Learner-centered teaching in a Higher Education course: a case study with a recognized researcher in Sports Coaching

Abstract

Sport coaching researchers have provided generous recommendations on the importance of developing coach education programs based on learner-centered teaching (LCT) principles. However, empirical studies are rare, and without concrete examples, administrators and instructors will be reluctant to adopt this approach. In this case study, we used Weimer’s (2002, 2013) five dimensions of LCT to analyze (a) the perspective of a recognized researcher in the LCT coach development field, (b) his course plan and delivery strategy, and (c) the students’ perceptions of this course. A qualitative approach was used and included different tools to collect the data. The first two authors attended all the lessons, participated in all the learning activities, and took notes in a reflective journal. At the end of the semester, they conducted a semi-structured interview to get the instructor’s perspective on the LCT approach. Finally, an e-mail was sent to the students to collect their perceptions. The data were analyzed and interpreted using concept mapping, and Weimer’s five dimensions. The results showed that (a) most of the LCT dimensions were respected in the planning and delivery of the course, (b) there were times when the instructor felt uncomfortable playing a less important role, and (c) most students had positive learning experiences, although some have been taken out of their comfort zone with this new teaching approach. The article ends with a reflection on the recent impact of COVID-19 on education in Higher Education (HE).

The “Face” of Coach Development: A Systematic Review of the Role of the Coach Developer

“…A consistent feature of the reviewed records is the moves towards learner-centered perspectives both in NSOs (e.g., Chapman et al, 2020;Culver et al, 2019;Dempsey et al, 2020; and HEIs (e.g., Cronin & Lowes, 2016;Galatti et al, 2019;Milistetd et al, 2019;Rodrigues et al, 2021;Stodter, Cope, & Townsend, 2021). This shift implies learner-centered teaching (LCT) strategies such as active learning experiences that give coach learners, "the opportunity to think and act like coaches for as much of the learning time as possible" (McQuade & Nash, 2015, p. 344) and, "provide a flexible structure based on the coaches' self-determined needs" (Hussain et al, 2012, p. 237).…”

“…Despite a significant push towards learner-centered teaching (LCT) approaches within CDPs (Chapman, Richardson, Cope, & Cronin, 2020;Rodrigues, Brasil, Milistetd, & Trudel, 2021;Mesquita, Coutinho, de Martin-Silva, Parente, Faria, & Afonso, 2015;, research has found CDs' perceptions of their training and subsequent 'implementation' in this regard often relies on their prior acquaintance and orientation to the teaching approach (Culver et al, 2019;Paquette et al, 2019;Reid & Harvey, 2014). While training may assist CDs in recognizing LCT methodologies and/or competency-based approaches, research suggests that CDs experience difficulties putting these into practice (Culver et al, 2019;Dempsey et al, 2021;Leeder et al, 2019;Stodter & Cushion, 2019).…”

“…However, this paints just part of the picture, as individual CDs may specialize in one role or have multiple roles, with multiple responsibilities or 'tasks' (Abraham et al, 2013;ICCE, 2014). Indeed, in the reviewed studies there are instances of CDs operating as both Educator and Assessor (Allanson et al, 2021;Garner et al, 2020;Reid & Harvey, 2014), Designer and Educator (Callary, Gearity, & Kuklick, 2021;Cronin & Lowes, 2016;Rodrigues et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2019) and Educator and Mentor (Cushion et al, 2019;Downham & Cushion, 2020). This indicates that for many CDs the role can be multidisciplinary, combining several fields of expertise in concurrent roles.…”

“…This shift implies learner-centered teaching (LCT) strategies such as active learning experiences that give coach learners, "the opportunity to think and act like coaches for as much of the learning time as possible" (McQuade & Nash, 2015, p. 344) and, "provide a flexible structure based on the coaches' self-determined needs" (Hussain et al, 2012, p. 237). These are further underpinned by the promotion of a lifelong learning perspective (Culver et al, 2019;Rodrigues et al, 2021). Researchers do however contend that designing constructivist approaches should not be viewed as a 'panacea' (Rodrigue et al, 2019;Rodrigues et al, 2021).…”

“…These are further underpinned by the promotion of a lifelong learning perspective (Culver et al, 2019;Rodrigues et al, 2021). Researchers do however contend that designing constructivist approaches should not be viewed as a 'panacea' (Rodrigue et al, 2019;Rodrigues et al, 2021). Indeed, any change in pedagogical or andragogical approach will experience tensions, power imbalances, and challenges (see Luguetti, Kirk, & Oliver, 2019;Milistetd et al, 2019;Stoszkowski & Collins, 2017) that could result in a 'flop' if the application of learner-centered teaching strategies are not met with appropriate implementation (Callary, Gearity, & Kuklick, 2021).…”