[b]BECOMING A SUCCESSFUL HIGH PERFORMANCE TRACK AND FIELD COACH
Martin Lynch a Cliff Mallett[/b]
The University of Queensland
The first author is an experienced sprints and relays coach from Sydney and in this paper he presents some research undertaken in completion of his Master of Applied Science (Sports Coaching) degree at the University of Queensland. The main purpose of this study was to identify key aspects of the developmental pathways of successful high performance coaches in the sport of track and field in Australia. Structured interviews were conducted with five successful high performance track and field coaches. Standardised questions were used to solicit quantitative information. The main areas examined were: coaches’ demographic and formal education training, coaches’ athletic experiences, and coaching activities. The coaches in this study reported extensive experiences both as a track and field athlete and as a coach of elite athletes in their development as a high performance coach but limited experiences in coaching developmental athletes and involvement in formal coach training.
INTRODUCTION
How does a coach develop their knowledge and skills in becoming a successful track and field coach? What are significant influences on that development? The origins of coaching knowledge are derived from a variety of sources, each playing a role of varying significance in the development of that knowledge and subsequent coaching practice. Experiential learning has been identified as a primary source of coaching knowledge in the development of expertise (Jones, Armour, £t Potrac, 2003; Lyie, 2002), however other sources such as previous athletic experiences, mentors, and to a lesser degree coach accreditation assist in coach development (Jones et al., 2003). Coaches develop their professional practice through extensive coaching experience (Bell, 1997; Gould, 1990; Jones et al., 2003; Sage, 1989). Bell (1997) describes how development of expertise is marked by the experiences encountered, which is developed through long years of effort and work practice. LyIe (1986) argues that the individuality of the coach and development of effective decision-making skills (which are based on experience) are key parts of the coaching process. The literature refers to trial and error as being important in the progression of a coach’s development. For example. Sage (1989) reported how many head coaches in his study learned through trial and error, whilst Irwin et al. (2004) found that trial and error or experimentation was the second most important source of gaining coaching knowledge, with 64% of coaches in their study rating this source as important. Furthermore, Gould (1990) refers to the constant adaptation of coaches’ own coaching experience as being important. The literature provides evidence that experiences gained over long periods of coaching were an invaluable source of coaching knowledge. Coaches draw on their own experiences, interactions with other coaches, and experiences with numerous athletes to benefit their coaching development However, experience alone is insufficient in developing expertise. The importance of self-reflection in making meaning from one’s experiences, subsequently developing one’s coaching knowledge and refining coaching practices was reported by Salmela and Moraes (1996) and Mallett (2004). Extensive coaching experience in developing expert knowledge is consistent with Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Rdmer’s (1993) notion of deliberate practice - focused effort on improving performance through structured practice. Ericsson et al. (1993) concluded from their research that to achieve an expert level of performance, approximately 10 years (or 10,000 hours) of deliberate practice was required. Experience as an athlete has also been reported as an important source of coaching knowledge and practice. Sage (1989) described how athletes had a first hand opportunity to observe and acquire some informed images and impressions about coaching as an occupation from early athletic experiences. Irwin, Hanton, and Kerwin (2004) found 45% of the elite coaches in their study identified athletic participation was an important source of coaching knowledge. Coaches in the Jones et al. (2003) study also reported that their own playing experiences helped shape their coaching knowledge and practice. Studies by Bloom, Durand-Bush, Schinke, and Salmela (1998) and Cushion, Armour, and Jones (2003) suggested that coaches develop some of their initial conceptions of what and how to coach from when they were athletes. These pre-mediate experiences as an athlete can assist knowledge construction that can be drawn on in later years as a coach. Mentoring is described in the literature as an essential element in coaching development. LyIe (1999) describes how mentoring becomes important in the development of coaches where learning from more experienced coaches and expert coaches takes place. Bloom et al. (1998) found that there was a need for developing coaches to have the opportunity to work with skilled coaches. In a study by Irwin, Hanton and Kerwin (2004), 91% of coaches in the study identified mentoring as very important in the development of elite coaching knowledge. Salmela and Moraes (1996) reported that elite coaches felt the two most important knowledge sources that helped coaches develop their coaching styles were the constant adaptation of their own coaching experience and the observation of other successful coaches. Interaction with peers has been shown to be one of the best sources of learning for expert coaches. The importance of mentoring was shown in the case study of a professional soccer coach (Jones, Armour and Potrac, 2003). The soccer coach in the Jones et al. study reported that one should learn from others, and one’s own experiences, which