sing ‘Coach Developers’ to Facilitate Coach Learning and Development

Using ‘Coach Developers’ to Facilitate Coach Learning and Development: Qualitative Evidence from the UK by Julian North

Reprinted from International Journal of

Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

239

Using ‘Coach Developers’ to Facilitate Coach Learning and Development: Qualitative Evidence from the UK Julian North Sports Coach UK, Cardigan Road, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 3BJ, UK E-mail: jnorth@sportscoachuk.org ABSTRACT In the United Kingdom (UK), a significant Government investment was made into recruiting, developing and deploying 45 ‘Coach Development Officers’ (CDOs). One of the CDOs’ roles was to provide 1:1 development support to coaches – therefore establishing relations with, and facilitating and directly providing development opportunities for, practicing coaches.

This article provides evidence of impact of the CDO’s ‘coach developer’ role using qualitative interviews with 46 coaches who had received CDO support. The evidence suggests that the CDOs provided a range of services including access to information and signposting (for example, to workshops and mentoring opportunities), and direct support. It was these direct services – support through Training Needs Analysis (TNAs), Personal Development Plans (PDPs), observing sessions and providing feedback, and being an informal mentor or critical friend – which were the most valued.

Key words: Informal Learning, Mentoring, Personal Development Plan, Sports Coaching, Training Needs Analysis

INTRODUCTION There are 1.11 million individuals undertaking coaching in the United Kingdom (UK), providing sporting opportunities and guided development to around 5 million children, adult participants and talented and high-performance athletes [1]. A significant majority of these individuals are volunteers, have no licence to practice, and just over half have a coaching qualification – the majority of which are Level 1 or Level 2 [1]. In other words, there are a large number of ‘coaches’, working with a large number of participants in the UK, where there is uncertainty about the quality of the sporting provision being undertaken.

In Government and policy circles, concerns related to the development and qualification of UK coaches have been recognised at least since the late 80s/early 90s [2, 3, 4]. In 2002, the main Government department for sport in England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), launched a report – The Coaching Taskforce [5] – and committed £28 million (US$45 million) to the ‘Coaching Project’. The Coaching Project established the following programmes: 3,000 Community Sports Coaches, the United Kingdom Coaching Reviewers:

Wade Gilbert (California State University Fresno, USA) Keith Lyons (Australian Institute of Sport, Australia)

240

Coaching Learning and Development

Certificate (UKCC), the 45 Coach Development Officers, and research. The investment and associated interventions were intended to provide a ‘step change’ in the UK coaching system by creating full-time coaching opportunities, a consistent and accredited coach qualification system, bespoke coach development opportunities, and an expanded evidence base with particular regard to workforce issues [5].

More or less over the same period, there has been increased academic interest in coaching practice, coaching expertise, and how this practice/expertise is refined and developed [e.g., 6, 7, 8]. Specifically, this work has touched on definitions of coaching practice and how these definitions relate to coach development [9, 10], and specific discussions of how coaches develop and learn [11, 12]. Regarding the latter, there has been increased utilisation of theory and evidence from the wider learning literature [e.g., 13, 14], and an increasing body of evidence from within the coaching domain – though this evidence has often been drawn from specific coaching contexts; e.g., elite coaching in the UK and development coaching in North America (see [11] for a comprehensive review). Particular attention has been given to the types of learning sources and environments that coaches should and do use – for example, it is often argued that coaches use a mix of informal, non-formal and formal methods to develop their coaching practice [11, 12]. There has been a lack of research on how coaches extract and utilise information from these learning sources and experiences (there are exceptions [e.g., 15]).

On balance, the coaching research literature has emphasised the importance of informal methods; for example, learning by doing (i.e., coaching), watching other coaches, receiving support from a mentor; over non-formal and formal methods; for example, workshops and coaching qualifications [11]. The arguments relate to how coaches practice, and the propensity or otherwise of informal, non-formal and formal methods to provide relevant and useful information to this practice [e.g., 10]. Informal learning opportunities – such as observing other coaches – are seen to provide coaches with knowledge and experiences which are grounded in the realities of day-to-day coaching practice, whereas non-formal and formal learning is seen as being abstract, impractical and lacking relevance [16, 17].

Although there is an increasing recognition that the case for informal vs. formal methods may have been overstated [18, 19], that the arguments also may have been situated in a misrepresentation of how each can contribute to coach development, and that both approaches could be utilised more effectively [6], there certainly has been merit to coach development provision from this critical attention [11]. This attention has resulted in an increasing recognition that the development of coaches requires a mix of informal, nonformal and formal learning that builds upon the experience of the coach and is related to the role they are asked to play. In the UK, the Coaching Project provided the impetus and resource to review coaching qualifications, which, at least in part, attempted to address some of the weaknesses cited [5]1. For example, the new coach qualification system was designed to be more ‘coach and participant centred’, with less emphasis on technical and tactical information, more emphasis on pedagogical and critical thinking skills, and a greater

1The

Coaching Taskforce appears to have relied on ‘expert’ advice from the ‘Taskforce Group’ as well an international review of coaching systems in four European countries. There is no explicit reference to the research literature in the report, but it is clear that the diagnosis and prescriptions emerging from the ‘practitioner’ and ‘research’ sides were leading to similar conclusions. The implementation of the Coaching Taskforce recommendations certainly involved using research academics and articles to shape programme design and delivery.

