See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238045781

High-performance cricket coaches' perceptions of an educationally informed

coach education programme

Article in Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education · July 2012
DOI: 10.1080/18377122.2012.700692

CITATIONS READS

24 1,524

3 authors, including:

Glenn Fyall Ian Culpan

University of Canterbury University of Canterbury
16 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 316 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Fyall on 12 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical
Education

ISSN: 1837-7122 (Print) 1837-7130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasp20

High-performance cricket coaches' perceptions

of an educationally informed coach education
programme

Hugh Galvan , Glenn Fyall & Ian Culpan

To cite this article: Hugh Galvan , Glenn Fyall & Ian Culpan (2012) High-performance
cricket coaches' perceptions of an educationally informed coach education programme,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 3:2, 123-140, DOI:
10.1080/18377122.2012.700692

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2012.700692

Published online: 16 Jul 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 239

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rasp20

Download by: [UQ Library] Date: 16 February 2017, At: 12:38

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education
Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2012, 123
140

High-performance cricket coaches’ perceptions of an educationally

informed coach education programme
Hugh Galvan*, Glenn Fyall and Ian Culpan

School of Sciences and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,

New Zealand

This paper reports and discusses the findings of a research project that
investigated the recently conceptualized and implemented New Zealand Cricket,
Level 3, high-performance coach education programme (CEP). A qualitative
methodology was employed to gather data from six coaches involved in the CEP.
In particular the researchers sought the perceptions of the six participating
coaches around the additional educational perspectives that had been included
into the CEP. Thematic analysis revealed that the participant coaches saw a need
to increase their coaching knowledge base and the benefits in moving beyond the
traditional coach education models that privilege technical skill development.
Knowledge around educational learning theory, the concept of athlete empower-
ment and reflective practice as a means of informing an ever-evolving coaching
philosophy were also deemed beneficial to participant coaches. Although the
participant coaches could see value in such areas, there appeared to be some
misunderstanding and confusion around the application of these concepts.
Implications from this study suggest that this CEP may be enhanced through
the inclusion of critically reflective practice and its associated philosophies and
pedagogical approaches.
Keywords: coach education; coaching knowledge base; athlete empowerment;
reflective practice; critical reflection

Introduction
Some time ago now, Arnold (1997) argued that sport was a valued human practice
and could make useful and significant contributions to the enrichment of the
human experience. Arnold further suggested that sport could help construct a
meaningful pattern to life and assist individuals and groups to become more fully
human. Given this argument, coaches and athletes are importantly and centrally
located in the sporting experience. Indeed coaches are becoming increasingly more
important as the numbers of children participating in youth sport increases, a more
sport active aging population is now evident, and new forms of sport are emerging
(McCullick, Belcher, & Schempp, 2005). If a meaningful and valued sport
experience for participants, whether it be at participation or high-performance
levels, is to be achieved then the development of high quality coach education
programmes (CEPs) becomes an imperative (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003;
Stephenson & Jowett, 2009).

*Corresponding author. Email: hugh.galvan@canterbury.ac.nz

ISSN 1837-7122 print/ISSN 1837-7130 online
# 2012 Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2012.700692
http://www.tandfonline.com
124 H. Galvan et al.

However, leading into the new millennium, and over the past decade, coach
education and development has increasingly come under scrutiny. At the turn of the
century, Lombardo (1999), for instance, suggested that coaching structures had
resisted many of the changes associated with contemporary youth culture, and that
entrenched coaching models were incongruent with the expectations, needs,
assumptions, interests, and characteristics of many twenty-first century athletes.
Lombardo, in viewing coaching as an educational pursuit, proposed a need to shift
from the traditionally entrenched coach-centred model where knowledge is
controlled and disseminated by the coach, to an athlete-centred approach where
athletes have a primary role in the production of knowledge and control over their
own development. In the latter half of the twentieth century, similar imperatives have
been argued cogently within teacher education programmes (TEPs), where a
proliferation of research suggests that teacher competence may indeed be enhanced
through greater use of student-centered pedagogies (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2009;
Light, 2008; von Glaserfeld, 2001).
Unsurprisingly, scholars are increasingly drawing on the rich history of
educational research to inform coaching practice (Cassidy et al., 2009; Jones, 2006;
Kidman & Hanrahan, 2011; Wikely & Bullock, 2006). For instance, Shulman’s
(1987) seminal work on the teachers’ knowledge base (TKB) is widely regarded and
considered when determining teacher competence (Christensen, 1996; Palmer, 2001).
In Shulman’s view the necessary requirements for teacher competency, the TKB,
consists of knowledge of content, general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, curriculum knowledge, educational contexts, knowledge of the
learners and their characteristics and knowledge of educational goals. This view has
gained traction within the coaching community and it appears that scholars are
increasingly finding and reporting congruence between TEPs and CEPs (Jones,
2006). Similar to the teacher, coaches need to have a knowledge of sporting contexts
and the purposes and values associated with coaching and the sporting experience; a
knowledge of the area in which they are coaching (content and curriculum
knowledge); a knowledge of a range of methods of conveying this information to
their athletes (general pedagogical knowledge); and pedagogical content knowledge
that enables the coach to transform their content, curriculum and general
pedagogical knowledge into effective and powerful learning environments responsive
to the needs and characteristics of the learner (Abraham & Collins, 1998).
New Zealand, with its arguably entrenched coaching and sporting culture is not
immune to such considerations, and like many other countries sport coaching is in a
time of significant reflection and change. With an understanding of such discourse
and a view to examine and expand the coaching knowledge base for their
own coaches, New Zealand Cricket (NZC) looked to a tertiary education provider
(a New Zealand university) to conceptualize and implement aspects of their Level 3
advanced coaching qualification. In so doing the CEP developers drew upon a
philosophy encompassed by the term ‘coach as educator’, a philosophy which was
firmly embedded in two existing undergraduate physical education teacher education
(PETE) programme and sport coaching programmes. Over a two-year period NZC
coach educators and staff from the tertiary provider delivered four weekend modules
to 33 NZC high-performance coaches from around New Zealand. In deciding upon
the tertiary provider best suited to conceptualize and deliver the Level 3 CEP, the
New Zealand high-performance coach manager commented:
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 125

