CARDIFF METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd
CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONOURS)
SPORTS DEVELOPMENT
“The perceived value of formal and informal coach education for coaches: a
case study“.
NAME: JORDAN COOPER
UNIVERSITY NUMBER: ST09001970
NAME: JORDAN COOPER
STUDENT NUMBER: ST09001970
SCHOOL OF SPORT
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE CARDIFF
“THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL COACH EDUCATION
FOR COACHES: A CASE STUDY”.
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:
10,670
Signed:
J.Cooper
Date:
06/03/2012
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.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION p.1-4.
1.1: Introduction to study.
1.2: Aims.
1.3: Objectives.
1.4: Barriers to Coach Education.
1.5: Introduction to Formal vs. Informal.
1.6: Rationale.
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE p.5-13.
2.1: Introduction to Literature.
2.2: Types of Learning.
2.3: Current Literature surrounding Formal vs. Informal.
2.4: Current Education Courses.
2.5: Current Sport Education Courses.
2.6: Contribution to Literature.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY p.14-20.
3.1: Introduction to Method.
3.2: Which Method is suitable.
3.3: Why Focus Groups.
3.4: Method undertaken.
3.5: Trustworthiness of the Case Study.
3.6: Conclusion of Methodology.
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND RESULTS p.21-29.
4.1: Career development.
4.2: Structure of courses in football.
4.3: A Discussion surrounding the Formal vs. Informal debate.
4.4: To tick a box?
4.5: Improvements for Coach Education.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION p.30-32.
5.1: Concluding thoughts.
5.2: Findings.
5.3: Limitations.
REFERENCES: p.33-38.
APPENDICES.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Kerry Harris my tutor for supporting me throughout this study.
I would also like to acknowledge the participants that took time out of their
schedule to assist me with my study.
i
ABSTRACT
This paper summarises findings from a case study which investigated the value of
formal and informal learning. The study investigated football courses run by the
football Association (FA). Four football coaches attended a focus group which
discussed coach education in football and formal and informal learning as well as
the value of coach education to future development. An analysis of current views
on formal and informal learning found that the majority of authors believed informal
practical experience was more beneficial. The four participants on this study were
currently undertaking a degree in Sports Coaching or already had. The results
gathered from the case study found that coaches were in favour of informal
practical experience rather than formal learning. They believed the practical
experience helped them develop as a coach rather than the formal education
courses, which they related to as a ‘tool box’. Courses run by the FA were
described as having a healthy mix, of classroom based formal lessons and
informal practical sessions. Therefore the coaches felt the courses run by the FA
were professional, fun and to the best standard possible considering the barriers
to coach practitioners. Learning from the courses was evident, however only in the
higher courses of level 2 and 3 with the level 1 being described as basic and not
useful. Coaches also believed they and other coaches undertook the courses to
‘tick a box’ and to get to the next level, with little emphasis being placed on
learning.
ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter outlines the aims and objectives of the study as well as giving
an introduction into coach education and formal and informal learning. A
rationale also provides the reasons why this study was undertaken.
1.1 Introduction to study: Coaching is a complex and ambiguous topic with
various different sectors and differences of opinion. Jones (2006, p.51) who
speaks in great detail about coaching suggests “understanding the inherent
complexity of the coaching process is a precursor for presenting some tentative
themes for operating effectively in such a dynamic environment”. Some of the
areas of debate that make the coaching process an ambiguous one include
coaching style, how coaches should deal with scenarios and whether they should
use theoretical models (Blinde, Taub & Han, 1993 & 1994; Lindgren, Patriksson &
Fridlund, 2002; Kidman & Hanrahan, 2004; Jones & Wallace, 2005). Every coach
has their own personal techniques and methods of learning how to become an
effective coach. Some of the different ways a coach learns include informal,
formal, non-formal or self directly, or as Mallett, Trudel, Lyle, Rynne (2009, p.325)
suggest “learning occurs from accessing a range of opportunities both formal and
informal” therefore signifying the use of more than one learning style will further
the coaches knowledge.
1.2 Aim:
The aim of this case study was to conduct an investigation into the value of formal
and informal coach education processes. It sought to contribute to the growing
body of work which addresses the ongoing debate about formal and informal
education/learning for coaches.
1.3 Objectives:
1. To explore the perceived value to coaches of developing knowledge through
formal and informal coach education processes.
2. To examine the role of formal and informal coach education in career
development.
3. To examine whether coaches prefer to learn in a formal or informal setting.
1
4. To investigate if actual learning and knowledge is better developed through
formal or informal settings, if so how and why?
5. To analyse coach accreditation to see if it is a learning experience or whether it
is completed by coaches to tick a box.
6. To compare the perceptions of beginner and intermediate coaches on coaching
courses.
1.4 Barriers to Coach Education: This study seeks to critically analyse how
coach education programs ready and affect coaching performance. One of the
complexities facing coach education practitioners is the diverse range of
individuals that could be attending a coach education course. Individuals attending
could have various knowledge, different experiences and particular ways of
learning, Côté (2006) accepts this and proposes that several variables must be
considered in a coaching education program: previous experience, knowledge, the
reality that individuals come from different backgrounds, age of participants,
development levels, individual goals and the fact that the coaches may have
varying amounts of resources available to them where they coach. As this is the
case coach accreditation programs do not or rather cannot take every participant’s
individual learning needs into account, resulting in some individuals finding it
difficult to learn in the programs. A potential solution would involve an informal
learning situation where coaches can be involved in what Côté (2006, p.220)
describes as “real coaching situations” where coaches aren’t involved in
knowledge transfer, however are alternatively involved in “cooperative learning
opportunities where coaching knowledge is shared and created in context” (Côté,
2006, p.220). Therefore coaches would be learning at their own pace, rather than
being shown new techniques and practice which could happen in a coaching
program.
2
1.5 Introduction to Formal vs. Informal: Despite formal learning being popular in
coach education courses for at least the last 50 years (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006)
formal education courses are still argued to be ineffective, restricting and
unimaginative. Trudel and Gilbert (2004, p.123) explain that two significant issues
with formal coach education courses remain “one, there is a lack of published
research on the effectiveness of coach education, and two, the coaching science
that can be used to inform coach education research and practice is dispersed
across hundreds of publication outlets”. The ongoing debate of which is more
beneficial; formal or informal learning/teaching is still a burning issue within coach
scholars however “a lack of published research on the effectiveness of coach
education and the fact that coaching science that could be used is dispersed
across hundreds of publication outlets” (Trudel et al., 2004, p.123) ultimately
means that minimal evaluation of the coach education system has been done.
However the research that has been concluded shows informal learning/teaching
is in effect the best way of learning due to its imaginative, dynamic and
experiential approach (Gould, Krane, Giannini & Hodge, 1990; Brennan, 1997;
Lyle, 2002; Trudel et al., 2006; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007; Cushion, Nelson, Armour,
Lyle, Jones, Sandford & O’Callaghan, 2010).
Despite the views that informal education is the most effective type of learning,
other literature suggests otherwise and proposes that formal learning/teaching is
more effective. Authors suggest formal learning/teaching is curriculum driven,
packaged, experts are easily accessible for further information, formal assessment
procedures are undertaken and it is formally recognised with grades (Merriam,
Caffarella, Baumgartner, 2007; Mallet, Rossi & Tinning, 2007; Lemyre, Trudel &
Durand-Bush, 2007; Wright, Trudel & Culver, 2007). This study aims to find which
learning style is preferred by the coaches who attend the coach education
programs. By doing this it will make clear which method of learning is more
effective. Despite the debate surrounding the two methods both of the
learning/teaching styles have their limitations and benefits. According to Skirta
(2011, pp.55) “contribute to the development in physical, social, cognitive and
emotional domains” regardless of this current coach education as already
mentioned in most cases is taught in a formal setting.
3
1.6 Rationale: The reasoning for this paper is to provide an analysis into coach
education, particularly assessing football accreditation which is provided by the FA
(football Association). Despite this study being football based because the majority
of coach education programs are similar regarding formal and informal learning, it
will be relevant to all sport accreditation programs. The coaches that will be
involved in the focus group will be able to reflect on their past experiences from
the coach education courses they have been on. As they will discuss these
thoughts with fellow coaches, it will make the investigation worthwhile for them as
they will be discuss what they feel is good coaching practice. They could therefore
pick up new ideas and techniques which they could use in the future. Whether
these coaches will believe the formal coaching courses are effective will be
interesting as a study in 2007 by Vargas-Tonsing found that 97% of coaches they
interviewed repeated a belief that coach education was important, 87% felt it
should be mandatory, and 84% felt that coaching certification should be required
(Vargas-Tonsing, 2007). Despite this it is believed by Vargas-Tonsing 2007 and
Côté, 2006 that coach education courses are not for everyone. They believe that
for novice coaches with little experience they are not at all helpful, as they do not
prepare them to the complexity of coaching. They also raise the issue that
experienced coaches struggle to interact in courses. This is due to them having
deep rooted coaching beliefs that they have taken on board prior to the course.
Therefore they give an outward appearance of acceptance while harbouring and
restricting their disagreement with, and rejection of, the official coaching
orientation (Côté, 2006; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007).
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature assesses previous literature surrounding coach
education and learning. Through looking at previous studies it gives the
study a base, so that comparisons can be made later in the study.
