
2
2.2 Nature of Coaching
2
2.2.1 The Coaching Process
2
2.2.2 Coach Education Pathway
4
2.3 Formal Learning through Coach Education
4
2.4 Informal Learning
7
2.5 Coach Education Effectiveness and Rationale for Further Research
11
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD
3.0 Method
13
3.1 Introduction
13
3.2 Participants
13
3.3 Focus Group Protocol
14
3.4 Procedure
16
3.5 Data Analysis
16
3.6 Trustworthiness
18
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.0 Results
19
4.1 The content of coach knowledge and skill
19
4.1.1 Knowledge
19
4.1.2 After Course Contact
21
4.1.3 Standardisation and Previous Licences
22
4.2 Coach learning external to formal course delivery
23
4.2.1 Mentoring
23
4.2.2 Observational Learning
25
4.2.3 Experiential Learning
25
4.2.4 Education
26
4.3 Improvements to coach education programmes
27
4.3.1 After Course Contact
28
4.3.2 Licence Restructure
29
4.3.3 Assessment Process
30
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.0 Discussion
31
5.1 Theoretical Implications
31
5.1.1 Content of coach knowledge and skill from formal education
31
5.1.2 What coaches learn outside of coach education
35
5.2 Practical Implications
37
5.3 Strengths and Limitations of the Current Study
40
5.5 Future Research
41
CHAPTER SIX:
CONCLUSION
6.0 Conclusion
44
References
46
APPENDICES
Appendix A: The Football Association: Coaching Pathway
52
Appendix B: Official overviews of UEFA Licensed courses from FAW’s
website
53
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: A thematic network of coach learning though formal education
20
FIGURE 2: A thematic network representing informal approaches to learning
24
FIGURE 3: A thematic network representing potential improvements to
coach education
29
FIGURE 4: A possible new way in which the Football Association of Wales
could structure their licences
39
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my tutor Mr Brendan Cropley for all the help over the past two
years completing my work and for help outside of this piece.
I would also like to thank my girlfriend, Emma Ironside, who kept pushing me to do
my work and made sure I had it all done on time.
Finally, I’d like to thank my family for all their support through my time at University.
i
Abstract
Coach education is a single part within a complex process in which coaches learn
about how to coach football in the most effective ways (Mallett, Trudel, Lyle &
Rynne, 2009). With growing concerns over the provision of developing coaches this
study aimed to examine the content of coach knowledge and skill, to examine the
utility of coach education to meet coaches’ needs and, to identify ways in which
coach education could be developed to better prepare coaches within the context of
football. To do this the study used three focus groups of qualified coaches (n = 8), at
various levels of qualification, to gain an insight into how the participants perceived
coach education helped them prepare for coaching in the ‘real world.’ The results of
this study found that coach education programmes only prepare coaches to a certain
extent with a need to further develop the inclusion of informal learning opportunities
into the formal process in order to better prepare coaches for real situation coaching.
Participants also mentioned the need for additional modules, for example, a module
to help cope with certain scenarios, which may make for a change in the session,
licence restructure, so that coaches can become expert at one particular level, and
alternative assessment procedures, which would give the assessors a better
indication of the real standard a coach is at. These findings give coach education
creators’ new information on how to structure their programmes in order to meet the
needs of the coaches attending and to better prepare them to coach in the real
world.
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Coach education is a single part within a complex process in which coaches learn
about how to coach football in the most effective ways (Mallett, Trudel, Lyle &
Rynne, 2009). With coaches being so highly involved and at the forefront of an
individual’s or team’s success, greater emphasis is now being placed on the coach
education development programmes in order to further the knowledge of new
coaches and to also maintain the knowledge of current coaches. “There are 1.1
million individuals undertaking coaching in the UK, providing sporting opportunities
and guided development to around five million children, adult participants and,
talented and high performance athletes” (North, 2010, p. 239), however, “There are
‘genuine concerns about the abilities of these coaches to deliver this provision (of
coaching) to a level which confers the potential benefits of high quality coaching”
(North, 2010, p. 252). This is a concern due to the fact that a significant amount of
these individuals are volunteers, that do not possess a recognised qualification, and
just over half have a coaching qualification, the majority of which are Level One or
Level Two (North, 2009). North (2009) summarises, “In other words, there are a
large number of‘coaches,’ working with a large number of participants in the UK,
where there is uncertainty about the quality of the sporting provision being
undertaken,” (p. 239) therefore, the training of coaches is considered central to
sustaining and improving the quality of sports coaching and the ongoing process of
professionalisation (Mallet, Trudel, Lyle & Rynne, 2009). However, due to problems
with understanding the coaching process it is difficult for coach education
programmes to use a coaching model in which to base their courses on (Cushion,
2001;
Jones,
Armour,
&
Potrac,
1
2004;
Lyle,
1999,
2002).
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This review will examine the current structure of coach education in football, how
formal coach education is perceived in the literature, whilst also potentially
considering more productive ways of coach learning and development as well as the
positives and negatives of both current education and the perceptions of it. At the
end a rationale will be given to state why this study needs to be undertaken and the
aims of this study are stated.
2.2 Nature of Coaching
2.2.1 The Coaching Process
Rationalistic views, such as those of Fairs (1987) and Franks et al. (1986),
represent the pragmatism in which coaching has previously been perceived. Instead,
the view that coaching is more dynamic and diverse has become more prominent.
Coaching is an ambiguous, complex process and the understanding of which is
underdeveloped in empirical studies (Cushion, 2001; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2004;
Lyle, 1999, 2002). Côté, Trudel, Baria, Salmela and Russell (1995) concluded that,
“Coaching then is a practical, social activity that has as its characteristics:
multidimensionality, simultaneity, uncertainty, publicity and historicity” (p. 255). Saury
and Durand (1998) conducted a study on expert French sailing coaches which found
that coaching tasks were considered by coaches as a set of interacting constraints
which generate complex, contradictory, and ill defined problems. This shows that
coaching is an ambiguous task that causes problematic incidents. Reiterating the
2
responses of Côté et al. (1995), Saury and Durand (1998) argued that coaching can
be characterised as complex, uncertain, dynamic, singular, and with conflicting
values, this has resulted in a need for a change in literature (Cushion, 2001; Jones,
Armour, & Potrac, 2004; Lyle, 1999, 2002). There are no empirically researched
models that reflect and take into account the ambiguity and realism that represents
coaching, which makes it difficult to ensure coach education programmes can deal
with these issues, as it is difficult to conceptualise the ambiguity of coaching in to a
single model. This depiction of coaching being a simplistic process, that can be
taught through coach education courses, has left many coaches disillusioned with
professional development programmes, which they criticise as being ‘fine in theory’
but divorced from reality (Saury & Durand, 1998; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Cushion et
al., 2003).
Cushion et al., (2006a) stated that many coaches work without any reference
to a coaching process model and, alternatively, base their practice on feelings,
intuitions, events and previous experience. With this in mind, practitioners that do
operate without reference to any guideline or models for good practice, undoubtedly
crave such a framework (Cushion et. al, 2006a; Cushion, 2007) because an
appropriate model can act as a guideline of good practice for practitioners to base
practical sessions on, which would inform how sessions were organised and would
provide theoretical support of the information within those sessions (Cushion et. al,
2006a).
Although coach education has taken on a more positive role towards
understanding ambiguity within sport, it has not been able to fully understand what
ambiguity is and how it can be coped with by the coaches, and how this coping
strategy can be implemented on coach education courses, due to the lack of
3
empirical research and knowledge of the coaching process (Mathers, 1997; Lyle,
2002; Cushion, et al., 2003). Therefore, the need for clarification of the process is a
necessity for coaching and coach education courses to develop further (Mathers,
1997; Lyle, 2002; Cushion, et al., 2003).
2.2.2 Coach Education Pathway
The coach education system and structure in the UK for football defines
certain levels and states that the coach must meet required criteria in order to coach
at a particular level, which is overall governed by UEFA. Appendix A, shows the
current progressions within the coaching pathway to become an elite coach, it also
shows other courses advertised by The Football Association (The FA) depending on
the pathway the coach chooses. The different levels of coaching will result in
different ideologies of what coach education programmes should entail depending on
the level of the coach in question. For example, a UEFA 'C' Licence coach will have
different needs to a coach attending a UEFA 'A' Licence course, this is due to the
level in which they are coaching at and the varied needs they have from one
another. This in turn, has an impact on the content delivered in the education
programmes, which needs to understand the desires and expectations of what
coaches want on coach education programmes, along with the requirements that the
sport needs from the coaches. Appendix B shows a brief overview of each course
offered by the Football Association of Wales (The FAW).