I’d spoken to a variety of different institutions and what they had offered around
coaching and more specifically around HOW to coach . . . I think that what you guys
offered here was what I saw was the best fit for our programme . . . I was comfortable in
the people that I had spoken to who had been on courses here before . . . thought you
were where cricket was looking to go and was a good fit with what we were trying to do
with our level three courses. (Gary Stead, New Zealand Cricket high-performance coach
manager, interview, July 28, 2009).

On completion of the CEP, NZC and the tertiary provider saw a need to examine
and report on any possible benefits that this new qualification may have had.
Therefore, given the mandate from NZC to pursue this line of research, the tertiary
provider looked to examine and report on the newly conceptualized and delivered
NZC Level 3 CEP. Specifically, the researchers looked to explore the perceptions of six
cricket coaches who had recently completed the NZC Level 3 coaching qualification.
The area of primary concern was the coaches’ perceptions of the additional
pedagogical perspective that had been woven into the NZC Level 3 course.

Background
The considerations outlined in the introductory comments have not gone unnoticed
in New Zealand, where recent advances in coach education include the introduction
of the Coach Development Framework (CDF) as developed by the Sport and
Recreation Council of New Zealand (SPARC). The CDF has been produced to
initiate the implementation of the coach education policy of the New Zealand
coaching strategy (SPARC, 2006). The purpose of the CDF is essentially to outline
‘the structures, policies and procedures to implement tactic three of this strategy

improve coach education requirements and qualifications’ (SPARC, 2006, p. 1).
The vision and purpose for the CDF is to create a ‘world class coaching
environment’ (SPARC, 2006, p. 3) through a national coach development system that
‘empowers coaches to provide a high quality coaching service to all athletes’
(SPARC, 2006, p. 3). It is suggested that this ambition is to be achieved through the
increasingly effective integration of coaching skills, knowledge and understandings
of coaching and the coaching process (SPARC, 2006). Key to this knowledge and
understanding appears to be
congruent with Lombardo’s (1999) suggestions
the
humanistic concepts of holistic coach and athlete development and empowerment
through an athlete-centred coaching approach.
Furthermore, and inherent in the context of this study, is the flexibility given by
the CDF to the national sporting organizations (NSOs) in the development and
delivery of CEPs. Essentially, NSOs are primarily responsible for coach development
within their sport and CEP delivery can be provided through NSOs/regional sport
organization (RSO) networks or by approved providers, including regional sport
trusts (RSTs), tertiary education providers and the Academy of Sport network
(SPARC, 2006).

The conceptualization and development of the NZ Cricket Level 3 coaching modules

New Zealand Cricket coaching qualifications comprises of three levels. Level 1, a
foundational course for beginning coaches, is essentially designed to improve basic
coaching skills and focuses on how to plan, present and assess coaching sessions.
126 H. Galvan et al.

Level 2 seeks to build on these basic concepts and also looks to provide a more in-
depth analysis of the technical aspects of cricket coaching. Historically, Level 3 was
designed specifically for high-performance coaches who aspire to coach at the highest
level of the game
regional and national teams. Similar to many CEPs worldwide
this qualification placed heavy emphasis on technical competence, often with little
regard to the pedagogical considerations necessary for coaches to effectively impart
this knowledge to their athletes (Cushion et al., 2003; McCullick et al., 2005).
In accordance with the new direction that SPARC was adopting with coaching
and coach development in this country, and guided by the CDF, those responsible
for redeveloping high-performance coaching qualifications in NZC saw a need to
move away from the technical models usually associated with traditional CEPs
(Cushion et al., 2003) and move towards programmes that incorporated wider
pedagogical perspectives. Ultimately, after robust discussion and debate between
NZC and the tertiary provider, the conceptualization of the NZC Level 3 CEP
synthesized aspects of traditional technical cricket coaching content with contem-
porary pedagogical discourses of coaching, education and PETE.
In consultation with the tertiary provider, the NZC high-performance coach
development manager believed this new direction was necessary to provide a more
meaningful and valuable CEP for its high-performance coaches (Stead, 2009). The
final product was presented in a series of four weekend modules over the course of 18
to 24 months by NZC coaching experts and staff from the selected tertiary provider.
The four modules, developed to complement and enhance the previously privileged
technical coaching content, focussed on (1) leadership, (2) planning and manage-
ment, (3) self-development, and (4) the coaching process (See Table 1 for NZC Level
3 coaching module content). Each module had specifically identified learning
outcomes, specific content and assessment requirements with related criteria.

Method
In an attempt to capture the lived experiences of the six participant coaches, a
multiple case study design was employed in this study (Yin, 2009). A multiple case
study design consists of more than one case and enables the researcher to not only
analyze and report individual cases, but also across cases (Yin, 2009). To provide the
detail required in the case descriptions (Stake, 2003), multiple sources of data
gathering were utilized. These were: (1) individual, in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with each of the six participants, (2) individual participant responses to
open-ended questions from the post-module evaluation forms, and (3) electronic
follow-up with individual participants to clarify information given in both the
participant interviews and the module evaluation forms.

Participants
In total, 33 coaches completed the NZC Level 3 coaching qualification between 2007
and 2009. In all, 31 of the participant coaches were male and two were female. The
qualification was delivered in the three main cities in New Zealand and in 2009, at
the completion of the final module, all coaches were invited to participate in the
study. Of the 15 coaches (all male) who responded positively to this request, six
coaches were purposively selected. Two coaches were selected from the Northern
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 127

Table 1. NZC Level 3 coaching module content.

Module Content Learning Outcomes

Leadership “ The coach as a leader “ Discuss the role of coaches as leaders

“ Leadership styles in influencing the direction of sport
“ Power and leadership coaching and understand major
factors that influence sport coaching.
“ Explore the personal meaning of sport
and being a coach.
“ Investigate a range of leadership styles
and understand their impact on
individuals and the team in creating a
positive team environment.
Planning and “ Planning “ Demonstrate an ability to plan for and
management “ Developmental needs structure content for macro and micro
of athletes sessions in authentic coaching
“ Managing structures (including short, medium,
environmental long-term planning, strategic,
factors competition).
“ Risk management “ Demonstrate an understanding and
plan for the cognitive, psychosocial,
physical and moral development of
athletes across the life span.
“ Develop an ability to understand and
plan risk management strategies
(including injury, individual rights,
environment).
“ Develop planning strategies to manage
environmental factors that affect perfor-
mance (including travel, humidity).
Self-development “ Philosophical “ Reflect on coaching’s dominant
perspectives philosophical perspectives.
“ Professional role of “ Demonstrate an understanding of the
the coach professional role of the coach.
“ Reflective practice “ Demonstrate ability to critically reflect
“ Self-management on personal coaching and create self-
awareness around cultural and
gendered communication practices.
“ Develop strategies to enhance self-
management that include time, stress
and conflict resolution.
The coaching “ Educational learning “ Demonstrate principles of learning
process theory including the eight effective strategies
“ Skill acquisition and and reflective practice techniques.
the coaching process “ Apply principles of communication, to
“ Planning training enhance quality coaching.
sessions “ Apply principles of skill acquisition
“ Coaching approaches theory to enhance athlete development.
“ Plan, implement and reflect on training
sessions using specific coaching
approaches
“ Investigate a range of coaching
approaches and their application to
the coaching and learning
environment.
128 H. Galvan et al.

region of New Zealand, two from the Central region and two from the Southern
region. The purposive sampling strategy employed enabled the researchers to
enhance the depth and richness of the data gathered (Abowitz & Toole, 2010) as
well as gain an equitable geographic spread over New Zealand. However due to the
small number of participants in this case study, care should be taken in generalizing
the findings.
All of the coaches (A, B, W, X, Y & Z) had been identified by NZC as being
appropriate for the course and had completed the NZC Level 2 qualification, and
therefore were perceived as having potential for coaching at the highest levels of the
game. All of the coaches had extensive cricket playing backgrounds but varied in
their cricket coaching experience. The average age was 32 and the range of ages was
from 25 to 57. Four coaches worked with age-group representative teams and two
coaches were employed to coach regional first-class teams. Four participants coached
male teams, ranging in ages from under 18 years to open-aged regional representative
teams. Of the two coaching female teams, both coached at open-aged women’s levels.

Data collection
NZC module evaluation forms
Throughout the qualification, constant monitoring and evaluation of the content
and delivery of the modules occurred. At the completion of each module, all coaches
(N 33) completed an evaluation form that enabled them to feed back, via open-
ended responses, their perceptions of the content being delivered. Coaches were also
invited to comment on the ‘way’ that content was being delivered. The evaluations
consisted of the following five questions:

(1) What did you find valuable about the session? Please be specific.
(2) What did you not find valuable about the session? Please be specific.
(3) In terms of the module content, what did you learn? What was new to you?
(4) Is there anything that you would change in the session? If so, what?
(5) Do you believe the content of the course is appropriate to this level of
coaching? Please explain.

In total, 132 evaluations were collated and a thematic document analysis of these was
used to inform the interview question schedule. Also, from these evaluations, the six
purposively selected coaches’ comments were included, with the interview data, in
the final data analysis.

Interviews
The major source of data was obtained from the semi-structured interviews which
consisted of five questions. This enabled the researcher to ask each of the participants
‘the same basic questions in the same basic order’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2007, p. 353), promoting interviewer reliability (Silverman, 2006) and importantly
allowed flexibility as the conversation evolved. Questions for the interviews were
based on (1) the researchers’ observations recorded as field notes during the
instructional/learning phase of the programme, (2) the content of the modules,
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 129

and (3) a thematic document analysis of the feedback obtained through NZC’s
formal evaluation forms at the completion of each module. Question 1 focussed on
the specific course content of the modules and required the interview participants to
comment on their relevance and worth. The second and third questions enabled
coaches to elaborate on the consequent implementation of course content to their
own coaching and also suggest any implementation problems that they may have
confronted. The fourth question required coaches to reflect on the course content in
relation to their own coaching behaviours and to reflect on any consequent changes
they perceived had occurred as a result of completing the CEP modules. The final
question enabled coaches to give general comments around the NZC coach
development structure, including the pathway through Level 1 to 3.
The interviews lasted between 43 and 67 minutes and were voice recorded using
an Olympus DSS digital voice recording device and then transcribed verbatim. Each
transcript was proofread by the researchers and forwarded to participants for
accuracy. Once the participants had checked their transcripts and any discrepancies
were clarified, appropriate adjustments to transcripts were made. Consequently,
all six participants were happy for the researchers to proceed with the analyses and
report the findings.

