For this assignment you will prepare and submit an analysis of the coaching process model in your text. This assignment is intended to help you make

Recruitment by coach

Third party referral

Athlete approach

Organizational appointment

Organizational progression

Coach appointment

Situational review

Performance history

Initial expectations

Organizational need/demand

Coach/athlete

need/demand

Agreement

· Contract

· Boundaries

· Conditions

Situational Analysis

Comparative standards

Resources

Facilities

Finance

Sport structures

Strategic plan

Organizational needs

Proceed

t

Introductory programme

Goal-setting

Situational analysis

Group goals

Athlete ambitions

Coach goals

Goal accommodation process

Coach evaluation of potential

Organizational goals

Implications from initial expectations

Goals

Short term

Medium term

Long term

Component content and balance

Competition programme

Pre-planning model

Integration of

· Component staging

· Planning cycles

· Immediate targets

· Activity patterns

Year or multi-year plan

Extrapolate first implementation cycle

Extrapolate first implementation cycle

Schedule cycle

Detail microcycle

Initiation phase

Strategic planning phase phase

Termination

Priorities set

Goal-setting phase

Non-intervention contact

Athlete-led activity

Competition episode

Coach Intervention

Extrapolate new cycle

t

t

Training unit preparation

Regulation phase

Preparation phase

From evaluation

Conduct session

Manage load input

To goals

Competition phase

Plan

Execute

Feedback

Progress

End Management

· Organization

· Athlete-related support role

· Forward administration

· Recording

Initial management

· Situational assessment

· Contingency planning

· Organization

Training adaptation

Load n Load 1

Adaptation Training Component Adaptation Training Component

Next unit starting capacity

Previous unit end capacity

Evaluation Recording

Contest management

Plan

Execute

Coach role input

Feedback

Progress

Recording

Pre-contest management

· Strategy rehearsal

· Pre-start checklist

· Selection amendments

Post-contest management

· Athlete support role

· Forward administration

Decision point

· Pre-determined schedule

· Performance model

· Environmental circum.

· Athlete – current status;

· Organism readiness

Completion unit preparation

· Event strategy

· Performance expectations

Goal derived expectations

Strategic mental model

Threshold feedback

· Schedule completion

· Athlete response

· Performance outcome

· Results

t

t

Completion of cycle

Adapted from Lyle & Cushion (2017)

This chapter focuses on the extent to which sport coaching can be modelled. By that we mean the coaching process can be appropriately represented in such a way that it symbolises practice, is adequate for analysis, development and research, and adheres to a conceptual understanding of the coaching process. We will show that this task is far from easy, and is made more difficult by the ‘processual’ and multi-variable nature of sport coaching, and that no consensual model of the coaching process has emerged in recent years. The problems of model building are emphasised and the attempts of model builders to date are described and evaluated against a set of principles.

It is important that we set out our position on model building. We have already emphasised our belief that (a) sport coaching is a family term for a multitude of related leadership roles, and (b) the practice of sport coaching is so context- and situation-dependent that it can only be understood at the level of the particular. This is a problem for the model builder as it calls into question the capacity of any model to represent adequately such complexity.

We begin with a clarification of what is meant by a model and identify some of the difficulties in model construction. A number of models of sport coaching from the literature are briefly evaluated. The chapter closes with an examination of how models can be used for analysis, dealing with the vexed issue of application and reality constraints. In summary, the following statements represent the current ‘state of play’:

■There are no all-embracing models of the coaching process that have received consensual agreement (Abraham & Collins 2011a; Cushion 2007; Lyle & Cushion 2010).

■Models of practice have mistakenly been criticised for ‘not being put into practice by coaches or coach developers’. This is a serious misunderstanding of the role and purpose of models. Coaches should not be ‘adopting’ any particular model; the model is a guide to analysts, developers and researchers.

■The ‘coaching episode’ is easier to model than the extended process and this has influenced the literature.

■The balance between the advantages of the generic model (albeit difficult to achieve and possibly to defend) and the advantages of sport-specific models has not been resolved.

■There are many prescriptive proposals for sport coaching practice but very few models ‘of’ coaching practice that have been derived from rigorous research. Côté et al. (1995) is an exception, and their model is discussed later in this chapter. On the other hand, the elaboration of the model (Côté et al. 2010) is a set of prescriptive proposals for coaching practice.

■The shortcomings in the literature identified earlier in the book – absence of stated assumptions and lack of conceptual vocabulary – are evident in model building.