2.3 Formal Learning through Coach Education
4
In order to understand how coach education can be effective, it is important to
know what allows a coach to learn and the different ways in which they can do so.
Coaching can be divided into two main learning situations: formal and informal (Lyle
& Cushion, 2010). Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007) define formal coach
education as, ‘Highly institutionalised, bureaucratic, curriculum driven, and formally
recognized with grades, diplomas, or certificates’ (p. 29). For example, the UEFA
Licences that are available for football coaches, and the United Kingdom Coaching
Certificates available for other sports.
Cushion (2003) stated that coach education courses offer coaches a model of
best practice to use, however, these do not prepare coaches for coaching in context.
In contrast, Cushion (2003) does not deal with the actual views from coaches and
has more specifically only looked at previous research and preceding papers to
further knowledge. A number of benefits have been noted from the application of
formal learning such as: increased perceived coaching efficacy (Malete & Feltz,
2000), better facilitation of social development and growth of athletes (Conroy &
Coatsworth, 2006), and decreased rate of coach burnout by teaching stress
management and coping strategies (Frey, 2007), showing that formal education
should not be fully disregarded when educating coaches (Erickson, Bruner,
MacDonald & Côté, 2008). Formal learning opportunities, such as coach education
programmes, have the advantages of being packaged, having access to experts,
formal assessment procedures, quality assurance measures, and recognition of
achievement (Mallet et al., 2009). Formal coach education programmes have been
to known to lead to the improvement of critical thinking skills. This aspect that has
been shown to be essential for continued success of coaches, at least in highperformance sports coaching (Lyle, 2002).
5
Studies on what experiences were required to become a high level coach,
concluded that having certain experiences within the sport they now coach in, were
deemed sufficient but not necessary and found to support the need to increase the
effectiveness of coach education programmes (Eriksson, Côté, & Fraser-Thomas,
2007; Irwin et al., 2004). However, Eriksson et al., (2007) performed this study on a
variety of sports with only one participant involved with a background in football,
meaning that there is a need to support this statement with further research within
football. Mallet et al. (2009) stated that, ‘Formal coach education programmes have
been shown to make varying but often-limited contributions’ (p. 329), showing a need
for other forms of learning to assist a coaches development and learning.
Although formal approaches to learning have clear benefits, such processes
have also been stated to lack context and meaning, with individualisation being less
a part of the structure, with the emphasis seemingly on ‘getting coaches through the
process’ (Mallet et al., 2009). Bowes and Jones (2006) concluded that coach
education needs to move away from the over-simplistic view that it is a single
dimensioned process and towards the notion of coaching being an ambiguous
process, as coaches are now becoming dissatisfied with current formal education
programmes, as it is perceived as ignoring real coaching scenarios, leaving coaches
unprepared for the task of coaching in ‘real’ situations because they are ‘divorced’
from the reality of coaching (Bowes & Jones, 2006; Jones et al., 2004; Jones,
Armour, & Potrac, 2003; Saury & Durand, 1998).
Recent research suggests that coach education programmes have been
divorced from 'reality' to some degree, (Abraham & Collins, 1998; Cushion et al.et al.
2003; Jones & Wallace, 2005; Cushion et al.et al. 2010) and that coach education
has been stated to be de-contextualised coaching opportunities that has an over
6
reliance on coaching technical and tactical aspects of performance, having a
tendency to focus on the dominant bio-scientific disciplines of sport and exercise
science (Jones & Wallace, 2005; Knowles et al, 2006). This detracts from an
understanding of the socio-cultural process of coaching and the coaching process
(Cassidy, Jones & Potrac, 2004) and has led to course tutors conflicting with the
curricular content (Hammond & Perry, 2005). For most coaches a formalised coach
education programme, such as the UEFA Licences, actually has very little impact on
actual coaching practice, one cause of this view is that coach education courses in
their current form do not enable coaches to meet the needs of high-level performers
(Nash & Sproule, 2009). Consequently, many have suggested that greater impact on
coach learning and development comes from more informal learning opportunities
(Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003; Irwin, Hanton & Kerwin, 2004).
2.4 Informal Learning
Informal learning is the approach in which education is taught through the use
of meetings, conferences and observations, under or out of supervision of the coach
education system (Lyle & Cushion, 2010; MacDonald, Côté & Deakin, 2010).
MacDonald et al. (2010) found that informal and non-formal coach education was
linked to increased reports of personal and social skills in athletes compared to
athletes in programs without training, suggesting a need for some sort of coach
education, and that any training maybe better than no training in developing positive
skills in youth. They also stated also stated that coaches can positively impact youth
football without formal training, suggesting that formal education programmes are not
necessarily needed in order to achieve success (MacDonald et al., 2010).
7
A study conducted by Bloom, Stevens and Wickwire (2003) found that expert
coaches acquired their coaching knowledge by a variety of methods including
attending coaching clinics, reading books, networking, observing other coaches and
mentoring. According to Trudel and Gilbert (2006) informal sources of learning are
typical for most coaches, supporting the notion that formal education is not the only
way in which coaches develop. MacDonald et al. (2010) suggested that informal and
methods of training may be a viable alternative of teaching youth important skills;
especially if programmes do not have the resources to invest in formal training,
which is a reason for why informal education maybe more beneficial as it is more
cost effective.
A study by Irwin, Hanton and Kerwin (2004) suggested eight ways in which
knowledge can be gained which included through past experience, mentors and
coach education courses. These were placed in order of importance of what current
gymnastic coaches thought was most beneficial to them in learning about their sport.
Their results concluded that 91% of coaches believed that learning from mentors
within or outside their club was the most beneficial and most important learning tool
they had access to, with past experiences being the most important for 45% of
coaches and coach education courses being most important to 36% of coaches to
help gain and develop coaching knowledge. This shows that informal learning
opportunities are viewed most beneficial to coaches’ learning and development than
coach education programmes, meaning that more informal learning situations should
perhaps be made available to coaches in order to better prepare them, although
coach education should still be a part of a coach’s learning.
Cushion (2003) identified that an improvement in coaching often comes from
gaining experience from a practical context of either observing or coaching in
8
different situations and that coach education courses do not develop coaches to deal
with the necessary skills required to be a high level coach. Additional research has
attempted to determine whether informal or formal experiences contributed most to
coach development (e.g., Mallet et al. 2009). Mallet et al.’s findings established that
more coaches felt that informal settings and situations added more to their
development than formal situations, suggesting that experiential learning supports
formal education to become less limiting in its attempt to prepare coaches for
coaching in the real world (Mallet et al. 2009; Nash & Sproule, 2009). Bates (2007)
supports this by adding that, ‘experience plays a key role within coaching
performance due to the limitations of coach education,’ (p.115). Irwin et al. (2004)
stated that having past experience as an athlete helped with their knowledge base
when they became a coach, which they felt facilitated their ability to learn. However,
Mallet et al. (2009) also suggested that ‘potential disadvantages of informal
educational situations can be ameliorated by elements of structured mentoring and
learning contracts (p. 332).' Negatively, these findings were a result of authors'
opinions collected together with previous research which neglected the views of
coaches within the system.
A literature review by Cushion et al. (2010) revealed that most literature
concluded that informal learning remains the dominant mode of learning engaged in,
with mentoring playing a key role. Cushion (2006b) also argued that mentoring has a
key influential role in the development of coaches. It was stated that mentoring is an
easy way to pass experiences on between coaches and from expert, experienced
coaches to novice, inexperienced coaches within their community of practice
(Cushion, 2006b). The participants in a study by Irwin et al. (2004) identified that
mentoring was the most important resource for them as developing coaches and
9
developing the skill of coaching. Mentors were also vital during the initial stages of
coach development, offering an initial level of knowledge stimulation for future
learning, as well as adding a viewpoint and suggestion of how coach development
programmes could improve (Nash & Sproule, 2009; Irwin et al., 2004). North (2010)
stated that there is, ‘more to coach development than qualifications and that
personal support based, on a kind of mentor relationship, is highly beneficial,’ (p.
252), however, more insight from coaches would be more useful in supporting this
notion of mentoring, to state clearly whether mentoring as a positive impact on
coaches’ learning and development.
