Enhancing Volunteer Youth Sport Coaching Practices through Intergenerational Dialogue
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major determinant of the quality of youth’s experiences in community sports is their relationship with their coaches. It is highly desirable to investigate the practices employed by these coaches, many of whom are volunteers, as their values and coaching strategies can be encouraging for young athletes or can be demoralizing and ruin their sporting experience altogether. The unique perspectives of volunteer youth sport coaches are rarely considered, and by providing them with opportunities to openly reflect upon their practices, it may be possible to assist these coaches in improving their practices and ultimately improve the sporting experience for youth. This article describes an action research project whereby two volunteer youth sport coaches from British Columbia, Canada, engaged in a practical demonstration for using reflective dialogue in order to examine their own coaching practices. Both coaches, who are 50 years apart in age and whose coaching experience ranges from seven to over 50 years, coach different sports at different levels (elite to participation) for youth aged 11-18 years. The coach participants engaged in action research through journal writing, open discussions, and audio-recorded reflective dialogues over a period of six months. Qualitative analysis of the dialogues revealed six key themes that were significant to both coaches: motivation, confidence building, team spirit, relationship building, communication, and coaching values. The coaches comment on the effectiveness of reflective dialogue as a strategy that could help volunteer youth sport coaches better understand the importance of their roles as coaches, identify challenging aspects of their coaching, and serve as a means to further develop their coaching skills and knowledge. In addition, the coaches comment on their generational differences, and discuss the importance of having senior coaches with extensive experience mentor younger less-experienced coaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it