■There are a number of sources that have discussed the use of models in sport coaching. In general, these accounts point to the shortcomings of existing attempts without producing alternative models (Cushion et al. 2006).

■The ‘coaching schematic’ (Abraham et al. 2006; Abraham & Collins 2011b) is a form of ‘eclectic’ model that attempts to bridge the divide between models ‘for’ and models ‘of’ coaching (with an emphasis on coaches’ decision making).

A number of earlier attempts at modelling are reviewed in the latter part of the chapter. Each of these models has something useful to offer but each exemplifies the difficulties and shortcomings of model building in sport coaching. There are also many examples of ‘part-models’ – detailed accounts of sub-processes within the coaching process (for example, see Saury and Durand (1998) for an excellent example of this) – but these do not amount to models. Therefore, it would be reasonable to ask why so much time is being devoted to models of coaching when it is clear from the outset that this is such a challenging enterprise. The capacity to devise appropriate and perhaps diverse models is one measure of the health of the conceptual development of the field. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the state of play and to contribute to the development of this feature of academic development in sport coaching. The intention of this chapter, therefore, is not simply to review existing attempts but to contribute to future developments.

WHAT IS MEANT BY A MODEL?

The outcomes of the sport coaching process are observable in athlete performances and athlete and coach behaviours. However, the coaching process itself is a construct, an abstraction. The purpose of this abstraction (the conceptual framework) is to provide a mechanism for better understanding the observable practice. A model can be used to describe the components of the phenomenon (for example, the coaching process) and the relationship between the components.

KEY CONCEPT

A model is a representation of the relational aspects of (usually) complex phenomena by using symbols or simplified descriptions that help to conceptualise the phenomenon itself.

Most individuals would be familiar with the notion of a replica model – that is, a smaller representation of a physical object, often capable of being ‘taken to pieces’ to demonstrate ‘how it works’. On the other hand, models of the coaching process are symbolic representations. These may appear to have a different function, but really they are designed for much the same purpose. Models are valuable for:

■description and scoping;

■explaining relationships between components;

■analysing practice by ‘comparative’ methods;

■focusing attention on more discrete features of the process;

■providing guidelines for research and education; and

■(potentially) predicting outcomes.

The potential for predicting outcomes (for example, how much performance will improve with a given process) by replacing default values in a model with real measures is an appealing prospect. The more the inter-relationships in a model can be specified and the components quantified, the more likely is prediction. However, it will not come as a surprise to learn that the great majority of sport coaching components cannot easily be quantified. The common practice of representing relationships by lines or arrows, or by juxtaposition, has an apparent simplicity. However, these connections imply causal, sequential and conditional qualities, the dimensions of which may not yet be justified by research. It may be possible to predict performance ‘gains’ in some individual (usually power-repetitive technique) sports, although the environmental effects are difficult to measure and control. On the other hand, there have been few attempts to predict the outcome of a coaching process. This seems likely to be a result of the difficulty in controlling the enormous range of variables that influence performance. Subsequent evaluation will demonstrate that the models available have been more concerned to describe, rather than predict.

Modelling the sport coaching process should underpin any analysis of coaching behaviour and performance, and is central to evaluating effectiveness. A key feature of modelling is that it normally embraces a set of assumptions about performance, performance enhancement, social interactions and the coaching role. These assumptions have a conceptual basis that is rarely specified. As a result, there are few models of the sport coaching process and certainly none that have achieved consensual agreement or application. One of the objectives for this chapter is to develop in the reader a capacity to examine in a critical fashion any attempts to model the sport coaching process.

In the previous chapter the issues in model building were explored and an overview of several early examples of models ‘of’ and ‘for’ the coaching process illustrated their inherent limitations. This chapter consists of an updated version of a proposed model for sport coaching, which is intended to act as a catalyst to further exploration of model building in this academic field of study. The proposed model both builds on the conceptual framework elaborated thus far, and is also a key part of the complete framework. The context and intentions are important. It is necessary to emphasise strongly that, as a model ‘for’ coaching, it is a template to be used to compare to practice and to stimulate research, and thereby to contribute to a gradual refining of our understanding of sport coaching. We acknowledge that the model has many of the weaknesses of model building already described. Nevertheless, by proposing a more detailed account of how coaches operationalise their coaching, it is intended to be more comprehensive and detailed than previous attempts.