2.1 Introduction to Literature: Although there is large amount of academic
literature regarding coach education and formal and informal learning, there is a
lack of research on whether formal or informal learning in coach education
programs particularly in football, is more advantageous. Studies on football
coaches and their opinions on what is more suitable are sparse. A few studies in
particular (Lyle, Jolly, North, 2010) evaluates coaches needs and wants but not
their opinions on formal and informal learning. Despite this Mallet et al. (2009)
paper Formal vs. Informal Coach Education does provide an analysis on the
benefits and limitations of the two but does not provide a study which involves
participants, the paper rather evaluates previous literature.
2.2 Types of Learning: Learners as defined by Biscontini (2011, pp.12) are
categorised into three different types, “visual, auditory and kinaesthetic”. These
three types of learners all have different learning preferences. This in turn makes it
challenging for teachers and coach practitioners to mould an education session
around all of their participants. Another hindrance for coaching practitioners of
education programs is whether to teach the participants formally or informally or
have a mix of the two. Some authors suggest that the two are interrelated and
similar attributes are identifiable (Malcolm, Hodkinson & Colley, 2003) thus
meaning they can be applied together. Malcolm et al. (2003, p.314) describe this
as being a “greater combination” but do admit the “combination is partly
problematic”.
The three learning types discussed by Biscontini (2011) visual, auditory and
kinaesthetic are typically relevant within a classroom based atmosphere. The
classroom based session would usually result in the learner sat down listening or
watching the teacher/coach present information to them. This is known as formal
learning/teaching which is defined as “institutionally sanctioned structures,
acquisitional and individual learning within educational institutions or studying for a
coaching certificate or a university degree” (Malcolm et al., 2003, p.314; Côté,
2006, p.217; Mallet et al., 2009, p.326). The other type of learning would be
learning through experience this can be defined as informal learning. Mallet et al.
5
(2009) reports that this method is somewhat incidental with learning resting
primarily in the hands of the learner, Eraut (2004) does however report that this
type of learning can be difficult to learn from, however ultimately states it is more
efficient than formal learning.
2.3 Current Literature surrounding Formal vs. Informal: Formal and informal
learning as discussed are two different ways of learning, teaching and coaching.
Despite numerous publications (Gould et al., 1990; Brennan, 1997; Lyle, 2002;
Malcolm et al., 2003; Trudel et al., 2006; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007; Tynjala, 2008;
Kyndt, Dochy & Nijs, 2008; Cushion et al., 2010) all debating whether informal or
formal learning is more advantageous, there is no real answer. Côté (2006,
pp.220) does however suggest there are “three main settings in which coaches
learn to coach: coach education programs, learning experiences as an athlete and
learning experiences as a coach” concluding thoughts raised from Malcolm et al.
(2003) that both formal and informal methods of learning can be beneficial
together. Literature does go further to suggest that perhaps a balance of the two
could be beneficial with Jeffs and Smith (2005) emphasising that the two have
similar traits meaning neither type is more beneficial than the other. Jeffs et al.,
(2005, p.22-23) state “we should not say one is better than the other, they are
simply not the same [...] educators in formal and informal settings have far more in
common than both often admit”, suggesting a healthy mix of the two could work.
The ‘healthy mix’ phrase is further enforced with Fleurance and Cotteaux (1999)
and Mesquita, Isidro and Rosado (2009), drawing on research they’ve undertaken.
Their studies suggest formal education, playing experience, personal coaching,
professional experience and ongoing education all contribute to knowledge for a
coach
Learning in a formal setting as already stated usually takes place in a classroom
based area with a coach educator or teacher, providing the participants with
information. Traditional learning methods encourage formal education as it has
always been the dominant method of teaching (Malcolm et al., 2003), however
more recently literature has suggested that formal education is basic and in some
6
ways invaluable due to learners being unable to put theory into practice (Eraut,
1994). Putting theory into practice underpins the main aims of formal education, as
the educator provides theory for the coach and the coach goes out to practice the
skills. The process of applying theory into practice from formal learning is rather
argued by Eraut (1994) and Baert, De Witte and Sterck (2000) as unreliable, due
to learners lacking necessary insight to put theory into practice. This would
especially be noticeable in novice coaches who do not have the knowledge to put
theory into practice. Despite this during the formal learning process it is possible
for the learner to gain critical thinking skills which could be a positive especially to
novice coaches. It is also thought to be vital in coaching as Mallet et al (2009,
p.330) reports “formal education has the capacity to lead to the development of
critical thinking skills, this is an aspect that been shown to the vital to continued
success for coaches”.
Although the theory learnt in coach education courses is relevant it is still
suggested that during these formal coaching education courses more information
needs to be provided to the coach. Sullivan and Wilson (1993, p.9) suggest
“coaches need to recognise differences in sex, age, race, ethnicity and
socioeconomic background”, these are difficult skills to learn in a formal setting
due to “formal educators having a much tighter idea about what is to be achieved”
(Jeffs et al., 2005, p.22). The suggestion that these types of skills would be learnt
during an informal learning setting is however debateable yet more realistic.
Through experience, informal seminars or conferences coaches could learn
similar skills and information. This is due to learners learning “spontaneously and
unconsciously” (Baert et al., 2000) this is more evident through experience rather
than the informal conferences and seminars. Despite Baert’s (2000) views some
suggest that formal learning provides more information than what informal learning
would, as it is set around the curriculum rather than conversation, ensuring
participants learn key information rather listen to unnecessary conversation (Jeffs
et al., 2005, p.23).
7
If the coaching programs do provide the coach with valuable information that helps
their development and helps them to gain a further understanding, (Woodman,
1993; McGeechan 2004), why are vast amounts of literature in favour of informal
learning? Informal learning or workplace learning as Eraut (1994) and Tynjala
(2008) state is more beneficial to learn from as the coach is experiencing
situations which he/she wouldn’t be able to in a formal classroom setting. Informal
learning also allows the coach to interact through conversation with “mentors,
coaches and players and plays an instrumental role in a coach’s development”
(Stephenson & Jowett, 2009, p.4). Mentors in particular are seen as influential and
aspiring, as you can share experiences, “exchange ideas and turn to advice if
needed” (Stephenson et al., 2009, p.11).
Mentoring and experiential learning aren’t the only methods of learning informally;
informal conferences or informal meetings are all suggested as being a beneficial
way of gaining knowledge. Although all happen, experiential learning is perhaps
the most common type because it happens unconsciously, a research study by
Mesquita et al. (2010) reported that experiential informal learning was viewed as
the most important type of learning ahead of formal learning situations “results
indicated that the coaches ascribed more importance to experiential sources such
as working with experts, learning by doing, interacting with peer coaches and
attending informal seminars and clinics than to the formal learning situations
provided by the national coaching certification programs” (Mesquita et al., 2010,
p.480).
Previous literature suggests informal learning is the most beneficial way of
teaching and coaching participants as it allows the participant to engage in the
task set by the educator, almost empowering the participant and giving them
ownership, Jeffs et al. (2005, p.22) explains “informal educators supposedly offer
choice not compulsion, freedom not order; ‘empowerment’ not indoctrination”,
meaning the participant can control what he or she learns from the coach educator
and can formulate their own type of responses. An example being an athlete may
be empowered, allowing them to have control over certain aspects of training and
8
coaching (Blinde, Taub & Han, 1993 & 1994; Lindgren, Patriksson & Fridlund,
2002). With empowerment being evident in informal learning and empowerment
being an important part of learning as it provides the learner with “autonomy,
independence and self sufficiency” (Jones, 2006, p.68-69). Other literature also
points to the advantages of informal learning as it is more efficient than formal
learning (Eraut, 1994) and perhaps the most important point by Kyndt et al. (2009,
p.371) states that’s some of the most important coaching attributes are
communication, interaction, feedback (Eraut, 1994; Education Development
Center, 1998; Ellstrom, 2001; Collin, 2002; Skule, 2004). These are all evident in
informal learning as the learner communicates, interacts and gains feedback
informally from mentors and higher profile coaches, whereas current formal
coaching education programs limit the learner to sharing information (Côté, 2006).
2.4 Current Education Courses: Education is an important part of society with
organisations often offering employers the chance to attend education courses, to
gain accreditation and to learn. New courses are being established to contribute to
the development of learning and to certify or accredit teachers and coaches
(Vargas-Tonsing, 2007; Mallet et al., 2009). The education courses are put
together by program developers, to give practitioners vital information that is
needed for them to teach/coach the learners. Despite this it is believed that the
learners in education courses particularly in sports coaching are “often given a
plethora of information in a very small window of time, with this emphasis on quick
and basic information and the courses hardly prepare a novice coach for the
complexities of coaching” (Côté, 2006, p.220; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007, p.26). The
suggestion that coach educators attempt to deliver quick and basic information
suggests an inability to design an effective program for coaches to learn from, it is
however important to note that it is a difficult program to design as “very rarely is
there any one correct method of coaching” (Abraham et al., 1998, p.71).
9
In schools, teacher educators have designed various discourses, however it has
been suggested that “teachers knowledge is shaped by their experiences” (Hardy
& Mawer, 1999, pp.191) making it difficult to come up with effective discourses
and programs for teachers to learn from (Tinning, 1991, pp.6). Although teaching
is different to coaching there are similarities between the two, they both adopt an
apprentice of observation as Cushion et al. (2003) explains. Literature that is
coach related confirms that education programs are important, with Woodman
(1993, p.9) suggesting that through coach education a coach will improve.
