‘It’s an experiential thing’: the discursive construction of learning in high-performance coach education

Abstract

The design and delivery of formal coach education and learning opportunities appear to be permeated by taken-for-granted discourses. These discourses exercise a systemised influence on the social construction of coaches' professional knowledge, with potentially problematic consequences. Adopting a discursive methodology using discourse analysis, this study explored the ways in which facilitators and coaches in a high-performance coach education programme constructed coach learning. Data were collected over a two-year period using on-course participant observation (10 days), interviews with coaches and course facilitators (n = 29), and document analysis. Findings indicated a dominant discourse of 'learning' as a linear, mechanistic and unproblematic process occurring independently of context, and of coaches as experiential learners, which positioned participants as antiintellectual and uncritical adopters of 'what works'. These discourses functioned to reproduce relations of power between the facilitators (the holders of knowledge) and the participants (the recipients of knowledge). The impact of these discursive resources on programme design and delivery are discussed, alongside implications for elite coaches' subjectivity and practice, in order to confront dominant and legitimate 'truths' in coach education.

Re-visiting systematic observation: A pedagogical tool to support coach learning and development

“…Performativity has been promoted further through assessment processes as part of National Governing Body (NGB) qualifications. While distinct from systematic observation research, the pervasiveness of behavioral based competencies in coach certification (Cushion et al, 2021 ) remains, where coaches are required to meet prescriptive criteria to demonstrate competence often in contexts removed from those coached in (Chesterfield et al, 2010 ). In other words, coaches have had to coach in specific and formulaic ways to satisfy what was expected of them from an “assessor”.…”

A Premier League Football in the Community Program’s “New” Coaches and Support Systems: Practitioner Reflections

“…However, whilst there a number of advantages related to the use and promotion of NGB type courses and qualifications (for instance, meeting minimum standards of deployment and professional requirements), there remain questions related to the extent to which they continue to promote what can be seen as the more performance related elements of coaching (i.e. skill acquisition, biomechanics, and physiology) that persist (Author, 2016/18a Lyle, 2002Meyers, 2006), and/or more inflexible, instrumental approaches to learning that can stifle creativity and adhere to more rigid, competency-based outcomes (Cushion et al, 2021;Dempsey et al, 2020). These questions are inevitably drawn from the consensus that sport coaching operates throughout a diverse range, one not constrained to performance characteristics only.…”

Coaches’ acquisition of sport science knowledge and the role of education providers

“…Based on the findings of this thesis and the ensuing discussion that has unfolded, four (ISCF and ESCF: ICCE et al, 2013;Lara-Bercial et al, 2017), are used as a catalyst for this discussion. Understanding the role of formal and informal learning opportunities in coach development is also required as part of this and is consistent with requests for reform in coach education by Nash and Collins (2006), Twitchen andOakley (2019), andCushion et al (2021), and reflecting specific recommendations made by Ciampolini et al (2014) and Paquette and Trudel (2018b).…”

“…Despite reservations about the uncritical nature of informal learning (e.g., Cushion et al, 2010;Piggott, 2012;Stoszkowski & Collins, 2016) and the prevailing belief that many coaches do not possess suitable levels of declarative knowledge to compare and contrast new knowledge in these settings (Abraham & Collins, 2006), it is evident that more needs to be done to establish methods to recognise and accredit informal learning within the UK Coaching Framework (Dray et al, 2016), possibly adopting methods similar to those employed by other administrators of professional standards such as the HCPC (HCPC, 2022) where candidates in professions such as physiotherapy are able to log relevant formal, informal and non-formal learning as part of the accumulated CPD required to maintain chartered status. Equally, given that coaches also identified formal and non-formal sources of knowledge (such as face-to-face workshops, conferences, and mentoring), more needs to be done to foster learning environments where the coach candidate is at the centre of their learning, as recommended by Nash and Collins (2006), Twitchen andOakley (2019), andCushion et al (2021) amongst others. This reflects observations made by Ciampolini et al (2014) and Paquette and Trudel (2018b) regarding the use of more constructivist instructional strategies by Coach Developers.…”

“…Furthermore, Piaget advocates for learning to take place through discovery rather than instruction (a common feature of constructivist approaches to coaching and coach education) , suggesting that external reinforcement may be detrimental to learning and understanding, though this has been recently challenged in American elementary science education where direct instruction has been shown to be a superior method in some instances (Klahr & Nigam, 2004). Calls for modernising approaches to sport coach education by Cushion (e.g., Cushion et al, 2010;Lyle & Cushion, 2012;Cushion et al, 2021) and Nash (e.g., Nash & Collins, 2006;Nash et al, 2012) align well with many of Piaget's observations on optimal learning environments, though these are taken through the lens that much of Piaget's work would be considered cognitive constructivism (e.g., Toner et al, 2016).…”