![]() For example, the use of systematic observation to identify coaches' behavior has enabled researchers to make links between what coaches do and the impact on athlete outcomes, including their motivation to participate ( Lefebvre et al., 2021) and skill development ( Smith and Cushion, 2006). ![]() More recently, systematic observation has been identified as an important and necessary part of understanding how coaches support their athlete's learning and development ( Cushion et al., 2012b Cope et al., 2017). Useful descriptions of coach behavior do exist, and what this body of work has done is to identify (within constraints) “tried and tested coaching behaviors” ( Douge and Hastie, 1993, p. Since its inception, systematic observation research has provided coaching with a rich and promising literature, as well as a sound basis for studying coach behaviors, practice, and their relationship ( Ford et al., 2010). Indeed, this research was perceived as ushering sport pedagogy into “an era of legitimacy, innovation, and unparalleled activity” ( Kahan, 1999, p. This potential for, and development of, systematic observation in coaching was greeted with considerable enthusiasm with many authors stressing its importance in establishing an empirical base for a “science” of coaching particularly related to coach behavior (e.g., Lacy and Darst, 1985 Lacy and Goldston, 1990 Seagrave and Ciancio, 1990). Therefore, understanding which behaviors translate into positive experiences and functioning on the part of athletes is critical for researchers and practitioners alike ( Cushion, 2010). The initial rationale behind this work remains as valid today as it did in the 1970s, in that coaches are central to the coaching process and what they say and do continues to impact performers' achievement and wellbeing. Since the pioneering work of Tharp and Gallimore with legendary coach John Wooden ( Tharp and Gallimore, 1976) to systematically identify coach behavior using a descriptive-analytical system, the systematic observation literature has evolved identifying coaches' behavior in training (and less so competition) across a diverse range of sports and sporting contexts (e.g., Lacy and Goldston, 1990 De Marco et al., 1996 Cushion and Jones, 2001 Potrac et al., 2007 Ford et al., 2010). Principles of dialogic pedagogy are used as the basis of our argument whereby “researchers” and “coaches” work collaboratively to co-construct knowledge and support coach reflection, and ultimately develop coaches' practice.Ī desire by early coaching scholars for some dispassionate base-line data to find out what (good) coaches do ( Cushion, 2010), has grown to become a significant focus within sport coaching research over the last 40 years ( Gilbert and Trudel, 2004 Cushion et al., 2012a Cope et al., 2017). The arguments made are based on an alternative way of thinking about systematic observation, as a pedagogical tool that supports coaches in better understanding themselves and their pedagogical practice. The premise of this paper is to consider systematic observation as a coach development tool-a precedent which has been set in the literature. While this research continues to offer a significant contribution to the fields understanding of what coaches do during practice, systematic observation used only in this way has unfulfilled potential. Initial work, originally undertaken in the 1970's, and gaining traction in the 80's and 90's looked to predominately offer descriptions of coaches' behavior. ![]() Systematic observation has been one of the most employed data collection methods in sport coaching literature. 3Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom.Patton College of Education, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States 1School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom. ![]() Cushion 1, Stephen Harvey 2 and Mark Partington 3 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |