Post on 27-Sep-2020
ISSN: 2516-6190 (Print) 2516-7219 (Online) http://sevenbridges.ncl-coll.ac.uk
Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process
Ian Johnston
Seven Bridges, Vol. 6 (2018)
Published on: 05/07/2018
To cite this article: Johnston, I. (2018) Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process. Seven Bridges, 6, pp.17-27.
• View the full issue. • Submit to Seven Bridges.
Seven Bridges is published by: Newcastle College Rye Hill Campus Scotswood Road NE4 7SA
17
Theoretical concepts of the Coaching Process
Ian Johnston
BSc (Hons) Applied Sports Coaching and Development
Newcastle College
ABSTRACT
This paper is a series of critical assessments across three areas of theoretical study; Defining
the Coaching Process, Questioning as a Coaching Behaviour and Modelling the Coaching
Process. Research and practical implementation for each topic is far wider than can be covered
in this article, with each considered from a high level together with signposts to other sources.
KEYWORDS: Coaching Process, Pedagogy, Questioning, Modelling.
DEFINING THE COACHING
PROCESS
Sport science was considered to exclusively
consist of physiology, sports psychology
and biomechanics (Kidman and Hanrahan,
2011). The coaching process (CP) emerged
in the late 1990s as an autonomous
discipline as other didactic themes became
prominent (Cross and Lyle, 1999). Coaches’
personal idiosyncrasies, behaviours, social,
cultural, ethical and other characteristics
were newly ameliorated and actively
appraised (Potrac et al., 2000) alongside
existing, objectively measured in-situ
practice have been a catalyst for said other
didactic themes increasing in prominence.
Accordant consensus regarding CP’s
definition and coaching quality have not yet
been fully agreed, with multiple mechanical
methodologies plus abstruse social
interactions coalescing as reasons for
multiple non-identical definitions (Côté and
Gilbert, 2009; Lemyre et al., 2007; Vinson
et al., 2016; Cross and Lyle, 1999). More
recently, collective thinking has codified
definition into four discrete coaching
dispositions – psychology, modelling,
sociology and pedagogy – reported by
multiple researchers including Bush (2013).
Psychological
This approach focuses on the coaches’
cognitive process, behaviours and decision-
making, and their impact on their
relationships with the athlete. Disparate
qualitative methods are used to measure this
approach, many based on subjective
observational studies of elite coaches
(Bloom et al., 1999) such as basketball
coach, Jerry Tarkanian.
Research considers this theme a simple sub-
category of sports psychology, meaning it is
not so universally accepted in its own right
(Smith and Small, 1993). The assertion that
conventional psychological understanding
applies, such as the impacts upon player
self-esteem, (Smoll et al., 1993), is
routinely cited to corroborate that belief.
Modelling
Having a defined model is a desirable facet
of CP, coupled with sports’ national
governing bodies (NGBs) and individual
organisations to measure the quality of
coaches, and define the CPs they espouse
Ian Johnston
18
(Abraham et al., 2007). Early models (Fairs,
1987) proved too simplistic for what is a
complex process and were superseded with
more granular, though not yet mature,
models (Jones and Wallace, 2005).
Sociological
Coaching should be considered a social
activity (Wenger, 1998) because it consists
of procedural actions delivered within a
social framework (ibid.). Its manifestation
in CP endorsed in newer research, including
explaining successful coaching necessitates
prominent social behaviours such as
leadership, empathy, honesty,
responsiveness, and an adaptable and caring
nature of coaches (Jowett and Cockerill,
2003; Côté and Gilbert, 2009).
Myriad behaviours determine how the
coach appropriates these social
relationships - their commitment,
conscientiousness, investment of elevated
levels of time and energy, and felicitous
ethical behaviour are significant examples
(Bergmann Drewe, 2000a; Jones, 2006;
Hardman et al., 2010).
Pedagogical
Some teaching-specific concepts
(Bergmann Drewe, 2000b) have only
recently been considered desirable for
coaching, where customarily only the
physical aspects had this association.
However, more recent research (Jones,
2006) reinforces the understanding that
coaching is also a cognitive practice,
sharing attributes with teaching.
Traditional coach education, consisting of
lecture style teaching and observation of
expert coaches, is now routinely
complemented with best practices
developed in educational settings (Nelson
and Cushion, 2007). Two attributes in
particular, mentoring and reflective
practice, are now considered essential for
developing expert coaches.
Synopsis
Although ongoing research and
improvements to CP are now prevalent, it
remains complex, its components not yet
universally agreed or understood.
