Coaches, Athletes, And Dominance

•llu•Phv^iwllldlK,Uol• Vol .69 . pp 360-374 . 2012

MOTOR BEHAVIOR

Coaches, Athletes, and DominanceProfiles in Sport:

Addressing the Learning Styles ofAthletes to Improve Performance

Debbie Stevens-Smith and Deborah Cadorette

Abstract

The purpose oj this article is to examtne the background andpurpose of using dominance profiles to assist coaches in determininglearning preferences for themselves and their athletes. Dominanceprofiles can provide tnformatton that will help coaches understandthe differences ¡n how athletes think, act. and learn. Dominanceprofiles can help coaches anticipate how students will respond mdifferent sport situations. Learning inefficiencies can be addressedand strategtes can be developed to enable athletes to adequatelylearn to process alt types of information without undue stress. Thispaper's focus is on the practical application of dominance profilesin coaching that can positively affect placement and positioningof athletes, teaching for skill enlnincemeni. and the impact ofdominance on athletic performance.

Each season, athletes partieipate in sport with vast ditTereneesin ability, understanding, and performance that make eoaehing a bigchallenge. The coach is able to observe daily the diverse levels offitness and skill performance of individual athletes. Diversity amongathletes adds a significant level of personality and depth to eaeh

Debbie Stcvcns-Smith i.s a professor and Deborah Cadorette is a lecturer. School ofEducation, Clemson University. Please send author correspondenee to stevensinjclcmson.edu

360

team. One question that is ot'len ignored in ihe athlete's assessinenlinvolves an understanding ofhow thev learn and process cognitiveinfonnation.

Learning st\ les are various approaches or ways oi' learning.Cofïield, Moscley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) state "they involveeducating methods, particular to an indiv idual, that are presumedto allow that individual to leam best." Eearning style theoristseontinue to be eontroversial regarding the impact that learningsty les can have on the teaehing and learning process. The learningsty le approach comes from the shared notion that students prefer toleam difTerently (Diaz & Cartnal. 1999; Fleming & Bonwcll, 2001;Fleming & Mills, 1995; Snydcr, 2000). Cofficld et al. identifieda continuum of learning stv Ic theory. Theories at one end wereconsidered to be fixed (a trait) and at the other end were consideredto be produced st> les that considered learning to be mutable (astate), where lcamers arc able to move between leaming styles. Thequestion of whether learning can be fixed or mutable is importantbecause the answer enables us to determine if teaching and learningstyles can be matched and truly individualized.

.Although, limited evidence exists on the value and validity ofleaming stv lc assessments in regard to athletes, the research (Dunn,2008; Dunn, 2009; Fleming & Bonwell, 2001) implies that studentsand athletes leam best when both the teaching style and the leamingstyle mateh. If prev ious leaming experiences and environmentalfactors create v ar> ing leaming preferences for students in school,then coaches mav also expenence similar differences in their athletes.Recent research in the area of coaching has also shown evidenceof differences between the leaming style preferences of coachesand athletes (Dunn, 2008). The difference in these preferences aregreatest at the high school and college level, but as athletes riseto elite levels of performance, the differences between the twodiminish (Dunn, 2008). Coaches need to be skilled communicatorsand technically sound in their knowledge of sport (Danish, Petitpas,&: Hale, 2007), and an understanding of leaming preferences canassist them in this area.

Coaches with an awareness of leaming style approaches caninclude these techniques in the teaching environment to enrich theathlete's leaming and possibly impact performance in a positive way.Coaches must be careful not to use leaming preferences to stereotypeor label athletes to a fixed style of leaming. but rather they tnust use

Stevens-Smith and Cadorcttc 361

them as an option to augmcnl the teadiiiig and learning process. Iflearning is mutable, then coaches neetl to be aware that differentsituations uill eall for different pielerenees for leaming. Cassidy,Jones, and Potrae (2004) suggested coaches that are familiar withtheir own leaming preferences can belter evaluate how thesepreferences might hurt or help certain athletes. Matching teachingmethods to leamers' preferences can produce positive results andincrease motivation where differences in leaming preferences mayaffect the teaching-lcaming environment in a negative manner(Deluca & Downs. 2006; Felder & Brent, 2005). The teaching ofskills, especially to young learners, leaves little room for perceptualdifferences between coaches and athletes. Athletes arc called uponto make quick choices and decisions. Any delay in the process canresult in a negativ e performance or missed opportunity. Coaches thatunderstand the athlete's dominant preferences may be more preparedto teach athletes how to make appropriate choices and perfonn instressful conditions. The challenge is to find an approprtate systemto determine the leaming preferences that produce positive resultsfor all partieipants.