Continuing with North’s (2010) work, the study was sectioned to observing
coach developers to facilitate coaches learning. Many coaches complained about
being isolated in their environment but Coach Development Officers (CDO’s)
provided a very useful opportunity to share ideas and problems without feeling
compromised, this also led to coaches being very supportive of working with other
coaches from within and outside their own sport. The benefits that North (2010)
found within this study were that coaches were able to benchmark their own
performance; they could gain new ideas and also build confidence of their coaching
ability. However, the study also stated that not all mentoring relationships were good,
that there was a lack of capacity and willingness by some and local partners to work
with the CDO programme and that it was a lot of strain on the CDO’s to have 1:1
relationships with a large number of coaches, which would mean the need for fully
trained mentors, using more time and cost to do so.
Cushion (2006b) stated that mentoring should become a part of the
formalised coach education structure, as it would allow the coaches to acquire a
practical experience through these coach education programmes. Cushion (2003)
10
also suggested that mentoring is unstructured and informal, and that it should be a
high priority during coach education due to the need for coaches to want direction
away from coach education courses. Supporting this statement Bloom, Salmela and
Schinke (1995) found that where mentoring was in operation a formalised and
structured coach education programme was considered by the participants to be the
most important factor in their development.
‘Less formal opportunities through apprenticeships, mentoring, workshops,
everyday
coaching
tasks,
score
highly
on
authenticity,
meaning
and
contextualisation’ (Mallet et al. 2009, p. 331), allowing individuals to be ‘in control’ of
their own learning. This is how informal education can benefit with more emphasis
placed on the interactions of the participants and allowing them to be apart and an
influence in their own learning. However, less formal opportunities may suffer from a
lack of quality control, direction, feedback, and innovation (Mallet et al., 2009).
2.5 Coach Education Effectiveness and Rationale for Further
Research
Developers of coach education programmes should consider and recognise a
range of learning opportunities in designing the curriculum and accrediting coaches
(Mallet et al. 2009). It has been suggested that further research needs to look at
methods of refining coach education programmes whilst trying to minimise costs
(MacDonald et al. 2010). From the literature presented it is visible that further
research into coach education programmes is needed to support previous
contentions. Specifically, the learning outcomes gained from coach education and
the learning needs outlined by practicing coaches need to be compared. Recent
research suggested that coach education programmes have been divorced from
11
'reality' to some degree, meaning that research is needed to look into this issue to
find out how coach education programmes link to the reality of coaching, if they do at
all (Abraham & Collins, 1998; Cushion et al. 2003; Jones & Wallace, 2005; Cushion
et al. 2010). Also research has suggested that more informal methods of learning are
more beneficial to coaches in their learning and development which should be
embraced by all coaches (MacDonald et al., 2010; Trudel & Gilbert, 2006; Irwin et
al., 2004). Also, there’s not any empirical research focusing on the evaluation of
coach education courses. There’s clear support for different approaches to coach
learning and development that need to be considered within coach education if
coaches are to be prepared to coach in the real world, and coach education courses
need to develop to be more closely linked to the complexity inherent within the
coaching process.
From the literature presented the current study will examine the extent that
coach education programmes use both formal and informal methods, and how they
address the issue of complexity within coaching to better prepare coaches for the
‘real world’. The aims of this study, therefore, will be to: (a) examine the content of
coach knowledge and skill, (b) examine the utility of coach education to meet
coaches’ needs, and (c) to identify ways in which coach education could be
developed to better prepare coaches. In attempts to achieve these aims the study
will adopt a qualitative approach to research. Specifically, in anticipation of the
methods section, the study will utilise focus groups of qualified coaches, at various
levels, to gain an insight into how they feel coach education helped them prepare for
coaching in the ‘real world.’ It is thought that such a research paradigm and method
will allow all of the aims to be addressed and provide the rich, in-depth data required
to move knowledge forward.
12
3.0 METHODS
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the methods used to collect the data needed for this
qualitative research study. Considerations were needed for the participants involved
in the study, the type of research method that was to be used, the way the focus
group would be formatted and with what discussion points, the way that the data
would be analysed and finally, the trustworthiness of the data that was to be
collected.
3.2 Participants
The participants used in this study were purposively selected from a list of
registered coaches (Patton, 2002); this was due to pre-determined selected criteria
which the participants had to have met in order for them to take part in the study.
The criteria required in order to take part in the study was: the coaches had to be
qualified and have obtained a current UEFA ‘C’, UEFA ‘B’, or UEFA ‘A’ Licence
Award from a recognised National Governing Body, such as The Football
Association (The FA) or the Football Association for Wales (FAW), and were actively
involved in the coaching of a team or at a club at the time of the study. The coach
education programme in which they received their most recent and highest
qualification must have been undertaken within the last twelve months, in order to
clearly recall the coach education programme, and its aims of completion to help
them become part of the coaching community.
Participants were a mixture of males and females (seven males, one female)
and were above the age of 18, with the mean age of them being 22.6 (SD= ±3.07). A
total of eight coaches were selected to participate in the study, with each coach
13
being specifically assigned to one of three focus groups based on their highest
coaching qualification. Each focus group had no more than three attending as this
allowed all participants to make a significant contribution to the conversation
(Edmunds, 1999; Gratton & Jones, 2010), also according to Gratton and Jones
(2010) the purpose of qualitative data is to produce ‘rich’ data, which can only be
constructed by small sample sizes. The focus groups consisted of coaches all from
the same coaching qualification, making them homogenous, and ensuring they all
had an equivalent base of understanding as each other. None of the participants had
met beforehand so the information that they offered was suggested in a manner
whereby they were not afraid of what their peers thought of their views, and therefore
the information collected was of higher quality (Gratton and Jones, 2010).
Once the participants had been selected a Participant Information Pack was
sent to the coaches to be completed and thus state their willingness to participate. Of
the eight participants sampled, all agreed to take part and therefore provided
informed written consent.
3.3 Focus Group Protocol
The study was conducted through the use of three focus groups. The focus
group guide was split into five main areas. The questions in the protocol were
developed through the existing literature and in line with the aims of this
investigation. Section 1 contained an introduction to the purpose of the focus group,
also introductory questions for the participants, for example the opening question
was, ‘Why do we need coach education?.’ This section was used to explain to the
participants about confidentiality, reasons why there was a use of an audio recorder
and video recorder, and also a statement of the participants’ rights (Cropley, Hanton,
Miles & Niven, 2010). Participants were provided with a standard set of instructions
14
preparing them for the subject matter and the way in which the focus group would be
organised (Cropley et al., 2010). Section 2 focused on what the participants believed
they had learnt when on a coach education programme, for example, ‘Discuss the
knowledge you have gained from attending your coach education course.’ The focus
group gave the participants a chance to discuss the key points in which they felt they
had come away knowing from a coach education programme from which they did not
already know before attending. Section 3 was concerned with gaining an insight into
what the participants do in everyday coaching, when with their clubs and teams, an
example question from this session, ‘Does this mean that the coach education
course is a little devolved from the reality of coaching?.’ Section 4 required the
participants to discuss how they felt the subjects in which they were concerned
impact/ impacts practice by using questions such as, ‘Finally, based on your
experiences have coach education courses prepared you to coach out there in the
real world? Why? How?,’ to probe answers from the participants. Finally Section 5
opened the forum for any suggestions of improvement that the participants felt would
allow coach education programmes to be modified to meet coaches’ needs.
Although the protocol had several definite sections it was not rigid in
structure, but allowed the discussions to have a sense of direction and allowed the
groups to stay on subject while allowing the moderator to probe more deeply where
necessary (Greenbaum, 1998). As the aim of this focus group is to develop further
understanding of coach education and the needs of coaches, it would have been
inappropriate to restrict the flow of the discussion by using a strictly structured
protocol (Edmunds, 1999). This allows more information to be obtained, allowing for
a further in-depth discussion and results, adding trustworthiness to the study.
15
3.4 Procedure
Once the participants had been selected, a time, date and venue was
mutually agreed with all the participants for each individual focus group. This was so
that the participants would not feel intimidated by these factors, which would result in
a deeper conversation (Cropley et al., 2010; Gratton & Jones, 2010). Before the start
of the focus group data collection, time was allowed to ensure all instruments being
used were working correctly and accurately with the use of a test. The data from the
groups were recorded with an audio and video recorder. The audio recorder
sometimes made it difficult to understand who had said which statement, therefore
with the introduction of the video recorder, the voices were clearly distinguished and
also it could be seen who was talking at the time. The data was then transcribed
verbatim into a word processing programme, clearly presenting the data in a
narrative format. Once all participants were seated and ready to start the process,
the audio and video recorders were set to record and the data collection began.
Once the data collection process had finished, participants were thanked for
their involvement and were given a debriefing sheet, that informed them of why the
research was being conducted, and of the contact details of the researcher should
the participants have any questions about the preceding results of the study.
