research papers on sports coaching

Coaching in Sports: Implications for Researchers and Coaches

• First Online: 19 March 2021

Cite this chapter

• Humberto M. Carvalho 3 &
• Carlos E. Gonçalves 4  

1174 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Sports Coaching research continues to develop, although with a narrow spread of publication, mainly within Sports Psychology, and small impact across Sports Science journals. Nevertheless, Sports Coaching research potentially investigates an array of basic and applied research questions. Hence, there is an opportunity for improvement. Moreover, there is an increased awareness in several scientific areas, including Sports Science, about several problems pertaining to design, transparency, replicability, and trust of research practices. Particularly in Sports Coaching research, these problems include limited or inadequate validation of surrogate outcomes and lack of multidisciplinary designs, lack of longitudinal and replication studies, inappropriate data analysis and reporting, limited reporting of null or trivial results, and insufficient scientific transparency. In this chapter, we initially discuss the trends of publication in Sports Coaching, highlighting research problems as they pertain to their treatment in other disciplines, namely psychology. Lastly, we illustrate an example applied to Sport Coaching research with a repeated measures design and an interdisciplinary approach as a recommendation to promote transparency, replicability, and trust in Sports Coach research.

• Sports coaching
• Scholarly publishing
• Open science
• Reproducibility
• Coaching practice

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Amrhein, V., & Greenland, S. (2018). Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0224-0

Article   Google Scholar  

Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019a). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567 (7748), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9

Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. B. (2019b). Statistical significance gives bias a free pass. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 49 (12), e13176. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13176

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bartell, S. M. (2019). Understanding and mitigating the replication crisis, for environmental epidemiologists. Current Environmental Health Reports, 6 (1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-0225-4

Batterham, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2006). Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. International Journal of Sports Physiology Performance, 1 (1), 50–57.

Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2015). Reproducibility in science. Circulation Research, 116 (1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819

Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80 , 1–28.

Burwitz, L., Moore, P. M., & Wilkinson, D. M. (1994). Future directions for performance-related sports science research: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Sports Science, 12 (1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419408732159

Caldwell, A. R., Vigotsky, A. D., Tenan, M. S., Radel, R., Mellor, D. T., Kreutzer, A., … Boisgontier, M. P. (2020). Moving sport and exercise science forward: A call for the adoption of more transparent research practices. Sports Medicine, 50 (3), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1

Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., … Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76 (1), 32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01

Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gelman, A., & Geurts, H. M. (2017). The statistical crisis in science: How is it relevant to clinical neuropsychology? Clinical Neuropsychology, 31 (6–7), 1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1277557

Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2013). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66 (1), 8–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x

Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970–2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 75 (4), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609172

Gonçalves, C. E., Carvalho, H. M., & Catarino, L. M. (2018). Body in movement: Better measurements for better coaching. In S. Pill (Ed.), Perspectives on athlete-centered coaching (pp. 116–126). Abingdon: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Grecic, D., & Collins, D. (2013). The epistemological chain: Practical applications in sports. Quest, 65 (2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773525

Griffo, J. M., Jensen, M., Anthony, C. C., Baghurst, T., & Kulinna, P. H. (2019). A decade of research literature in sport coaching (2005–2015). International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14 (2), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954118825058

Halperin, I., Vigotsky, A. D., Foster, C., & Pyne, D. B. (2018). Strengthening the practice of exercise and sport-science research. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13 (2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0322

Jacobs, F., Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2016). Becoming a ‘good coach’. Sport, Education and Society, 21 (3), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.927756

Kennedy, L., & Gelman, A. (2020). Know your population and know your model: Using model-based regression and poststratification to generalize findings beyond the observed sample. ArXiv e-prints, 1906.11323 (1906.11323 [stat.AP]).

Knudson, D. (2017). Confidence crisis of results in biomechanics research. Sports Biomechanics, 16 (4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2016.1246603

Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course . Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2015). Opinion: Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (6), 1645. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421412111

McElreath, R. (2015). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan . Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). Abandon statistical significance. The American Statistician, 73 (suppl 1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1527253

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 528–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253

Piggott, B., Muller, S., Chivers, P., Papaluca, C., & Hoyne, G. (2018). Is sports science answering the call for interdisciplinary research? A systematic review. European Journal Sport Science, 19 (2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1508506

Powers, S. M., & Hampton, S. E. (2019). Open science, reproducibility, and transparency in ecology. Ecological Applications, 29 (1), e01822. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1822

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/

Sainani, K. L. (2018). The problem with “Magnitude-Based Inference”. Medicine Science Sports Exercise, 50 (10), 2166–2176. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001645

Schweizer, G., & Furley, P. (2016). Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23 , 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.11.005

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychology Science, 22 (11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Welsh, A. H., & Knight, E. J. (2015). “Magnitude-based inference”: A statistical review. Medicine Science Sports Exercise, 47 (4), 874–884. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000451

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

Humberto M. Carvalho

University of Coimbra, Estádio Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Carlos E. Gonçalves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Humberto M. Carvalho .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Life Quality Research Centre, University Institute of Maia, Maia, Portugal

Rui Resende

School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

A. Rui Gomes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Carvalho, H.M., Gonçalves, C.E. (2020). Coaching in Sports: Implications for Researchers and Coaches. In: Resende, R., Gomes, A.R. (eds) Coaching for Human Development and Performance in Sports. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63912-9_22

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63912-9_22

Published : 19 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-63911-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-63912-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Sign in to save searches and organize your favorite content.
• Not registered? Sign up

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

International Sport Coaching Journal

An Official Journal of the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE)

ISCJ launched in replacement of the  Journal of Coaching Education

Indexed in: Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar

Print ISSN:  2328-918X             Online ISSN:  2328-9198

• Get eTOC Alerts
• Get New Article Alerts
• Latest Issue TOC RSS
• Get New Article RSS

Volume 11 (2024): Issue 1 (Jan 2024)

ISCJ is a non-proprietary venture of the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) and is published by Human Kinetics. It was launched in 2014 as volume 1, replacing the Journal of Coaching Education ( JCE ), for which there were six volumes published. To view JCE content, click here .

ISCJ publishes three times per year: January, May, and September.

The mission of the International Sport Coaching Journal ( ISCJ ) is to advance the research and development of sport coaching world-wide. This mission is pursued through a specific focus on the practice and process of coaching, with consideration also given to the many factors that influence coaching. Thus, ISCJ publishes peer-reviewed scientific research studies and articles about practical advances about, with, and for coaches.

• Ethics Policy

Duties of Editors

Editors are the stewards of journals. Most Editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management team. They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including readers, authors, staff, publishers, and editorial board members. Editors have a responsibility to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process of manuscripts submitted for publication and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality.

An Editor's decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. Consideration should be given without regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, seniority, citizenship, professional association, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy of the author(s).

All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting interests. This requires that the Editor seek advice from Associate Editors or others who are experts in a specific area and will send manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers chosen for their expertise and good judgment to referee the quality and reliability of manuscripts. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.

Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential. The Editor and editorial staff shall disclose no information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication of the manuscript is sought. The Editors or editorial staff shall not release the names of reviewers.

Editors should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed. Authors should be periodically informed of the status of the review process. In cases where reasonable speed cannot be accomplished because of unforeseen circumstances, the Editor has an obligation to withdraw himself/herself from the process in a timely manner to avoid unduly affecting the author’s pursuit of publication.

Where misconduct is suspected, the Editor must write to the authors first before contacting the head of the institution concerned.

Editors should ensure that the author submission guidelines for the journal specify that manuscripts must not be submitted to another journal at the same time. Guidelines should also outline the review process, including matters of confidentiality and time.

Editors transmit to Human Kinetics (specifically, the journal’s managing editor) the manuscripts accepted for publication approximately three months ahead of the publication date.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest arise when Editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published.

Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the Editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

Editors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest (of their own or those of the teams, editorial boards, managers, or publishers) to their readers, authors, and reviewers.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by Editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the works submitted for publication.

Suggestions from authors as to who might act as a reviewer are often useful, but there should be no obligation for Editors to use those suggested.

Editors and expert reviewers must maintain the duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who give opinions on specific sections.

The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

Editors should require that reviewers provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the Editor.

Dealing With Misconduct

The general principle confirming misconduct is the intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true. The examination of misconduct must, therefore, focus not only on the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the researcher or author.

Editors should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previous published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate submission of manuscripts, inappropriate attribution, or incorrect co-author listing.

In cases of other misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest, Editors may judge what is necessary in regard to involving authors’ employers. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.

The following sanctions are ranked in approximate increasing order of severity:

• A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
• A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
• A formal letter to the relevant head of the institution or funding body.
• Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
• Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing authorities.

Bettina Callary Cape Breton University, Canada

Editors Emeriti

Pat Duffy (2014) Wade Gilbert (2014–2019)

Associate Editors

Gordon Bloom McGill University, Canada

Brian Gearity University of Denver, USA

Andrew Gillham Sanford Sports Science Institute, USA

Steven Rynne University of Queensland, Australia

Digest Editors

Ian Cowburn Leeds Beckett University, UK

Tom Mitchell Leeds Beckett University, UK

Editorial Board

Andrew Bennie, Western Sydney University, Australia

Marte Bentzen, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Norway

Diane Culver, University of Ottawa, Canada

Chris Cushion, Loughborough University, UK

Louise Davis, Umeå University, Sweden

Lea-Cathrin Dohme, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK

Larissa Galatti, University of Campinas, Brazil

Lori Gano-Overway, James Madison University, USA

Sophia Jowett, Loughborough University, UK

Clayton Kuklick, University of Denver, USA

Koon Teck Koh, National Instit. of Education, Singapore

Nicole LaVoi, University of Minnesota, USA

Michel Milistetd, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

Lee Nelson, Edge Hill University, UK

Julian North, Leeds Beckett University, UK

Donna O'Connor, University of Sydney, Australia

Scott Rathwell, University of Lethbridge, Canada

Fernando Santos, Polytechnic Institute of Porto and Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Portugal

Anna Stodter, Leeds Beckett University, UK

Rob Townsend, University of Waikato, New Zealand

Pete Van Mullem, Lewis-Clark State College, USA

Amy Whitehead, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Mariya Yukhymenko, California State University, Fresno, USA

ICCE Research Committee

Kristen Dieffenbach, West Virginia University, USA (co-chair)

Christine Nash, University of Edinburgh, UK (co-chair)

Torsten Buhre, Mälmo University, Sweden

Ntwanano Alliance Kubayi, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa

Gethin Thomas, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK

Don Vinson, University of Worcester, UK

Bettina Callary, Cape Breton University, Canada (ISCJ member)

Sergio Lara-Bercial, Leeds Beckett University, UK (ICCE appointed member)

Social Media Manager Kath O’Brien, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Human Kinetics Staff Marielena Morgan, Journals   Managing Editor

Prior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s ScholarOne online submission system. To submit, click the button below:

Page Content

Authorship guidelines, open access, manuscript types, cover letters, author biographies, editorial decisions, manuscript format, manuscript review, desk rejection policy, submit a manuscript, special issue guidelines, additional resources.

• Open Access Resource Center
• Figure Guideline Examples
• Copyright and Permissions for Authors
• Editor and Reviewer Guidelines

The Journals Division at Human Kinetics adheres to the criteria for authorship as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*:

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to:

a. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND b. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND c. Final approval of the version to be published; AND d. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Conditions a, b, c, and d must all be met. Individuals who do not meet the above criteria may be listed in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. * http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Authors who use artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in their work must indicate how they were used in the cover letter and the work itself. These technologies cannot be listed as authors as they are unable to meet all the conditions above, particularly agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Human Kinetics is pleased to allow our authors the option of having their articles published Open Access. In order for an article to be published Open Access, authors must complete and return the Request for Open Access form and provide payment for this option. To learn more and request Open Access, click here .

Manuscript Guidelines

All Human Kinetics journals require that authors follow our manuscript guidelines in regards to use of copyrighted material, human and animal rights, and conflicts of interest as specified in the following link: https://journals.humankinetics.com/page/author/authors

The International Sport Coaching Journal ( ISCJ ) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes both Original Research studies and papers on Practical Advances in coaching. These manuscript types are described below.

Original Research

Original, peer-reviewed scientific research is intended to develop and innovate sport coaching world-wide. Manuscripts should be formatted with a review of relevant literature and theoretical frameworks to rationalize the purpose of the study followed by an explanation of the methodology, sample/participants, methods (including data collection, data analysis, research ethics), results, and discussion/implications. A variety of research designs are welcomed, though manuscripts should not exceed 35 double-spaced pages (including abstract, references, tables, and figures).

Practical Advances

These manuscripts include practical and applied perspectives on coaching and coaching-related topics. These manuscripts may focus on best practices of specific documented efforts, ideas, or evidence-based guidelines that can be used to improve coaching. They may focus on well-reasoned and effectively articulated insights and commentaries intended to stimulate thought and prompt open dialogue about coaching while (potentially) making contributions to new lines of study in coaching. Perspectives of coaching and coach education in different countries and cultures are also welcomed with an in-depth look at the sport coaching organizations, systems, and key features that define coaching in that part of the world. While adopting an applied orientation, these papers should still be written in an academic style that includes citations as well as other applied evidence to support and develop ideas. Papers that are Practical Advances in the field will typically be between 15–25  double-spaced pages (including abstract, references, tables, and figures). Practical Advances encompasses ISCJ legacy article types of Best Practices, Insights, and Coaching In.

In preparing manuscripts for publication in ISCJ , authors should use British spelling and follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020). Writing should be concise and direct. Avoid unnecessary jargon and abbreviations, but use an acronym or abbreviation if the spelled-out version of a term is cumbersome. Avoid abbreviations in the title. Formats of numbers and measurement units, and all other style matters, including capitalization, punctuation, references, and citations, must follow the APA Publication Manual .

Authors should provide 2–3 key points that describe the novel results or highlights of their research as a separate document. The key points are intended for a general audience, no more than 30 words, and in sentence format.

Upon submission, authors must upload a separate cover letter that lists (1) the title of the manuscript, (2) the date of submission, and (3) the full names of all the authors, their institutional or corporate affiliations, and their e-mail addresses. In addition to this essential information, the cover letter should be composed as described on pp. 382–383 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020), including clear statements pertaining to potential fragmented publication, authorship, and other ethical considerations.

Upon submission, authors must include a separate Word file that provides biographies for all authors to be included in the final published version of the paper. Biographies should include name, rank, department, institution, and a brief statement about research expertise in 50–75 words.

Submissions that are rejected (i.e., that do not receive a minor or major-revision decision and invitation to resubmit) should not be resubmitted without editor invitation to ISCJ per the  Publication Manual of  the American Psychological Association  (7th ed., 2020, p. 381), which reads that any manuscript "that has been rejected by a journal may not be revised and resubmitted to that same journal".

All manuscripts must be written in English, with attention to concise language, a logical structure and flow of information, and correct grammar. We appreciate that some of our authors do not speak English as their first language and may need assistance to reach the standards required by the journal. In addition, some younger authors may not be experienced in scientific writing styles. Since manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s writing standards will not be sent out for review, such authors should ensure that they seek assistance from native English speakers and/or experienced colleagues prior to submitting their paper. Many journals acknowledge the existence of companies that offer professional editing services. Use of an editorial service is at the discretion and cost of the authors and will not guarantee acceptance for publication in ISCJ. An example of such services can be found at https://www.aje.com/ . This information does not constitute endorsement of this professional editing service.