2.5 Current Sport Education Courses: Current sport education programs are
designed to provide coaches with knowledge that they can learn and then use in
situations where needed, however they have been criticised for being formal and
basic (Abraham & Collins, 1998; Côté, 2006; Trudel & Gilbert, 2006; VargasTonsing, 2007; Mallet et al., 2009). Despite being criticised for being basic, coach
education courses are packed full of information with coaches having to be able to
coach a skill, how to administrate, political issues, and the legal requirements
regarding children (Abraham et al, 1998). Some of the information may not always
be as valuable to some coaches as they may have not have a role in admin in
their own coaching environment.
In some roles however the extra information provided on the programs can be
valuable, however because the majority of coaches who take part on the programs
have experience through previous participation and being coached (Abraham et
al., 1998). The extra information is not needed as they already have their own set
of coaching beliefs (Ennis, 1994; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007). Martens (1997) argues
however even if someone has been coached in the past it only gives them a
partial view of the coaching process, whilst Erickson, Côté and Fraser-Thomas
(2007, p314) add, “formal coaching education might be more effective if tailored to
meet the specific experiential needs of individual coaches, given their previous
experience and current developmental stage”. Erickson et al. (2007) is highlighting
that formal coaching programs should be made around participants past
experiences, rather than a fixed program. This is because coaches can attend a
10
coaching program with any previous experience or qualifications in coaching,
“considering the different educational background among coaches, coach
education programs should attend it on the curriculum development” (Mesquita et
al,. 2010, p.486).
Current coach education programs in the majority of sports are taught in a formal
setting, with formal classroom based sessions being preferred to informal
discussions and practical experiences. Mallett et al. (2009, p.327) insists in coach
education programs “learning is intended to occur in formal situations”. A wealth of
literature rather slates the current coach education program, suggesting that
coaches needs are not being met with greater practical coaching experience
opportunities necessary (Gould et al., 1990; Côté, 2006; Trudel and Gilbert, 2006;
Vargas-Tonsing, 2007; Stephenson and Jowett, 2009; Cushion et al., 2010).
Whilst others acknowledge that the current coach education system is not great
however with a few changes can be improved (Mallett et al., 2009).
Coach education in football is currently overseen by the FA (football Association)
who provides coach education courses for any participant who wishes to take part
in them. The FA use formal classroom sessions on their courses with a few
informal practical demonstrations, the FA state “the courses are packed with
expert knowledge and cover all areas of player development” (FA, 2011), perhaps
suggesting that they believe formal education to be more valuable, as they
mention expert knowledge which suggests formal learning situations. Despite the
FA suggesting their formal education courses cover areas of player development,
research suggests that informal learning such as discussions, seminars, learning
by doing and interactions with players play an instrumental role in a coach’s
development (Stephenson & Jowett, 2009; Mesquita, Isidro, Rosado, 2010). This
could mean that coaches are not learning basic coaching skills such as
communication due to a lack of interaction. This could be more prominent in
inexperienced novice coaches who will fail to develop as quickly as an
experienced coach, Stephenson et al, (2009, p10) agrees and concludes that
experienced coaches found the FA courses more valuable than the novice
11
coaches, with one experienced coach stating “what helps is going on the courses,
what the courses do is give you the theory that underpins your experience”.
Other authors who have wrote about the current coach education courses
disagree with the system. They argue that the overall coaching process isn’t
acknowledged (Vargas-Tonsing, 2007), with the courses not going into depth.
Steve Harrison a former professional footballer and manager, explains his views
on the football Association coaching programs stating that “the coach education
programmes to be somewhat variable in quality and suitability [...] considers that
he has gained some useful information from some of his qualifications, but nothing
in great depth” (Jones et al., 2004, p16). These views are from Steve Harrison
who was a successful coach. He had progressed through the coaching courses
and believed that they were not at a high enough standard. It is important to note
that this reported in 2004 so changes could have been made.
Recent research by Vargas-Tonsing in 2007 and Côté in 2006 shows that the
coaching courses may be improving, with Vargas-Tonsing (2007, p25) findings
stating “research has shown that teams with coaches trained in positive coaching
retain almost all (95%) of youth sports participants whereas untrained coaches
retain (73%) each year” consequently showing that coaching programs do help
coaches to become aware of their participants and their individual needs. In
contrast to Vargas-Tonsing, Sullivan and Wilson (1993) state that for a coach to
be able to treat athletes and individuals the “coaches need to obtain training and
experience to ensure that they can treat individuals in their programs”.
12
2.6 Contribution to Literature: This piece of research will seek to examine
whether coach education courses particularly in football is successful and whether
the information taught in courses is useful and relevant. It will critically analyse the
level one, two and three courses and seek to investigate whether they are
undertaken in a formal or informal learning environment. Previous literature as
already discussed has assessed the advantages and disadvantages of formal and
informal learning. It has also investigated coaching and learning in a formal or
informal setting. However little research found has examined coach education in
football, nor has it asked coaches about their beliefs.
13
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter identifies possible methods that could be used, and discusses
advantages and disadvantages of using them.
12
3.1 Introduction to Method: The aim of this case study was to conduct an
investigation into the value of formal and informal coach education processes. It
sought to contribute to the growing body of work which addresses the ongoing
debate about formal and informal education/learning for coaches. Due to the
ongoing debate amongst authors regarding formal and informal coach education,
focus groups were chosen as the desired method as they created a group
discussion which addresses the aims and objectives. One focus group took place,
with four coaches from University of Wales Institute Cardiff they were of mixed
experience and qualification.
Focus groups have been defined as a “small number of loosely structured
questions that centre on a focal topic or stimulus and encourage extensive
discussion and probing” (Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007, p.11). By initiating
the focus group it allowed participants to form a discussion surrounding the topic
area. As they were all qualified coaches they were able to rebound off and relate
to each other’s ideas thus creating new ideas and more data. Powell and Single
(1996, p.504) emphasise the importance of group discussion amongst coaches
explaining the researcher should “allow participants to clarify or expand upon their
contributions to the discussion in the light of points raised by other participants”.
As the focus group had a range of different qualified coaches it allowed the study
to gain different viewpoints of coach education, as coaches were at a different
stage and had different reasons for completing the particular courses.
3.2 Which Method is suitable: All studies need purpose and evidence of findings
to prove their study is both valuable and of interest to people or an organisation.
When collecting data and information to support an argument, or to further a study
there are different methods to be considered beforehand, Kumar (2008, p16)
considers these “there are several ways of collecting the appropriate data which
differ considerable in context of money costs, time and other resources at the
disposal of the researcher”. Therefore it was important to thoroughly evaluate all of
the possible methods before choosing to use a focus group.
14
Common methods include focus groups, questionnaires, surveys and interviews,
they are all different and suited to different types of studies. For example in a
quantitative study typically a questionnaire or survey would be used to gain some
sort of numerical answer, of how much or how many (Merriam, 2009). However in
a qualitative study vast amounts of data needs to be collected. Interviews or focus
groups are identified as suitable methods due to the large scale of information and
data that can be collected from them, and the ability to gain more advanced data
such as personal experiences (Merriam, 2009; Redmond & Curtis, 2009). Due to
this study being qualitative with the study relying on detailed answers from the
participants, an interview or focus group were seen as the most suitable methods.
Interviews and focus groups both have the ability to extract information from
participants, with both having relatively good arguments for and against. Merton
and Kendall (1946) argue that both focus group and individual interviews are
relatively singular in focus, but do agree that participants experiences can be
tapped in to. Stewart, et al. (2007) however, suggests that answers go beyond the
level of surface explanation in a focus group. Litosseliti (2003, p.18,19)
emphasises Stewart et al. point by suggesting “focus groups are unique in
obtaining rich amounts of data and different perspectives on a topic through
interaction”. Due to this study requiring participant’s answers to go beyond surface
explanation as it is a largely opinionated topic area with many previous studies
debating it, a focus group was seen as the most suitable method.
Despite focus groups boasting advantages for this particular study over other
methods there are however potential difficulties that could have arisen. It is seen
as the researcher’s responsibility “to ease any potential difficulties by clarifying
from the outset, the purposes of the inquiry and by defining the role as well as that
of the interviewees, so that others will have a genuine interest in playing their
parts” (Merton et al., 1990, p.171). In order for the focus group to work it was both
important and realistic to consider the limitations of using them. Some of the
limitations that could have been evident in the focus groups were:
15
1. Participants frozen out of the conversation or participants being overly forceful
and dominating.
2. Discussion going off topic wasting time and resources and potentially stopping
relevant data from being spoken.
3. Participants speaking over each other as it could damage the clarity of results.
Before the focus group took place clear instructions were given to the participants
beforehand. These instructions were to ensure that the focus group ran smoothly.
For example to ensure participants were not frozen out during the focus group, or
if a particular individual was not answering as many questions as the others
(Grabban et al,. 2010), the question would be put upon him personally. This was
made clear at the before the focus group, to ensure participants were happy to be
asked. There is also suggestion that during focus groups participants could be
dominative. A dominating participant in a focus group could have a daunting effect
as other participants answers could be influenced, Litosseliti (2003, p.21) reports
“firm, yet non-intrusive, moderating” of a dominative participant is the most
effective way of stopping it.