For example, UKCC developers at Sports Coach UK utilised the services of Dave Collins and Rod Thorpe.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

241

emphasis on learning through practice, and less on workshop provision [20]2. Similarly, the Coaching Project established the need and resource for a network of 45 ‘Coach Development Officers’ (CDOs) across England with a specific remit to work directly with coaches to ‘improve access to high-quality coach education and coach development at the local level’ [21]. The programme design had a clear resonance with the principles of individualised learning and mentoring from the wider learning and coach development literatures.

This article examines the role and impact of the CDO programme, using new primary qualitative data, to explore how specific Government investments meet coaches’ development needs both in terms of quality and coverage. In doing so, it reflects on the state of coaching and coach development in the UK; the ability and willingness of Government to affect change, and the position of contemporary coaching research in relation to these wider macro conditions.

COACH DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS AND THE ‘COACH DEVELOPER’ ROLE The CDO programme was established in April 2004 to provide two main roles: coach developer and coaching systems development. Initially, the CDOs were to focus on providing 1:1 support to coaches through needs analysis and planning (known formally as Training Needs Analysis (TNA) and Personal Development Plans (PDPs)) which would lead either to direct support from the CDO; for example, mentoring and observation; or the signposting of services such as workshops, mentoring, working with other coaches.

Eventually the CDOs were to withdraw from 1:1 support and provide more strategic and operational advice to local coaching deliverers; for example, in building coach development and support infrastructure. For example, the CDOs would support the development of coaching strategies with local partners; become involved in undertaking workforce auditing and planning; provide training to local coaching support staff on specific aspects of coach employment and development; and recruit, employ and deploy coaches. In theory, once these structures were developed then local ‘coach developers’ would take on the 1:1 role [21].

The reality of the programme, however, was a significant demand from coaches for 1:1 services – the CDOs provided support to over 13,000 individual coaches in the three years April 2004 to March 2007 – but a less enthusiastic response from local coaching deliverers [22]. Although there were some notable successes at the ‘systems level’, there appeared to be a lack of capacity and willingness among local partners to work with the CDO programme [22].

A recent review of the programme noted the good work being undertaken by the CDOs in relation to the 1:1 support of coaches, but recommended a re-focus on the systems building level [22]. The rationale was that greater benefit would be realised for coaches in the long term by the CDOs moving to the strategic level and helping develop more effective and comprehensive coach development systems, than by simply continuing to provide services directly to coaches. An implication of the move, however, was the immediate removal of resource from around the coaches – a gap which, it appears, has yet to be filled [23]. This

2Whether the good intensions for the UKCC outlined at the strategic/policy level have been transferred into changes in practice at the delivery level remains subject to ongoing research. It is not the purpose of this article to undertake a review of UKCC principles, or its impact on system change and practice; however, Sports Coach UK has established a programme of research which has begun to unpack these issues.

242

Coaching Learning and Development

article focuses on the coach developer role as practiced by the CDOs, but the above provides useful background information on resource allocation for coach development, and the problems coaches experience in accessing support services, that will be referred to in the concluding section.

METHOD The results described in the next section are based on a stand-alone project to collect qualitative evidence on the impact of the coach developer role as practiced by the CDOs. The study focused on a small sample of coaches who had used CDO services and provides some very detailed information about coach-CDO relationships, attitudes towards and use of coach learning and support, and perceptions of impact of coach learning provision.

PARTICIPANTS Data were collected from 46 coaches; 21 were female and 25 were male, and the mean age was 33 years. The coaches had coached for an average of 9.5 years (range 1 to 34 years).

51% of coaches were full-time, 38% were paid part-time and 12% were volunteers; 34 of the 46 coaches (74%) were coaching almost ‘every day’. A majority of the coaches coached at beginner and club level (36 coaches). However, a number of coaches coached county (5 coaches), regional (1 coach), and national/international level (4 coaches) athletes.

A majority of the coaches coached children, especially children under 12, but other groups – older children, young people and adults – were also covered. In terms of sports, the most frequently mentioned were multi-skills (6), athletics (5), cricket (5), association football/soccer (5), and netball (5) – gymnastics, rugby league, tennis, canoeing, disability sports, golf, hockey, movement and dance, multi-sport, rowing, rugby union, squash, swimming and volleyball were also represented. Almost all the coaches had a coaching qualification (44 out of 46); most coaches were Level 1 or 2 (73%); though 23% were Level 3, and 4% Level 43.

INSTRUMENTATION A semi-structured interview schedule was developed based on themes identified as pertinent to understanding the role and impact of the CDO programme. These included the coaches’ involvement in coaching, coaching activities, qualifications, development opportunities in the last 12 months, establishing a relationship with the CDO, services accessed through CDOs, and overall views on CDO service provision.

PROCEDURE All interviews were conducted using a face-to-face semi-structured approach and were undertaken by Sports Coach UK’s Research Team plus supporting officers between December 2007 and January 2008. Interviews lasted from 35 minutes to 1 hour 40 minutes.