Defining the Dominance Profile?

A single leaming style assessment system that has intriguedscientists and educators for decades is that of the dominanceprofile. A dominance profile is a personal assessment technique thatgives information about how we take ¡n and process new leamingcxperienees developed through the work of Carla Hannaford (2005)and Paul Dcnnison ( 1985). The dommanee profile isolates indiv idualaspects of the leaming process and is one method of determiningleaming style preferenees.

Out of the teaming styles, dominant preferences emerge forthe brain, eye, ear, hand, and foot. An individual's leaming st\ledepends on the ways that his or her leaming organs/senses areneural ly linked. We all prefer to use one side ofthe body "brain morethan the other. These preferences ean develop due to socializationor indoctrination; for example, a child mav prefer to throw withhis or her right hand or listen w ith his or her let~t ear and otherssee best with their left eye. These dominant preferenees caiT>' overto the sports arena as well and may evolve beyond preferences forthrowing, kicking, or catching, to preferences for plaeement on thefield/court or to understanding assignments in a game.

362 Dominance Prohles in Sport

The purpose of this article is to examine the theoreticalapplication and potential use of dominance profiles in the field ofathletics. The implications ofthe concepts in this article arc limiteduntil more in-dcpth research can be completed and applied to specificaspects of sport. Dominance profiles mav impact coaching and sportand provide information tor coaches that can help to identify theditTcrenccs in how athletes process intotniation and learn.

Learning Preferences to Dominance Profiles

The dominance profile is a personal assessment techniquethat helps us understand how and whv we learn in different ways(Hannaford. 2005). The dominance profile can be thought of as aroad map ofthe individual's specific base learning style. When we areconfronted with a new learning experience, we access informationmost easily through our dominant senses. Dominant preferencesin relation to our brain, eves, ears, hands, and feet evolve throughenvironmental and programming influences we experience eachdav. The brain is an important component in determining how weleam, but the brain cannot leam by itself. Our eyes, ears, hands, andfeet are all mechanisms fbr transporting information to the brain.The hands, cv cs, cars, and feet need to be fed information that thebrain can use to make appropriate decisions about learning.

The role ofthe right and left hemisphere has been discussed forcenturies (Binney & Janson, 1990) with a great deal of debate overthe function and purpose of each hemisphere. Researchers (Omstcin,1997; Wolfe, 2001) agree that each side ofthe brain has its specialtyfunctions, but that neither side can operate efficiently without theother The dominance profile examines the special attributes of eachhemisphere, but both sides must work together in concert to enhancelearning.

The left hemisphere is known as the logic dominant hemisphereand deals mainly with details and individuals that are logical in theirthought processes and activities. The disadvantage of being left-brain dominant is in missing the big picture. Individuals will see theparts that make up the picture, but fail to put it all together into acoherent piece (Flannaford, 1997).

The right hem isphere is known as the gestalt dominant hemisphereand deals mainly with global or whole brain processing (the bigpicture). Flannaford (1997) says these individuals arc visionar>' andcreative in developing grand ideas for projects and people, but have

Stevens-Smith and Cadorctte 363

trouble developing Ihe steps to accomplish the grand ideas. Rightbrain dominants see where they need to go, but miss the steps alongthe way that would get them there (llannaford, 1997).

\Miat Makes [xarninfi Kiisy or Difficult?

Research reveals that the left side of the brain controls the rightside of the body and vice versa. Therefore, the dominance profile thatelicits the most elTieient situation for leaming (known as dominanteffieieney) depends upon whether the dominant eye, ear, hand, andfoot are opposite the dominant brain hemisphere (Table 1). Thisincludes individuals that are right brain and left eye, ear, hand, andfoot (or the opposite). This creates the best situation for leamingbeeause the dominant brain controls all the dominant senses. Theperson with this profile may be able to take in information andprocess it without difficulty (Hannaford, 1997).

