repository.edgehill.ac.ukrepository.edgehill.ac.uk/8140/1/june 05 2016 learning … · web...

LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE, BIOGRAPHY & COACHING PRACTICE

Exploring the interplay between learning, knowledge, biography and practice:

The tale of an experienced track and field athletics coach

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Abstract

This paper examines how the learning biography of Jack (pseudonym), an

experienced track and field athletics coach, shaped his thoughts about coaching

practice. Data were collected through seven in-depth, semi-structured, narrative-

biographical interviews that formed part of a cyclical and iterative data analysis

process. Our analysis of Jack’s narrative revealed how his understanding of two

distinct features of his coaching practice (i.e. implementation of periodization and

pedagogical delivery style) developed in contrasting ways. Jack’s story was primarily,

although not exclusively, interpreted using Alheit’s concepts of biographical learning

and biographicity, Biesta and Tedder’s writings on agency and learning in the life-

course, and Jarvis’ discussion of learning as a process of becoming. The findings of

this study raise significant questions for how the field of sports coaching seeks to

understand coach learning.

Key words: biography, coaching, knowledge, learning, practice.

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Introduction

There has, in recent years, been increasing scholarly interest in coach learning

(Christensen, 2014; Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Cushion, Nelson, Armour, Lyle, Jones,

Sandford & O’Callaghan, 2010; Gilbert & Trudel, 2004; Nelson, Cushion & Potrac,

2006). The construction of coaching knowledge and its day-to-day application in

practice have become increasingly focal points of research in the academic and

professional community (Christensen, 2014). Arguably, the development of such

insights has an important role to play if current efforts to raise coaching standards and

enhance the impact of coach education provision are to be successful (Christensen,

2014; Potrac, Jones, Gilbourne, & Nelson, 2013).

To date, our understanding of how coaches learn remains partial and

embryonic at best (Cushion & Nelson, 2013). For example, much of the available

coach learning literature has tended to focus on the identification of those learning

sources and situations that practitioners access to acquire knowledge (Cushion &

Nelson, 2013; Cushion et al., 2010). This body of research evidence has principally

served to reinforce the finding that coaches tend to learn more through their

participation in informal, when compared to formal and nonformal, learning situations

(Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Mesquita, Isidro, & Rosado, 2010).

While the body of scholarship outlined above has certainly provided an

important first step in our efforts to understand how coaches learn, Werthner and

Trudel (2009) urged coaching scholars to consider and “explain the variations or

idiosyncrasies that seem to prevail in the coaches’ learning paths within different

coaching contexts” (p. 436). Central to this proposed line of inquiry is a better

appreciation of the "complex, messy, fragmented" nature of coaches’ narratives and

the "need to understand the interconnections between coaches' lives and their

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


professional practice" (Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2004, p. 1) than has been achieved

to date. Despite this laudable call, there remains a paucity of research considering

how coaching knowledge is shaped by the learning biographies of individual

practitioners (e.g. Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Christensen, 2014; Duarte & Culver,

2014; Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2003, 2004). Equally, while the limited available

studies have certainly helped to advance our understanding of the complex,

idiosyncratic, and multidimensional features of coach learning, aside from some

notable exceptions (e.g., Callary, Werthner, & Trudel, 2012, 2013; Christensen, 2014;

Wertner & Trudel, 2009) little attention has yet been afforded to examining how

specific facets of knowledge that guide and inform everyday practice are developed.

The outcome of this situation is the (unintended) representation of coaching

knowledge (e.g. technical, tactical, bio-physical, and socio-pedagogical) as being

something that is generated in a largely uniform fashion. Indeed, there has been

limited consideration of how coaches’ individual biographies may shape their learning

about specific topics in particular ways (c.f. Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Christensen,

2014).

In seeking to build upon the existing body of coach learning literature then,

this study aimed to illustrate how the biography of Jack, an experienced track and

field athletics coach, influenced his learning about two distinct features of his

coaching practice (i.e. the implementation of periodized training programmes and his

pedagogical delivery style). Here, biographical learning is concerned with the

“learning processes of individual social actors”, which includes “formal and informal

learning processes, binding emotional, existential and cognirive aspects, and uniting

preconscious and conscious diemsnions” (Hallqvist, 2014, p. 499). )The significance

of this work lies in uncovering the complex formation of coaching knowledge, thus

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


going beyond the labeling of learning episodes as formal, non-formal, or informal.

Instead, we seek to explore how coach learning is, in Jack’s case at least, inherently

interconnected with the people, phases of time, and specific events that featured in his

life and, importantly, his subsequent engagement with them (c.f. Goodson, Biesta,

Tedder, & Adair, 2010; c.f. Kelchtermans, 2009a, 2009b). We hope that, by focusing

on what learning actually meant and did in the life of Jack, this paper might contribute

to an evolving epistemology of coach learning that recognizes the contextually

situated and historical dimensions of learning (c.f. Biesta & Tedder, 2007; c.f.

Goodson et al., 2010). Indeed, in taking our inspiration from the work of Christensen

(2014) and Goodson et al. (2010), we believe that coaching scholarship has much to

gain from considering how coach learning is not only the consequence of an

individual coach participating in a particular social and cultural milieu, but also his or

her biography and “the history of the practices and the institutions through which

learning takes place” (Goodson et al., 2010, p. 5).

Methodology

This study was conducted from an interpretivist perspective, which is characterised by

an internal-idealist/relativist ontology (i.e. there is no reality independent of

perception), a subjectivist epistemology (i.e. knowledge is subjective and socially

constructed), and an ideographic methodology (i.e. the focus is on the individual case)

(Potrac, Jones, & Nelson, 2014; Sparkes, 2002). The interpretivist paradigm provides

a radical alternative to the (post)postitivistic orthodoxy, as it rejects the belief that the

social world (e.g. people, cultures, social practices) can be examined and understood

using the assumptions and methodologies that guide the scientific investigation of the

physical world (Potrac et al., 2014). Rather, interpretive researchers principally utilise

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


qualitative methodologies to understand the subjective experiences of individuals and

groups (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Markula & Silk, 2011).

