Lyle, J. (2021). Lessons learned from programme evaluations of coach development programmes in the UK.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coach Development Programmes (CDPs) are important, but significantly under-researched or understood, elements in the preparation of sport coaches. This paper draws upon the author’s experience of carrying out five programme evaluations of CDPs in the United Kingdom. Each of the programme evaluations was based on an evaluation model that focused on relevance, fidelity, and intermediate outcomes; logic models incorporating each programme’s intentions were devised and informed the evaluation. Evidence was gathered from interviews with participant coaches, coach developers, mentors, and other stakeholders, supplemented by questionnaires to coaches. Issues discussed include: the relevance and impact of particular delivery modes, the incorporation of coaches’ practice, the enhancement of future capacity versus current performance, the emphasis on personal development and interpersonal skills, the degree of embeddedness in coaches’ practice, and the degree of alignment between programme elements and personnel. The lessons learned have implications for similar mid-career adult education, both formal and non-formal, in Canada and more widely.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".