Coaching Strategies Used to Deliver Quality Youth Sport Programming

Abstract

Coaches are primary influencers in helping youth achieve positive developmental outcomes in sport; however, it is not well understood how coaches achieve quality program delivery. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (a) to understand strategies that coaches used to facilitate program quality in youth sport and (b) explore differences in strategies between recreational and competitive programs. Twenty-five coaches participated in semistructured interviews, where they discussed strategies employed for program delivery. Interviews were guided, in-part, by Eccles and Gootman’s eight setting features that should be present within a program for youth to achieve positive developmental outcomes. An inductive-deductive thematic analysis was employed, in which strategies associated with facilitating program quality were interpreted inductively, and then categorised deductively under a relevant setting feature. Results indicated that coaches used unique strategies across all eight setting features, with a predominant focus on strategies to support youth’s efficacy and mattering (e.g., giving positive reinforcement) and opportunities for skill-building (e.g., valuing holistic development of youth), with lesser focus on strategies that involved integrating family, school, and community. Practical implications are discussed on how coaches can use strategies to address multiple setting features and recommendations are provided for improving program delivery.

Does context matter? Unpacking differences in program quality and developmental experiences across competitive and recreational youth sport

“…27 All youth sport coaches should consider how they can create a sporting environment where youth feel comfortable to be themselves and feel safe in taking risks to support positive identity experiences (e.g., providing supervision in locker room areas, performing safety checks for hazards in the environment, encouraging youth to approach them when they have concerns, checking-in with youth as they enter the program area, speaking to youth as humans first and athletes second). 10 However, these results are not conclusive; researchers need to consider exploring racial/ and/or ethnic differences within youth sport contexts, as such explorations are currently lacking. 38 Third, F-tests showed that recreational teams scored higher on opportunities to belong (PAQYS) and choice (BNSSS) compared to competitive.…”

“…Higher ratings of belongingness may be explained by the shared spaces common to recreational contexts, as they often offer exposure to positive emotional climates (e.g., using respectful language, zero tolerance of bullying). 39 As recreational sport is commonly engaged in for enjoyment and inclusivity, 5 belonging may also exist as an inherent consequence of recreational structures; 10 whereas competitive sport that values winning may be more tolerant of punitive climates facilitated from reactions of failure to meet performance or characterrelated expectations. 40 As peers (i.e., teammates) play in important role in supporting youth's competence and relatedness, 18 coaches can support youth's sense of belonging by highlighting every athletes' importance or role on the team, encouraging youth to spend time together, and facilitating opportunities for social connection and mentorship.…”

“…Sport program quality, and corresponding development of youth's psychosocial experiences and outcomes, can vary by contextual factors, including program focus (e.g., prioritizing team win-record vs. athletes' development) or context type (e.g., competitive, recreational). 4 Initial research has explored program quality differences between these two contexts qualitatively 10 ; however, no research has used a quantitative approach or examined youth perspectives. 11 Most studies to date have examined how the structuring of sport programming, and the interactions of coaches and athletes in these programs, impact youth's psychosocial development, with little investigation into the role that the type of sport context may play.…”

“…For instance, being a positive role model may be a strategy used by both types of coaches to facilitate the setting feature of physical and psychological safety; however, competitive coaches may adopt a more authoritarian role, while recreational coaches may do this by meeting youth at their level. 10 To the authors' knowledge, no research has examined how observed program quality may differ on each setting feature across competitive and recreational youth sport. Youth's participation in sport-when structured appropriately-can be associated with PYD outcomes, including psychological needs satisfaction and developmental experiences.…”

“…17 Basic psychological needs theory posits that humans' striving can stem from participation in contexts that can satisfy their three basic psychological needs: (a) autonomy (i.e., ability to make choices), (b) competence (i.e., capacity for mastery within one's environment), and (c) relatedness (i.e., sense of belonging to and by others). 3 It has been recognized that coaches play a crucial role within youth sport contexts in that their actions can impact the quality of their program delivery 10 and whether youth acquire positive developmental experiences, including satisfaction of their basic psychological needs. 18 A recent study in youth sport found that youth in high quality programs perceived significantly greater opportunities for satisfaction of psychological needs (i.e., autonomy and competence), and developmental outcomes (i.e., goal setting), compared to youth in lower quality programs.…”