was central to the construction of the coach’s professional knowledge and practice. This case study of the coach’s experience was consistent with the comments made by Bloom et al. (1998) who said that many expert coaches in their study were strongly influenced by some of their coaches, teaching them not only technical, tactical and physical skills, but also sharing their philosophies and values about coaching and dealing with people. This was further supported by the work of Gould, Gianinni, Krane, and Hodge (1990) who reported that a coach’s own experience with other successful coaches was an important knowledge source that helps develop coaching style. Although mentoring as a key source of coach development has received support in the literature. Cushion et al. (2003) concluded that mentoring in its current form is largely unstructured and emphasised the importance of coach education embracing mentoring within its framework. Although we know that many coaches use mentors to develop their coaching knowledge and practice, we know very little about the mentoring process and further research that examines the mentormentee relationship is warranted if we are to understand more fully what and how coaches learn from their mentors (Perna, Zaichlowsky, ft Bockneck, 1996). Formalised coach education (including accreditation) is another source that assists coaches in constructing coaching knowledge and practice. Woodman (1993) and Lyie (1986) argue that coach education and development is the key to quality coaching and the professionalisation of coaching. LyIe proposed that coaching has increasingly become more accepted as an occupation or profession commensurate with advancements in coach education programs. However, coach certification/accreditation, which is perceived as a means of standardising coach education, has not always received favourable reports in terms of its contribution to developing coaching knowledge and practice, prompting a few studies to examine ways of improving the efficacy of those formal educational programs. Dickson (2001) in reviewing the coach certification programs in Australia reported that although successful completion of courses were valued because they provided improved vocational opportunities and advancement, they did not provide authentic contextspecific information appropriate for learning to become a high performance coach. In the case study by Jones et al. (2003), the coach found official coach certification programs to be variable in quality and suitability. He felt the experience he underwent in his own coaching certification course to be of limited practical value. Irwin et al. (2004) reported that only one third of participants considered coaching courses to be important, and mainly of use in providing an initial source of enthusiasm and interest. They also reported coaching manuals ranked the lowest in sources of coaching knowledge, and appear to be of most benefit in the early stages of coach development. Gould et al. (1990) also reported that coaching textbooks and seminars were the least important sources of coaching information. It seems that although formal education provides valuable information for coaching development, practical experiences are central to developing coaching expertise, which is consistent with the views of Cushion et al. (2003) who concluded that coach education programs should include supervised field experiences. However, Cushion et al., (2003) reported coaching certification programs in Britain to contain more information than ever, albeit mostly from the biophysical sciences. In an examination of the literature, it appears there are a number of factors that play a significant role in the progression towards coaching expertise, however their influence may vary according to person and context. In summary, experiential learning, previous sporting participation, mentors, and coach education and accreditation seem to influence the development of coaching knowledge and practice. The aim of this research was to investigate the developmental pathways of some of Australia’s successful high performance coaches and identify similarities and differences between that sample group and the research to date. This study is part of a larger international research project involving several sports in four countries, which aims to better understand the development of coaching expertise, with the higher aim of informing how sporting organisations can enhance the design and delivery of high performance coach development
METHOD
Participants
Five coaches aged 48 to 71 years (Mean = 56.6) were recruited for the study. They were experienced practitioners having coached (all sports) between 25 years and 51 years (Mean = 33.6). All five coaches (four men and one woman) were Australian residents (although three were born overseas). The five coaches received recognition (coaching awards) for their successful coaching by their peers and/or sporting organisation and were registered members of the Australian Track and Field Coaches’ Association. They were tertiary educated in sport science, physical education or a related field and had achieved Level Three coaching accreditation (the highest level in Australia at the time of data collection), although one of the coaches also possessed a Level Four accreditation (highest level), which was obtained overseas. In establishing the degree of success as a coach, the coaches were asked to identif/ the number of athletes they had coached at the international level, and how many of those athletes had competed in finals at either the Olympic Games or the World Championships. The coaches reported that on average they coached 19.6 athletes at the international level (Range = 8-30) and on average 8.8 finalists at one or both of the two major international championships for track and field (Range = 5-13).
Procedure
The coaches were identified and subsequently asked to participate in the project. All five coaches voluntarily agreed to participate in the interviews and were contacted initially by phone or in person. The primary researcher knew all five coaches, who expressed their interest in the research project and subsequently voluntarily participated. They were advised that they could withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty. Four of the five coaches were involved in coaching on a full time basis, and the fifth (the female coach) on a part-time basis. After initial contact the coaches were each sent a copy of the interview questionnaire to familiarise themselves with the questions at their leisure and give them time to consider their responses. Each coach was followed up with an interview two to three weeks later. The interviews for three of the coaches (Coach C, D, £t E) were held in person and lasted two hours each. The interviews for the remaining coaches (Coach A and B) who resided in another city were conducted by phone after first returning the completed questionnaire. The participants completed an information sheet that included demographic information (e.g., name, gender, age, occupation, educational standard, coaching accreditation level, years coaching, coaching awards and coaching association) and more comprehensive information on activities undertaken as a sports participant and coach. After data collection the information was reviewed and further checked with the participants to ensure the accuracy of the data. The information provided by the interviews was transferred to an excel spreadsheet using a Coaching Questionnaire Coding manual (Gilbert et al., 2006). Basic descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, range) were calculated where appropriate.
Measure
Gilbert, Cote, and Mallett (2006) report how various studies have acknowledged the importance of what coaches do to promote the development of athletes in sport, however little research has been carried out on the educational and professional experiences that lead to coaches developing their expertise. As a result Gilbert et al. (2006) developed a structured interview guide for the purpose of quantifying coaching development by examining training activities that can be retrieved by memory and verified by others. This allows the researcher to retrospectively identify what coaches did in order to become a coach. The methodology examines three main areas: (a) Coaches’ demographic and formal educational training; (b) Athletic profiles - coaches’ athletic and leadership activities; and © Coaching profiles - coaching activities and roles. Questions eliciting information about coaching profiles included information about the number of hours that coaches engaged in undertaking the main tasks associated with coaching, including: (a) training; (b) competition; © administration; and (d) coach education. Standardised questions were used to solicit quantitative information.
RESULTS
As previously stated this study is part of a larger international research project on coaches of both individual and team sports. Hence only data and findings relevant to track and field are presented in this article. Data collected from interviews with the five coaches about athletic and coaching activities were analysed and are presented below. Athletic Profiles Data was recorded on sports they participated in as an athlete, which showed that all coaches competed in track and field in their youth and early adulthood. The length of involvement ranged from between 9 and 14 years (Mean = 11 years) with all involved at the developmental and/or elite level. Many of the coaches also participated in several other sports, including team sports. Four of the coaches (coach A, B, D and E) had some involvement in team sports as an athlete and three of those four had a leadership role in their team sports. Qf note was the high number of competitions in which the coaches competed during their youth and early adulthood (see Table 1). Moreover, they participated in many hours of training, although there was significant variation in the amount of training undertaken by the coaches as track and field athletes (see Table 1). Coaches reported that they perceived themselves as highly capable athletes, on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
Coaching Profiles
The coaches reported spending between 12 to 45 years (Mean = 28.2 years) coaching track and field and most of that time was devoted to coaching elite athletes. Coaches divide their time between coaching (competition season and preparation period), and administration duties. During their careers the coaches averaged 20,680.8 hours coaching athletes (Range = 9,772-32,280 hours) of which most time (98%) was spent coaching elite athletes. Qf that time, the participants reported that they spent 11,712 hours (Range = 3,840-18,768 hours) coaching elite athletes in preparation for competition (preparation period only). They also reported that they spent an additional 7,179.2 hours (Range = 2,880-10,240) undertaking administration duties associated with their coaching during the competition period and 7,078.4 hours (Range = 384-14,336 hours) during the preparation period. This included time required to design and evaluate training programs and competition schedules and work with ancillary support (e.g., physiotherapists). All coaches were tertiary educated in a related field and reported that they participated in additional formal training in becoming a better coach. This included participation in coaching accreditation courses, coaching development activities (workshops, clinics, classes). On average the group of coaches reported that they spent 900 hours in formal training (Range = 140-3,220 hours), although one participant (Participant C) spent four years under the mentorship of a senior coach, which included weekend conferences, meetings and preparation of training schedules. This data was included in the formal training hours. An analysis of the four remaining coaches (A, B, D. £t E) showed that the coaches on average spent approximately 320 hours in formal training. The coaches were asked to indicate names of mentors with whom they had regularly communicated during their development as a coach. A mentor was described as someone who was respected as a coach and who subsequently helped shape the participants’ development as a coach. Four of the five coaches listed mentors as significant in their development as a coach. Coaches A and B listed two. Coach C listed four, and Coach E listed seven mentors (Mean = 3.75).
DISCUSSION
Information provided by the five interviewed coaches, indicates that these coaches were successful high performance coaches. All participants coached for a lengthy period of time and coached several athletes who were successful on the international stage (Qlympics, World Championships). Additionally, they have received recognition for their coaching (awards) and attained the highest level of coaching accreditation available to them. Experience as an athlete leading to coaching development Previous research (e.g., Irwin et al., 2004) has shown that past experiences as a sport participant are an important source of coaching knowledge. Through participation in sport, coaches begin to develop their knowledge of the coaching process - they learn essential skills and the progression of skill development (Irwin et al., 2004). The coaches in this study participated in track and field for an extended period (around 11 years and over 4,000 training hours). The volume of time involved in training and competing in track and field is likely to have laid foundational knowledge and understanding of coaching and the coaching process. Gould (1990) found that a coach’s own experience was one of the most important knowledge sources that helped them develop their coaching style. This might have implications for coach accreditation and development in track and field, which will be discussed later.
The coaches in this study participated extensively in track and field, however were they successful elite track and field athletes? Do you need to be a successful elite athlete to be a successful coach? The coaches in this study rated themselves as reasonably competent athletes, with only one coach rating himself as an outstanding athlete. Although experience as an athlete might be useful in developing coaching expertise, it does not appear that an outstanding ability in track and field was a necessary prerequisite for success in coaching international track and field athletes.
Performance coaching (e.g., elite athletes) is different from participation coaching (beginning and developing athletes) and hence the required coaching skills and knowledge are different (LyIe, 2002). Are the skills and information presented in introductory coaching courses foundational to coaching elite athletes? It might be that former athletes with extended experience as an athlete who want to coach elite athletes might be better served by undertaking a different coach development and accreditation pathway to that currently offered. The current approach to coach accreditation in track and field (and many sports across the world) requires coaches to undertake an introductory course in coaching (e.g… Level 1), which focuses on coaching developing and beginning athletes, before progressing to higher levels of accreditation. However, this approach might not be the most appropriate pathway to success as a coach of elite athletes. Athletes who performed to a reasonably high level may have developed a good understanding of the technical development of the event in which they participated, as well as developing a good understanding of what is coaching and the coaching process, hence might be better served undertaking a different coach accreditation and development pathway that does not include entry via the traditional level one course. Ideally, a pathway is required that supports what It is that former athletes know and understand to subsequently complement that knowledge and understanding in accelerating their learning. Experience as a coach leading to coaching development The second major source of coaching knowledge emerged from the questions that focused on the coaching profiles of the participants. These questions allowed the collection of data about (a) training (b) competition, © administration, and (d) coach education. The extensive amount of time devoted to developing coaching knowledge was demonstrated in this study. Tho<jsands of hours training, participating, and coaching track and field (as well as other sports), reported by the coaches in this study, has reinforced the findings of some research that highlights the importance of experiential learning in developing coaching knowledge. Bell (1997) described how coaching expertise was developed through long years of effort and experience. Additionally, LyIe (1986) underscored the importance of coaching experience in developing decision-making skills as a coach. All coaches in this study coached many international athletes, but had comparatively limited experience coaching developmental athletes. Experience in coaching developmental (adolescent) athletes may not be a prerequisite for success as a coach of international athletes, which again challenges our thoughts on the most appropriate pathway/s in developing expertise in coaching elite athletes. The findings of this study show that coaching elite athletes involves more than direct or face-to-face coaching, that is, conducting training sessions. Cote and Salmela (1996) in their examination of elite gymnastics coaches found that those coaches were actively and extensively engaged in organisational tasks as part of their daily work. Although the coaches in this study reported comparatively lower levels of time devoted to administration and organisational tasks compared with direct coaching, this organisational role can be considered a key aspect of their work. In becoming a high performance coach the participants in this study spent considerably less time in formal training, compared with direct coaching and administration tasks. One coach (Participant C) was engaged in more formal training as a coach - in an overseas system - however there was no significant difference in the success of that coach in comparison with the other four coaches in the study Formal training as a coach can be considered important in developing coaching knowledge, however of greater importance is the application and development of that knowledge in the “field”, which provides opportunities for more authentic learning. The significance of the role/s of formal training in coaching knowledge for track and field coaches requires further examination. Mentors are considered to play a significant role in the development of coaching knowledge (Hanton and Kerwin, 2004; Salmela a Moraes, 1996). All participating coaches acknowledged the influence of mentor coaches on their development with four of the five coaches citing several mentors. Although the coaches reported that mentors assisted in their development as a coach, we do not know to what extent the mentors influenced these coaches’ construction of knowledge. For example, questions seeking information about (i) whether the coaches used different mentors at varying stages of their careers; (ii) how and what they learned from their mentors; and (iii) opportunities and barriers to learning from mentors; would allow a better understanding of the mentormentee relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary aim of this study was to identify key aspects of the developmental pathways of successful high performance coaches in the sport of track and field. The background of the coaches interviewed was examined with emphasis on their activities as an athlete firstly, then as a coach. The major findings of this research were that these successful track and field coaches developed their coaching from extensive engagement in (i) sporting activities in their youth and early adulthood, and (ii) coaching activities - direct coaching, mentors, and to a lesser extent (iii) coach training. These coaches engaged in extensive deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993) and the findings of this study supports previous research that the primacy of coaching experience underpins the development of coaching knowledge and subsequent practice (Cushion et al., 2003). Extensive engagement in track and field as a participant also was found to be characteristic of this group of track and field coaches. How we might build upon the knowledge and understanding developed from extensive participation in athletic experiences is one of the many challenges for coach educators. Mentors were found to contribute to the development of high performance coaches but little is known about the mentor-mentee relationship. Although the findings provided some useful quantitative data about the coaching pathways of these five successful track and field coaches in Australia some limitations of the research emerged. For example, the numbers of hours involved in an activity alone may not be an accurate indication of the value or influence of that time in developing coaching l<nowledge. For example, one coach may learn far more than another coach when involved in a particular activity taking the same amount of time. Some coaches experience ten years of accumulated experience through self-reflection and analysis, whilst other coaches may experience the same first year ten times, without any development. More detailed questioning on time spent in a certain activity and its perceived value towards coaching development could be sought. The interviews with the coaches provided some interesting data to assist in the examination of the pathways of track and field coaches in Australia. The small sample, with only five coaches interviewed made it difficult to read any significance into some of the data and their mean values. However, the general trends in many areas, especially the large number of hours involved in different areas of coaching is obvious. As the data from this research is combined with data supplied by other coaches in track and field and other sports more defined trends and patterns may become more obvious and meaningful.