Given our philosophical position, we selected a qualitative methodology that

would permit us to gather rich insights into Jack’s biography, his beliefs about

coaching, and, ultimately, how he had come to develop such understandings. Our aim

was to not only consider the relationship that existed between learning and biography,

but also the “influence of biography on learning processes and practices” (Tedder &

Biesta, 2007, p. 3). Here, our thinking was particularly influenced by Kelchtermans’

(1993, 2002a, 2002b, 2009a, 2009b) narrative-biographical approach. The narrative-

biographical perspective when applied to sports coaching is less interested in coaches’

formal careers (i.e. the chronological list of positions a coach takes up over the years),

focusing instead on what Kelchtermans’ (2009a) terms subjective careers (i.e.

coaches’ personal experiences in their professional lives over time). The narrative

aspect of this approach refers to the central role of stories and story-telling in the way

that coaches, like Jack, deal with their career experiences and learning (cf.

Kelchtermans, 2009a). The biographical aspect acknowledges the temporal nature of

human existence. As such, we did not consider Jack’s experiences to be historical

artefacts, but rather we placed emphasis on those meanings that Jack attached to this

learning and the various events that he had experienced in his life and coaching career

(cf. Kelchtermans, 2009a). This study received Institutional Research Ethics board

approval and written informed consent was obtained.

Jack was selected through a process of purposive sampling. That is, he was

deemed an information rich participant whose story permitted us to address the aims

of the proposed research project (Patton, 2000; Tracy, 2013). Prior to this study, the

principle, second and fourth author had each worked with Jack in contrasting

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


capacities. Through our individual and collective conversations with Jack it became

clear to us that Jack's understanding of the distinct features of his coaching practice,

and how he perceived that these had been biographically developed in contrasting

ways, presented an elaboration and deepening of our understanding of coach learning.

It was for these reasons that we decided to investigate, analyse and share Jack's

story.At the time of study, Jack was a 42-year-old coach, who possessed the United

Kingdom Athletics (UKA) Level Three Performance Coach certificate in sprints and

hurdles. This is the highest level of coaching certificate in athletics. Jack had also

completed a Masters degree in Sport and Exercise Science and was a UK Strength and

Conditioning (UKSCA) and National Strength and Conditioning (NCSA) certified

practitioner. Jack had been coaching for approximately 20 years in various capacities.

During this period, he had worked with more than 30 individual junior and senior

sprint athletes, who competed ar various levels of athletics (e.g. amateur to high

performance). Jack had also worked with professional athletes in other sports, such as

rugby league, bobsled, and fencing. Throughout the duration of the study, Jack was

not directly affiliated with a club. Instead he worked independently out of his local

athletic stadium, two evenings per week, with a small group of young competitive

athletes. Jack was not renumerated for his coaching. Coaching was something that he

did alongside his full-time employment as a university lecturer. Jack was employed

by a higher education institution, where he led two strength and conditioning modules

on a sports coaching and performance related undergraduate degree programme.

Jack participated in seven informal, semi-structured, interviews, each lasting

between 60-90 minutes. Each of the interviews was conducted at a location of his

choosing, with most occurring in his office of work. The first five interviews were

conducted by the lead author and the final two interviews were conducted by the

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


second and fourth authors. All of the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed

verbatim. At the start of the first interview Jack was reminded of the purpose of the

investigation and it was made clear that he was free to withdraw from the study at any

point. The interviews focused on gaining a detailed understanding of what Jack

considered to be the key features of his preferred approach to coaching and how he

had learnt to practice in these ways. More specifically, Jack was invited to discuss: (a)

his beliefs regarding effective coaching, (b) why he preferred to coach in the ways

that he did, and (c) how he had come to coach in these way. During our interviews

with Jack a range of question types were employed in effort to develop rich insights.

These included, demographic questions (i.e. questions about Jack’s identity

characteristics and experiences), behaviour and action questions (i.e. questions about

specific events that had occurred during Jack's coaching career), experience questions

(i.e. questions that prompted Jack to share his stories), motive questions (i.e. questions

that asked Jack why he had been inspired to think, feel and act in certain ways),

example questions (i.e. questions that required Jack to provide instances that were

illustrative of his answer), and timeline questions (i.e. questions that asked Jack to

articulate the order in which events occurred), alongside the use of follow-ups (i.e.

verbal and nonverbal affirmations of Jack's responses) and probes (questions designed

to elicit further understanding by asking Jack to clarify and elaborate on his

responses) (Tracey, 2013). The interview process was cyclical in nature. Following

each interview the transcribed data were analysed to elicit themes, introduce tentative

interpretations, and identify topics requiring further exploration in the following

interviews (Kelchtermans, 1993, 2009a).

While the collection, analysis, and writing-up of data are frequently

understood as three distinct phases, in this study they formed a cyclical and iterative

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


process (Taylor, 2014; Tracy, 2012, 2013). Consistent with the previously discussed

narrative-biographical approach, attention was given to identifying those critical

incidents, phases of time, and persons that operated as key experiences or turning

points for Jack and his learning (Kelchtermans, 2009a). Here, we focused on those

experiences that caused Jack to “rethink and reassess particular ideas or beliefs or to

reconsider taken-for-granted actions and practices” (Kelchtermans, 2009a, p. 32). Of

central importance here was not so much the critical incident, person or phase per se,

but rather the meanings that Jack attached to these experiences and how they directly

shaped his beliefs about the practice of coaching (Kelchtermans, 2009a).

This iterative process entailed alternating between these emic (i.e. emergent

readings of the data) and etic (i.e. using existing theory) readings of the data (Huggan,

Nelson, & Potrac, 2015; Tracy, 2013). During emic phases of analysis interview

transcripts were coded to establish meaningful data that responded to the aims of the

study (Tracy, 2013). Here, we sought to identify data that provided insights into how

Jack's understandings of the contrasting features of his coaching practice had

been influenced by certain events and people. Like Jones et al (2004), our intention

was to develop a rich appreciation of how Jack's career experiences had shaped his

understandings about practice. In addition to this, we also engaged etic readings of the

data whereby we sought to critically examine and interpret the findings of our emic

analysis. At this stage in the process, 'analytical memos' were used to make

preliminary links to explanatory frameworks (Maykut & Morehouse,

1994). Establishing such tentative theoretical links raised further questions that were

explored in greater detail during subsequent interviews. Jarvis’ writing on learning as

a process of becoming, Bietsa and Tedder’s writings on agency and learning in the

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


life-course, and Alheit’s concepts of biographical learning and biographicity offered

considerable utility here.

