Coach as youth development specialist: developing a TPSR-based coach training program and examining participants’ experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Effective youth sport coaching encompasses the promotion of personal, social, and athletic skills in a deliberate and consistent manner. Coach training protocols that highlight coaches’ best-practices that promote development emphasize the role of the coach as either a developer of athletes’ personal and social potential or as a developer of athletic talent (focusing on techniques and tactics of sport). However, there is a scarcity of literature describing how to train practitioners for this combined role.Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and examine coaches’ experiences in coach training that teaches personal and social development, as well as fundamental movement skills called Coach as a Youth Development Specialist (CAYDS). This was conducted in two phases. First, a pilot study aimed to develop, deliver, and evaluate a coach training curriculum that addressed the needs of youth coaches to improve and finalize the CAYDS curriculum. Second, the final iteration of CAYDS was implemented to examine coaches’ lived experiences while participating in the training.Methods The pilot phase involved five-module training delivered to five graduate students. Thematic analysis was used to analyze a focus group interview and understand what participants learned and how the training helped. The results led to a final version of the CAYDS training. In its final version, the training had seven modules that were delivered to a new cohort of six participants. Hermeneutic phenomenology guided the understanding of the what and how of participating coaches’ lived experiences in the CAYDS training. Data were collected using journal reflections, a focus group interview, and individual interviews; and thematically analyzed.Findings The training successfully helped coaches perform coaching competencies, skills, and behaviors identified in the CAYDS framework (cf. Hellison, D. 2011. Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; CCE, ASOIF & LMU. 2013. International Sport Coaching Framework v1.2. Champaign: Human Kinetics; SHAPE America. Citation2019. National Standards for Sport Coaches. 3rd ed. https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/coaching/default.aspx) that foster personal, social, and athletic development for youth. Findings from this study provide evidence in support of andragogical approaches that helped coaches learn interpersonal, intrapersonal, and professional knowledge (Côté, J., and W. Gilbert. 2009. “An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and Expertise.” International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 4 (3): 307–323.). Participants built positive relationships with community stakeholders and activities involving outreach to parents/guardians, attending school events, and coach educators’ use of role-play were perceived to be particularly impactful. This study also found the process of learning to teach youth skills related to personal and social development inspired coaches to be more self-aware and motivated to grow personally and act in ways that are aligned with TPSR values. Finally, coaches perceived to have acquired professional knowledge that contributed to their ability to instruct fundamental movement skills for athletic development.Conclusions The CAYDS framework offers a viable mechanism to support the dual-role youth sport coaches serve as development specialists, while also parting with coach-centered professional models of coaching. Further, there is promise for this type of development-supportive coaching approach to be applied when working with athletes in their late adolescent years situated in high performance contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".