3.5 Data Analysis
Kvale (1996) stated that, ‘In qualitative studies the analysis pervades the
whole investigation,’ (p. 205) the same applies to this study. Inductive research data
analysis relates to the way in which themes will emerge from the transcriptions
generated from the focus groups, whereby, deductive research data analysis relates
16
to using and stating current themes already present in the literature (Gratton and
Jones, 2010).
The amount of weight given to particular themes was dependent on
frequency, specificity, emotion and the extensiveness of discussions (Paulin, 2010)
the same applied to this study. Descriptive summaries of the responses were then
gathered were written and placed into thematic networks (Anderson et al., 2004) to
display the data, including quotes, to support the themes being presented in the
discussion. This was cross referenced with the review of literature to see if it had
been supported and/or whether new themes had risen from the focus groups. Each
focus group was transcribed separately but was then looked over as a whole to see
if there were any common themes arising. The information given by the participants,
allowed direct quotes to be used to support the current literature, and a further
section was added for the new themes which emerged from the focus groups.
The process in which this data was analysed took four stages. The first
stage was to gain familiarity with the transcripts, meaning reading through and
mentally picking out key themes that the data presented, secondly, the transcripts
were reread and data relating to, and supportive of current research, deductive data
analysis, was noted. Thirdly, the transcripts were looked through for any new themes
which may have appeared from the data, compared to current research, inductive
data analysis, and finally, the data was read through one more time to check for
anything that may have been missed and to check the discussion points already
raised.
3.6 Trustworthiness
A study is categorised as reliable by its levels of dependability, stability,
consistency and accuracy (Kerlinger, 1973). Throughout this study there were
17
measures in place to ensure quality and trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
stated that qualitative research should be based on a level of trustworthiness, which
‘is how well a researcher persuades his or her audience (including self) that the
findings of an inquiry are worthy of attention,’ (p. 290).
In
accordance
with
Lincoln
and
Guba’s
(1985)
statements
on
trustworthiness and how it can be proven, this study looked at the four main areas
when dealing with the reliability of it. The questions that were asked during the
process and evaluation of this study involved the truth value, applicability,
consistency and neutrality of it (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To deal with the issue of
consistency, within a focus group setting it was difficult to receive similar information
from all groups, however, using a focus group protocol helped guide the discussion
into areas where information overlapped from groups. Also each participant from
each focus group had identical participant information packs sent to them, along with
the same focus group protocol and the same facilitator within the sessions. Due to
the nature of sport becoming more professionalised across many areas coach
education programmes are evident in almost every sport (Lyle & Cushion, 2010).
This ensured that this study applied to other subjects and sports and can allow for
these to use the data collected to inform decisions made within their own
environment, showing applicability of the study. As this study is being used to further
understanding and create new understandings of how coaches perceive coach
education programmes to be, neutrality of the study is determined by the use of a
non-biased facilitator, who did not use academic literature to determine an own view
of the area before the study, but used the discussions in which they were involved in
to then create their own view.
18
4.0 RESULTS
4.0 RESULTS
The results of this study were split into three main sections relative to the
aims, which were to examine the content of coach knowledge and skill, to examine
what coaches learn outside of coach education, and to identify ways in which coach
education could be developed to better prepare coaches. The results were
categorised in relation to these aims and were placed into thematic networks of four
orders. The first order themes are the pieces of data directly from the transcriptions
of the focus groups, the second order themes are sub-categories of the first order
themes, as are the third order themes to the second order and the fourth order to the
third order. This allows all raw data to be categorised into one class, allowing it to be
analysed and presented easily.
4.1 The content of coach knowledge and skill
To address the first aim the results were divided into four third order subsections, which included: knowledge, after course contact, standardisation, and
previous licences (see Figure 1).
4.1.1 Knowledge
This section was sub-divided into: knowledge of process, knowledge of
coaching, and knowledge of self, which were statements suggested by participants
that they felt they learnt whilst on their coach education course. To show the
knowledge of the process one ‘C’ Licence coach stated, “They (courses) sort of
teach us or the tutor sort of pushes you into jumping in (in to effect the players in the
session).” This is a part of the coaching process, which includes intervention,
showing how this relates to knowledge of the process.
19





When to use the process
Teaching styles
‘How to Coach’
Good Model of Practice







Different types of practice
Physical Aspects
Sessions that could be used
Technical/ Tactical
As relevant as can be
Set up of sessions
Different delivery types
due to different educators

















CopingWorld’
with pressure
‘Ideal
Individual teaching style
Confidence to coach
Critical Thinking
Gave their contact details
Some made themselves
available to contact
DVD and handbooks to help
with session organisations
Links to ‘useful’ websites
Knowledge of Process
Knowledge of Coaching
Knowledge
Knowledge of Self
Coach
Educators/Mentors
After Course
Contact
Other
Kite mark of coaching
Good for
professionalization of
football
Basic level of understanding
Framework to build on
Formal
Education
Standardisation
Previous Licences
Spurred candidate on to
progress
Gave good basic
understanding to progress
Confidence to coach
Figure 1. A thematic network of coach learning through formal education.
20
An example of the knowledge of coaching was summarised by a ‘B’ Licence
coach,
“That’s what I found really enjoyable even with me being a Centre
Midfielder, working out tactics for a centre half it was something and
it was new and it was good and pleasurable to read up about it and
see if I can apply it on the field.”
This is an example which shows the knowledge of football that has been
gained by attending coach education courses, involving the learning of
different tactics and positional aspects to a position usually adopted by the
coach during their playing experiences.
Finally, knowledge of the candidate’s self was found to be an item which
participants felt was improved and developed during their time on a coach education
course. This was summarised by an ‘A’ Licence coach as:
“I think also there were times when I sat there questioning what was
going on, so you almost become a little bit more critical in that
respect, because you’re seeing people from premiership clubs
deliver something and, “Well, if they’re doing it that way …?” So I
think you are quite critical as well in that respect. I don’t think that’s a
negative thing.”
4.1.2 After Course Contact
Participants collectively said that the coach educators on the courses they
were involved with said that they were available should there be any queries the
candidates had, which is stated by a ‘B’ Licence participant,
“We were given the option to call up him to talk but you know, but he
didn’t say cuz I can imagine that they’re quite busy so I mean they all
made themselves available, Frank Turner as well, all made
themselves available if you wanted to talk it through.”
21
Also a ‘C’ Licence coach highlighted the other resources that helped
candidates after the course had finished,
“If you were struggling with what they were trying to teach you, they
put in a DVD and they had the sessions that they teach along the
way of kids doing the sessions, but you know it’s a tutorial.”
4.1.3 Standardisation and Previous Licences
These themes are related to what coaches perceived coach education to be
and how previous licences may have impacted this perception, they have been
grouped together due to their minor size, but have been accounted because all
themes are important. All coaches stated that coach education was good due to it
offering a standardised kite mark which is a recognised qualification used in job
settings in football as well as outside, as one ‘A’ Licence coach stated, “I think that
the main thing is the professionalization of coaching and that there needs to be a
benchmark from where we start and which we use for Coach Education... so it’s a
recognised kitemark as such.” Although participants viewed coach education as a
framework, they all stated that without education courses they would not be able to
coach at the levels they are now, and that it was a good resource for certain
information.
Also, the thoughts amongst some coaches included that previous licences
completed by candidates helped gain confidence within coaching, with one ‘B’
Licence coach summarising:
“Just reiterating the point about confidence the course gave me a lot
of confidence which allowed me to coach, I wouldn’t coach you know
without having the badges to go with it, that’s just for my own, I like to
reach a certain standard and I think there should be a standard of
coaches for both courses especially the B how do you get to a you
22
know, a really, really good standard and you feel quite good in your
ability to coach and I think without the courses you can’t get that.”
4.2 Coach learning external to formal course delivery
The second aim of the study related to what coaches learn outside of coach
education, this was presented and split into four third order themes: mentoring,
observational learning, experiential learning, and education (Figure 2).
4.2.1 Mentoring
Mentoring was recognised as a key approach to learning and development by
all participating coaches in this study. Participants suggested that mentoring often
came in two forms, from a designated mentor or other coaches, who were there to
help assist their development and knowledge as a coach. The participants stated
that they were good as they helped further their own knowledge as well as giving
them the opportunity to discuss things not covered on the coach education course,
as one ‘B’ Licence coach said:
“And I was quiet friendly with him (the mentor) and talked to him a lot
and now he’s pushing me for the A Licence so that’s continuing
development and any problems I've had I can go ask him, you know
I’ve got a session on and I can get a bit of advice so it is ongoing
support and I think it is very good for them to do that.”