Results

In this section, we outline two features of Jack’s coaching knowledge and practice.

The first theme considers Jack’s desire to construct and implement detailed, evidence-

based, periodised training programmes for his athletes. The second theme charts how

he sought to interact with, and relate to, his athletes. Both themes explore those

learning experiences that Jack perceived significantly influenced his understanding of

these components of his coaching.

Periodised Training Programmes

Jack identified the construction of meticulously planned and evidence-based

individualised annual training schedules for his athletes, as being one of the central

features of his coaching. This included giving consideration towards not only macro,

meso, and micro cycles, but also the careful planning of individual training sessions.

Jack felt that periodising the season was essential as it permitted him to “have a

handle on every aspect of what’s going on in training.” This was important to him as

he strove to be the knowledgeable and supportive coach that, in some respects, he did

not believe that he always received as an athlete. Indeed, Jack indicated that the

importance he attached to periodisation was born out of his own experiences as an

athlete. In this regard, he shared his frustration at what he considered to be an

unfulfilled and injury plagued athletic career; a topic reoccurred he frequently

returned to in his narrative. In reflecting back on his time as an athlete, he highlighted

how he had become increasingly angry at the quality of the coaching programmes that

he had received. In his own words:

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


While he (the coach) was a nice guy, a caring coach, one of the best I’ve come

across, he just did not have the knowledge to help me with the issues that I was

experiencing. For me, his inability to support me physically in the right way,

cost me. My career as an athlete lasted a lot less than it probably should have

and I think I ought to have ran faster times. In the end, I didn’t just stop running

due to the injuries, I was physically unable to train and compete anymore. I was

quite literally broken. So, it was thinking about the frustrations of that really,

that drove me to want to find out more. I didn’t want to provide programmes to

others that didn’t work or harmed them in terms of injury and the like. I just

didn’t want people to go through what I had experienced as an athlete. It still

haunts me today.

For Jack then, periodisation not only promoted high-level athletic performances, but it

represented a “responsible approach” that helped to mitigate against the “dangers of

over-training”. Here he noted:

It’s (periodisation) based on the results of hundreds and hundreds of Eastern

European athletes… So it’s well validated as far as I’m concerned as a method

of achieving success, but, equally, from a responsibility and ethical perspective,

it ensures that you’re not overloading your athletes. You’re not hammering

them, you’re not risking over training and giving them injuries that they

shouldn’t be getting. It encourages a responsible approach to monitoring your

training as well, so you’ve kind of got everything more controlled, you’re better

informed as a coach.

Ironically, it was during a period of injury as an athlete that Jack decided to take

his first steps into coaching by attending a Level 1 sprints coach education

programme. His motivation, at that point in time, was simply to “stay involved in the

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


sport” that he had grown to love. Despite his wanting to continue competing, two

years after attaining his Level 1 sprint qualification Jack took the difficult decision to

retire from the sport. His ongoing injuries were eventually attributed to stress

fractures in the tibias of both legs. It was his desire to understand and address his own

injuries that was to serve as a driving motivator for much of his learning during this

period of his developmental journey.

Following his retirement, Jack took up an invitation to assist Chris, a regional

level coach, with his coaching sessions. From the outset, Jack was impressed with

Chris’ meticulous planning and his caring approach to working with athletes.

Importantly, Chris introduced Jack to the principles of periodization and opened a

new vista for him to consider his own coaching. In his own words:

At the time, I just thought he was an excellent coach. His people skills and

technical knowledge were just first class. He was a very well respected coach, a

great guy to learn off and that kind of motivated me from there I suppose…He

introduced me to the periodization of training. It was new, exciting, and made

me think about my coaching in a completely new way.

During this period, Jack also enrolled himself onto the Level 2 sprint

qualification, which he later converted to a level three award, the highest qualification

attainable in his sport. It was during his attendance of this coach education

programme that Jack further enhanced his knowledge of periodisation. Jack was

immediately struck by the detailed knowledge that the course instructors used to

underpin this type of planning:

They were talking about physiological and biomechanical principles, how

aspects of performance might be developed over time using these principles and

so on. Their understanding and analysis was at a much deeper level than mine

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


was at. What I thought was good practice, I now saw as second rate. I just did

not know what they knew.

Following the course, Jack soon realised that those coaches with whom he was

interacting (and admired) were not implementing these principles to the level he had

been taught on the course. In his own words:

Looking back, I guess they were products of the existing coach education

programmes plus their years of hands-on practical experience. At first, I thought

everything they did was great but, over time, I began to see gaps in their

practice. There were times when Chris and I, for example, could not figure out

why an athlete was performing or responding in the ways that they were. We

gave them technical points until we were blue in the face, but I had nagging

doubts that there were other issues that we needed to understand in order to

make meaningful and safe improvements in their techniques happen. However,

neither Chris nor I had the physiological or biomechanical knowledge to help

like that. It just was not there. It’s hard to diagnose and respond to what you

don’t know. It made me feel inadequate and I didn’t want to carry on like that.

It was in light of these observations that Jack decided to pursue the formal

academic study of sports science. At that time, Jack thought that engaging in

additional formal education would permit him an opportunity to become more

knowledgeable than those with whom he had been working:

I wanted to be better than them didn’t I. I wanted to be successful as a coach

and have a good coaching career. The best way for me to do was to be able to

look after athletes in the right ways training wise… I needed the knowledge to

do that. I wanted to be the full package, I didn’t want any stone left unturned.

So while I learned an awful lot from them (his mentor coaches), I’d reached a

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


point where I thought I can do things a little bit better. So I felt that I needed the

qualifications to allow me to kind of stand on my own two feet and do that

without anybody really being able to question what I did and why I did it,

because I knew the area inside out.

The pursuit of further formal education was also driven by Jack’s desire to prove to

himself that he was capable of developing a detailed understanding of scientific

subjects, areas of academic inquiry that he had difficulty learning while at school:

I suppose I had a bit of a bee in my bonnet about science not being my thing at

school. I wasn’t very good at science. I struggled with physics, chemistry and

maths and I had a bit of a bee in my bonnet about that and I kind of thought that

having a BA was a lesser qualification. I thought science was the path to truth

and so a Bachelor of Arts wasn’t delivering that for me. So there was a bit of a

personal need to prove that I could do science and that I understood science I

suppose.

To achieve these aims Jack completed a Business and Technology Education Council

(BTEC) qualification in sport at a local college, before eventually progressing onto

postgraduate (MSc Sport and Exercise Science) study. The latter course in particular

introduced Jack to the underpinning principles of exercise physiology and

biomechanics, among other topics; disciplines that featured heavily in Jack’s

construction of periodised training programmes.

At the time of being interviewed, Jack had just completed his sixth year of

employment in the sports department of his local university, where he taught the

principles of periodization (and other aspects of strength and conditioning) to

undergraduate students studying for a degree in sports coaching and performance. In

this role Jack kept abreast of current thinking in this area of the curriculum through

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


the reading of peer reviewed journal articles and scholarly textbooks. While this was

expected of him in this role, Jack explained to us that his desire to continually develop

his knowledge and to share this understanding with those that he taught could,

ultimately, be traced back to those feelings he experienced in response to the various

injuries that he sustained during his athletics career:

I’ve always been interested in the mechanisms, understanding the mechanisms

behind things. So in my case, why did I get injured? Why couldn’t I run? What

was the problem? Trying to get a greater understanding of that, which is why I

then ended up deciding: ‘Right well I actually do want to study science, study

anatomy, study biomechanics, study physiology.’ Try and solve some of these

problems myself because I couldn’t get answers from the people that I was

talking to… So that very much underpinned everything I did, that excited me…

It didn’t save my athletics career, it came much too late for that. I suppose, with

the understanding I’ve got now, I might have been able to help myself, but I like

to think that I’ve invested all that time and energy, you know, learning and

understanding through experience, and that I can apply that and help other

people out and help them maybe avoid some of the problems and issues that I

encountered.

However, and importantly, Jack shared with us that it was through applied

coaching experience that he had also come to learn that the development of

individualised training programmes required more than the application of scientific

knowledge, principles, and scientific research evidence. Rather, Jack was of the belief

that the development and delivery of individualised training programmes also

necessitated a detailed understanding of one’s athlete and the application of practice-

based intuition. In his own words:

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


You’ve still got to use intuition and you’ve still got to adapt that system

(periodised training programmes) to the individual athlete… At that point in my

career (early in his career) it was like rigid adherence to programmes, you

know. For example, I used to work to what I thought was as an optimum cycle

length … Then it was a six to eight-week cycle lengths and that’s what the

literature said… I tried that and I was finding athletes stagnating and I didn’t

think that was working as well. So intuition was telling me I needed to change

it… So you start to adapt that and then with a bit of intuition and a bit more

confidence you’re starting to play around with that and then that cycle becomes

whatever you want it to be.

Pedagogical Delivery Style

Through our discussions with Jack it became clear that his preferred delivery style

was developed, over time, as a result of different learning experiences. Central to this

feature of his coaching was a desire to establish a certain type of relationship with his

athletes: “I like it to be, you know, informal, relaxed, enjoyable, bit of banter, have a

laugh, but do quality work and hopefully build really good working relationships.”

Jack wanted his athletes to enjoy his sessions and feel comfortable within the

environment. Jack’s thinking, here, had been influenced by his own athletic

experiences, especially his time working under Alan. Jack felt that Alan’s delivery

style made him, as well as the other athletes in the training squad, feel welcomed

members of the group:

When I started out as an athlete that was the environment that I got in, you

know, training with this guy, Alan. Training used to be a laugh. We’d work hard

together and there’d be a really good atmosphere. Alan was totally

approachable. Everybody’d have a bit of banter with him. We’d have a bit of

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


banter with each other… He’d know what you’d been up to, ask you about how

you were doing, really put you at ease from the word go… If you were

struggling, if you weren’t good enough, he’d of helped you out. He’d have still

made you feel at home.

In an effort to foster the above described environment, Jack explained that he

endeavoured to forge positive relationships with his athletes by trying to appear

relaxed and upbeat whenever in their presence:

In terms of communication style, I like things to be fairly relaxed… so that you

can knuckle down and train hard when you need to, but, so that we can

exchange pleasantries, so I know what my athletes are doing. It’s certainly not

about raising voices, shouting and balling at athletes. I very rarely, if ever, do

that and, again, that’s probably a conscious decision from seeing that done when

I first started training and seeing other coaches.

He went on to share with us the disappointment that he had experienced when

observing coaches acting in what he perceived to be an overly authoritarian and

aggressive fashion. Jack consciously tried to avoid communicating to his athletes in

these ways. When discussing this issue he recalled a particularly negative experience

relating to the first time that he attended a track session:

The first time I turned up at the track he (one of the coaches) was stood in one

corner screaming at his athletes and telling them ‘you’re not hitting the targets,

you’re shit, run faster.’ Just shocking really… It was like a speculative trip

down to the track to see who was there. I remember turning up and somebody

telling me I’ve got to see so and so. I went outside, didn’t even know what he

looked like, got outside and there was a coach in the far corner of the track with

a stopwatch, literally screaming at athletes that were running around the track,

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


balling them out and shouting abuse at them as they were running. So

everybody could hear it and if you weren’t on time and you weren’t in your

target time everybody knew about it and I thought, ‘Shit is that the guy they’re

on about, is that going to be my coach?’ It wasn’t. It was another coach who

was totally different… But every time I was down at the track training this guy

was there screaming and shouting at his athletes… I was never going to work

like that.

Talking about the above example also prompted Jack to recall what were for him

numerous negative sporting experiences of teachers and coaches as a child:

PE at school was probably the other good example of it, so we had some PE

teachers that used to make PE an uncomfortable experience in every sense of

the word… There was one who used to like hitting pupils and stuff like that as

well, so we used to get a bit of that. He used to make a bit of a joke out of it,

but most people would usually get a crack each week for one thing or another,

you know if you weren’t paying attention or you got something wrong, like a

proper sergeant major type… And then there was another PE teacher who came

a bit later at school who had a totally different approach, like really enjoyable

lessons, relaxed, you could choose what activity you wanted to engage in… I’d

never really enjoyed sport in school, it was always a bit of a pain in the arse at

school, if I’m being honest, because of the people that taught it and then he’d

completely turn that on his head and the environment that he fostered was

relaxed. You wanted to work hard because you were in an environment that

you enjoyed… You weren’t being screamed and shouted at and made to do stuff

that you didn’t want to do or you didn’t agree with.

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


It was in light of such experiences that Jack sought to praise his athletes wherever

possible. While Jack acknowledged the role and place of constructive criticism, he felt

that the provision of positive feedback not only helped him to create a buoyant

working environment, but maintain the focus and motivation of his athletes:

You’ve got to keep the athletes motivated, and especially if you’re new to

something or if you’re trying to learn a new skill; you’re going to have more

bad times than good times, things are going to be going wrong more often than

there are going right, but you can’t just be constantly on their backs about that

and constantly criticising them, knocking them for that. You’ve got to keep

them motivated. Keep them thinking that what they are doing is working, that,

you know, they’re getting somewhere, that they’re making progress. And the

only way you’re going to do that is with some praise. So for me, I think, it’s an

essential part of what you do.

When discussing this aspect of his coaching, Jack recalled how the coach education

programmes that he attended emphasised the importance of remaining positive,

especially when working at the participation level. Jack also witnessed ‘first hand’

some of the benefits to be had from providing athletes with positive feedback,

especially when working with Chris and Derrick, practitioners that Jack identified as

having significantly influenced his beliefs about coaching. Observing the practices of

Chris and Derrick also shaped Jack’s thoughts about the use of questioning. It was

light of such observations that Jack learnt that questions could be used to check the

understanding of his athletes and whether or not he had effectively conveyed his

messages to them:

So obviously I’d replicate that model, I replicate that model and I still do it now.

It’s always the conversation at the start of their session to find out how

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


somebody’s feeling and then to allow you to adjust what you’ve planned for the

session based on that and that would be a conversation… I also like to use

questioning. I like to try to find out what the athlete knows or what the athletes

understands from the information that I’ve given them. So, you throw

information at them, but have they taken it on board? Do they understand what

you’re getting at or what you’re trying to do? So [I use questions] to check

understanding.

Here, Jack explained that he particularly liked the multifaceted and inclusive nature of

the questions that they posed to their athletes. He was also impressed by the way that

Chris and Derrick used the information that they gathered to inform the delivery of

their sessions.

I think it was like multilayered, the way that they did it. So the first thing that

they’d do when athletes turned up to training was questioning, but it was

disguised as conversation and it was about ‘how are you? How are you feeling?

What have you been up to this week? What have you been up to today?’ Really

trying to just tease out, you know, are they feeling under the weather, do they

feel good, have they had a hectic week, have they been doing other sports, have

they had PE that day… And then you could see them scaling back or changing

the skeleton of their session based on the answers they got to those questions. In

the session they’d observe, they’d watch, they’d question and then they’d make

decision about their inputs… Their questions were well timed, because they

were very well considered, they weren’t just question, question, question, it was

with a purpose. It was planned, it was part of a decision making process and

they also incorporated the feedback from that.

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


Contrary to the development of his understanding of periodization, however, Jack

never sought to pursue the academic study of coaching pedagogy (e.g. Armour, 2011;

Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004, 2009, 2016; Nelson, Groom, & Potrac, 2016;

Tinning, 2010) . When asked about why this was the case, Jack explained that he had

only recently become aware of this area of academic investigation:

I really had no concept of the study of pedagogy, you know, I wouldn’t have

considered it an area that I could’ve expanded on. It wasn’t something that was

on that BTEC syllabus and it wasn’t available on the Master’s programme or

my coach education courses, so I had no concept of it. I just thought it was

common sense coaching stuff and that if you wanted to be better as a coach it

was more about how much you knew in terms of your programming and stuff

like that rather your pedagogical approach.

While Jack acknowledged that his preferred pedagogical delivery style had been

informed by those various experiences outlined above, it is important to note that

active experimentation also played an important role in the development of this aspect

of his coaching practice. Jack explained that it was through his application of

knowledge and his subsequent reflections that he was able to elucidate the practical

utility of such learning experiences. In his own words:

I think it’s very much been a learning curve, so it’s like anything you know,

you’ll see something new, for me, I’ll evaluate it in my head whether that’s

going to be of use or not to my practice, then I’ll try it out. If I’ve made a

decision that it is going to be useful for me I’ll try it out and then I’ll reflect on

it and make some decisions about whether I want to continue using it, if I need

to tweak the approach or whether I bin it and try something brand new. So

things like, erm, questioning style that I’ve built into my coaching practice has

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


kinda come later. I probably didn’t see that early on in my coaching career. I

came across that from speaking to a couple of elite coaches who’d kinda

introduced us to this concept of using questioning… So I tried that out for a

while, aspects of it worked, aspects of it didn’t work… So I’ve taken something

on board from what they’ve told me, but I’ve got rid of other aspects of what

they’ve told me because I tried it, it worked alright, but it wasn’t really working

towards what I wanted.

Discussion

The results section illustrated how Jack’s learning about his coaching practice was

influenced by his own biographical experiences, his critical reflection upon them, and,

importantly, those choices that he subsequently made. In this respect, Jack’s

experiences as an unfulfilled athlete, which he believed stemmed from frequent and

unnecessary injuries, a poor quality training programme, as well as his experiences of

coach-athlete relationships of varying quality, appeared to significantly influence his

choices and directions about his learning as a coach. Indeed, we would argue that

Jack’s learning endeavours were perhaps not only shaped by a strong desire to avoid

reproducing “bad” and “harmful” practices with the athletes in his charge, but also a

longing to find answers as to why he thought, felt, and experienced athletics in the

ways that he did.

