The standard view of this forum does not always work well with assistive technology. We also provide a simpler view, which still contains all features. Switch to simple view.
Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 1

• 5 October 2015, 7:23 PM • Edited by the author on 5 October 2015, 7:31 PM

Thought Question 1

Do you agree with John Lyle's more process driven definition of the coaching process or do you relate more to Lynne Kidman and Stephanie Hanrahan's social aspect? Cushion suggests 'It could be argued that this approach has the potential to provide a more sophisticated overview of what is involved within coaching practice. With this approach, we also need to be clear about our assumptions concerning the individual and the coaching world and the relationship between the two. Jones, Armour and Potrac maintain that the 'often underplayed, components of the coaching process, including social and cultural contexts, personal experiences, personal philosophies, professional practice, and the ways in which they are interconnected' are of more imprtance to the coach.

CD

Christopher Duncan Post 2 in reply to 1

• 9 October 2015, 9:37 AM

I tend to have a mixed opinion and think both arguments have merit. Whilst Lyle argues that there is no beginning and no end and that sub-processes all relate to an overall goal, I feel that there must be a beginning of the process when you relate to the athletes and build a relationship which then allows you to target an end goal, as argued by Kidram and Hanrahan.

Cushion argues that "coaching practice includes the explicit and implicit" and this includes all facets such as language, roles and tools combined with relationships and understanding. I agree with his argument that coaching is mult-faceted and a successful coach must embody a number of attributes.

I have certainly always tried to build a relationship with all of my athletes and set an end goal. If there are no targets to aim for, what keeps athletes driven and motivated and accountable to themselves and team-mates? In addition, these targets and beginning and end goals allow me to break down my planning into small sub-processes, which agrees with Lyle's principle. I find that unless there is understand and a relationship between coach and player, then communication is flawed. I work a lot with female athletes at present and i've found it hugely important to strike a relationship which has balanced humour with respect which has made me more approachable. There seem to be more issues arising within team-sports in women than I was used to working with males, so building this relationship has been critical to blending a team together.

I may have gone well off the path here...apologies!

Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 3 in reply to 2

• 12 October 2015, 11:04 AM

I don't think that you have gone off the path at all Chris. It looks to me as if you have considered this question in your own context. I think that Jones, Armour and Potrac are particularly focused on the 'social aspects' of sport and coaching. I think that viewing coaching as a process rather than a social process is missing a key element.

Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 4 in reply to 3

• 12 October 2015, 8:07 PM

Checking Post

Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 5 in reply to 4

• 12 October 2015, 8:09 PM

Post for Mark

I think that within the process there has to be a mix of the coaching process as well as the social process.

In the school where I teach, teaching students are either partaking in a participant and performer mode (International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) and the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), 2012, p. 15). Therefore as a faculty we are obliged to mix the processes as each student has different objectives, it also depends on the parent’s possibilities as well as the politics of the city and the company where we are place within.

Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 6 in reply to 5

• 19 October 2015, 9:19 PM

Mark continued..

At the end of every year each student participates in a performance as well as exams. The performance enables us to motivate the student and the exams are there to evaluate each child and see if they are ready to progress to the next level. At the beginning of the year lesson plans are worked carefully so that each student in the class can arrive to there best ability to pass the exam. I could say I use Fairs model (Cushion et al., 2006, p. 86) that has a systematic approach; that is dynamic, organised, systematic and deliberate. However, it depends on where the student wants to go, either as a participant or as a performer and if physically and mentally they will cope with demands that they will encounter during their training and maybe later their career.

Julia Buckroyd  (2000, p. 78) writes that the teacher’s responsibility is to the whole class, obviously the abilities of individuals will differ but the teacher’s task is to create a positive learning environment for all students, irrespective of talent. This is the identical what Lynne Kidman and Stephanie Hanrahan (Krasnow et al., 1999) write that it is a coach’s responsibility to communicate a positive philosophy to athletes that will help them achieve their goals.

DS

Daniel Scott Post 7 in reply to 1

• 22 October 2015, 11:23 AM

Having gone through the process of making my own model, I surprised myself a bit with where my views are. I don't like touchy feely stuff, and so when I first saw social aspects that's what I thought it would be and I immediately switched off to it, and when I heard that Lyle's was more about the process I thought that would be the one I liked, thinking that would suit my approach to coaching. Within my coaching what I've always valued most is a work ethic. Looking into both sides showed me that the social aspects will have a massive impact on instilling a work ethic within your athletes.

In S&C it's often spoken about how someone on a perfect programme but is lazy will be bettered by the guy on a poor programme but that gives it everything he has. Obviously there are limits to this but I think the same is true of coaching the coaching process. Someone who is very good at the process side of things but has no social element to his coaching will likely be outdone by the coach with a poorer process but better social skills as he is likely to get more out his athletes.

Christine Nash

Christine Nash Post 8 in reply to 7

• 22 October 2015, 11:53 AM

Some great points of view and can all of you see subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences between the different activities, coaching environment and aim/philosophy of the particular programme. We will be looking more a how to create high performing environments later but I agree with Dan in a way - much of coaching is dependent upon the coach-athlete relationship.