This is also linked with the aspect of observational learning as some
participants stated that they enjoyed the fact they could watch their mentor as a
more experienced coach and see how they coped with certain situations, with one ‘A’
23




























Gain knowledge, no matter
what ability level
Different practices
Coping strategies
Q + A sessions
Good source of advice
Helps with any issues
Probed questions about
‘what if’s’
Showed how to adapt
certain sessions
Highlighted reflective
practice
Could relate due to similar
backgrounds
Video analysis
Reflection on own coaching
Analysis of others’ sessions
Look at coaches from other
sports to help influence
own coaching
Own teaching styles
Own format of planning
Own sessions/practices
Learn to adapt to different
situations
Coping of players
behaviours
How to deliver the
information
Interpersonal skills
Vary sessions/practices
Learn to adapt to different
situations
Coping of players
behaviours
Modules within course
helped develop knowledge
Helped develop coaching
practice
Access to research within
coaching- further ideas
Spoke about contingency
planning
From Other Coaches
Mentoring
Mentor
Own Coaching
Observational
Learning
Other Coaches
Informal
Learning
Own Experiences
Experiential
Learning
Experiences of others
University
Education
Figure 2. A thematic network representing informal approaches to learning
24
Licence coaching proposing, “I think that mentoring support would be absolutely
massive and valuable to them (coaches).”
4.2.2 Observational Learning
The majority of participants suggested that observational learning was key to
their development as coaches, and that observational learning happened in two
different ways. One way was to view other coaches’ sessions, including their mentor,
and to self reflect on their own coaching with the use of recording equipment. One
‘C’ Licence coach stated, “I like to get my sessions from other people. I think it’s a
quicker resource that you can see in action, as in proper action with the kids.” One
‘A’ Licence coach indicated,
“It’s actually amazing what you can pick up on a camera, just little
habits you might do, in terms of coach behaviours, or things you
might say, that you think ‘Hang on a minute, that doesn’t really get
the point across, so I need to improve on that.’”
4.2.3 Experiential Learning
Participants suggested that experiential learning relates to how your own
experiences or those of others can help improve your coaching practice. One ‘B’
Licence coach explained:
“From experience I can easily adapt a session now, I think that I use
30% of coach education resources and knowledge and 70% of my
own personal experience of how to cope with things and of my
mentors views and help that they have given me with how to cope
with certain situations.”
All of the participants agreed that their experiences collated from coaching
allowed them to develop their personal coaching philosophies, and that
25
experience helped them improve the sessions, they already planned, so that
it was suited to every group they coached. As participants experience
increased they stated that their knowledge of different sessions and practices
and how to cope with certain situations expanded, such as coping with
different players behaviours. The participants mentioned that this was
learned through practicing and delivering their sessions from which a self
reflection was performed by the coach which critiqued and evaluated the
session and then gave alternatives of how they could have improved that
session. Also, experience was gained by observing other coaches delivering
sessions; the participants stated that it was a good way to learn as they could
pick up good and bad practice as well as different and new sessions and
delivery types in which they could bring into their own coaching.
4.2.4 Education
All participants also recognised their experiences gained at University, which
was considered as a major factor in which participants developed their own
coaching. Indeed, watching their peers and been tutored by professionals in the area
of coaching was said to be really beneficial. One ‘A’ Licence coach stated:
“Where I’m seeing however many coaches deliver week in and week
out. Up here I’m working with somebody who’s very experienced as
well, at team teaching and so on, so in those respects I’m picking up
something new every day, even if it’s how not to do it, then there’s
still something valid in that respect.”
Some of the participants mentioned that being able to review literature by academics
who researched about coaching and the disciplines connected with it were highly
26
beneficial and gave them an insight into other areas of knowledge that they found
helpful in improving their coaching knowledge:
“I think that my university course has helped me develop my
coaching as we have different modules that relate to coaching... Also
my psychology module has helped me a lot within University to
understand different concepts that are used to create the right
environments.”
4.3 Improvements to coach education programmes
Finally, participants were asked about what improvements they feel coach
education organisers can make to ensure that the coaches are leaving with the best
possible knowledge, information and skills. Participants suggested enhancements of
three key areas of: after course contact, licence restructure, and assessment
process (Figure 3).
4.3.1 After Course Contact
Participants felt that the contact after the course was minimal and that the
process would benefit from having structured meetings or conversations with other
coaches, mentors and coach educators. One ‘A’ Licence coach suggested, “perhaps
meet up with – one of the requirements might be that there’s a group of eight of you
who have to meet and discuss how it’s going, what’s happening, how you’re
managing – these coaching communities as such.”
As already mentioned these after course contacts could be with other
coaches, mentors and coach educators and most of the participants felt that the
conversations were often one-way and felt as if the educators did not have time to
talk to the candidates as they were too busy, therefore this was an improvement put
27
forward that more after course contact was included as standard within and
throughout the course. Participants also stated that it would be good to see their
coach educators and mentors in real coaching situations to see how they coped with
the different scenarios which may occur, as this would be a good observational
learning tool to help develop their own coaching.
4.3.2 Licence Restructure
An issue that many participants felt needed to be thought about in order to
improve coach education was the reformatting of the licence structure. There were
suggestions including this from a ‘C’ Licence coach:
“I think there is remit for having levels within levels and specialising
at a level, rather than having to jump through the hoops and go
through all the licences to be deemed experienced. Why can’t you
be an experienced ‘C’ Licence coach, working in these sorts of
areas?”
To support this, a ‘C’ Licence coach had spoken about the possibility of
having split levels specific to age and ability: “If they could split the whole system so
that there’s one for the voluntarily pathway and not looking to go into any sort of
academy or career, and maybe there’s one for more experienced or looking to go
professional.”
Another ‘A’ Licence coach suggested that the costs of the courses were not
accessible enough to allow coaches to become experienced, they expressed that the
courses are very elitist, and are only available to those already working at a high
standard. It was stated that it was never going to be possible to get expert coaches
at grassroots level as these coaches would not be able to afford to stay in grassroots
football, due to the cost of courses and revalidation processes.
28



Meetings
Observe in real situations
More contact (2-way )
rather than candidate-led


Meetings
Observe in real situations
Coach Educators
Mentors














Meetings
Focus Group meetings as
part of criteria to pass
Share sessions and
reflections
Have a licence with
different subsections to
create more ‘expert’
coaches at that particular
level
Allow a separate course for
coaches not wanting to
progress further than
helping local team
Make the course more
accessible (cost)
Split so that the courses
have Senior and Junior but
then also make practices
specific to them
Include modules related to
how to cope with changes
in situation
Allow for individuality
amongst coaches
Adapt learning methods to
suit most candidates
After Course
Contact
Other Coaches
Levels within
Licences
Licence
Restructure
Improvements
Wanted
Methods
‘Real’ players to show how
the coach copes in real
situations.
Devise a way to extend
assessment so that it is not
a one shot chance.
Prolong assessment so that
fewer coaches are assessed
each day.
Assessment
Process
Figure 3. A thematic network representing potential improvements to coach education
29
As well as a change in system of how the licences should be delivered,
participants touched on the positive impacts of how extra modules could benefit
coaches doing their coaching badges. One ‘C’ Licence coach suggested: “I think you
could drop a module in that gives you unrealistic things that could happen including
planning because you could turn up to a session and there is no equipment there
because you haven’t asked for it.”
4.3.3 Assessment Process
The topic of assessments arose during the focus groups with participants
sharing their concerns with how it is organised. A ‘B’ Licence participant remarked:
“Having just one assessment it’s like anything how do you know if
he’s a good coach because you know he might have a mare or a
shocker it also becomes a long process where the coaches
participating throughout the day are ready and raring to go in the first
session, but when it comes to the last session they are so tired that it
is hard to put the effort in for every session.”
Additionally, a ‘C’ Licence coach reported that, “It’s easier to coach the
coaches as players but it’s not as realistic therefore I don’t think you get the benefits
of it than you could if you coach real players.” Therefore suggestions were made in
order to help improve these situations, such as:
“It (the assessment process) should be over a long period of time
Because ideally what you want them to do is to go out to the
coaching session and watch you four or five times and say look
you’re B Licence standard.”