Data analysis
Consistent with multiple case-study approaches (Yin, 2009) and using QSR NVivo 9
qualitative analysis software the researchers completed a constant comparison
approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to conduct an analysis of the interview data.
Data was triangulated across all six transcripts and additionally included the data
generated from the six participants’ NZC module evaluation responses. This process
allowed the researchers to search out similarities and common viewpoints or
differences and newly emerging themes. Finally, as a cross check, the transcripts were
read and re-read to identify themes that may have been overlooked. The final
decisions regarding key themes were made collaboratively by the three researchers.
Exemplars from the NZC module evaluation forms and the participant interviews
were used to highlight the key themes identified in the discussion below.

Findings and discussion

The focus of this study was to examine and report the perceived value of a recently
conceptualized New Zealand Cricket CEP. Specifically, the researchers looked to
explore the perceptions of six cricket coaches who had recently completed the NZC
Level 3 coaching qualification. The area of primary concern was the additional
pedagogical perspective that had been woven into the NZC Level 3 course. An
analysis of the participants’ in-depth, semi-structured interviews and module
evaluation forms revealed a number of key themes that may benefit the coaching
community. These key themes are discussed below.

The coaching knowledge base

It has been noted that coaches prepare for their coaching role in many different
formal and non-formal ways (McCullick, Belcher & Schempp, 2005). This learning
130 H. Galvan et al.

may include reading books, watching television, attending workshops, informal

observations as players or coaches, apprenticeship ‘models’ of coaching and
participation in CEPs. Whilst learning may be varied the importance of well-
structured and well-delivered CEPs is documented (Cassidy et al., 2009; McCullick,
et al., 2005; Wright, Trudel, & Culver, 2007).
In this study, participant coaches were quick to affirm that their previous
experiences with CEPs were characterized by a particular view of coaching. In this
view, the coach or coach educator was the expert and they alone disseminated
knowledge. Participant coaches reported that control tended to be centralized and
the development of knowledge was essentially limited to technical skill development
with little regard to pedagogical ways of promoting this knowledge. Since completing
the NZC Level 3 course, and having been exposed to a different perspective of
coaching, the participants were beginning to compare and contrast their experiences.
Coach W and Coach Z captured this perception when they stated:

[Previously] . . . you go to these skill courses, and I’ve been to heaps over the years, you
go in there and are shown the correct skills but unless you’re actually shown or
challenged about how to put them into practice, it’s probably not of much significance.
I think at the end of the day, you can have all the skills in the world, [but] if you can’t
communicate the information effectively then you’re not much use. (Coach W)

Well you’d get 15 coaches coming in, different presenters coming in for an hour or two at a
time and you’d get them saying well this is what Richard Hadlee did as a bowler and now
this is what Martin Crowe did as a batsman and while it was very good to know what they
did with their technique you learned very little on the how to coach. (Coach Z)

Light (2008) would confirm this dominant view, suggesting that historical coaching
pedagogy and CEPs have tended to privilege technical content knowledge. This
approach, he suggests, has been consistently accompanied by pedagogical strategies
that place the coach firmly in control of the coaching environment. In this
perception, knowledge is traditionally seen as an object and learning is seen as a
process of internalizing knowledge. Coaches subscribing to this technocratic
approach consider knowledge to be a commodity and as such they have ownership
and control over it (Light & Fawns, 2003). However, whilst it is argued that content
constructed in the dominant, coach-centered manner limits the learning environment
to one of merely reproducing the existing coaching culture (Bain, 1990; Culpan &
Bruce, 2007; Stephenson & Jowett, 2009), this view, as perceived and evidenced by
our participant coaches still appears to dominate.
Drawing from an educational perspective, von Glasersfeld (2001) argued that
such epistemological positions and resulting pedagogical strategies are not con-
sidered on the basis of sound reasoning. Rather, they are based on historical
assumptions that continually entrench themselves within society. He further argued
that learning environments require a much broader epistemological view, where the
learner becomes integral to, and in, the construction of knowledge.
Such discourse is not lost in the context of this study as it became apparent that
the participating coaches were beginning to change their thinking and accept the
notion that their role as a coach was one of education and therefore may require a
wider consideration of content. Coach B suggested he had some degree of cognitive
dissonance when he commented on the overall value of the CEP:
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 131

By doing the modules you cover a lot of stuff, don’t you. You cover leadership, coaching
philosophy, learning theory and coaching processes and you know planning and
development strategies. I think you start to understand your own insecurities and lack of
knowledge.

Similarly Coach Y suggested that there may be more to coaching than he had
previously considered when he said:

Now I think the whole coaching thing . . . you can know the skills, but there’s more to
coaching than just knowing a whole bunch of skills and drills. It’s how you deliver it,
how you communicate it, your body language, the feedback you’re getting from players
and how you respond to that, there’s a lot more to it than most people think.

