Research Analysis paper

292

The Sport Psychologist, 2013, 27, 292-295 © 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Macquet is with the Dept. of Research, Institut National du Sport, de l’Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.

Getting Them on the Same Page: A Method to Study the Consistency of Coaches’ and Athletes’ Situation

Understanding During Training Sessions and Competitions

Anne-Claire Macquet Institut National du Sport, de l’Expertise et de la Performance

This article presents a method for studying the consistency of coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding. Three elite athletes and their coach were video recorded during winter training session, international summer competition, and training session following competition. Postperformance self-confrontation interviews were conducted separately with each participant, who was asked to describe his/her activity in relation to the events observed. Interview data were used to characterize compatible (i.e., similar or the same) information between coach and athlete and modes of compatibility. Results showed compatible situation understanding was based on five information categories: (a) technical elements, (b) athlete’s psychological states, (c) organization and safety, (d) performance, and (e) athlete’s experience. Results also showed whether coaches’ and athletes’ information were not compatible, compatible, or mutually compatible. The method used and specific findings are discussed in relation to the analysis of consistency of coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding from larger samples of participants.

In the field of coaching, it is widely acknowledged that interpersonal and individual processes are key factors in successful coaching (e.g., Chelladuraï, 2007). How- ever, few studies have focused on mutual understanding and situation understanding. Lorimer and Jowett (2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011) studied mutual understanding by assessing similarity between the feelings and thoughts of coaches and athletes while interacting during training ses- sions. They showed that the coach and athlete displayed empathic accuracy, but they did not really identify their shared focus at each point in time.

In a perspective of effective coaching beyond under- standing the other, it is of interest to study the coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding and sensemaking at the same point in time. In industrial and organization psychology, Endsley (1995) stressed the need to develop and maintain sufficient awareness of “what is going on” to achieve tasks. This awareness of the evolution of the situ- ation is known as situation awareness (SA). It is defined as “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future” (Endsley, 1995, p. 36). To develop SA and carry out an effective action, individuals make sense of the situation: they understand connections among indi- viduals, events, and tools, and anticipate their evolution (Klein, Moon, & Hoffman, 2006).

In a collaborative system such as coaching (i.e., col- laboration between two or more individuals), agents and environment comprise a system (e.g., Stanton, Salmon, Walker, & Jenkins, 20010. It is considered that SA does not reside solely in the head of individuals, it is also embedded in the context, meaning that context provides useful information on “what is going on” (Hutchins, 1995), and arises from the interactions between indi- viduals, according to the goals they are pursuing, their competencies, and relationships (e.g., Salmon, Stanton, Gibbon, Jenkins, & Walker, 2010; Stanton et al., 2010). Even faced with the same information, people make dif- ferent links between information or link it in different ways to make sense of a situation. The distributed situa- tion awareness model considers that team members have unique but compatible (i.e., similar or the same) portions of awareness (e.g., Salmon et al., 2010). The distributed situation awareness model also considers that commu- nication occurs between people and is called transaction (e.g., Stanton et al., 2010). Transaction is an exchange of SA (i.e., situation understanding). The distributed situa- tion awareness model also considers that communication among team members provides an access to the partner’s SA. These concepts of compatibility and transaction highlight the distributed nature of cognition and SA. The distributed situation awareness model stresses the need to study the cognitive system as a whole, from the elements of information held by people while interacting (e.g., Salmon et al., 2009). Salmon et al. (2010) called for the use of such a model to study collaborative systems, such as the coach and athlete and sports teams. Studying

www.TSP-Journal.com RESEARCH NOTE

Coaches’ and Athletes’ Situation Understanding 293

the compatibility between the coaches’ and athletes’ por- tions of SA in training sessions and competitions would allow insights into their situation understanding at each point in time.

The present study aimed to develop a method for analyzing coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding. More specifically, the method allowed characterization of the content of compatible information elements within the coaches’ and athletes’ portions of SA, and modes of compatibility of information elements.

Method

Participants Three elite hammer throwers (two male, one female, M = 28 years 9 months, SD = 2 years 4 months) and their coach (male, 58) volunteered to participate in the study. This research was conducted with institutional ethics approval.

Data Collection The consistency of athletes’ and coaches’ situation understanding were studied over two full training sessions and one competition: (a) a winter training session aiming to improve the athlete’s technique to prepare for competi- tions, (b) a summer competition to qualify for the European championships, and (c) the training session following the competition, aiming to improve technique in relation to that used during competition (Macquet, 2010). Training sessions and competitions were chosen according to the availability of athletes and coach for interviews.

Firstly, the behaviors and communication of the coaches and athletes and the hammer trajectory were recorded by a digital camera and an HF microphone worn by the coach during training sessions and competitions. The camera was fixed behind the circle and the net for a wide angle. The videotape was used to provide behavioral and contextual data but also to stimulate the parties to re-experience the training session and competition during the interview (e.g., Macquet, 2009).