Convincing research and erosion of
outdated views and practices will serve to
promote greater understanding and its
enhanced application.
QUESTIONING AS A COACHING
BEHAVIOUR
Background
Observing behaviours is a well-established
method of improving teaching performance
and, more recently, coaching, with multiple
systems used to interpret results, e.g. the
CAIS system (Hughes and Franks, 2015;
Brewer and Jones, 2002; Cushion et al.,
2012). Using bespoke systems is promoted
because common behaviour categorisation
is both subjective, it is relatively immature,
and intra-study clarification is required
(Mayer, 2004; Kirschner et al., 2006).
Instruction, praise and silence are the
historically the most common desirable
behaviours (Vinson et al., 2016). In a 1996
study, it was found that questioning by ice
hockey coaches was not recognised as an
independent category – demonstrating the
limited historical referencing and
understanding for over 20 years.
Questioning has only recently been notated
individually and widely where previously it
was prevalent only amongst the most highly
successful elite coaches (Cope et al., 2015;
Vinson et al., 2016; Claxton, 1988; Bloom,
et al., 1999).
The Football Association developed its 21st
Century flagship qualification, FA Youth
Award (The Football Association, 2010),
Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)
19
incorporating questioning as one of six main
topics, further suggesting its greater
importance than before.
Usefulness
Questioning develops cognition when used
as part of an overall athlete-centred
approach to coaching, critical in ensuring
ongoing athlete motivation, success,
enjoyment, and participation (Cope et al.,
2015). The practice also helps demonstrate
the athlete is valued, and their needs are
being addressed, particularly when their
learning is prioritised over the coaches’
needs (Cope and Foster, 2017; Cushion et
al., 2012).
Questioning is well established as a tool to
develop athletes’ problem solving and
decision-making skills (Hopper and
Kruisselbank, 2001), its application,
however, is less so. Affirmed in one study
indicating only 3.22% of recorded
behaviours amongst professional rugby
coaches (Granger and Rhind, 2017), another
demonstrated its low significance in elite
performance settings (d’Arrippe-
Longueville et al., 1998). A study into
professional football coaches (Cope et al.,
2016) surmised low capability in
techniques, preference for immediate
response, using leading questions to coerce
desired responses and a teacher-pupil type
relationship as likely reasons for exiguous
use of high calibre questioning.
Future use
Several recent studies recognise
shortcomings and potential causes of
questioning; tone of voice, formation of
questions, environmental circumstances,
and nature of participants to name a few
(Brownstein, 2001; Pearson and Webb
2008; Erickson and Côté, 2015; Sports
Coach UK, 2016; Cope et al., 2016).
The value of questioning is in accordance
with both psychological theory and the
objective measurement successful
coaching, although its use not necessarily
the panacea for inadequate coaching.
Research indicates the willingness to adopt
this paradigm, albeit with insufficient
quality at present, but with effective training
(Brownstein, 2001) and increased
application (Hopper and Kruisselbank,
2001), it can certainly supplement a coach’s
portfolio of skills (Hughes and Franks,
2015).
MODELLING THE COACHING
PROCESS
Background
Conventional learning theory (Dewey,
1938) explains that observation and
judgement are crucial to the learning
process, encouraging incorporation of such
thinking in standardised models. Initially,
simplistic cyclical models were proposed,
reactive in nature (Stratton et al., 2004) and
of a three stage ‘experience-reflection-plan’
or four stage ‘experience-reflection-
conclude-plan’ (Kolb, 1984; Gibbs, 1998).
Coaching theorists initially adopted
rudimentary models (Fairs, 1987; Crisfield
et al., 1996; Sherman et al., 1997), see
Figures 1 and 2 below, though
contemporary thinking did develop once
scale, complexity and understanding of
coaching began to mature (Cushion et al.,
2006).
Figure 1. Simplistic 4 Stage Cyclical Coaching Model
Source: Franks, I.M., Goodman, D. and Miller, G. (1983).
Analysis of performance: qualitative or quantitative.
Ian Johnston
20
Figure 2. Simplistic Plan-Do-Review Model
Adapted from Jones (2006). How can Educational Concepts
Inform Sports Coaching?
Realisation that such simplistic thinking
was not widely using or directly relevant to
coaching (Cushion et al., 2003) led to new
research (Groom et al., 2011) aimed at
incorporating dynamic reticulation of
psychological and social processes within
models. It has gradually become clear that
creating and implementing a settled process
is desirable for effective coaching (Côté et
al., 1995; Bloom and Salmela, 2000;
Cushion et al., 2006), though not in
isolation (Nelson et al., 2012).
