THE COACH AS EDUCATOR: CONTENT AND PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

• Authors: Bennett Blake , Culpan Ian
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

Despite an increase of academic activity directed at sport coaching it continues to lack conceptual frameworks that address the complex realities of the coaching environment. Present practice largely rejects the proliferation of research regarding inadequacies of traditional methods for enhancing athlete learning. Dominant coaching practices forego recognition of the complex responsibilities that a coach has within the cognitive, social, cultural and moral, dynamics of the coaching environment. This article argues that first and foremost a coach is an educator. Given this role, sport coaching needs to develop and align itself with more contemporary developments in education. In this alignment, conceptual frameworks need to be developed. In this development, two questions immediately need to be addressed. First, if the coach is an educator what content can they draw from to educate the athlete in a holistic sense? Second, ‘what pedagogy/pedagogies will enhance this content delivery in order to maximise holistic athlete development?’ Drawing on the supportive arguments of scholars it is suggested that Olympism provides a useful content related coaching framework. In addressing the second question it is suggested that a pedagogical constructivist framework utilizing psychological, social and critical components of constructivism provides the ‘best of constructivist worlds’ The conceptualisation of the two frameworks; An Olympism based content framework and a synthesised constructivist pedagogical framework gives due focus to an overall coaching framework that is educative, engaging and moving coaching in a more professional direction. It consolidates the coach as educator in an environment which is progressive, educationally sustainable and with a strong focus on meaning-making, reflection and reciprocity.

Keywords

EN

coach education; conceptual frameworks; Olympism; constructivist pedagogies

• Publisher: Politechnika Opolska. Wydział Wychowania Fizycznego i Fizjoterapii
• Journal: Journal of Physical Education & Health - Social Perspective
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 5
• Pages: 5-17

Dates

published

2014

Contributors

author

Bennett Blake

• School of Sport and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

author

Culpan Ian

• New Zealand Centre for Olympic Studies, School of Sport and Physical Education, University of Canterbury; New Zealand

References

• 1. Arnold, P. (1997). Sport, ethics and education. London; Herndon, VA: Cassell.
• 2. Bale, J., & Christensen, M. (2004). Post-Olympism? Questioning sport in the twenty-first century. New York: Berg Publishers.
• 3. Cassidy, T., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• 4. Cobb, P. (1996). Where's the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive perspectives. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 103-119). New York, NY: Teachers' College, Columbia University.
• 5. Council of Europe, (2001). The revised European sports charter. Brussels: Council of Europe.
• 6. Culpan, I., & McBain, S. (2012). Constructivist pedagogies for Olympism education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 3(2): 95-108.
• 7. Culpan, I., & Moon, C. (2009). Olympism. Unpublished work. New Zealand Centre for Olympic Studies, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
• 8. Culpan, I., & Wigmore, S. (2010). The delivery of Olympism education within a physical education context drawing on critical pedagogy. International Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 8, 66-76.
• 9. Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
• 10. Damkjaer, S. (2004). Post-Olympism and the aesthedcizadon of sport. In J. Bale & M. Christensen (Eds.), Post-Olympism: Questioning sport in the twenty-first century (pp. 211-230). New York: Berg Publishers.
• 11. Dardner, A., Torres, R., & Baltodano, M. (2002). The critical pedagogy reader. New York: Routledge Falmer.
• 12. Ernest, P. (1999). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• 13. European Commission, (1999). The European model for sport. Brussels: European Commission.
• 14. Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory and perspectives and practice. New York, NY: Teachers' College, Columbia University.
• 15. Galvan, H., Fyall, G., & Culpan, I. (2012). High-performance cricket coaches' perceptions of an educationally informed coach education programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 3(2): 123-140.
• 16. Horne, J., & Jary, D. (1996). The figurational sociology of sport and leisure of Elias and Dunning: An exposition and a critique. In J. Horne, D. Jary & A. Tomlinson (Eds.). Sport leisure and social relations (pp.86-112). Keele: The Sociological Review.
• 17. International Olympic Committee (IOC). (2010). Olympic charter. Lausanne: IOC. Retrieved from http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf
• 18. Jones, R. L. (2006). How can educational concepts inform sports coaching? In R. L. Jones (Ed.). The sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge.
• 19. Kidd, B. (1996). Taking the rhetoric seriously: Proposals for Olympic education. Quest, 48, 82.
• 20. Leach, J., & Moon, B. (Eds.), (1999). Learners and pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman Publishers.
• 21. Lee, M. (1988). Values and responsibilities in children’s sport. Physical Education Review, 11, 19-27.
• 22. Light, R. (2008). Complex learning theory-Its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 21-37.
• 23. Light, R., & Dixon, M. (2007) Contemporary developments in sport pedagogy and the implications for sport management education. Sport Management Review 10(2), 159-175.
• 24. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55(2), 161-176.
• 25. Lombardo, B. J. (1999). Coaching in the 21st century: Issues, concerns and solutions. Sociology of Sport Online (SOSOL), 2(1). Retrieved from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2i1/v2i1a4.htm
• 26. MacDonald, D., & Tinning, R. (1995). Physical education and teacher education and the trend to proletarianization: A case study, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15: 98-118.
• 27. Martinkova, I. (2012). Teaching values in movement activities: Inherent and added values. ACTA Universitatis Carolinae Kinathropologica, 48(2). 111-119.
• 28. Ministry of Education, (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Leaning Media.
• 29. Müller, N. (2000). Olympism: Selected writings. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
• 30. Nakamura, R. 1996). The power of positive coaching. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
• 31. Naul, R. (2008). Olympic education. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
• 32. Parry, J. (2012). The power of sport in peace-making and peace-keeping. Sport in Society 15(6). 775-787.
• 33. Parry, J. (2007). The religio-athletae, Olympism and peace. In J. Parry, S. Robinson, N. Watson, & M. Nesti (Eds.). Sport and spirituality: An introduction (pp. 201-214). London: Routledge.
• 34. Pritchard, A. (2009). Learning theories and leaning styles in the classroom. Retrieved from http://72.3.142.35/dxreader/jsp/StartReading.jsp?ñlenumber=1306449065008643&url=http://72.3.142.35/dxreader/jsp/BookLoader.jsp
• 35. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
• 36. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105{9), 1623-1640.
• 37. Simonovic, D. (2004). Philosophy of Olympism. Retrieved from http://cirqueminime.blogcollecdve.coni/blog/_archives/2004/8/28/l 3148O.hdnl
• 38. Stephenson, B., & Jowett, S. (2009). Factors that influence the development of English youth soccer coaches. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(1), 3-16.
• 39. Stones, E. (2000). Iconoclastes: Poor pedagogy. Journal of Teaching for Education, 2691), 93-95.
• 40. Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and human movement: Theory, practice, research. London: Routledge.
• 41. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (UNESCO), (2013). The Berlin declaration. MINEPS V. 5th International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport. Berlin 28-30 May: UNESCO.
• 42. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (UNESCO), (1978). International charter for physical education and sport. Paris: UNESCO.
• 43. Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know. In P. Mortimore (Ed.). Understanding pedagogy, (pp.1-19). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
• 44. Wamsley, K. (2004). Laying Olympism to rest. In J. Bale & M. Christensen (Eds.). Post- Olympism: Questioning sport in the twenty-first century (pp. 231-240). New York: Berg Publishers.