Secondly, postperformance self-confrontation inter- views were conducted separately with each participant, who was asked to describe what they were doing, per- ceiving, feeling, and thinking in relation to the events observed, without a posteriori analysis, rationalization, or justification. The full interviews were then video recorded to check correspondence between comments and the action that was being described. The interviews were all conducted by the same trained person. The interviews took place immediately after the training session and competition or the following day, but before the follow- ing training session, depending on the availability of the participants. Interviews were fully transcribed.

Data Processing Firstly, data were processed by two researchers using an inductive analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Each

researcher first divided the transcripts into meaningful units according to the participant’s concerns (see Table 1).

Secondly, coaches and athletes meaningful units were synchronized with the training session and compe- tition video recording and then compared with identify the content of information elements that were compatible between the coach and athlete at the same point in time. Information elements were compatible when their content was similar; one partner described what the athlete did and the other partner gave possible causes of what the athlete did; one partner commented on the overall pattern of the athlete’s behavior and the other partner provided more details of the same behavior; and their description of the situation was convergent or the same, (i.e., they reported the same information elements on the athlete’s behavior and situation, see Table 1). Information elements were not compatible when: (a) the coach and athlete reported on different parts of the athlete’s behavior and situation; (b) they had “opposite” interpretations of the athlete’s behavior (e.g., the athlete said, “I started too quickly,” and his coach said, “the start is good”); and (c) only one partner commented on the athlete’s behavior and situation. Compatible elements were then compared and classified into categories according to their common features (see Table 1). Each category was labeled and its properties defined.

Thirdly, researchers identified modes of compatibil- ity of information elements. Synchronized meaningful units were then compared with identify whether informa- tion elements were compatible and if the coach and his athlete knew they were.

Two researchers with technical knowledge in hammer throwing analyzed the data separately. Data were constantly compared until saturation was reached. Any initial disagreement was discussed between the research- ers until consensus was reached.

Results Results are presented in two parts: the content of compat- ible information elements, and modes of compatibility of information elements. Analysis indicated five categories of compatible information elements: (a) throw technical elements; (b) athlete’s psychological states; (c) organiza- tion and safety; (d) performance; and (e) athlete’s experi- ence (see Table 1). All categories were compatible within each athlete’s and coach’s portion of SA. The technical elements category was the most compatible among all practice contexts.

The analysis showed three modes of compatibility of information elements: (a) no compatibility; (b) compat- ibility; and (c) mutual compatibility (see Table 1). In no compatibility, no information element was compatible between the coach’s and athlete’s portions of SA. In compatibility, information elements were compatible, without the coach and athlete knew they were. In mutual compatibility, the coach and athlete knew these elements were compatible. Mutual compatibility was built from communication on the throw just completed. The coach

294

Table 1 Examples of Meaningful Units, Categories of Compatible Information Elements, and Modes of Compatibility

Throw, and coaches’ and athletes’ behaviors during the winter training session

Meaningful Units Compatible information

elements categories

Modes of compatibilityAthlete 1 Coach

Start of the winter training session. The athlete is prepar- ing to throw a 10 kg hammer with a shorter wire. The coach is behind the protective cage.

“At the start, I was tired because of the journey I made the day before. I spent 10 hours driving a car. I was not in great shape, but it was OK.”

“The athlete is tired because of the travel- ing he did the day before. He has already trained in similar conditions. I don’t think that his fatigue is spoiling the fundamental ele- ments.”

Organization and safety

Compatibility

“I had to throw the 10 kg [22 pounds] hammer with a shorter wire with my feet parallel and an 8.25 kg [18.18 pounds] hammer initially with my feet out of line”.

Today he is throwing two new hammers on two spins: a 10 kg [22 pounds] hammer with a shorter wire on two turns and an 8.25 kg [18.18 pounds] hammer.

Organization and safety

Compatibility

“I had to search for the grip on the right in the second preliminary wind, with the upper body straight during the turns.”

“He’s working on a more upright position of the upper body during the hammer return towards the down point, and on an antici- pated return of the left support to recover the sensation of the hammer moving towards the low point. He’s trying to begin with a leg flexion and a more tilting upper body, and to continue with a more vertical position of the upper body during the hammer return on the left support, in order to recover the sensation of the hammer moving towards the low point.”

Throw technical elements

Compatibility

Put 1. The athlete throws a 10 kg hammer, with two turns.

“In this first throw I aim to stay balanced on the left support, with a grip on the right in the second wind, in order to feel the hammer passing on the left side in turns 1&2.”

Throw technical elements

Mutual com- patibility

The athlete watches the field. The coach watches the thrower.

“It’s the first throw [1]. I’m not completely in the rhythm. It’s a little weak at the beginning of the session, then the throws become better and better [2].”