Complexities
Leading research suggests that successfully
creating an all-encompassing process is too
complex, the underlying rationale pervasive
(Cushion, 2010). Sophisticated social
interactions (Jones and Wallace, 2005) and
regular instantaneous in-session changes
(Saury and Durand, 1998) explain real-time
intricacies. Additionally, conflicting model
definition at both session level and wider CP
level (Cushion, et al., 2006), conflicting
design for performance or participation
settings (Lyle, 2002), ongoing coaching
improvements (ibid.), and undefined
structures (Wenger, 1998; Jones, 2006;
Cushion et al., 2006) all compound
complexity.
Early coaching models, pertinent to
traditional coaching apprenticeships (i.e.
rudimentary observation of experts) and
extremely simplistic in nature, merely
reproduced existing practices, good or bad.
This helped perpetuate long-standing “If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it” allegories (Cassidy
et al., 2009). The too-simplistic nature of
these models, without sufficient detail or
robust review, served to suppress any
benefits of using such models.
Bourdieu (1977) proposed that, because
coaching could be defined as “structured
improvisation”, it is an art and not a defined
science. Cushion et al. (2003) were then
prompted to say that, since coaching
practice consists of many elements, not all
of which can be easily modelled, either
individually or collectively, creating an all-
encompassing model is impossible or near
impossible to achieve.
Effective modelling
Coach education of the recent past has
largely consisted of classroom-based
learning plus teacher-pupil type practical
observations (Jones, 2006). It is argued that
ongoing, specific and targeted coaching
model training (Côté et al., 1995) will
improve coach education, as will broader
use of the plan-do-review methodology
(Côté and Gilbert, 2009; Hardman et al.,
2010) - see Figure 3. Gaining that sound
understanding (Cross and Lyle, 2008) will,
in turn, improve coaching practice.
There is difficulty in identifying an all-
encompassing coaching model
(Poczwardowski et al., 2002; Lyle, 2007).
Accordingly, to the development of models,
bespoke to an individual sports
organisation, its coaches and idiosyncrasies,
appears propitious (Lemyre et al., 2007) -
see Figure 3:
Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)
21
Figure 3. Theoretical Coaching Model, Bespoke to Single
Country Professional Athletes
Adapted from Bennie and Connor (2010). Coaching
Philosophies: Perceptions from Professional Cricket, Rugby
League and Rugby Union Players and Coaches in Australia
COACHING vs TEACHING
PEDAGOGIES
Theory
Determining differences between coaching
and teaching pedagogies is complicated.
Even establishing if either or both demand a
behaviourist or humanist approach for best
practice is ambiguous, as are the attempts to
define and differentiate the terms
“educator”, “coach” and “teacher”
(Bergmann Drewe, 2000b). Prior to
becoming a successful, well researched elite
basketball coach, John Wooden, was a well-
renowned teacher (Côté and Gilbert, 2009).
He described himself an educator (Wooden,
1997), but neither a coach nor a teacher.
Differences
A direct-instruction classified approach
(Lodewyk, 2015), originating from
behaviourist theory (Watson, 1913), is the
most common delivery style of physical
education teachers and coaches (Butler,
2005). The practice is characterised by
inflexibly structured physical instruction,
prioritisation of skill mastery and technical
execution in isolation. This lack of
engagement and purposeful interaction
ultimately cultivates disaffected
participants (Azzarito and Ennis, 2003),
perhaps defining the different approaches of
teachers and coaches (and physical
education teachers).
The theories of Maslow and Rogers
regarding humanistic ideals (Lombardo,
1978), such as holistic treatment and
development of the athlete/student, were
previously considered incongruous to sports
coaching and performance (Lyle, 2002),
though now feature highly in effective
professional coaching. These traditional
beliefs of the cognitive approach to
coaching not delivering ‘serious training’
(Cassidy et al., 2009), had restricted wider
accession of this thinking. Amineh and
Davatgari Asl (2015) tell us that being
leaders and facilitators is more likely to help
athletes learn independently, challenging
their own values, views and methods only
recently thought to be essential for sporting
performance (Williams, 2013).
It has been argued that, because of diverse
environmental factors (location, desired
outcomes, etc.) there is additional context
surrounding coaching when compared to
classroom teaching (Cassidy et al., 2009),
effectively perpetuating or extending
divergent descriptions. An example of how
the contexts differ was depicted by
Gallimore and Tharp (2004); they
commented that Wooden’s precise
preparation and extensive use of micro-level
detailed plans differentiated his teaching
from his coaching - devoting the same
amounts of time to preparation and delivery
is something impossible to achieve in
teaching.
