peer interactions throughout coach development

Sport Science Review, Vol. XIX, No. 1- 2, April 2010

31

Peer Interactions throughoutCoach Development

J. Brad VICKERS*

Peer interactions among coaches are essential as these experiences result in enhanced knowledge and understanding of the sport of

interest for the coach (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). Lave and Wenger (1991) reported individuals learn appropriate professional behavior and interaction through other individuals in their field (legitimate peripheral participation). The purpose of this study was to analyze the peer interactions of coaches as they developed toward expertise. Six coaches were interviewed and observed during two coaching clinics and an inductive analysis of the data revealed as coaches learned how to interact with each other, their identity adapted to the specific situation. As novice coaches attempted to progress toward expertise, their interactions with other coaches progressed from passive listeners to involved participants in discussion. This supported Lave and Wenger’s (1991) contention that legitimate peripheral participation serves as a progression for individuals to learn how to access knowledge and understanding.

Keywords: peer interactions, coaching education program

Coaching education programs use a variety of methods including sport or topic specific clinics, self-study, self-test, manuals, videos, and courses to increase the competency of coaches (Engh, 1992; Lincoln, 1992; Partlow, 1992; Seefeldt & Milligan, 1992). Simple participation in these programs does not ensure the development of a competent coach (Gilbert & Trudel, 2005). It has been suggested current coaching education courses are developed along rationalistic lines that simply transfer content knowledge, which has reduced creative thinking skills in relation to meaning making and problem solving (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003). It appears the transfer of knowledge through manuals and home study courses have created a “robotic” coach unable to comprehend and adapt

* Assistant Professor, Department of Kinesiology, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA. E-mail address: [email protected]

DOI:10.2478/v10237-011-0003-1

Coaches’ Peer Interactions

32

to specific situations, which is a result of the decontextualized learning process (Jones, 2000; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2004; Turner & Martinek, 1995; in Cushion et al., 2003).

This decontextualization stems from coaching education courses breaking down technique and tactics into very specific components, and then teaching the participants the “gold standard” for each component (Abraham & Collins, 1998). Although content knowledge may allow the coach to solve an immediate problem, the understanding of the problem which is lacking can lead to significant problems later. The simple accumulation of content knowledge pertaining to the “gold standard” leads to a lack of procedural knowledge, developing coaches who are unable to adapt to changing situations, and are therefore unable to aid the athlete; giving rise to the suggestion content and pedagogical knowledge along with the ability to apply that knowledge in real-life experiences should be an outcome of all coaching education programs (Abraham & Collins, 1998).

An effective coaching education program should ideally provide participants with substantial content and pedagogical knowledge which would allow graduates of the program to be effective in their jobs as it relates to enabling their athletes to meet the desired sporting outcomes (McCullick, Belcher, & Schempp, 2005). Gould, Giannini, Krane, & Hodge (1990) further emphasize the need for effective coaching clinics and courses by suggesting the backgrounds and needs of all coaches should be examined in order to develop an effective coaching education program that increases coaching skills to benefit athletes of all levels. Since learning is an on-going process that does not stop upon completion of coursework, it is evident for the development of effective coaches steps must be taken to continue the acquisition of knowledge throughout the coaching career. Unfortunately, many coaching education programs appear to offer few learning opportunities upon completion of the course, even though research indicates continuing professional development through clinics, observation, and mentoring is essential (Cushion et al., 2003; Bloom, Salmela, & Schinke, 1995).

Lave and Wenger (1991) refer legitimate peripheral participation with is learning through experience as a situated activity. Legitimate peripheral participation is based on the notion learners “inevitably participate in communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.29). Furthermore,


33

legitimate peripheral participation provides a means of understanding the relations between “newcomers” and “old-timers” and how activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of knowledge and practice are related in developing toward a full participant in the community of practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991). While “newcomers” have not been fully oriented into the social practice, “old-timers” are experienced veterans who have a history of involvement in the social practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Specific to coaching clinics, this theoretical framework suggests a way to understand how coaches progress from novice to intermediate to expert based on their experiences during coaching clinics.