The manuscript must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document. Other file formats, including PDF documents, are not accepted for the main (text) document. The manuscript should contain no clues as to author identity, such as acknowledgments, institutional information, and mention of a specific city. Thus, information that might identify the author(s) should be omitted or highlighted in black. The first page of the manuscript should include only the title of the manuscript and date of submission. All manuscripts must include an abstract of 150−200 words and three to six keywords chosen from terms not used in the manuscript title. Line numbers should be embedded in the left margin to facilitate the review process. For studies involving humans, the participants section must include a statement certifying that the study received institutional approval and that the participants’ informed consent was obtained. Manuscripts should not exceed the page length mentioned for each article type above.

Figures and Photos

If figures are included, each figure must be numbered in consecutive numerical order. A figure should have a caption that is brief and self-explanatory, and that defines all nonstandard abbreviations used in the figure. Captions must be listed separately, on a page by themselves; however, each figure must be clearly identified (numbered), preferably as part of its filename. Artwork should be professional in appearance and have clean, crisp lines. Hand drawing and hand lettering are not acceptable. Figures may use color. Shades of gray do not reproduce well and should not be used in charts and figures. Instead, stripe patterns, stippling, or solids (black or white) are good choices for shading. Line art should be saved at a resolution of 600 dots per inch (dpi) in JPEG or TIFF format. Photographic images can be submitted if they are saved in JPEG or TIFF format at a resolution of 300 dpi. If photos are used, they should be black and white, clear, and show good contrast. Any figures or photos from a source not original to the author must be accompanied by a statement from the copyright holder(s) giving the author permission to publish it; the source and copyright holder must be credited in the manuscript. See additional figure guidelines here .

When tabular material is necessary, it should not duplicate the text. Tables must be formatted using Microsoft Word’s table-building functions. (Using spaces or tabs in your table creates problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors). Tables should be single-spaced on separate pages and include their brief titles. Explanatory notes are to be presented in footnotes, below the table. The size and complexity of a table should be determined with consideration for its legibility and ability to fit the printed page.

Video Clips

Short video clips may be submitted to illustrate your manuscript. Files may be submitted through ScholarOne for review as part of the manuscript; each digital video file should be designated and uploaded as a “supplementary file,” and should be no larger than 15–20 MB (or 5–10 seconds, depending on compression). Video should be submitted in either .WMV or QuickTime (.mov) format with a standard frame size of 320 × 240 pixels and a frame rate of 30 frames per second. You also should indicate in the cover letter accompanying your submission that you have submitted a video file.

Digital material from a source not original to the author must be accompanied by a statement from the copyright holder giving the author permission to publish it; the source and copyright holder must be credited in the manuscript. Human Kinetics will inspect all video submissions for quality and technical specifications, and we reserve the right to reject any video submission that does not meet quality standards and specifications.

All manuscripts are evaluated via masked review and are reviewed by an editorial board member and at least one other reviewer. Submissions will be judged on the basis of the manuscript’s interest to the readership, theoretical and empirical contribution, adherence to accepted scientific principles and methods, and clarity and conciseness of writing. There are no page charges to authors. Manuscripts may not be submitted to another journal at the same time. Authors of manuscripts that are accepted for publication must transfer copyright to Human Kinetics, Inc. Exceptions to this copyright transfer rule will be made for government employees. Additional exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis.

Before full review, submissions are examined at the editorial level. If the Editor and an Editorial Board Member believe the submission has extensive flaws or is inconsistent with the mission and focus of the journal, the manuscript may receive a desk reject decision.

Authors should submit manuscripts electronically as a Microsoft Word document via the ISCJ ScholarOne site (see submit button at the top of this page). ScholarOne will manage the electronic transfer of ISCJ manuscripts throughout the manuscript review process, providing step-by-step instructions. Problems encountered on the ScholarOne site can be resolved by choosing “Help” in the upper right corner of the screen.

Please review the APA checklist for manuscript submission before submitting your manuscript. Authors of accepted manuscripts must obtain and provide the managing editor all necessary permissions for reproduced figures, pictures, or other copyrighted work prior to publication. The authors also will need to complete and sign the copyright agreement, which will be provided to authors.

Special issue topics need to be diverse and inclusive of different perspectives; the topic itself should be resonating with coaching researchers at a particular time for a particular reason. The following guidelines are intended to help prepare a special issue proposal for ISCJ . In 4 pages or less, the proposal needs to address the following questions using the headings provided. Please send your completed proposal to Editor Bettina Callary at [email protected] .

1. Synopsis

In 150 words or less, what is your special issue about? Be sure to include its main themes and objectives.

2. Rationale

What are you proposing to do differently/more innovatively/better than has already been done on the topic (in ISCJ specifically, as well as in the field more generally)? Why is now the time for a special issue on this topic? Why is ISCJ the most appropriate venue for this topic? List up to five articles recently published on the topic that show breadth of scope and authorship in the topic?

3. Outline of Special Issue

How will each type of ISCJ paper (Original Research, Practical Advances) be integrated into the special issue? How many papers do you envision for the special issue? Names of authors who will be invited to submit papers, and paper topics? A list of up to 20 individuals with expertise in the topic who the special issue editors could recruit to act as reviewers?

4. Qualifications

Are you proposing to serve as Guest Editor for this special issue? If so, please provide a copy of your vitae with the proposal. If not, do you have suggestions for a potential Guest Editor?

5. Timeline

Given that it takes approximately 12 months to complete a special issue, please provide a detailed timeline including estimated dates or time frames for the following steps: Call for papers Submission deadline Review process (averages 4 months) Revision process (averages 3 months) Final editing and approval from ISCJ editor Completion and submission to Human Kinetics (needs to be at least 2 months prior to the issue cover month; e.g., completion by March 1 for the May issue)

*Note: All submissions must meet the standard ISCJ submission guidelines.

Individuals

Online subscriptions.

Individuals may purchase online-only subscriptions directly from this website. To order, click on an article and select the subscription option you desire for the journal of interest (individual or student, 1-year or 2-year), and then click Buy. Those purchasing student subscriptions must be prepared to provide proof of student status as a degree-seeking candidate at an accredited institution. Online-only subscriptions purchased via this website provide immediate access to all the journal's content, including all archives and Ahead of Print. Note that a subscription does not allow access to all the articles on this website, but only to those articles published in the journal you subscribe to. For step-by-step instructions to purchase online, click here .

Print + Online Subscriptions

Individuals wishing to purchase a subscription with a print component (print + online) must contact our customer service team directly to place the order. Click here to contact us!

Institutions

Institution subscriptions must be placed directly with our customer service team. To review format options and pricing, visit our Librarian Resource Center . To place your order, contact us . 

Most Popular

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Sports coaches’ knowledge and beliefs about the provision, reception, and evaluation of verbal feedback.

• 1 Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
• 2 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Coach observation studies conducted since the 1970s have sought to determine the quantity and quality of verbal feedback provided by coaches to their athletes. Relatively few studies, however, have sought to determine the knowledge and beliefs of coaches that underpin this provision of feedback. The purpose of the current study was to identify the beliefs and knowledge that elite team sport coaches hold about providing, receiving and evaluating feedback in their training and competition environments. Semi-structured interviews conducted with 8 coaches were inductively analyzed, revealing three broad themes: thinking and learning about feedback, providing feedback, and evaluating feedback. Findings revealed a detailed array of knowledge about feedback across a wide range of sub-topics. Coaches saw feedback as a tool to improve performance, build athlete confidence, help athletes to monitor progress, and as a tool to improve their own performance. Novel insights about evaluating an athlete’s reception of feedback, and tailoring feedback for individual athletes, were provided by coaches. The findings also highlight areas in which future coach education offerings can better support coaches to provide effective feedback.

Introduction

Coaches are thought to require strong procedural knowledge about the pedagogical strategies required to help athletes learn effectively ( Nash and Collins, 2006 ) in addition to possessing specific knowledge about their sport. Recent studies have investigated the knowledge of coaches regarding sport-specific topics such as resistance training ( Harden et al., 2019 ), swimming technique ( Morris et al., 2019 ), and talent identification ( Roberts et al., 2019 ). However, a major gap in this growing body of literature about coach knowledge concerns the use of pedagogical techniques such as feedback in coach practice. Therefore, the research question for consideration in this paper concerns what coaches know and believe about the provision, reception, and evaluation of coach-athlete verbal feedback. It is acknowledged that feedback in an elite sporting setting is not limited to that provided verbally by a coach. Although important in the overall context of learning design in an elite sporting setting, the role of the coach as a practice designer and facilitator of athletes seeking their own feedback ( Woods et al., 2020 ) is not the primary focus of the current paper. A large body of coach observation literature consistently finds that verbal feedback represents one of the most common coach behaviors observed ( Partington and Cushion, 2013 ), with rates of over 60 feedback messages per game reported recently in an elite setting ( Mason et al., 2020a ). As such, an investigation into verbal feedback appears important to determine the knowledge that coaches hold about this major element of their practice.

Feedback is widely regarded as a frequently used and high-impact strategy to progress a learner from current to goal performance ( Kluger and DeNisi, 1996 ; Hattie, 2009 ). Many studies have quantified and analyzed coach feedback in both training and performance settings (e.g., Partington et al., 2015 ; Halperin et al., 2016 ). However, an area receiving less attention is the investigation of coach knowledge and beliefs underpinning the feedback they provide ( Smith and Cushion, 2006 ). Supplementing the large body of empirical evidence on coach feedback in practice with an investigation of the experiential knowledge of expert coaches is considered to be an important direction for improving pedagogical practice ( Greenwood et al., 2014 ). Qualitative investigations of coach practice such as interviews ( Tinning, 1982 ; Potrac et al., 2002 ) may assist in providing greater detail about the contexts and constraints that coaches operate under in reality ( Kahan, 1999 ). Recent studies examining coach knowledge (e.g., Roberts et al., 2019 ) have not yet filled the gap in the area of pedagogical strategies such as feedback.

In education, a large body of evidence exists on teacher beliefs and links to their subsequent practice. Reviews of this literature suggest that teachers hold a variety of beliefs about their pedagogical practice that vary across context and cultures, and that these beliefs are usually related to the pedagogical practices they adopt ( Fang, 1996 ; OECD, 2009 ). Importantly, it is suggested that efforts to improve teacher practice must take into account the perceptions and beliefs of teachers ( Putnam and Borko, 1997 ). Similarly, an understanding of coach beliefs about feedback is an important step in ultimately improving coach feedback practices, and coach education in general ( Côté et al., 1995 ). There is evidence that myths from the field of education have been adopted by sports coaches; 62% of surveyed coaches in the United Kingdom believed that individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style ( Bailey et al., 2018 ). This is contrasted with many major reviews (e.g., Pashler et al., 2009 ) which concluded that there is “no adequate evidence base” (p. 105) for the effectiveness of learning styles. More broadly, several authors have lamented the absence of a belief in evidence-based approaches to pedagogy in high performance coaching ( Rushall, 2003 ; Davids et al., 2017 ).

Current evidence on coach knowledge about feedback suggests a wide spectrum of philosophies, ranging from the highly coach-controlled to a more facilitative and athlete-centered approach ( Côté et al., 1995 ; Potrac et al., 2002 ; Smith and Cushion, 2006 ). In the former category is a case study of an expert English soccer coach, who reported beliefs toward providing feedback such as “they’ve got to be told what is expected of them” ( Potrac et al., 2002 , p. 191). The coach expressed a desire to be in control of his players during training because his job security ultimately depended on game-day success, and this was reflected in the feedback he provided. In another study, gymnastics coaches reported preferring to provide their athletes with feedback constantly ( Côté et al., 1995 ), reflecting that it was important that their athletes “know where they are regularly” (p. 82). These high levels of coach control are contrasted with evidence that some coaches adopt a highly athlete-centered approach to feedback. Smith and Cushion (2006) found that expert English soccer coaches used silence strategically during in-game coaching to allow players to make decisions without an overly prescriptive approach. Coaches also reported not wanting to overload athletes with information, preferring to provide a small number of simple prompts. Allowing the athletes to experiment without coach intervention, and asking an athlete to self-evaluate before providing feedback, were strategies mentioned by the more athlete-centered coaches interviewed in the Côté et al. (1995) study. Across studies, a similar spectrum is seen when coaches are asked to consider feedback valence; some coaches report using up to 90% negative feedback ( Côté et al., 1995 ), while others reported a more balanced approach ( Smith and Cushion, 2006 ). This evidence suggests large variations in coach beliefs about effective feedback practices, which may reflect the unique challenges ( Lyle, 2002 ) represented by the different contexts in which coaches work. For example, and of interest to the current study, is the differences in feedback between team and individual sport coaches. It appears that determining the gap between current coach practice and “best practice” for feedback as reported in the literature is an important task in improving the feedback that coaches give.

A potential challenge for this area of research is evidence to suggest that coaches can be inaccurate when reflecting on their use of feedback. For example, rowing coaches were observed providing verbal feedback to their athletes during training, and then an hour later they were asked about the feedback they provided ( Millar et al., 2011 ). It was found that coaches overestimated desirable feedback patterns by between 5 and 40%; coaches tended to underestimate their use of highly prescriptive instruction, and overestimate their use of questioning to allow athletes to evaluate performance or describe affective feeling about performance. Coaches also appear to over-report the provision of tactical information over technical information compared to actual rates observed in the feedback they provided to athletes ( Pereira et al., 2009 ; Millar et al., 2011 ). Additionally, coaches and athletes show low agreement when asked to recall the types of feedback provided by the coach, with the highest correlation in one study r = 0.26 between athlete and coach perceptions ( Smoll and Smith, 1980 ). These findings highlight the importance of triangulating coach interview data with observational data where possible.

An area not commonly considered in feedback research is the reception of feedback ( Anderson, 2010 ); much time and effort has been spent on determining the quality and quantity of feedback provided, without considering its reception and subsequent action by a receiver. Little is known about the ways in which coaches evaluate their feedback to determine its reception and use by their athletes. Barriers to the successful reception of feedback by athletes include discrepancies in interpretations of feedback between the provider and the receiver ( Liberman et al., 2005 ; Adcroft, 2011 ). Other barriers include variations in the characteristics of the feedback receiver such as working memory capacity ( Buszard et al., 2017 ), or the receiver’s self-efficacy to receive and act on feedback ( Narciss and Huth, 2004 ). There have been numerous calls in the literature ( Langley, 1997 ; Potrac et al., 2000 ) for research designs to consider the athlete’s ability to receive feedback, but relatively few studies have done so (for an example, see Mason et al., 2020b ). Despite the importance of considering individual athlete factors, there is evidence to suggest that coaches may have high confidence but low accuracy when judging their athletes’ mental skills ( Leslie-Toogood and Martin, 2003 ).

Present Study

The literature on coach beliefs and knowledge about verbal feedback is still in its infancy. The variation observed in what coaches know and believe regarding the provision of feedback may be caused by factors such as experience, context, or perceived job pressure. Additionally, a major gap in the area is an understanding of how coaches consider athlete factors such as the capacity and disposition to receive verbal feedback from a coach. Supplementing the large body of empirical evidence on coach feedback in practice with an investigation of the experiential knowledge of expert coaches is considered to be an important direction for improving pedagogical practice ( Greenwood et al., 2014 ).