Furthermore, the coaches inferred that what may be required from CEPs was a much
wider understanding of the complexities of the coaching process and this in turn
would help move the coaching community forward. Participant coaches’ comments
indicated personal developments they had made from better understanding the wider
complexities of the coaching process when they said:

It reminded me of the needs that perhaps I’d overlooked in the past . . . probably more
individual needs. I think maybe I had basically said, well these are the players . . . I think
that helps you recognise that within a team there are individuals. (Coach Z)

One of the big things was planning, in terms of yearly planning, seasonal
planning . . . it’s helped a huge amount . . . I now plan more than just the technical stuff.
(Coach Y)

I have a better grasp of the bigger picture now, in terms of why I’m planning and what
I’m planning . . . self-development module . . .. I think that was very important . . . for me
and beneficial for my coaching and personal life . . .. I needed to get a balance around life
and that was probably a real good kick-start for me. (Coach W)

I think people often coach the way they were coached and unless they understand
people, why they learn and how they learn, then all they’re going to do is use the same
methods that they’ve been coached . . .. I have a better understanding now. (Coach X)

Inherent in the above statement by Coach X, is that participants grasped the

importance of understanding knowledge from a teaching and learning perspective.
Specifically, knowledge of learning theory and its influence on the athletes and the
coaching process. For instance, other coaches’ comments included:
I’ve just been someone who has played a lot of sport and started coaching through my
children, and I’ve always just coached skills . . . I didn’t really have a good understanding
of how people are learning and what role I played in teaching them. (Coach B)

I imagine there are more coaches out there that probably know nothing about the
learning process . . . but as a rule of thumb, I think if a coach understands athletes and
the way people learn . . . they’re going to have better influence and better effect with
those players that they’re involved with. (Coach Y)

Incorporating perspectives from teaching and learning into coaching and CEPs has
been cogently argued over the previous decade (Cassidy et al., 2009; Jones, 2006) and
this view appeared to be of value to the participant coaches. In response to
132 H. Galvan et al.

questioning around the coaching process module that incorporated knowledge and
understanding of learning theory, namely behaviourism and cognitive and social
constructivism, Coach X summarized the collective thinking when he stated:
You need to have a programme, like the coaching process module that focuses on who
you are coaching and how you are coaching, as well as the ‘what’ you’re coaching.

The comments from participant coaches have suggested that they had grappled
throughout the CEP with concepts that move beyond the traditional view of
coaching which positions the coach as the expert. Since completing the NZC Level 3
course and having been exposed to different perspectives of coaching, two coaches
commented that it may well be of value to incorporate such content at earlier levels
of CEPs. In this way content can be structured in a coherent and logical manner that
is appropriate for learners and the respective levels of the CEPs. Coach A and Coach
X captured this possibility when they stated:

I think the involvement there of the university in those modules, I think is fantastic . . . . I
think stuff we did in Level 3 can be incorporated into Level 2 so it is not a big step.
(Coach A)

I think it is important to have some of this content in earlier modules. It will help you
out as a coach. Like looking at things from a different perspective . . . it is not all just
about the knowledge of the coach. (Coach X)

Moving beyond the technical skill coaching model

Indeed, there are different views of what constitutes essential knowledge for coaching
practice and the structuring of CEP content (Cushion et al., 2003; McCullick et al.,
2005). Cushion et al. (2003) maintain that knowledge does not exist in a vacuum as it
is inherently contextual, dynamic and ever evolving. Furthermore, they state that
coaching ‘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 (p. 220). In situations like this, those developing the CEP
content act as gatekeepers in a form of social editing where content is removed and
or endorsed. Furthermore, Cassidy et al. (2009) maintain that a coach’s knowledge
and exploits may be viewed as products of his/her involvement with, and experiences
in, the coaching environment. Therefore, coaching practice which is ‘refined by
interaction with the environment and performers, produces the coaching process and
the coaching context’ (Cushion et al., 2003, p. 219). This interconnectedness of
the coach and athlete within a complex subculture of society adds significance to the
production and/or reproduction of the coaching knowledge base and indeed the
coaching culture (Bain, 1990; Stephenson & Jowett, 2009). As a result, the gaining
and expansion of coaches’ knowledge and actions, as is the intention of the NZC
Level 3 qualification, may have importance for coaching practice and coach
education in particular.
Additionally, the participant coaches were beginning to grapple with the wider
educative nature of sport and how the sport and coaching culture could influence
athletes and the wider community. This theme is reflected well in the following
coaches’ comments noted:
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 133

We’ve got to see ourselves not as cricket coaches but as coaches, and coaching is about
people. They’re not just coaches of cricket skills. They’re life coaches as well. (Coach Z)

I think the All Black coach said, better people make better All Blacks. I agree, a more
well-rounded, more balanced person that has an understanding of others and can relate
well with others. So it’s much wider than just skills, if you can coach that, then you’ve
got a far better functioning team, that’s going to perform better, because they
understand each other and they work well together, than a team of individuals who
have only got excellent skills. (Coach A)

However participant coaches indicated how they now had a better understanding of
the educative nature of sport and signalled developments they had made as a result
of the CEP when it was said:

. . . to actually get the best out of their athlete . . . there’s all sorts of pressures on them,
how do they cope under pressure in life, what influences are outside . . . in terms of
maybe their career structures . . .. You’ve got to talk to them . . . just some of the stuff
I learnt, the whole thing about listening, communicating, agreeing on a course of action,
setting in place sort of, a bit of a process, it’s been useful. (Coach Y)

I now have an understanding of what’s going on in lives and about yourself, so yeah,
I think knowledge of the sport and the athlete and yourself, yeah a pretty holistic
knowledge is important, so I think learning that is probably the key thing. (Coach W)

Well I think firstly, has to be holistic . . . you need to have a programme that focuses on
who you coach and how you’re coaching, as well as the what you’re coaching, technical
and practical skills. I now consider this. (Coach B)

Interestingly participant coaches were beginning to understand the notion that

coaching is a socially constructed practice when they started to demonstrate
knowledge of, and ability to, deconstruct the coaching environment. Comments
from two coaches reflected their development when they stated:
You could see situations where someone had power and you kind of knew they had
power because the others liked them, or because they had expertise power or
whatever . . . . [The leadership module] it gave me an understanding of why people have
power . . . why people have power within certain groups. (Coach Y)

[The leadership module] talked about different styles of leaders. I probably got the most
out of that because analysing and looking at how different people use power and how
this relates to different groups and different people. (Coach W)

Here, the participant coaches were in fact wrestling with notions of coach
athlete
power relationships and as a result of similar statements made by the other four
coaches this has been interpreted in the context of athlete empowerment and is
discussed below.

