Evaluating and Reflecting Upon a Coach Education Initiative: The ...

The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 145-161 

© 2006 Human Kinetics, Inc. 

Evaluating and Reflecting 

Upon a Coach Education Initiative: 

The CoDe 1 of Rugby 

Tania Cassidy 

University of Otago, New Zealand 

Paul Potrac 

Brunel University, UK 

Alex McKenzie 

New Zealand Rugby Union 

The aim of this paper is twofold. The first purpose is to report on participant 

coachesʼ perceptions of a theory-based coach education program (known as the 

CoDe program). The second purpose is to discuss how we, as coach educators, 

reflected on the initiation of the CoDe program. In evaluating the coach education 

program, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight rugby union 

coaches. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (a) thinking about athletes as 

learners, (b) focusing on the process of coaching, and (c) the value of talking with 

other coaches. Fullanʼs (1991a) notion of curriculum change frames our discussion 

of the participant coachesʼ evaluations and our reflections on the initiation 

of the CoDe program. 

In recent years, there has been a substantial growth in the provision of and 

importance attached to coach education in many Western countries (Gilbert & 

Trudel, 1999a; Lyle, 2002). However, the growth in coach education provision has 

not been matched by a corresponding increase in research on or in coach education. 

This is not to say that coach education is being ignored by the sports coaching 

research community; on the contrary, coach education is a very topical issue. To 

date, the limited available literature on coach education has addressed issues such 

as coaching behavior and coach effectiveness training in the context of youth sports 

(Smith & Smoll, 1990; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & 

Everett, 1993), coach development and learning (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003; 

Gilbert & Trudel, 1999a; Lyle, 2002; Malete & Feltz, 2000; Sage, 1989; Weiss, 

Barber, Sisley, & Ebbeck, 1991), and the problems associated with the privileging 

Tania Cassidy is with the School of Physical Education at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New 

Zealand. Email: tania.cassidy@stonebow.otago.ac.nz. Paul Potrac is with the School of Sport and 

Education at Brunel University, Middlesex, UK. Alex McKenzie is with the New Zealand Rugby 

Union, Wellington, New Zealand. 

145 

04Cassidy(145).indd 145 

5/14/06 11:41:14 AM

146 Cassidy, Potrac, and McKenzie 

of technical, tactical, and bio-scientific knowledges and the associated technical 

rationality that have been characteristic features of much coach education provision 

(Abraham & Collins, 1998; Campbell, 1993; Potrac, Brewer, Jones, Armour 

& Hoff, 2000; Schempp, 1998). 

While such inquiry has undoubtedly provided valuable insights into the role, 

nature, and impact of coach education, there remains a paucity of research addressing 

the development of coach education curricula, coach learning and how it is to 

be facilitated and assessed, and how coach education serves to guide and influence 

coaching practice in the various contexts in which coaches operate (Gilbert 

& Trudel, 1999b). In addition, we argue that the findings of the available research 

highlight that coach education provision has, to a large degree, failed to adequately 

define the coachʼs educational role and function (Dils & Ziatz, 2000), effectively 

draw upon the coaching experiences of practitioners (Cushion et al., 2003), and 

utilize appropriate theories of learning (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004; Jones, in 

press). Given this current state of affairs, it is perhaps unsurprising that Gilbert and 

Trudel (1999b) have suggested that the “evaluation of coach education programs 

has become one of the most pressing issues in sport science research” (p. 235). 

In an attempt to begin addressing some of the above limitations, the aim of this 

paper is twofold: first, to report on coachesʼ perceptions of a theory-based coach 

education program (known as the CoDe program) and second, to discuss how we 

as coach educators reflected on the initiation of CoDe program. We contend that 

it is important for coach educators to critically reflect upon their experiences if 

the value of coach education provision is to be evaluated in ways that are credible 

to all involved. Consequently, when reflecting upon the CoDe program after its 

implementation, we believe it has been useful to draw on the educational literature 

that focuses on curriculum development or curriculum change (e.g., Fullan, 1991a) 

to theoretically inform our reflections. Given the limited amount of scholarship 

addressing coach education, we contend the discussion in this paper is of significance 

to the sports coaching community because it provides a theoretically grounded 

empirical account of the initiation of a coach education program. 

CoDe Development 

At the beginning of 2003 the Erewhon 2 Rugby Union invited us to develop a social 

science theory-based coach education program for their representative coaches. 

That an invitation was given to two university staff (neither of whom had any 

connections with rugby union) to design such a coach education program is testament 

to the significance personal and political mandates have in conceptualizing 

and selecting the content of curriculum (in this case of the CoDe curriculum). One 

member of the Erewhon Rugby Union who was influential in the invitation being 

offered, and who subsequently became involved in the initiation and delivery of 

the CoDe program, had previously been on staff at the university lecturing in the 

area of sport psychology. The other instrumental member of the Erewhon Rugby 

Union was the Rugby Manager who was an ex-graduate of the university. He was 

keen to utilize the knowledge of the staff to develop a coach education program 

that differed from that which other provincial development coaches would have 

access. His rationale was that the Erewhon Union was smaller and had less financial 

backing than its main rivals and therefore had to work smarter to develop a 


5/14/06 11:41:18 AM

Evaluating Coach Education 147 

point of difference which would ideally result in an improved win loss record of 

its development teams. 

We accepted the invitation to initiate a coach education program on the proviso 

the Union recognized it would be a pilot program and we could invite the coaches 

to be interviewed at its completion. At this negotiating stage, the interviews were 

not being viewed as a potential data source for an empirical study. Instead, we 

wanted to interview the coaches at the completion of the program to gain insights 

into their experiences of the CoDe to assist us in our reflections and the inevitable 

refining of the program. 