The purpose of this study was to qualitatively determine the knowledge and beliefs currently held by elite sport coaches with regard to the provision, reception, and evaluation of verbal feedback in training and competition environments. Given the proposition that coaches must possess a strong understanding of the pedagogical strategies required to help athletes learn effectively ( Nash and Collins, 2006 ), along with evidence that coaches may hold some misconceptions about pedagogy ( Bailey et al., 2018 ), it was hypothesized that there would be much variance in the beliefs and knowledge about feedback, with varying degrees of support from academic evidence.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Eight coaches currently employed in a high performance team sport setting were recruited for the study. Recruitment was limited to coaches who had at least 5 years of experience coaching in a high performance setting. For the purpose of the study, this was defined as a professional national-level league or international representative (i.e., national team) setting. This definition is broadly consistent with similar previous studies that have sought to investigate high performance coaches ( Rynne and Mallett, 2012 ; Morris et al., 2019 ). The sampling procedure was aligned with a purposeful sampling approach ( Creswell, 2013 ), to ensure that expert coaches who have experience with a high-performance team sport environment could provide insight into the research questions. Coaches were aged between 32 and 52 years ( M = 42.63, SD = 6.55), and had a mean experience level of 9.75 years (SD = 3.20) in a high performance setting. Coaches represented the sports of Australian rules football (2), rugby (2), basketball (2), soccer (1) and field hockey (1). Five coaches were involved in elite national-level competitions with senior athletes, two were involved with elite youth national representative teams (under 18 age group), and one was involved with a senior national representative team. Six of the coaches had participated as athletes in the sport they coached to a high performance level, while two had not. Demographic information about the participating coaches is provided in Table 1 .

Table 1. Coach demographic information.

Participants were recruited via email or phone. At the time of the interview, participants were provided with a plain language statement and consent form, and were given the chance to answer questions about the study before enrolling. All participants were assured of anonymity and informed that participation was entirely voluntary. Ethics approval was obtained from the Melbourne Graduate School of Education’s Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ethics ID: 1851890.1).

Interview Guide

To assist with consistency between interviews, a semi-structured interview guide was constructed. General information sought from the participant at the beginning of the interview included current role, time in current role, total years of experience coaching in a high performance setting, and any relevant experience as an athlete. These questions served to provide important demographic information, and were also used as rapport-building opening conversations to introduce a relaxed, conversational style to the interview ( Côté et al., 1995 ). Researchers are encouraged “to keep uppermost in one’s mind the fact that the interview is a social, interpersonal encounter, not merely a data collection exercise” ( Cohen et al., 2011 , p. 421), so care was taken to develop this rapport initially.

Questions from the main part of the interview focussed specifically on the research question; a list of questions can be found in Table 2 . Consistent with a semi-structured interview approach, probes (e.g., “Are there any other ways you know the feedback has been received?”) were used when participants provided relevant but incomplete information, to seek a deeper response, or to ensure the clarity of the response. Any new topics that emerged during the course of the interview were explored by the interviewer, consistent with methods adopted in similar semi-structured interview research in sport ( Potrac et al., 2002 ).

Table 2. Interview questions.

The study protocol was explained to participants, who were then offered an opportunity to ask questions about their involvement in the study and assured of the confidentiality of their identity and responses. Informed consent was then obtained from the participant via a hard-copy form. All interviews were recorded on an Apple iPhone 6S, and an Apple MacBook Pro internal microphone was used as a second backup recorder. All interviews were conducted by the first author, who has undertaken undergraduate and postgraduate training in qualitative and quantitative research methodology. Interviews were conducted primarily in person ( n = 5), with a further 3 interviews conducted via phone or Skype; research suggests that Skype and phone interviews can be an appropriate replacement for in-person interviews where geography is a limiting factor ( Deakin and Wakefield, 2014 ). Interview duration was between 14 and 46 min ( M = 27.25, SD = 10.42). Within 24 h of the interview, the interviewer transcribed the interviews verbatim into a Microsoft Word document. All participants were provided with a copy of the interview transcript within 1 week of the interview, and asked to check the transcript for accuracy and clarity.

Data Analysis

Transcripts were uploaded into NVivo for analysis. Given the precedent in coaching literature for an inductive approach to qualitative interview data ( Potrac et al., 2002 ; Rynne and Mallett, 2012 ), data analysis in the current study also adopted an inductive approach. The process of inductively coding data followed the methods outlined by Côté et al. (1993) . First, interview transcripts were read and assigned a label to begin the general process of categorizing the data. At this stage, the primary focus of coding was to organize rather than to interpret. Following a first round of coding, all labels were compared and assigned a broader category, a process known as creating categories ( Côté et al., 1993 ). For example, any text tagged with “positive feedback” or “descriptive feedback” was assigned to a category called “types of feedback.” In completing a similar procedure, Rynne and Mallett (2012) acknowledged that categories remained flexible due to the need for adjustment as coding took place; in the current study, many instances of re-coding took place as themes emerged and developed. The final step in the analysis process involved the naming of final themes, along with the generation of a narrative to accompany each theme in the context of the research question for presentation in this article ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Categories discussed by at least half of coaches (i.e., 4 or more), or that were considered theoretically important for the research area, were included in the final themes.

The three higher-order categories that emerged throughout the inductive analysis procedures were thinking and learning about feedback, providing feedback , and evaluating feedback . The major sub-themes of each category are presented in Table 3 below. The following section will detail the major findings within each category and sub-theme with respect to the range of knowledge and beliefs held by the high performance coaches interviewed. Where relevant, quotes from interviewees are included with the pseudonyms Coach 1 through to Coach 8. The gender-neutral pronoun “they” has been used throughout to conceal the gender of the coach.

Table 3. Emerging themes and sub-categories following the process of inductive analysis.

Thinking and Learning About Feedback

One of the major categories identified through the collation of sub-themes was the way in which coaches conceptualize, learn about, and reflect on their use of feedback. Sub-themes under this category include: coach beliefs about the roles of feedback, and sources of learning about providing feedback.

Roles of Feedback

Coaches held varying beliefs about the role and purpose of feedback in their coaching practice that fell into four main themes: improving performance, monitoring progress, helping coaches to improve, and building athlete confidence. A strongly held belief was that coaches see feedback as a major tool for improving individual and team performance. Coach 7 reflected on the importance of feedback for improvement, stating that “if you don’t get feedback, you don’t really know how you’re tracking and how you’re developing.” Coach 7 went on to clarify that they saw feedback as a tool to help both athletes and coaches grow, suggesting that feedback is conceptualized not only as something to be given by coaches, but also received and used to improve coaching practice.

Aside from the role of feedback as a means for improving performance, 5 interviewees also discussed the importance of feedback for building confidence and providing reassurance when both individual and team performance was not ideal. Coach 4 spoke of the importance of showing positive video feedback to their team following a loss in order to re-motivate the group. This was also discussed by Coach 1, who said that they would often ask video analysts in their organization to just cut up some positive footage because a player’s “confidence is so bad right now.” The role of feedback as reassurance also extended to a competition setting, with Coach 2 reflecting that “I think 50% of my job on game day is to tell them [the athletes] that everything is okay, and that they’re going okay.” Coach 3 took a different approach to the motivational role of feedback, sharing that they often provided overly positive feedback to one athlete with the hope that it may induce competitiveness and prompt other athletes to “strive for similar feedback.”

Learning About Giving Feedback

Coach 5 believed that having a mentor was an effective method for improving their use of feedback, stating that “the best thing that any new coach could do is partner up.” A common theme was that coaches trusted advice from experienced peers, with Coach 6 explaining that “I’d probably like to go from experience and what’s worked for them [another coach] rather than going for something completely drastic and new.” Coach 8 reflected critically on formal coach education courses, stating that “I enjoy doing them, just the piece of paper doesn’t do much for me,” while also speaking of the importance of informal learning for their improvement as a coach. It appears that coaches already working at the high performance level see limited benefit in obtaining formal accreditation, instead valuing the informal learning opportunities presented by collaborating with peers or mentors.

Providing Feedback

A second major category emerging from the interview data relates to beliefs and knowledge about the practicalities involved with providing feedback. In this section, sub-themes include: feedback valence, feedback quantity, providing feedback vs. allowing athletes to problem-solve, structures and frameworks, timing, and barriers to giving better feedback.

Feedback Valence

One of the most commonly discussed beliefs amongst the interviewed coaches was the ideal ratio of positive to negative (also referred to by the coaches as “constructive,” “growth” and “room for improvement”) feedback. There was a common acknowledgment from interviewed coaches that rates of positive to negative feedback vary according to the coach’s personal style and the context in which they operate. Coach 1 recalled an experience of working under a head coach who was “a little more old school” and “doesn’t think much about being more positive… if he has something to say about it [a video clip], he’s going to say it,” while also acknowledging their own style to be more “modern” and responsive to the needs of the athlete. Half of the coaches articulated the belief that providing too much negative feedback was detrimental to athlete performance. For example, Coach 8 reported striving to show athletes positive examples to guide them toward desired behavior, rather than negative examples that show an athlete performing poorly. Coach 3 believed that mostly positive feedback should be used during competition, with “constructive” feedback left for breaks in competition or during training. Like many other coaches, Coach 3 believed that the motivational benefits of positive feedback could enhance performance during competition, with negative feedback believed to cause doubt or impact the concentration of the athlete.

Feedback Quantity and “Overloading” Athletes

All coaches spoke about feedback quantity, with over half discussing their struggle find the right balance between providing enough feedback to ensure the most salient points were covered, but also keeping feedback quantity within a range that was manageable for athletes to use. Coach 7 used an analogy to describe their approach to deciding on feedback quantity: “If I tried to throw you 10 tennis balls, you’d probably catch 2–3… If I throw you 2–3 tennis balls, you’ll probably catch 2–3… Players can only retain a certain amount of information, and chunking up that information from smaller bits is really important.” The philosophy of Coach 2 was similar: “2–3 [pieces of feedback] tops.” Coach 4 reported taking an individualized approach to deciding on the amount of feedback provided to athletes, considering motivation to be an important factor in determining how much feedback athletes prefer: “[My approach is] if you want the info I’ll give it to you, but I’m not going to chase you either. If I’m chasing them they’re probably not going to look at it anyway. They’ve got to drive it and want it themselves.”

Providing Feedback vs. Allowing Athletes to Problem-Solve

The influence of training design frameworks such as the constraints-led approach, where coaches are encouraged to design environments in which athletes are able to solve problems rather than simply being told by a coach ( Renshaw et al., 2016 ), was clearly seen in coach responses. This was summarized by Coach 8, who observed the following:

They’re the ones out there on the field in the heat of the battle. For me to come in and tell them everything… well, I’m not out there to solve their problems on game day, on the field. I just want to steer them and guide them to come up with the answers.

Coach 5 was stronger in their phrasing, believing that “you’re not winning the game from the coaches’ box.” Coach 3 took this philosophy into their training design, reporting that they often manipulated the amount of feedback provided during a training session to encourage athletes to problem-solve without coach intervention: “I’ll say to the coaching staff, we’re not holding their hands through any of the session, don’t say anything to them… they have to find their own way.” When reflecting on their work with less experienced coaches, Coach 2 believed that a novice coach is more likely to adopt an “I tell” coaching mentality, in which coaches will “tell them [the athletes] what they see without giving the student/player an opportunity to think of their own answers.” Coach 4 believed that this led to negative outcomes for both coach and athlete, whereby the coach “can easily get frustrated when they give advice and then they don’t see that change in behavior from the player.”

Structures and Frameworks

Three of the eight coaches discussed a more formal approach to providing feedback, detailing the frameworks they have in place for providing regular feedback to their athletes. This was most common in coaches who worked with a national squad, where athletes typically train in their local environments when not with the national team. For example, Coach 6 reported providing regular feedback in the context of an individual performance plan (IPP), in which 3–4 goals are set in consultation between the athlete and coach before a tournament begins. Coach 6 then works with athletes during the course of a tournament to provide feedback against the goals outlined in the IPP. After tournament completion, Coach 6 triangulates feedback from themselves as head coach, their assistant coaches, and self-assessment from the athlete themselves before generating a new IPP for their local context.

Other coaches reported less formal structures for providing feedback. Coach 7 reported their use of the colloquial “shit sandwich” method of providing feedback: “Start with a positive, then a negative, then finish with a positive. I was taught that way back when. In some ways when I do my game reviews, I structure it a bit like that. Here’s some things we did really well, here are some things we need to fix up, look at efforts where we did really well off the ball. I still haven’t gone too far away from that.”

Timing of Feedback

Three coaches explicitly mentioned the importance of timing feedback for maximum impact on their athletes. Coach 3 believed that feedback was often most effective if provided before an opportunity to implement it in performance, choosing to provide feedback directly before training when practical, in order to see immediate change in performance. Coach 3 suggested that:

Feedback at the end of the session is good, just general feedback or how they performed or whatever, but if there is a particular thing that you need them to try and get, I have found it’s gotta be right before the next session so it’s fresh.

Coach 8 relayed similar sentiments, believing that feedback “on-the-run” during training or competition was more easily implemented than feedback given in a video review setting away from the performance environment.

Perceived Barriers to Giving Better Feedback

All coaches reflected on challenges they faced in their day-to-day roles that may not be conducive to providing feedback that is in line with their views of “best practice.” One of the most commonly reported barriers was time. Coaches 3 and 6 both worked with national representative squads, where intensive tournament play at international level is often interspersed with months away from athletes while they train and play with their local teams. Coach 3 reflected that “you might only see them [athletes] for a few days at a pre-tournament camp, and then it’s another 2 months until another camp.” Coach 6 spoke of the importance of checking in on individual athletes in their local environments, to ensure continuity and consistency of feedback across the course of a year. Coach 8 mentioned the difficulty associated with having up to 15 players under their care during a season, admitting that some players don’t sit down with a coach to review footage and receive feedback for “a couple of weeks.” To circumvent this, the coach provides feedback in a group setting more regularly.

Evaluating Feedback

A major focus of this paper is on determining the beliefs, knowledge and reported approaches taken by coaches with regard to feedback reception. Coach 6, a former school teacher, was a particularly strong advocate for more closely considering the reception of feedback by athletes:

I think athletes, or kids in school, they almost need to be trained or given methods of what is feedback and how to receive feedback. We think about how we deliver it a lot, and we put a lot of effort into ourselves – hopefully – in that area, but it’s actually a skill to receive feedback.

The following section presents coach reflections on: methods for evaluating feedback reception, and factors influencing the reception of feedback by an athlete.

Methods for Evaluating Feedback Reception

Coaches were varied in the extent of their responses to questions relating to the reception of feedback by athletes, and typically fell into one of two groups: one group of coaches appeared to prefer a practical approach to evaluating feedback reception by way of observing physical performance, while another group reported using pedagogical tools such as questioning for assessing player knowledge and retention of feedback.

The most common response from coaches was that performance in competition is a reliable measure of the effectiveness of feedback; for example, Coach 1 reflected that “the way you know if it’s been 100% effective is if they do what you told them, at the end of the day, on the court.” However, two coaches also believed that this method of evaluating feedback was not completely reliable, citing extraneous variables such as skill errors or athletes choosing not to buy in to the coach’s strategic changes as possible reasons that observing performance may not accurately reflect the reception of feedback.

Another commonly reported method for seeking evidence that feedback has been received by athletes is through questioning or otherwise designing a learning environment where athletes can provide verbal evidence of understanding to the coach. Coach 5 explained their approach to providing video feedback, stating that they believed the feedback had been received “… if they can take you through a different piece of vision or a different scenario from the one where we first might have unearthed an issue or whatever it was, and they can talk it back to you.” Coach 8 believed that an athlete-centered approach to video feedback meetings was needed in order to evaluate feedback reception:

If I’m doing all the talking, I don’t know if they’re understanding what I’m saying. I ask a lot of questions, or I put up a clip and get them to tell me what they’re thinking. That way we can sort of find somewhere in between where we can meet.

Other reported methods for evaluating feedback reception include reading non-verbal markers such as body language, and analyzing in-game statistics.

