Examining How NCCP Competition-Development Modules Contribute to Coach Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to explore the influence of an NCCP coach education module on coaches‟ ongoing learning. Using the theoretical framework of Jarvis (2006) and Moon (2004) to guide the research, this study consisted of three phases: an interview with each of the 10 coaches prior to attending a module to understand their biographies as well as various learning situations they had already experienced; attendance at one of three potential Competition-Development modules, Managing Conflict, Coaching and Leading Effectively, or Psychology of Performance, and an interview with each of the 10 coaches immediately following the module to explore their thoughts, reflections and possible learning within the module; and a third and final interview with each of the 10 coaches three months following the module to explore how they implemented learning from the module, as well as other learning situations that may have occurred within that 3 month timeframe. The findings indicated that the biographies of each of the coaches varied considerably. For example, the coaches‟ athletic experiences ranged from recreational to national level and several of the coaches were still active in sport at a master‟s level. Their formal education levels ranged from high school to completion of a university masters degree, and their ages varied from 21-45. As well, each of the coaches said they learned something from the NCCP coaching module they attended such as a more effective method for communicating with their athletes, strategies to cope better with conflict, and the importance of setting a variety of goals. The findings also indicated that a number of the coaches were open to on-going learning and stated that they would continue to enrol in formal coach education modules.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".