Similarities
A successful athlete-centred approach
encompasses quality of practices
(McCloskey, 1999), enhanced two-way
athlete communication (Mahoe, 2007) and
athlete motivation (Hansen et al., 2003)
Ian Johnston
22
alongside the long-established components
of physical skills development and a strong
knowledge of the sport (Schempp et al.,
2006; Abraham et al., 2007). This athlete-
centred approach enables acceptance of
responsibility for self-learning and so the
ability to build self-awareness, a better
capacity for learning, ongoing participation
and enjoyment (Kidman et al., 2010).
Research has shown that a prerequisite for
effective coaching is the ability to work with
people (Bennie and Connor 2010) allied to
a reduced emphasis on technical and tactical
elements, further suggesting congruence.
Manifestation of ethical behaviours,
including habitual principled virtues and
taking responsibility for moral education
(Hardman et al., 2010), the development of
two-way trust and likeability - seen to help
construct effective leaders - (Hardman et
al., 2010) apply equally to coaching and
teaching. There are other expedient areas
where innate and desired traits are shared.
For example, hard work, positive approach,
not being over-paternalistic (Hardman et al.,
2010) and the ongoing application of best
practice are common across both.
Additionally, frugal use of extrinsic
rewards, which can suppress
athletes/students becoming motivated by
end rewards (Kidman and Hanrahan, 2011)
and avoidance of sanctioned physical or
impersonal punishment, (Kidman and
Hanrahan, 2011), both desirable to prevent
the perception of authoritarianism.
Summary
The pedagogies of teaching and coaching
share many characteristics, e.g. it is
accepted the cognitive approach is likely to
generate more success in both fields
compared to instruction style (Bruning et
al., 2011). Providing nuanced differences
are acknowledged, Wooden’s extensive pre-
planning being a high-profile example, it
could be suggested that the pedagogies of
are so similar they are simply variations of
each other.
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., Collins, D., and Martindale,
R. (2007). The coaching schematic:
Validation through expert coach consensus.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(6).
Amineh, R. and Davatgari Asl, H. (2015).
Review of Constructivism and Social
Constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences,
Literature and Languages, 1(1), pp.9-16.
Azzarito, L. and Ennis, C.D. (2003). A
sense of connection: Toward social
constructivist PE. Sport, Education, and
Society, 8, pp.179–198.
Bennie, A. and O'Connor, D. (2010).
Coaching Philosophies: Perceptions from
Professional Cricket, Rugby League and
Rugby Union Players and Coaches in
Australia. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 5(2), pp.309-320.
Bennie, A. and O'Connor, D. (2011). An
Effective Coaching Model: The
perceptions and strategies of professional
team sport coaches and players in
Australia. International Journal of Sport
and Health Science, 9, pp.98-104.
Bergmann Drewe, S. (2000a). Coaches,
ethics and autonomy. Sport, Education and
Society 5(2), pp.147-162.
Bergmann Drewe, S. (2000b). An
Examination of the Relationship Between
Coaching and Teaching. QUEST, 52,
pp.79-88.
Bloom, G.A., Crumpton, R., and Anderson,
J.E. (1999). A systematic observation study
of the teaching behaviours of an expert
Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)
23
basketball coach. Sport Psychologist,13,
pp.157-170.
Bloom, G.A. and Salmela, J.H. (2000).
Personal characteristics of expert team
sport coaches. Journal of Sport Pedagogy,
6(2), pp.56-76.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of
Practice. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Brewer, C.J. and Jones, R.L. (2002). A
five-stage process for establishing
contextually valid systematic observation
instruments: The case of rugby union. The
Sport Psychologist, 16(2), pp.138-159.
Brownstein, B. (2001). Collaboration: "The
foundation of learning in the future"
Education, 122(2), p.240.
Bruning, R., Schraw, G., and Norby, M.
(2011). Cognitive Psychology and
Instruction. Boston: Pearson.
Bush, A. (2013). Sports Coaching
Research. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J.I. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: Old
dogs, new tricks, and puppy school. PE and
Sport Pedagogy, 10, pp.225–240.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., and Potrac, P.
(2009). Understanding sports coaching: the
social, cultural and pedagogical
foundations of coaching practice.
Claxton, D.B. (1988). A systematic
observation of more and less successful
high school tennis coaches. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 7, pp.302-
310.
