The acquisition of coaching knowledge of a unique sample of expert team sport coaches /
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to identify how coaches who have surpassed their athletic achievements acquired their coaching knowledge. Six University coaches from basketball, volleyball, and hockey, with a combined total of fourteen coach of the year awards were selected to participate. Each coach was coaching at a higher level (e.g., University level) than he had competed as an athlete, had a winning percentage greater than .500 at the University level, and had been the head coach at their current program for a minimum of five years. Semi structured, open-ended interviews were conducted using an interview guide created exclusively for this study and based on the tenets of Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, and Russell's (1995) Coaching Model and Chelladurai's (1978) Multidimensional Model of Leadership. Data analysis followed the guidelines forwarded by Cote, Salmela, Baria, and Russell (1993). Results of this analysis revealed three higher order categories which indicated the path coaches had taken to reach their current positions including the many ways knowledge was acquired. These were (a) career path which discussed the journey of knowledge acquisition of these coaches, from their earliest sport participation to their current coaching position, (b) personal factors, which included how the coaches' journey of knowledge acquisition had been influenced by who the coaches were, and (c) coaching knowledge, which involved the participants' current level of coaching knowledge. Despite the idiosyncratic nature of each coach's career progression many common themes emerged, including the different ways knowledge was acquired, the coaches' personal characteristics, and the level of coaching knowledge accumulated. Many of the findings that emerged were similar to those highlighted in previous studies pertaining to expert coach development (e.g., Cregan, Bloom, & Reid, in press; Salmela, 1994; Schinke, Bloom, & Salmela, 1995) which suggests that while athletic experiences may be helpful in expert coach development, they are not essential. The results provided evidence that sources of knowledge acquisition are accessible to aspiring coaches to acquire the necessary coaching knowledge, regardless of their athletic background. The current findings could potentially enhance the quality and standard of formal coach education and training programs in Canada by illustrating how a unique sample of coaches acquired the knowledge to achieve success at the university level.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».