Another limitation of focus groups is that because discussion is encouraged there
is the potential for participants to go off topic, therefore the researcher would have
less control than in a one to one interview (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002). To ensure
conversation didn’t go off topic, a hand signal was introduced in the instructions
which signalled for conversation to stop. It is however important to note that unlike
one to one interviews within a focus group if conversation does go off track, it can
possibly bring other issues that the researcher didn’t perhaps intend to collect
(Merton et al., 1990; Stewart et al., 2007). It was therefore important to allow topic
to flow for a few minutes before making an assumption. The same signal was also
identified as a procedure to stop participants speaking over each other this
ensured all data was clearly heard in transcriptions.
16
3.3 Why Focus Groups: “Focus groups are a kind of group interview where the
aim is to understand the social dynamic and interaction between the participants
through the collection of verbal and observational data” (Redmond et al., 2009,
p.57). Due to the objectives of this study requiring opinionated answers, interviews
would not have drawn enough information out of the participants, unlike focus
groups which stimulate responses from participants. Holloway et al. (2002, p.117)
agrees stating “the dynamic interaction stimulates the thoughts of participants and
reminds them of their own feelings”. Other research further emphasises that a
focus group was the correct method to use in this study, due to its ability to create
discussion among participants (Edmunds, 1999; Stewart et al., 2007; Redmond et
al., 2009). Discussion will be important because of the objectives set in this study.
They include an investigation in to whether actual learning and knowledge is
better developed through formal or informal settings, within the focus group
questions surrounding the area can be asked to the participants. Upon hearing
another participant’s opinions it stimulates another participant to answer.
Another factor that further enhances the choice of using a focus group over other
methods is that in for example, questionnaires the researcher lacks the
opportunity to probe the participant. This is verified by Grabban and Jones (2010,
p.129) who stated “there is no opportunity to get him or her to expand upon or
explain any of the points that may have been made” suggesting a lack of detail
and rather quantitative data, which is not suited to this type of study. Grabban et
al. (2010) also reports that another of possible methods; interviews, can be slightly
unreliable. This can be due to participants potentially passing over incorrect
knowledge due to uncertainty of questions or laziness (Grabban et al., 2010).
Whereas in a focus group participants can be probed further so that their answer
can be justified. In the focus group participants were able to relate to each other’s
answers, meaning participants answered a question but, upon listening to others,
decide to modify their answer. This also as Krueger and Casey (2000, p133)
points out “weeds out false or extreme views” as participants pick up on what
others are saying. It was however the interviewer’s role to create a positive
environment with all individuals contributing, this helps the discussion to flow as all
participants are contributing (Merton, Fiske & Kendall, 1990). To create a positive
17
environment rapport was built, this was done through the use of names and
questioning following a participants answers.
3.4 Method Undertaken: Participants: The participants were chosen through
purposive sampling. This was achieved by ensuring each participant met the
relevant criteria. The criteria set were that the participants had to have some
experience in coaching and had completed their FA level 1 course. Higginbottom
(2004, p.12) explains sampling, “in qualitative research the type of sampling
employed is determined by the methodology selected and the topic under
investigation” meaning the sampling type chose for this study had to match the
criteria,
rather
than
create
generalisable
findings
(Higginbottom,
2004).
Participants chosen for the study were emailed in advance to see whether they
could volunteer, all were of similar backgrounds and experiences, so the
participants could relate to each other’s terminology. This also made it easier to
create the desirable group discussion. The coaches were all currently working or
studying at Cardiff Metropolitan University (UWIC), in different capacities with
three being paid coaches and the other a volunteer.
Procedures: This case study had a focus group that took place for 22 minutes with
four male participants. The group contained different coaches with a range of
experience and qualifications, these included; FA level 1, level 2, level 3 and
Goalkeeping Level 2. Two of the coaches had achieved the Level 2 C licence and
the other coach had progressed to the level 3 B licence and acted as a tutor on
the C licence courses.
Data Analysis: Once the data had been collected it had to be analysed to compare
previous literature to see whether there were any differences or similarities. To
ensure the aim and objectives were met it required thorough analysis of the focus
group. Charmaz (2004, p.998) points out the need to analyse results saying “ask
yourself if the data are sufficient to merit the claims you wish to make about them”.
Charmaz’ point regarding being sufficient enough to answer the claims made are
18
not relevant within this study as it is related to grounded theory. Grounded Theory
ensures that an hypotheses has not already been made on this case study, so it is
therefore open to any data collected. Glaser and Strauss (1967, p.12) define
Grounded Theory as when “the researcher does not begin with a hypothesis about
the phenomenon to be studied but instead remains open to whatever theory
emerges from the data”. In this study aims and objectives were set, rather than
hypotheses and predictions. When the data was analysed themes were drawn up
from the transcripts which related to the objectives of the study. Any evidence from
the focus group which related to a theme was recorded.
As Grounded Theory is being used in this case study it will ensure any data is not
missed. When analysing all data found was collected, no pieces of information
were left, therefore a definitive answer to the study could be found. Grounded
theory as discussed by Charmaz (2006) “consists of systematic, yet flexible
guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories
‘grounded’ in the data themselves” for example within the study the data analysed
has been transcribed and put into a results table, this can be referred to as to
‘coding the data’ by doing this “our analytical grasp of the data begins to take
form” (Charmaz, 2006, p.3). Essentially the analysis of the data will look at
particular themes that are derived from the objectives.
Data Collection: To collect the data efficiently the focus group was recorded on a
Dictaphone so that afterwards all conversation could be heard. This provided an
easy way of analysing the data as it was able to be listened to more than once.
3.5 Trustworthiness of the Case Study: There is some debate as to whether
validity and reliability are relevant in qualitative research studies (Leininger, 1994),
however it is still a factor to consider according to Silverman (2000) and Morse
(1999) who consider good research to be, both valid and reliable. Validity defined
as truth by Hammersley (1990) may become a factor regarding how truthful both
the participants are and how truthful the data gained is. For example this study
19
could not possibly claim to be completely correct as nor can any other study,
rather it must prescriptive, with the data found recorded and analysed truthfully. To
ensure validity and trustworthiness all transcripts were wrote up afterwards and
sent to each of the participants to ensure all information was correct. Through
confirmation from the participants it means all the data collected is valid, Smith
(1989) states this makes the study trustworthy as all the data has been agreed to
be true. Validity has been researched by Sparkes (2001) who draws up different
perspectives for analysing the data Sparkes however believes that validity and
reliability are not necessarily applicable to qualitative data. Sparkes (2001) calls on
replication perspective, he suggests that one set of criteria should be used for all,
this is similar to this study as a criteria has been drawn up for the method and the
study will keep to that. It did so by using recording methods and transcripts to
ensure all information was trustworthy.
3.6 Conclusion of Methodology: The methodology was an important part of the
study as it shows a step by step guide of how the study will collect results.
Through the use of focus groups the study has collected all the results that are
necessary to start a discussion and come to a conclusion and answer. Using open
questioning during the focus group meant aim and objectives were able to be
achieved and answered, with participants encouraged to discuss their own
experiences. This meant information not originally seen as important was
discussed, to give more evidence about whether formal or informal coaching and
learning was more beneficial.
20
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are presented in a table with selected themes (see Appendix B).
These themes are evident from the focus group. Each theme has been
chosen due to its relevance to the aims and objectives of the study.
Evidence of each theme has been gathered from transcriptions. The five
themes are career development, the current structure of coach education
courses in football, Informal and formal learning, whether courses are
undertaken to tick a box and if any improvements could be made to the
coach education courses. This chapter is the discussion it seeks to link the
results identified from this study to previous literature. By analysing the
results it creates a discussion as similarities and differences are drawn on
from previous literature.
19
4.1 Career Development: Career development was the first theme chosen as it
linked to an objective of the study and was clearly evident throughout the focus
group. Objective two of the study was to examine the role of coach education on
career development, to see whether coach education courses and career
development were linked. There is debate however as to how and what
development of a coach means. Previous literature has not yet pinned down how
coaches develop most effectively with a mix of views. Some literature explains that
coaches develop through coach education courses (Jones, Armour & Potrac,
2002; Morgan, 2006; Werthner & Trudel, 2006). Whereas other literature suggests
a mix of formal education classes, informal coaching and athlete experience
ensures the coach reaches full development (Nelson, Cushion & Potrac, 2006),
compared to other pieces of literature, which sees informal experiences with
athletes, mentors and coaches as the main beneficiaries (Cassidy, Jones &
Potrac, 2004; Jones et al., 2002).
The participants in the focus group all believed that they learnt from the courses
they had participated on, although suggested some courses were basic and acted
as a base for future development. Participant 4 compared the courses he had
been on to a ‘tool box’ suggesting “they say when I went on it, it’s a tool box innit
you pick what you want out of that”. The suggestion that the courses act a base
and are rather basic with a likening to a tool box can be related to literature, “The
coach education and coaching courses available by the English football
Association (FA) were acknowledged as necessary in providing coaches with
basic information” (Stephenson et al., 2006, p.13). Coach education courses from
the FA almost seem to provide the participants with basic information, suggesting
the FA expect coaches to develop themselves. Despite the expectation it can be
seen as the norm for a coach to learn through experience as Cushion, Jones &
Armour, (2003, p.217) explain coaches “learn through ongoing interactions in the
practical coaching context”. It is therefore seen as the coach educator’s role to
encourage and assist coaches to acquire the necessary information rather than to
‘spoon feed’ them (Cassidy et al., 2009).
