Action Research and the Scholar-Coach
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
Over the last few years, multiple sport organisations have garnered national attention because of abusive coaching practices. Although many federations in Canada have begun to address some of these issues by adopting Safe Sport policies, radical change in coach education is needed whereby coaches can learn how to coach differently rather than focusing on what not to do. During Kristina’s, the first author’s, master’s in coaching degree at the University of Alberta, she attempted to address this issue by engaging in an inquiry-based learning (IBL)–inspired action research project. More specifically, Kristina examined skill development in a competitive rhythmic gymnastics setting to explore how to transform her coaching practices to become a more ethical coach. As a pedagogical approach, action research is unique in that it enables coaches to make connections between theory, learning in the classroom and learning in the sport setting. In this chapter, the authors reflect on how action research, as a methodological and pedagogical framework for learning, can be used in graduate coaching degrees to enhance ethical coaching practices.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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