Also, a ‘C’ Licence coach offered that, “If we had actual players then we
would, it would be more a realistic environment and so it made me have to tell them
what to do because they wouldn’t know what to do.”
30
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.0 Discussion
The overall aims of this study were to examine the content of coach
knowledge and skill, to examine what coaches learn outside of coach education, and
to identify ways in which coach education could be developed to better prepare
coaches. The findings have worked to support current understandings of the nature
and value of formal coach education and developed new insights into the ways in
which coach education programmes maybe improved. All of the themes that were
processed in the first two thematic networks supported current research, (e.g.
improvement of critical thinking skills, positive impact of previous playing
experience), however some sub-sections of those were classified as new data which
is important to inform the direction in which these coaches felt that coach education
should progress, as well as the final thematic network which was solely based on
creating new data and furthering knowledge within this subject. Consequently, this
discussion is separated into the following sub-sections: (a) theoretical implications;
(b) practical implications; (c) strengths and limitations of this study; and, future
research.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
5.1.1 Content of coach knowledge and skill from formal education
Participants who stated ideas around the knowledge they gained on the coach
education programmes split it into three sub sections: knowledge of the process of
coaching, knowledge of coaching football, and knowledge of themselves. As stated
by Lyle (2002), formal coach education programmes have been known to lead to an
improvement in critical thinking skills, which was supported by a number of
participants in this study. This may be because the candidate coach may see football
31
from a different perspective (e.g. as a coach and not a supporter) once you start a
coach education programme. You analyse football in such a critical way which adds
basic football theory and content knowledge, and takes away the football supporter
view, the candidate can then start being critical of other scenarios they come across.
This may be because the way in which a coach educator operates and delivers the
sessions means they need to assess and critique situations on the football pitch
quickly and succinctly, and draw attention to detail. These characteristics will be
noticed by the candidates and they will see that as the correct way to go about
coaching. Also from previous literature it has been said that coach education is a
used as a good model of practice (Cushion, 2003), which is also supported by the
views of the participants in the study. It was also viewed by the participants that in
order to become a good coach, extra guidance and information sources help
improve coaching knowledge and efficacy further, with coach education courses only
being the foundation of that knowledge, supporting practitioners such as Cushion
(2003), Mallet et al. (2009), and Nash & Sproule, (2009). This might be due to the
nature of the way coach education programmes are delivered. Being an educational
process where much learning occurs information is intensely delivered to the
candidates in a short space of time, which could account to why more information is
needed away from the programmes as there are time restraints which prevent the
educators delivering all the information candidates require.
The notion of coach education helping to develop coaches’ confidence to
coach in an environment that would be daunting also emanated from this study.
Indeed, participants suggested that had they not attended a coach programme their
confidence would not have developed in such ways. This reinforces Malete and
Feltz’s (2000) findings that coach education programmes help increased coaching
32
efficacy. This shows that coach education is an important tool for the learning and
development of coaches as it helps them to overcome possible stress and
confidence factors which may affect a coaches practice. It could be said that without
coach education courses, coaches would not be able to deliver appropriate and
successful sessions in the real world, as the courses give coaches the confidence to
coach.
Participants in the study suggested that they only viewed coach education as
a framework to build on, which allowed them to coach at certain levels as
prospective employers would only look at the badges they had attained. This
supports Mallet et al., (2009) who stated that coach education programmes are there
to provide a quality assurance of coaches coming through the process and to also
set the standard by giving a recognised qualification to those successful candidates.
This supports the contentions that formal education courses are not enough on their
own to produce expert coaches and therefore the need of informal learning situations
would benefit the candidate coaches (e.g. Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003; Irwin,
Hanton & Kerwin, 2004).
Most participants partly agreed with the contentions of Bowes and Jones
(2006); Jones et al. (2004); Jones, Armour, and Potrac (2003); and Saury and
Durand (1998) that education programmes can be divorced from reality as coaching
within the programmes can be seen as the ‘perfect environment’ and not completely
related to what coaches would do when coaching in a ‘real’ environment. However,
participants in the study suggested that the information and methods of teaching
used by coach educators were both up-to-date and as effective as they could be
within the parameters in which they had to operate. There is a notion that coaches
have to work in difficult, complex environments; therefore, coach education
33
programmes are hindered. The need for the course being so rigidly structured and
controlled is to allow every coach the same opportunity to reach a national standard,
therefore, to develop further, extra learning methods need to take place. It is difficult
for coach education programmes to fully prepare coaches due to the ambiguity of
coaching, showing that alone, coach education cannot be the only source of learning
that coaches need to undergo in order to become an expert.
As previous literature has already shown with supporting data from this study
it can be said that informal modes of learning are of a benefit to all coaches along
with coach education programmes, therefore it is proposed that from the data
presented that coach education programmes try to incorporate more informal
teaching methods into the formal environments which will help develop all coaches,
and not always leave it up to the coach to attain all the information, as coaches pay
to receive the information to be able to pass the course in the first instance. This
would suggest, however, that coaches would then be ‘ticking the boxes of the
marking criteria’ in order to gain the qualification, and therefore education
programmes would be catered more to the group rather than the individual coach, to
reach a national standard.
Mallet (2009) suggested that coach education courses lack individualisation
and are solely focused on getting coaches through the process, this view is
supported by the participants of this study, as one ‘A’ Licence coach said that it felt
like they were jumping through hoops to pass the course and ticking boxes as
another added, instead of showing true coaching ability, showing that maybe there
should be a way in which the process should be looked at differently in order to allow
coaches to learn as much as possible, that is applicable to that level by then
demonstrating through the knowledge they have gained through the use of different
34
assessments in order to show competency at that level, rather than teaching how to
pass the course.
5.1.2 What coaches learn outside of coach education
Many of the participants noted that mentors were rarely used during the
process of going through the coach education system and said that they could be of
a huge benefit to their own development due to the views of other coaches they have
met. The participants that spoke about mentors in their own development did,
however, say that they were of a benefit, as they felt there was always someone that
could help them with any coaching issues they may have had, and they were a very
useful resource to talk about football issues. The notion of mentoring in coach
education is supported by Irwin, Hanton and Kerwin (2004); and Salmela and
Schinke (1995) amongst others, and can potentially offer many benefits, one being
as mentioned above, a good resource to discuss football issues, however, there are
limitations with having mentors. These limitations include the time and cost that it
would take to ensure there is enough trained mentors to give all coaches the same
opportunity, also as mentioned by North (2010) some mentors and coaches do not
want to ‘buy-in’ to this notion and there is also an added strain on the mentors to
maintain 1:1 relationships with many individual coaches, as three of the participants
stated, the mentors gave their contact details however, the coaches felt as if the
mentors may have been too busy to be in contact with them all of the time. Perhaps
there could be a system whereby the governing bodies of football organise new roles
for experienced coaches to be mentors, which will ensure that every new candidate
coach will have a mentor as they go through the process of becoming a coach who
will solely concentrate on working with candidates as a full time profession. This will
then alleviate the stresses of other commitments that the mentors may have and
35
allow them to concentrate on developing the new crop of coaches, ensuring there
will be expert coaches in the future.
The participants all stated that having previous playing experience has helped
them develop the knowledge they already possessed, which supports the findings by
Irwin, Hanton and Kerwin (2004) that stated being an ex-athlete better facilitated
their learning. Experiential learning was also a key topic regarding the practicing of
different coaching methods and how using different methods in each section can
help form philosophies as well as helping form the way in which a coach delivers,
this form of learning informed how a coach perceives the use of coach education in
which a ‘B’ Licence participant stated that through experience they learn to adapt to
new and different situations should they arise within a session, with 70% of the
information deriving from past experience and views of the mentor and 30% of that
knowledge learnt from coach education programmes. Linked to this notion of
‘experiential learning’, participants supported the findings of Bloom, Stevens and
Wickwire (2003) by suggesting that observing other coaches was a quick and easy
resource of finding out session plans and also that by observing them they could
gain further coaching knowledge and further the methods they were using. This
furthers the need for the integration of informal learning into formal learning
environments as watching coaches in their natural environments of coaching in real
situations often allows a novice coach to learn new things.
Within the review of literature it was shown that Mallet et al. (2009) stated that
formal coach education makes varying but often limited contributions to the
development of coaches exploring the need of extra input to seek further knowledge
by the candidate coaches, which is also supported by a ‘B’ Licence coach who said
that it is often the coaches who go away and do extra research and learning about
36
coaching who come back to the coach education courses more prepared and it is
those coaches who will do well and exceed, they added there is a need to do so as
many coaches are now receiving their high qualified licences implying that there is a
need for extra details that have been performed by the coach in order to coach at a
higher level. For coach education programmes to develop further, as suggested by
the participants of this study and supported by Mallet et al., (2009), there is a need to
recognise different learning opportunities and in the way that the content is delivered
on coach education courses. This support from the participants comes from the
improvements they believe would help develop coaches into all round practitioners
rather than suited to the ‘coach education way’ of coaching.