We selected the content of the CoDe program based on (a) consistency with 

the focus requested by the Rugby Manager; (b) topics that could be informed by the 

disciplines of pedagogy, sociology, and psychology; (c) topics that would be able to 

be reflected upon by the coaches in trainings; and (d) content of two undergraduate 

courses and a text book that we were, at the time, in the process of co-authoring 

(Cassidy et al., 2004). The process we went through to select the specific content for 

the CoDe reflected what Connelly and Clandinin (1991) described as a “reasoned 

one.” Yet, it is useful to remember that reasons are laced with political, theoretical, 

and personal considerations that influence what appears in a curriculum document 

and consequently what ends are to be achieved. 

Trudel and Gilbert (in press) concluded that coach development could be 

classified into two forms: “what coaches should know” (acquisition metaphor) and 

“what coaches should do” (participation metaphor). While not explicitly aware when 

constructing the CoDe of the language Trudel and Gilbert (in press) use to describe 

program design, upon reflection, the design of the CoDe program incorporated elements 

of both forms. In relation to the former, we specified at the beginning of the 

CoDe program topics that we thought the coaches should know. The topics, with 

associated theorists, included the following: the coach as a reflective practitioner 

(Van Manen, 1977; Zeichner and Liston, 1987), what it means to be a quality coach 

(Carr, 1989), coaching methods (Mosston, 1966; Tangaere, 1997), the athlete as a 

learner (Fleming, & Bonwell, 2001), ethic of care (Noddings, 1992), interaction 

between coach and athlete (Goffman, 1959), coachesʼ roles (Callero, 1994), enjoyment 

profiling (Pinel, 2000), and motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Nicholls 1992). 

The latter form of program design as described by Trudel and Gilbert (in press) 

was adopted in a minimal way since there was no practical component to the CoDe 

program nor was any assessment involved. Nonetheless, this form was reflected in 

the documented learning outcome of the CoDe program that claimed at the end of 

the course the coaches will emerge with a greater understanding of why, how, as 

well as the consequences of what they coach. To achieve this learning outcome, we 

stressed, throughout the duration of the CoDe program, the connection between the 

various topics and being a reflective practitioner. We also introduced the coaches 

to the action research spiral (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992) and to tools they could 

use to collect data upon which they could reflect. 

Participants 

Methods 

Eight representative Erewhon Rugby Football Union coaches agreed to participate 

in the study. In this paper we have used the typologies developed by Lyle (2002) 


5/14/06 11:41:18 AM


and Trudel and Gilbert (in press) to present the coaches in this study as development 

coaches. This is because they demonstrated “high level of commitment,” their 

“performance objectives are more public,” there is a “less permanent relationship 

between coach and athletes,” and they have a truncated season (Lyle, 2002, p. 49). 

Furthermore, our coaches had demographic profiles similar to that of development 

coaches described in the review conducted by Trudel and Gilbert (in press). For 

example, all the coaches were male, ex-competitive athletes, and had previously 

attended coach education courses. They had a mean age of 44, had on average 

13 years of general coaching experience, six of those at the developmental level. 

The most obvious difference between the CoDe coaches and those described by 

Trudel and Gilbert (in press) was that only 50% of the coaches in this study had 

an earned university degree. However, it is worth noting that in New Zealand in 

the late 1970s and early 1980s, when these coaches left school, it was uncommon 

(less than 10% of school leavers) to attend university. 

CoDe Delivery 

With access to the coaches agreed upon, in March 2003 the CoDe program began, 

running over a period of 6 months with a two-hour session scheduled every two 

weeks. The CoDe was not a large-scale coach education program. Rather it could 

be described as a boutique, community-orientated, short-term (28 hours over 6 

months), classroom based, theoretical, educational/personal development coaching 

program with no assessment component that was offered free of charge to the 

volunteer coaches and the Erewhon Rugby Union. When comparing the CoDe 

program to other coach education programs such as the American Sport Education 

Program (ASEP), it appears that the number of organizations that use, require, or 

recommend the Bronze level program, the topics taught, and pedagogical practices 

involved in the ASEP program (http://www.aesp.com/courseInfo/curriculum.cfm) 

are in stark contrast to the CoDe program. Furthermore, the CoDe does not attempt 

to integrate theory, technical, and practical components as is common in many 

large scale programs such as Canadaʼs National Coaching Certification Program 

(NCCP). Nonetheless elements of the CoDe might be appropriately located in 

the Competition stream and the development context of the NCCP (http://www. 

coachnb.com/nccp.asp). 

Data Collection 

Consistent with much qualitative research that attempts to gain insight into participantsʼ 

interpretations, we used interviews to gather data. Upon the completion 

of the CoDe program, we invited the coaches to participate in one in-depth, semistructured 

interview so we could gain some insight into their perceptions of the 

program. The interviews lasted between 60 and 150 minutes and occurred at a 

location and time convenient to each coach. The interviews were reflexive in nature, 

in that the coaches were invited to explore certain themes with the interviewer 

(Sparkes & Templin, 1992). The four-part interview guide comprised a series of 

open-ended questions: 


5/14/06 11:41:18 AM


1. Demographic and previous coaching experience (e.g., How did you get 

involved in coaching?) 

2. Their experience with coach education programs prior to participating in the 

CoDe program (e.g., What knowledges and experiences have you gained from 

attending these courses?) 

3. Their experiences of coaching at the representative level for the Erewhon Rugby 

Union (e.g., How does the ERFU evaluate you as a development coach?) 

4. Coachesʼ perspectives of participating in the CoDe program (e.g., How did 

the design or organization of the CoDe program conform, or not conform, to 

what you had experienced on your previous coach education course(s)?) 

