This paper presents a fictional dialogue that supports the application of theory in coaching pedagogy. The 'constraints led approach' (CLA) is promoted throughout in conversation form, providing pedagogic solutions in response to the decaying performance levels of a fictitious football team. This deterioration is linked to 'poor' coaching and the merits of a more innovative pedagogy through a discussion between 'manager' and 'coach' are presented. Recommendations are made with particular reference to developing games players, who are skilful, perceptive and intelligent, through being able to initiate and modify actions in dynamic contexts. Substantiating a platform for both changing perceptions about coaching practice and challenging assumptions about learning. Whereby such accessibility to unfamiliar knowledge(s) can allow coaches to clearly consider possibilities for change. It is further suggested that through embracing the use of novel methodologies to consider unfamiliar theoretical territory, this demonstrates a responsibility to close and not widen a theory-practice gap. Acutely aware that when considering the wider context, current mainstream approaches to coach education are largely inefficient in overcoming a hardened realism gained in the field. Through presenting Mark (coach) as 'theoretical negotiator', this paper emphasizes the potency of experimenting with nuanced methods that can be part of an academic process to help shape more theoretically literate coaches.Keywords: constraints led approach (CLA); sport coaching; coach education; coach learning; theory-practice.
IntroductionThe impact of coach education has received significant attention from the academic community in recent years (for example see: Cushion & Hull, 2013;Nelson, Cushion & Potrac, 2012; Piggott, 2015; Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003;Mallett, Trudel, Lyle & Rynne, 2009; Bush, Silk, Andrews & Lauder, 2013). Multiple criticisms have come to the fore, but in the main, it has been noted that attempts to provide sufficient learning opportunities in large scale coaching programmes through accumulating hours in practice, is at best considered dated (Piggott, 2012; Morgan, Jones, Gilbourne & Llewellyn, 2013). Despite these approaches being sanctioned by National Governing Bodies (NGB's), this linear process of 'brick by brick' development is responsible for producing a specific type of coach, one considered a kind of 'robotic practitioner' (Cassidy, 2004). It is still unclear as to how the current content of coach education actually leads to increased coach learning. Furthermore how we best educate coaches' remains an ongoing cause for concern (Cassidy, Potrac & McKenzie, 2006; Townsend & Cushion, 2015). Certainly in terms of how this learning transfers and remains robust in the 'real world' where very little impact has been reported (Piggott, 2012; Cushion & Hull, 2013). Moreover, when the critical indices of delivery, learning and impact, a "bleak situation" is acknowledged (Nelson, Cushion, and Potrac, 2013, p.205) and a gr...