Cope, E. and Foster, A. (2017). A critical
discussion of what approach coaches
should adopt when coaching children.
Education and Health Journal, 35(1).
Cope, E., Harvey, S., and Kirk, D. (2015).
Reflections on using visual research
methods in sports coaching. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,
7(1), pp.88-108.
Cope, E., Partington, M., Cushion, C.J.,
and Harvey, S. (2016). An investigation of
professional top-level youth football
coaches’ questioning practice. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,
8(4), pp.380-393.
Côté, J. and Gilbert, W. (2009). An
Integrative Definition of Coaching
Effectiveness and Expertise. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,
4(3), pp.307-323.
Côté, J., Saimela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A.,
and Russell, S. (1995). The Coaching
Model: A Grounded Assessment of Expert
Gymnastic Coaches’ Knowledge. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1),
pp.1-17.
Crisfield, P., Houlston, D., and Simpkin,
A. (1996). Coaching Sessions; A Guide to
Planning and Goal-Setting. Leeds: The
National Coaching Foundation.
Cross, N. and Lyle, J. (1999). The
Coaching Process: Principles and Practice
for sport. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Cushion, C. (2010). The coaching process
in professional youth football: an
ethnography of practice.
Cushion, C., Armour, K., and Jones, R.
(2003). Coach Education and Continuing
Professional Development: Experience and
Ian Johnston
24
Learning to Coach. QUEST, 55(3), pp.215-
230.
Cushion, C., Armour, K., and Jones, R.
(2006). Locating the coaching process in
practice: models ‘for’ and ‘of’ coaching.
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy,
11(1), pp.83-99.
Cushion, C., Ford, P.R., and Williams,
A.M. (2012). Coach behaviours and
practice structures in youth soccer:
Implications for talent development.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15),
pp.1631-1641.
Cushion, C.J., Harvey, S., Muir, B., and
Nelson, L. (2012). Developing the Coach
Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS):
Establishing validity and reliability of a
computerised systematic observation
instrument. Journal of Sports Sciences,
30(2), pp.203-218.
d’Arrippe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J.F.,
and Dubois, A. (1998). The perceived
effectiveness of interactions between
expert French judo coaches and elite
female athletes. The Sport Psychologist,
12, pp.317-332.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and
education.
Erickson, K. and Côté, J. (2015). The
Intervention Tone of Coaches' Behaviour:
Development of the Assessment of
Coaching Tone (ACT) Observational
Coding System. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 10(4), pp.699-
716.
Fairs, J. (1987). The coaching process: The
essence of coaching. Sports Coach 11.
Franks, I.M., Sinclair, G., Thomson, W.,
and Goodman, D. (1986). Analysis of the
coaching process. Science, Periodical,
Research Technology and Sport, 1, pp.1–
12.
Franks, I.M., Goodman, D., and Miller, G.
(1983). Analysis of performance:
qualitative or quantitative.
Gallimore, R. and Tharp, R. (2004). What a
Coach Can Teach a Teacher, 1975-2004:
Reflections and Reanalysis of John
Wooden’s Teaching Practices. The Sport
Psychologist, 18(2), pp.119-137.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A
Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods.
Granger, A. and Rhind, D. (2017). A
preliminary investigation of coach
behaviour in professional rugby union.
Graduate Journal of Sport, Exercise &
Physical Education Research, 2014(2),
pp.54-66.
Hansen, B., Gilbert, W., and Hamel, T.
(2003). Successful coaches’ views on
motivation and motivational strategies.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance, 74(8), pp.44–48.
Hardman, A., Jones, C., and Jones, R.
(2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and
emulation. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 15(4), pp.345–359.
Hopper, T. and Kruisselbrink, D. (2001).
Teaching Games for Understanding: What
does it look like and how does it influence
student skill acquisition and game
performance? Journal of Teaching Physical
Education.
Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)
25
Hughes, M. and Franks, I. (2015).
Notational analysis of sport. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Jones, R.L. (2006). How can Educational
Concepts Inform Sports Coaching? in:
Jones, R.L., The Sports Coach as Educator:
Re-Conceptualising Sports Coaching,
Routledge, London, pp.3-13.
Jones, R.L. and Wallace, M. (2005).
Another bad day at the training ground:
Coping with ambiguity in the coaching
context. Sport, Education and Society,
10(1), pp.119-134.
Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I.M. (2003).
Olympic medallists’ perspective of the
athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 4, pp.313–331.