Athlete Characteristics Influencing Feedback Reception

Coaches were asked to report any characteristics of their athletes that are perceived to act as facilitators or barriers to the athletes receiving feedback. Four coaches described attitude or entitlement problems observed in their athletes. This reportedly led to a reluctance to receive and accept feedback, particularly negative or constructive feedback. Coaches suggested that ego and previous experience with overly positive feedback were the main contributors. For example, Coach 2 shared their experience with athletes who are “overwhelmed by positive feedback from people around them, and they believe the hype.” Coach 3 reflected that the most difficult athletes to coach are:

… the ones that have coaches back home that have told them what they’ve wanted to hear all of the time. They haven’t had a coach who has been constructive with them, and they haven’t got family that say “you still need to work on this.” They have surrounded themselves with “yes” people.

Other coaches spoke of the “participation trophy era” (Coach 5), alluding to a phenomenon whereby junior athletes receive trophies for simply entering an event, not just for winning. It appears that a major challenge for coaches is adjusting the approach they take when providing feedback to athletes who exhibit a reluctance to receive feedback.

Another belief frequently mentioned by coaches in this area related to knowing the athlete as an individual and acknowledging the ways in which they prefer to receive feedback. Coaches alluded to this being the “art” of coaching; for example, Coach 8 reflected, “that’s coaching, isn’t it? Knowing who wants what.” The importance of differentiating feedback for individuals was acknowledged by Coach 7, who ran pre-season surveys with all their athletes to determine their preferences for receiving feedback.

The most commonly reported methods of differentiating feedback for players involved tailoring the amount or the valence of the feedback. Coach 1 reported that their assistant coaches were mindful of the amount of video feedback that athletes preferred. For example, “[this athlete] doesn’t like watching film, so let’s just keep it short, 3–4 clips.” Coach 6 believed that certain athletes had a natural feel for the game and didn’t benefit as greatly as others from video feedback: “To some guys the footage can just become a drag for them. Some of those natural players, you start showing them all that and putting them into a box – well that’s not what they’re good at.” Coach 6 believed that giving these types of athletes feedback in a training environment may be more productive than in a video review session. Similarly, coaches believed that certain athletes benefited more from either positive or negative feedback, differentiating based on preference. Coach 3 spoke of their experience working with athletes who varied in their need for feedback: “[player], you just had to tell her how great she was all the time… others, you could be a lot harder on.” Coach 4 believed that most of their athletes preferred hearing positive feedback, but observed that some athletes in their squad have “an ability to have a bit more of a ‘dressing down’ type of feedback.”

The aim of the study was to determine the knowledge and beliefs currently held by high performance sport coaches with regard to the provision, reception, and evaluation of feedback. The findings presented above illustrate the multifaceted and complex nature of current coach knowledge about feedback. The notion that coaches must possess knowledge of pedagogical strategies required to help athletes learn effectively ( Nash and Collins, 2006 ) was supported by a rich array of information collected about the many strategies that coaches use for providing and evaluating feedback in their roles. As predicted, there were also some areas in which coach knowledge about feedback did not align with current evidence.

A number of ideas emerging from the interview data align with prior research. The most fundamental of these was the belief that feedback is a useful tool for improving both individual and team performance. Coaches considered feedback to be a vital part of their role and a commonly used pedagogical tool, implemented with the intention to improve player performance. Links between feedback and performance are reflected throughout a range of feedback literature ( Kluger and DeNisi, 1996 ; Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ; Randell et al., 2011 ). Importantly, the notion of receiving feedback as a coach in order to improve coaching practice was also mentioned, reflecting Hattie and Clarke’s (2018) emphasis on feedback being a two-way process between receiving and giving. The idea of using student assessments as feedback on teaching is not new in education ( Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006 ), but the current study also shows that coaches seek feedback from athletes to evaluate their impact in much the same way.

Coaches articulated preferences for informal learning sources when asked about how they might upskill themselves in the area of feedback, with five coaches referring to learning from peers or a more experienced coach as a preferred way to seek improvement. One coach reflected critically on formal learning sources such as accredited coach education courses. These sentiments align with evidence from previous studies on coach education, where typical findings are that informal learning sources such as discussions with peers are preferred over formal courses ( Erickson et al., 2008 ; Stoszkowski and Collins, 2016 ). One reason for this preference, with particular relevance to the interview data, is that formal coach education courses often do not allow for substantial participant interaction ( Demers et al., 2006 ). Striking a balance between allowing for the sharing of experiences between coaches, while also advocating for evidence-based feedback practices that do not promote neuromyths ( Bailey et al., 2018 ) or folk pedagogy ( Bruner, 1996 ), appears an important endeavor for future coach education offerings. Working with a mentor ( McQuade et al., 2015 ) or coach developer ( North, 2010 ) may be an avenue for further exploration, given the learning preferences articulated by coaches in the current study.

An area yielding novel data in the current study relates to the use of questioning by coaches to check for feedback reception. Previous studies suggest that coaches ask few questions ( Potrac et al., 2002 ), and that coaches tend to overestimate their use of questioning when asked to self-report ( Millar et al., 2011 ). Coaches in previous studies also report not wanting to ask too many questions due to a desire to avoid appearing indecisive or lacking expertise ( Potrac et al., 2002 ). Despite this, evidence suggests that questioning paired with feedback can have a positive effect on performance ( Chambers and Vickers, 2006 ). A commonly reported method for evaluating feedback reception in the current study was through questioning, with five coaches suggesting that they check for player understanding of feedback through using open-ended questions. Coaches also reported creating athlete-centered learning environments in which athletes were encouraged to show evidence of their understanding through analyzing video with coach feedback withheld. Athlete-centered coaching has been noted in the literature as an effective method for improving performance and motivation of athletes ( Light and Harvey, 2017 ). An important avenue for future research appears to be matching self-reports of teaching behaviors with observations to verify their accuracy. However, the data collected in the current study provides evidence of commonly held knowledge that there are a number of ways to check for feedback reception.

An emerging topic in sport psychology research relates to entitlement attitudes displayed by some athletes ( Dorsch and Etheredge, 2017 ). This theme presented clearly in the coach interviews, particularly when coaches were asked to discuss barriers experienced when providing negative feedback to athletes. Four coaches discussed the “participation trophy era,” referred to by others as “the selfie age” ( Gilbert, 2016 ), as a potential influence on the reluctance of a certain generation of elite athletes to receive negative feedback. One potential recommendation from this finding is that coaches may need more support in overcoming particular athlete personality characteristics when providing negative feedback. Managing egos and expectations about the nature of feedback (particularly with respect to valence) appears important for ensuring that athletes are willing to receive feedback. Prominent theories on attribution (e.g., Dweck, 2000 ; Boekaerts, 2006 ) may provide some value in assisting coaches to provide feedback that is less likely to be interpreted as a threat to perceived competence, and more likely to be seen as an opportunity for growth by the athlete. This may be an avenue for future coach education offerings.

One area in which reported coach knowledge was at odds with evidence concerns the strategies or frameworks that coaches use to deliver feedback, particularly with regard to feedback valence. While coaches generally gave their views on an ideal ratio of positive to negative feedback, some coaches mentioned the notion of a feedback sandwich or “shit sandwich,” in which a piece of negative feedback is “sandwiched” between two pieces of positive feedback. Although it is claimed the feedback sandwich technique can have affective benefits such as building rapport with the feedback receiver ( Dohrenwend, 2002 ), evidence suggests that the feedback sandwich does not impact post-feedback performance ( Parkes et al., 2013 ) in a sample of medical students, and can encourage the feedback receiver to overlook negative feedback and reach artificially positive conclusions ( Shute, 2008 ). While the generalization of these findings into the sporting context should be made with caution, it provides a viable avenue for future research.

Limitations

The evidence presented in the current study provides an insight in to the current knowledge and beliefs of high performance coaches about verbal feedback. However, the use of coaches working at the highest level limits the generalisability of findings to coaches working at other levels. To determine the ways in which knowledge about feedback develops over time, a comparison between novice and expert coaches may be beneficial. Widening the scope to investigate differences between individual and team sport coaches would also provide additional information about how coaches use feedback in different contexts. An acknowledged limitation of the sample used in the current study is the small number of coaches recruited overall, and the brevity of some of the interviews. This represents a major challenge associated with working alongside high performance coaches while in-season. Several barriers with recruitment and retainment of participants were experienced throughout the data collection phase of the study, which may be alleviated in future work by collecting data early in pre-season when competition is not intense. Crucially, it should be recognized that verbal feedback is just one source of feedback available to athletes; future studies could consider the interaction between verbal and other sources of feedback. Finally, future research should further investigate the relationship between what coaches say they do in interview studies, and what they actually do while coaching. This is especially important given evidence that coaches can be inaccurate when reflecting on the feedback they provide ( Pereira et al., 2009 ; Millar et al., 2011 ).

Practical Applications

The findings of this study provide information about what expert high performance coaches know and believe about feedback. As such, this information may be useful as a model to coaches working at other levels, as it represents the current “best practices” that are adopted by these expert coaches. Below are some potential practical applications arising from this study:

• Coaches should consider that feedback has various roles: to improve performance, to monitor progress, to help coaches improve, and to build athlete confidence.

• Coaches prefer to learn about feedback from peers and mentors; this should be reflected when designing future coach development opportunities.

• Coaches should consider feedback quantity, and try to avoid “overloading” athletes with many feedback messages.

• Coaches should consider ways of evaluating the reception of feedback by their athletes. These include observing performance changes, and pedagogical tools such as questioning or allowing athletes to teach or explain a concept.

• Coaches should consider various athlete characteristics that may help or hinder feedback reception. These may include athlete attitudes and preferences.

This study provides insight into the knowledge and beliefs of high performance coaches with regard to the provision, reception, and evaluation of feedback in training and competition environments. It adds important qualitative detail to the myriad of observational studies of coaches providing feedback, filling a gap commonly identified in previous research. The findings suggest that coaches possess a highly nuanced understanding of the ways in which the power of feedback can be harnessed in their individual contexts and, importantly, evaluated for reception and effectiveness. The findings also highlight areas in which future coach education offerings can better support coaches to provide effective feedback.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Human Ethics Advisory Group, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

RM conceptualized the study, undertook the data collection, data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. DF provided feedback on the study conceptualisation, data analysis, and manuscript. JH provided feedback on the study conceptualisation, data analysis, and manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, awarded to RM.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 30, 405–419. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.526096

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, R. (2010). “Augmented feedback - the triptych conundrum,” in 28th International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports 2010. Marquette: ISBS Conference Proceedings Archive , eds R. Jensen, W. Ebben, E. Petushek, C. Richter, and K. Roemer (Marquette, MI).

Google Scholar

Bailey, R. P., Madigan, D. J., Cope, E., and Nicholls, A. R. (2018). The prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas and neuromyths among sports coaches. Front. Psychol. 9:641. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00641

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boekaerts, M. (2006). “Self-regulation and effort investment,” in Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice , 6th Edn, eds K. A. Renninger and I. E. Sigel (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley), 345–377.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Q. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buszard, T., Farrow, D., Verswijveren, S. J., Reid, M., Williams, J., Polman, R., et al. (2017). Working memory capacity limits motor learning when implementing multiple instructions. Front. Psychol. 8:1350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01350

Chambers, K. L., and Vickers, J. N. (2006). Effects of bandwidth feedback and questioning on the performance of competitive swimmers. Sport Psychol. 20, 184–197. doi: 10.1123/tsp.20.2.184

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., and Russell, S. J. (1993). Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. Sport Psychol. 7, 127–137. doi: 10.1123/tsp.7.2.127

Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., and Russell, S. (1995). The knowledge of high-performance gymnastic coaches: methodological framework. Sport Psychol. 9, 65–75. doi: 10.1123/tsp.9.1.65

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Davids, K., Renshaw, I., Pinder, R., Greenwood, D., and Barris, S. (2017). “The role of psychology in enhancing skill acquisition and expertise in high performance programmes,” in Sport and exercise Psychology: Practitioner Case Studies , eds N. Weston, G. Breslin, and S. Cotterill (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell), 329–353.

Deakin, H., and Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qual. Res. 14, 603–616. doi: 10.1177/1468794113488126

Demers, G., Woodburn, A. J., and Savard, C. (2006). The development of an undergraduate competency-based coach education program. Sport Psychol. 20, 162–173. doi: 10.1123/tsp.20.2.162

Dohrenwend, A. (2002). Serving up the feedback sandwich. Fam. Pract. Manag. 9, 43–46.

Dorsch, K. D., and Etheredge, M. (2017). Softball coaches’ perceptions of athlete entitlement. J. Exerc. Mov. Sport 49:77.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Hove: Psychology Press.

Erickson, K., Bruner, M. W., MacDonald, D. J., and Côté, J. (2008). Gaining insight into actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 3, 527–538. doi: 10.1260/174795408787186468

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educ. Res. 38, 47–65. doi: 10.1080/0013188960380104

Gilbert, W. D. (2016). Busting a Culture of Athlete Entitlement. School Sport Canada. Avaliable at: http://www.schoolsport.ca/busting-a-culture-of-athlete-entitlemen/ (accessed February 26, 2020).

Greenwood, D., Davids, K., and Renshaw, I. (2014). Experiential knowledge of expert coaches can help identify informational constraints on performance of dynamic interceptive actions. J. Sports Sci. 32, 328–335. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.824599

Halperin, I., Chapman, D. W., Martin, D. T., Abbiss, C., and Wulf, G. (2016). Coaching cues in amateur boxing: an analysis of ringside feedback provided between rounds of competition. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 25, 44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.04.003

Harden, M., Bruce, C., Wolf, A., Hicks, K. M., and Howatson, G. (2019). Exploring the practical knowledge of eccentric resistance training in high-performance strength and conditioning practitioners. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 15, 41–52. doi: 10.1177/1747954119891154

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Edu. Res. 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.

Hattie, J. A. C., and Clarke, S. (2018). Visible Learning: Feedback. London: Routledge.

Kahan, D. (1999). Coaching behavior: a review of the systematic observation research literature. App. Res. Coach. Athlet. Annu. 14, 17–58.

Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119, 254–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Langley, D. J. (1997). Exploring student skill learning: a case for investigating subjective experience. Quest 49, 142–160. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1997.10484230

Leslie-Toogood, A., and Martin, G. L. (2003). Do coaches know the mental skills of their athletes? Assessments from volleyball and track. J. Sport Behav. 26, 56–58.

Liberman, A., Liberman, M., Steinert, Y., McLeod, P., and Meterissian, S. (2005). Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback. Med. Teach. 27, 470–472. doi: 10.1080/0142590500129183

Light, R. L., and Harvey, S. (2017). Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport Educ. Soc. 22, 271–287. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977

Lyle, J. (2002). Sports Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’ Behaviour. London: Routledge.

Mason, R. J., Farrow, D., and Hattie, J. A. C. (2020a). An analysis of in-game feedback provided by coaches in an Australian Football League competition. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 2020, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1734555

Mason, R. J., Farrow, D., and Hattie, J. A. C. (2020b). An exploratory investigation into the reception of verbal and video feedback provided to players in an Australian Football League club. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. doi: 10.1177/1747954120951080 [Epub ahead of print].

