Coaching practitioner development: Beyond training and supervision togrowth focused therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching is one of the youngest of the 'helping' disciplines.As such, its practice is informed heavily by the extensive body of knowledge that encompasses the psychological, social, and behavioural sciences (Crowe, 2017).As our understanding of coaching practice deepens, and the coaching client population grows in its sophistication, coaching practitioners are being challenged to extend the depth of their theoretical knowledge, technical competency, and standards of professional practice.In response to this challenge, training and educational programs have advanced rapidly in the last decade.Multiple post-graduate coaching programs now exist globally, and several professional associations representing coaches have adopted many of the practice standards and requirements mandated by the Psychology profession.However, as the demands on coaching practitioners continue to grow, and the application of coaching as a method and process broadens to more complex contexts and situations, coaching practitioners must continue to extend their personal growth and development beyond simply their skills and knowledge.The current discussion explores the coach as 'helper' and the importance of coaching practitioners' movement towards purposefully and deliberately engaging in deeply introspective personal growth and development.Further, this discourse seeks to establish a compelling proposition for coaches to consider extending their development into the personal therapeutic realm.Specifically, this discussion will consider Growth Focused Therapy for coaching practitioners as a progressive and logical 'next step' in their personal development and practice journey.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".