3.6 mentoring in sport

Click to edit Master title style

By M. Johnson, E. Budzynski-Seymour, F. Gwynne, D. Cunliffe and P. Davies

Solent Learning and Teaching Conference (24th June 2016)

Mentoring in Sport


The Problem

• Coach Education = Increased Knowledge. But no change in Ability.

• Service learning• Compulsory volunteering• Mentoring

• Consistency / Inconsistency

KPIs• Performance• Recruitment• Experience• Progression• Attendance• Retention• Employment


What is Mentoring? • “Mentoring means different things with different people at different times”.

(Jones et al. 2009, 268)

Sculptor Gardener Guide Teacher

• “Mentoring is a process of guiding and leading an inexperienced individual by giving him/her advice and explanations”. Majerič et al. (2010, 17)

• “A development tool to connect theory and practice”. McQuade and Colleagues (2015, 317)


Types of Mentor

Led by the mentor, prescriptive in nature and often set up by

academic staff

FORMAL / directive / supervisory INFORMAL / responsive FACILITATED /

interactive

E.g. You are put on a placement with a

mentor

Casual relaxed relationship which

happens naturally when mentee seeks help

E.g. You ask someone who you respect for

help

Emerges from informal as a structure and

agreement is added.

E.g. You ask to get regular advice from

informal mentor

Watson, et al.(2009), Jones, et al. (2009) & Marshall, (2001)


Rationale and Aim• Nash (2003) Yr 1 unclear mentor roles = inconsistent experiences

Yr 2 role clarity and mentor training = improved experience

• Robertson and Hubball (2005) “Mentoring was personally and professionally fulfilling and developed a community of practice through critical discussion, collaboration, and the transfer of ideas”

• Jones, et al.(2009) “Tentative model of good practice”. But there is a need for more empirical research

• Griffiths and Armour (2012) “Although the coach mentoring program was built on much goodwill and enthusiasm, its design, organisation and delivery were based on little more than intuition and anecdotal evidence”.

• McQuade et al. (2015) mentoring in sport still remains an “ill-defined activity”.

“unsatisfying, unfulfilling and unsustainable” (p.168)

Aim - To gain a deeper understanding of the mentor characteristics, qualities, roles, functions, and practices that differentiate successful and unsuccessful; informal, facilitated and formal mentoring.


Method • Ethical considerations

• SSU HESS ethics committee approval• All participants were over 18 and gave informed consent

• Participants• Convenience sampling - 39 third year University Students on coaching related courses• 30 had had at least one mentor• 10 participants volunteered to be interviewed (4 formal, 4 informal, 2 facilitated)

• Protocol• Mixed method design• Part 1a – Demographic data• Part 1b – 7 point Likert scale to measure the success of the mentoring relationship• Part 2 – interview (characteristics, roles, functions, practices)

• Treatment of data• Mean scores calculated for formal, informal and facilitated mentoring relationships• Kruskal – Wallis test for non normally distributed data and 3 x Mann Whitney Tests• Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006)


Quantitative Results • A total of 61 mentor-mentee relationships• Formal (n=28) mean success = 4.14/6 (SD 1.46)• Informal (n=16) mean success = 5.38/6 (SD 0.72)• Facilitated (n=17) mean success = 4.94/6 (SD (0.75)

• Kruskal-Wallis test for significant difference p = 0.006 (< 0.05)

• 3 x Mann Whitney tests

Formal Informal Facilitated Formal Informal P = .003Facilitated P = .079 P = .096


Qualitative results


Conclusions • Most successful mentor type is informal

• Mentor chosen by student• Regular casual meetings• Often practical and solution focused

• Least successful mentor type is formal

• A facilitated mentor may be the best solution to maximising students perception of success and challenging growth

• Successful relationships are built on good communication, good knowledge and understanding, supportive behaviour, desirable personality characteristics and a close relationship between mentor and mentee.


References • Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101.• GRIFFITHS, M. & ARMOUR, K. (2012) Mentoring as a Formalized Learning Strategy with Community Sports Volunteers,

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20:1, 151-173• JONES R. L., HARRIS, R. & MILES, A. (2009) Mentoring in sports coaching: a review of the literature, Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 14:3, 267-284• MAJERIČ, M., STREL, J., & KOVAČ, M. (2010). Analysis Of Motives For Mentoring Students In Practical Pedagogical Training.

Gymnica, 40(2), 17-25.• MARSHALL, D. (2001) Mentoring as a developmental tool for women coaches. Canadian Journal for Women in Coaching 2, no.

2: 1– 10.• MCQUADE, S., DAVIS, L., & NASH, C. (2015). Positioning Mentoring as a Coach Development Tool: Recommendations for Future

Practice and Research. Quest (00336297), 67(3), 317-329.• NASH, C. (2003) Development of a Mentoring System within Coaching Practice. Journal Of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism

Education 2(2), 39-47.• NASH, C., & MCQUADE, S. (2014) Mentoring as a coach development tool (pp. 206–222). In Practical sport coaching.

Edinburgh, England: Routledge.• ROBERTSON, S. & HUBBALL, H. (2005) Coach-to-Coach Mentoring: Raising The Bar, Strategies, 18:5, 6-10• WATSON, J. C., CLEMENT, D., BLOM, L. C., & GRINDLEY, E. (2009). Mentoring: Processes and Perceptions of Sport and Exercise

Psychology Graduate Students. Journal Of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(2), 231-246.