Interviews were tape-recorded and partially transcribed depending on the simplicity or complexity of the discussions being undertaken. For example, for simple descriptive questions such as ‘how long have you been a coach?’ the answer was simply noted. For complex experiential and attitudinal questions, such as ‘in what way has working with the CDO influenced your development as a coach?’, the answer was transcribed. The data was 3

In the UK, the main qualification system is the United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC). Assessment is based on four functional levels – Level 1: Assistant Coach (supervised); Level 2: Session Deliverer (independent deliverer); Level 3: Annual Planner; and Level 4: Long Term, Specialist and Innovative Coach.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

243

stored and coded in Excel using a manual approach. There were 120 pages of coded and transcript data.

ANALYTIC METHOD Simple descriptive data were compiled and analysed using basic quantitative techniques (for example, on how the coaches were introduced to the CDO with the section on ‘Building a Relationship’). More complex experiential and attitudinal data were coded in Excel using a ‘units of meaning’ approach similar to that proposed by Miles and Huberman [24] to establish the main themes and to provide a structure to the report writing (Figure 1). The data were consolidated and analysed by the author, but the themes were also checked for accuracy of interpretation and consistency by members of Sports Coach UK’s Research Team who were involved in the research. Given the straightforward nature of most of the data, there were no disagreements to speak of.

RESULTS The results are presented in five themes – building relationships; CDO service provision; impact of CDO services; problems with, and improvements to the CDO programme; and satisfaction with CDO services (Figure 1).

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS The coaches were asked to report when they first established a relationship with their CDO and how the relationship came about. The relationships were established throughout the period April 2004 to March 2007, and, at the time of the research, a majority of the respondents had known and worked with their CDO for two or more years. About half of the coach-CDO relationships were established through the coaches’ employer (22 mentions), in particular, through County Sports Partnerships coach meetings, where the coaches had an opportunity to meet their CDO. The CDOs were responsible for initiating about a quarter of the relationships (12 mentions), with other pathways (clubs etc.) being less important. There was only one instance where a coach initiated the relationship.

The coaches were asked to describe the reason for the initial contact. Most coaches were aware that the CDOs were there to facilitate their development and improve their practice (20 mentions). However, since many relationships were established through the coaches’ employer, or by the CDO, it is not surprising that some coaches were initially unsure about the reasons why (19 mentions).

“With all these things, I was not really sure at first, I suppose I thought I would see what came out of our initial discussion and take it from there!” (Coach 18) Indeed many coaches were instructed to meet the CDO as part of their induction training, or were approached by the CDO without any clear knowledge of what they did. This is not perhaps surprising since there has been little previous support to UK coaches outside the context of coach qualification provision with larger scale formal mentoring programmes, and 1:1 support initiative being a relatively recent phenomenon. This situation is reflective of a relatively immature system for the support of coaches, whether by sport governing bodies or by the network of agencies working at county and regional level. Without exception, all the coaches reported that it was easy to contact and meet up with/speak to their CDO. The frequency of meetings between coaches and CDOs (for those who provided specific information) was just under once per month (or 11 times a year). The range was from

Note: The numbers in brackets refer to the number of mentions of each unit of meaning.

Figure 1. Coaches’ Perceptions and Experiences of the CDO Programme

244 Coaching Learning and Development

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

245

‘infrequently’ to ‘once a week’ – most coaches met formally from 4 to 6 times a year, but felt they could e-mail/ring whenever they needed advice.

There were evident complexities in the relationships between the coaches and CDOs. Some coaches, and presumably CDOs, were happy to maintain a professional instrumental relationship most likely based on personal preference and the parameters of the role: “[The CDO was] professional, open, relaxed.” (Coach 31) “The CDO was engaging, supportive and motivational.” (Coach 36) Other coaches, however, appeared to value the relationship in a very personal and involved way: “Having someone there to talk to has been great, someone outside of my work programme who can take a more objective view on things has been helpful. I have had a few issues with club personnel, so it has been good to talk confidentially with the CDO and they have helped me to work out what I need to do to confront some of these issues and helped me find solutions.” (Coach 1) “Of course I am satisfied with the relationship, which has moved from being totally work orientated, but now has an element of friendship in which I feel at ease.”

(Coach 19) “Good to have someone to talk to about work related matters that doesn’t actually work with you.” (Coach 26) Evidence from the UK Coach Tracking Study, and later in this article, suggests that many UK coaches feel isolated in their coaching environments; for example, in their clubs, with limited opportunity to discuss their coaching problems with ‘friends’ who are not compromised, or have a good understanding of the issues involved [25]. The evidence from the current study suggests that the CDOs played a very useful friend/mentor role – in providing a sounding board, advice, and support that was not influenced by the immediate coaching environment of the coach.

CDO SERVICE PROVISION The coaches were asked to describe the services they received from their CDO (Figure 1).

The results suggest that the coaches received two levels of service – direct support (delivered to them directly by the CDO) and signposted support (the CDO refers the coach to another individual/agency for service provision). In terms of direct services, the results suggest that the coaches were most likely to receive TNAs (25 mentions) and PDPs (24 mentions). The coaches also reported receiving mentoring support from their CDO (outside the TNA/PDPs relationship – 2 mentions), and a number reported having their coaching sessions observed (11 mentions). In terms of signposted services, the coaches reported workshops (28 mentions) and mentoring (7 mentions) being most frequent. However, the coaches also accessed working with/observing other coaches, conferences and new learning resources through their CDO. The coaches articulated significant benefits from this service provision – the TNA and PDP process, mentoring opportunities, observation opportunities and workshops as the evidence now suggests.