McQuade, S., Davis, L., and Nash, C. (2015). Positioning mentoring as a coach development tool: recommendations for future practice and research. Quest 67, 317–329. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1048810

Millar, S. K., Oldham, A. R., and Donovan, M. (2011). Coaches’ self-awareness of timing, nature and intent of verbal instructions to athletes. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 6, 503–513. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.6.4.503

Morris, K. S., Jenkins, D. G., Osborne, M. A., Rynne, S. B., Shephard, M. E., and Skinner, T. L. (2019). The role of the upper and lower limbs in front crawl swimming: the thoughts and practices of expert high-performance swimming coaches. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 14, 629–638. doi: 10.1177/1747954119866358

Narciss, S., and Huth, K. (2004). “How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning,” in Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning , eds H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, and R. Brunken (Münster: Waxmann), 181–195.

Nash, C., and Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: science or art? Quest 58, 464–476. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491894

Nicol, D. J., and MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. Higher Educ. 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090

North, J. (2010). Using ‘coach developers’ to facilitate coach learning and development: qualitative evidence from the UK. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 5, 239–256. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.239

OECD (2009). Teaching Practices, Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes. In Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. Paris: OECD, 87–135.

Parkes, J., Abercrombie, S., and McCarty, T. (2013). Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 18, 397–407. doi: 10.1007/s10459-012-9377-9

Partington, M., and Cushion, C. (2013). An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviors of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 23, 374–382. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x

Partington, M., Cushion, C. J., Cope, E., and Harvey, S. (2015). The impact of video feedback on professional youth football coaches’ reflection and practice behaviour: a longitudinal investigation of behaviour change. Reflect. Pract. 16, 700–716. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2015.1071707

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Inter. 9, 105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Pereira, F., Mesquita, I., and Graça, A. (2009). Accountability systems and instructional approaches in youth volleyball training. J. Sports Sci. Med. 8, 366–373.

Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K., and Hoff, J. (2000). Toward an holistic understanding of the coaching process. Quest 52, 186–199. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2000.10491709

Potrac, P., Jones, R., and Armour, K. (2002). ‘It’s all about getting respect’: the coaching behaviors of an expert English soccer coach. Sport Educ. Soc. 7, 183–202. doi: 10.1080/1357332022000018869

Putnam, R. T., and Borko, H. (1997). “Teacher learning: implications of new views of cognition,” in International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching , eds B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, and I. F. Goodson (Berlin: Springer), 1223–1296. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4942-6_30

Randell, A. D., Cronin, J. B., Keogh, J. W., Gill, N. D., and Pedersen, M. C. (2011). Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests. J. Strength Condit. Res. 25, 87–93. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181fee634

Renshaw, I., Araújo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., and Moy, B. (2016). Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: a clarification. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 21, 459–480. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870

Roberts, A. H., Greenwood, D. A., Stanley, M., Humberstone, C., Iredale, F., and Raynor, A. (2019). Coach knowledge in talent identification: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 22, 1163–1172. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.05.008

Rushall, B. S. (2003). Coaching Development and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or belief-based Versus Evidence-Based Coaching Development). Avaliable at: http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/thermo/thermo.htm (accessed February 26, 2020).

Rynne, S. B., and Mallett, C. J. (2012). Understanding the work and learning of high performance coaches. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 17, 507–523. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2011.621119

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795

Smith, M., and Cushion, C. J. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of professional, top-level youth soccer coaches. J. Sports Sci. 24, 355–366. doi: 10.1080/02640410500131944

Smoll, F. L., and Smith, R. E. (1980). Techniques for improving self-awareness of youth sports coaches. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. 51, 46–52. doi: 10.1080/00971170.1980.10624089

Stoszkowski, J., and Collins, D. (2016). Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J. Sports Sci. 34, 794–802. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1072279

Tinning, R. (1982). Improving coaches’ instructional effectiveness. Sports Coach. 5, 37–41.

Woods, C. T., McKeown, I., Rothwell, M., Araújo, D., Robertson, S., and Davids, K. (2020). Sport practitioners as sport ecology designers: how ecological dynamics has progressively changed perceptions of skill “acquisition” in the sporting habitat. Front. Psychol. 11:654. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00654

Keywords : feedback, feedback reception, coaching, coaching effectiveness, instruction, pedagogy, sport coaching

Citation: Mason RJ, Farrow D and Hattie JAC (2020) Sports Coaches’ Knowledge and Beliefs About the Provision, Reception, and Evaluation of Verbal Feedback. Front. Psychol. 11:571552. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571552

Received: 11 June 2020; Accepted: 25 August 2020; Published: 15 September 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Mason, Farrow and Hattie. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Robert J. Mason, [email protected]

† ORCID: Robert J. Mason, orcid.org/0000-0001-8315-7537 ; John A. C. Hattie, orcid.org/0000-0003-3873-4854

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Sports Act Living

The Practice Environment—How Coaches May Promote Athlete Learning

Paul larkin.

1 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

2 Maribrynong Sports Academy, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

James Barkell

3 Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Donna O'Connor

The coaching environment is the primary teaching and learning medium for the development of athlete skills. Therefore, by understanding how practice environments are designed to facilitate learning, coaches can make decisions around the structure of specific activities and behavior to promote athlete learning and development. This short review examines the coaching environment literature, with a particular focus on the structure and content within a practice session. The review will highlight the specific activities coaches utilize to develop athletes technical and tactical skills. Further, the coaching behaviors used to promote athlete learning is discussed, and how coach athlete interactions may influence learning. Finally, we provide applied recommendations for coaches, and highlight areas for future coaching science research.

Introduction

The development of sporting expertise is associated with the engagement in a range of sport-specific activities that aid athlete development. To investigate this, researchers have used cross-sectional retrospective recall techniques, to identify the types of activities and the associated time invested in them by high performing athletes compared to their lower level counterparts (i.e., intermediate; novice). Findings have revealed a variety of sport-specific activities, which contribute to athlete performance, including primary sport coach-led practice; primary sport peer-led play and other sport practice and play (Güllich, 2019 ; Güllich et al., 2021 ). However, during this period of development, researchers have indicated one of the central factors in athlete growth is coach-led practice as time invested in this type of practice differentiates high-performing and lower skilled individuals (Güllich, 2019 ; Barth et al., 2020 ). While these findings highlight the importance of investing time in certain activities, such as coach-led practice, there is still limited knowledge regarding the micro-structure of these sessions and how they may contribute to athlete development. It should be noted, while the findings do not discount the importance of other activities, such as peer-led play, the current review paper aims to provide an overview of coach-led practice. Specifically, the elements within a session including the structure and behaviors used by coaches is examined, followed by practical implications and future research directions. It should be noted, the literature reviewed in the following section provides an overview of the key findings. Within the studies the participants, both athletes and coaches, may have been either male or female. As the papers reviewed do not provide gender based differences, we do not believe it is imperative to differentiate between male and female participants. Thus, the findings and recommendations can be applied for both genders.

Micro-Structure of Practice

A key element of the motor learning literature is understanding the importance of practice structure on the acquisition of motor skills during practice (e.g., Barreiros et al., 2007 ; Spittle, 2013 ; Broadbent et al., 2015 ). This is especially true as the coaching environment is the primary teaching and learning medium for the development of players' technical and tactical skills (Cushion and Jones, 2001 ; Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ). By determining how practice environments should be designed to facilitate learning, coaches and practitioners will be more aware of how activities should be designed to facilitate skill development (Roca and Ford, 2020 ). However, there is limited understanding of the specific practice structures and pedagogies coaches use across a range of sports and contexts (Kinnerk et al., 2019 ). Determining the underlying structure of practice sessions will inform the coaching process and provide insight into current coaching philosophy and pedagogical approaches (Hüttermann et al., 2014 ; Kinnerk et al., 2019 ). One method used to determine the structure of coaching sessions, is via systematic observational tools which monitor the time invested in specific activities (Cushion and Jones, 2001 ; Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ). Generally, researchers have aimed to describe the time invested in training form (i.e., activities focused on developing skills via drills and isolated activities performed in non-pressurized environments (Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; Partington et al., 2014 ); and playing form activities (i.e., activities that replicate the demands of the game via small-sided or conditioning games (Partington and Cushion, 2013 ).

Researchers exploring the microstructure of practice examined the breakdown of time invested in training and playing form activities. As shown in Table 1 , researchers found a greater proportion of time was invested in training form activities (53–65% of practice time) compared to playing form activities (Ford et al., 2010 ; Harvey et al., 2013 ; Low et al., 2013 ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; Partington et al., 2014 ; Hall et al., 2016 ). This type of practice places an emphasis on isolated skill drills in non-pressured environments. However, more recent investigations have shown a shift, with studies in rugby and soccer indicating coaches developed sessions with more playing form activities (Hall et al., 2016 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ). While this is encouraging, O'Connor et al. ( 2018a ), extended the previous literature by also analyzing periods of inactivity within a session (i.e., periods during a session where the team are not actively participating in either training or playing form activities) and found ~30% of session players were inactive as they listened to the coach.

Comparison of the mean percentage of time invested in training form, playing form and inactivity across multiple examinations of youth coaching sessions.

In relation to the specific sequencing of the session, researchers have found sessions are structured to provide training form activities (i.e., individual and paired activities; drills) at the start of the session and then progressed to more playing form activities (i.e., small-sided games then larger games) later in the session (O'Connor et al., 2018a ; Kinnerk et al., 2019 ). For example, early in a session, coaches prescribe more individual or drill based activities (i.e., training form), where there is an emphasis on either skill execution or conditioning. As the session progresses, there is a decrease in the use of drills and individual activities, counteracted by increased use of modified, small and larger sided games (i.e., playing form) (O'Connor et al., 2018a ). Interestingly, the micro-structure of practice may differ depending on competition level or athlete ability. O'Connor and Larkin ( 2017 ) investigated the activities conducted in practice sessions across a range of sports (i.e., soccer, rugby union, rugby league and Australian Rules football) and age groups (senior—elite adult; youth - Under 16/18; junior - Under 10/12). Results found significantly more periods of training form and less time allocated to playing form activities for junior athletes compared to youth and senior athletes. The findings demonstrate there is still an emphasis on drill-based activities at a junior level, with coaches less prone to incorporating game-based practice (26% of the session time). This difference in practice micro-structure was also demonstrated in professional and non-professional Norwegian U16 soccer teams (Fuhre and Sæther, 2020 ). The findings highlighted the non-professional teams used more playing form activities (63.3%) compared to the professional team (55.7%).

Studies have also examined the breakdown of activities conducted within a practice session, to provide a more detailed understanding of the use of playing and training form within practice sessions. O'Connor et al. ( 2017 ) found the greatest proportion of time within youth soccer practice sessions was allocated to large- (24.8%) and small-sided games (15.3%), with drill-based (15.1%), individual (5.4%), and paired activities (2.4%). Fuhre and Sæther ( 2020 ) examined the breakdown of the specific activities undertaken and found that training form was divided into fitness (i.e., improving individual fitness), technical (i.e., isolated technical drills) and skill (i.e., re-enactments of isolated game incidents, corner, free-kick) activities. While there were some similarities between the professional and non-professional club in the time allocated to fitness (18.3 and 13.4%) and technical (13 and 23.3%) activities, the non-professional club did not spend any time in skill activities, while the professional club spent 13% of time doing these activities. In relation to playing form, the sessions examined the time invested in small-sided games (i.e., match-play with reduced numbers), conditioned games (i.e., characteristics of small-sided games, but with variations in rules) and phase of play (i.e., unidirectional match play toward a single goal) activities. Findings revealed professional and non-professional clubs allocated similar proportions of time to small-sided games (14.3 and 26.9%) and conditioned games (28.7 and 36.4%), however, the non-professional club did not allocate any time to phase of play, while the professional club spent 12.7% of time completing this type of activity. Furthermore, when exploring the breakdown of activities within sessions, there were differences depending on the age group of the athletes (O'Connor and Larkin, 2017 ). Coaches of junior athletes prescribe sessions with more isolated skill activities (48.9%), followed by small-sided games (27.8%), drills (13.7%) and fitness (10.3%) activities. In comparison, youth coaches organize sessions with more tactical play (42.3%) and drills (30.3%), with less of a focus on isolated skill activities (13.7%), small-sided games (11.6%) and fitness (11.6%) activities. Whereas senior coaches structure sessions with more tactical play (41.6%), with the rest of the time divided between isolated skill activities (19.1%), fitness (16.5%), drills (13.8%), and small-sided games (8.8%). The data highlights the differences associated with how coaches at different levels of competition structure practice for athlete development (O'Connor and Larkin, 2017 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ; Fuhre and Sæther, 2020 ; Ahmad et al., 2021 ).

When considering the reason for the structure of a training session, Kinnerk et al. ( 2019 ) found Gaelic football coaches' use of playing and training form was dependent on the stage of the macro-structure of the athletes' program. Therefore, during pre-season more time was dedicated to training form activities, however, there was a shift in-season with more time within sessions dedicated to playing form activities. It was postulated this was due to coaches believing it was important to increase the players fitness levels during pre-season, and thus increased levels of conditioning activities during this period. However, in-season, where there are more fatigue related issues for game performance, less time was associated with individual conditioning activities. Instead, these would be incorporated within playing form activities (Kinnerk et al., 2019 ). The authors conclude that coaches value both training and playing form activities, and suggest the reason for high amounts of training form activities was to increase the number of skill repetitions completed, thus providing immediate performance improvements (Gabbett et al., 2009 ; Kinnerk et al., 2019 ).

Coach Behavior During Practice Sessions

Another important component of the practice session to consider is the coach's behavior and its influence on athlete learning. Coaching behaviors, the communication and interactions between the athlete and coach, play an influential role in overall athlete performance, skill development and learning (Cushion, 2013 ; Partington and Walton, 2019 ). This is inclusive of instruction styles, modeling, feedback, questioning, and observation either during or outside of activity (Cushion and Jones, 2001 ; Cushion, 2010 ; Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington et al., 2014 ; Cope et al., 2017 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ). Coaching behaviors have been evaluated using the Coach Analysis Intervention System (CAIS) (Cushion et al., 2012b ) or a modified version (Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; O'Connor et al., 2018b ), and is designed to provide operational definitions of a variety of coaching behaviors and measure their incidence within a practice session. In this review we are focusing on instruction, feedback and questioning as these behaviors tend to be most observed and therefore reviewed thoroughly within the research (see Table 2 ) (Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; Partington et al., 2014 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ). While these coaching behaviors are classified as singular events, Cushion ( 2010 ) describes these behaviors as often overlapping and intertwined depending on the circumstances in which they are utilized.

Descriptions and examples of the coaching behaviors of Instruction, feedback and questioning (adapted from CAIS, Cushion et al., 2012b ; Partington et al., 2014 ).

Research indicates the use of instruction dominates coaching behaviors within youth practice sessions (Cushion, 2010 ; Ford et al., 2010 ; Cushion et al., 2012a ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ). However, the amount of instruction provided during sessions vary depending on a range of factors, including age and athlete ability (Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington et al., 2014 ). There is a moderate reduction in total instruction as athletes develop with age, with coaches explaining this shift being due to younger age athletes requiring more information to correct mistakes and ensure improvement compared to older athletes (Partington et al., 2014 ).

While instruction can be considered holistically, the instructions provided within a session can also be divided into three primary behaviors, pre-instruction; concurrent instruction; and post-instruction (Cushion et al., 2012b ; Partington et al., 2014 ) providing a more transparent depiction of when instruction is being utilized in the practice session. Concurrent instruction tends to be the most used form of instruction accounting for significantly greater use than pre or post instruction (e.g., 20% concurrent v 11% pre v 3% post instruction for U14/15s; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ). Reasons for this might be that coaches tend to mimic other coaches and it becomes a learnt behavior (Partington and Walton, 2019 ). Coaches might also prefer to instruct in the present in the fear of forgetting to mention the point later (Partington and Cushion, 2013 ). A concern with becoming over reliant on concurrent instruction is that this behavior tends to be a more explicit method of instruction and may promote athlete dependency on the coach rather than athletes working it out for themselves. Athletes may benefit more from implicit and deeper levels of learning which could be promoted through thought-provoking behaviors such as questioning (Masters and Maxwell, 2004 ; Gebauer and Mackintosh, 2007 ). Coaches tend to use those behaviors that are associated with the perception of quality coaching (Jones et al., 2004 ; Partington et al., 2014 ; Cope et al., 2017 ). Anecdotally, there is the perception instruction also provides the coach with credibility in the sport, with more instruction being correlated with quality coaching. The desired result is more respect from the athletes (Potrac et al., 2002 ; Cushion, 2010 ).