There are indications coaches benefit from experiences in clinics and workshops which develop content knowledge and procedural knowledge through interactions, but these indications appear to be unnoticed as demonstrated in the reluctance of many coaching education programs to include them (Abraham & Collins, 1998; Bloom, Durand-Bush, Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Malete & Feltz, 2000). Although many coaches attend clinics and workshops, it is yet to be determined why some coaches benefit from those experiences while others do not. As coaches spend more time with athletes and develop long-lasting relationships, there is an evolving need to investigate how these coaches continue their professional development to more effectively develop their professional skills and knowledge.

Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to learning which occurs during interactions in communities of practice, including peer interactions, as a process of legitimate peripheral participation. They further stated “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.31); which gave rise to the notion a better understanding of peer interactions could lead to a better understanding of the learning that takes place as an individual progresses from novice to expertise. Gilbert, Cote’, and Mallett (2006), briefly described this developmental process from their findings successful coaches accumulate valuable ‘pre-coaching’ experiences as athletes, but coaching development can only occur when coaches regularly engage in increasingly more complex social interactions and domain related activities.

Simply stated, coaches require interactions with other coaches as an important condition for learning and as these experiences develop, the knowledge and understanding of the particular sport develops (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). Coaches therefore need interactions with peers as a means to gain experience and understanding of the sport as they develop


34

professionaly. Lave and Wenger (1991) indicate coaches learn how to behave and interact with other coaches and those interactions may change as the coach develops through the stages of expertise. As coaches learn how to interact with each other, their identity adapts to the specific situation as they portray varying personalities depending on the other coaches involved in the interaction. Goffman (1956) referred to this as “fronting”, in which individuals may act differently in the presences of others they observe as having different social and achievement levels.

Relying on the framework presented by Lave & Wenger (1991), it can be better understood how legitimate peripheral participation is demon-strated in a coaching clinic. With a better understanding of the interactions experienced by coaches at the novice, intermediate, and expert levels of development; a better understanding can be gained of legitimate periph-eral participation and fronting as a means for coaches to access knowledge from other coaches and increase their personal level of expertise.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to understand the peer interactions of novice, intermediate, and expert football coaches at coaching clinics. This will allow for a greater understanding of the use of legitimate peripheral participation as a means to increase access to information from other coaches.

Methods

ParticipantsThe participants for this study consisted of six coaches who were in

attendance at a Nike Coach of the Year Clinic for football coaches in Atlanta, Georgia or Orlando, Florida. The participants were selected using pur-poseful sampling from a pre-specified group of coaches according to their caliber of expertise (Patton, 2002). The purposeful sampling employed the selection of coaches within the novice, intermediate, and expert level of expertise that would be consistent with their level of expertise as a whole. The coaches in this study were selected according to their avail-ability for participation. These six coaches who participated consisted of two novice, two intermediate, and two expert coaches (one coach from each level at each clinic) based on Berliner’s (1994) established criteria utilized to identify teachers at varying levels of expertise. While the novice and intermediate coaches used pseudonyms for name, the expert partici-pants agreed to use their names rather than pseudonyms. The two experts


35

in this study were Tommy Bowden formerly of Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina and Bobby Bowden of Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida.

Data Collection MethodsUpon agreeing to participate, email notification was sent to the football

coaches along with an informed consent form. The collection of data took place at the 2007 Nike Coach of the Year Clinics in Atlanta, Georgia and Orlando, Florida. Data collection consisted of intermittent observations throughout the three day clinics, as well as, telephone recorded audio interviews.

Data AnalysisData were collected through observation and transcribed audio taped

interviews. The transcripts were analyzed along with the field notes to identify themes. These data were further summarized and synthesized through the identification of commonalities and disparities of the lived experiences of the novice (N1 & N2), intermediate (I1 & I2), and expert football coaches. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) discussion of legitimate peripheral participation was utilized to provide insight into peer interactions and the synthesis of the collected data. Van Manen (1990) was utilized for identifying themes which were based on the observations and interviews of the football coaches.