Table 1

Dominant Efficiency

DominantHemisphere

Left Brain

Left Brain

Left Brain

Right Brain

Left Brain

DominantSense

Right Eye

Right Ear

Right Hand

Left Hand

Right Foot

Leaming St) le

Visually

Auditory

Verbally Efficient

Kinesthetieally Efficient

Movement

Efficient

Efficient

Efficient

OtherExamples

Right Brain/Left

Right Bram Left

Right Brain Left

Eye

Ear

Foot

Leaming can be difficult (known as dominant inefficieney) whenthe dominant brain hemisphere is on the same side as the dominanteye, ear, hand, and foot (right brain and right eye, ear, hand, and footor the opposite) or when there is a mixed dominance (right bram,right eye and left ear, hand, and foot). In such cases, the dominantbrain does not control the dominant senses, so the athlete is unableto function at optimum effieieney. Dominant inefficiency can beunderstood by imagining how successful you would be, if you hadto throw or shoot with your nondominant hand during a game. Youcould make the pass or the shot, but it would be diffieult and yourproficiency/sueeess would be very low.

We ean funetion when the dominant brain is on the same sideas a dominant sense, but it is not as ellieient. In addition, effieieney

364 Dominance Profiles in Sport

is further decreased during times of new learning or stress. Theeve. car, hand, and toot that is direetlv conneeted to the dominanthemisphete on the opposite side of'the body is more likely tomaintain conmuinication during times of stress. Communication inthe modalities that feeds directïv into the nondominant hemispherewill be inhibited under stress and less dependable. This can occurfor the athlete w hen tr> ing to leam a new teehnique sueh as strikinga curve ball or tr> mg to pertorm during the final seeonds of a gamethat is on the line (e.g., shooting a tree throw that may elineh a w in).As the nondominant brain deereases its functioning, the dominantbrain must leam to work v irtually alone (Hannatbrd, 1997).

Table 2 shows all of the possible combinations of dominantinetlicient pattems. X'lsion, hearing, written, and verbalcommunication and hand and foot movements are all limited asa result of these profiles. \'isual limitations cause problems withpereeption. .-Xuditorv limited leamers may tune out when people talktoo much beeause the dominant brain hemisphere is not controllingthe dominant ear. Communication limited leamers see the wholeimage, but have trouble breaking down the pieees of languageto communicate clear and eoneise ideas. Kinesthetically limitedleamers (hand movements) may be less able to express themselveswith hand and bod\ gestures, whereas movement limited leamers(foot movements) have difïïculrv' moving forward under stress andoften appear elumsy and awkward in their movements (Hannaford,1997).

Stress ean also occur in the athletic environment when athletesfind themselves in pressure situations where they play a eritieal role

Table 2

Dominant Inefficiency

DominantHemisphere

Right Brain

Right Brain

Right Brain

Right Brain

Left Brain

Right Brain

DominantSense

Right Eye

Right Ear

Right Hand

Right Foot

Right Hand

Left Hand

Learning Style

Visually Inefficient

Auditory Ineffiacnt

Communication Inefficient

Movement Inefficient

Kinesthetically Inefficient

Verbally Inefficient

OtlierExamples

Left Brain/Left Eye

Left Brain/Left Ear

Left Brain/Left Hand

Left Drain/Left Foot

Stevens-Smith and Cadorette 365

in the otiteonie. In sueh a survival/stress situation, the nondominanthemisphere of the brain shuts down its functioning by 75%-85%(llaiinalord. 1997). Under stress, our functioning becomes lopsided,in thai It may be either too logical (left brain) or too gestalt (rightbrain). The athlete may not see or hear as well, appear clumsy, orhave trouble communicating. The dominant .sense, opposite thedominant brain, determines how an athlete responds. During timesof stiess, an athlete who is left brain, right eye, left car, right hand,and right foot dominant (mixed dominance profile) will be ableto comprehend the situation, speak, and move efficiently, but willlack the ability to hear the details involved (dominant inefficient).An athlete with this profile playing guard in a basketball game m apressure situation will be able lo visually absorb the play illustratedby the coach, go out on the floor and move to where he or she needs tobe, but may miss important auditory instructions given by the coach(left car is on same side as dominant brain). Dominant preferencesmay provide an explanation for some confusing behaviors/outcomesin athletic performance and competition.

