See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

[Link]

Coach Education and

Continuing Professional
Development: Experience and
Learning to Coach

Article in Quest -Illinois- National Association for Physical Education in

Higher Education- · August 2003
DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800

CITATIONS READS

240 455

3 authors, including:

Robyn Lloyd Jones

Cardiff Metropolitan University
70 PUBLICATIONS 2,233 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:

Coaching as orchestration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robyn Lloyd Jones on 06 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

QUEST, 2003, 55, 215-230 COACH EDUCATION 215
© 2003 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

Coach Education and Continuing

Professional Development:
Experience and Learning
to Coach
Christopher J. Cushion, Kathy M. Armour,
and Robyn L. Jones

Research over the last decade has demonstrated that it is experience and the
observation of other coaches that remain the primary sources of knowledge
for coaches. Despite this, coach education and continuing professional devel-
opment fail to draw effectively on this experience. Using the work of Pierre
Bourdieu, this paper attempts to understand how the “art of coaching” can be
characterized as structured improvisation and how experience is crucial to
structuring coaching practice. An examination of current coach education and
assessment demonstrates that coaching practice viewed as a composite of
knowledge has not specifically addressed the pervasive influence of experi-
ence on coaching practice. Drawing on experiences from the educational field,
we examine how coach education and continuing professional development
can utilize mentoring and critical reflection to situate learning in the practical
experience of coaching.

Until recently, although the importance of coaching to athlete development

and national sporting success was increasingly being realized (Sports Coach UK,
2002), there was little agreement as to a future strategic direction for the burgeon-
ing profession. A recent commissioned report (“The development of coaching in
the United Kingdom,” 1999) brought this situation into stark relief and, subse-
quently, initiated a process whereby the government-funded Sports Strategy Coach-
ing Task Force recommended the development of National Occupational Stan-
dards (NOS) for coaches working within the high performance environment. The

Christopher J. Cushion is with the Center for Coaching and Performance Science,
Department of Sport Science at Brunel University, Uxbridge UK. E-mail:
[Link]@[Link]. Kathy M. Armour is with the Department of Physical
Education and Sport at Loughborough University, UK. Robyn L. Jones is with the Depart-
ment of Education at the University of Bath, UK.

215
216 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

standards will, in turn, offer a foundation for the proposed New Coaching Certifi-
cate and the improved National and Scottish Vocational Qualifications (N/SVQs)
and, hence, form a base for the future of coach education within the UK. The
government’s commitment to this process has been underlined by its allocation of
£100 million to the World Class Performance Program in response to recommen-
dations by the related Cunningham Report (2000), which considered coach educa-
tion to be a crucial element in improving sporting standards.
This investment has kicked off a broad consultative process into establish-
ing the NOS for coaches, with pedagogical and particularly sport scientific knowl-
edge destined to play leading roles (Sports Coach UK, 2002). Although the nature
of the consultative process is welcome, if we are to develop imaginative, dynamic,
and thoughtful coaches, we must widen the search beyond the “usual suspects” of
content knowledge that has traditionally informed coach education programs. If
we don’t, we run the risk of simply getting a souped up version of the same, a
product that has recently been criticized by coaches and scholars alike as lacking
relevancy (Jones, Armour, & Potrac, in press; Saury & Durand, 1998). Alterna-
tively, to develop a credible, practical, yet thoroughly holistic coach education
program, we need first to better ascertain the complex nature of coaching and
coaching knowledge itself before examining issues such as what constitutes con-
tinuing professional development for coaches and devising ways to incorporate,
develop, and improve it.
Coaching is both an individual and a social process, which, because of its
very nature, is inextricably linked to both the constraints and opportunities of hu-
man interaction (Jones et al., in press). Indeed, at its heart lies the constructed
connection between coach and athlete within the wider structure of sport that is
itself vulnerable to differing social pressures and constraints (Armour & Jones,
2000; Cross, 1995; Cushion 2001; Tinning, 1982). Any activity that involves hu-
man beings is a complex multivariate, interpersonal, and contested one, contested
at the levels of meaning, values, and practice (Cross & Lyle, 1999). Such pro-
cesses, of which coaching is one, often appear unique and idiosyncratic (Lyle,
1999, 2002), with the actions of coaches seemingly driven by impulse and intu-
ition resulting in the profession being described as an “art” (Woodman, 1993). In
fact, this recourse to art form is really a misnomer for “the under-investigated
practice of coaches” (Lyle, 1999, p.12). Indeed, in bypassing problematic and in-
tegrative elements of a coach’s role, which are often perceived to comprise the art
of coaching, it could be argued that previous work in the area has oversimplified a
very complex process (Cushion, 2001; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, in press; Lyle,
1999, 2002). A particularly problematic yet significant element in this respect is
coaches’ knowledge. Although those who claim coaching an art would have us
believe that good coaches are “born and not made,” such a view is increasingly
outmoded, with experts’ knowledge in many fields (and how it is acquired) cur-
rently being the focus of considerable investigation.
While coaching is undeniably complex, coaches and what they do remain at
the epicenter of the process. This paper considers the development and nature of
coaching knowledge and practice through the medium of coaches’ experiences,
both formal and informal. It attempts to understand the relationship between the
conscious and subconscious development of experiential knowledge and its im-
pact upon coaches’ professional development and practice. Through critical
 COACH EDUCATION 217

examination of this relationship, the effectiveness of existing coach educa-

tion is considered and recommendations for new forms of professional devel-
opment made.