The three approaches Van Manen (1990) utilized to uncover themes included: (a) the holistic approach; (b) the selective approach; and (c) the detailed approach. The analysis of data in this study involved these approaches in combination to uncover and isolate themes of peer interactions. Once the themes were determined, they were recorded into spread sheet format in an effort to further isolate the themes based on level of expertise. The isolated themes were later used in the analysis to identify the specific aspects of the coaching clinic that pertained to the peer interactions and the level of coaching expertise.

Data TrustworthinessAccording to Patton (2002), it is important to address the issue of data

trustworthiness in every qualitative study. In this study, data trustworthiness was achieved by minimizing researcher biases through intellectual rigor. By repeatedly evaluating data to ensure the explanations and interpretations reflect the nature of the phenomena, and not the researcher’s bias, intellectual rigor is established (Patton, 2002). With a background in coaching and the notoriety of the expert coaches, perceptions of the coaches were minimized through methods triangulation and member


36

checks which allowed for a fair analysis of the data. To further increase data trustworthiness, a peer-debriefer was used to ensure the principle investigator’s knowledge and understanding of the coaching profession did not prevent a clear explanation of the results.

Findings

Lave and Wenger (1991) suggested interactions between newcomers and old-timers vary from one profession to the next, but are pre-estab-lished and are widely recognized as the norm for interactions for the par-ticular profession. The coaching profession is representative of this sug-gestion, as the relations between the novice football coaches (newcomers), intermediate football coaches, and expert football coaches (old-timers) are hierarchally ordered with the novice coaches contently serving as specta-tors of the relations in an effort to gain experience and later acceptance. With this in mind, the relations of football coaches can be observed as the interactions of coaches, including communication patterns, and the information that is valued.

Coach InteractionsThroughout the two clinics, the novice coaches had limited com-

munication with other coaches. Although they were present at various group discussions between sessions, they had no active communication other than an occasional nodding of the head. In fact, as a group of nine coaches met by the pool during a twenty minute session break, the only direct communication from N2 with the other coaches occurred when his head coach introduced him to the other coaches and he shook their hands as he commented “nice to meet ya”. Similarly, N1 also appeared con-tent listening to the conversations of his head coach and other coaches with no active communication other than a greeting initiated by the head coach. The observance of the communication patterns of more experi-enced coaches was a result of what Lave and Wenger (1991) described as a novice naval quartermaster’s being trained, but having no experience. The novice football coaches were trained in a sense they knew their duties and responsibilities on the field and in the classroom, but had no experi-ence communicating with other coaches outside of their team, they were uncertain of what is appropriate to discuss, and therefore observed their head coach to gain a better understanding of how to most effectively communicate in this setting.

The novice coaches in this study experienced relations vicariously through their head coach. As it pertained to the interactions of coaches,


37

both N1 and N2 paid close attention to the relationships their head coach had with other coaches. During the clinic, N1 and N2 followed their head coaches between sessions and simply observed their discussions and inter-actions with coaches from other teams. Once the head coach introduced the novice coach, the novices removed themselves from the conversation and silently observed the interactions as if they were on the outside look-ing in. While it was unclear to the exact benefits of the silent observations, it appeared the novice coaches were trying to meet new people as they were learning how to interact with other coaches. Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to this as “learners as apprentices” (pg. 29), in which the learner develops knowledgeably skilled identities in practice and later reproduces what is learned within that community of practice. In fact, N1 commented his head coach “talked to everyone” because “he knew a lot of people at the clinic” and since N1 was new to coaching football, it made it difficult for him to engage in conversations. As suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991), N1’s experiences would make it easier to become more involved in the community of practice at future coaching clinics.

The intermediate coaches differed greatly in their interactions than the novice coaches. With significantly more experience coaching foot-ball and having attended more clinics, I2 was comfortable interacting and communicating with coaches from his team and other teams as well. I2’s knowledge and skills have evidently enabled him to move toward “full participation in the sociocultural practices” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) of the coaching community. His experiences in attending a variety of coaching clinics have given him familiarity with other coaches and the knowledge of not only what should be discussed, but the accepted patterns of discus-sion. For instance, I2 frequently discussed the skills and behaviors of his players (positive and negative), but never cast a negative insinuation toward another coach’s player. He also was open to discuss strategy with other coaches reflecting his belief that “there’s really no secrets with anybody, if you study their film enough, you can figure out what they’re doing”.

