Of advancing science and building practical solutions to strengthen families and

Of advancing science and building practical solutions to strengthen families and protect human health.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAcknowledgmentsFinancial support for this article was provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD061010). This manuscript was prepared while both authors were in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at Oklahoma State University.
Coaching involves a central tenet of improving team or athlete performance which requires a cognitive activity to make decisions upon a multitude of dynamic situational factors (Jones et al., 2003). Taking coaching to be such a complex and fluid endeavour (Cushion et al., 2003), coaches need to develop a wide range of knowledge and Lurbinectedin manufacturer skills to adapt to given environmental conditions (Nash Collins, 2006). However, research has shown that current formal education programs do not adequately prepare coaches for their task (Abraham Collins, 1998; Nelson et al., 2006; Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). For example, it has become increasingly apparent that formal learning acquisition experiences related to an increase in perceived coaching efficacy (Malete and Feltz, 2000), and decreased rate burnout (Frey, 2007) among other topics are not enough to ensure holistic coaches’ development. Indeed, a consensus has emerged that such formal professionalReceived: 01 April 2010 / 3-MA custom synthesis Accepted: 18 July 2010 / Published (online): 01 SeptemberMesquita et al.Although research has highlighted the dynamism of informal, social learning, this is not to say that coaches do not see any value in more formal learning opportunities. For example, many studies exist which confirm that coaches still draw information and knowledge from participation in formal professional clinics, seminars and workshops (Schempp et al., 1998; Timson-Katschis and North, 2008; Wright et al., 2007). In addition, taking account of the internet’s growing popularity as a knowledge resource, coaches appear to be increasingly citing its usefulness in terms of information acquisition (Erickson et al., 2008; Lemyre et al., 2007; Schempp et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007). Furthermore, reading books (Abraham et al., 2006; Lemyre et al., 2007; Schempp et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007) and magazines (Reade et al., 2008a; 2008b; Schempp et al., 2007) and watching coaching videos (Reade et al., 2008a; 2008b; Wright et al., 2007) have been also emphasized as valuable learning sources. The recognition that coaches learn in numerous ways, and value a number of knowledge sources, suggests that an amended conceptual framework is called for to better understand this learning process. Subsequently, although located originally within the field of education, we believe the work of Sfard (1998) has much to offer in this context. Sfard (1998) distinguished two core metaphors of learning, i.e., two basic ways of understanding how we learn; the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor (see also Lave Wenger, 1991; McCormick Murphy, 2000; Rogoff, 1990). The acquisition metaphor conceptualizes learning as a process of knowledge acquired by an individual learner. Here, learning takes place through the transfer of information from a teacher to a learner; for example, as experts (course conductors) convey information to students (coaches) with the intention that the latter acquire knowledge and apply it later. On the other hand, the particip.Of advancing science and building practical solutions to strengthen families and protect human health.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAcknowledgmentsFinancial support for this article was provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD061010). This manuscript was prepared while both authors were in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at Oklahoma State University.
Coaching involves a central tenet of improving team or athlete performance which requires a cognitive activity to make decisions upon a multitude of dynamic situational factors (Jones et al., 2003). Taking coaching to be such a complex and fluid endeavour (Cushion et al., 2003), coaches need to develop a wide range of knowledge and skills to adapt to given environmental conditions (Nash Collins, 2006). However, research has shown that current formal education programs do not adequately prepare coaches for their task (Abraham Collins, 1998; Nelson et al., 2006; Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). For example, it has become increasingly apparent that formal learning acquisition experiences related to an increase in perceived coaching efficacy (Malete and Feltz, 2000), and decreased rate burnout (Frey, 2007) among other topics are not enough to ensure holistic coaches’ development. Indeed, a consensus has emerged that such formal professionalReceived: 01 April 2010 / Accepted: 18 July 2010 / Published (online): 01 SeptemberMesquita et al.Although research has highlighted the dynamism of informal, social learning, this is not to say that coaches do not see any value in more formal learning opportunities. For example, many studies exist which confirm that coaches still draw information and knowledge from participation in formal professional clinics, seminars and workshops (Schempp et al., 1998; Timson-Katschis and North, 2008; Wright et al., 2007). In addition, taking account of the internet’s growing popularity as a knowledge resource, coaches appear to be increasingly citing its usefulness in terms of information acquisition (Erickson et al., 2008; Lemyre et al., 2007; Schempp et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007). Furthermore, reading books (Abraham et al., 2006; Lemyre et al., 2007; Schempp et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007) and magazines (Reade et al., 2008a; 2008b; Schempp et al., 2007) and watching coaching videos (Reade et al., 2008a; 2008b; Wright et al., 2007) have been also emphasized as valuable learning sources. The recognition that coaches learn in numerous ways, and value a number of knowledge sources, suggests that an amended conceptual framework is called for to better understand this learning process. Subsequently, although located originally within the field of education, we believe the work of Sfard (1998) has much to offer in this context. Sfard (1998) distinguished two core metaphors of learning, i.e., two basic ways of understanding how we learn; the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor (see also Lave Wenger, 1991; McCormick Murphy, 2000; Rogoff, 1990). The acquisition metaphor conceptualizes learning as a process of knowledge acquired by an individual learner. Here, learning takes place through the transfer of information from a teacher to a learner; for example, as experts (course conductors) convey information to students (coaches) with the intention that the latter acquire knowledge and apply it later. On the other hand, the particip.