Coach as youth development specialist: developing a TPSR-based coach training program and examining participants’ experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Effective youth sport coaching encompasses the promotion of personal, social, and athletic skills in a deliberate and consistent manner. Coach training protocols that highlight coaches’ best-practices that promote development emphasize the role of the coach as either a developer of athletes’ personal and social potential or as a developer of athletic talent (focusing on techniques and tactics of sport). However, there is a scarcity of literature describing how to train practitioners for this combined role.Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and examine coaches’ experiences in coach training that teaches personal and social development, as well as fundamental movement skills called Coach as a Youth Development Specialist (CAYDS). This was conducted in two phases. First, a pilot study aimed to develop, deliver, and evaluate a coach training curriculum that addressed the needs of youth coaches to improve and finalize the CAYDS curriculum. Second, the final iteration of CAYDS was implemented to examine coaches’ lived experiences while participating in the training.Methods The pilot phase involved five-module training delivered to five graduate students. Thematic analysis was used to analyze a focus group interview and understand what participants learned and how the training helped. The results led to a final version of the CAYDS training. In its final version, the training had seven modules that were delivered to a new cohort of six participants. Hermeneutic phenomenology guided the understanding of the what and how of participating coaches’ lived experiences in the CAYDS training. Data were collected using journal reflections, a focus group interview, and individual interviews; and thematically analyzed.Findings The training successfully helped coaches perform coaching competencies, skills, and behaviors identified in the CAYDS framework (cf. Hellison, D. 2011. Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; CCE, ASOIF & LMU. 2013. International Sport Coaching Framework v1.2. Champaign: Human Kinetics; SHAPE America. Citation2019. National Standards for Sport Coaches. 3rd ed. https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/coaching/default.aspx) that foster personal, social, and athletic development for youth. Findings from this study provide evidence in support of andragogical approaches that helped coaches learn interpersonal, intrapersonal, and professional knowledge (Côté, J., and W. Gilbert. 2009. “An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and Expertise.” International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 4 (3): 307–323.). Participants built positive relationships with community stakeholders and activities involving outreach to parents/guardians, attending school events, and coach educators’ use of role-play were perceived to be particularly impactful. This study also found the process of learning to teach youth skills related to personal and social development inspired coaches to be more self-aware and motivated to grow personally and act in ways that are aligned with TPSR values. Finally, coaches perceived to have acquired professional knowledge that contributed to their ability to instruct fundamental movement skills for athletic development.Conclusions The CAYDS framework offers a viable mechanism to support the dual-role youth sport coaches serve as development specialists, while also parting with coach-centered professional models of coaching. Further, there is promise for this type of development-supportive coaching approach to be applied when working with athletes in their late adolescent years situated in high performance contexts.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 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 ».