21
Literature that suggests a coaches need to develop after the course is similar to
the thoughts of Participant 2 as he states “I think you’ve just got to use the
principles they give you and then find different drills around it”. Suggesting that
coaches who attend courses need to use the information learnt in courses and
then develop by further reading or trying out new innovative techniques, almost a
try and tested approach. Despite the participants seeming positive regarding
coach development this could be due to them all attending University and studying
a sports coaching course. It should therefore be noted that novice coaches could
struggle to develop outside of the courses, Côté, 2006, p220; Vargas-Tonsing,
2007, p26; explain coaching courses “often given a plethora of information in a
very small window of time, with this emphasis on quick and basic information and
the courses hardly prepare a novice coach for the complexities of coaching”.
The need for more information to be given and extra mentoring available to novice
coaches is highlighted by Participant 1 a mentor on the level 1 course mentions “I
think a lot of like people don’t have an academic background do sort of struggle to
learn you know because it’s a sport science approach more”, he reiterates this by
saying “speaking to coaches Cardiff City’s coach Geraint Hughes he says like in
terms of the B licence it’s not the people can’t deliver a topic because their
knowledge it’s that they can’t control a group, they can’t coach a group”, perhaps
due to a lack of understanding of how to manage a group of athletes, unlike the
coaches in the focus group who have learnt that whilst at University.
The coaches in the focus group have all expressed that there development as a
coach in terms of their career, has been helped by the courses they have
attended. It is however clear that the development of the coach relies on the
coach rather than course, with the ‘tool box’ phrase being evident throughout. This
is further evident as Participant 3 mentions that it is the coaches responsibility to
develop by using the basic information that they have learnt, “they do say right this
is a tool box you’ve got to use like Participant 4 said and you adapt it yourself,
they don’t teach you how to do that but I think that’s part of your development as a
coach anyway”.
22
4.2Structure of Courses in football: The structure of the courses was the
second theme evaluated. The theme was prominent in the focus group. Through
finding out the structure and current content of each course, it allowed the study to
gain a further insight into whether courses are bias towards formal or informal
learning. This objective was completed by use of questioning directed at the
participants regarding what each course contained and how they learnt. The
participants all suggested in their experiences on the courses that there was a
clear mix between formal and informal learning, classroom and practical based
learning. Participant 4 explained “personally I would say it’s a healthy mix”
therefore highlighting that there was a mix between classroom and practical. The
healthy mix described by Participant 4 links closely to literature that Cushion et al.
(2003) analysed. They looked at previous studies relating to coach education and
found that experienced coaches learnt from practical based sessions and listening
to experienced coaches “the most important sources responsible for the
development of coaches’ knowledge were experience and other coaches”, the
latter linking to the coaches who taught and mentored on the education courses.
The FA level one course had been completed by all four participants in the focus
group. The FA level 1 is the first step of the coaching ladder however was seen as
easy and extremely basic by the participants. For example Participant 1 and 3
suggested “From level 1 it was, I didn’t really learn much from that at all but I
suppose it was enjoyable” and “I’d say level 1 I learnt minimum”. It was evident
that the course was seen as a stepping stone to level 2 rather than a course to
improve. A previous study done by Stephenson et al. (2009) interviewed
experienced coaches about their beliefs regarding coaching courses. The coaches
interviewed said of level 1 “there are too many people who got these
qualifications, they think they are coaches but they are not really” (Stephenson et
al., 2009, p.10) signifying that the course is basic enough for any individual to
complete, regardless of previous experience and expertise in football.
23
The second step in the FA coaching set up is the FA level 2 course. This was
seen as a lot more useful than level 1 by the participants. It was described as
having better content as Participant 4 explains “the level two has got a lot of you
know good content which you can take away”. It was also a big step up according
to Participant 1 who believed the gap between the level 1 and 2 to be too large.
He believed that many participants attending level 2 were not at the right stage as
a coach “so many people are going to the B (level 2) and they don’t have a clue
what they’re installed for”. Perhaps for inexperienced coaches the course contains
too much information, as Cushion et al. (2003) explains coaching courses now
contain more information and emphasis on coaching science than ever before,
making it more difficult for a coach who doesn’t have an academic background in
coaching.
Despite the level 2 being described as a big step up by Participant 1, Participant 3
suggested he felt that the course was still just reinforcing what he already knew “I
still think it’s reinforcing what I already know rather than you know enhancing my
knowledge”. The reason for the difference in opinion between Participant 1 and 3
may be due to the fact that Participant 3 is talking from an experienced
background. Despite both having a University degree, Participant 3 believes that
some coaches who attend the courses are uneducated in the coaching field, this
is a recognised problem (Cushion et al., 2003; Côté, 2006). Despite these views,
in a recent change the FA have undertaken to the level 2 course they have not
taken notice of these views. The change they have made is explained by
Participant 1, “they’ve now changed the level 2 as these two know it’s now not
pass fail it’s now a course to improve you”. Before this change was made, the
course was pass or fail.
In coach education the usual structure in coach education is an assessment
where “coaches are assessed in a practical test scenario where their coaching
either meets the required standard or not” (Cushion et al., 2003, p.224). Now they
have changed that in the level 2 course, it may mean participants are not really
getting an understanding of what they have learnt and how to apply that theory to
24
practice. Thompson (2003, p162) sees practicing as an important part of life “the
application of this form is essential to the achievement of high standards in
practice”. To change it so that everyone passes, perhaps allows the lesser
coaches to pass the course ,Participant 1 reinforces the issue saying “you’ve gotta
have a standard you know if people don’t meet that standard there not good
enough”, perhaps suggesting he believes the assessment of pass or fail should
have stayed in place.
The final step in the FA coaching badges is the Level 3 award. Participant 1 was
the only participant in the focus group who had completed this course, he
described it as the course he got the most out of, “the latest of level 3 was
probably the most fun and most knowledgeable”. The content in the level 3
according to Participant 1 was much more challenging, due to its tactical approach
rather than technical points learnt in level 2 “it’s not just the technical aspect of
sport you then look at the tactical aspect you know the principles of playing”. The
tactical and technical side of coaching courses has been criticised in previous
literature as being to dominant, with a lack of emphasis on the coaching process.
Vargas-Tonsing (2007, p.26) believes “coaching education content typically
focuses on performance enhancement, and, with such an emphasis on technical
and tactical knowledge, little attention is given to coaching as a process”.
4.3 A Discussion surrounding the Formal vs. Informal debate: The third
theme evident from the focus group and aims and objectives is the debate of
formal vs. informal learning. To see which is more beneficial or whether in fact a
mix of the two is the ideal solution in coach education programs. After learning in
theme two that the courses are a mix between formal and informal classroom
based and practical sessions, it was important to see the views of the participants
regarding what they found more effective. The coaches had mix feelings however
the majority agreed that getting experience informally was more beneficial.
Participant 1, 3 and 4 agreed that they have learnt more through practical
experience than attending coaching courses:
25
“you know to be honest you learn so much more from what you deliver [...] from
what you read because you’re getting practical understanding”, “for me it’s all
about you know getting out there and experiencing it” and “my experience of
coaching myself I think I’ve learnt a lot more than participating on a course yeah
definitely”.
The views of some of the participants above are similar to the participants who
were involved in Stephenson et al. (2009, p.11) one of the experienced coaches
states “my advice to all the young coaches is just get experience doing it, the more
experience the better”. There is however the possibility for these views to be
viewed as slightly bias as they are all from coaches. These coaches would
arguably prefer to coach rather than to attend coach education courses. Despite
potential for this argument, literature from authors agrees with the participants
“workplace learning is more efficient than formal training when it comes to learning
job-related skills and obtaining knowledge” (Kyndt et al., 2009, p.370)
Participant 2 also provided his opinion on the formal vs. Informal debate by
agreeing that informal learning was more effective and important to him however
suggested “I think you need a little bit of formal stuff to just keep you in that
direction” relating to literature that states both coach education and practical
experience are as important as each other (Fleurance et al., 1999; Côté, 2006;
Mesquita et al., 2009). Formal education was seen by Participant 1 as an
important attribute conceding someone with a good theoretical background would
know great amounts about coaching “I think there’s so many people out there who
from the theoretical side yes they know this they know that but there lack of
practical knowledge”. He did however concede without practical knowledge and a
ability to put theory into practice “you know to be honest you learn so much more
from what you deliver [...] from what you read because you’re getting practical
understanding you know, you know it’s you hear and you forget ain’t it you see
and you know and you deliver and you remember”. A strong balance between the
both formal and informal was encouraged by participant 1.
26
4.4 To tick a box: One of the talking points throughout the focus group was the
motives of completing a coaching course. All of the coaches saw the courses
especially the level 1 and 2 as stepping stones, Participant 4 explains “for me
personally it’s level one and level two for me is just stepping stones I don’t see
them as, as like major things for me it’s just for me to get to level 3”. Despite the
participants on this study having a degree, it may suggest that the level 1 and 2
courses lack new information that has not already been learnt from practical
experience. Participant 3 believed that the level 1 and 2 were basic as he had
already learnt from experience, “most of the practical stuff they teach you, you
know you’ve used already because you have experience of being a coach so I’d
agree yeah just ticking a box to be honest”. A reason why participants may not be
learning is suggested by Vargas-Tonsing (2007), who states that coach education
lacks new and/or relevant information and therefore acts a deterrent to coaches
attending them.