Theoretical Applications of Dominance Profiles to Coaching

Previous brain research centered on a functional understandingofthe role ofthe brain with little practical application to the field ofeducation or sport. We all take in, process, and apply informationdifferently. Coaches need to develop an approach that caters to thediverse leaming styles and dominance preferences of each individualathlete. Dominance profiles arc a snapshot ofthe thought process, soathletes can utilize them to train and increase perfoiTnance (Prashnig,2004).

How can a coach use an understanding of dominance profiles andapply it to coaching athletes? Four theoretical recommendations ondominance profile use have evolved that are applicable to coachingsport:

1. knowing the strengths of each leammg style bv' testing fordominance,

2. teaching the visual athlete,

3. teaching the auditory athlete, and

4. teaching the kinesthetic athlete.


Knowing the strengths of each learning style by testing fordominance. In the coaching teaching environment, knowledgeabout how athletes take in information and learn is vital in helpingathletes imptove skills and knowledge about sport. Athletes usemultiple wav s to process information, and there is no better or bestwhen it comes to one prctetable w av to learn. Tv pieally, one teamingmode is used more than the othet. even though all of the leamingmodes tTiav be called into plav at some point. Evidence also existsthat leaming st\ les arc specific to the task skill that is being used, soknowing the athlete's preterences is impetative for a eoaeh (Owens& Stewart, 2004).

To understand the leaming stvies of their athletes, coaches mustfirst identity the dominant preferenees of eaeh individual. Oncethese preferences arc acknovv lcdgcd and understood, both the athleteand the coach can use the preferences to their advantage. Coachescan use this lntormation to detemiine if the athlete's teaming stylematches the coaching stv le ofthe staff. This provides an advantagefor the eoaehmg staff to organize practices to accommodate theathlete's leaming stv le.

Determining the preferenee for either right- or left-braindominance is somewhat subjective and can be determined throughself-assessment. Self-assessment is a valid approach to determinedominant preferences because the individual is aware of his or herleaming strengths and weaknesses. Brain dominance is assessedby examining a list of characteristics that include both logic andgestalt dominant brain characteristics. TTie left hemisphere is knownas the logic dominant hemisphere and deals mainly with details.These individuals like routines, files, sequences, details, and stepsin A-B-C and 1-2-3 order Left-brain dominants arc vciy predictableand follow directions specifically and arc very organized, notetakers, list makers, and on time. They prefer to study in a formalsetting (such as at a desk), with bright lights and limited distractions(Prashnig. 2004). The right hemisphere is known as the gestaltdominant hemisphere, and it deals with global or whole processing(the big picture). These indiv iduals have no sense of time and preferlandmarks. The big picture often causes them to be emotional, butalso produces good intuition. They are visionary and creative indeveloping grand ideas for projects and people, but have troubledeveloping the steps to accomplish the grand ideas. They can studyanywhere (while watching TV, at a ball game), and interruptions do


not bother them. They are very spontaneous and often talk whileusing then hands. They problem solve out loud and arc terrible withnames, but great with faces and appearances. They guess with theircheckbook and operate from piles, not liles (Prashnig, 2004). Whichhemisphere is your preference?

A preference for eye dominance is best determined with apartner Partner A needs to make a triangle with his or her hands(amis stretched straight out) and look at partner B's nose from adistance of 5 feet. Partner B will look to see which eye he or she seesthrough the triangle. The eye that partner B sees is the dominant eye.Which eye is your preference'.'

Ear dominance is best determined by imagining which ear youwould put up against a wall if there was a loud, juicy conversationin the next room that you wanted to hear On which ear do yourest the phone most during long conversations? Which ear is yourpreference?

Shaking hands with a partner or handing a pencil to a person atnavel level can determine hand dominance. W'ith which hand do youreach? With which hand do you write?