On the other hand, I1 had continuous interactions with the coaches from his team; but virtually no interactions with anyone outside of his team other than the vendor with whom he discussed purchasing a skills video. This may possibly be due to the perception of the less experienced coaches that they had to protect their team secrets and unlike I2, I1 would only share information with coaches in a different division. The lack of interactions with coaches outside of his team also appeared to be the re-sult of I1’s status as an assistant coach and slight dependence on the head coach, as well as, the relatively small number of clinics he has attended.


38

Although his skills and knowledge were advanced when compared to the novice coaches, I1 was still learning how to interact with other coaches and his interactions with coaches on his team served as practice for in-teractions with coaches outside of his team as he progressed toward the inner circle of expertise.

The interactions of the expert coaches were surprisingly limited. While the expert coaches were available to the other coaches, the low interaction patterns evidently resulted from status differentiation that Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as the master (expert) being the locus of authority which can create a sense of intimidation. Bobby Bowden explained when he was younger, “I was an admirer of the ones who were up front speaking”, but when asked about his interactions with them he stated there were not any interactions; “I was young and didn’t have nothing to do with them, they were the big deal and I was just the learner”. As one of the winningest coaches in Division I football history, the locus of authority was also evident during Bobby Bowden’s presentation as the coaches intently listened with no additional questions.

However, throughout Tommy Bowden’s presentation, there were intermittent questions to clarify specific skills and procedures, but similar to Bobby Bowden’s presentation there were relatively few interactions with the other coaches. While both Tommy and Bobby Bowden were available for discussions with other coaches before, during, and after the clinic presentations, the communication with other coaches during this time was strictly limited to autographs and pictures. This further illustrated the locus of authority and the relative intimidation by the novice and intermediate coaches to interact and communicate with expert coaches. The clinic participants wanted to demonstrate they had met the coaches of the inner circle, but Tommy and Bobby Bowden’s locus of authority prevented these coaches from comfortably discussing aspects of football with them.

As coaches develop toward full participation in the coaching community of practice, they must develop the knowledge and skills to appropriately interact with other coaches. While the novice coaches observed the interactions of their head coaches, one of the intermediate coaches practiced his interactions with other coaches on his team when he was already familiar with. The other intermediate coach was more advanced and while he openly interacted with many of the coaches at the clinic, the high status of the expert coaches (locus of authority) apparently limited his perceived ability to interact with them. It was therefore observed the


39

novice coaches simply observed the interactions of more experienced coaches and the more experienced coaches interacted with each other, but not with coaches they perceived as having notoriety or being highly successful. While the expert coaches interacted with each other and were willing to interact with novice and intermediate coaches, the perceptions of the expert’s elevated status impeded the novice and intermediate coaches from approaching them. These interactions ultimately illustrated a three-ring circle involving the progression from newcomer (novice coaches) as the outer circle increasing knowledge and skills to interact with the middle circle (intermediate coaches), which through further knowledge and skill development could progress to the old-timers (expert coaches) in the inner circle.

Valued InformationWhile all of the coaches participating in this study described a

sincere desire to continue learning, there were notable differences in the information that was valued. The novice coaches relied upon information from their head coach, as well as, definitive information pertaining to their specific coaching responsibilities. N1 described his desire to learn more about the game of football, but the new head coach “brought in a whole different playbook” and since the new playbook was the most valued information for him, he felt the most important thing was “just learning that playbook a little bit better”. This demonstrated the significant role the head coach played in the development of the novice coach as their relationship was built upon the information that could be transferred from the head coach to the novice coach. N2 on the other hand described his desire to learn more specific information on what works with his defensive players, by successful coaches who could breakdown “why you do certain things” because “it’s good to get these coaches up there and tell you simple stuff that you can use”. The information valued by N2 was therefore less dependent upon the establishment of a relationship, but an attempt to receive the secrets of success he could be duplicated with his team.