Jowett, S. (2002). The Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire and dyad maps
manual (Research Monograph No. 1).
Kidman, L. and Hanrahan, S.J. (2011). The
coaching process: a practical guide to
becoming an effective sports coach, 3.
London: Routledge.
Kidman, L., Lombardo, B., and Jones, G.
(2010). Athlete-centred coaching.
Worcester: IPC Print Resources.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark,
R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An Analysis of
the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,
Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-
Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), pp.75–86.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning:
experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., and Durand-Bush,
N. (2007). How Youth-Sport Coaches
Learn to Coach. The Sport Psychologist,
21(2), pp.191-209.
Lodewyk, K.R. (2015). Relations Between
Epistemic Beliefs and Instructional
Approaches to Teaching Games in
Prospective Physical Educators. Physical
Educator, 72(4), pp.677-700.
Lombardo, B.J. (1987). The humanistic
coach: From theory to practice.
Springfield, Ill: C. C. Thomas.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts:
A framework for coaches’ behaviour.
London: Routledge.
Lyle, J. (2007). Modelling the complexity
of the coaching process: A commentary.
International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 2(4), pp.407-409.
Mahoe, S. (2007). Five ways to improve
communication with your players. Coach
and Athletic Director, 76(7), p.44.
Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a
three-strikes rule against pure discovery
learning? American Psychologist, 59(1),
pp.14–19.
McCloskey, M.J. (1999). Successful sports
coaching: Guidelines for adults in
children’s recreational activities.
Childhood Education, 75(5), pp.308–310.
Nelson, L. and Cushion, C. (2006).
Reflection in Coach Education: The Case
of the National Governing Body Coaching
Certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20(2),
pp.174-183.
Ian Johnston
26
Nelson, L., Cushion, C. and Potrac, P.
(2012). Enhancing the provision of coach
education: the recommendations of UK
coaching practitioners. Physical Education
& Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), pp.204-218.
Pearson, P. and Webb, P. (2008).
Developing effective questioning in
Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU).
Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E. and
Henschen, K.P. (2002). The athlete and
coach: Their relationship and its meaning.
Results of an interpretive study.
International Journal of Sport Psychology,
33, pp.116-140.
Potrac, P., Brewer, P., Jones, R., Armour,
K., and Hoff. (2000). Toward an holistic
understanding of the coaching process.
QUEST, 52, pp.186-199.
Saury, J. and Durand, M. (1998). Practical
Knowledge in Expert Coaches: On-Site
Study of Coaching in Sailing. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3),
pp.254-266.
Schempp, P.G., McCullick, B., and Mason,
I.S. (2006). The Development of Expert
Coaching, in: Jones, R.L., The Sports
Coach as Educator: Re-Conceptualizing
Sports Coaching, pp.145-161.
Sherman, C., Crassini, B., Maschette W.,
and Sands, R. (1997). Instructional sports
psychology: a reconceptualisation of sports
coaching as instruction. International
Journal of Sports Psychology, 28(2),
pp.103–125.
Smith, M. and Cushion, C.J. (2006). An
investigation of the in-game behaviours of
professional, top-level youth soccer
coaches. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24,
pp.355-366.
Smith, R. and Smoll, F. (1993). Educating
youth sport coaches: an applied sport
psychology perspective: An Applied Sport
Psychology Perspective. Applied Sport
Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak, 2,
pp.36-57.
Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., and
Everett, J.J. (1993). Enhancement of
children's self-esteem through social
support training for youth sport coaches.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4),
pp.602-610.
The Football Association. (2010). The FA
Youth award. [online]
http://www.thefa.com/get-
involved/coach/courses/all-courses/the-fa-
youth-award-assessment [Accessed 21
December 2017].
Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W. (2006).
Coaching and Coach Education. In: Kirk,
D., MacDonald, D. and O’Sullivan, M.,
The Handbook of Physical Education,
London, pp.516-539.
Trudel, P., Côté, J., and Bernard, D.
(1996). Systematic Observation of Youth
Ice Hockey Coaches During Games.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 19(1).
Vinson, D., Brady, A., Moreland, B., and
Judge, N. (2016). Exploring coach
behaviours, session contexts and key
stakeholder perceptions of non-linear
coaching approaches in youth sport.
International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 11(1), pp.54-68.
Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the
behaviorist views it. Psychological Review,
20, pp.158-177.
Seven Bridges Vol. 6 (2018)
27
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of
Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wooden, C. (1997). Wooden: A Lifetime
of Observations and Reflections On and
Off the Court. New York: Contemporary
Books.