Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Researchers have explored the nature of coaching from many different perspectives, including process (Cassidy, Jones, Potrac, 2004; Lyle, 1999); leadership (Chelladurai, 1978, 1993; Cote, North, Duffy, 2007; Vallee Bloom, 2005); and qualities and abilities of coaches (Armstrong, 2001; Tomlinson Stachan, 1996). The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate coaches' perceptions of emotional and social intelligence and its influence on the coaching process. In this study, a mixed model was employed, in which a qualitative paradigm was dominant and a quantitative paradigm was also utilized (Creswell, 1994). In the first of three data collection phases, I surveyed 60 coaches of elite adult athletes using the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997) for the purpose of measuring their perceptions of their emotional and social intelligence. The group of 60 coaches was divided into four groups, which were determined by gender and by whether the coach coached a team or an individual sport. In the second phase; I interviewed nine of the coaches who had participated in phase one of the study to understand more thoroughly their perceptions of their emotional and social intelligence and to collect their experiences of its influence on the coaching process. In phase three, three athletes, identified by each of the nine interviewed coaches, completed the Emotional Quotient-360°. The purpose of phase three was to compare the athletes' perceptions of their coaches' emotional and social intelligence against the coaches' self-perceptions obtained in phase one. The findings of this study suggested that the coaches were not familiar with the concept of emotional and social intelligence and their leadership style was to maintain unilateral control or power over the athletes (Tomlinson Strachan, 1996). Furthermore, the various coaching groups perceived and reported different levels of satisfaction and types of relating styles. EQ-i scores, levels of happiness and interpersonal dynamics reflect these differences. Interestingly, coaches' self-perceptions differed significantly from the athletes' perceptions of their coaches in three areas- independence, flexibility, and stress tolerance. The implications of these findings for coach/athlete relationships and for furthering coaching education and development are discussed.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».