246

Coaching Learning and Development

The needs analysis and planning process is not a new one for coaches, but the way in which it was formalised into the work programmes of the CDOs was. In many respects, the TNA/PDP process was core business for the CDOs – the opportunity to work with coaches, to analyse their current knowledge and skill-sets, to put in place a course of action, and to work with the coach to deliver this. The coaches’ comments on the TNA/PDP process were less concerned with the process itself than what it implied: 1:1 support, mentoring and support services: “The process was 1:1 and it really empowered me to develop to my requirements and to my needs.” (Coach 4) “For me it has been a very positive interaction, as I work a great deal on my own and therefore having someone to ask questions, and to bounce off ideas, has enabled me to improve the quality of coaching within our club. Very rewarding.”

(Coach 18) “Have been able to talk with someone with more knowledge around coaching.”

(Coach 24) The coaches valued the chance to talk to, be observed by, and receive feedback from a mentor (11 mentions). This was evident in the 1:1 relationships they established with their CDO and others (see ‘Impact of CDO Services’), and the knowledge and skills they obtained from it. For example, the coaches reported developing new coaching ideas/skills – ranging from sport specific technical knowledge to generic skills such as communication. The coaches also reported that it helped to confirm what they knew, and in that sense gave them more confidence in their coaching. Mentors were also useful in providing support with qualifications. One coach reported that it was not what she expected, but still learned from the experience: “I had very specific requirements for my mentoring and didn’t want just anyone to mentor me. Through the CDO and the mentoring project with Lane 4, I was given access to a high quality mentor which has made a huge difference to my coaching.”

(Coach 35) The coaches were positive about the opportunity to observe other coaches undertaking coaching sessions (5 mentions). The benefits of observation were layered. On one level, the coaches used the opportunity to gain new ideas for their own coaching; for example, ideas about drills, or how to communicate with players. However, on another level, the coaches used observation as a benchmark against their own coaching – either challenging them to improve; confirming their own practice and giving them confidence; and, indeed, enabling them to identify bad practice which they should steer clear of. The role of observation in stimulating reflection and building confidence was clearly very important to the coaches.

Finally, the coaches also used observation as a means of identifying other coaching possibilities and career pathways: “The sessions were very beneficial for my own coaching as it made me think about how I do things. It did not influence any development directly, but gave me confidence.” (Coach 11)

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

247

“This I feel has made me more confident in the way in which I approach my own coaching and gets me to self-analyse better.” (Coach 19) “Was able to observe both good practice and bad practice and learn from it. It also helped to confirm knowledge with some different ways of doing things.” (Coach 39) The majority of coaches were positive, some very positive, about coaching workshops (18 mentions), but there were a minority of dissenting voices (4 mentions). The coaches appeared to use workshops to improve their coaching knowledge across a range of areas including participant development, sports science, ‘how to skills’ and equity. The coaches suggested that this information helped to provide them with new ideas, as well as updating and refreshing their thinking. The opportunity to network with other coaches was also seen as beneficial, as was obtaining the latest learning resources (9 mentions). Many coaches spoke of workshops as providing them with confidence in their own coaching practice (8 mentions). On the other hand, the coaches were keen to ensure that the content and delivery (i.e., quality of the tutor) was appropriate (2 mentions). A number of coaches mentioned enjoying the practical sessions in workshops (2 mentions). A small number of coaches suggested they did not learn anything from the workshops or that they were “not huge influence” (2 mentions).

“Most workshops have given a really good base knowledge of certain subjects. It was great to meet other coaches and pick up loads of information.” (Coach 3) “As with most of these workshops, you get out what you put in, so I tend to go in with a positive attitude to learn some new things. I suppose, they have helped to support what I now do good.” (Coach 19) “Workshops differ depending on who is tutoring but for the most part they were really good.” (Coach 3) IMPACT OF CDO SERVICES The coaches were asked to reflect on the CDO-coach relationship and services they had received. From the data it was possible to identify two main levels of impact: impact on development and on practice.

CDO Impact on Development. The coaches identified a number of ways in which they believed the CDO impacted on their development. For example, the CDO played a strong role raising the coaches’ awareness of, and access to, specific development opportunities (15 mentions): “I had no idea how much support is actually out there and it is great that we can access so much local training to support our development … The CDO has helped me to focus on where I am and where I want to go as a coach and helped me set realistic goals that have been regularly reviewed.” (Coach 1) “Provided me with information about CPD opportunities that I may not have had through [the Governing Body] and the club. Has been a point of contact when I’ve needed advice and has helped to facilitate my change in career direction.” (Coach 5)

248

Coaching Learning and Development

“Would not have been aware of the opportunities unless it was for the CDO.” (Coach 5) The CDOs also played a strong role in making the coach see the benefits of CPD, in taking CPD more seriously, and taking a structure approach (10 mentions): “The support from the CDO has really helped me focus on what I need to do and given me a framework to work within so I have realistic timescales and know what priorities to set myself. It has been a huge learning curve for me the past 2-3 years but the CDO has provided valuable guidance throughout.” (Coach 1) “[The CDO] ... has given me a logical way to develop my coaching. Having a written PDP has been really good as given me a plan to guide my development.”