The information valued by the intermediate coaches varied from what can be learned from successful coaches to the development of relationships with other coaches. I1 described he valued information from a proven coach and “when he shows that film and you see it working, you say that’s definitely something that I want to put in because I see the coach talking about it, and he’s at the college level or he’s at the high school level and he’s going to state championships, so it’s definitely working”. While this was similar to the information values previously discussed for N2, I1’s values differ slightly as he was interested in learning more about


40

the plays by further communicating with the successful coach rather than just taking the presented information and moving on. Contrastingly, I2 commented while “you may only learn one or two things about strategy” during a clinic, the information gained from spending time with other coaches was invaluable. It was therefore evident I2 placed a higher value on the information gained through the interactions with other coaches over the basic facts of the game that were valued by the novice coaches and the less experienced I1. As I2 had more coaching experience, he had gained a better understanding of his role as a coach and the necessary steps to increase his knowledge by talking to other coaches to not only discover what works, but how and why it works. He described in football, “someone out there has done it, and I try to find out who does it the best and talk to him and understand how he does it so I don’t make as many mistakes”.

Similarly, the expert coaches also valued the information they received from other coaches. Tommy Bowden described a Nike coaching trip he attends with 25 other coaches as “the best way that I look to improve myself ”. He further explained the relationships established on those trips allowed the coaches to share ideas as they gain a better understanding of how to improve. Bobby Bowden commented while he valued the information gained by reading military and spiritual books, it was vital to develop relationships with other coaches. He stated no one has all the answers and one way to improve is to discuss information with other coaches. While he was adamant that generally, “coaches aren’t close” and you should never discuss information with a coach in your conference, he also explained “we’ve always been close with Nebraska; the coaches come down a week with us, and we go and spend a week with them”. Bobby Bowden has an established relationship with that program in which he valued the information gained during the interactions with the other coach and utilized this relationship to increase his knowledge and understanding of the game along with his assistant coaches.

The development toward expertise therefore has a significant effect on the information valued by football coaches. While the novice coaches (newcomers) and the less experienced intermediate coach relied heavily on the specific plays which have been proven successful by the old-timers, the more experienced intermediate coach and the expert coaches greatly valued the information they gained by talking with other coaches. Apparently the inexperience of the novice coaches and I1 gave rise to the notion they could gain replicable information from the old-timers which would allow them to have the same successful outcomes. While the replicable information may be helpful at increasing knowledge of plays, the more experienced I2 and


41

expert coaches realized by developing relationships with other coaches, regardless of their success, they can instigate discussions that will increase their understanding of the game. Newcomers therefore valued the specific facts to increase their knowledge of “what works” provided by the old-timers, while the old-timers valued the relationships which enabled them to discuss their successes and failures to gain a better understanding of football.

Communities of Knowledge and PracticeLave and Wenger (1991) suggested that communities of knowledge

and practice are ongoing interactions among participants which allow for the identity development of persons who engage in the communities to progress from “newcomers, to a point when those newcomers themselves become old-timers”(pg. 56). They further described a relationship in which apprentices (novice coaches) progress to young masters (intermediate coaches) with apprentices, and then masters (expert coaches) with some former apprentices having become masters themselves. This directly correlated to the communities of knowledge and practice of football coaches as novice assistant coaches gained the knowledge and experience to progress toward intermediate football coaches (head and assistant), then progress to expert football coaches.

The novice football coaches in this study resembled what Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to as apprentices in which there was very little ob-servable teaching, but more learning from legitimate peripheral access in which the novice coaches developed an understanding of what the coach-ing profession was about. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), legitimate peripheral access involves “absorbing and being absorbed in the culture of practice”(pg.95). In this sense, the novice football coaches participating in the coaching clinics were not only observing the interactions of other coaches, but also being introduced to these coaches by their head coach in an attempt to establish some familiarity for later interactions. For instance, N1 and N2 silently walked with their head coaches between sessions and stopped to watch them talk with other coaches, absorbing the culture of practice. Upon being introduced to the other coaches, they would shake hands and then continue their silent observation. The shaking of hands represented their absorption into the community of practice in which the novice coaches began to establish a community of peers through the in-troductions by their head coach as they learned how to interact and access knowledge from other coaches, described as “benign community neglect” by Lave and Wenger (1991, pg.93).