The degree to which Jack subsequently engaged in various learning episodes

could, then, be understood in relation to the concepts of biographical learning and

biographicity (Alheit, 1995; Alheit & Dausien, 2002). According to Alheit and

Dausien (2002, p. 17), biographical learning refers to:

the self-willed, autopoietic accomplishment on the part of active subjects, in

which they reflexively organise their experiences in such a way that they also

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


generate personal cohenernce, identity, a meaning to their life history and a

communicable socially viable lifeworld perspective for guiding their actions.

Biographicity, meanwhile, is concerned with the social formation of an individual’s

experiences, and, in particular, the self-reflexive temporal structure that is bodily

bound to an individual in the span of his or her life. According to Alheit (2003, p. 16

cited in Maier-Gutheil & Hoff, 2011) biographicity “means that we can always re-

interpret our lives in the contexts where we (have to) live in and that get to know

these contexts themselves as ‘formable’ and ‘shapeable’”. That is, biographicity is

“something that concerns how we perceive and interpret our lives in relation to the

opportunities that we have and the choices we make” (Illeris, 2007, p. 73). In this

respect, Biesta, Field, Hodkinson, Maclaod, & Goodson (2011) remind us that an

individual’s learning can be stimulated by structured transitions (e.g. becoming a

coach) and/or more incidental experiences (e.g. illness, injury, or re-deployment),

with such incidences stimulating engagements with new formal and informal learning

opportunities. Interestingly, they also argued that such learning is inextricably linked

to the process of performing a particular role, assuming a specific identity, as well as

an individual’s efforts to gain control over a particular aspect of their lives (Biesta et

al., 2011). Importantly, then, biographicity is concerned with the ways in which

individuals attempt to shape and re-shape their lives (and learning) to meet their own

needs and desired ends (Alheit & Dausien, 2002). As indicated above, this certainly

appeared to be the case in Jack’s story.

Equally, it is important to note that, from our perspective, Jack’s learning as a

coach was not characterised by unfettered agency (Jones, Potrac, Cushion, &

Ronglan, 2010; Jones, Edwards, & Filho, 2016). In this regard, our reading of Jack’s

story suggested that, rather than being an individual activity that took place inside of

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


him, his learning depended on his communication and interaction with a variety of

other people and texts (e.g. coach education and academic curricula) (Alheit &

Dausien, 2002; Biesta & Tedder, 2007). That is, Jack’s learning biography was

characterised by its sociality and, importantly, serves to illuminate the connection

between the biographical and the institutional (Alheit & Dausien, 2002). Such an

outlook is also in keeping with the arguments of Jones, Edwards, and Filho (2016),

who eloquently argued that, given the socially mediated nature of thought and action,

an individual’s learning and behaviours cannot be understood outside of the

environment in which they took place. Indeed, we would argue that Jack’s biography

both structured and was structured by his learning process (Alheit & Dausien, 2002;

Christensen, 2014) or, in other words, it demonstrated what might be understood as

“agency within structure” (c.f. Tedder and Biesta, 2007, p. 5).

To date, much of the coach learning literature has suggested that informal

learning, primarily through interaction with other coaches and ‘hands-on’ coaching

experience, has been the dominant mode of learning engaged in by coaches (Cushion

et al., 2010; Cushion & Nelson, 2013). While Jack’s learning regarding the

pedagogical aspects of his coaching practice certainly appeared to reflect the role and

significance of informal learning episodes and the apprenticeship of observation in the

coaching context (Mallett, Rynne, & Billett, 2016; Mallett, Rynne, & Dickens, 2013),

the importance he gave to academic knowledge regarding periodised training

programmes did not. Indeed, the value that Jack attached to his formal studies of

coaching and sports performance reflected the findings of more recent research (e.g.

Mallett et al, 2016; Mallett et al., 2013) illuminating the value attached to formal

study programmes by high performance coaches. On one level then, Jack’s thoughts

about his learning and practice highlight how formal, informal, (and, indeed, non-

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


formal) learning episodes are interconnected and “may exist simultaneously in concert

or conflict” with each other (Cushion & Nelson, 2013, p. 361). Jack’s story also

suggested that specific components of a coach’s knowledge and working practice

were informed, to different degrees, by a diverse range of learning experiences. For

example, while Jack learned a great deal from some coaches about the ways in which

they developed and advanced working relationships with athletes, he was,

simultaneously, critical of the lack of scientific evidence underpinning their respective

training programmes. As such, we believe that the field has much to gain in terms of

developing a more nuanced understanding of coach learning by exploring ‘when’,

‘how’, ‘to what extent’, and ‘why’ various learning experiences are understood to

inform (or not) particular aspects of a coach’ everyday practice.

Importantly, Jack also described how a large part of his learning also stemmed

directly from his efforts to implement the knowledge he had gleaned from others, be it

from formal or informal learning situations. This finding resonated with Jarvis’ (2009)

observation that, while individuals are able to learn knowledge how (i.e. practical

knowledge about how to do something) from secondary experiences (i.e. the learner’s

interpretation of another’s experiences and knowledge), this does not equip him or her

with an ability to practically implement this information in the desired way. Rather,

the ability to implement knowledge can only be achieved through its application in a

primary experience (i.e. an individual’s practice in the field) (Jarvis, 2009; Jarvis,

Holford, & Griffin, 2003). When applying such theorising to Jack’s narrative we can

see that primary experiences not only provided Jack with an opportunity to implement

the knowledge that he had gained through secondary experiences, but also to reflect

upon its appropriateness and practical utility. Indeed, it was through his primary

coaching experiences that Jack ultimately made decisions about whether to reject,

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


adapt, or integrate those understandings that he had initially acquired through

secondary experiences.

From our perspective, Jack’s practices here are illustrative of Thompson’s (2000)

discussion of the practical theorist. In this respect, the knowledge he had developed

from his engagement in various formal and informal learning episodes provided a

pivotal resource in his thinking about the direction and nature of his coaching

programme. However, introspective consideration of his efforts to practically enact

these ideas provided an additional form of learning that he subsequently incorporated

into his ongoing decision-making. Indeed, the learning he gleaned from putting

others’ ideas and suggestions into practice became an important source of learning

and knowledge in its own right. Jack’s narrative, then, would appear to offer support

to Jarvis’ (2006) observation that people are always in the process of not only being

but becoming. That is, “we are always incorporating into our biographies the

outcomes of our new learning” (p. 119). Relatedly, Jack’s outlook here is also in

keeping with the work of Schempp, Webster, McCullick, Busch, and Mason (2007),

which explored the learning and self-monitoring of expert golf instructors.

