Intercollegiate coaches' experiences and strategies for coaching first-year athletes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
University student-athletes have reported difficulties balancing the rigors of academics, athletics, and their personal lives (Heller, Bloom, Neil, & Salmela, 2005). These challenges may be exacerbated for first-year athletes who are transitioning from high school and often living away from home for the first time. Given that coaches significantly influence their athletes’ experiences (Bloom, Falcão, & Caron, 2014), their coaching styles and support may ease this transition process. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to investigate university coaches’ perceptions, experiences, and strategies used with first-year university student-athletes. Eight highly successful and experienced Canadian university coaches were individually interviewed. The interview data was analyzed with thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The results revealed that coaches’ ultimate goal of helping their athletes succeed in life after university influenced their coaching practices throughout the athletes’ entire university experience from first year to graduation. Coaching first-year athletes started with recruiting individuals who were highly skilled and who would fit in with the other athletes on their team both on and off the field. Once selected, coaches began building trusting relationships with their first-year athletes that were supported by the leadership skills of their senior athletes and by incorporating team building activities into training. Coaches developed their first-year athletes’ athletic skills by creating training programs that addressed each players’ weaknesses. At the same time, coaches ensured their academic success by monitoring their progress and encouraging the use of academic resources that were available from their university. The coaches also attended to their athletes’ personal needs which resulted from coaching individuals who were living away from home for the first time and who were susceptible to social opportunities that could distract them from their academic and athletic responsibilities if not carefully monitored by the coaches. In sum, this study adds to the body of literature of effective coaching practices for university coaches by providing one of the first empirical accounts of coaching first-year student-athletes. The current results benefit both coaches and athletes by highlighting the common challenges of a first-year university athlete, as well as by offering useful strategies that can help resolve such challenges and ease this transition process.
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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».