Prior to beginning the interview, a consent form was collected and coaches 

were asked for their permission for the interview to be audio-recorded. The coach 

was assured that their confidentiality was a priority and anything written from 

the study would be given back to them to make sure that they felt comfortable 

with the representation. Since the interviews were initially viewed only as an 

opportunity for the participants to clarify their experience and for us to gain 

insights into their experience, the interviews were not explicitly informed by 

any theoretical concepts; however they were informed organizationally by the 

work of Patton (1990). 

Data Analysis 

When we began to develop the CoDe program, we did so from an openly ideological 

position in an explicit attempt to develop a coach education program that differed 

to that which the coaches had previously been exposed. There was nothing neutral 

about our approach. When coming from this position, the concept of validity has to 

take on other meanings than when adopted by those who hold a parallel perspective 

(Sparkes, 1998). Consequently, when analyzing and presenting the data, we sought 

to do so in a way that gave the text a degree of verisimilitude, that is a “feeling that 

the experience described is lifelike, believable, and possible” (Ellis & Bochner, 

2000, p. 751) or a sense of “authenticity” (Adler & Adler, 1994). When writing 

about authenticity in qualitative sport psychology, Sparkes (1998) suggested that to 

achieve authenticity, the researcher has to balance perspectives, encourage learning, 

share knowledge, and engage in some form of social action. 

The interviews in this study were analyzed in light of this question: What were 

the coachesʼ perceptions of the CoDe program? When coding the data, we drew on 

procedures Strauss and Corbin (1990) called open coding, in which data are dissected, 

examined, compared for differences and similarities, and then scrutinized. 

This method of analysis is often referred to as the constant comparative method 

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Upon completing the coding process, we organized the 

labeled data around the theoretical concepts (an example used in this article is 

learning), a process Strauss and Corbin called “categorizing.” The three themes 

that explicitly related to the CoDe program that emerged from the interview transcripts 

were (a) thinking about athletes as learners, (b) the value of focusing on the 

process of coaching rather than only the technical aspects of what to coach, and 

(c) the value of talking with other coaches. 


5/14/06 11:41:18 AM


Results 

In this section, we report on the above three themes that arose from an inductive 

analysis of the participant coachesʼ interviews. 

Theme 1: Thinking about Athletes as Learners 

In the CoDe program we introduced the idea that there is an implicit relationship 

between the instructional methods used by coaches and the way they viewed learning 

and the learner. Additionally, we discussed the relationship between the coachesʼ 

instruction and how athletes make sense of information they receive. Further, we 

introduced the coaches to a tool that could help them understand learning preferences. 

While there are a number of ways a coach can ascertain the learning preferences 

of athletes (see Rose, 1997), we used a tool (a questionnaire coined VARK, 

an acronym for Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic) developed by Fleming 

and Bonwell (2001). Upon completion of the VARK questionnaire the respondents 

can identify their learning preferences. 3 We asked the coaches in the CoDe program 

to complete the questionnaire, thereby determining the media through which they 

preferred to learn. This was a simple but graphic way to bring to the coachesʼ attention 

that they learn in different ways. Subsequently, the questionnaire became the 

platform for discussing the merits of accommodating the learning preferences of 

their athletes and a catalyst for reflecting on what they already did, albeit implicitly, 

and what they could do differently in future training sessions. The lively discussion 

that occurred in the CoDe session was reflected in the interview data. 

The majority of the coaches said that prior to being introduced to the idea of 

athletes as learners, they had rarely consciously considered their athletes in this 

vein. This was evidenced when Jim said 

the thing that I got out of CoDe the most and it was a real revelation for me 

was the different learning techniques that people have. I mean thatʼs huge, you 

know. I could be good at talking and 50% of the guys donʼt even want to know 

about it. . . . We go, “oh why arenʼt these players listening?” And itʼs because 

we are not relaying it properly to them in their best learning type. 

Similarly, Jake said knowing about the learning styles has been “ . . . a revelation 

to me . . . thatʼs been huge and itʼs changed my way that . . . [I] take people 

through new moves.” He went on to say that he now introduces the moves “in 3 or 

4 different types of ways, you convey it either talking, diagrams, or a combination 

of those things.” Even Brendan, who had confessed that he had a tendency to “run 

off at the mouth . . . and [didnʼt] like sitting back and saying nothing” admitted that 

he, and possibly others, were silenced when the material on learning preferences 

were raised because “no one had ever heard [that] before . . . Iʼve done no educational 

training so . . . it was nice to know that one.” Another coach who had plenty 

to say on the worth of focusing on learning preferences in the CoDe program was 

Robert, who said the material on the learning preferences was “not just interesting 

but useful.” He went on to say it was 

quite relevant particularly with some of the rep. teams where youʼve got different 

backgrounds of guys. You know weʼve got a lot of Polynesians in some 


5/14/06 11:41:19 AM


of the age grade teams . . . and some of their learning styles are a lot different 

to a lot of the OBʼs. 4 

Ivan also considered the content on learning preferences to be worthwhile 

and saw it as a tool to assist him become more efficient. This was highlighted 

when he said it was “superb, especially in some of the individuals we have . . . 

You know you could be wasting your damn time . . . and not know it for a whole 

season.” 

While many of the coaches had not been consciously aware of the various 

media through which athletes learned, some coaches had previously considered 

the concept of learning as a consequence of them being employed in educational 

institutions. Yet even these coaches recognized the worth of having material on 

learning preferences included in the CoDe program. Simon thought the content was 

worthwhile because he “enjoyed” us reinforcing “the concepts and the link between 

teaching and coaching” and highlighting “that coaching is really about working 

with people and understanding how they learn.” Similarly, Peter commented about 

valuing the links between teaching and coaching being reinforced. He said in his 

position as a university lecturer he would “go to all this trouble of making sure you 

donʼt bore the shit out of them . . . and I guess I hadnʼt really necessarily thought 

about applying it directly to the rugby team.” 