Athlete empowerment
Fundamentally, athlete empowerment considers the power structure inherent in an
athlete
coach relationship and ultimately manifests itself in epistemological beliefs
and associated pedagogical approaches that redistribute power between the coach
and the athlete (Cassidy et al., 2009; Kidman, 2001). Essentially this requires a shift
134 H. Galvan et al.

from the traditional coach-centered environment where pedagogical decisions and

control have remained firmly in the hands of the coach to what Kidman (2001)
described as an athlete-centered approach where the athlete is actively engaged in the
shape and direction of their own development.
The leadership module, which drew from the research conducted by Jones et al.
(2004) and Potrac, Jones, and Armour (2002) who utilized French and Raven’s (1959)
power typology to explore coaching practices and philosophies enabled the coach

athlete relationship to be deconstructed. This appeared to be of significant
importance to this group of coaches. This importance was evident in their comments
and reflected in a collective desire to deconstruct the traditional, hierarchical view of
coaching and again broaden their view and knowledge of the coaching process. The
following selected comments demonstrate their enthusiasm around this area and
indicate resulting changes to coaching behaviours:

I think it [the leadership module] reminded me of the needs that perhaps I’d overlooked
in the past . . . probably more individual needs. I think maybe I had basically said, well
these are the players, and this is the skill programme, and I would go ahead and coach to
it . . . but I think that it helps you recognise within a team there are individuals and they
need to be more involved. (Coach A)

I think that having a more athlete-centred approach has had a huge impact on the
players . . . . Having them take more responsibility, more leadership, you know, thinking
for themselves, coaching themselves, because I have seen a definite change in quite a few
of the players. (Coach X)

A lot more confidence . . . more sort of capabilities as a coach . . . the whole problem
solving and guiding as opposed to just telling guys . . . that’s how I used to coach, but not
now. (Coach Z)

In recent times, the concept of athlete empowerment has gained significant traction
within coaching communities and is becoming an increasingly popular topic (Jones
& Standage, 2006; Kidman, 2001). In their discussion of athlete empowerment, Jones
and Standage (2006) stated that:

Indeed, it expresses an idea that few would quarrel with; that is, that all concerned can
get a collective grip allowing athletes greater equity after years of being dominated and
silenced in hierarchical relationships. Hence, as rhetoric, it promises groups and/or
individuals access to a higher degree of power than they have previously had through
the delegation of authority to influence policies, plans and processes. Little wonder then
that its popularity has expanded. (p. 67)

Consistent with the findings of Jones et al. (2004), the participant coaches could
enthusiastically see benefits of an athlete-centred approach, and were experimenting
with this in their own coaching environments. However, they appeared to be grappling
with the pedagogical issue of engagement and were exploring alternative ways in
which this engagement might be achieved. Comments typified this exploration and
coaching developments made with:

Basically seeing yourself as a facilitator and creating your players responsibility on the
ship, getting them to come up with answers, questioning [them] to think for themselves,
to coach themselves so that when they’re in their own trainings, when they’re in my
trainings, when they’re on the field it’s them that are making the decisions, so they have
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 135

to have the tools to make those decisions, and those tools are there I think, for a lot of
players they’re there, it just needs to be brought out, and obviously if you need to add
value to that, then you can, as a coach. (Coach B)

The athlete-centred approach, and I think that it may be appropriate for older
people . . . maybe 15, 16 plus, you know. But if you can apply that to people who are
maybe coaching primary school kids . . . it’s probably more of a coach directive
type . . . their approach is a little bit different. A spectrum of approaches it what I have
now got. (Coach W)

I guess that big hit on athlete-centred stuff . . . made a big impact for me . . . definitely
made me more aware of a feel, from having different styles depending on the approach.
(Coach Y)

However, the coaches appeared to lack a critical perspective on the essence of

empowerment and while the above coachs’ comments generally encapsulated some
essential elements of empowering pedagogies, there is still evidence to suggest some
inconsistencies with its implementation. When questioned further around the term
‘my trainings’ and what that involved, Coach B began his statement with ‘When I get
them back . . .’. It is clear that this participant coach may see empowerment as a
privilege accorded to the athletes and that perhaps the ‘real’ coaching occurs when he
regains his control. Consistent with this thinking, Jones and Standage (2006) argued
that:

empowerment can immediately be seen as ambiguous in that the one with power is
taken to empower those without . . . many top-level coaches confess to only giving them
an illusion of empowerment, just enough to ensure their ‘buy in’ to the coaches pre-set
agenda. (p. 68)

There has been little in the way of evidence to support the successful implementation
of athlete-centred environments (Jones & Standage, 2006) and whether it is
appropriate for all ages of athletes and varied coaching environments. In the future
it would certainly be of use to determine whether in fact athletes enjoy more
empowering strategies to coaching and the implications it may bring. However, at the
time of writing the participant coaches indeed were exploring ways to do so and it
appeared that they were looking to reflect on their attempts at implementing the CEPs
suggested strategies. The following outlines the participant coaches’ reflections on
their attempts to synthesize such concepts into their specific coaching environments.

Reflection on an evolving coaching philosophy

In this study it became clear to the researchers that the overt, and to some degree
covert, changes that were impacting on the participant coaches were influenced by
the pedagogies employed within the CEP. Furthermore, the reflective processes
utilized encouraged participant coaches to explore personal positions and question
particular decisions being made regarding practices. The net effect of this meant that
participant coaches began to develop a dynamic and evolving, yet practical
dissection of their existing coaching philosophy.
All coaches commented on their perceived value of developing and reflecting on
their coaching philosophy and the changes to their coaching as a result of this
evolving process. Comments which captured this development were:
136 H. Galvan et al.