Participant 1 a mentor for the football Association spoke about his experiences
whilst mentoring on the courses, “I think the main thing they do these days is tick a
box for you and I think it’s an unfortunate thing, that seems to be the way it’s going
is your there to pass a course not to improve as a coach” suggesting people only
participate on coaching courses to enhance their curriculum vitae rather than to
learn. A study by Vargas-Tonsing in 2007 (p.29) examined the reasons why
coaches attended coach education courses. The results suggested the main
reason was if it was a league requirement. Vargas-Tonsing’s study links to the
thoughts of the participants on this study, stressing those coaches who attend,
only do so to get to the next level rather than to actually learn. Participant 3, 4 also
completed the courses to tick a box and to get to a higher stage for his career
development, Participant 4 believed the level 1 and 2 were just stepping stones so
he could get to the level 3 course “for me just to get higher, the next one up sort of
thing”. Participant 2’ thoughts regarding the ‘tick the box’ topic are slightly different
to the other coaches. He believed for him personally he attended to both learn and
to tick a box, “yeah I think it’s a bit of both” however stated that ultimately it was “to
tick the box to fill the course”
27
4.5 Improvements for Coach Education: As there was both negative and
positive points raised in the focus group regarding coach education programs, it
was interesting to see whether the participants felt the courses could be improved.
Literature particularly in football coach education suggests improvements are
necessary. Stephenson (2009, p.14) states coach education in football needs to
“emphasise the importance of continuous professional development by exposing
novice and experienced coaches more regularly to evidence-based information”.
Thus suggesting that coaches development is currently hindered in football coach
education, similarly other literature from Vargas-Tonsing (2007, p.31) states
“coaching education should not only be mandatory but also that coaching
certification should be required”. Therefore coaches should need to complete the
courses, in order to go to the next level ability wise, not by what courses they have
completed.
One of the main issues evident from the focus group was the gap in knowledge
from the level 1 course to the level 2, Participant 1 explained a preparation course
was needed in between “I think there should be a preparation course”. This was
due to in his opinion the courses being too far apart in knowledge especially for
inexperienced coaches. The view of Participant 1 can be linked to the views of
Cushion et al. (2003) who speaks about coach education courses being designed
to meet the needs of coaches in attendance, this would potentially ensure that
Participant 1’ concerns would be solved.
Another issue regarding the current coach education courses was raised by
Participant 3 and 4 who felt the courses weren’t realistic enough. Their concerns
were with the assessment procedure that is currently used. The current
assessment requires coaches to coach their peers with a mentor assessing their
coaching skills. The participants shared their views, “Researcher – so you think
that maybe to improve they can almost send you out? Participant 3 – to your club
and watch you. Participant 4 – a group of players like not attached to you to see
how well. Researcher – see how you cope with them, see how you do? Participant
3 – and then you get more in depth feedback then rather than just the basic stuff
28
you do get”. This way coaches wouldn’t be assessed in front on their peers who
would arguably behave well and do what the coach told them to do which is
unrealistic.
29
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This chapter outlines the main findings of the study. It also suggests
limitations of the study as well as recommending future research that could
be undertaken.
27
5.1 Concluding thoughts: This paper sought to investigate the value of formal
and informal coach education: to see whether formal or informal learning was
more beneficial. Whilst previous studies examine the coach education system as a
whole, there is little research on coaching courses delivered by the FA. The
majority of previous studies that investigate the debate between formal and
informal coach education are desk based studies (Cushion et al., 2003; Côté,
2006, Mallett et al., 2009) which do not involve coaches and their opinions. This
particular study is different in that coaches opinions and thoughts are expressed.
Similar studies where participants are interviewed or questioned are done by
Vargas-Tonsing (2007), Stephenson et al. (2009), Mesquita et al. (2010) however
fail to explore one particular sport, whereas this study is a case study on football
coaches at a coaching academy.
5.2 Findings: The results recorded in this study have been helpful and will further
research in coach education courses in football. The participants through
questioning and discussion in the focus group identified some areas that were
similar to results in previous studies. Some of the main findings include:

The view that courses were and are completed to ‘tick a box’.

Coaches felt they learnt more from practical experience than coach
education courses.

Coaching courses were seen to have a healthy mix of both formal and
informal learning.

The participants believed a preparation course was needed between the
level 1 and level 2 licence, as well as a more realistic approach in the
assessment process.

The level 1 award was said to have minimum information and the
participants gained little from it. Level 2 however was seen as better but in
some instances still basic, whilst level 3 was the most challenging.
30
These findings are interesting due to the different views of the participants. Some
of the findings suggest coaching courses are poor and need improvements,
despite that the participants did stress during the focus group that they believed
that for the resources available the courses were at their best. The results
collected were similar in some cases to the other studies (Gould, Krane, Giannini
& Hodge, 1990; Brennan, 1997; Lyle, 2002; Trudel et al., 2006; Vargas-Tonsing,
2007; Kyndt et al., 2009; Mallet et al., 2009; Cushion, Nelson, Armour, Lyle,
Jones, Sandford & O’Callaghan, 2010) that all came to the conclusion that
informal learning was more beneficial to coaches. Other results gathered from this
study also suggested that coach education programs assessment procedure could
be improved. Participants suggested by making coaches coach outside of the
course it would make the assessment process, more challenging and realistic
which would give the coach a better understanding of how to apply theory to
practice. These views are also spoken by Cushion et al. (2003, p.225) who
believed “coach education programs should have included supervised field
experiences throughout, possibly in a variety of contexts, to enable coaches to
consider differences, make mistakes, reflect and learn from them, and try again”.
5.3 Limitations: These findings are significant and can be related to findings from
previous studies surrounding formal and informal learning, and can add to the
growing body of research already available. There are however limitations of the
study which future research could improve upon. Some of these limitations include
the fact that the four participants used were doing or had completed a University
degree in Sports Coaching so they found parts of the process easy, this may not
be the case for less experienced novice coaches. Therefore future research could
compare the results of this study to less experienced coaches who have basic
knowledge of football and coaching. This way the opinions of experienced
coaches could be compared to those of novice coaches, creating a discussion and
potentially a difference between the two. Another limitation is that all the
participants used were male, if female coaches had been used it could of perhaps
brought up different results. Overall however this study has contributed to other
studies and given an insight into what could be improved on coaching courses.
The suggestion of a preparation course being added in to the coaching
31
assessment process was mentioned by Participant 1, who is a mentor on the
programs. Therefore he has experience of dealing with coaches who come onto
the programs and struggle, this provides the study with effective and new data
which has not been spoke about before.
32
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., and Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach
development. Quest. 50 (1), 59-79.
Baert, H., De Witte, K., and Sterck, G. (2000). Instruction, training and education
(ITE): Handbook for a high quality ITE-policy in welfare services. Leuven: Garant.
Biscontini. L. (2011). How do you learn? American fitness. 29 (1), 12-16.
Blinde, E. Taub, E., and Han, L. (1994). Sport as a site for women’s group and
societal empowerment: perspectives from the college athlete. Sociology of sport
journal. 11 (1), 51-59.
Blinde. E. Taub, E., and Han, L. (1993). Sport participation and womens personal
empowerment: experiences of the college athlete. Journal of sport and social
issues. 17 (1), 47-60.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., and Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching.
Oxon: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research:
revisiting the foundations. Qualitative health research. 14 (7), 976-993.
Collin, K. (2002). Development engineers’ conceptions of learning at work. Studies
in continuing education. 24 (2), 133-152.
Côté, J. (2006). The development of coaching knowledge. International journal of
sports science and coaching. 1 (3), 217-222.
Cushion, C., Nelson, L., Armour, K., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R., and
O’Callaghan, C. (2010). Coach Learning and Development: A review of literature.
UK: The National Coaching Foundation.
Cushion, C., Jones, R., and Armour, K. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: experience and learning to coach. National association
for physical education in higher education. 55 (1), 215-230.
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. United States of
America: McGraw-Hill.
33
Education Development Center. (1998). The teaching firm: Where productive work
and
learning
converge:
report
on
research
findings
and
implications.
Massachusetts: Newton.
Ellstrom, P. (2001). Integrating learning and work: problems and prospects.
Human resource development quarterly. 12 (4), 421-435.
Ennis, C. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest. 46
(1),164-175.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London:
Farmer Press.
Erickson, K., Côté, J., and Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Sport experiences,
milestones and educational activities associated with high-performance coaches
development. Sport psychologist. 21 (3), 302-317.
Fleurence, P., and Cotteaux, V. (1999). Building the expertise from coaches of
high-level athletes. Avante. 5 (1), 54-68.
Gilbert, W., and Trudel, P. (1999). An evaluation strategy for coach education
programs. Journal of sport behaviour. 22 (2), 234-250.
Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). Cited in Licqurish, S., and Seibold, C. (2011).
Applying a contemporary grounded theory methodology. Nurse researcher. 18 (4),
11-16.