(Coach 2) “The session helped plan my development year by year. The CDO was a catalyst for the development programme.” (Coach 4)

CDO Impact on Coaching Practice.The coaches identified a number of ways in which they believed the CDO impacted on their coaching practice. The data are presented around the ‘plan’, ‘deliver/do’, ‘evaluate/review’ process [e.g., 26], but the coaches also mentioned the CDOs had a significant impact on their confidence. The CDO helped the coaches to focus on their planning of sessions (9 mentions): “The CDO has particularly helped me to realise I need to make time for my planning/preparation as this is something I have found hard whilst trying to run a family and juggle coaching with looking after my two children, etc. The CDO suggested I block out time in my diary each week to plan and do admin and that I do this away from home so I don’t get distracted – this has been very useful.”

(Coach 1) “Think more about why I’m doing something rather than merely filling session with drills.” (Coach 20) Significantly more comments were made about delivery with the CDOs either playing a direct role, or signposting the coach to a service, which made a difference to how they coached (13 mentions). When thinking about the CDOs’ impact on their delivery, the coaches tended to focus on the development of their ‘how to’ skills – e.g., utilising different methods of delivery and/or improving their communication skills – an area which has been criticised as lacking in existing coach development provision (notably in coach qualifications): “More and new ideas; it has helped me to be more creative; for example, ideas about enthusiasm, warming up, and keeping children involved. It has helped to keep my coaching tempo up and gave different ideas for group coaching.”

(Coach 7)

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

249

“Improved my communication skills and ability to manage others.” (Coach 16) “Without doubt the CDO has helped me to develop my skills as a coach. It has also given me the confidence to be able to challenge myself in areas that I have not been totally comfortable with; i.e., working with teenage girls.” (Coach 18) “Significant influence in helping me to realise my style of coaching. My ‘how to’ skills have improved. I liked the way he made me feel when being observed and was always positive in what he had to say and how he fed back to me. He was motivational and helped me to influence others.” (Coach 36) “I was able to use the new ideas in coaching to improve it. Felt the observation and feedback was of great value and helped me become a better coach.” (Coach 38) Previous evidence suggests that UK coaches generally under-prioritise evaluation and reflection compared to other coaching-related activities [27], despite this being a wellrecognised and important step in the development of coaching practice [15]. The research suggests that the CDOs were encouraging the coaches to consider evaluation and reflection (7 mentions): “Working with the CDO has enabled me to work at a higher level. It has also enabled me to analyse my own skills, step back and look at myself, give myself time to reflect. With her support and guidance I have come a long way in two years.”

(Coach 19) “I regularly self reflect and try to set myself goals.” (Coach 29) “Made me more aware of my actions as a coach.” (Coach 30) “The CPD days have made me reflect on my coaching practice and made me stronger as a coach.” (Coach 33) The coaches were also keen to cite the benefits the CDO provided in terms of raising their confidence levels. In some instances, the CDO may not have led the coach to make significant differences in their coaching practice, but the increase in confidence and reinforcement was an important part of their development: “I have more confidence and have widened my knowledge in many new areas. I feel my coaching has improved so much over the past 2-3 yrs.” (Coach 2) “My coaching has not changed, but it certainly has matured, giving me the confidence to deliver in settings that initially I would have found difficult. I now deliver in more professional manner.” (Coach 4) “Not hugely, it has mainly reinforced what I have been doing.” (Coach 6) “I am more confident and take the lead more. I now know what I am capable of and try to sustain good practice.” (Coach 11)

250

Coaching Learning and Development

“I think she has confirmed that I am a good quality coach and has given me confidence.” (Coach 24) PROBLEMS WITH, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO, THE CDO PROGRAMME Although most of the coaches were complimentary about the CDO programme, they provided some important critical feedback, which will assist with the future development of the ‘coach developer’ role. These comments are reported according to the following themes: uncertainty about what the CDO programme is for; lack of opportunity to access 1:1 support; and lack of opportunity to be observed and receive feedback.

Uncertainty about What the CDO Programme is for. A number of coaches never managed to be convinced of the CDO role with particular regard to purpose and function (4 mentions).

Others suggested that coaches should be made more aware of the role: “Not really, still not sure what CDO does; other people I know can do the same.”

(Coach 9) “Limited functionality and restrictions put on the CDOs.” (Coach 35) “You don’t know it’s there (the CDO programme) unless you’re told about it by your employers and I’m pretty sure there are loads of coaches who don’t get anything near this kind of service.” (Coach 3) Lack of Opportunity to Access 1:1 Support. At peak levels of recruitment, the 45 CDOs were potentially covering 930,000 coaches across England [1]. Within each county, each CDO could potentially be providing services to between 3,000 (Berkshire) and 143,000 (London) coaches [28]. It is estimated that the CDOs may have come into ‘contact’ with anywhere up to 25,000 English coaches4. CDO management information suggests that the CDOs ‘provided support’ to 13,000 coaches over three years of the study – this equates to 100 coaches per CDO per year.

