Adult Learning Principles in Master's Sport: A Coach's Perspective
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
Adult athletes, or Masters athletes (MAs), feel that sport coaches should use different approaches when working with them than with youth (Callary et al., 2015; 2017). This case study aimed to understand how each of six adult learning principles from Knowles et al.’s (2012) Andragogy in Practice Model were evidenced in a 30-year-old, female, canoe/kayak coach’s descriptions of her approaches. Data were collected via three semi-structured coach interviews (90-120 minutes), with supplemental field notes for her training sessions with MAs and youth, with the latter cohort used for comparative purposes. Results showed the coach’s approaches with MAs were largely andragogical, especially in her responsiveness to adults’ inquisitiveness and provision of self-directed opportunities. She more closely followed traditional pedagogy with youth, directing information delivery, limiting autonomy, and catering to more extrinsic motives. Findings suggest the model may be flexibly applied to coaching adult sport, and its principles adapted to fit individual needs.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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