Coaching and Experiential Knowledge

In a review of the development of coaching as a profession, Woodman (1993)
confirmed the assertion that the key to improved coaching lies with coach educa-
tion and development. This view, allied with an expansion in sport participation
(Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Weiss & Gould, 1986), has resulted in the implementa-
tion of coach education programs worldwide (Campbell, 1993; DeKnop, Engstrom,
& Skirstad, 1996; Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). Yet, coaching experience and the ob-
servation of other coaches remain primary sources of knowledge for coaches and
coaching (Cushion, 2001; Gilbert & Trudel 2001; Gould, Gianinni, Krane, & Hodge,
1990; Salmela, 1996). For example, Gould et al. (1990) found that “one of the
most important themes arising [in this context] was the importance of experiential
knowledge and informal education” (p. 34). Inherent in the process of learning
how to coach, therefore, would appear to be an element of socialization within a
subculture (Jones et al., in press), with a personal set of coaching views emerging
from observations of, and interaction with, existing coaches of “how things should
be done” (Lyle, 1999).
Arguably, coaches serve what is described in physical education as an ap-
prenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975; Sage, 1989; Schempp, 1989; Schempp
& Graber, 1992). This can be divided into two phases: first, being observers and
recipients of coaching as performers and second, as neophyte coaches or assistants
working with and observing experienced coaches. As performers themselves, fu-
ture coaches have an unusually good opportunity to learn about coaching from
their own coaches. While Martens (1997) argues that this view only gives a partial
view of coaching and may not reveal the true extent of the coaches role, Coakley
(1978) notes that these experiences “are the channels through which the traditional
accepted methods of coaching become integrated into the behavior of aspiring
young coaches” (p. 241). Coaches, therefore, often serve an informal apprentice-
ship of prolonged observation, which enables them to develop a familiarity with
the task of coaching (Cushion, 2001). Neophyte coaches and assistants are also, in
effect, serving an apprenticeship. However, this is often not formally organized, as
assistant coaches do not serve for a specific time nor are they required to demon-
strate particular skills to move beyond apprentice status (Sage, 1989). Observing
the behavior of more experienced coaches during practice and games and listening
during informal periods leaves its mark on novice coaches. It is largely through
such experiences that collective understandings begin to develop, and the shared
meanings about the occupational culture of coaching starts to take shape. There-
fore, much of what a new coach learns is through ongoing interactions in the prac-
tical coaching context, as well as a variety of informal sources. This enculturation
provides continuity with lessons learned earlier as a performer.
Consequently, through participation and observation from a player through
to becoming a coach, methods of coaching are experienced and witnessed. These
methods are steeped in a culture, which, in turn, are internalized and embodied. It
is also worth noting that the learning taking place may involve things that were not
218 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

present in coaching observed. As Dodds remarks, “ignorance is not neutral” (1985,

p. 93). Indeed, Kirk (1992) suggests that things that are, intentionally or uninten-
tionally, left out of practice remain significant in passing on messages about that
practice. Even though coaches’ past experiences are uneven in quality and incom-
plete, they form a screen or filter through which all future expectations will pass
(Schempp & Graber, 1992). Coaches thus come to see and interpret future coach-
ing events and observations on the basis of this early experiential foundation (Cush-
ion, 2001; Jones et al., in press). Such formative experiences carry far into a coach’s
career and provide a continuing influence over perspectives, beliefs, and behav-
iors. This, as will be seen, has implications for the impact of coach education.
Regardless of the method of entry into coaching, it would appear that the
technical aspects of coaching and the coaching culture are often acquired through
observing and listening to more experienced coaches. This appears to be a consis-
tent finding in related research. For example, in two separate studies of high level
coaches, Gould et al. (1990) and Salmela, Cote, and Baria (1994), both identified
that the most important sources responsible for the development of coaches’ knowl-
edge were experience and other coaches. A decade later, Cushion (2001) once
again confirmed experience and other coaches as significant forces in shaping the
development of coaches and impacting the way they do things within the coaching
process. As a result, it would seem that a large part of coaching knowledge and
practice is based on experiences and personal interpretations of those experiences.
However, this is not to say that all experienced coaches are competent (Bell, 1997;
Gilbert & Trudel, 2001), although to become a competent coach, it would appear
that significant experience is required (Cushion, 2001; Lyle, 2002). These empiri-
cal findings raise a number of issues relevant to coach education and ultimately
coaching practice. First, how has coach education impacted and changed the coach-
ing process over time? The thread of history and tradition seen running through
coaching practice and the coaching process presents a compelling argument that
perhaps coach education has had a limited impact on the coaching process and
coaching practice (Cushion, 2001). Moreover, as Rossi and Cassidy (1999) re-
mind us, coach education is a relatively “low impact” endeavor compared with the
hours spent as a player, assistant coach, and coach. It could be argued, therefore,
that coach education is unable to compete with the coaches’ integrated sporting
and coaching experiences.

Understanding Experience:
What Does Bourdieu Bring to Coaching?
Although sociology has seen scant service in an analysis of the coaching
process, the work of Bourdieu would seem particularly appropriate in giving in-
sight into the apparent impromptu art of coaching and understanding how experi-
ence contributes to practice. The following section, therefore, focuses on the work
and key concepts of Bourdieu in explaining and understanding coaching, thus il-
lustrating its potential contribution to future coach education programs. For
Bourdieu, far from being off-the-cuff improvisation, practice is a blend of the con-
scious and the unconscious, which manifests itself as second nature. Alternatively,
he considered that a feel for the game involved being a competent social actor that
resulted from the absorption of appropriate social actions and mores (Jones, 2000).
 COACH EDUCATION 219

The coaching process and coaching practice then can be considered a form of
“regulated improvisation” (Bourdieu, 1977, p.79), with practice being neither ob-
jectively determined nor the unbridled product of free will (Ritzer, 1996).
The temporal quality of practice, in other words the evolution and refine-
ment of practice across time, is an important consideration in a discussion of coach-
ing, coach development, and education. In explaining this, Bourdieu argued that
the body is a site of social memory involving the individual culturally learning and
evoking dispositions to act (Jarvie & Maguire, 1994). Durable and transposable
dispositions to act are characterized by Bourdieu as habitus (Brubaker, 1995;
Wacquant, 1998), which are defined as a series of internalized schemes through
which people perceive, produce, and evaluate their practices (Ritzer, 1996). These
unconscious schemata are acquired through lasting exposures to particular condi-
tions via the internalization of external constraints and possibilities (Wacquant,
1995). The unconscious operation of habitus means that what coaches do, i.e.,
their practice, signifies a great deal about their personal history and occupancy of
a specific social position. Coaches’ knowledge and action, therefore, can be viewed
as both the product and manifestation of a personally experienced involvement
with the coaching process. They are linked to the coaches’ own histories and, cru-
cially, are attributable to how they were learned. The expression of the coaches’
dispositions or habitus through training sessions and games, and which is refined
by interaction with the environment and performers, produces the coaching pro-
cess and the coaching context (Cushion, 2001). The coaches’ habitus, then, is ac-
quired as a result of past experience as players and coaches and through adjust-
ment and readjustment following interaction with the specific coaching context.
Given the interconnectedness of coaching, the body and culture, the coaches and
their practice take on enormous significance as a moment in the process of cultural
production and reproduction (Kirk & Tinning, 1990). Therefore, the acquisition
and development of coaches’ habitus has serious implications for both coaching
practice and coach education. However, before this notion is considered in detail
and developed further, it is worthwhile taking a critical view of current coach
education.

Current Coach Education: A Critique

Coaching awards or certification are a common and traditional feature of
British sport and now contain more information than ever, dealing with a range of
issues from technique and tactics to elements of sport science (Abraham & Collins,
1998). Although the knowledge base that coaches currently receive allows them to
fit into sporting settings and transmit their subject matter, it could also be consid-
ered to render them as unskilled workers (Fernandez-Balboa, 1997a; Howley &
Howley, 1995). Hence, it can be argued that coach education courses, having been
developed along rationalistic lines, currently do not develop what Jones (2000)
describes as necessary, intellectual, and practical competencies, namely, indepen-
dent and creative thinking skills in relation to meaning making and problem solv-
ing. Instead, by separating the theory from practice, high level tasks have been
presented as sequential routine, which has resulted in the deskilling of the practi-
tioner in terms of cognitive and human interaction (Jones, 2000; MacDonald &
Tinning, 1995; Potrac, Jones, Brewer, Armour, & Hoff, 2000). This approach is
220 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

problematic, because as Schon (1987) points out, professions that privilege “tech-
nocratic rationality” are finding graduates ill prepared for the many challenges and
tasks practice asks of them.
Course content on such programs is generally directed toward the promo-
tion of athletic achievement, with a dominant focus on performance enhancement
(Liukkonen, Laasko, & Telama, 1996). Coaching as a social process receives scant
attention. In addition, coach development programs subdivide coaching into com-
ponents, episodes, or modules, resulting in distinct and fragmented categories within
the broad coaching field (Jones, 2000). Indeed, MacDonald and Tinning (1995)
contend that this fragmentation of knowledge reflects an increasing product view,
with coaching, not unlike physical education, being seen as an “autonomous body
of facts passed through generations” (McKay, Gore, & Kirk, 1990, p. 62). This, of
course, has implications for coaches, with practitioners being regarded as “merely
technicians engaged in the transfer of knowledge” (McDonald & Tinning, 1995, p.
98). An inherent problem with this rational approach is that learning becomes
decontextualized, resulting in the production of two-dimensional coaches driven
by mechanistic considerations who are unable to comprehend and, as a result,
adapt to the dynamic human context (Jones 2000; Turner & Martinek, 1995). Al-
ternatively, far from being merely technicians or functionaries who transmit a de
facto curriculum (Lawson, 1993), in line with the complex and dynamic nature of
their work, coaches should be educated as transformative intellectuals (Giroux,
1988). Hence, they need a range of practical and cognitive skills to enable them to
construct and question knowledge and connect coaching to a broader sociocultural
context (Fernandez-Balboa, 1997b; Jones, 2000).
Coach education course content, while increasing the knowledge base of
coaches, must be largely held accountable for this apparent inadequacy in coach
preparation, as it defines what is necessary knowledge for coaches to practice (Jones
et al., in press). Tinning (1997) contends that this implies a choice between differ-
ent views of what knowledge is essential for practice. This is a form of social
editing, or “gate keeping,” where some themes are eliminated and others are pro-
moted (Lawson, 1993). The process, therefore, becomes a political act, intimately
linked with power and control, regarding what constitutes legitimate knowledge
and who holds that knowledge in the culture and profession. Arguably, through
this control, the governing body and certain interests within it (i.e., the gatekeepers)
seek to maintain and improve their position.
The outcome of this editing process is a philosophical orientation that is
vocational and technocratic (Kirk, 1992; Fernandez-Balboa, 1997b). The empha-
sis is on procedural knowledge, the skills, technique, and tactics of the game. This
approach is problematic on a number of levels. First, it assumes that knowledge
and tricks of the trade can be passed on unhindered and unchallenged when, in
reality, the development of knowledge is perhaps more complicated (Rossi, 1996).
Indeed, knowledge for coaching is inherently contextual and dynamic with, as we
have already argued, life-world experiences contributing to its development. Fur-
thermore, coaching knowledge, not unlike pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1986) in physical education, is neither complete nor absolute, but ever
evolving. Second, coach education cannot treat knowledge in a vacuum, as if it
were neutral and value-free. Knowledge is produced within particular sociocul-
tural contexts, serves particular interests, and carries certain values. Indeed,
 COACH EDUCATION 221