5.2 Practical Implications
From this study key areas of improvement for formal education programmes,
suggested by the participants, were put forward which could impact the practice that
coach education co-ordinators include into the programmes they create, such as,
adding in extra modules to help participants on the courses understand how to cope
with certain situations should the environment not be ‘perfect’. The benefits of having
such modules would help relate the realities of coaching and the coach education
course, it would therefore give candidates a chance be more prepared for situations
they may not have been expecting.
Also participants offered to make the assessment procedures of coach
education courses more realistic and beneficial to the coach, by suggesting that
players from local clubs and between the ages of which the courses focuses should
be used in the assessment session, instead of using the other coaches on the
course, who already understand how the coaching process works. This would give
37
the candidate coach a better opportunity to show how well they can coach in real
situations. Also the assessment procedure is based on a one-off coaching situation
whereby it has added pressure to the prospective coach, some coaches cannot
necessarily cope with the pressure of a ‘one-shot’ chance of passing or failing, which
gives more chance to the candidate choking (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr,
2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997) due to stress, however, with the view that if the
assessment was more of a period than one session it would allow coaches to show
their capabilities and show their different skills, also from an educators perspective it
would allow them to observe candidates over an extended period of time to show
whether they show the competencies needed consistently throughout each session
they deliver to the required standard they are trying to acquire.
Also, participants stated that previous coach education programmes had
spurred them on to complete the next licence, in support of Wolfson and Neave
(2007) coaches feel that by making use of support systems, such as coach
education programmes, they feel that they can perform better than other coaches,
which gives them motivation to continue. However this has not been stated before in
literature in association with coach education courses, meaning a need for research
to delve deeper to find out the reasons for this. This could also allow the coach
educators to link the courses more efficiently to ensure coaches are at the same
level of understanding when starting a new programme.
As a suggestion, the participants put the point forward that there are not
enough ‘elite’ grass roots coaches, meaning that the younger players within football
are not necessarily being exposed to high quality coaching, which is preventing the
players from fulfilling their potential and progressing to a higher standard of football.
To help improve this it was put forward that the different licences should have sub38
licences within them which could allow a coach to become experienced within that
stage but still focussing on the ages and abilities of the players involved with that
Licence (Figure 4).
The FAW / UEFA C, B, & A
Certificate
General Course
YOUTH
SENIOR
Ages 7-18
Ages 18+
Novice Players
Novice Players
Developing Players
Developing Players
Elite Players
Elite Players
Figure 4. A possible new way in which the Football Association of Wales
could structure their licences.
For example, with the current FAW C Licence the focus is on coaching and
developing younger players and is very coach orientated, however, with the help of a
new structure the course could relate both the coach and the player more and could
help the candidate coach learn about different methods and techniques of how to
39
coach the type of players they are working with in a club setting. In order to work up
the coaching pathway the candidate coach must complete the courses in order from
Novice players to Elite Players, on either age group they decide, once all the courses
have been completed the coach could then be certified as an expert coach at the C
Licence level.
One ‘A’ Licence candidate stated that it could also help with making the
courses more accessible to coaches wanting to develop their knowledge at a
particular level. From this we propose that each Licence is restructured, as above, in
order to help develop coaches to a higher standard for the level they are already
coaching at, which will help develop the game and make the future players,
hopefully, better.
Participants also mentioned the use of how coach education has decided to
split the Licences into junior and senior, however, they mentioned that these were
only split for a few modules within the course and everything else was joined,
therefore asking the need to say that they are separate licences, particularly as the
assessment procedure was identical. Although this is in existence at the ‘B’ Licence,
the ‘C’ Certificate needs to be reviewed, therefore, a view needs to be taken of how
to further develop these to ensure that the coaches are learning about the correct
information and that it is applicable to the course, considering that it is also often
their own money that has been spent to attend.
Finally, with so many discussed differences between informal and formal
learning and with informal learning being researched as a key part of developing
coaches’ knowledge (e.g., Bloom, Stevens and Wickwire, 2003; Irwin et al., 2004;
Trudel and Gilbert, 2006; Nash & Sproule, 2009; Cushion et al., 2010), a notion of
40
coach education moving towards using more informal methods to help improve the
quality of delivery within their courses should be considered as it could be highly
beneficial to coaches attending. The suggestion of involving a coach-led focus group
which was mutually organised by attending candidates in order to discuss the issues
they had come across during their practice stage of their course lends itself to being
a coaching clinic, however, by making it a requirement to meet a certain amount of
times throughout the course taking place would automatically include informal
learning into the formal coach education process, supporting the findings of Bloom,
Stevens and Wickwire (2003), this would also be a cost effective way of learning as
the coaches will meet out of education, meaning no costs for the National Governing
Bodies supporting MacDonald et al.’s (2010) views of minimising the costs.
5.3 Strengths and Limitations of the Current Study
The strengths of this study are that it informs the reader of the ways in which
coach education tries to develop its coaches and how it can be said to be divorced
away from the reality of coaching, whilst also stating ways in which they could use
informal ways of learning within the formal setting to better prepare and develop
coaches going through the system. It also used focus groups as a source of
information, which allows participants to be more open in their responses. It also
offers new ways in which coach education courses can be developed in order to
improve and to meet the needs of candidates more effectively.
The limitations of this study include the use of young coaches who had
recently come through the system who may not necessarily have enough experience
in order to compare formal and informal methods accurately. This could have
41
impacted how much depth the participants used in order to develop their answers,
meaning less insight into the reality of coach education.
The fact that qualitative interviewing was used meant that results were prone
to a degree of subjectivity, as the results gained are the individual opinions of the
participants, this will mean that these results may only be true to those who
participated and may be different in other communities of practice.
Only eight participants were used during the study which may have limited the
information they gave, also all the participants were from an University background
which may have affected the data they gave due to them knowing of previous
literature, and possibly using that instead of using experiences.
5.5 Future Research
Future research could take a number of steps in order to further knowledge in
this area. For example, research into more professional academy coaches could be
used as to what they would expect a newly qualified coach to be able to do, which
could ensure coach education programmes develop coaches to fulfil these
requirements.
Further research could use a larger number of participants who were of
different levels and not necessarily university academics; this may give the study
more depth of discussion, which could allow for a better insight into what coach
education does helping prepare coaches. By not using academics it would allow the
participants to be honest in their thoughts without using literature to frame their
answers. Research into what type of learner coaches predominantly are in order to
affect the way coach education courses deliver the content they have, which would
42
hopefully increase the pass success rate. For example, some may not be able to
learn the key points through the theory sessions but learn better during practical
sessions.
Finally, as stated before there is little literature relating to how attending coach
education courses may give candidate coaches the motivation needed for them to
want to continue coaching after the course has been completed. Future studies
could observe whether this is the case, or whether there are other reasons for why
coaches want to pursue their coaching.
43
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.0 Conclusion
This research study aimed to examine the extent to which coach education in
football copes with and informs coaches to coach in a real coaching environment
away from the formal learning setting. The study found that coach education does
prepare the coach to a certain extent with informal learning opportunities (e.g. focus
group meetings, extra mentoring) being a key factor in developing coaches and
supporting them to becoming better coaches within the environments they coach in.
However, there is a call to have more informal learning opportunities within the
formal coach education courses, as the participants of the study felt there were not
enough of these to fully prepare them for the ‘real’ coaching environment, which was
also outlined by Mallet et al. (2009). The need for a new licence structure was also
considered as many of the participants agreed that football needs more expert
coaches in grassroots football in order to develop the players of the future, with
added modules and extended specific sections to allow the courses to become more
accessible to coaches, hopefully meaning more expert coaches at grassroots levels.
As well as this, a new assessment process, which is a more accurate test of whether
a coach is at that particular level of coaching competence is required. This is so that
coaches can feel more secure within the assessment environment, as already
stated, it gives candidate coaches more opportunity to express and show the
capabilities, or non-capabilities, of their practical coaching knowledge across
numerous sessions
In conclusion, this study met the aims that were set out in the literature review
chapter and has allowed the reader to grasp a new concept of how the coach
education process can be improved in order to better prepare coaches. This study
has supported previous contentions already stated in the review of literature
44
including the need for more informal learning environments to be used within formal
settings in order to help develop coaches’ knowledge. The study has also furthered
knowledge in finding ways in which coaches would feel that their experiences and
the process of going through the coach education system could be improved as well
as to make them better prepared to coach in settings away from coach education
programmes (e.g. the addition of modules to cope with adversity in sessions). The
implications of this study will, therefore, allow coach education developers to adapt
the way in which they deliver and structure their programmes in order to meet the
coaches’ needs to better prepare them for coaching in the real world.
