An Investigation of Canada’s National Coaching Certification Program’s Coaching Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competency-based coach education programs identify outcomes related to the core tasks that coaches must learn to effectively coach across various sport contexts. Given the evolving landscape of sport, it is crucial to investigate these outcomes to ensure they remain relevant in the education of developing coaches. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate National Coaching Certification Program stakeholders’ perceptions of the National Coaching Certification Program outcomes to understand their perceived relevance and impact on coaching effectiveness. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used; it included online surveys ( N = 85) and focus group interviews ( N = 24) to gather insights from National Coaching Certification Program stakeholders (e.g., coaches, coach evaluators, coaching consultants, and researchers). Results revealed both strengths and limitations of the current outcomes. Participants proposed five outcome areas focusing on safe sport, athlete-centered leadership, a positive sport culture, holistic athlete development, and professional knowledge. These findings offer valuable recommendations of coach education program outcomes to address the evolving needs of coaches.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".