Providing feedback is another common behavior coaches use (Cushion, 2010 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ; Partington and Walton, 2019 ). Positive feedback has been demonstrated to be related to task accomplishment within athlete groups and is considered a preferred coaching behavior (Cushion, 2010 ). Youth coaches have indicated a preference to using positive forms of feedback with negative feedback being the least used (Partington et al., 2014 ; O'Connor et al., 2018a ). Although the dominant form of feedback tends to be general positive (Partington et al., 2014 ; O'Connor et al., 2018b ), which promotes self-confidence, it provides little if any meaningful information pertaining to the athlete performance (Horn, 1987 ). Alternatively, corrective feedback which is deemed more task specific and relevant to athlete learning is used consistently less throughout training periods than general positive and even positive specific feedback (O'Connor et al., 2018a ). Whilst keeping feedback positive is good for athlete motivation, corrective feedback improves learning and performance when provided alongside positive feedback (Tzetzis et al., 2008 ) and hence should be utilized more often in the athlete development environment.

Observations have identified a tendency for feedback delivery to be evenly distributed between concurrent (during activity) and post activity (Barkell and O'Connor, 2011 ). Furthermore, feedback is generally provided during periods of player inactivity such as the huddle or a “freeze” scenario (O'Connor et al., 2018a ). Results identified that 16.5% of the total session was based on the “freeze” principle to provide feedback to the group in relation to where they had been positioned at a given moment (O'Connor et al., 2018a ). The use of a huddle to listen to the coach accounted for 9.9% of the practice time. Whilst the huddle can provide clearer messaging due to a greater focus on the coach by the athletes, it is a questionable behavior to cease all activity if the feedback is only relevant for a fraction of the group. An alternative is to take the relevant athlete aside and provide specific feedback while the activity continues (O'Connor et al., 2022 ).

While the use of questioning as a key pedagogical practice is known (Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; O'Connor et al., 2022 ), studies have found coaches often do not apply this behavior effectively (Low et al., 2013 ). Several studies have examined the use of questioning, with reports of only 7–8% of total coach interactions coming in the form of questioning (Ford et al., 2010 ; Partington and Cushion, 2013 ; Partington et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, early studies identified greater use of convergent questioning (87%) compared with divergent questioning (13%) (Partington et al., 2014 ). However, recent studies (O'Connor et al., 2018a , 2022 ) reported a shift in coaching behavior with more questioning being utilized (i.e., an average 71 questions/session which equated to almost one per minute), with a balance of convergent (52.2%) and divergent (47.8%) questions being used (O'Connor et al., 2022 ). Of the divergent questions posed, only 7% asked athletes to problem solve. Questioning, especially divergent questioning, is believed to generate a more thoughtful and abstract understanding due to the deeper thought processes required to respond (Ford and Whelan, 2016 ; O'Connor et al., 2020 ) in comparison to instruction and general feedback. In fact using questioning as a form of feedback has been identified as being advantageous to learning (O'Connor et al., 2017 , 2020 ).

Discussion and Recommendations

As learning is non-linear (i.e., learning is not generally a continuous linear progression of behavior but rather involves sudden changes over time; (Kelso, 1995 ), creating practice environments for optimal athlete learning is challenging for coaches. This review highlights there is a shift to more playing form activities within a session, although the use of certain activities may also be influenced by when in the season the session occurs. The most frequently used coaching behavior was instruction suggesting a prescriptive and direct approach is taken by coaches, although there is evidence of a greater use of questioning in recent times. Therefore, based on the literature reviewed in this short review, several practical recommendations can be provided for coaches to apply in their daily practice. To create learning environments for their athletes, the coach must deliberately plan each practice session. This involves knowing your athletes' capabilities and their needs and deciding what to prioritize in the upcoming practice session (Muir et al., 2011 ). When coaches know their athletes, they can differentiate or individualize practice rather than following a “one size fits all” approach (Amorose, 2007 ). As coaches don't want athletes to become bored or complacent if the task is too easy, or panic if the task is beyond their capability, they should plan to push athletes beyond their comfort zone where they are “stretched”, for learning to take place. An example of differentiation in a mixed ability squad, is for coaches to vary the task constraints (e.g., different rules, participant numbers, and/or field dimensions will influence their movement patterns, and the time and space athletes have to make decisions and execute skills) that groups of athletes are participating in rather than all playing the same game (i.e., 4v4).

Coaches also need to be clear on what the aim is for their practice session. The aim of the practice session and intended learning outcomes will influence the structure of practice the coach devises [e.g., type of activities—training (drills, conditioning) or playing form (small or large-sided games, phases of play); technical, tactical, physical, biopsychosocial focus; variability of practice etc.] and the coaching behavioral strategies they decide to implement (e.g., amount of instructions; use of questions; when and how they provide feedback etc.) (Abraham et al., 2014 ; Kinnerk et al., 2021 ). For example, just prior to competition the coach may use more direct and explicit approaches during drills as the focus is on performance and confidence rather than learning (Otte et al., 2020 ). While a specific session aim is important, coaches also need to be flexible and adapt during the session to manage the complexity of athlete learning (Nash and Taylor, 2021 ).

In relation to the specific practice design, coaches will utilize a range of approaches to suit the session goal (Pill, 2021 ). One example is a constraints-led approach, where the coach is the “designer” and manipulates various constraints (i.e., player, task, and environment) to replicate key conditions of the performance environment (i.e., transitioning from defense to attack). This provides an opportunity for athletes to learn by adapting to the situation through guided discovery and solution finding (Davids et al., 2017 ; Woods et al., 2020a ). The decision on what and how constraints will be manipulated will be influenced by the session goal, the specific affordances within the environment coaches want athletes to explore, and the skill capabilities of the athletes (Correia et al., 2019 ; Renshaw et al., 2020 ; Woods et al., 2020b ). By creatively manipulating the constraints and setting representative problems, athletes are given the opportunity to interpret game-related cues, adapt to team-mates and the opposition, explore options, make decisions, and execute technical skills, all within one activity (Pinder et al., 2011 ; McKay and O'Connor, 2018 ). This less prescriptive approach by coaches allows athletes to explore the “how, why, where, and when”, experiment and make mistakes as they evaluate and identify appropriate decisions and actions to game situations (Correia et al., 2019 ; Renshaw and Chow, 2019 ). For example, by manipulating rules, number of participants, and pitch size, coaches can challenge athletes and scaffold learning while increasing the frequency of repetition, reducing the conscious control of movement, and promoting high levels of athlete engagement, ownership, autonomy and motivation (Hornig et al., 2016 ; Woods et al., 2020a ).

This review suggests coaches are still prone to over coaching with players inactive and listening to the coach for substantial amounts of time. As coaches are constrained by the amount of time they have with their athletes, they need to consider strategies to reduce inactivity, so athletes have greater opportunities to engage in active practice. This could include reducing the amount of direct instruction (e.g., using analogies to direct athletes to an external focus of attention, Otte et al., 2020 ), using brief cues or prompts; allowing the activity to progress longer to see if athletes can correct their own errors or find solutions before stopping to ask questions and provide feedback (O'Connor et al., 2018b ); and where appropriate, providing feedback on the run to individual athletes rather than stopping the activity. Coaches need to consider where they want to provide the feedback—either in a huddle which takes time but has the athletes' attention compared to athletes “freeze where you are” and whether all athletes can see and hear (O'Connor et al., 2018b ). They are also encouraged to be mindful of the amount of feedback they give, with a “less is more” approach recommended (Otte et al., 2020 ; Mason et al., 2021 ). Coaches are encouraged to plan and scaffold questions to assist athlete learning, basing the type of question posed on their athletes' needs and the nature of the situation (i.e., what do they want to draw the athletes' attention to?), while providing enough time for athletes to respond or encouraging athletes to collaborate to devise solutions (Woods et al., 2020a ; O'Connor et al., 2022 ). Coaches are also encouraged to reflect on-action (i.e., athlete learning, what worked well or didn't and why) to inform planning of the next practice session (Gilbert and Trudel, 2001 ).

Conclusion and Future Directions

In summary, this review highlights the practice environment and the specific elements that can influence athlete learning. Overall, the micro-structure of practice and the activities used to promote learning need to be well-planned. There should be a clear goal for each activity. Coaches also need to consider how they communicate with their athletes to ensure they are interacting in a manner that enables athlete growth. To develop further understanding, researchers should focus attempts on evaluating the micro-structure of practice and coach behaviors regarding effectiveness in promoting the intended athlete learning outcomes. Few studies have examined the women's practice environment. Longitudinal intervention studies involving individual elements (e.g., use of questioning) may provide further understanding of athlete learning to inform coaching practice as holistic evaluations require challenging research designs (large sample size, matched participants, control group, etc.).

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Abraham A., Lorenzo S., Saiz J., Mckeown S., Morgan G., Muir B., et al.. (2014). Planning your coaching: a focus on youth participant development , in Practical Sports Coaching , ed Nash C. (London: Routledge; ), 16–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmad M., Low J., Nadzalan A. (2021). The microstructure of practice activities engaged by elite youth soccer players . Int. J. Hum. Mov. Sports Sci. 9 , 1306–1313. 10.13189/saj.2021.090626 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amorose A. J. (2007). Coaching effectiveness: exploring the relationship between coaching behaviour and self-determined motivation , in Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Exercise and Sport , eds Hagger M. S., Chatzisarantis N. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; ), 209–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkell J. F., O'Connor D. (2011). A case study of coach practices in skill acquisition training , in Science and Football VII , eds Dawson B., Nunome H., Drust B. (Oxon: Routledge; ), 371–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barreiros J., Figueiredo T., Godinho M. (2007). The contextual interference effect in applied settings . Eur. Phys. Ed. Rev. 13 , 195–208. 10.1177/1356336X07076876 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barth M., Güllich A., Raschner C., Emrich E. (2020). The path to international medals: a supervised machine learning approach to explore the impact of coach-led sport-specific and non-specific practice . PLoS ONE 15 , e0239378. 10.1371/journal.pone.0239378 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadbent D. P., Causer J., Ford P. R., Williams A. M. (2015). Contextual interference effect on perceptual–cognitive skills training . Med. Sci. Sports Exer. 47 , 1243–1250. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cope E., Partington M., Harvey S. (2017). A review of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research between 1997 and 2016 . J. Sports Sci. 35 , 2042–2050. 10.1080/02640414.2016.1252463 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Correia V., Carvalho J., Araújo D., Pereira E., Davids K. (2019). Principles of nonlinear pedagogy in sport practice . Phys. Ed. Sport Ped . 24 , 117–132. 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552673 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushion C. (2010). Coach behaviour , in Sports Coaching Professionalization and Practice , eds Lyle J., Cushion C. J. (London: Elsevier; ), 243–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushion C. (2013). Applying Game Centred Approaches in coaching: a critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice' impacting change . Sports Coach. Rev. 2 , 61–76. 10.1080/21640629.2013.861312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushion C. J., Ford P. R., Williams A. M. (2012a). Coach behaviours and practice structures in youth soccer: implications for talent development . J. Sports Sci. 30 , 1631–1641. 10.1080/02640414.2012.721930 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushion C. J., Harvey S., Muir B., Nelson L. (2012b). Developing the coach analysis and intervention system (CAIS): establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instrument . J. Sports Sci. 30 , 203–218. 10.1080/02640414.2011.635310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushion C. J., Jones R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level youth soccer coaches . J. Sport Behav. 24 , 354–376. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rss&AN=5483713&site=ehost-live [ Google Scholar ]
• Davids K., Güllich A., Shuttleworth R., Araújo D. (2017). Understanding environmental and task constraints on talent development: Analysis of micro-structure of practice and macro-structure of developmental histories , in The Routledge Handbook of Talent Identification and Development , eds Baker J., Cobley S., Schorer J., Wattie N. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 80–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford P. R., Whelan J. (2016). Practice activities during coaching sessions in elite youth football and their effect on skill acquisition , in Advances in Coach Education and Development: From Research to Practice , eds Allison W., Abraham A., Cale A. (London: Routledge; ), 112–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford P. R., Yates I., Williams A. M. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: exploring the link between science and application . J. Sports Sci. 28 , 483–495. 10.1080/02640410903582750 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuhre J., Sæther S. A. (2020). Skill acquisition in a professional and non-professional U16 football team: the use of playing form versus training form . J. Phys. Ed. Sport 20 , 2030–2035. 10.7752/jpes.2020.s3274 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbett T., Jenkins D., Abernethy B. (2009). Game-based training for improving skill and physical fitness in team sport athletes . Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 4 , 273–283. 10.1260/174795409788549553 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gebauer G. F., Mackintosh N. J. (2007). Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning . J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33 , 34–54. 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.34 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert W., Trudel P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches . J Teach Phys Ed. 21 , 16–34. 10.1123/jtpe.21.1.16 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güllich A. (2019). “Macro-structure” of developmental participation histories and “micro-structure” of practice of German female world-class and national-class football players . J. Sports Sci. 37 , 1347–1355. 10.1080/02640414.2018.1558744 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güllich A., MacNamara B. N., Hambrick D. Z. (2021). What makes a champion? Early multidisciplinary practice, not early specialization, predicts world-class performance . Perspect. Psychol. Sci . 17 , 6–29. 10.1177/1745691620974772 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall E. T., Gray S., Sproule J. (2016). The microstructure of coaching practice: behaviours and activities of an elite rugby union head coach during preparation and competition . J. Sports Sci. 34 , 896–905. 10.1080/02640414.2015.1076571 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey S., Cushion C. J., Cope E., Muir B. (2013). A season long investigation into coaching behaviours as a function of practice state: The case of three collegiate coaches . Sports Coach. Rev. 2 , 13–32. 10.1080/21640629.2013.837238 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horn T. (1987). The influence of teacher-coach behaviour on the psychological development of children , in Advances in Paediatric Sport Sciences, Volume 2: Behavioural Issues , eds Gould D., Weiss M. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; ), 121–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hornig M., Aust F., Gullich A. (2016). Practice and play in the development of German top-level professional football players . Eur. J. Sport Sci. 16 , 96–105. 10.1080/17461391.2014.982204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hüttermann S., Memmert D., Baker J. (2014). Understanding the microstructure of practice: training differences between various age classes, expertise levels and sports . Talent Dev. Excell. 6 , 17–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones R. L., Armour K. M., Potrac P. (2004). Sports Coaching Cultures: From Practice to Theory . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelso J. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-organization of Brain and Behavior . Cambridge: MIT Press; [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinnerk P., Harvey S., Kearney P., MacDonncha C., Lyons M. (2019). An investigation of the self-reported practice activities and session sequencing of inter-county Gaelic football coaches . Int. Sport Coach. J. 6 , 211–219. 10.1123/iscj.2018-0090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinnerk P., Kearney P. E., Harvey S., Lyons M. (2021). An investigation of high-performance team sport coaches' planning practices . Sports Coach. Rev. 1–28. 10.1080/21640629.2021.1990653. [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Low J., Williams A. M., McRobert A. P., Ford P. R. (2013). The microstructure of practice activities engaged in by elite and recreational youth cricket players . J. Sports Sci. 31 , 1242–1250. 10.1080/02640414.2013.778419 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason R. J., Farrow D., Harris J. (2021). An exploratory investigation into the reception of verbal and video feedback provided to players in an Australian Football League club . Int. J. Sport Sci. Coach. 16 , 181–191. 10.1177/1747954120951080 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masters R. S. W., Maxwell J. P. (2004). Implicit motor learning, reinvestment and movement: What you don't know won't hurt you , in Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice , eds Williams A. M., Hodges N. J. (London: Routledge; ), 207–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKay J., O'Connor D. (2018). Practicing unstructured play in team ball sports: a rugby union example . Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 5 , 273–280. 10.1123/iscj.2017-0095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muir B., Morgan G., Abraham A., Morley D. (2011). Developmentally appropriate approaches to coaching children , in Coaching Children in Sport , ed Stafford I. (London and New York, NY: Routledge; ), 39–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash C., Taylor J. (2021). “Just let them play”: Complex dynamics in youth sport, why it isn't so simple . Front. Psychol . 12 , 700750. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700750 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Larkin P. (2017). Coaching practice and player development , in Science and Football VIII , eds Bangsbo J., Krustrup P., Riis Hansen P., Ottesen L., Pfister G., Elbe A. M. (London: Routledge; ), 210–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Larkin P., Höner O. (2020). Coaches' use of game-based approaches in team sports , in Perspectives on Game-Based Coaching, 1st Edn , ed Pill S. (London: Routledge; ), 117–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Larkin P., Robertson S., Goodyear J. (2022). The art of the question: the structure of questions posed by youth soccer coaches during training . Phys. Ed. Sport Ped. 27 , 304–319. 10.1080/17408989.2021.1877270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Larkin P., Williams A. M. (2017). What learning environments help improve decision-making? Phys. Ed. Sport Ped. 22 , 647–660. 10.1080/17408989.2017.1294678 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Larkin P., Williams A. M. (2018a). Observations of youth football training: how do coaches structure training sessions for player development? J. Sports Sci. 36 , 39–47. 10.1080/02640414.2016.1277034 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor D., Wardak D., Goodyear P., Larkin P., Williams M. (2018b). Conceptualising decision-making and its development: a phenomenographic analysis . Sci. Med. Football 2 , 261–271. 10.1080/24733938.2018.1472388 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otte F., Davids K., Millar S.-K., Klatt S. (2020). When and how to provide feedback and instructions to athletes? – How sport psychology and pedagogy insights can improve coaching interventions to enhance self-regulation in training . Front. Psychol . 11 , 1444. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01444 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partington M., Cushion C., Harvey S. (2014). An investigation of the effect of athletes' age on the coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches . J. Sports Sci. 32 , 403–414. 10.1080/02640414.2013.835063 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partington M., Cushion C. J. (2013). An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches . Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 23 , 374–382. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partington M., Walton J. (2019). A guide to analysing coaching behaviours , in Sports Coaching: A Theoretical and Practical Guide , eds Cope E., Partington M. (London: Routledge; ), 18–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pill S. (2021). Perspectives on Game-Based Coaching . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinder R. A., Davids K., Renshaw I., Araújo D. (2011). Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport . J. Sport Exerc. Psychol . 33 , 146–155. 10.1123/jsep.33.1.146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potrac P., Jones R., Armour K. (2002). ‘It's all about getting respect': the coaching behaviours of an expert English soccer coach . Sport Ed. Soc . 7 , 183–202. 10.1080/1357332022000018869 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renshaw I., Chow J. Y. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy . Phys. Educ. Sport Ped . 24 , 103–116. 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renshaw I., Headrick J., Maloney M., Moy B., Pinder R. (2020). Constraints-led learning in practice: designing effective learning environments , in Skill Acquisition in Sport , eds Hodges N., Williams A. M. (London: Routledge; ), 163–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roca A., Ford P. R. (2020). Decision-making practice during coaching sessions in elite youth football across European countries . Sci. Med. Football 4 , 263–268. 10.1080/24733938.2020.1755051 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spittle M. (2013). Motor Learning and Skill Acquisition: Applications for Physical Education and Sport . Melbourne, VIC: Palgrave MacMillian. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzetzis G., Votsis E., Kourtessis T. (2008). The effect of different corrective feedback methods on the outcome and self confidence of young athletes . J. Sports Sci. Med. 7 , 371–378. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods C. T., McKeown I., O'Sullivan M., Robertson S., Davids K. (2020a). Theory to practice: performance preparation models in contemporary high-level sport guided by an ecological dynamics framework . Sports Med . 6 , 36. 10.1186/s40798-020-00268-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods C. T., McKeown I., Rothwell M., Araújo D., Robertson S., Davids K. (2020b). Sports practitioners as sport ecology designers: How ecological dynamics has progressively changed perceptions of skill “acquisition” in the sporting habitat . Front. Psychol. 11 , 654, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00654 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 October 2018