42

The intermediate coaches on the other hand, experienced legitimate peripheral access differently. The less experienced I1 had an established community of practice with the coaches on his team, but was still attempt-ing to determine how to best be absorbed into the community of football coaches across the state. While I1 frequently talked with the coaches from his team, when his head coach began talking to a coach from a differ-ent team, I1 had similar interactions as the novice coaches and silently observed the conversations of the more experienced coaches. Although it was evident that I1 had a clear understanding of his relationship with other coaches on his team, his role as an assistant coach appeared to align him into more of an apprenticeship position which made it difficult to interact with other coaches outside of his team due to the hierarchical relations between I1 and the old-timers (masters).

Contrastingly, I2 was much more experienced in the number of years coaching and in the attendance of more clinics which gave him a broader community to interact with. I2 was observed not only interacting with his assistant coaches, but countless coaches from different teams. In fact, I2 shared a room at the clinic with another head coach that works for a high school over 500 miles from him. I2’s expanded community of knowledge and practice gave him access to the “circulation of information among peers” that Lave and Wenger (1991, pg.93) suggested allows individuals to engage in practice and therefore enhance learning. As a young master, I2 was also responsible for the augmentation of experiences of his assistant coaches (apprentices) as well. He commented young coaches think they should go to clinics to learn a secret play that will increase success, “but you keep dragging them with you, and it gets to where they understand there’s more to it than just the speakers, the bonding with other coaches is sometimes more valuable than anything they can learn at the clinic”. This was a great example of I2’s appreciation of the community of practice and his pursuit to increase the absorption of his assistant coaches into that community.

Similar to I2, the expert coaches (masters) had an extreme desire to increase the absorption of their assistant coaches into the community of practice. While Tommy Bowden and Bobby Bowden were fully immersed into the football community of practice with numerous interactions among other collegiate, NFL, and high school football coaches; they felt it was their responsibility to help their assistant coaches become absorbed into that community as well. Tommy Bowden remarked he felt an obligation to get his assistant coaches to communicate with coaches outside of the Clemson team to better understand the game. In order to do this, he stated


43

“we fly different places”. He annually sent his assistants to talk with NFL coaches, brought other coaches in for private clinics, and sometimes went to other collegiate coaches as he explained “a couple of years ago, the whole staff flew out to Utah when Urban Meyer was still there”. As the coaches were discussing and observing different strategies from other programs around the country (absorbing), they were also being absorbed into the community of practice as they increased their interactions and communications with their peers.

It should be noted as Tommy and Bobby Bowden were observed at the clinic, their interactions with other coaches were limited, but this lack of interaction stemmed from the community of practice at the clinic. The hierarchy of football greatly differentiated the high school coaches from the college and NFL coaches; which ultimately placed them into two separate communities. Tommy Bowden commented on his absorption into the community of practice in which he and 24 other top college coaches attended a retreat every year to discuss “how different coaches do things”. He further stated although time constraints at the collegiate level did not give him much of an opportunity to meet with other coaches like he did in the past, “I’ll call my peers in the profession”. Bobby Bowden agreed, in his “younger days” he would attend every clinic possible to meet people and learn about football, but as he has gotten older and people are coming to him for advice, he typically talked to other coaches on the phone or presented at coaching clinics to remain involved in the community of practice.

Acceptance into the football community of practice was a progression in which the novice coaches served an apprenticeship as they learned by observing the social interactions and then gained a small amount of acceptance as they were introduced to other members of the community by their head coach. With the acquisition of experience and knowledge, the novice coaches gained an understanding of how the community functioned as they became active participants as young masters (intermediate coaches) and further increase their knowledge and experience through direct interactions with other coaches. At this stage, the intermediate coach began the initiation of his assistant coaches into the community by introducing them to the other coaches in which he had established relationships. However, as coaches increase expertise and become expert coaches (masters), if their establishment in the community of practice is secure and the abounding coaching obligations somewhat decreased their ability to actively participate outside of their team with any frequency. With that in mind, the expert coaches emphasized the need for their assistant


44

coaches to increase their involvement in the community of practice to gain a better understanding of the game and one day progress to masters as well.