“In the first throws [1], I don’t say much. The throws are getting better and better since the beginning of the training session [2].”

Organization and safety [1] Athlete’s experi- ence [2]

Compatibility

“I felt the hammer dropped on the right in the first turn and stayed there a bit.”

“His start is not bad; he’s good on the rota- tion, his right support is a little weak. It’s only a first throw.”

Throw technical elements

Compatibility

The coach talks to the thrower who listens to him. Then the thrower goes to the field to recover his hammer.

“He asks me to stay more balanced on the left sup- port. I say myself I’ve to stay more balanced on the foot edge and let the hammer pass.”

“There is no instruction after the first throw. I ask him to start with the right foot and to stay balanced for longer on the left support.”

Throw technical elements

Mutual com- patibility

The athlete is recov- ering his hammer

“I try to stay concentrated on the competition.”

No compat- ibility

Note. Bold characters show compatible information elements between the coach and athlete. Numbers in brackets refer to different compatible information element categories within a meaningful unit.

Coaches’ and Athletes’ Situation Understanding 295

communicated more than the athlete did. Communication was most frequently initiated by the coach. The coach gave the athlete his interpretation of the completed throw and seldom asked the athlete for his own interpretation; he rather asked him/her if they had felt what he said, to ensure the athlete understood what he was highlighting. Whereas compatibility modes varied across practice con- text, and coach and athlete, information elements were for the most part compatible and mutually compatible.

Discussion The method used offered the opportunity to study the con- sistency of coaches’ and athletes’ situation understand- ing. It provided insights about the content of coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding in relation to the development of the situation and practice context. Results showed that “throw technical elements” was the most frequently compatible category on all occasions, raising questions about the importance of the learning dimension in coaching, in addition to the relationship, organization, and performance dimensions. Future research might assess coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding according to the goals they are pursuing (i.e., perform- ing or observing), sports, practice contexts, and levels.

The method used also offered the opportunity to highlight different modes of compatibility of coaches’ and athletes’ situation understanding. Coaches’ and ath- letes’ situation understanding was not always compatible, raising questions about the need to ensure that the coach and athlete get a compatible view of the situation (e.g., Stanton et al., 2010). Compatible situation understand- ing might allow them to focus on common elements of performance and getting on the same page.

Findings showed that communication allowed coach and athlete to know how the partner understood the situa- tion. Communication was mainly initiated by the coach, raising questions about the direction of communication between the coach and athlete. Information distribution seemed to be shaped by the social framework of the coach-athlete interaction. As suggested by Lorimer and Jowett (2009a), the power of coaches linked to their role to help the athlete to perform well in competition might allow them to induce behaviors in the athlete without needing to accede to the athlete’s understanding.

Moreover, the present results also suggest that the athletes did not “need” to give the coach their own inter- pretation about the put completed. As found by Lorimer and Jowett (2010), the coach did not usually know what his athletes felt or thought. Accurate feedback from the athlete might likely to improve compatible understand- ing. Future research might explore the direction of communication and the effects of social power on the pattern of communication, according to sport, practice context, and level.

In conclusion, whereas the sample size of the cur- rent study was low, the method provided insights about specific findings researchers might gain from larger samples. This method might be used to analyze the situ-

ation understanding of coaches and athletes in different sports, practice levels and contexts, and different coach- athlete relationship lengths.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the French Institute of Sports (INSEP), French Ministry of Sports, and French Federation of Track and Field (FFA). The author is grateful to the athletes and their coach for their participation in this study and to Nadine Debois for her participation in the data processing.

References Chelladuraï, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum

& R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 113–135). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory. Procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Endsley, M.R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.

Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds? Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.

Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R.R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 21, 70–73. doi:10.1109/MIS.2006.75

Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2009a). Empathic accuracy meta- perspective, and satisfaction in the coach-athlete relation- ship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 201–212. doi:10.1080/10413200902777289

Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2009b). Empathic accuracy in coach-athlete dyads who participate in team and individual sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 152–158. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.06.004

Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2010). Feedback of information in the empathic accuracy of sport coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.psychs- port.2009.03.006

Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2011). Empathic accuracy, shared focus, and the assumptions of similarity made by coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 42, 40–54.

Macquet, A.-C. (2009). Recognition within the decision- making process: A case study of expert volleyball play- ers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 64–79. doi:10.1080/10413200802575759

Macquet, A.-C. (2010). Time management in the context of elite sport training. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 194–210.

Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., & Jenkins, D.P. (2009). Distributed situation awareness. Surrey: Ashgate.

Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Gibbon, A.C., Jenkins, D.P., & Walker, G.H. (2010). Human factors methods and sports science. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press.

Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., & Jenkins, D.P. (2010). Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 29–40. doi:10.1080/14639220903009938

Copyright of Sport Psychologist is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.