Having acknowledged these limitations, it is necessary to describe the steps taken to obviate these as much as possible. Our purpose in the first part of this chapter is to present an ideal model of the coaching process. The use of the ideal model is a feature of the work of seminal sociologist Max Weber (Albrow 1990). It can be argued that practice models developed from aggregating the behaviour of many examples of that practice will provide a cumulative overview of the phenomenon but will have limited value for describing, or perhaps understanding, the practice of the range of individuals who make up that population. Such a model describes the behaviour and practice of an ‘average’ coach – one who does not actually exist. Better therefore to work with case histories or to construct an ideal model against which empirical descriptions of practice can be compared, based on the action that would be taken in the rational and informed pursuit of appropriate objectives in constraint-free conditions. It is very important to stress that the model is not intended as a coach development tool – that is, as a template for practice. It is a catalyst for researchers and should be continually refined as research evidence gradually increases our understanding of the process.

■The ideal model is based on the question ‘What would the rational coach do if there were no contextual limitations?’. The researcher may then demonstrate how the reality of practice requires the coach to adapt the process (and perhaps expectations) in certain sets of circumstances.

■Previous criticism of the model stresses its emphasis on a systematic linear approach, being too structured, and, since it cannot hope to account for all contextual eventualities, failing to account for the dynamics and untidiness of real practice. This fails to understand the nature of the model; it is a starting point against which the uncertainty and complexity of practice can be compared.

■The issue is one of operationalisation. ‘Ideal’ models are not ‘put into practice’ – this is not their purpose. It is the operationalisation of practice that the researcher is invited to establish. You will recall that we have stated many times that coaching can only be understood in the particular – there is limited value in generalising across contexts. This model is intended to provide a common language and set of descriptors against which the implications of the particular can be evaluated.

■It is necessary to identify a further and very important aspect of operationalisation. How does the coach actually carry out the coaching process? For the moment we might loosely term this the coach’s expertise. The knowledge, skills and other features of expertise are brought to bear by the coach in order to bring the process to life. How the coach does this is part of the model and can be used as a framework against which an emerging appreciation of the coach’s expertise can be compared. We devoted an earlier chapter to a conceptualisation of the coach’s expertise.

■We must also acknowledge that we have made much of the domain-specific nature of the coaching process. This model assumes a sufficiency of time and frequency of interaction, along with a stable relationship and the primacy of improved competition performance, and might therefore be thought of as performance coaching.

There is no doubt that the complexity, dynamic flow and context-dependent nature of the coaching process has been attested to by sport coaching academics. We can only agree that there is great difficulty in describing, conceptualising and portraying the actuality of practice. However, we hold to the view that too many writers have used this conceptualisation of coaching to stress the difficulties of both practice and description, without identifying the solutions. As in a previous paper (Lyle 2007), we emphasise our experience of coaching:

KEY CONCEPT

‘Ideal’ models are not ‘put into practice’ and are not coach development tools. They are intended to stimulate research and to provide a conceptual starting point against which the reality and particularity of coaching practice and the essence of coaching expertise can be compared.

■Coaches have strategies for coping with complexity and uncertainty.

■Much of the process can be routinised, and coping strategies employed when a threshold of problem severity is breached.

■Coaches are able to maintain a focus on the instrumentality of the coaching process. This is goal/outcome driven and its stability is maintained by the planning process.

■Performance coaching has an interpersonal dimension that exists within, and is given meaning by, the specifics of the athlete/team goals and the social/organisational context.

■Although illustrated well in the dynamic interaction of team sports, there are many sports in which the coaching process can be characterised (for the most part) by a more measured and controlled environment.

As stated above, it is entirely accepted that it is not possible to construct (partly because of the problem of illustration) a model that represents all of coaching practice: ‘a singular all-encompassing model may not be possible’ (Cushion 2007, p. 395). The issues of domain specificity, particularity, context dependency and continuity act as barriers for the model builder and illustrator. This is in addition to the practical problems of illustrating in two dimensions, representing cyclical processes and having the capacity to represent the dimensions of effect and causality in the relationships between the different parts of the model. The model builder rarely addresses this last challenge; what would be the impact of varying levels/degrees of application by any one factor? This can be interpreted as the ‘what-if’ question: ‘What will happen to the coaching intervention if it is changed/delivered in this way?’. (There is a research corollary to this: What works best in given circumstances and goals?)

It is not the coaching process that is problematic; that is, the intentions and the principles/concepts/constructs behind it. It is the reality of application. We must point out, however, that academics who attempt to describe the former are not unaware of the latter! The conceptual or ideal model is a baseline statement that may be used as a reference point for the variability of actual practice. We also pointed out earlier that we discern two misrepresentations of the coaching process:

1.