knowledge is socially constituted, socially mediated, and open ended, with “its
meaning to given actors, its furnishings, and the relations of humans within it,
[being] produced, reproduced, and changed in the course of activity” (Lave &
Wenger, 1991, p. 51). As Schempp (1993) contends, knowledge is living, not inor-
ganic, as it grows from the distilled wisdom of practice. Yet, coaching course con-
tent still reinforces the image of the coach as a technician whose role, although
requiring a high degree of skill, is to simply and uncritically transmit knowledge.
This does not teach coaches to adapt or apply value judgments.
More specifically, coach education courses often break the process down
into specific components, with students shown a gold standard or perceived no-
tions of best practice of coaching for each component (Abraham & Collins, 1998).
By design, this does not designate context nor prepare coaches for context. In
sport, contexts can be as varied as the sportspeople who inhabit them; some ex-
amples may include youth, developmental, competitive, professional, team, or in-
dividual sport. Each coaching context may have its own specific demands and
objectives, so the program delivered in that context will also be variable. Indeed,
the nature and variability of program content within sporting contexts means that
coach education cannot correspond to all needs. This, then, results in a lack of
perceived fit between coach education and practical needs that, in turn, weakens
the impact of coach education (Saury & Durand, 1998).
To develop coaching praxis, that is, the progressive integration of theory and
practice, the aims and content of coach education must deal with the coach’s expe-
rience, ranging from the lack of experience of the neophyte coach, through to the
extensive experience of the established coach. An established coach arrives at coach
education courses with a long-standing and deep-rooted habitus, a set of beliefs
and dispositions that guides actions and is tempered by years of experience in the
sport. In the first instance, it would be naive for those involved with coach educa-
tion to believe that these coaches are waiting to be filled with the professional
dogma (Schempp & Graber, 1992) of coaching theory. It could also be argued that
coaching courses, with their parceled and specific ways of knowing and commu-
nicating (Cushion, 2001; Saury & Durand, 1998), are unable to compete with an
established habitus conceived from experience. As a result, with their experience
acting as a filter, coaches may contest directly or indirectly some of the principles
the coach education program attempt to instill. However, because of the power of
the coach educator and the governing body, through their responsibility for certifi-
cation and position in the sport, coaches have much to lose by directly contesting
the program. Therefore, the critical scrutiny necessary to do things better and to
create the possibility of changing practice if the need arises, is driven underground
as the coaches give an outward appearance of acceptance while harboring and
restricting their disagreement with, and rejection of, the official coaching orienta-
tion. So, while coach education may give the appearance of being subject to a so-
called “wash out” effect (Zeichner & Tabaachnick, 1981), evidence suggests that
many coaches probably never accept or appropriate the program behaviors and
beliefs but, out of necessity, merely appeared to (Cushion, 2001).
Of course there is no one size fits all pedagogy (Lawson, 1990) in the day-
to-day lives of coaches and their practice. Therefore, how can a single coach edu-
cation program realistically prepare coaches for so many contexts and a myriad of
contextual factors? This is a pertinent question with no easy solution. While not
222 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

being all encompassing and complete, the issues raised in the next section may
provide a point of departure for thinking in this regard.

Toward Developing Coach Education:

Mentoring, Knowledge, and Understanding
Those responsible for looking at new forms of coach professional develop-
ment could find it useful to draw upon the experiences and findings of researchers
in the field of education. In particular, those charged with improving and develop-
ing the professional practice of teachers currently working in schools who develop
in-service training or continuing professional development (CPD). For example,
continuing professional development (CPD) research has had difficulty in linking
CPD activity and its impact upon teachers’ practices and ultimately, student learn-
ing. In this regard, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and Suk Yoon (2001) distin-
guish between traditional and reform types of CPD. Traditional forms of CPD tend
to take place at specific times and are usually undertaken off-site with minimal
follow-up. They offer little opportunity or support to enable teachers to integrate
new learning with practice and, so, are often ineffective. Reform types of CPD, on
the other hand, typically take place within the school day, involve collective par-
ticipation of teachers from the same school or group of schools, and are integrated
into practice in the form of study groups and mentoring. Garet et al. (2001) argue
that these activities are easier to sustain over time and crucially are likely to result
in better connections between experience, new learning, and existing practice.
Within coaching, as has been argued earlier, evidence suggests that both the
experience of the coach and encounters with experienced coaches are fundamental
to the shaping of the coach habitus and coaching practice. Clearly, then, influenc-
ing such experiences would affect the acquisition and development of coaches’
knowledge. Indeed, sections of the coaching literature have argued that coach edu-
cation should incorporate sources of experience other than the coaching manual
(Gould et al., 1990; Schembri, 2001; Lyle, 2002). One method of doing this would
be for coach education to embrace mentoring within its framework, a strategy that
can easily be housed within the reform camp of CPD. Indeed, there would appear
to be some clear links between this proposal and the research on CPD in educa-
tion. However, Loughran and Gunstone (1997, p.161) remind us that professional
development is not something that can be delivered, rather it should be about “work-
ing with, not doing to, teachers so that appropriate time, support, understanding
and personal development are seen as investments in personal growth.” Further-
more, Stein, Smith and Silver (1999) point out that if CPD is to change, there are
important implications for those responsible for providing it. Indeed, Stein et al.
(1999) argue that in education, what professional developers need is “more akin to
a transformation than to tinkering around the edges of their practice” (p.19). It is
likely that this applies equally to coach education providers.
Taking into account the dominant role it seems to play in coaching knowl-
edge acquisition, it would seem logical for coach education to harness the obvious
power and influence of experience, and other influential coaches, to work toward
sound coach development objectives. A key finding from recent coaching research
(Cushion, 2001; Gilbert & Trudel, 2001) demonstrates that mentoring is already
very much in operation. Because experience and other coaches are still highlighted
 COACH EDUCATION 223

as the most important facet in the development of coaches bears testimony to this.
Mentoring in its current form, however, appears largely unstructured, informal,
and uneven in terms of quality and outcome, uncritical in style, and, from the
evidence, serves to reproduce the existing culture, power relations, and impor-
tantly, existing coaching practice (Cushion, 2001).
In the educational field, mentoring is well established with a considerable
body of literature devoted to it (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerny & O Brien,
1995; Bloom, Bush, Schinke & Salmela, 1998). In an exhaustive summary of the
effects of mentoring in education, Abell et al. (1995) found examples of successful
programs with positive outcomes for both the teacher and the mentor. Interest-
ingly, the mentors received an educational benefit through critical reflection and
observation and, because the mentor had a helping role rather than an evaluative
one, program effectiveness was enhanced. While sounding like a statement of the
obvious, in coaching, where a critical tradition is lacking, the difference between
help and evaluation is more than a question of semantics. Similarly, in an investi-
gation of training methods of coaches, it was found that a formalized and struc-
tured mentoring program was considered by the participants to be the most impor-
tant factor in their development (Bloom, Salmela, & Schinke, 1995). In light of
this evidence, it could be contended that more formalized mentoring programs
would be a worthwhile addition to coach development (Bloom et al., 1998). Fur-
thermore, as the research suggests, mentoring is not only beneficial to the devel-
oping coach, but also to the master coach who, as mentors, are able to expand and
diversify their own learning experiences when working with apprentices (Abell et
al., 1995; Bowers & Eberhart, 1988).

Enabling Transformation:
Effective Mentoring Through Reflection
Importantly, Cushion (2001) makes useful suggestions as to what might make
a mentoring program more successful. It would seem imperative for mentors to
have established the appropriate position in the sporting and coaching hierarchy.
They would have to have the necessary amount and mix of social, cultural, and
symbolic capital. The mentor would also have to hold expert power (French &
Raven, 1959), which is based not only on the knowledge of the mentor, but upon
the perceptions of the coaches regarding that knowledge (Tauber, 1985).
Coaches, then, are part of the problem and part of the solution. The implica-
tions for coach education lie in understanding how knowledge and experience are
passed on and become translated into the coaching process. This paper, along with
other research, has linked significant others and past experience to the develop-
ment of high-level coaches. It has also shown that through the habitus, coaches’
behaviors and actions are often the expression of tacit beliefs that are so taken for
granted that they cannot be recognized or verbalized. We need to provide coaches
with a mirror in which they can see their own programs and practices. Coaches
need to see the ways in which day-to-day behaviors reinforce or challenge cultural
beliefs and practices, for example, in perpetuating stereo-types pertaining to race
or gender or associating positive and supportive learning environments with win-
ning. In a coaching world that is “largely competency based, and where measure-
ment takes precedence over process,” we need to encourage coaches to stand back
224 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

