alfred 2 - University of Winchester

More documents

Recommendations

Info

44 performance coaches must have a fundamental psychological understanding of their athletes. This understanding must be combined with the application of enhancement techniques such as positive feedback (Salmela and Moraes, 2003), goal setting (Speed et al, 2005; Wadey and Hanton, 2007), democratic leadership and involvement of the individual athlete (Brewer, 2000), encouragement and reinforcement (Cox and Williams, 2008), and imagery and attributional retraining (Coffee et al, 2009). It should also take into account multidimensional perspectives (Gagne et al, 2003; Mouratidis et al, 2008; Price and Weiss, 2000). By providing these psychological techniques the coach is maximizing potential with regards to intrinsic motivation, performance and cognitive development in line with self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2004). It would therefore appear that damage to the athlete and their performance occurs when the coach lacks the fundamental understanding of educational sports psychology. Without acceptable levels of training it would therefore appear inappropriate for the coach to provide psychological support to the athlete. Issues A common criticism of the coach administering psychological support to athletes is the potential lack of validity and the response distortion problem (Ellickson and Brown, 1990; Smith, 1992). Even with the most honest and trusting coachathlete relationship, revealing true emotions and achieving psychological understanding of an athlete can be difficult due to athletes’ fears of not being played or being withdrawn from a team (Burke and Johnson, 1992). However Speed et al (2005) and Creswell and Eklund (2006) oppose this viewpoint stating that the coach-athlete relationship demonstrates a bond that is stronger than that with an external psychologist, who will inevitably struggle in gaining acceptance from an athlete, and occasionally even the coach, despite them sharing similar purpose with regards to enhancing athletic performance. In an ideal world both coach and psychologist would work in parallel and complement each other with regards to an increase in both psychological and physiological performance, and arguably this is achievable either through a dual role or through having both a coach and a psychologist. Martin et al (1997) favour the dual role due to their research findings stating athletes’ concerns with stigmatization of external therapy and lack of confidence in sports psychologists. Previous experiences from athletes and coaches alike will inevitably influence perceptions and expectations of the coach’s psychological role, for example Voight and Callaghan (2001) suggest that university sports coaches were reluctant to employ external psychologists as previously no positive improvement was demonstrated, and even some negative experiences were recorded. Other research also refers to problems with psychologists’ lack of sporting knowledge (Jowett et al, 2005; Weinberg and Gould, 2003). Although this lack of knowledge is easily overcome as specialised sports psychologists become more common , arguably many athletes would be more comfortable with a familiar figure, such as a coach (Hornak and Hornak, 1993). However, athletes often fail to recognise the need for intervention which then reinforces the coach’s initial role; whether psychologically qualified or primarily the technical coach, the coach needs to be able to recognise when an athlete needs intervention for progression to continue (Martin et al, 1997). Goal setting When developing team and social cohesion between coach and athletes, goal setting is a basic psychological technique used to demonstrate and clarify aims between individuals helping to create and develop a relationship. It is widely accepted and commonly implemented by coaches (Brewer, 2000; Burke, 2005; Salmela and Moraes, 2003; Wadey and Hanton, 2007). An effective sports psychologist would understand the importance of focusing upon process and performance goals for athlete progression. However, coaches can become fixated on outcome goals and show disappointment in their players though negative feedback and body language when failure occurs (Burke, 2005; Price and Weiss, 2000). Unconsciously, the coach is implementing detrimental cognitions through negative feedback, which again demonstrates the need for a basic level of educational psychology for coaches in order to provide support for their athletes (Buceta, 1993; Ellickson and Brown, 1990). Another danger of the coach implicating psychological support without