Summary

As the novice and intermediate coaches attempted to progress toward the inner circle of expertise, their interactions with other coaches progressed from passive listeners to involved participants in discussion. While the novice football coaches had limited interactions with all coaches and appeared to simply observe the interactions of the more experienced coaches in an effort to learn the dynamic relationships, the intermediate coaches were more likely to interact and communicate with coaches on their team as well as other coaches with whom they have established a previous relationship. On the other hand the expert coaches were available for discussions with other coaches, but their locus of authority was perceived by the clinic attendees as establishing a boundary, in which they were slightly intimidated to engage the old-timers in discussions.

Throughout the two football coaching clinics, there were obvious differences in the interactions patterns of novice, intermediate, and expert coaches, but notable similarities shared by coaches of the same level of expertise. While the novice coaches lacked clinic experience and basically stood on the outer fringe of discussion groups with little or no communication with other coaches, the intermediate coaches had significantly more interaction with other coaches. The level of expertise between the two intermediate coaches was also easily distinguished as I2 was observed to be much closer to the inner circle of expertise than I1, and therefore had more communication with coaches outside of his team. The experts on the other hand had little or no reservations instigating conversations with coaches and providing information on the knowledge and skills which have allowed them to be successful, but were never approached for information. Thus, it was observed the level of expertise had a significant impact on the social interactions experienced by coaches attending the football coaching clinics as the familiarity with the clinic atmosphere and other coaches limited the interactions of the novice coaches and increased the interactions of the intermediate and expert coaches.

As the community of knowledge and practice changes and develops over time, there remains a clear progression from the novice in the outer circle, to the intermediate in the middle circle, and the expert in the inner circle. Each circle, or level of expertise, utilized peer relationships within that circle to increase knowledge and understanding and therefore


45

constantly progressed toward the inner circle. Although there was no clear distinction of when a coach has progressed to a new level/circle of influence, it was evident the novice coaches were on the outside looking in at the intermediate and expert coaches; while the intermediate coaches were on the outside looking in at the expert coaches. While the expert coaches were actively communicating with each other, they were also intricately involved in the learning process of the novice and intermediate coaches as they progressed toward the inner circle as well.

References

Abraham, A. & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and Extending Research in Coach Development. Quest, 50, 59-79.

Berliner, D.C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangieri & C. Block (Eds.), Advanced educational psychology: Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Bloom, G.A., Salmela, J.H., & Schinke, R.J. (1995). Expert coaches views on the training of developing coaches. In R. Vanfraechem-Raway & Vanden Auweele (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth European Congress on Sport (pp. 401-408). Brussels: Free University of Brussels.

Bloom, G.A., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J.H. (1997). Pre- and Postcompetition Routines of Expert Coaches of Team Sports. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 127-141.

Cushion, J.C., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach Education and Continuing Professional Development: Experience and Learning to Coach. Quest, 55, 215-230.

Gilbert, W., Cote’, J., & Mallett, C. Developmental Paths and Activities of Successful Sport Coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(1), 69-75.

Gilbert, W. & Trudel, P. (1999). An Evaluation Strategy for Coach Education Programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(2), 234-251.

Gilbert, W. & Trudel, P. (2005). Framing the Construction of Coaching Knowledge in Experiential Learning Theory. Sociology of Sport Online. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2i1/v2i1s2.htm.


46

Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.

Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational Needs of Elite U.S. National Team, Pan American, and Olympic Coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9(4), 332-344.

Jones, R.L. (2000). Toward a sociology of coaching, in R.L. Jones & K.M. Armour (Eds.) Sociology of Sport: Theory and Practice (pp. 33-43). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: from practice to theory. London: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Malete, L. & Feltz, D.L. (2000). The Effect of a Coaching Education Program on Coaching Efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417.

McCullick, B.A., Belcher, D., & Schempp, P.G. (2005). What works in coach-ing and sport instructor certification programs? The participants’ view. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 121-137.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and coach education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 516-526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.

peer interactions throughout coach development

Documents