A qualitative investigation of the role of sport coaches in designing and delivering a complex community sport intervention for increasing physical activity and improving health

• Louise Mansfield   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4332-4366 1 ,
• Tess Kay 1 ,
• Nana Anokye 2 &
• Julia Fox-Rushby 3  

BMC Public Health volume  18 , Article number:  1196 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

7510 Accesses

12 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community sport can potentially help to increase levels of physical activity and improve public health. Sport coaches have a role to play in designing and implementing community sport for health. To equip the community sport workforce with the knowledge and skills to design and deliver sport and empower inactive participants to take part, this study delivered a bespoke training package on public health and recruiting inactive people to community sport for sport coaches. We examined the views of sport coach participants about the training and their role in designing and delivering a complex community sport intervention for increasing physical activity and improving health.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with paid full-time sport coaches ( n  = 15) and community sport managers and commissioners ( n  = 15) with expertise in sport coaching. Interviews were conducted by a skilled interviewer with in-depth understanding of community sport and sport coach training, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

Three key themes were identified showing how the role of sport coaches can be maximised in designing and delivering community sport for physical activity and health outcomes, and in empowering participants to take part. The themes were: (1) training sport coaches in understanding public health, (2) public involvement in community sport for health, and (3) building collaborations between community sport and public health sectors.

Training for sport coaches is required to develop understandings of public health and skills in targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people to community sport. Public involvement in designing community sport is significant in empowering inactive people to take part. Ongoing knowledge exchange activities between the community sport and public health sector are also required in ensuring community sport can increase physical activity and improve public health.

Peer Review reports

Regular physical activity is significant in the prevention and treatment of physical and mental health conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, some cancers, anxiety and depression [ 1 ]. Worldwide, the prevalence of physical activity at recommended levels is low. Current estimates in the UK are that approximately 20 million adults (39%) are categorised as inactive because they fail to meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity of 150 min per week of moderate intensity physical activity and strength exercise on at least 2 days [ 2 ]. Increasing population levels of physical activity can potentially improve public health. In England, the Moving More, Living More cross Government group includes representation from national lead agencies, Sport England, the Department of Health and Public Health England and recognises the role that sport can play in helping people to become more active for improved health outcomes [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. This perspective reflects more recent debates about the potential of low intensity physical activity for improving health which challenge established physical activity for health guidelines emphasising moderate and vigorous intensity phyiscal activity [ 6 ].

Successive Sport England strategies have focused on developing sporting opportunites tailored to the needs of diverse communities of local users. With devolvement of public health priorities to local authorities in April 2013, there is a heightened significance of locally based initiatives and the role of complex community interventions for public health outcomes; those that involve several interlocking components important to successful delivery [ 7 , 8 ]. Community-centred interventions can have a positive impact on health behaviours [ 9 , 10 ]. Successful community-based health interventions are associated with extensive formative research, participatory strategies and a theoretical and practical focus on changing social norms [ 11 ].

Sport coaches have a vital role to play in changing social norms around sports through individual and community engagement and empowering or enabling participants to take part in physical activity [ 12 ]. Empowerment theory provides a useful theoretical approach for understanding the complexities of raising physical activity levels through community sport. At the community level, empowerment theory investigates people’s capacity to influence organisations and institutions which impact on their lives [ 13 , 14 ]. The theory addresses the processes by which personal and social factors of life enable and constrain behaviours, and this provides the theoretical basis of this study.

There are 1,109, 000 sport coaches in the UK primarily working in sports clubs or extra-curricular school-based programmes, with much of their expertise focused on beginners and learners and sport enthusiasts [ 15 ]. Sports coaches represent community assets in the development of sport for health programmes for inactive adults who may be apprehensive rather than enthusiastic about taking part in sport [ 12 ], yet little is known about the occupational drivers, priorities and requirements of this workforce. There is potential for them to be a resource for identifying and assessing inactive people and providing physical activity education, promotion and support in local public health environments; a role more commonly associated with routine care in GP surgeries and health centres [ 16 , 17 ]. The potential of sports clubs as a health promotion setting has been recognised [ 18 , 19 ]. Key issues have been identified in developing successful approaches to health promotion in sports clubs including the need for clear health focused strategies, adapting sports activity, ensuring a health promoting environment, enabling learning opportunities about sport for health and workforce training in public health [ 20 ]. Knowledge and skill development in the sport coach workforce is imperative to equip it to design, deliver and evaluate community sport opportunities for public health outcomes [ 21 ]. Most recent models for such workforce development advocate partnership approaches between sport and leisure providers, public health professionals and the participants for whom community sport programmes are designed and delivered [ 22 ]. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of sport coaches in designing and delivering a complex community sport intervention for increasing physical activity and improving health.

Background to the study – The health and sport engagement (HASE) project

Between March 2013 and July 2016, 32 sport coaches delivering and managing community sport in the London Borough of Hounslow were involved in a complex community sport intervention; the Health and Sport Engagement (HASE) project. The aim of the HASE project was to engage previously inactive people in sustained sporting activity for 1 × 30 min a week, examine the associated health and wellbeing outcomes of doing so, and produce information of value to those commissioning public health programmes that could potentially include sport. Full details of the HASE project are provided in the published protocol [ 23 ]. A summary of the HASE project intervention and evaluation phases is provided in Fig.  1 .

The Health and Sport Engagement (HASE) Study overview

Design and delivery of the HASE intervention involved a collaborative partnership between local community participants, sport coaches and community sport managers/ commissioners in the London Borough of Hounslow (LBH), and sport and public health researchers at Brunel University London. Coaches were key stakeholders in the project which employed a collaborative approach to stakeholder engagement, involving them in the initial project ideas development prior to the funding application, and in formative discussions about relevant training and the content and scheduling of training. Training served not only as a form of education and skill development but as a space for on-going involvement of coaches in the co-design [ 24 ] of the training programme, the precise nature of the sport activities and their delivery and evaluation approaches.

During a 12-month delivery phase, community sport coaches delivered 682 sport sessions to 550 people in the HASE project. Community sport coaches with expertise and experience in delivering and managing sport activities and with knowledge of diverse local communities were identified as central to the successful design and implementation of community sport for inactive people. A bespoke HASE training programme was included to identify existing expertise and additional skills and knowledge requirements of community sport coaches in designing and implementing community sport for health. The HASE training schedule for sport coaches consisted of two elements:

To develop understandings of public health for sport coaches, training included The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) Level 2 Award in Understanding Health Improvement, and workshops on targeting, promoting and retaining inactive people to sport ( http://makesportfun.com/ ), and disability, inclusion and sport ( https://disabilitysportscoach.co.uk/training-workshops/ ).

To address the need for cross sector collaboration and partnership between local sport and public health groups, sports coaches and public health professionals attended a bespoke knowledge exchange workshop on getting to know and understand the roles and working practices of personnel in each sector ( http://makesportfun.com/ ).

Between March–September 2013, 32 community sport coaches were trained in the RSPH Level 2 Award in the first phase of the HASE project. Fifteen of those sport coaches were paid and full-time and they also engaged in training about targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people in community sport and an on-line disability in sport course. Fourteen of those additionally attended knowledge exchange activities between sport coaches and public health professionals (1 coach was unavailable due to work commitments). Knowledge exchange activities included demonstrations of adapted sports activities, a ‘meet and greet’ event in which coaches and health professionals were paired to talk and exchange professional information, then paired with another expert at 5-min intervals, and a discussion forum about the strategy and mechanism of local authority public health referral scheme.

The HASE project included a mixed methods evaluation of the outcomes, processes and costs of the complex community sport intervention. Process evaluations are recommended in examining the efficacy of complex interventions and have value in multisite projects where the same interventions are tailored to the specific contexts and delivered and received in diverse ways [ 25 ]. Process evaluations using qualitative methods can complement research designs that assess effectiveness and efficiency quantitatively [ 26 ], by providing in-depth knowledge from those delivering and receiving the interventions. Evaluating the design, implementation, mechanisms of impact, and contextual factors that create different intervention effects can support the development of optimal complex community interventions and contribute to decision making about whether it is feasible to proceed to a larger scale trial [ 27 ]. This study presents findings from the interviews with sport coaches and community sport managers or commissioners with expertise in sport coaching which formed part of the process evaluation in the HASE project.

Data collection

Taking a pragmatic approach to evaluation to ensure timely, practice relevant yet rigorous research [ 28 ] the 15 sport coaches who had been trained in the RSPH Level 2 Award, attended the workshops and completed the on-line disability in sport course were invited for interview. All but one of those had also attended the knowledge exchange workshops with public health professionals. Fifteen community sport managers or commissioners with knowledge of sport coaching and involved in developing the HASE intervention and evaluation were also invited to interview. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted with paid full-time sport coaches ( n  = 15) and community sport managers and commissioners ( n  = 15) with expertise in sport coaching.

Semi structured interviews were conducted by one researcher (LM) for consistency of questioning. The aims of these interviews were twofold: (1) to examine the aspirations and logic underpinning design, delivery, promotion, and commissioning of sport for health projects, and (2) to examine the experiences and views of the HASE training. The interview guide can be found in Additional file  1 . The interview data helped to determine the role of the sports coach in designing and delivering a complex community sport intervention for increasing physical activity and improving health. In this paper direct quotes are included in the results and respondents referred to by gender, self-reported job and coaching role and years of experience (YE).

Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview data were managed via NVivo 11 software and through the collation of tables and data matrices using Word 2010. The principles of thematic analysis were employed in this study. Thematic analysis allows the organisation, detailed description and scrutiny of patterns of meaning in qualitative data [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Analysis involved repeated reading, by two researchers (LM and TK), of interview transcripts, to determine the details of the data and to enable researchers to identify key themes and patterns in it. Themes were identified by theoretical approaches focused on our analytical interest in empowerment in community sport interventions, and by inductive (data-driven) approaches drawing directly from the data produced. Coding frameworks were devised by two researchers (LM and TK). Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the codes and themes verified by all researchers (LM, TK, NA, JF-R) in a process of identifying, refining and interpreting key themes [ 32 ]. Anonymised quotes from interviewees are provided as evidence form our study. Punctuation was added to unambiguous quotes and where necessary, words added in parentheses to clarify intended meaning.

Interviewees had been employed in the community sport sector for between 6 months and 25 years. Interviews lasted between 18 and 50 min and the mean interview length was 26 min. Three key themes were identified from the interview data that illustrate the significance and role of the sport coach in designing and delivering community sport for physical activity and health outcomes, and in empowering participants to take part: (1) training sport coaches in understanding public health, (2) public involvement in community sport for health, and (3) building collaborations between community sport and public health. We present the results in sections to reflect the identified themes although we are mindful that the themes overlap.