The whole coaching philosophy, it’s interesting because in the absence of having a
philosophy, it’s very easy just to drift along. And I think as a coach, the [self-
development] module challenged me to establish some non-negotiables in my own
coaching and look at the things I am perhaps not doing so well. (Coach A)

I think you’ve got to set yourself guidelines, as an individual, and you’ve got to sit back
and think about yourself, what motivates you and the athletes, what aspects do you look
at yourself and say to yourself, well, that’s where I’m at, but this is where I want to be?
(Coach W)

It was the first time I’ve taken the time to video myself, as a coach. The first time I’ve
taken the time to critically self analyse what I’m saying, how I’m saying it and why I’m
saying it . . . . I think yeah, I have become more athlete-centred in the way I coach.
(Coach Z)

I’ve become a lot more athlete conscious, if we’re playing a game or something I’ll get
them to tell me what they want to achieve . . . it’s not about me imposing anything on
them really. (Coach B)

It became clear to the researchers that the six participant coaches became, to varying
extents, reasonably skilled at questioning, and comparing and contrasting the focus
of ‘coach as educator’ with the traditions of the ‘coach as technical adviser’. They
readily saw the advantages in such an approach and a subsequent need to increase
their knowledge base around the coaching process. Whilst this is exciting for those
who share this view, and may have merit for the coaching community, it would seem
that despite showing the capacity to reflect the coaches were still grappling with the
theory-to-practice nexus and may still have some way to go before they can include
such thinking into their practice.

Moving towards coaching as a ‘critically’ reflective practice

Given the long history of sport coaching where the coach has traditionally been in
‘control’ it may take some time before there is significant change to the way coaches
ply their trade due to the many powerful institutions that influence their thinking.
However, consistent with Cassidy et al.’s (2009) scholarly summary of reflection in
sport coaching, the researchers believe that CEPs that emphasize reflective practice
may indeed hold the key to successful implementation of new approaches to
coaching. Indeed, in accordance with Shön’s (1983) considerations of the necessary
requirements for reflection to occur, such an emphasis may provide coaches with the
much needed flexibility to acknowledge the multiple views and complexity of issues
within the coaching process.
However, when reflecting on our own practices within the CEP, we, the
researchers, see a further need to expand the coaches’ knowledge base around the
concept of critical reflection, where, drawing on the critical paradigm reflection is
seen not only as a process of reflecting on and in action (for further discussion see
Shön, 1983) but also is seen as a process of taking social action to achieve social
change. In so doing we are very mindful that coaching lacks a critical tradition and
this therefore makes the embracing of critically reflective practice burdened with
challenges and conflict (Cassidy et al., 2004). Yet it is our belief that without
adopting a critically reflective view, coaching is stagnated in past boundaries and for
coaching to progress CEPs need to seek and incorporate new knowledge and
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 137

encourage coaches to question the assumptions held around current coaching

practice. In this view critical reflection emanates from ‘critical theory’ where
assumptions are challenged, social relations are examined and inequalities and
power relations are exposed (Gillespie & Culpan, 2000). This interpretation tends to
be an empowering one and enables the coach
athlete relationship to be decon-
structed and reconstructed through a process of development and constant change.
In further enhancing this particular CEP the developers/researchers are mindful of
Fernandez-Balboa’s (1997) argument that critical reflection should not just be about
the past but needs to include the present, and inventing the future. He stressed that the
purpose of the reflective process is to empower coaches to seek defined alternatives so
that the decisions they make are deliberate, conscious and intentional. The process
can liberate coaches from traditional mindsets reproducing ‘what they know’
(Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley, 2005). It became clear that by not promoting and
encouraging coaches to develop and use their ability to critically reflect and make
decisions based on informed critical judgement, the CEP locked the participating
coaches into ‘business as usual’ and therefore potentially reaffirms participant
coaches’ low professional status by exposing them to political manipulation.
At the conclusion of this particular CEP there was some evidence to suggest that
the participant coaches had begun to locate themselves within a critically reflective
position. Coaches were beginning to form a different view of the coaching process
and indeed synthesizing this into their own coaching practice, and in doing so started
to become catalysts for change. However, the researchers are very mindful of how the
physical education literature on this topic is criticized for its lack of practical activism
(Culpan & Bruce, 2007). This same criticism can be levelled at the coaching
profession and in this particular situation the participant coaches may require more
guidance in the development of pedagogies and other emancipatory techniques that
will assist them in the process of change.
Furthermore, the development of critically reflective coaches is a complex task.
The complexity is due in no small way to coaches being passively socialized into their
role. It was evident from this study that to develop the participant coaches’ ability to
be critically reflective, CEPs need to be coherently deliberate. That is, participant
coaches need to be placed in situations where cognitive dissonance is created through
the utilization of probing and challenging questions that enable them to identify,
challenge and confront assumptions about sport, coaching and existing practice.
Opportunities to explore and discuss possible solutions can only then present
themselves. Drawing from physical education literature (e.g. Culpan & Bruce, 2007;
Gillespie & Culpan, 2000) the coach educator will need to facilitate, evaluate,
question, instruct for critical thinking, teach or coach for transfer, cue athletes for
this and be prepared to allow athletes the time to develop solutions and think about
them. Moving to this sort of CEP environment is therefore premised and embedded
on the development of sophisticated coaching philosophies and a wider development
of the coaching knowledge base and subsequent pedagogies.