A number of coaches described how having the knowledge that athletes can 

have different learning preferences had changed their practices. Murray said that 

he now used “whiteboard presentation” at the beginning of his training sessions. 

Similarly, Robert said that he and his co-coach Jim had “made a conscious effort 

to try and incorporate” the learning styles. Prior to the CoDe they had always 

expressed information verbally followed by a run through. Robert said he had 

“never been comfortable in having white board sessions because . . . I didnʼt 

really like them.” But he said the discussion on the learning preferences helped 

them to understand an experience they had some years earlier when they were 

players. He explained that they had had a teammate who they had played 

with for the entire season but it was not until the night before the final that he 

“stumbled” onto 

what he was supposed to being doing all year. Everyone had assumed heʼd 

knew what he was doing. . . . He was a great player and a hard case guy but 

he . . . was bluffing his way through it all season. He didnʼt actually know and 

then somebody grabbed him and said, “go there.” So if weʼd done a blackboard 

session or whatever he wouldʼve seen that . . . so, the more ways you can get 

that information through the better. 

As a consequence of the knowledge gained in the CoDe program and reflecting 

on their playing experience, as well as what they did and currently do as 

coaches, Robert said that they now “put everything down on paper so all our guys 

get . . . our basic starter moves and a lot of our calls are written down and we have 

a play book.” In contrast, Brendan said that he had “instinctively” used “quite a lot 

of different learning styles” in his coaching but he had not realized why he “was 

doing it” and why it “worked” so the discussion on the learning preferences had 

given him the knowledge to utilize the strategies more knowledgeably rather than 

rely on trial and error. 


5/14/06 11:41:19 AM


Theme 2: Focusing on the Process of Coaching 

The Erewhon Rugby Union had a specific mandate when they invited us to develop 

the coach education program. From the outset of the CoDe program, we stressed 

to the coaches that we were not there to assist them with their learning of technical, 

rugby specific, material. Rather, it was our intention that the CoDe program 

highlight some of the complexities associated with the coaching process and that 

as a group, we could discuss possible ways of identifying and dealing with them. 

This approach to coach education appeared to be “totally different” to their previous 

experiences of coach education, rugby specific or otherwise. Brendanʼs sentiments 

were reflective of the other participant coaches when he said 

all the courses Iʼve been involved with have been predominantly specific to 

technical things . . . although having said that, the most recent one, and as did 

the level three course, had a quotient of psychology involved. . . . So there has 

been a bit of that [psychology] but generally speaking you guys were looking 

at it from a totally different point of view. 

All the coaches appeared to be at a point in their coaching “careers” where they 

wanted to know and be able to do more. Jim said he became interested in the CoDe 

program very early on because it 

was more knowledge and it sounded a bit different. And thatʼs the big thing 

about the CoDe program, it was not just techniques, it was about the mental 

side of it questioning why you coach, getting a philosophy and all those things 

that go through starting from there. 

The coaches recognized that we were not dismissing the importance of the 

technical aspects of rugby or coaching, and they still valued this aspect of coaching. 

But as Robert pointed out, while the “technical things” are “fantastic . . . what 

happens when it, when things donʼt work, where do you go?” For Jake the CoDe 

program gave him the opportunity to “look outside the square” for solutions to his 

rugby specific concerns. Murray viewed the value of focusing on the processes 

associated with coaching to be 

understanding, not the technical aspects, but the process thatʼs involved in 

what you need to go to the next level. Itʼs not about fronting up on a Tuesday 

and a Thursday. Itʼs about everything else that moves along, you know the 

consequences of why you did this, how youʼre going to plan to do this, you 

know what are the effects? What you need to look at more in depth, so itʼs 

more using the thought processes and stimulating your mind to come out with 

some better advancement in your coaching. 

Jim considered that the CoDe program gave him “a structure around why you 

did it and the reasons that you get the results.” He recognized that the value of 

having a structure was to reduce the possibility that everything “becomes a wee 

bit hit and miss. If you know the integral parts of it and the details then you can 

say well if I shift this, that will adjust that.” 

For the focus on the coaching processes to be meaningful to rugby coaches in 

a coach education program that was classroom based was not an easy task, and it 


5/14/06 11:41:19 AM


was made harder because our intention that at the beginning of each session coaches 

would work together on issues that emerged from working with their rugby teams 

was not realized due to the policy changes of the ERFU. Nonetheless, because of 

the openness of the coaches to share their experiences (good and not so good), we 

were still able to adopt a pedagogy that resulted in the coaches discussing meaningful 

rugby specific examples. 

Theme 3: The Value of Talking with Other Coaches 

While most coaches knew each other as a consequence of being, or having been, a 

coach in the local premier rugby competition or a development coach, they had never 

previously had any formalized opportunities to talk to each other about the practice 

and/or process of coaching. All the coaches agreed that having the opportunity to 

talk to other coaches was beneficial at some level. For Brendan, this opportunity 

was the highlight of participating in the CoDe program. He explained for him the 

benefit of talking with the other coaches was critical. 

I mean, being brutally honest, that was the thing I probably looked forward to 

most of all about the meetings. I mean I was keen to see what you guys were 

going to come up with this week, and what we were going to be talking about, 

but coming away from it, it was as much about the melding of ideas and stuff 

like that it was really good. 