Foot dominance inv olvcs the foot that you use to kick a ball. Thefoot with which you kick or the foot on which you step when thrownoff balance can also determine foot dominance. Which foot is yourpreference?

Teaching the visual athlete. Research bv Singer (1980) suggeststhat visual perception is the most important source of informationin sports. Visual learners' primary source of information comesthrough the eyes from watching or seeing. A v isual learner needsto see a move or a specific play demonstrated to pick up on theimportant perceptual cues (i.e., sec the play or watch the defense).The coach can assist a tennis player that is learning the mechanicsofthe forehand in tennis by pointing out the v isual cues that involvethe grip, stance, swing and use of other body parts. Other visual aidsto enhance learning include pictures, v ideos, charts, and diagrams.

If you have tested your athletes for dominance, then phv sicalplacement on the ficld'court can play a vital part in assistingwith teaching and skill instruction (Figure 1). Knowing the eyedominance is also important for the athlete to take advantage ofvisual information in the environment. Visual leamcrs need to bein the front of the learning environment (huddle, strategy session,etc.), so that they have a full visual field to take in and process

368 Dominance Protiles in Sport

intomiatton. Let"l eve dominant individuáis naturally sean fromthe right to the left and should be plaeed on the right side ot thefield group t or play or instnietion. Right eve dominant iiidividualsnaturally sean t"rom the left to the right and shotild be placed on thekñ side of the instructional area (Blaydes, 2000; Hannaford, 1997).Problems for the let"t eve dominant individual develop because alet"t eye dominant wants naturallv to look first at the right side ofthe field, court and then move to the left. Goaches must realize thisdifference among athletes and determine situations, strategies, andplay s that require traekmg and movement.

Kincithctlc I.earner

K l Kjr DuminuItWt wd« of trou PI

Auditor)

L*ft Far Dominant

l^ft y(right

Visual<rr

M' Dominantside of croup)

Learners'tat'

•<icht K\e Dominant(left side of group)

Figure 1. Placement of .Athletes for Instruetion

Our books and our school systems cater to right eye dominantleamers, tracking from the left to the right, beeause natural eyemovements occur from the right to the left. Placement for the visualleamer in the athletic environment is important, so the athlete thatis right eye dominant will have a full visual field to sec the actionthat is taking place on the field court (Blaydes & Hess, 2004;Hannaford, 1997). The eoach"s role is to provide the athlete withvisual assistance as to the important stimuii that will aid the athletein improving performance.

Stevens-Smith and Cadorctte 369

When piactieing skills, students should practice with both theright and the left sides of the body. This enhances the neural pathwayson both sides of the brain (.lenson. 2000). Athletes should be taughtthe difference between the dominant and nondominant hand andfoot. Virtually every sport requires that an athlete be proficientin using each hand (basketball, volleyball, lacrosse) and in somecases each foot (soccer, rugby). Begin practicing new skills with thedominant hand/foot and then move to the nondominant side. Whenteaching skills, visual leamers need to be able to form pictures intheir minds about what the skill will look like. These athletes caneasily relate to what is presented in a playbook, whereas athleteswith other teaming preferences, such as auditory teaming, may not"get it." Provide the visual athletes with videos, pictures, charts, anddemonstrations to effectively assist these leamers.

Teaching the auditory athlete. An auditory lcamer needs tohear how a play is to take plaee to pick up the important auditorycues. The ears facilitate hearing, listening, and memory. If an athletecannot hear the mechanics of the play, they may not be able to speakverbally about it or eorreetly read the play w hen it occurs. Knowingif the athlete is auditory efficient or limited may enable the eoachand athlete to determine the most advantageous position for theplayer in the sport (Hannaford, 1997).

The athlete that leams best through auditor)' stimuli focuses onsounds and rhythms to improve performanee (Coker, 1996). Auditoryleamers rely on language to leam, whether through lectures, teamdiscussions, or taped messages. The auditory leamer needs to haveopportunities to talk out loud about a play and time to share thoughtswith other players, repeat direetions, and verbalize cues for thegroup. The auditory leamer's preferenees are enhaneed when he orshe hears himself or herself or others discuss each situation, whichmay be intcmalizcd into improved pert~oiTnanee.