Gould, D., Krane, V., Giannini, J & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite
u.s. national team, pan american, and olympic coaches. Journal of teaching in
physical education. 9 (1), 332-344.
Grabban, C., and Jones, I. (2010). Research methods for sport studies. London:
Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. London:
Longmans.
Hardy, C., and Mawer, M. (1999). Learning and teaching in physical education.
London: Falmer Press.
34
Harrison, S. (2004) cited in Jones, R., Armour, K., and Potrac, P. (2004). Sports
coaching culture: From practice to theory. London: Routledge.
Higginbottom, G. (2004). Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse
researcher. 12 (1), 7-19.
Holloway, I., and Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. Oxford:
Blackwell Science Limited.
Jeffs, T., and Smith, M. (2005). Informal learning: conversation, democracy and
learning. Nottingham: British Cataloguing.
Jones, R. (2006). The sports coach as an educator: Re-conceptualising sports
coaching. London: Routledge.
Jones, R., Armour, K., and Potrac, P. (2002). "It’s about getting respect." The
coaching behaviours of a top-level English football coach. Sport, Education, and
Society. 7 (1) 83-202.
Jones, R., Potrac, P and Armour, K. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From
practice to theory. London: Routledge.
Krueger, R., and Casey, M. (2000). Cited in Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative
Research in the Study of Leadership. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Kumar, R. (2008). Research Methodology. New Delhi: APH Publishing
Corporation.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., and Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and
informal workplace learning. Journal of workplace learning. 21 (5), 369-383.
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research
studies. In: Morse, J. (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods.
London: Sage Ltd.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., and Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches
learn to coach. The sports psychologist. 21 (2), 191-209.
35
Lindgren, E., Patriksson, G., and Fridlund, B. (2002). Empowering young female
athletes through a self-strengthening programme: a qualitative analysis. European
physical education review. 8 (1), 230-248.
Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum.
Lyle, J., Jolly, S., and North, J. (2010). The learning formats of coach education
materials. International journal of coaching science. 4 (1), 35-48.
Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., and Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between
informal and formal learning. Journal of workplace learning. 15 (7), 313-318.
Mallett, C., Rossi, T., and Tinning, R. (2007). AFL Research Report: Coaching
Knowledge, Learning and Mentoring in the AFL. Brisbane: The University of
Queensland.
Mallett, C., Trudel, P., Lyle, J., and Rynne, S. (2009). Formal vs. Informal coach
education. International journal of sports science and coaching. 4 (3), 325-334.
Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching. Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., and Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A
Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R., and Kendall, P. (1946). Cited in Merton, R., Fiske, M., and Kendall, P.
(1990). The Focused Interview: a manual of problems and procedures. New York:
The Free Press.
Merton, R., Fiske, M., and Kendall, P. (1990). The Focused Interview: A manual of
problems and procedures. New York: The Free Press.
Mesquita, I., Isidro, S., and Rosado, A. (2010). Portuguese coaches’ perceptions
of and preferences for knowledge sources related to their professional
background. Journal of sports science and medicine. 9 (1), 480-489.
Morgan, G.P. (2006). Coaching behaviours and players’ motivation in elite youth
football. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Loughborough University.
36
Morse, J. (1999). Myth 94: qualitative health researchers will agree about validity.
Qualitative health research. 9 (1), 717-718.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C., and Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal
coach learning: A holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching. 1, 247-259.
Powell, R., and Single, H. (1996). Methodology matters. International journal for
quality in health care. 8 (5), 499-504.
Redmond, R., and Curtis, E. (2009). Focus groups: principles and process. Nurse
researcher. 16 (3), 57-69.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London:
Sage Ltd.
Skirta, N. (2011). The value of informal and formal sports to youth development.
Soccer journal. 56 (4), 54-55.
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and
assess informal learning in the workplace. International journal of training and
development. 8 (1), 8-20.
Smith, J. (1989). The nature of social and educational inquiry: Empiricism versus
interpretation. New Jersey: Ablex.
Sparkes, A. (2001). Myth 94: qualitative health researchers will agree about
validity. Qualitative health research. 11 (4), 538-552.
Stephenson, B., and Jowett, S. (2009). Factors that influence the development of
English youth soccer coaches. International journal of coaching science. 3 (1), 316.
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., and Rook, D. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Sullivan, P., and Wilson, D. (1993). The Coach’s role. In: Cohen, G., and JoynerKersee, J. (1993). Women And Sport: Issues and Controversies. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
37
The
football
Association.
(2011).
Coaches
[on-line].
http://www.thefa.com/GetIntofootball/Coaches. [accessed 14 December 2011].
Thompson, N. (2003). Theory, Practice and Professionalism in Coaching. In:
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., and Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching.
Oxon: Routledge.
Tinning, R. (1991). Teacher education pedagogy: dominant discourses and the
process of problem setting. Journal of teaching in physical education. 11 (1), 1-20.
Trudel, P., and Gilbert, W. (2004). In: Gilbert, W. (2006). Introduction to special
issue: coach education. Sports psychologist. 20 (2), 123-125.
Trudel, P., and Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and Coach Education. In Kirk, D.,
MacDonald, D., and O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The handbook of physical education.
London: Sage Publications.
Tynjala, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational
research review. 3 (2), 130-154.
Vargas-Tonsing. T. (2007). Coaches preferences for continuing coaching
education. International journal of sports science & coaching. 2 (1), 25-36.
Werthner, P., and Trudel, P. (2006). A new theoretical perspective for
understanding how coaches learn to coach. The Sports Psychologist, 20, 198212.
Woodman, L. (1993) cited in Cushion, C., Armour, K., and Jones, R. (2003).
Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and
learning to coach. Quest. 55 (1), 215-230.
Woodman. L. (1993). Coaching: a science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport
science review. 2 (2), 1-13.
Wright, T., Trudel, P., and Culver, D. (2007). Learning how to coach: the different
learning situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Physical education and
sport pedagogy. 12 (2), 127-144.
38
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Focus Group Questions
1. You have all completed a football
coaching qualification how was the course
you completed?
Fun? Knowledgeable? Effective? Useful?
2. Has the course you completed helped in
your development as a coach?
Skills and attributes learnt? What methods
were use? Were they good or bad?
3.In coach education there seems to be a
view from literature that formal learning
(classroom based/more taught
based/reading literature) is less effective
than informal learning (going out there and
getting experience) in your opinion which
do you think is more effective?
Formal and informal learning. In their
courses would they prefer formal or
informal?
4. Do you perceive learning through
experiences as more important than
learning in itself?
An example – when coaching do you learn
through dealing with situations that occur or
do you rather learn how to deal with these
situations through reading books/magazines
or coaching courses.
To tick a box or to gain more information
and help when coaching.
5. When completing your coaching course
did you do it for future career opportunities
or to gain more knowledge? Or both?
7. What do you see as the strengths and
weaknesses of coach education programs
in terms of developing knowledge?
Dealing with scenarios? Knowledge of
coaching practices?
8. Career wise have the qualifications you
have gained helped in any way?
For example job wise or university? If so
how and why do you think?
12. Why do you prefer formal/informal
coaching in coach education?
Depending on which they feel is better why
do they find this?
10. After the coaching education courses
do you practice the recommended
practices that they encourage you to do?
Do you use sessions they have shown you
and techniques that they have shown when
actually coaching. Or do you use them as a
base and do your own sessions?
Organised in coaching sessions,
professional – communication appearance
etc.
Why? Question their answers.
11. Have the coaching courses made you
more professional and organised?
9. Do you believe that informal coaching
courses are basic and are only used as an
foundation for coaches, which requires you
then to go out there and coach and use the
course to further progress? Or otherwise?
13. What qualifications have you
completed in football?
Award wise what level are they at?
14. In your opinion do the courses become
more intense?
16. What could coaching courses do to
improve in your opinion?
Why? More information? longer hours?
For example did they provide you the
learner with a basic knowledge to go out
there and coach.
APPENDIX B - Transcriptions
Theme
1. Have the courses ultimately helped in
their career development?
Evidence
Participant 4 – “they say when I went
on it it’s a tool box innit you pick what
you want out of that like they, they don’t
show you a passing exercise and then
say this is the way it’s got to be done,
it’s got to be done like this, you’ve gotta
have him here him here cones here it’s
basically for you to pick what you want
out of that”.
Participant 2 – “I think you’ve just got to
use the principles they give you and
then find different drills around it
because if you’re working with younger
players they’re going to get bored if
they’re doing the same thing over and
over again”.
Participant 3 – “they do say right this is
a tool box you’ve got to use like
Participant 4 said and you adapt it
yourself, they don’t teach you how to do
that but I think that’s part of your
development as a coach anyway”.
Participant 1 – “I think even from a
tutors point of view we see so many
people who are hell bent on delivering a
good session, you know in terms of
right then this is a good practice rather
than what they put into it themselves
and that’s what we mark them on [..]
and there right there picking a good
session but doesn’t get there key points
out so we’re not going to mark them
well because they aren’t getting there
key points out so many people are just
hell bent on right then that’s a good
practice I’ll put that and it doesn’t
address what they need to address”.
“speaking to coaches Cardiff City’s
coach Geraint Hughes he says like in
terms of the B licence it’s not the
people can’t deliver a topic because
their knowledge it’s that they can’t
control a group, they can’t coach a
group”.