He went onto say “to have that sort of forum where you could just talk and 

even argue, even disagree with guys . . . was really good.” Particularly, he enjoyed 

the opportunity to talk to the other coaches about what they do with their team. 

Other coaches also enjoyed the sharing of ideas that occurred. For example, Jake 

said, “Simon and his sidekick Lou were great, they were fantastic and you could 

see they were head and shoulders above most of us other coaches that were there. 

Especially Simon being a teacher and . . . heʼs obviously been around the mill 5 a 

bit too.” 

However, other coaches, while saying they enjoyed having the opportunity to 

talk with the other coaches, were more circumspect in their comments. For example, 

Robert said that while “itʼs good to get a lot of those guys in one place and share 

some ideas . . . the discussions were dominated quite often by a couple of people 

a wee bit much.” He recognized that we 

were obviously keen to let it flow a bit but I wouldʼve preferred if somebody 

had taken control a few times and said “look this debate is great and its useful 

but you know weʼre sort of getting a wee bit [off] track and we need to carry 

on through what weʼre trying to cover.” 

When Brendan commented on the way we designed “tasks in a group” and 

how the content of the CoDe “stimulated the conversation between the other 

coaches,” he was implicitly recognizing that merits of the pedagogy of the CoDe 

program. While other coaches also thought there was some merit in a pedagogy 

that provided them with the opportunity to talk with the other coaches about the 

coaching process, they pointed out that just providing a forum for coaches to be 

able to talk to each other is not enough in itself. Rather, the forum needed to be 

mediated so that participation for all coaches was meaningful. 


5/14/06 11:41:19 AM


Discussion 

The subsequent section is informed by Fullanʼs (1991a) framework of curriculum 

change because it is potentially generative for evaluating and reflecting on the initiation 

of the CoDe program. Fullan described curriculum change as happening in 

three broad phases, namely initiation, use, and assessment. This discussion section 

is organized around the assessment and initiation phases with the former being a 

theoretically informed discussion of the interview data reported on in the result 

section, while the latter is a theoretically informed discussion on our reflections of 

the initiation of the CoDe program. 

Assessment of the CoDe program 

There is no agreement on the relationship between assessment and evaluation in 

the educational literature, yet there is an understanding that the interpretation, 

discussion, and practice of evaluation are inextricably linked to oneʼs ontological 

and epistemological orientation. Thus, our interviews with the participant coaches 

was an attempt to gain insight into what they considered to be the merit and worth 6 

of the CoDe program. This form of interviewing can be broadly termed qualitative 

curriculum evaluation and has been described as a “reflective effort to develop the 

fullest possible range of knowledge (including personal knowledge) about specific 

educational situations” (Willis, 1994, p. 1284). 

As highlighted in the results section, one of the key themes to emerge in relation 

to the coachesʼ perceptions of the CoDe program was the benefit they attached 

to viewing the athlete as a learner. Indeed, many of the participant coaches had not 

previously considered the implicit relationship that exists between the instructional 

methods used by coaches and the way they view athlete learning. Such a finding 

was somewhat surprising given that one of the principle roles of the coaches in 

this study was to help facilitate the development of elite young players within the 

Erewhon Rugby Union player development program. Nonetheless, this finding is 

consistent with the literature, which has suggested that the educational function 

of the coach has largely been ignored within existing coach education programs 

that have, instead, tended to prioritize knowledge related to the technical, tactical, 

and bio-scientific aspects of sporting performance (Jones, in press; Potrac et al., 

2000). 

That there has been so little attention given to attempts to stimulate athlete 

learning or have the content make sense to athletes, we suggest drawing upon the 

work of Floden (1989), that it would be useful if existing coach education provision 

provided coaches with the opportunity to explore how their instruction looks to 

athletes, how athletes perceive what they are being taught, and how athletes learn 

content, which is in some way new or foreign to them. Consequently, we contend 

that coach education provision could benefit from recognizing that coaching is 

fundamentally intertwined with teaching and learning at the micro-interactive level 

within given situational constraints. According to Jones (in press), the adoption of 

such a perspective in coach education could help “make coaches and coach educators 

reflective of previously unconsidered theoretical notions thus giving them 

the options to think in different ways about their practice and its consequences.” 

A perceived strength of the CoDe program, highlighted in the second theme, was 


5/14/06 11:41:20 AM


that it encouraged the participant coaches to critically reflect upon their approach 

to coaching. In this respect, the respondents highlighted how they valued the 

opportunity to examine their coaching practices in relation to theories and concepts 

introduced to them in the CoDe program. Indeed, this was considered by 

the participating coaches to be a unique feature of the CoDe program and was a 

process that they claimed they had not been previously encountered in the context 

of New Zealand Rugby Union coach education provision. Given that prior coaching 

experiences and the observation of other coaches appear to be the major sources of 

coaching knowledge (Bloom, Schinke, & Salmela, 1997; Jones, Armour & Potrac, 

2003; Sage, 1989), we believe that such a process may be valuable in encouraging 

coaches to critique some of the common sense and dogmatic beliefs that they may 

have been acquired as a consequence of their socialization experiences within a 

particular sporting subculture (Thompson, 2000). Indeed, incorporating a reflective 

orientation in coach education could contribute toward providing coaches with a 

greater knowledge and understanding of why certain practices and approaches are 

productive or unproductive, as well as highlighting alternative strategies where 

appropriate (Cassidy et al., 2004; Jones, in press). 

The coaches also highlighted how engaging in such a reflective process had 

provided them with a greater sense of confidence in terms of providing their 

players with meaningful and productive learning experiences. This finding is in 

keeping with the work of Malete and Feltz (2000), which highlighted the benefits 

of a coach education program on coaching efficacy. We believe that the coaches 

participating in the CoDe program would have further benefited from the inclusion 

of mastery experiences within this coach education intervention. In this respect, 

a longer program could have provided them with opportunities to utilize, reflect 

upon, and collaboratively discuss the various ways in which they employed the 

theoretical content of the CoDe program within their respective coaching repertoires 

and situations. 