45
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., & Collins, D., (1998). Examining and extending research in coach
development. QUEST, 50, 59-79.
Anderson, D. F., & Gill, K. S. (1983). Occupational socialization pattems of men's
and women's interscholastic basketball coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, 105116.
Anderson, A., Miles, A., Robinson, P., and Mahoney, C. (2004).
Evaluating the
athlete’s perception of the sport psychologist’s effectiveness: What should we be
assessing? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(3), 255-277.
Baumeister, R., F., (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and
paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 46(3), 610-620.
Bates, I., (2007). Coaching Experience, Coaching Performance, in: Denison, J., ed.,
Coaching Knowledges, A and C Black Publishers, London.
Beilock, S., L., and Carr, T., H., (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What
governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
130(4), 701-725.
Bloom, G., A., Salmela, J., H., & Schinke, R., J., (1995). ‘Expert coaches’ views on
the training of developing coaches. In R. Vanfraechem-Raway, & Y. Vanden
Auweels (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineth European congress on sport psychology.
Brussels, Belgium: Free University Press.
Bloom, G.A., Stevens, D.E. and Wickwire, T.L., (2003). Expert Coaches’ Perceptions
of Team Building, Journal of Alied Sport Psychology, 15(2), 129-143.
46
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., and Potrac P., (2004). Understanding Sports Coaches: The
Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice, Routledge,
London.
Côté, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., Salmela, J., & Russell, S., (1995). The coaching
model: a grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology. 17(1), 1-17.
Conroy, D. & Coatsworth, J. D., (2006). Coach training as a strategy for promoting
youth social development. The Sports Psychologist. 20, 128-144.
Cook, T., and Campbell, D., T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis
issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cropley, B., Hanton, S., Miles, A., and Niven, A. (2010). Exploring the Relationship
Between Effective and Reflective Practice in Alied Sport Psychology. The Sport
Psychologist, 24, 521-541.
Cushion, C., Armour, K., & Jones, R., L., (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: experience and learning to coach. QUEST. 55, 215-230.
Cushion, C.J., Armour. K.M., & Jones, R.L., (2006a). Locating the coaching process
in practice: models ‘for’ and ‘of’ coaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.
11(1),.83-99.
Cushion, C., (2006b). Mentoring: harnessing the power of experience. In R., L.,
Jones (2006). The sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching.
Routledge: Oxon.
Cushion, C.J., (2007). Modelling the complexity of the coaching process.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2(4), 395-402.
47
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Chicago, IL: NTC
Business Book.
Erickson, K., Bruner, M., MacDonald, D., & Côté, J., (2008). Gaining insight into
actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching 3(4), 527-538.
Eriksson, K., Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J., (2007). Sport experiences, milestones,
and educational activities associated with high-performance coaches' development.
The Sport Psychologist, 21, 302-316.
Fairs, J., R., (1987). The coaching process: the essence of coaching. Sports Coach.
11(1), 17-19.
Franks, I.M., Sinclair, G.D., Thomson, W., & Goodman, D., (1986). Analysis of the
coaching process. Sports Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport,
January.
Frey, M., (2007). College coaches’ experiences with stress: “problem solvers” have
problems too. The Sport Psychologist. 21, 38-57.
Gratton, C., and Jones, I. (2010). Research methods for sports studies. (2nd Ed.)
New York: Routledge.
Greenbaum, T. (1998). The handbook for focus group research. London, UK: Sage.
Kerlinger, F., N. (1973). Foundations of behavioural research (2nd Ed.). New York:
Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Hammond, J. and Perry, J., (2005). A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Soccer
Coaching Course Effectiveness, Ergonomics, 48, 1698-1710.
48
Irwin, G., Hanton, S. and Kerwin, D., (2004). Reflective Practice and the Origins of
Elite Coaching Knowledge,Reflective Practice, 5(3), 425-442.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: from practice
to theory. London: Routledge.
Jones, R.L., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: a case
study of a top level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2),
213-229.
Jones, R. 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.
Kerlinger, F., N. (1973). Foundations of behavioural research (2nd Ed.). New York:
Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Knowles, Z., Tyler., G., Gilbourne, D. and Eubank, M.,(2007). Reflecting on
Reflection: Exploring the Practice of Sports Coaching Graduates, Reflective Practice,
7(2), 163-179.
Kvale, S., (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Lewis, B., P., and Linder, D., E., (1997). Thinking about Choking? Attentional
Processes and Paradoxical Performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 23, 937-944,
Lincoln, Y., S., and Guba, E., G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
49
Lyle, J., (2002). Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches’ behaviour.
Routledge: London.
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C., (2010). Sports coaching: professionalisation and practice.
Elsevier: Churchill and Livingstone.
MacDonald, D., Côté, J., & Deakin, J., (2010). ‘The impact of informal coach training
on the personal development of youth sport athletes.’ International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching. 5(3), 363-372.
Malete, L. & Feltz, D.L., (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on
coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist. 14, 410-417.
Mallet, C., Trudel, P., Lyle, J., & Rynne, S., B., (2009). Formal vs. informal coach
education. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 4(3), 325-334.
Mathers, J., (1997). Professional coaching in golf: is there an areciation of the
coaching process? Scottish Journal of Physical Education. 25(1), 23–35.
Merriam, S., B., Caffarella, R., S., & Baumgartner, L., M., (2007). Learning in
adulthood: a comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Nash, C., & Sproule, J., (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 4(1), 121-138.
North, J., (2009). Coaching Workforce 2009-2016, Sports Coach UK, Leeds.
North, J., (2010). Using ‘Coach developers’ to facilitate coach learning and
development: qualitative evidence from the U.K. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching. 5(2), 239-256.
50
Paulin, V.,(2010). Professional supervision in dietetics: A focus group study
investigating New Zealand dietitians’ understanding and experience of professional
supervision and their perception of its value in dietetic practice. Nutrition & Dietetics,
67, 106–111.
Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On-site study
of coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 254-266.
The Football Association, (2011). The FA learning coaching provision and pathways.
Available: www.thefa.com/falearning. Last accessed 6th March 2012.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert (2006). Coaching and coach education. In Kirk, MacDonald and
O’ Sullivan (2006). The Handbook of Physical Education, pp. 516-539. Sage:
London.
51
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Appendix A. Football Association Learning (2011) www.thefa.com/falearning
52
APPENDIX B
Official overviews of UEFA Licensed Courses from FAW’s website
UEFA ‘C’ LicenceA 60 hour course consisting of practical coaching and theory modules based on
teaching players skills and techniques in problem solving games and practices. The
course is designed for coaches working with youth and senior players focusing on
the individual development within a technical, tactical, physical, mental and a social
context. Coaches will be expected to deliver practical elements on course; however
there is no formal assessment at the end of the course. A First Aid qualification must
be obtained by the final contact day in order to be certificated.
UEFA ‘B’ LicenceThis is a 90 hour course outlining the principles of play within small sided games and
coaching activities. Practical coaching and theory modules are covered. Post course
work and candidate assessment is required. The course is designed for coaches
working with youth and senior players focusing on the development of the individual
and unit within a technical, tactical, physical, mental and a social context. Coaches
will be expected to deliver practical elements on course and pass a formal
assessment at the end of the course. Coaches must hold a valid FAW C Certificate
to apply for the course. To apply for this course a First Aid qualification must be
obtained by the final contact day in order to be certificated.
UEFA ‘A’ LicenceThis residential course aims to educate candidates in the Technical, Tactical,
Physical and Mental requirements of modern football, so that they may devise,
organise, conduct and evaluate coaching sessions in advanced skills, tactics,
53
strategies and systems of play. It will also give an understanding of how to apply
modern methods for sports science and sports medicine. This course is for coaches
who have a valid UEFA ‘B’ Licence & First Aid Award.
UEFA Pro LicenceThe UEFA Professional Licence is now a mandatory qualification for coaches to
work in the national leagues of most major football nations. The aim of the course is
to provide aspiring coaches with the necessary training, support and guidance to
succeed at the very highest level in football. This is an invite-only course.
54