Specifically, like the participants in their study, Jack not only monitored his

perspectives, skills, knowledge base, but, importantly, he also used this information

“to plan and execute” his strategies for his individual growth and development as a

coach (Schempp et al., 2007, p. 187).

Conclusion

We believe that Jack’s narrative sheds valuable light on the complex nature of coach

learning. In particular, Jack’s experiences question the fracturing of practice,

knowledge and learning, as his beliefs about coaching could not be understood

without our having established a detailed appreciation of Jack’s learning biography.

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Jack’s narrative illustrates how his preferred approaches to coaching were influenced

by his sporting and coaching life experiences, inclusive of his interactions and

relationships with others, and the cultural context in which they were embedded. In

this respect, our findings also reinforce the belief that knowledge developed through

engagement in formal, nonformal, and informal settings while often separated for

analytical purposes should, in fact, “be understood as interconnected modes of a

complex learning process rather than discrete entities” (Cushion et al., 2010, p. 23;

Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Nelson et al., 2006). Reflecting wider discussion in the

adult learning literature (e.g. Harrison, Reeve, Hanson, and Clarke, 2002; Goodson &

Gill, 2011), our efforts to generate richer insights into coach learning, then, might be

better served by seeking to establish a greater understanding of how learners generate,

apply, and reflect on knowledge as they seek to navigate those challenges and

dilemmas that they face.

Given the findings of this study, we encourage coach educators to consider the

potential value of including (auto)biographical approaches to coach learning in formal

coach education programmes. Such activity might, from our perspective, include

asking coach learners to consider the critical incidents, people, and phases of time that

have informed their learning, as well as assisting them to deconstruct the wider

discourses, language, and other cultural means that have influenced their thinking

(Cassidy et al., 2009; Jones, Denison, & Gearity, 2016; Jones et al., 2016). In this

regard, we believe that such activity has an important role to play in helping coaches

to consider the role of tradition and dogma in their learning, as well as the issues

associated with technical rationality and the fallacy of theoryless practice (Cassidy et

al., 2009). Indeed, while having the potential to be a very challenging exercise, this

type of activity has much to offer in encouraging coaches to consider what they know,

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


why they know it, how they use knowledge in practical situations, and helping them

to become “more confident about thinking differently and coaching in more

innovative ways” (Jones, Denison, & Gearity, 2016, p. 170). Equally, coach educators

may wish to consider the place of self-study in their respective curricula and

development programmes. This approach to professional development, which has

gained increasing traction in the preparation of teachers (e.g. LaBoskey, 2004; Ovens

& Fletcher, 2014), aims to enhance learning, improve practice, as well as enhance the

the knowledge base of teaching (Hamilton, Loughran, & Marcondes, 2009). In

practical terms, self-study entails practitioners systematically exploring, acting upon,

and sharing their knowledge, choices, and ideas about teaching and learning

(Dinkelman, 2003; Hamilton, Loughran, & Clarke, 2009). Importantly, this form of

inquiry provides valuable opportunities for better understanding (and grappling with)

the messy social and institutional contexts of coaching, and genuinely involving

coaches in the process of deliberation and choice regarding alternative courses of

action (Cushion, 2016; Fendler, 2003).

While this and other studies (Duarte & Culver, 2014; Jones et al., 2003, 2004)

have started to illustrate the benefits associated with the narrative-biographical

investigation of coach learning, we would suggest that future inquiry might also wish

to adopt longitudinal methodologies that seek to capture the intricacies,

contradictions, and complexities that are an inherent feature of the learning process.

Conceivably, this could include the use of written or audio diaries alongside follow-

up interviews over an extended period of time. This methodology would arguably

help to develop a more nuanced understanding of coach learning, and potentially

nonlearning, inclusive of those factors and motivations driving a given learning

episode, the experiencing of barriers to learning, along with those contemplations that

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


result from the coming together of new knowledge and insights with previous

understandings and beliefs (c.f. Jarvis, 2006).

References

Alheit, P. (1995) Biographical learning. Theoretical outline, challenges and

contradictions of a new approach in adult education. In P. Alheit, A. Bron-

Wojciechowska, E. Brugger & P. Dominicé (Eds.). The biographical

approach in European adult education (pp. 57-74). Vienna: Verband Weiner

Volksbildung.

Alheit, P. (2003). Biographizitat“ als Schlusselqualifikation. Pladoyer

furtransitorische Bildungsprozesse. In Arbeitsgemeinschaft betriebliche

Weiterbildungsforschung e.V./Projekt Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-

Management (Ed.). Weiterlernen - neu gedacht; QUEM-Report, Heft 78, pp.

7-21. Cited in Maier-Gutheil, C &Hof, C. (2011). The development of the

professionalism of adult educators: A biographical and learning perspective.

European Journal of Research on the Education and Learning of Adults,

12(1), 75-88.

Alheit, P., & Dausien, B. (2002). The ‘double face’of lifelong learning: Two

analytical perspectives on a ‘silent revolution’. Studies in the Education of

Adults, 34(1), 3-22.

Armour, K. (2013). Sport Pedagogy: An Introduction for Teaching and Coaching.

London: Routledge.

Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an

ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132-149.

Biesta, G., Field, J., Hodkinson, P., Macleod, F. J., & Goodson, I. F. (2011).

Improving Learning Through the Lifecourse: Learning Lives. London:

Routledge.

Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2012). How meaningful episodic experiences

influence the process of becoming an experienced coach. Qualitative research

in sport, exercise and health, 4(3), 420-438.

Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2013). Exploring coaching actions based on

developed values: A case study of a female hockey coach. International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(2), 209-229.

Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding Sports Coaching.

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


London: Routledge.

Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2008). Understanding Sports Coaching (2nd

Ed). London: Routledge.

Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2016). Understanding Sports Coaching (3rd

Ed). London: Routledge.

Christensen, M. K. (2014). Exploring biographical learning in elite soccer coaching.

Sport, Education and Society, 19(2), 204-222.