The coaches attached considerable value to the opportunity to discuss, debate, 

and share ideas with colleagues during each session of the CoDe program, as evidenced 

in the third theme. Indeed, such interactions were considered by the coaches 

to have made a useful contribution to their knowledge development, as well as 

providing them with a number of practical strategies to consider in relation to their 

coaching practice. Other research has also shown that coaches perceive formal and 

informal conversations with other coaches to be as valuable to their professional 

development, if not more so, than the purely theoretical and cognitive knowledge 

delivered by coach educators as a part of formal coach education schemes (Fleurance 

& Cotteaux, 1999; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2004; Saury & Durand, 1998). 

Such a situation may have occurred because these conversations are often grounded 

in the everyday realities of coaching and, as such, are more focused on practical 

solutions to the professional problems and issues that coaches have to contend with 

within their respective coaching environments (Jones et al., 2003). Conversely, 

formal coach education schemes have been criticized for not adequately drawing 

upon the coaching experiences of practitioners and for the delivery of knowledge 

in a decontexualized manner (Cushion et al., 2003; Potrac et al., 2000). 

In contrast to the instructor led format of much existing coach education 

provision in New Zealand, the CoDe program represented, to a certain extent, 

a coaching community of practice. In this respect, the coaches participating in 


5/14/06 11:41:20 AM


the CoDe program were a group of people who shared a common concern, set of 

problems, and passion about a topic and who sought to deepen their knowledge 

and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 

2002). Furthermore, while we as coach educators introduced theoretical concepts 

to the participating coaches, the emphasis was on the facilitation of discussion, 

interaction, and the negotiation of meaning rather than on lecturing and the prescription 

of coaching or theoretical principles. Similar to the findings of Culver 

and Trudel (in press), the coaches participating in the CoDe program considered 

that they had benefited from the round table discussions, yet they did voice the 

need for the facilitators to exert some control over the direction and length of the 

discussions if they were to be of optimal value. Such a notion is in keeping with 

the work of Wenger et al. (2002), who contended, “the most important factor in a 

communityʼs success is the vitality of its leadership” (p. 80). 

Additionally, the value coaches attached to their interactions with each other 

during the CoDe program supports the benefit of utilizing a situated view of learning 

in the design and delivery of coach education interventions (Culver & Trudel, 

in press; Trudel & Gilbert, 2004). Drawing on this literature could provide coach 

educators with a platform for the (re)examination and more theoretically informed 

use of coaching communities of practice, apprenticeships, and mentoring in a coach 

education context. In addition, viewing learning as a situated activity could support 

the development of curricula that focuses on the learner and learning rather than 

primarily on instruction and the instructor. However, if coach education schemes 

were to focus on learning and the learner it would require more than curriculum 

developers and coach educators being informed by learning theories; it would also 

require the learners to be viewed as a significant data source. 

Initiation of the CoDe Program 

Planning for many social practices is a very complex process, and planning for 

the implementation of a coach education program is no exception. Recognizing 

this, Fullan (1991b) claimed that one of the key tasks and goals of planning is the 

development of transparent and valid materials. It has been suggested that the 

three significant content-related issues when developing materials for curricula 

are (a) conceptualization of the content, (b) the selection of content items, and (c) 

their organization into a coherent program (Connelly & Clandinin, 1991). Earlier 

in the paper, we highlighted the significance personal and political mandates had 

in conceptualizing and selecting the content of the CoDe program. As such, in the 

subsequent section of the discussion, we are only focusing on the organization of 

the content. 

Organization of Content. A factor influencing the planning of a curriculum is 

the choice developers make as to what data sources are emphasized. Historically, 

and in an educational context, three data sources have been used: students, society, 

and subject matter (Klein, 1991). It is advocated that developers use all three data 

sources when aiming for a balanced curriculum. However, in practice, this balance 

is rarely achieved as often only the subject matter data are used (Klein, 1991). 

When organizing the content of the CoDe program, we did not explicitly consider 

the possible data sources; rather, we adopted the orthodox practice of using subject 


5/14/06 11:41:20 AM


matter as the primary source of data. When using subject matter, there is an implicit 

expectation that it is organized both horizontally and vertically. The former refers 

to the balance and integration of curriculum content and focuses on whether it can 

be managed within the allocated time. The latter is concerned with the sequencing 

of the content throughout the curriculum with the aim of supporting the learner to 

“build a coherent learning structure” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1991, p. 331). 

There are advantages and disadvantages of adopting subject matter as the 

primary data source. One advantage of the content of the CoDe being organized 

around subject matter is that even though the subject matter itself may have been 

new to some of the participant coaches, the organization of the content was familiar. 

Drawing on the work of Cassidy and Tinning (2004) in a teacher education context, 

we recognized the importance of maintaining at least some existing routines 

when attempting to introduce some new and possibly challenging content material. 

Routines can support coachesʼ feelings of ontological security that Giddens 

(1991) explained as being a “ʻprotective cocoonʼ which stands guard over the self 

in its dealings with everyday reality” (p. 3). Another advantage of using subject 

matter as the primary data source is that the advanced planning of curriculum is 

based upon predetermined subject matter thereby enabling the content to be taught 

effectively and efficiently (Klein, 1991). However, a limitation of this view is that 

learning can become mechanized with the emphasis being placed on just covering 

the content instead of the learner understanding the content. 