sufficient training is the potential to noticeably suppress an athlete’s motivation and self-efficacy through incorrect means of feedback in the form of punishments or tangible rewards, all of which contribute to demotivation or a decline in performance leading to athlete drop-out. Team sports Within team sports there is a tendency for coaches to fail to recognise athletes in need of psychological treatment, arguably due to the coach having less time to focus upon individual athletes (Buceta, 1993; Smith et al, 1979). A secondary challenge within team sports is how to effectively provide psychological support for an individual within a team, whilst avoiding perceptions of favouritism and unjust behaviour; arguably ethical considerations of the coach are challenged in this situation (Buceta, 1993; Ellickson and Brown, 1990; Hornak and Hornak, 1993). The psychological coaching skills of the coach are not necessarily being doubted, but with individual attention given towards players, inevitably the team will suffer with regards to technical support and direction (Salminen and Liukkonen, 1996). The coach’s primary focus needs to remain within the team to maintain focus upon achievement. It may then be concluded that the coach may not always be able to effectively treat the individual athlete within a team to optimal level, therefore an external sports psychologist would be more appropriate to support the athlete (Buceta, 1993; Salminen and Liukkonen, 1996). It has also been stated that within team sports the coach-athlete relationship is often more formal and less intimate meaning athletes are potentially more likely to approach an external psychologist than a coach regarding psychological concerns (Jowett et al, 2005). Team cohesion also needs to be considered from a psychological perspective as success depends on the team’s ability to effectively communicate and unite within competition, and the acknowledgement of individual roles and abilities within the team (Burke, 2005; Cresswell and Eklund, 2006). It is less likely that individuals within a team will naturally bond to levels of optimal performance, therefore it is the coach’s role to encourage team cohesion through psychological techniques such as behaviour modifications, attributional retraining, achievement motivation and goal setting (Brewer, 2000; Coffee et al, 2009). However when a coach lacks this psychological understanding, or the coach and athletes fail to strike a rapport and possibly even create conflict between one another, the use of an external sports psychologist becomes essential for development (Jowett et al, 2005). Conclusion Regardless of the relevant psychological qualifications held by the coach, it can be argued that in individual and team sports, the one-to-one relationship between athlete and coach can be stressful to the athlete, therefore the support of an external sports psychologist becomes necessary. However, depending on the coach-athlete relationship, this may not always be the case. Consideration of the situation and the individuals involved needs to be given. There are no clear set boundaries as to when it becomes inappropriate for a coach to supply psychological support for athletes due to the uniqueness of each environment and athlete. Coach and psychologist, whether as two individuals or within a dual role, should work simultaneously to provide much needed psychological support to athletes and maximise their athletic potential. References: Brewerm B. W. (2000) Doing Sports Psychology in the Coaching Role. In M. B, Anderson Doing Sport Psychology. Leeds: Human Kinetics. Buceta, J. M. (1993) The Sport Psychologist/ Athletic Coach Dual Role: Advantages, difficulties, and ethical considerations. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 64-77. Burke, K. L. (2005) But Coach Doesn’t Understand: Dealing with team communication quagmires. In Andersen, M. (ed.) Sport Psychology in Practice. Leeds: Human Kinetics. Burke, K. L. & Johnson, J. J. (1992) The Sport Psychologist- Coach Dual Role Position: A rebuttal to Ellickson and Brown. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 51-55. Coffee, P., Rees, T. & Haslam, S. A. (2009) Bouncing 45
Page 1: An undergraduate student journal -
Page 4 and 5: 2 Preface It is clear that the Univ
Page 6 and 7: 4 work from both Foundation (FdA) a
Page 8 and 9: 6 highlighted the differences betwe
Page 10 and 11: 8 second was that of all features b
Page 12 and 13: 10 Figure 2: Plan of features in tr
Page 14 and 15: 12 It’s a WRAP! Students experien
Page 16 and 17: 14 our target audience by coming ac
Page 18 and 19: 16 lacked methods through which the
Page 20 and 21: 18 and the historic unpopularity, a
Page 22 and 23: 20 and United Nations opinion sugge
Page 24 and 25: 22 Why has the Solid Democratic Sou
Page 26 and 27: 24 presidential candidates, while S
Page 28 and 29: 26 succeeded in recognising the age
Page 30 and 31: 28 the world. The argument for a mu
Page 32 and 33: 30 to concepts like preemption, uni
Page 34 and 35: 32 Jesus the Posterboy? Healthy Mod
Page 36 and 37: 34 change the focus of the masses t
Page 38 and 39: 36 Dalbey, G. 2003 Healing the Masc
Page 40 and 41: 38 1998. Both sought to promote the
Page 42 and 43: 40 Structure Demographic statistics
Page 44 and 45: 42 Routledge. Commission for Employ
Page 48 and 49: 46 Back from Failure: The interacti
Page 50 and 51: 48 Mapping the British Isles with
Page 52 and 53: 50 laboratory studies (Blades and S
Page 54 and 55: 52 Jackson, P. (2006) Thinking Geog
Page 56 and 57: 54 documenting their achievements m
Page 58 and 59: 56 and opportunities of the communi
Page 60: 58 PAULO (2003) National Occupation

alfred 2 - University of Winchester

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?