With the above figures in mind, it is not surprising that the coaches complained about lack of access to CDO services (6 mentions). The potential change in CDO objectives also led to concerns amongst the coaches: “The services I received were beneficial to the role I was going into. It would be nice to see the CDO more often than 3-4 times in the 1st year and possibly a further 2-3 times in my second year.” (Coach 24) “I’ve been lucky to have the CDO as a key part of my development as a Community Sports Coach, but I’m sure there are hundreds of coaches out there who haven’t been as lucky as me in knowing that this service is out there. Every coach should have a CDO to work with as part of their coaching whether they are paid or not.

It’s an essential tool in getting better qualified and better quality coaches” (Coach 3).

4

Data from the Coaching Workforce 2009-2016 document suggests that there are about 66,000 coaches in the CDOs principal target group; i.e., ‘qualified coaches and head coaches’, in ‘Governing Body and Coaching Support Networks’ in England. Data from the Year UK Coach Tracking Study [27] suggests that 37% of coaches had contact with a CDO. This (somewhat rough and ready) calculation suggests about 25,000 English coaches may have had contact with a CDO.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

251

“More 1:1 contact time. The most beneficial input has been from a personal 1:1 approach. This is something that could and should be addressed for as many coaches as is possible.” (Coach 13) Lack of Opportunity to be Observed and Receive Feedback. The results suggest that the CDOs were mainly involved in undertaking TNAs and PDPs, and signposting coaches to workshops. Although these services were valued, they were not necessarily the ones valued the most.

The results suggest that coaches valued other services such as being observed, receiving feedback, observing and networking with the coaches (6 mentions). This fits with what is known from the wider coach development literature: “Would like to have had more than one observed coaching practice.” (Coach 25) “It would be great to get a CDO into a big club and inspire like our CDO did.

Sometimes its better coming from someone outside of the club to make impact, rather than me who lives and breathes the club! Great examples from the CDO was giving feedback session where you were only allowed to give feedback at certain time and in certain ways. Made a great impression on me.” (Coach 36) “It would be great to arrange with top quality coaches to go and observe sessions more formally. I feel this would further improve my coaching and those of similar level and standard to me. Lower level coaches and new coaches observe me and I don’t mind this at all.” (Coach 38) “Would be good to set up more networking opportunities for coaches in Norfolk and getting coaches from other outdoor education facilities working together and sharing good practice.” (Coach 1) SATISFACTION WITH CDO SERVICES The coaches were asked to report how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the services provided by the CDOs. Before presenting the results, it is important to note that the coaches had very little to compare the CDO role with; i.e., for many coaches this was the first time they would have received any specific 1:1 coach development support and, therefore, were likely to be grateful for this attention.

Of those coaches who expressed a view, 41 were satisfied (including 19 coaches who were ‘very satisfied’). Thus about 90% of the coaches interviewed appeared very favourable toward to the CDO programme: “Very satisfied and happy with the service. It works really well and feel she is there if I need her.” (Coach 37) “Very satisfied with the support provided ... I don’t think I would have accessed so much good training without the CDO signposting me to relevant courses.” (Coach 1) “The service really does meet my needs, the system has enabled me to look very positively towards developing myself into a career in coaching.” (Coach 4)

252

Coaching Learning and Development

“Yes, it’s great having someone to talk to about your coaching and your development.” (Coach 21) DISCUSSION There has been an increasing recognition of the role and reach of UK coaches in stimulating and sustaining participation [29], and contributing to talent development [30, 31]. At the same time, there have been genuine concerns about the abilities of the 1.1 million UK coaches to deliver this provision to a level which confers the potential benefits of high quality coaching [2-5].

A recent UK Government programme and associated investment – the DCMS ‘Coaching Project’ – has attempted to address this problem through the development of a new qualification system (the UKCC) and the provision of 1:1 coach development support for coaches (the CDOs). Implicit in the programme planning, and explicit in the programme design and implementation (at least), of these interventions is the recognition that there is more to coach development than coaching qualifications, and that personalised support based on a kind of ‘mentor’ relationship is highly beneficial.

An examination of a sample of UK coaches’ experiences and views on the impact of the coach developer/CDO role was undertaken and the results were very positive. The CDO played an important supporting and brokering role for the coaches they worked with, mediating the appropriate mix between informal, non-formal and formal learning. Notably, the confidence and empowerment of coaches appeared to be enhanced through regular contact with the CDO. In many respects, the results provide additional empirical support for many of the main themes to emerge from the coaching development research literature. For example, the coaches were very supportive of the opportunity to receive mentoring either from their CDO, or from a designated other [7, 16, 32, 33]. The CDO/mentor relationship fulfilled a number of roles, but an important theme appeared to be the opportunity for the coach to engage in friendly supportive relations outside his/her immediate coaching environment. Many coaches in the UK complain about being ‘isolated’ and the CDOs provided a very useful opportunity to share ideas and problems without feeling compromised.

The coaches were also very supportive of the opportunity to work with, and observe, other coaches from within and outside their sport [10, 16, 18, 34, 35]. As with mentoring, the CDO either fulfilled this role directly, or provided other opportunities. The benefits of observation were layered with the coaches gaining new ideas, benchmarking their practice, and helping to build confidence in their approach. The coaches were also supportive of workshop provision in terms of gaining new knowledge [18, 36] and the opportunity to network with other coaches [37], while recognising their place and limitations.