and reflect upon the construction and application of their professional knowledge
(Hardy & Mawer, 1999, p. 2), in essence, to get them to understand why they
coach as they do (Cassidy & Jones, in press). Making coaches more reflective can
not only help in this recognition process but also be a catalyst for change.
Recent evidence points strongly to the need for coach education to encour-
age experienced coaches to question the assumptions underlying both their own
coaching practice and coach education if excellence is to be achieved (Jones et al.,
in press; Cushion, 2001). Unless coaches reflect on and reinterpret past experi-
ences of coaching, they remain in danger of leaving their practice untouched by
new knowledge and insight. As Kirk and Tinning (1990) suggest,
By opening up our professional practices to scrutiny, by ourselves and
our peers, we create the possibility of turning these areas of practice
into “sites of contestation” (Kirk, 1988) where we can begin to ad-
dress, practically and specifically, issues and problems. (p. 9)
Kirk (1986) further argues that “educators who lack the capacity for reflec-
tive thought and informed critical judgment may be in danger not only of confirm-
ing their low professional status, but also of leaving themselves open to political
manipulation” (p.155). Critical reflection involves justifying what is said and done,
engaging in what Mehan (1992) calls “active sense making” (p.1). It also involves
dealing “consciously and expressly with the situations we find ourselves” (Dewey,
1934, p. 264). Moreover, Fernandez-Balboa (1997b) asserts that critical reflection
should not just be about the past and the present, but discerning what could be; as
such, it becomes a means for transforming the present and inventing the future.
How then might coaches become more reflective? As Schon (1987) sug-
gests, it may take several years to create durable traditions. It requires those posi-
tioned within the cultural and social hierarchy of sports coaching, who have power
to influence, to become committed to reflective practice, thus ensuring a connec-
tion between the educational mission of coach education, experienced coaches,
and coach educators. Indeed, it is a challenging task for coach education. More
immediately and specifically in coach education, considering the methods of as-
sessment may be a step forward. Currently as considered earlier, coaches are as-
sessed in a practical test scenario where their coaching either meets the required
standard or not. This type of assessment breeds anxiety, undermines individual
self-esteem, and creates an insular mentality (Fernandez-Balboa, 1997b). Khon
(1994) argues that involving participants in assessment is both validating and em-
powering. Hence, by evaluating participants using self and peer assessment, coaches
reflect on their own and others’ coaching and become accustomed to giving and
receiving constructive but critical feedback, resulting in “powerful and compel-
ling learning experiences” (Fernandez-Balboa, 1997b, p. 136).
A further way to encourage reflection in coaches is to get them to clarify and
hence better understand their personal philosophies, the development and expres-
sion of habitus. Choices made in the coaching process can be grounded in the
coaches’ philosophies (Bain, 1993; Crisfield, Cabral, & Carpenter, 1996; Martens,
1997) and so coaches need to reexamine and reflect on them. The objective of this
reflection is to define alternatives so that the choices coaches make are more con-
scious and intentional rather than based on “tradition or uncritical inertia”
 COACH EDUCATION 225

(Fernandez-Balboa, 1997b, p. 128) as evidence seems to indicate is currently the

case (Cushion, 2001). This leads to consideration of how knowledge needs to be
constructed and transmitted to fit the contextual purpose, particularities, and
subjectivities of the particular coaching situation (Cutforth & Hellison, 1992).
Coaching, moreover, not unlike physical education, lacks a critical tradition
(Kirk & Tinning, 1990) that makes the adoption of such practice fraught with
difficulties and resistance. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (1996) argue, the social
field is a field of struggle and the sporting field is no exception. Clubs, the govern-
ing bodies, and individual coaches are constantly seeking to improve their posi-
tion within the field, while the pervasive roots and influence of culture and tradi-
tion run deep. Furthermore, coaches have traditionally viewed criticism as de-
structive and intensely personal and hence have responded in a defensive manner
(Cushion, 2001). It has often appeared easier to simply follow trends (Kirk &
Tinning, 1990), with coaching practice being uncritically reproduced.
To break the restrictive cycle of our current practice, which seems “nar-
rower and more oblivious to social context and process than ever before” (Gill,
1992, p.155), we need to test possible intervention strategies in the “swamp of
practice” (Schon, 1987). Hence, to establish a genuine dialogue with practitioners,
scholars need to demonstrate that they too “have struggled with (and in) the reali-
ties of practice” (Hellison, 1997, p. 200). This would seem particularly to be needed
in many well established sports, including, for example, soccer, where practice is
interwoven with complex hierarchies, traditions, and cultures, and a voice
requires a certain position within the field both to be heard and listened to
(Cushion, 2001).

Concluding Thoughts
“For any occupation the quality of future practice is a central concern and, to
some extent, shapes the development of the profession” (Lyle, 2002, p. 275). Based
on recent empirical work (Saury & Durand, 1998; Jones et al., in press; Cushion,
2001), we take the position that currently, experience plays a central role in im-
pacting upon coaches’ practice. While good coaches possess a wealth of knowl-
edge about coaching, it seems that coach education fails to draw effectively upon
it in the preparation of novice coaches or indeed, in debates about practice (Snow,
2001). Yet, without formal training provision, novices have a pseudo-structured
initiation into coaching (Cushion, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991). There remains,
therefore, a strong case that in its current form, coach education and CPD within
the field fails to inform and influence practice. However, the preparation of the
practitioner cannot be left to experience alone (Cushion, 2001; Lyle, 2002). The
challenge is not to ignore or downplay personal knowledge and experience but to
elevate it (Snow, 2001). Clearly, there is a need to situate the trainees’ learning in
the practical experience of coaching in an appropriate supportive context. In other
words, coach education needs to extend its thinking into practice by going there.
Our position, therefore, is that coach education programs should include super-
vised field experiences throughout, possibly in a variety of contexts, to enable
coaches to consider differences, make mistakes, reflect and learn from them, and
try again. This approach would provide coaches with multiple opportunities to test
226 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

and refine knowledge and skills, make coaching judgments that are meaningful
within their particular situation, and understand the pragmatic constraints of coach-
ing contexts.
We believe that coach education needs to explore new knowledge and ways
of thinking and to be less concerned with guarding old ideas (Schempp, 1993).
What we propose is a model of critical thinking that will allow coaches to develop
their own processual “expert toolbox” as professionals (Cassidy & Jones, in press)
and not follow blindly generic guidelines or mimic the practice of observed others
(Cushion, 2001). Such a program “can serve to integrate prospective professionals
into the logic of the present social order” and “serve to promote a situation where
future professionals can deal critically with that reality in order to improve it”
(Liston & Zeichner, 1991, [Link]). Finally, Davies (1994) contends that this pro-
cess, which could include mentoring and critical reflection, must begin with us,
our knowledge, and our language and lead us to an awareness of how our profes-
sional subjectivity has been constructed.