Auditory leamers should be placed m the middle of the eourt/field for instruetion behind visual leamers. The ears facilitatehearing, listening, and memoi-y. Sound is a regulator of movement.If a child cannot hear it, they eannot speak it or see it to read it.Left ear dominant individuals should be on the right side of thecourt/field and right car dominant on the left side of the court field.Placement for the auditory learners on a specific side of the court'field is important when skill instruetion is given so that he or shewill have a full auditory field to hear the instruetions being given(Hannaford, 1997).


AuditoiA learners need to repeat dneetiotis and assist inverbalizing instnicttons to others on the team. Instead of using aplaybook, these athletes need to talk through a play or sequeneeof skills. Thev will often ask vou over and over again what playyou want to run and need to hear it sev eral limes to mtetniali/e theintomiation. Limit the amount of inlbrmatioii given at one time (lessto proeess) and be sure to reinlbice eues tbr alLskiUs by having yourauditorv leamers repeat the eues or the information back to you.

Teachinji the kiiicsthetic athlete. Kinesthetic leamers needphvsieallv taken through or tnanipulated through the movement(Tobias, 1994). The intbmiation is processed and leamcd as theathlete has an opportunitv to move. All athletes need to physicallymove through a new play or skill, but the kinesthetic athlete needsto know what the movement feels like. The eorreet feeling becomesthe reference point to eompare all other future movements (Cokcr,1996). Replieatmg mov ements is the kev fbr the kinesthetie leamer,so repeated practice along with game simulations is important for thissty le. Because "perfect practice does not make perfect," the coachesresponsibilitv is to reinforce and emphasize correct movements andto eliminate incorrect forms. Demonstrations need to be from alldifferent angles so everyone can sec the big picture and not somesmall part of it.

Kinesthetic leamers need to move to leam a skill and should bein the baek of the group for instmction. TTicsc athletes may needto physically mimic a specific technique, such as in the volleyballserve as the coach describes it to the team. Placement in the back ofthe group allows the athlete to leam without distracting others on theteam or feeling self-conscious about their movements.

Demonstrations for the kinesthetic leamer need to be from alldifferent angles so athletes can sec the big picture rather than somesmall part of it. Basic principles of motor development teach thatdifferent types of leamers need to see every aspect of a play fromevery angle during practice (Magill. 2004). A point guard that runsthe same play only down the left side ofthe lane during praetice maylose control mnning the same play down the right side ofthe lane.Coaches need to realize that the same play run from different angleson the court field is imperative for the athlete's success during thegame. Coaches also need to remember that not every athlete isright hand dominant. Left-handed demonstrations are important todemonstrate and run. Coaches need to ensure athletes participate in


drills í\o\n every position rather than from their prclerred spot eachtime.

Ou any team there will be a variety of athletes with variouscombinations ol profiles. Coaches need to understand the strengthsand weaknesses of each profile and use them in their instructionand practice each day. Failure to individualize the coaching/teachingpreferences for athletes may deny them the opportunity to leamin the most efficient and effective manner and result in the teamexperiencing less success. By paying attention to the details oftheathlete's primary preferences, coaches will increase the chancesfor the team and individuals to perform to their greatest potential(Owens & Stewart. 2004).

ConclusionThe infonnation and research regarding dominance profiles at

this time is limited, and much research needs conducted in the areaof sports. The eapacity to process information and leam skilts variesfrom one athtete to the next, and dominance preferences may impactthis process. These preferences are continually changing over timewith increased maturity and development. The recommendationsdiscussed above are intended to give coaches direction in oneunexplored area of motor skill development. A coach's applicationof these principles can be combined with knowledge of motordevelopment to eontinue to assist athletes in beeommg their best.

Some athletes can exeeute under stressful •"clutch" conditionsand others choke. Could dominance preferences be an indicatorin how an athlete will perform during stressful situations? Wouldappropriate placement on the fietd court aid in visual observ ations orauditory dominance and perceptions' The answers to each of thesequestions can be examined in sport through the use of dominanceprofiles. The use of dominanee profites in the fietd of sports mayprovide coaches with a practicat toot to assist in the teaming andteaching process. Understanding your profite and that ofthe athtetemay enable strengths and weaknesses to be addressed in a specificmanner. The dominance profile is just one tool that may aid in theteaching of sport skills and that can prov ide a link to understanddifferences in leaming and sport performance.