It has been argued that an advantage of using subject matter as the data source 

is that it can represent the cultural heritage and reflect the “collective wisdom of 

people” (Klein, 1991, p. 336). But this claim is somewhat problematic because the 

question then arises whose culture is being represented? In a context where coaches 

in a coach education program can come from all over the globe and/or identify 

with a range of cultures, justifying the use of subject matter on the grounds that it 

represents the cultural heritage of people needs to be seriously reconsidered. 

It was our intention that the instructional practices used in the CoDe program 

would enable us to draw the coachesʼ experiences and societal issues into the discussions 

of the subject matter. However, by failing to explicitly build the coachesʼ 

experiences and societal issues into the organization of the content meant that it did 

not reflect how we had intended to conceptualize the content, namely by integrating 

how one learns, how one teaches, with what is being taught (Lusted, 1986) while also 

acknowledging the importance of the context in which this interaction occurs. 

Some of the arguments against using subject matter as the primary data source 

include that it fragments and compartmentalizes knowledge, which can result in 

learners not seeing the relevance of the content and not enough attention being 

paid to the interests, abilities, needs, and experiences of the learner. Consequently, 

learners can perceive there being a lack of fit between them and the content that 

in turn may result in decreased motivation for learning (Klein, 1991). Our reflections 

on the organization of the content of the CoDe program have highlighted the 

advantages and disadvantages of primarily using subject matter as a data source. 

This insight may be valuable when evaluating coach education schemes, including 

those using a problem-based approach. If the curriculum is not balanced and/or there 

is a lack of fit between the learner and the coach education scheme, then possibly 

all the effort and good intentions will be for naught. 


5/14/06 11:41:20 AM


Conclusion 

The aim of this paper was twofold: first, to report on coachesʼ perceptions of a 

theory-based coach education initiative and second, to discuss how we as coach 

educators reflected on the initiation of the CoDe program. One outcome of achieving 

these aims is that we now consider it timely for developers of coach education 

schemes and coach educators to draw upon various bodies of literature. Some of 

this literature may be found outside of sports coaching, for example in psychology 

and education, to assist in the construction of new and evaluate existing 

coach education interventions in ways that enable coach education initiatives to 

be developed in an informed manner as well as facilitate and assess athlete and 

coach learning and understanding. Historically, psychologists and psychological 

theories, namely behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist theories, have played 

a large part in how learning has been understood. The opportunity now exists for 

sport psychologists to apply their disciplinary knowledge to practice, particularly 

coach education, with the aim of increasing the effectiveness and value of coach 

education interventions. 

In recent decades, educational and psychological trends have resulted in cognitive 

orientations to learning and constructivist views of understanding, gaining 

more favorable attention in the coaching community (Cassidy et al., 2004). Some 

research in sport coaching is beginning to reflect these trends by highlighting the 

potential benefits of utilizing a situated view of learning in the design and delivery 

of coach education interventions (Culver & Trudel, in press; Trudel & Gilbert, 

2004). Sport psychologists could utilize their understanding of cognitive views 

of learning to assist them and others develop coach education curricula that 

focus on the learner and learning rather than primarily on instruction and the 

instructor. 

Implicit in any discussion on learning is a view of what is considered appropriate 

content. Fullanʼs (1991a) framework for examining the initiation of the 

CoDe program was generative because it highlighted the significance personal and 

political mandates have in conceptualizing and selecting curriculum and enabled 

us to recognize how in organizing the content for the CoDe, we privileged subject 

matter knowledge over other data sources and the advantages and disadvantages of 

doing so. This highlights another opportunity for the application of sport psychology 

in the area of coach education. As mentioned above, Klein (1991) advocated 

that three data sources be used when organizing the content of curricula, namely 

students, society, and subject matter. Sport psychologists are knowledgeable about 

cognitive theories of motivation and have considerable understanding of the individual, 

therefore they should be able to make a contribution to the organization of 

coach education curricula in ways that enhance the possibility that leaners will be 

viewed as data sources. 

References 

Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach development. 

Quest, 50, 59-79. 

Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), 

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). London: Sage. 


5/14/06 11:41:21 AM


Bloom, G.A., Schinke, R.J., & Salmela, J.H. (1997). The development of communication 

skills by elite basketball coaches. Coaching and Sport Science Journal, 2(3), 3-10. 

Callero, P. (1994). From role-playing to role using: Understanding role as a resource. Social 

Psychology Quarterly, 57, 228-243. 

Campbell, S. (1993). Coaching education around the world. Sport Science Review, 2, 62- 

74. 

Carr, W. (Ed.). (1989). Quality in teaching: Arguments for a refl ective profession. London: 

Falmer. 

Cassidy, T., & Tinning, R. (2004). ʻSlippageʼ is not a dirty word: Considering the usefulness 

of Giddensʼ notion of knowledgeability in understanding the possibilities for teacher 

education. Journal of Teaching Education, 15, 175-188. 

Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding sports coaching: The social, 

cultural and pedagogical foundations of sports practice. London: Routledge. 

Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1991). Curriculum content. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international 

encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 330-331). Oxford: Pergamon. 

Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (in press). Cultivating coachesʼ communities of practice: Developing 

the potential for learning through interactions. In R. Jones (Ed.), The sports coach as 

educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge. 

Cushion, C., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional 

development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215-230. 

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determinism in human behavior. 

New York: Plenum. 

Dils, A.K., & Ziatz, D.H. (2000). The application of teacher education curriculum theory 

to interscholastic coaching education: Learning outcomes associated with a quality 

interscholastic athletic program. The Physical Educator, 57, 88-98. 

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. 

Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). 

London: Sage Publications. 

