Adult swimmers' reports of personal and social developmental benefits associated with having a Masters swim coach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There has been recent interest in the relationship between Masters sport participation and older adults’ positive development (Baker, Fraser-Thomas, Dionigi, & Horton, 2010). Coaches influence many technical and performance aspects in Masters sport (Rathwell, Callary, Ambrogio, & Young, 2014), and may also impact different outcomes relating to personal and social development. This presentation explores Masters swimmers’ perceptions of personal and social developmental benefits associated with having a swim coach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten competitive swimmers aged 45-65 years (5 male, 5 female, M weekly hrs of swimming = 4, range 2.5-7). Masters swimmers were interviewed about experiences within coached competitive swim programs and were prompted to discuss their coaches’ influence on their personal development inside and outside of swimming. Interviews were explored using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, 2010). Results show swimmers were divided in their opinions about their coaches’ influence on developmental outcomes. Some swimmers felt their coaches helped develop their personal confidence, feelings of competence in swimming, and commitment to learning. Further, they described how coaches facilitated opportunities for community involvement, leadership, and social exchanges. Conversely, other swimmers noted their coaches’ roles had limits and felt coaches were only responsible for athletic development. Finally, many swimmers initially disclaimed the coaches’ role, yet subsequently articulated developmental outcomes attributed to their coach. Findings highlight unique developmental outcomes and experiences for adult athletes (Baker et al., 2010). Further, these results suggest that when compared to working with younger cohorts, coaches have different roles in developing personal and social outcomes when coaching Masters athletes. Funding for this research was provided by Cape Breton University’s Office of Research and SSHRC.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».