Exploring varsity head coaches' perspectives of 360-degree feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have long been interested in the type of feedback coaches provide to their athletes (Mallett et al., 2013). However, there has been a dearth of research exploring how coaches receive feedback regarding their own coaching practices. The purpose of the current study was to examine varsity head coaches' perspectives of 360-degree feedback—a multi-rater performance appraisal system. Ten (6 males, 4 females) head coaches of Canadian varsity sport teams were interviewed and the data were analyzed inductively using a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Coaches reported that obtaining feedback from relevant others regarding their coaching was crucial to their professional development. Specifically, coaches noted they primarily received feedback from their players, assistant coaches, and athletic directors through formal (e.g., surveys) and informal (e.g., face-to-face) methods. Coaches believed the benefits of utilizing 360-degree feedback ranged from an increased sense of athlete empowerment, to the generation of honest feedback, to the accuracy of feedback that can result from using multiple sources. However, coaches also described some challenges with this type of feedback system, including logistical issues and concerns that the feedback is provided anonymously. Finally, the coaches highlighted key considerations for implementing 360-degree feedback, which included instituting a policy of constructive feedback, framing 360-degree appraisals as a development tool, and utilizing technology as a primary method for collecting feedback. From a practical standpoint, coaches and/or athletic directors can use the information gleaned from this study to implement more effective multi-rater feedback systems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".