Research over the last decade has demonstrated that it is experience and the observation of other coaches that remain the primary sources of knowledge for coaches. Despite this, coach education and continuing professional development fail to draw effectively on this experience. Using the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this paper attempts to understand how the "art of coaching" can be characterized as structured improvisation and how experience is crucial to structuring coaching practice. An examination of current coach education and assessment demonstrates that coaching practice viewed as a composite of knowledge has not specifically addressed the pervasive influence of experience on coaching practice. Drawing on experiences from the educational field, we examine how coach education and continuing professional development can utilize mentoring and critical reflection to situate learning in the practical experience of coaching.Until recently, although the importance of coaching to athlete development and national sporting success was increasingly being realized (Sports Coach UK, 2002), there was little agreement as to a future strategic direction for the burgeoning profession. A recent commissioned report ("The development of coaching in the United Kingdom," 1999) brought this situation into stark relief and, subsequently, initiated a process whereby the government-funded Sports Strategy Coaching Task Force recommended the development of National Occupational Standards (NOS) for coaches working within the high performance environment. The QUEST, 2003, 55, 215-230

Using Coombs and Ahmed's [1] framework of formal, non-formal, and informal learning as the analytical framework, this paper aims to review and conceptually locate literature exploring how sports coaches acquire the knowledge that underpins their professional practice. Furthermore, in an attempt to develop a robust set of accessible terms and concepts this paper identifies, explores and positions various terminologies under the broader heading of coach learning. It was hoped that this conceptual review would not only stimulate discussion and research into coach learning, but that it would also promote the construction of models of how coaches currently learn, as well as models for enhancing coach learning The paper concludes that coaches learn from a wide range of sources, but formalised (i.e., formal and nonformal) learning episodes were found to be relatively low impact endeavours when compared to informal, self-directed modes of learning.

The aim of this study was to investigate the coaching behaviors of elite English youth soccer coaches in different practice settings and gain insight into the coaches' cognitive processes underpinning these behaviors. The practice setting was split into two types of activities, "training form" and "playing form," and behavioral data were collected using a modified version of the Coach Analysis and Intervention System. Interpretive interview data were triangulated with the behavioral data to ensure that both the "what" and the "why" of the coaches' behavior and practice were considered. The results showed the coaches using more "training form" activities than "playing form," and using high levels of prescriptive instruction, regardless of practice type, in contrast to a stated desire to "developing the whole player," creating "decision makers," and being a "facilitator of knowledge creation." The interviews revealed that the coaches had a low self-awareness about their behavior, with an epistemological gap identified between understanding and practice, with statements of intent not being matched by knowledge and action.

A sociological analysis was conducted into the collective nature of coaching as manifest in the triangular interaction between coach, athlete, and context within English professional youth soccer. The work of Pierre Bourdieu is predominantly used to interpret data collected ethnographically over the course of a 10-month season. Findings show how an authoritarian discourse is established and maintained, how it is structured by and subsequently structures the coaching context, and how accompanying behaviors are misrecognized as legitimate by both coaches and players. We conclude by reflecting on the limits of such work and its implications for future coaching education.

No abstract