ReferencesBinney, R., & Janson, M. (Eds.). (]990). Atlas oj the mind and body.

London, England: Mitchell Beazley.


Bkudcs, J. (2000). Uiinking on ytuir Jeel: Lesson ¡^luns iluii leachacademic subjects through the kinesilieiic nuhLiliiy. Richardson,TX: .Action Based Loaming.

Blaydes, J., ^; Hess, C. (2004). Action based learning lab niaiiual.Retncvcd trom w w w.actionbascdleaming.com

Cassidv, T., Joncs. R.. e Potrac, P. (2004). lihlersianding sportcoaching. New >ork, N\': Routlcdgc.

Cofiicld, F., Moselcy, D., Hall, E., & Ecclcstonc, K. (2004).Learning styles and podagogv in post-16 learning: A systematicand critical review. Retrieved from http:, www.hull.ac.uk/php/odskas learning stv les.pdf.

Coker, C. (1996). .Accommodating students' learning styles inphvsical education. Journal of Health. Physical Education,Recreation, and Dance. 67(9), 66-68.

Danish. S., Petitpas, A., & Hale, B. (2007). Sport as a context fordeveloping competence. In D. Smith & M. Bar-Eli (Eds.),h^seniial readings ¡n sport and exercise psychology (pp, 412—422). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Deluca, F.. & Dow ns, G. (2006). Measuring the differences betweenteaching preferences of teacher-centered and student-centeredteachers. Journal of Research m Science Teaching, J6{2), 153-158,

Dennison, P. (1985). Whole bram learning for the whole person.\entura. CA : Edu-Kinesthetics.

Diaz, D., & Cartnal, R. (1999). Students' learning styles in twoclasses. College Jeaching. 47(4), 130-135.

Dunn, J. (2008). lARK (athletic subset) database [Data file]. WallaWalla, WA: W^hitman College.

Dunn, J. (2009). Using learning preferences to improve eoaching andathletic performance. Journal of Health. Physical f.ducation.Recreatton and Dance. HO{1), 30-37.

Felder. R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student diOcrcnccs.Journal Engineering iiducation. 94{ 1 ), 57 72.

Fleming, N., & Bonwell, C. (2001 ). How do I learn/ A students!^uide to improved ¡earning. Chnstchurch, New Zealand: Author

Fleming, N., & Mills, C. (1995). Not another inventory, rather acatalyst for reflection. Improve the Academy If 137.

Stevens-Smith and Cadorettc 373

llaimalbrd, G. ( 1997). ¡lie doiiiuiance factor Arlington, VA: GreatOeeaii.

Hannaford, G. (2005). Smart moves: Why learntng is not aH in your

¡u\kt(2ná ed.). Arlington, VA: Great Ocean,

.leiison, \.. (2000). leaching with tlie body in mind. San Diego, GA:

The Brain Store.Magill, R. (2004). Motor learning and control: Concepts and

applications. Boston, MA: McGravv-Hiil.Ornstein, R. (1997). The right mind Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Owens, L., & Stewart, G. (2004). Understanding athletes' leamingstyles. Retrieved from http://wvvw.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=317:better-coach-Ieaming-styles&catid=91 :general-artic!es&Itemid-^ 170

Prashnig, B. (2004). Ihe power of diversity. Stafford, England:Network Educational Press.

Singer, R. (1980). Motor learning and human performance (3rded.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Snyder, R. (2000). The relationship between leaming styles/multipleintelligences and academic achievement of high school students.High School Journa¡. 83(2), 11-20.

Tobias, G. ( 1994). The way they- ¡earn: How to discover and teachto your chüd's strengths. Golorado Springs, GO: Foeus on theFamily Publishing.

Wolfe, P. (2001 ). Brain matters: frans¡ating research into dassroompractice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supen'ision &GuiTieulum Development.


Copyright of Physical Educator is the property of Sagamore Journals and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Coaches, Athletes, And Dominance

Documents

Transcript of Coaches, Athletes, And Dominance