The coaches were able to identify many benefits from working with the CDOs. For example, the coaches talked about their knowledge of, and appetite for, coach development opportunities being stimulated by the 1:1 support – this is important because UK research suggests that coaches’ knowledge and use of, and commitment to, development opportunities is low [28]. The coaches also talked about the benefits of the 1:1 support and service provision in terms of practice improvements – greater attention to planning, greater variety and more attention to participant need in coaching delivery, and greater awareness of the need to review and learn from coaching experiences.

The positive messages emerging from the coaches about the CDO programme have to be qualified. There is little doubt that coaches value, for example, 1:1 support, mentoring and observation and feedback opportunities, but these relationships and interventions will not be

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

253

without problems – problems which are not easy to establish in research designs of this type.

Not all mentoring relationships are positive [38]. Some coaches may be as likely to observe and model good coaching as bad [39].

There is a sense, however, that the 1:1 support, wider service provision, and ‘friendship’ offered through the CDO programme – even if it is variable in quality (which there was no significant evidence of) – stands in stark contrast to the ‘normal’ levels of service provision offered to UK coaches; i.e., no provision (the ‘isolated coach’) and workshops associated with qualifications. In this sense, it is not surprising that the coaches were positive about the CDO programme because it represented a level of ‘attention’ and service they had not previously been afforded. Furthermore, there was evidence that the CDO programme enabled coaches to develop mentor relationships that were positive and worked for them by virtue of the way the CDO role was set-up. That is, the programme was not set-up explicitly to develop mentored relationships but these relations could evolve if the knowledge exchange and the people match were right for the coach. Since the CDOs worked as a network, they could also ensure that each individual coach’s needs were met by the wider knowledge and skill sets of the team. This informal, self-selecting, team-based approach to mentoring seems a very interesting avenue for future interventions and research.

In this sense, the Government’s decision to invest in the CDO programme has been vindicated both by its alignment to existing research prescriptions, and by an evaluation of practice. The ‘coach developer’ can be added to the ‘recipe’ of individuals and interventions that sit around, and benefit, the coach and his/her development. Indeed, it would seem to fit well within the ‘learning communities’ concept proposed by Gilbert et al. [40]. Yet, it appears that despite the benefits of this (one-off) investment in the UK, the provision of 1:1 coach developer services remains a rare and valued commodity. Those coaches who were lucky enough to receive 1:1 services have now been deprived of these services as the CDOs have moved to the strategic level; there were never enough CDOs in the first place to meet the demand and service provision was spread very thinly. A vast majority of UK coaches never got anywhere near receiving coach developer support. Although the programme implies significant resource commitment, the Government and the coaching community (e.g., governing bodies and local coaching providers) have important decisions to make. If we are to be serious about coach development, and wish to put in place interventions which genuinely work, then the role, and benefits associated with, ‘coach developers’ and the like need to be acknowledged and invested in. In the UK context, at least, there appears to be evidence that the good work occurring in the mid 2000s is now dissipating [23].

There are several limitations in the study; for example, the research is based on an analysis of coaches’ perceptions only. One limitation is particularly worthy of mention, however: the research does not say anything (outside the coaches’ perception) about the CDOs’ competency to perform their role effectively, and the training and development opportunities they received. There was anecdotal evidence in the study that the coaches were seeking to be more learner centred, to vary the coaching delivery, and to spend more time developing as a result of the CDO interventions – but the evidence needs to be stronger.

Although there was evidence that the CDOs were given training on how to conduct a TNA and develop a PDP, and information about the services on offer, there was no evidence that they were provided training on how coaches learn. If the CDOs were trained to think about learning design, and learning integration – i.e., blended learning – then they may be able to direct the coach not only to useful interventions, but also to interventions that compliment each other.

254

Coaching Learning and Development

There is a significant gap between the aspirations of the coaching research literature, and the practicalities of coach development provision on the ground. It is important for coaching researchers to identify the ‘gold standard’ for coach development – and as suggested above this should continue – but there are concerns about how it relates to the average coach on the ground. The definition of coaching in terms of coaches’ roles and range of activities adopted in some quarters [e.g., 41], and coach development practitioners are clearly different.

Questions need to be asked about how much contemporary coaching research is helping to improve the majority of individuals who coach, but there are exceptions (particularly in a North American context e.g., [40]).

CONCLUSION The CDO programme contains exactly the kind of support that agencies should provide to coaches in facilitating their development. The programme is supported by research, and through the feedback of service recipients. Yet, there is a sense that the good work associated with the programme will be lost unless Government, Governing Bodies and others understand and resource interventions of this type. Furthermore, it is important for researchers and practitioners to think more creatively about how appropriate development environments can be created with the resources available.

REFERENCES 1.

North, J., Coaching Workforce 2009-2016, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2009.

2.

Sports Council, Coaching Matters: A Review of Coaching and Coach Education in the United Kingdom, Sports Council, London, 1991.

3.

UK Sport, The UK Vision for Coaching, UK Sport, London, 2001.

4.

Sports Coach UK, UK Coaching Framework, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

5.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS),The Coaching Task Force – Final Report, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London, 2002.

6.