References
Abell, S.K., Dillon, D.R., Hopkins, C.J., McInerny, W.D., & O’Brien, D.G. (1995). Some-
body to count on: Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher internship pro-
gram. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 173-188.
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach develop-
ment. Quest, 50, 59-79.
Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2000). The practical heart within: The value of a sociology
of sport. In R.L. Jones, & K.M. Armour (Eds.), Sociology of sport theory and prac-
tice (pp. 1-10). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Bain, L. (1993). Ethical issues in teaching. Quest, 45, 69-77.
Bell. M. (1997). The development of expertise. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance, 68(2), 34-38.
Bloom, G.A., Bush, N., Schinke, R.J., & Salmela, J.H. (1998). The importance of mentoring
in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy, 29, 267-289.
Bloom, G.A., Salmela, J.H., & Schinke, R.J. (1995). Expert coaches views on the training
of developing coaches. In R. Vanfraechem-Raway & Y. Vanden Auweele (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the Ninth European Congress on Sport (pp. 401-408). Brussels: Free
University of Brussels.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.J.D. (1996). The purpose of reflexive sociology (The Chicago
Workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L.J.D. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive soci-
ology (pp. 61-215). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bowers, G.R., & Eberhart, N.A. (1988). Mentors and the entry year program. Theory into
Practice, 27, 226-230.
Brubaker, R. (1995). Social theory as habitus. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone
(Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 212-234). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Campbell, S. (1993). Coaching education around the world. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 62-
74.
Cassidy, T., & Jones, R.L. (in press). Problematising sports coaching: Teaching and learn-
ing in the sporting context. London: Routledge.
Coakley, J. (1978). Sport in society. St. Louis: Mosby.
 COACH EDUCATION 227

Crisfield, P., Cabral, P., & Carpenter, F. (1996). The successful coach: Guidelines for coaching
practice. Leeds, UK: National Coaching Foundation.
Cross, N. (1995). Coaching effectiveness in hockey: A Scottish perspective. Scottish Jour-
nal of Physical Education, 23(1), 27-39.
Cross, N., & Lyle, J. (Eds.). (1999). The coaching process; Principles and practice for
sport. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.
Cunningham, J. (2000) Elite sports funding review. London: HMSO.
Cushion, C.J. (2001). Coaching research and coach education: Do the sum of the parts
equal the whole? SportaPolis (September). Retrieved from [Link]
org/[Link].
Cutforth, N. & Hellison, D. (1992). Reflections on reflective teaching in a physical educa-
tion teacher education methods course. The Physical Educator, 49, 127-135.
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Geelong: Deakin Uni-
versity Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Arts as experience. New York: Minton, Balch and Co.
DeKnop, P., Engstrom, L.M., & Skirstad, B. (1996). Worldwide trends in youth sport. In P.
DeKnop, L.M. Engstrom, B. Skirstad, & [Link] (Eds), Worldwide trends in youth
sport (pp. 276-281). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Dodds, P. (1985). Are hunters of the functional curriculum seeking quarks or sharks? Jour-
nal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 91-99.
Fernandez-Balboa, J. (1997a). Knowledge base in physical education teacher education: A
proposal for a new era. Quest, 49, 161-181.
Fernandez-Balboa, J. (1997b). Physical education teacher preparation in the postmodern
era: Toward a critical pedagogy. In J.M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical post-
modernism in human movement, physical education, and sport (pp. 121-138). Al-
bany: State University of New York.
French, J.R.P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, (Ed.),
Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Garet, S.M., Porter, C.A., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Suk Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). An evaluation strategy for coach education programs.
Journal of Sport Behaviour, 22(2), 235-250.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model
youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34.
Gill, D.L. (1992). Gender and sport behaviour. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychol-
ogy (pp. 143-160). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Gould, D., Gianinni, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S.
national Pan American and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Edu-
cation, 9, 322-344.
Hardy, C.A., & Mawer, M. (1999). Learning and teaching in physical education. London:
Falmer.
Hellison, D. (1997). A practical inquiry into the critical postmodernist perspective in physi-
cal education. In J.M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in human
movement, physical education, and sport (pp. 197-206). Albany: State University of
New York.
Howley, A., & Howley, C.B. (1995). The mechanisms of anti-intellectualism in schools. In
C.B. Howley, A. Howley, & E.D. Pendarvis, Out of our minds (pp. 44-76). New
York: Teachers College Press.
228 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

