This chapter focuses on the extent to which sport coaching can be modelled. By that we mean the coaching process can be appropriately represented in such a way that it symbolises practice, is adequate for analysis, development and research, and adheres to a conceptual understanding of the coaching process. We will show that this task is far from easy, and is made more difficult by the ‘processual’ and multi-variable nature of sport coaching, and that no consensual model of the coaching process has emerged in recent years. The problems of model building are emphasised and the attempts of model builders to date are described and evaluated against a set of principles.
It is important that we set out our position on model building. We have already emphasised our belief that (a) sport coaching is a family term for a multitude of related leadership roles, and (b) the practice of sport coaching is so context- and situation-dependent that it can only be understood at the level of the particular. This is a problem for the model builder as it calls into question the capacity of any model to represent adequately such complexity.
We begin with a clarification of what is meant by a model and identify some of the difficulties in model construction. A number of models of sport coaching from the literature are briefly evaluated. The chapter closes with an examination of how models can be used for analysis, dealing with the vexed issue of application and reality constraints. In summary, the following statements represent the current ‘state of play’:
■There are no all-embracing models of the coaching process that have received consensual agreement (Abraham & Collins 2011a; Cushion 2007; Lyle & Cushion 2010).
■Models of practice have mistakenly been criticised for ‘not being put into practice by coaches or coach developers’. This is a serious misunderstanding of the role and purpose of models. Coaches should not be ‘adopting’ any particular model; the model is a guide to analysts, developers and researchers.
■The ‘coaching episode’ is easier to model than the extended process and this has influenced the literature.
■The balance between the advantages of the generic model (albeit difficult to achieve and possibly to defend) and the advantages of sport-specific models has not been resolved.
■There are many prescriptive proposals for sport coaching practice but very few models ‘of’ coaching practice that have been derived from rigorous research. Côté et al. (1995) is an exception, and their model is discussed later in this chapter. On the other hand, the elaboration of the model (Côté et al. 2010) is a set of prescriptive proposals for coaching practice.
■The shortcomings in the literature identified earlier in the book – absence of stated assumptions and lack of conceptual vocabulary – are evident in model building.
■There are a number of sources that have discussed the use of models in sport coaching. In general, these accounts point to the shortcomings of existing attempts without producing alternative models (Cushion et al. 2006).
■The ‘coaching schematic’ (Abraham et al. 2006; Abraham & Collins 2011b) is a form of ‘eclectic’ model that attempts to bridge the divide between models ‘for’ and models ‘of’ coaching (with an emphasis on coaches’ decision making).
A number of earlier attempts at modelling are reviewed in the latter part of the chapter. Each of these models has something useful to offer but each exemplifies the difficulties and shortcomings of model building in sport coaching. There are also many examples of ‘part-models’ – detailed accounts of sub-processes within the coaching process (for example, see Saury and Durand (1998) for an excellent example of this) – but these do not amount to models. Therefore, it would be reasonable to ask why so much time is being devoted to models of coaching when it is clear from the outset that this is such a challenging enterprise. The capacity to devise appropriate and perhaps diverse models is one measure of the health of the conceptual development of the field. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the state of play and to contribute to the development of this feature of academic development in sport coaching. The intention of this chapter, therefore, is not simply to review existing attempts but to contribute to future developments.
WHAT IS MEANT BY A MODEL?
The outcomes of the sport coaching process are observable in athlete performances and athlete and coach behaviours. However, the coaching process itself is a construct, an abstraction. The purpose of this abstraction (the conceptual framework) is to provide a mechanism for better understanding the observable practice. A model can be used to describe the components of the phenomenon (for example, the coaching process) and the relationship between the components.
KEY CONCEPT
A model is a representation of the relational aspects of (usually) complex phenomena by using symbols or simplified descriptions that help to conceptualise the phenomenon itself.
Most individuals would be familiar with the notion of a replica model – that is, a smaller representation of a physical object, often capable of being ‘taken to pieces’ to demonstrate ‘how it works’. On the other hand, models of the coaching process are symbolic representations. These may appear to have a different function, but really they are designed for much the same purpose. Models are valuable for:
■description and scoping;
■explaining relationships between components;
■analysing practice by ‘comparative’ methods;
■focusing attention on more discrete features of the process;
■providing guidelines for research and education; and
■(potentially) predicting outcomes.
The potential for predicting outcomes (for example, how much performance will improve with a given process) by replacing default values in a model with real measures is an appealing prospect. The more the inter-relationships in a model can be specified and the components quantified, the more likely is prediction. However, it will not come as a surprise to learn that the great majority of sport coaching components cannot easily be quantified. The common practice of representing relationships by lines or arrows, or by juxtaposition, has an apparent simplicity. However, these connections imply causal, sequential and conditional qualities, the dimensions of which may not yet be justified by research. It may be possible to predict performance ‘gains’ in some individual (usually power-repetitive technique) sports, although the environmental effects are difficult to measure and control. On the other hand, there have been few attempts to predict the outcome of a coaching process. This seems likely to be a result of the difficulty in controlling the enormous range of variables that influence performance. Subsequent evaluation will demonstrate that the models available have been more concerned to describe, rather than predict.
Modelling the sport coaching process should underpin any analysis of coaching behaviour and performance, and is central to evaluating effectiveness. A key feature of modelling is that it normally embraces a set of assumptions about performance, performance enhancement, social interactions and the coaching role. These assumptions have a conceptual basis that is rarely specified. As a result, there are few models of the sport coaching process and certainly none that have achieved consensual agreement or application. One of the objectives for this chapter is to develop in the reader a capacity to examine in a critical fashion any attempts to model the sport coaching process.
chtf2601
CoachingProcessChapter6.docx
0