2. How did the coaches feel about the
structure and usefulness of the courses
undertaken?
Level 1:
Participant 3 “From level 1 it was, I
didn’t really learn much from that at all
but I suppose it was enjoyable”.
Participant 1 explains “you don’t learn
much about the technical or the tactical
side of it so I’d say level 1 I learnt
minimum, you already know what
especially as all 4 of us played you
know you don’t really learn anything
other than a little bit about the coaching
process and how you communicate
with others”.
“I think the B licence the level 2 is quite
low and the B and A are just so far up
there from the C [...] I think there should
be a preparation course in between is
my opinion because so many people
are going to the B and they don’t have
a clue what they’re installed for you
know”.
Level 2:
Participant 3 “I still think it’s reinforcing
what I already know rather than you
know enhancing my knowledge”.
“it’s not really that challenging that it
you know, you have to work hard for it
or that it gets the best of you”.
Participant 1 – “they’ve now changed
the level 2 as these two know it’s now
not pass fail it’s now a course to
improve you”.
“talking to tutors now obviously I tutor
on it and talking to other tutors they
think it should go back to assessed
because you got so many people on it
thinking I’ve passed this course who
cares I don’t have to learn”.
“in level 2 you know you start looking at
the technical aspect so then you look at
the mechanics, you know how you play
a pass, how you play a shot, how you
head the ball so your giving them then
a foundations of which you’ve players
develop from”.
“I think a lot of like people don’t have an
academic background do sort of
struggle to learn you know because it’s
a sort science approach more”.
Participant 4 – “as we did say the level
two has got a lot of you know good
content which you can take away from”.
Level 3:
Participant 1 - “the latest of level 3 was
probably the most fun and most
knowledgeable”
“level 3 even more so then because
you look at performance analysis,
sports science, you look at a more
rounded coach then to take this into
consideration [...] and then it’s not just
the technical aspect of sport you then
look at the tactical aspect you know the
principles of playing”.
Level 2 Goalkeeping:
Participant 2 “quite a lot of it was boring
because you’ve done a lot of it before,
and I knew a lot about what was going
on”
General:
Participant 3 – “whereas people who
maybe they haven’t experienced you
know learning about the coaching
styles etc they don’t know the
difference you know just like a father
going on a coaching course or
something to keep teach their kids they
might find that a lot more useful than”.
Participant 1 – “but you know you’ve
gotta have a standard you know if
people don’t meet that standard there
not good enough, but then again it’s
tough because you’re trying to get them
to pass the course rather than learn so
it is you know you need to get the right
mixture don’t you”.
Participant 4 – “I personally would say
it’s a healthy mix”.
Participant 2 –“like morning you’re in
the classroom and then in the afternoon
they took you out and went through
some practices, drills that sort of thing
with you then”.
3. What do the coaches say about
informal and formal learning?
Participant 3 – “my experience of
coaching myself I think I’ve learnt a lot
more than participating on a course
yeah definitely”.
Participant 1 – “I think there’s so many
people out there who from the
theoretical side yes they know this they
know that but there lack of practical
knowledge” “I’ve done you know up to
level 3 courses but I wouldn’t of
developed as much if I wasn’t delivering
what I’ve learnt from those courses, the
basic principles from those courses in
my practice”
“with the B licence you look at the
different aspects of sport so I you know
read up and got a book on tactics and
you know to be honest you learn so
much more from what you deliver [...]
from what you read because you’re
getting practical understanding you
know, you know it’s you hear and you
forget ain’t it you see and you know and
you deliver and you remember”.
Participant 4 – “for me it’s all about you
know getting out there and
experiencing it”.
“how players react to you, you know
how your manner is when you do things
that for me is the is the more important
of the two but not discrediting the
theoretical side”
“if you went to go read a book about it
you’d just add something you wouldn’t
know you know you wouldn’t read, if
you’re in there you can see what’s
happening but you go read a book
about it to discover something new
about it”.
Participant 2 – “I don’t do it attached to
the course I might possibly read a
couple of bits with like more practices to
do for coaching sessions that I’m taking
part in but not necessarily linked to the
course”.
“I think that’s linked to coaches learning
styles as well because I mean I
personally don’t learn a lot from reading
a lot in a book I think I’d have to see it
to understand what’s going on yeah
through continued practice I learn
through the kids that I coach tell me
whether they’ve enjoyed the session
and you can see whether they’ve learnt
if they can’t do stuff they couldn’t do
half an hour before so I think that’s how
I learn just by watching them and
seeing how they react to things I’m
telling them”.
“I think you need a little bit of formal
stuff to just keep you in that direction”.
“Researcher – learn more probably off
the informal? Participant 2 – yeah
probably”.
4. Are coaching courses undertaken to
tick a box or is there more to it?
Participant 1 - “I think the main thing
they do these days is tick a box for you
and I think it’s an unfortunate thing that
seems to be the way it’s going is your
there to pass a course not to improve
as a coach”.
“it’s about developing coaches not you
know right then you’ve got your C
licence, you’ve got a B licence you
know like said it is. We’ve said it’s tick
in a box and it’s you know that’s the
way it is but it’s got to push on from
there”.
Participant 2 – “yeah I think it’s a bit of
both”.
“I don’t think I’d spend any more time
than what you have to really to again to
tick the box to fill the course”.
Participant 4 – “for me personally it’s
level one and level two for me is just
stepping stones I don’t see them as, as
like major things for me it’s just for me
to get to level 3”.
“but it’s for me just to get higher, the
next one up sort of thing”
Participant 3 – “most of the practical
stuff they teach you, you know you’ve
used already because you have
experience of being a coach so I’d
agree yeah just ticking a box to be
honest”.
5. Improvements that could be made to
coach education courses in football.
Participant 1 – “maybe go along a
holistic approach you know by or
perhaps you know doing like a
performance profile on the coach each
mentor does that looking at their
strength and weaknesses and building
them and making them a better coach”.
“I think in terms of the time they get, the
resources and everything I think it’s you
know where it should be at the moment
you know they’re doing well”.
Participant 3 – “for the time they have
they deliver it very well”
“when you’re doing the assessments at
least for level 2 your coaching your
peers and you know it’s so there all
there, they’re all going to listen to you
well Barry, they’re all going to shut up,
they’re all going to do what you tell
them to do whereas that’s not a realistic
environment that your actually coaching
in you know if your coaching kids or
whatever there may be a lot of trouble
you know you could get a group that all
want to listen and shut up and do what
you say but like Matt said it’s not really
realistic is it”.
Participant 3 and 4 – “Researcher – so
you think that maybe to improve they
can almost send you out. Participant 3
– to your club and watch you.
Participant 4 – a group of players like
not attached to you to see how well.
Researcher – see how you cope with
them, see how you do? Participant 3 –
and then you get more in depth
feedback then rather than just the basic
stuff you do get”.
APPENDIX C – Participant Information Sheet
The perceived value of formal and informal coach education for coaches: a case
study.
Participant Information Sheet
Background Information
This project aims at conducting an investigation into the value of formal and
informal coach education processes. It sought to contribute to the growing body of
work which addresses the ongoing debate about formal and informal
education/learning for coaches.
Why have you been asked?
You have been specifically asked to volunteer for this project because you are at
least FA level 1 qualified in football. This project will require you to attend a focus
group and talk about your experiences during your coach education course that
you participated in.
If you sign up are there any risks you should be notified of?
No there are no risks of injury or any kind of psychological damage, these
sessions will be discussions and will not require you to do any physical activity. If
you are however unwell or not able to give informed consent you will not advised
not to take part, to ensure that no risks are taken in this project.
Your rights
You will be able to withdraw from the study at any point. There isn’t any legal
rights that you will be required nor is there any legal rights that I should require in
order to complete the study.
What will happen to the results collected from the study?
The results collected will be put into the study and used to compare to ongoing
literature that has already been gathered.
What are the benefits of taking part, if any?
There aren’t any direct benefits however you have the opportunity to discuss your
experiences with other coaches at a similar level to you
What happens next?
Attached to this form is an informed consent form which will you be required to fill
in, sign and hand back should be willing to volunteer for the project. The letter is
saying that you agree to take part in this study and that you will provide honest
and reliable information to the best of your ability.
How will your information kept secure?
Your names will not be used in the project rather code names will be used to
secure confidentiality. Everything possible will be done to ensure that privacy is
kept and that your personal details are destroyed once the study has been
completed. All information collected however regarding the study will be kept.
Further information
If you wish to ask any questions about the proposed study please do not hesitate
to call me or email me.
Jordan Cooper
07854285131
[email protected]
APPENDIX D – Consent Form
Informed consent form
Title of study - The perceived value of formal and informal coach education for coaches: a
case study.
Name of researcher - Jordan Cooper
Participants to complete all sections of this form, by signing in each box.
1. I confirm that I have read the participant information sheet
attached dated....................and agree to volunteer in this study.
I have understood everything on the information form and
anything I haven’t understood I have asked questions about and
been given an answer regarding my question.
2. I understand that my participation in this study is purely
voluntary and I can withdraw from the project at anytime without
giving a reason.
3. I understand fully that the information collected via focus
groups will be used and presented to other members who
attending the focus group.
4. I fully agree to take part in this study.
Name of participant giving consent _______________________________
Signature of participant giving consent ____________________________ Date _______________