Jarvie, G., & Maguire, J. (1994). Sport and leisure in social thought. London:
Routledge.
Jones, R.L. (2000). Toward a sociology of coaching. In R.L. Jones & K.M. Armour (Eds.),
The sociology of sport: Theory and practice (pp. 33-43). London: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & Potrac, P. (in press). The cultures of coaching. London:
Longman.
Khon, A. (1994). Grading: The issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership, 52(2),
38-41.
Kirk, D. (1986). A critical pedagogy for teacher education: Toward an inquiry-oriented
approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5(4), 230-243.
Kirk, D. (1988). Physical education and curriculum study: A critical introduction. London:
Croom Helm.
Kirk, D. (1992). Physical education, discourse and ideology: Bringing the hidden curricu-
lum into view. Quest, 44, 35-56.
Kirk, D. & Tinning, R. (Eds.). (1990). Physical education curriculum and culture: Critical
issues in the contemporary crisis. London: Falmer Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H.A. (1990). Sport pedagogy research: From information gathering to useful knowl-
edge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 1-21.
Lawson, H.A. (1993). Dominant discourses, problem setting, and teacher education
pedagogies: A critique. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10(1), 1-20.
Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Teacher education and the conditions of schooling. New
York: Routledge.
Liukkonen, J., Laasko, L., & Telama, R. (1996). Educational perspectives of youth sport
coaches: Analysis of observed coaching behaviours. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 27, 439-453.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (1997) Professional development in residence: Developing
reflection on science teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(2),
159-178.
Lyle, J.W.B. (1999). The coaching process: Principles and practice. In N. Cross & J. Lyle
(Eds.), The coaching process: Principles and practice for sport (pp. 1-24). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. London:
Routledge.
MacDonald, D., & Tinning, R. (1995). Physical education teacher education and the trend
to proletarianisation: A case study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15,
98-118.
Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McKay, J., Gore, J.M., & Kirk, D. (1990). Beyond the limits of technocratic physical edu-
cation. Quest, 42, 52-76.
Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools: The contribution of interdepen-
dence studies. Sociology of Education, 65, 1-20.
Potrac, P., Jones, R.L., Brewer, C., Armour, K. & Hoff, J. (2000). Toward an holistic under-
standing of the coaching process. Quest, 52, 186-199.
 COACH EDUCATION 229

Ritzer, G. (1996). Sociological theory. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Rossi, T. (1996). Pedagogical content knowledge and critical reflection in physical educa-
tion. In Mawer, M. (Ed.), Mentoring in physical education: Issues and insights (pp.
176-193). London: Falmer Press
Rossi, T., & Cassidy, T. (1999). Knowledgeable teachers in physical education: A view of
teachers’ knowledge. In E.A. Hardy, & M. Mawer, Learning and teaching in physi-
cal education (pp. 188-201). London: Falmer.
Sage, G.H. (1989). Becoming a high school coach: From playing sport to coaching. Re-
search Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 60(1), 81-92.
Salmela, J.H. (1996). Great job coach: Getting the edge from proven winners. Ottawa,
Ontario: Potentium, the Coaching Network.
Salmela, J.H., Cote, J., & Baria, A. (1994). The structure of expert knowledge in coaches. In
J. Nitsch (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 56-65). Cologne: Bundesinstitut
fur sportpsychology.
Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On site study of
coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 254-266.
Schembri, G. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of the coach. In F.S. Pyke (Ed.), Better
coaching (pp.1-39). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Schempp, P. (1989). Apprenticeship of observation and the development of physical educa-
tion teachers. In T. Templin, & P. Schempp (Eds.), Socialisation into physical educa-
tion: Learning to teach (pp. 13-37). Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
Schempp, P. (1993). The nature of knowledge in sport pedagogy. World University Games
Conference, Buffalo, New York.
Schempp, P. & Graber, K.C. (1992). Teacher socialisation from a dialectical perspective:
Pre-training through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 329-
348.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco: Josey Bass.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge and growth in teaching. Educa-
tional Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Snow, C. (2001). Knowing what we know: Children, teachers, researchers. Educational
Researcher, 30(7), 3-9.
Stein, M., Smith, M., & Silver, E. (1999). The development of professional developers:
Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Re-
view, 69(3), 237-269.
Sports Coach UK. (2002, April). National standards for higher- level coaches. Project In-
formation Bulletin, 1.
Tauber, R.T. (1985, April). French and Raven’s power bases: An appropriate focus for
educational researchers and practitioners. Paper presented at the Educational Re-
search Association Craft Knowledge seminar, Stirling, Scotland.
Tinning, R. (1982). Improving coaches’ instructional effectivenss. Sports Coach, 5(4), 37-41.
Tinning, (1997). Performance and participation discourses in human movement: Toward a
socially critical physical education. In J.M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical
postmodernism in human movement, physical education, and sport (pp. 99-120).
Albany: State University of New York.
Turner, A. & Martinek, T. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improving deci-
sion making during game play. Quest, 47, 44-63.
Wacquant, L. (1995). Pugs at work: Bodily capital and bodily labour among professional
boxers. Body and Society, 1(1), 65-89.
 230 CUSHION, ARMOUR, AND JONES

Wacquant, L. (1998). Pierre Bourdieu. In R. Stones (Ed.), Key sociological thinkers (pp.
215-229). London: Macmillan Press.
Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A Science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport Science
Review, 2(2), 1-13.
Weiss, M., & Gould, D. (1986). Sport for children and youths. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Zeichner, K.,& Tabaachnick, B. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.

View publication stats