Cushion, C. J. (2016). Reflection and reflective practice discourses in coaching: a

critical analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 1-13.

Cushion, C & Nelson, L. (2013) Coach education and learning: Developing the field.

In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports

coaching (pp. 359-374). London: Routledge.

Cushion, C., Nelson, L., Armour, K., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R., &

O’Callaghan, C. (2010). Coach Learning and Development: A Review of

Literature. Sports Coach UK, Leeds, UK.

Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education a means and ends tool for

promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18.

Duarte, T., & Culver, D. (2014). Becoming a coach in developmental adaptive

sailing: A lifelong learning perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

26, 441-456.

Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and

political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16-25.

Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science published from 1970-

2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 388-399.

Goodson, I. F., Biesta, G., Tedder, M., & Adair, N. (2010). Narrative Learning.

London: Routledge.

Goodson, I., & Gill, S. (2011). Narrative Pedagogy: Life History and Learning. New

York: Peter Lang.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In

N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The handbook of qualitative research (pp.

105-117). London: Sage.

Hallqvist, A. (2014). Biographical learning: Two decades of research and discussion.

Educational Review, 66(4), 497-513.

Hamilton,M., Loughran, J., & Marcondes, M. (2009). Teacher educators and the self-

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34


study of teaching practices. In A. Swenned & M. van der Klink (Eds.).

Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators (205-

217). London: Springer.

Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A., & Clarke, J. (2002). Supporting life-long

learning. London: Routledge.

Huggan, R., Nelson, L., & Potrac, P. (2015). Developing micropolitical literacy in

professional soccer: a performance analyst’s tale. Qualitative Research in

Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(4), 504-520.

Illeris, K. (2007). How we Learn: Learning and Non-learning in School and Beyond.

London: Routledge.

Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning. London:

Routledge.

Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a Person in Society. London: Routledge.

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The Theory & Practice of Learning (2nd

Ed.). London: Routledge.

Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & 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.L., Armour, K.M., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sport Coaching Cultures: From

Practice to Theory. London: Routledge.

Jones, R. L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C., & Ronglan, L. T. (Eds.). (2010). The Sociology

of Sports Coaching. London: Routledge.

Jones, R. L., Edwards, C., & Viotto Filho, I. T. (2016). Activity theory, complexity

and sports coaching: An epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and

Society, 21(2), 200-216.

Jones, L., Denison, J., & Gearity, B. (2016). Robin Usher: A post-structuralist reading

of learning in coaching. In L. Nelson, R. Groom, and P. Potrac (Eds.),

Learning in sports coaching: Theory and application (pp. 161-173). London:

Routledge.

Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Teachers and their career story: A biographical perspective

on professional development. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Dencolo (Eds.).

Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development (pp.

198-220). London: Routledge.

Kelchtermans, G. (2009a). Career stories as gateway to understanding teacher

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34


development. In M. Bayer, U. Plauborg, & S. Rolls (Eds). Teachers’ career

trajectories and working lives (pp. 29-48). London: Springer.

Kelchtermans, G. (2009b). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-

understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 15(2), 257-272.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002a). Micropolitical literacy: Reconstructing a

neglected dimension in teacher development. International Journal of

Educational Research, 37, 755-767.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002b). The micro-politics of teacher induction: A

narrative-biographical study of teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 18, 105-120.

LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical

underpinnings. In International handbook of self-study of teaching and

teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). Springer Netherlands.

Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Billett, S. (2016). Valued learning experiences of early

career and experienced high-performance coaches. Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 21(1), 89-104.

Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Dickens, S. (2013). Developing high performance

coaching craft through work and study. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert & J. Denison

(Eds.), Routledge Handbook of sports coaching (pp. 463-475). London:

Routledge.

Markula, P & Silk, M. (2011). Qualitative Research for Physical Culture. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic

and Practical Approach. London: The farm press.

Mesquita, I., Isidro, S., & Rosado, A. (2010). Portuguese coaches’ perceptions of and

preferences for knowledge sources related to their professional background.

Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9(3), 480-489.

Nelson, L.J., Cushion, C.J., & Portac, P. (2006). Formal, non-formal, and informal

coach learning: A holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sport

Science and Coaching, 3, 247-259.

Nelson, L., Groom, R., & Potrac, P. (Eds.). (2016). Learning in Sports Coaching:

Theory and Application. London: Routledge.

Ovens, A., & Fletcher, T. (2014). Self-study in physical education teacher education.

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34


London: Springer.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.).

London: Sage.

Nelson, L., Allanson, A., Potrac, P., Gale, L., Gilbourne, D., & Marshall, P. (2013).

Thinking, feeling, acting: The case of a semi-professional soccer coach.

Sociology of sport journal, 30(4).

Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Nelson, L. (2014). Interpretivism. In L. Nelson, R. Groom, &

P. Potrac. (Eds.), Research methods in sports coaching (pp. 31-41). London:

Routledge.

Schempp, P.G., Webster, C., McCullick, B.A., Busch, C., & Manson, S. (2007). How

the best get better: An analysis of the self-monitoring strategies used by expert

golf instructors. Sport, Education and Society, 12(2), 175-192.

Sparkes, A. (2002). Telling Tales in Sport and Physical Activity: A Qualitative

Journey. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Taylor, W. (2014). Analysis of qualitative data. In L. Nelson, R. Groom, & P. Potrac.

(Eds.), Research methods in sports coaching (pp. 181-191). London:

Routledge.

Tedder, M., & Biesta, G. (2007, March). Learning from life and learning for life:

Exploring the opportunities for biographical learning in the lives of adults. In

ESREA Conference on Life History and Biography, Roskilde University,

Denmark (pp. 1-4).

Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in human services. London: McGraw-Hill

Education.

Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and Human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research.

London: Routledge.

Tracy, S.J. (2012). The toxic and mythical combination of deductive writing logic for

inductive qualitative research. Qualitative Communication Research, 1(1),

109-141.

Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &

Sons.

Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2009). Investigating the idiosyncratic learning paths of

elite Canadian coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching,

4, 433-449.

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

repository.edgehill.ac.ukrepository.edgehill.ac.uk/8140/1/june 05 2016 learning … · web...

Documents