Fleming, N., & Bonwell, C. (2001). How do I learn best: A studentʼs guide to improved 

learning. Christchurch, NZ: Fleming. 

Fleurance, P., & Cotteaux, V. (1999). Construction de lʼexpertise chez les entraîneurs sportifs 

dʼathlètes de haut-niveau français [Development of expertise in elite athletic coaches 

in France]. Avante, 5(2), 54-68. 

Floden, R. (1989). What teachers need to know about learning. Proceedings of the NCRTE 

Seminar for Policy Makers, February 24-26, Washington, DC. 

Fullan, M. (1991a). Curriculum change. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia 

of curriculum (pp. 279-281). Oxford: Pergamon. 

Fullan, M. (1991b). Curriculum implementation. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia 

of curriculum (pp. 378-384). Oxford: Pergamon. 

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. 

Cambridge: Polity. 

Gilbert, W. & Trudel, P. (1999a). An evaluation strategy for coach education programs. 

Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 234-250. 

Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999b). Framing the construction of coaching knowledge in experiential 

learning theory. Sociology of Sport On-Line, 2(1). Retrieved May 23, 2005, 

from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2i1/v2i1s2.htm 

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. 

Jones, R. (in press). The sports coach as educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching. 

London: Routledge. 

Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case study of 

a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education, and Society, 8, 213-229. 

Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to 

theory. London: Routledge. 


5/14/06 11:41:21 AM


Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1992). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, 

Australia: Deakin University Press. 

Klein, F. (1991). Curriculum design. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of 

curriculum (pp. 335-342). Oxford: Pergamon. 

Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27, 2-14. 

Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts. A framework for coachesʼ behaviour. London: 

Routledge. 

Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on 

coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417. 

Mosston, M. (1966). Teaching physical education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. 

Nicholls, J. (1992). The general and the specific in the development and expression of 

achievement motivation. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 

31-56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education, 

New York: Teachers College Press. 

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: 

Sage. 

Pinel, B. (2000). Enjoyment-profiling: An empirical assessment in youth sport. Unpublished 

doctoral thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand. 

Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R.L., Armour, K., & Hoff, J. (2000). Toward an holistic understanding 

of the coaching process. Quest, 52, 186-199. 

Rose, D. (1997). A multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. Boston: 

Allyn & Bacon. 

Sage, G.H. (1989). Becoming a high school coach: From playing sports to coaching. Research 

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 81-92. 

Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical coaching knowledge in expert coaches: On-site 

study of coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 254- 

266. 

Schempp, P. (1998) The dynamics of human diversity in sport pedagogy scholarship. 

Sociology of Sport On Line, 1(1). Retrieved June 28, 2000, from http://physed.otago. 

ac.nz/sosol/v1i1/v1i1a8.htm 

Smith, R., & Smoll, F. (1990). Self-esteem and childrenʼs reactions to youth sport coaching 

behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. Developmental Psychology, 

26, 987-993. 

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Barnett, N.P. (1995). Reduction of childrenʼs sport performance 

anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 125-142. 

Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., & Everett, J.J. (1993). Enhancement of childrenʼs 

self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 78, 602-610. 

Sparkes, A. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the problem of criteria: Implications 

for sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 363-386. 

Sparkes, A., & Templin, T. (1992). Life histories and physical education teachers: Exploring 

the meanings of marginality. In A. Sparkes (Ed.), Research in physical education and 

sport: Exploring alternative visions (pp. 118-209). London: Falmer. 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures 

and techniques. London: Sage. 

Tangaere, A. (1997). Mäori human development learning theory. In P. Te Whäiti, M. McCarthy, 

A. Durie (Eds.), Mai I Rangiätea. Mäori Wellbeing and Development (pp. 46-59). 

Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press. 

Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in human services. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: 

Open University Press. 


5/14/06 11:41:21 AM


Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W.D. (in press). Coaching and coach education. In D. Kirk, M. 

OʼSullivan, & D. McDonald (Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education. London: 

Sage. 

Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2004). Communities of practice as an approach to foster ice 

hockey coach development. In D.J. Pearsall & A.B. Ashare (Eds.), Safety in ice hockey: 

Fourth volume ASTM STP 1446 (pp. 167-179). West Conshohoken, PA: ASTM International. 

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum 

Inquiry, 6, 205-228. 

Weiss, M.R., Barber, H., Sisley, B.L., & Ebbeck, V. (1991). Developing competence and 

confidence in novice female coaches: II. Perceptions of ability and affective experiences 

following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Sport and Exercise 

Psychology, 13, 336-363. 

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A 

guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Willis, G. (1994). Curriculum evaluation: Qualitative. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite 

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2 nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 1284-1288). 

Oxford: Pergamon. 

Zeichner, K. and Liston, P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational 

Review, 1, 23-48. 

End Notes 

1. In the New Zealand rugby union context, “code” is a slang word for playing the game of 

rugby, for example “letʼs play some code.” When constructing the coach education program, we 

knew this word was in the vocabulary of the rugby coaches so we used it but gave it another 

meaning. We used CoDe to mean Coach Development. So it was the CoDe of the code. 

2. This is a pseudonym. 

3. Fleming & Bonwell (2001) noted, “preferences are not the same as strengths” (p. 69). 

4. OBʼs is an abbreviation for Erewhon Boys High School, which could be viewed as a traditional 

state single sex school. 

5. A slang term for having had some experience. 

6. According to Willis (1994), merit “deals with value in terms of doing it in the first 

place . . . and its worth with whether it emphasizes trivial or significant topics” (p. 1286). 

Manuscript submitted: July 15, 2005 

Revision received: February 25, 2006 


5/14/06 11:41:22 AM

Evaluating and Reflecting Upon a Coach Education Initiative: The ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?