Conclusion
The primary purpose of this case study was to report the perceptions of six high-
performance cricket coaches who had completed a recently conceptualized and
implemented CEP (NZC, Level 3). In particular the programme was examined from
138 H. Galvan et al.

a pedagogical and reflective perspective. A secondary purpose was to identify and

illustrate the areas of most value to the participants in this study. The findings from
the study suggest that by conceptualizing the coaching process as the ‘coach as
educator’, the participants began to expand their own coaching knowledge base and
incorporate wider educational views of the coaching process. In particular, coaches
began to deconstruct their previous experiences of CEPs and validate a need to move
beyond the technical skill development model. Of particular value to the participants
in this study was an understanding of educational learning theory and appropriate
coaching applications; athlete empowerment models and the value of reflective
practice as a means of informing an ever-evolving coaching philosophy. Implications
from this study suggested that CEPs may benefit from drawing on the critical
paradigm to enhance the reflective process and provide coaches with a more explicit
and informed reasoning for change. This would require an acute, finely balanced
programme that would be flexible enough to move in such a direction when the
coaching participants were ready. Readiness would occur only after thorough
groundings had been established in philosophical and pedagogical understandings
so that implementation becomes a want, rather than a specific requirement.

Notes on contributors
Hugh Galvan is a senior lecturer in physical education and sport coaching in the School of
Sciences and Physical Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He lectures in
the areas of biculturalism, physical education and sport coaching pedagogy. He has presented
nationally and internationally in the areas of physical education and sport coaching pedagogy.

Glenn Fyall lectures in physical education and sport coaching in the School of Sciences and
Physical Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He lectures in the areas of
physical education and sport coaching pedagogy. Glenn is currently the BSpC programme
Coordinator and has presented nationally and internationally in the areas of physical
education and sport coaching pedagogy.

Ian Culpan is an Associate Professor in the School of Sciences and Physical Education,
University of Canterbury. He has strong interests in physical education/teacher education
(PETE), Curriculum Development, Pedagogy, Sociology of Sport and Olympic Education. He
has a high national profile, led and directed many national initiatives in physical education and
has published nationally and internationally.

References
Abowitz, D.A., & Toole, T.M. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design,
validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(1), 108
116. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach development.
Quest, 50(1), 59
79.
Arnold, P.J. (1997). Sport, ethics and education. London: Cassell.
Bain, L. (1990). A critical analysis of the hidden curriculum in physical education. In D. Kirk
& R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture: Critical Issues in the
contemporary crisis (pp. 23
42). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural
and pedagogical foundations of coaching. London: Routledge.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural
and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 139

Christensen, D. (1996). The professional knowledge research base for teacher education. In
J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education
(2nd ed, pp. 38
52). New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Culpan, I., & Bruce, J. (2007). New Zealand physical education and critical pedagogy:
Refocusing the curriculum. International Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 5, 1
11.
Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215
230.
Fernandez-Balboa, J.M. (1997). The human movement profession: From modernism to
postmodernism. In J.M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in human move-
ment, physical education and sport (pp. 3
10). Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
French, J.R.P., Jr, & Raven, B. (1959). The basis of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gillespie, L., & Culpan, I. (2000). Critical thinking: Ensuring the ‘education’ aspect is evident
in physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 33(3), 84
96.
Harrison, J., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005). Facilitating the professional learning of new
teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring meetings. European Journal
of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267
292.
Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to theory.
London: Routledge.
Jones, R.L. (2006). How can educational concepts inform sports coaching? In R.L. Jones
(Ed.), The sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching (pp. 3
13). London:
Routledge.
Jones, R.L., & Standage, M. (2006). First among equals: Shared leadership in the coaching
context. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), The sports coach as educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching
(pp. 65
76). London: Routledge.
Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers: An empowerment approach to coaching.
Christchurch: Innovative Print Communications.
Kidman, L., & Hanrahan, S.J. (2011). The coaching process: A practical guide to becoming an
effective sports coach (3rd ed). London: Routledge.
Light, R. (2008). Complex learning theory
Its epistemology and its assumptions about
learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27,
21
37.
Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games
teaching through TGFU. Quest, 55, 161
176.
Lombardo, B.J. (1999). Coaching in the 21st century: Issues, concerns and solutions. Sociology
of Sport Online (SOSOL), 2(1). Retrieved from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2i1/v2i1a4.
htm
McCullick, B., Belcher, D., & Schempp, P. (2005). What works in coaching and sport
instructor certification programs? The participants’ view. Physical Education & Sport
Pedagogy, 10(2), 121
137.
Palmer, J. (2001). Fifty modern thinkers in education from Piaget to the present. New York:
Routledge.
Potrac, P., Jones, R.L., & Armour, K.M. (2002). It’s about getting respect: The coaching
behaviours of a top-level English football coach. Sport, Education and Society, 7(2),
183
202.
Shön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1
22.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage.
Sport & Recreation Council of New Zealand. (2006). Coach development framework.
Retrieved from http://www.sparc.org.nz/filedownload? idaab94be5-8082-4272-93de-
8dedae837992
 140 H. Galvan et al.

Stake, R.E. (2003). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for
qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134
164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephenson, B., & Jowett, S. (2009). Factors that influence the development of English youth
soccer coaches. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(1), 3
16.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Perspectives, 31(2), 191
204.
Wikely, F., & Bullock, K. (2006). Coaching as an educational relationship. In R.L. Jones (Ed.),
The sports coach as educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching (pp. 14
24). London:
Routledge.
Wright, T., Trudel, P., & Culver, D. (2007). Learning how to coach: The different learning
situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
12(2), 127
144.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

View publication stats