Abraham, A., Collins, D., Morgan, G. and Muir, B., Developing Expert Coaches Requires Expert Coach Development: Replacing Serendipity With Orchestration, in: Lorenzo, A., Ibanez, S. J. and Ortega, E., eds., Aportaciones Teoricas Y Practicas Para El Baloncesto Del Futuro [Theoretical and Practical Contributions for the Basketball of the Future], Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva, Sevilla, 2009.

7.

Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. and Potrac, P., Sports Coaching Cultures: from Practice to Theory, Routledge, London, 2004.

8.

Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W., Coaching and Coach Education, in: Kirk, D., Macdonald, D. and O’Sullivan, M., eds., The Handbook of Physical Education, Sage Publications, London, 2006, 516-539.

9.

Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L., Locating the Coaching Process in Practice: Models ‘For’ and ‘Of’ Coaching, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2006, 11(1), 83-99.

10.

Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M. and Potrac, P., Constructing Expert Knowledge: A Case Study of a Top-Level Professional Soccer Coach, Sport, Education and Society, 2003, 8(2), 213-229.

11.

Cushion, C., Nelson, L., Armour, K., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R. and O’Callaghan, C., Coach Learning and Development: A Review of the Literature, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2009.

12.

Nelson, L.J., Cushion, C.J., and Potrac, P., Formal, Nonformal and Informal Coach Learning: A Holistic Conceptualisation, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2006, 1(3), 247-259.

13.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E., Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.

14.

Schön, D.A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, 1983.

15.

Gilbert, W.D. and Trudel, P., Learning to Coach Through Experience: Reflection in Model Youth Sport Coaches, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2001, 21, 16-34.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010

255

16.

Irwin, G., Hanton, S. and Kerwin, D.G., Reflective Practice and the Origins of Elite Coaching Knowledge, Reflective Practice, 2004, 5(3), 425-442.

17.

Lemyre, F., Trudel, P. and Durand-Bush, N., How Youth-Sport Coaches Learn to Coach, The Sport Psychologist, 2007, 21, 191-209.

18.

Erickson, K., Bruner, M., MacDonald, D. and Côté, J., Gaining Insight into Actual and Preferred Sources of Coaching Knowledge, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2008, 3(4), 527-538.

19.

Werthner, P. and Trudel, P., A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to Coach, The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 198-212.

20.

Lyle, J., UKCC Impact Study: Definitional, Conceptual and Methodological Review, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

21.

Roberts, J., 45 Coach Development Officers – Version 9, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2004.

22.

Sports Coach UK, 45 Coach Development Officer Workstrand Evaluation Report, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

23.

Timson-Katchis, M. and North, J., UK Coach Tracking Study, Year Two Headline Report, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2010.

24.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London, 1994.

25.

Timson-Katchis, M., UK Coach Tracking Study: Qualitative Evidence, Unpublished Report, Sports Coach UK, Leeds.

26.

Woodman, L., Coaching: A Science, an Art, an Emerging Profession, Sport Science Review, 1993, 2(2), 113.

27.

Timson-Katchis, M. and North, J., UK Coach Tracking Study: Year One Headline Report, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2009.

28.

Townend, R. and North, J., Sports Coaching in the UK II, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

29.

North, J., Increasing Participation in Sport: The Role of the Coach, Sports Coach UK, Leeds, 2007.

30.

Bloom, B.S., Developing Talent in Young People, Ballantine, New York, 1985.

31.

Martindale, R.J.J., Collins, D. and Daubney, J., Talent Development: A Guide for Practice and Research Within Sport, Quest, 2005, 57, 353-375.

32.

Bloom, G.A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. and Salmela, J.H., The Importance of Mentoring in the Development of Coaches and Athletes, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1998, 29, 267-281.

33.

Salmela, J.H., Learning from the Development of Expert Coaches, Coaching and Sport Science Journal, 1995, 2(2), 3-13.

34.

Abraham, A., Collins, D. and Martindale, R., The Coaching Schematic: Validation through Expert Coach Consensus, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2006, 24(6), 549-564.

35.

Wright, T., Trudel, P. and Culver, D., Learning How to Coach: The Different Learning Situations Reported

by Youth Ice Hockey Coaches, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2007, 12(2), 127-144.

36.

Schempp, P.G., Templeton, C.L. and Clark, B., The Knowledge Acquisition of Expert Golf Instructors, in: Farrally, M. and Cochran, A.J., eds., Science and Golf III: Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, Human Kinetics, Leeds, 1998, 295-301.

37.

Armour, K.M., and Yelling, M.R., Effective Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers: The Role of Informal, Collaborative Learning, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2007, 26, 177-200.

38.

Jones, R.L., Harris, R.A. and Miles, A., Mentoring in Sports Coaching: A Review of the Literature, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2009, 14(3), 267-284.

39.

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

40.

Gilbert, W., Gaillimore, R. and Trudel, P.A., Learning Community Approach to Coach Development in Youth Sport, Journal of Coaching Education, 2, 2, 1-29.

256

41.

Coaching Learning and Development

Lyle, J. and Cushion, C. Narrowing the Field: Some Key Questions about Sports Coaching, in: Lyle, J. and Cushion, C. eds., Sports Coaching: Professionalisation and Practice, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, In Press.