Training sport coaches in understanding public health

Phase 1 of the HASE project provided training for sport coaches and instructors to develop knowledge and understanding of public health and of targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people to sport for health programmes. There was recognition amongst the HASE workforce of the potential for their work in community sport to support public health outcomes through the informal connections between health and their existing qualifications and experience:

we’ve always recognised that it’s (sport) physical activity and health going hand in hand…..Yes this is about sport…but… it’s about engagement, it’s about physical activity, it’s about meaningful activity for young people and adults to gain confidence and skills, but actually it’s linked into health and healthy lifestyles as well (M,Community Sport Manager and Sport Coach, 15YE).

The need for sports coaches to engage in training to develop their understanding of public health and their ability to deliver to health outcomes was also recognised. The training was delivered in two forms – an RSPH Level 2 award, and bespoke training workshops commissioned through the HASE project.

Royal Society for public health (RSPH) level 2 award in understanding health improvement

The RSPH level 2 Award provided HASE sports coaches with the time and space to think about the relationships between sport and health and consider the significance of public health for their work. Those who participated expressed great enthusiasm for the training and emphasised that it had provided them with new knowledge and approaches that were highly relevant to their role in enabling people to become more active. The training was very highly valued:

I’m really glad I took those courses…it changed how I did things…. especially the behaviour change parts …and the (health) things they encourage you to think about … with different groups… also the social and emotional aspect of that (physical activity and health)… it really helped …understand inactivity …and help people (M, Community Leader and Sport Coach, 5YE). It just gave me some space to think about health…and how what I do can link to public health issues (M, Community Sport Coach, 5YE).

A particularly important aspect of the delivery of the RSPH course was tailoring the information and subsequently the activities and their delivery to local population characteristics in Hounslow and to the requirements and priorities of the HASE workforce in supporting people to raise their physical activity levels:

the Hounslow portion of that training was amazing, that was brilliant, I really liked it. I thought that it was crazy that people that live in Chiswick lived four years, on average, four years longer than people that live you know in like other parts of Hounslow for example. I can now talk to kids about health ..through sport (M, Community Sport Coach, 4YE).

Bespoke training workshops: Targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive participants

The workshops focusing on targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people to sport gave sport coaches the knowledge and time to effectively plan their programmes:

The workshops I thought were really good. I think when you’re actually discussing the practicalities, logistics, in reality how can we do this it’s definitely good to give you a chance to have discussions and actually properly sit down and plan. And I was able to go from one workshop, try something in the middle and then come back to the next one and talk about actually I did this and it worked. That sort of camaraderie in a way leaves you feeling motivated, ready to go. (F, Physical Activity Manager and Sport Coach Commissioner, 8YE).

The workshops also helped sports coaches develop knowledge about best practice in supporting and engaging inactive groups in community sport:

The qualification (RSPH) and those workshops are the right approach … they are about saying this is what we know now…this is the best way of doing it….it’s a forum where it brings people together where people meet on a course and then they’ve gone off and developed a programme together (M, Community Sport Commissioner, 15YE).

One of the key things was being in the mix with so many people from different sports... everyone had different stories to talk about, different experiences …knowledge …expertise to share (F, Community Coach Volunteer, 5YE).

Public involvement in community sport for health

Sport coaches identified the involvement of potential participants as important to the co-design and implementation of the community sports. Involving potential participants in designing their local sport offer was viewed as a way for sport coaches to identify both the physical activity and sporting needs of potential participants. It was also way for sport coaches to think about, understand and respond to practical barriers to participation but also the complex personal and social conditions, experiences and views that make taking part difficult; a key tenet of empowerment approaches:

outreach….you’ve got to invest some time in it…..speaking to a captive audience …encouraging them and actually I think there was a desire, they did want to be active but the barrier was the transport and their own physical ability. So knowing that ….and having that barrier taken away from them, it was then easy to attract them in (F, Community Sports Development Manager and Sport Coach, 20YE). you have to make a connection with them …..these people are unemployed, they’ve got housing problems, they’re not working, and also they’ve got addicted to something… you have to sit down with them….discuss with them. It’s someone they can listen to… (M, Community Leader and Sport Coach, 5YE).

Specifically, public involvement was identified as a way to enable sport coaches to recognise diversity and inequality and its impact on physical activity:

(Hounslow) is more diverse. Not everyone in a group goes to the local community centre for activity …not all Asian groups are the same. We need ways of understanding people a bit better …what are some of the conflicts they’re having…so we can offer solutions to (health) problems and not give them another thing they have to do (F, Community Sport Commissioner, 10YE)

Sport coaches supported the use of community focus groups, ‘meet the coach’ and taster sessions as effective forms of public involvement. These activities were important in facilitating active participation of potential participants and in helping community sport coachesto make the right decisions about the implementation of local community sport. Public involvement activities were viewed as a form of collective ownership of the community sport service:

in the past, it’s just been putting on activities and hoping that people turn up if it’s marketed. That’s not attracting the right (inactive) people. For our work …..to be embedded within the communities that you want to work within requires local people to get on board….we need to get out and meet them to reach the people that’s the hard to reach or most at need … we wanted to have more of a relationship with our participants…so we can decide and act together (F, Physical Activity Project Coordinator, 3YE).

For the sport coach workforce, working with participants was a form of community empowerment. It enabled potential participants to influence the development of community sport and physical activity programmes:

I don’t think there’s any point you just putting something on. Present it, get feedback, discuss it and make decisions together. if people are a bit more informed and actually really understand what the drive is behind it, then everything makes more sense you know… it empowers you a little bit to think…and understand…to take ownership of a project (F, School-Community PE Specialist, 25YE).

Building collaborations between community sport and public health

Collaborative working between researchers, local and national sport policy makers, community sport coaches, managers and commissioners, public health professionals and participants defined the design, delivery and evaluation of the HASE project overall. The London Borough of Hounslow had an established network of community sport and physical activity partners operating through a CSPAN (Community Sport and Physical Activity Network). This forum was important to the inception and implementation of the project:

I think the [HASE] approach suits Hounslow really well …six years ago, we were still working very much in siloes and everybody was doing their own thing. Since then we’ve had everybody working together on the community sports, this connectivity network …all our projects are about partnership work across the borough, across the range of services, and across a range of boroughs, that’s linking in and sharing expertise and resources (F, Community Sport Development Lead, 20YE).

Two aspects of collaborative working were identified by the interviewees: knowledge exchange, and partnership approaches.

Knowledge exchange

The opportunity for knowledge exchange between different sport coaches and public health professionals was central to successful partnerships and for sustained delivery of community sport for health outcomes:

The knowledge exchange was powerful for me because I could see there’s a lot of opportunity …for communities to bind themselves together by way of sport, and to give those people a healthy option in order to live a better life (M, Community Sport Coach, 10YE). that knowledge exchange workshop…it was the first time I came into contact with some of those people who did those various jobs. There was the health trainers…I didn’t even know they existed to be honest! So it was interesting to find out how they work with their clients and maybe if they’re looking to refer them to like organisations such as ourselves where they can do regular exercise then there’s maybe a partnership (M, Community Sport Coach, 5YE).

The challenges of promoting public health through community sport, and developing more systematic, collaborative and larger scale working relationships between community sport and local health agencies, were recognised:

Physical activity is a core area in public health. Sport - I think it’s very relevant …for me it’s a new role and the problem is that sports clubs can sometimes be a bit cliquey… you’ve got those added complexities…confidence…what to wear…not knowing anyone. But, having said that, you know, then sports clubs can have quite a nice social side, which gives another added dimension to people and makes them feel part of a community and to have something additional that they can engage with in a really positive way, but it’s just how that happens and how you get to that point (F, Community Sport Commissioner, 10YE).

However, the significance of HASE planning and training activities in enabling partnership working between public health professionals and community sport coaches for health outcomes dominated the views:

I was hesitant but I did learn a lot …I am going to work together with the Hounslow Homes project now (F, Community sport coach, 20YE). I’ve now got a relationship with Integrated Neurological Services and we’re working on developing and delivering a programme (F, Physical Activity Manager and Sport Coach Commissioner, 8YE). My coaches are understanding more about the health agenda and people within health are understanding more about the positivity of doing sport and physical activity as well…local connections worked really well (M, Senior Community Sport Manager and Sport Coach, 15YE).

Partnerships, pathways for recruitment and promoting sport for health

Partnership working in public health commonly involves strategies for bringing people together and enabling engagement, making pathways for recruitment and issues of promotion and communication key. A core ambition for commissioners, managers and sport coaches in this study was for the development of a referral system for community sport activities, based on existing referral approaches in public health that could develop a partnership between public health and community sport in working with inactive communities:

I think that going forward we’re trying to engage a large amount of inactive people, what would work well is referrals into a programme. Self-referrals or GPs or health trainers are a key to referring to community sport. And then also there’s that knowledge exchange from sports clubs, coaching professionals and volunteers, to understand how health professionals do their work ….and help them signpost to us (M, Director, Community Health Organisation, 8YE). I feel that there needs to be an agreed way forward in the whole Borough… for a referral process…recognising and going out to physical activity deliverers so if in public health you’re sitting there doing your individual target sheet with your client, they want to get fit, they have mobility issues, they’re over 60 or whatever, refer them to me, contact me (F, Physical Activity Project Coordinator, 3YE).

Sport coaches and those involved in commissioning community sport identified established public health strategies, theoretical approaches and pathways to recruitment as relevant to the work of sport coaches:

my starting point..for community sport …would be around NICE guidance that clearly states there’s an evidenced way of doing things…quite complex and requires a certain skill base ….but actually when people have done that work it’s a lot easier and we need sport delivery teams to know about giving advice and motivating people take part (F, Community Sport Commissioner, and Sports Coach 10YE). have sport coaches understand behaviour change …advising and motivating …is quite important (M, Commissioner, 15YE).

A more formalised role for sport coaches in engaging and supporting inactive people to become active through community sport was identified:

you could see a role for a physical activity activator or sport champion …giving support to inactive people to get active … understanding everything, .helping decisions, signposting to relevant services (M, Director, Community Health Organisation, 8YE).

The common theme in discussions about recruiting and signposting to community sport was the idea of moving beyond traditional health promotion messages associated with exercise prescription to a focus on knowledge and understanding about the role of sport for health and enabling people to take part:

(we have to) avoid very old health messages about exercise as something else they have to do. I think better ways of messaging are with some of the behaviour change ways …but through understanding people so it’s more for them (F, Community Sport Commissioner, 10YE)

Principal findings

This study recognised that engaging inactive people in sport lies outside sports coaches previous experience and aimed to equip them for this new role. All interviewees agreed that formal training via the RSPH Level 2 Award was a key ingredient for increasing sports coaches’ knowledge and understanding about public health. Bespoke workshops on targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people to community sport allowed coaches to develop their skills and knowledge and maximise the potential for raising physical activity levels in their work. Public involvement was also unanimously viewed as essential to better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to sport for diverse community groups. Moreover, it was identified as a way to understand better and attempt to resolve the complex personal and social experiences that mitigate against taking part. Engaging potential participants in the design of community sports projects was found to be important in appropriately tailoring community sport programmes. Public involvement allowed a focus on collective ownership of the content and delivery of community sport and was considered central to successful participant engagement. On-going opportunities for knowledge exchange between sport coaches and public health professionals was recognised as a pathway to sharing best practice in identifying, supporting and empowering inactive people to become more active. A more formal role for sport coaches in delivering community sport to increase levels of physical activity was articulated as important by our interviewees.

Overall, the need for partnerships between local public health and community sport sectors was advocated for successful service delivery of community sport for inactive people. Yet, the significant challenges of promoting public health through community sport were identified. Overcoming the negative perceptions of sport and addressing the problems of ensuring more systematic, collaborative and larger scale working relationships between community sport and public health organisations were identified.

Contribution to knowledge

The findings support the work that has identified sports coaches as potential community assets, helping local communities to address public health concerns around raising levels of physical activity [ 12 , 21 ]. In addition, the study adds to and develops further the conclusions of other studies which contend that sports coaches have a wider role than the teaching of sport skills to play in individual and community development of life skills [ 33 ], positive social behaviours [ 34 ], and supporting mental health [ 35 ]. While others have identified that sports coaches are not routinely trained in public health or the needs of inactive populations [ 21 ], this study shows that with the right training and partnership arrangements sports coaches have the potential to identify inactive people and engage and support them in tailored community sport programmes. They can, therefore, offer both a complementary and additional service in public health behaviour change broadly, one which is typically linked with the work of GPs or practice nurses [ 16 , 17 , 22 ]. The processes by which sports coaches in this study engaged and supported inactive people to take part in community sport reflects the significance of strategies reported in the wider literature which seek to develop understandings of complex and diverse personal and social experiences which make it difficult for people to participate including youth [ 36 ], age and ageing [ 37 ], disability [ 38 ], gender [ 39 ], sexual orientation [ 40 ], socio-economic status [ 41 ] and the environment [ 42 ] and crucially the intersections of such socio-cultural, environmental and individual issues. Pedagogical implications for coaches are revealed in this study. Supporting inactive people to become involved in community sport for health requires learning in practice and our findings indicate the salience of developing innovative health-related pedagogical skills and knowledge for the coaching workforce [ 43 ]. This also requires recognition of the complex reality of designing and delivering sport for inactive people and a more innovative approach to coaching; one that is not solely based on competencies but recognises the need to build, enhance and apply different skills and knowledge in reaching and engaging diverse groups of inactive people with a range of health and wellbeing needs in community sport [ 44 ]. This study illustrates the importance for researchers and practitioners, of developing theoretical and applied work that moves beyond established behaviour change approaches to physical activity to consider complex everyday relationships, and develop knowledge and understanding about the challenges of and best practice in empowering people to take part in community sport for health and wellbeing. It also illustrates the scope for drawing on work from the social sciences that provides deeper understandings of social diversity in sport and physical activity which can be applied in supporting those who find it most difficult to take part [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. These findings support those from studies that have argued for public involvement in community health projects to improve service quality, programme relevance, participant engagement and satisfaction, and health outcomes [ 49 ]. The present study also reinforces the potential in co-design approaches for ensuring that the needs of all stakeholders are addressed and that there is shared ownership and responsibility for project outcomes [ 50 , 51 ]. The findings support calls for workforce development, knowledge exchange and partnership approaches in the community sport sector to reflect public health concerns connected to raising physical activity levels [ 22 , 52 ]. It is emphasised that there remain challenges in overcoming negative perceptions of sport and in scaling up public health and community sport partnerships for population level change in physical activity.

Strengths and weaknesses

The study was part of a rigorous mixed methods study design for which there is a published protocol. The use of one interviewer provided some consistency in questioning and the sample included a diverse range of stakeholders centrally involved in community sport coaching or the management and commissioning of coaching. Interviews were conducted by the project lead who was involved in other aspects of the research providing some consistency and a systematic approach to data collection and analysis throughout the project.

The sample was self-selecting which can create some bias in the data. One coach did not attend the knowledge exchange workshop due to other work-related commitments and may have had an experience and views on that aspect of the training which could have affected the findings.

Implications for practice and research

Sport coaches have a role in designing and delivering complex community sport interventions for increasing physical activity and improving health. However, there is a need to understand how the knowledge and skill set of this workforce can be advanced for them to realise their potential as community resources in public health. This study has identified that it is possible to build capacity for delivering sport for health programmes by training sports coaches in public health, building locally specific knowledge about inactive communities through public involvement strategies, facilitating cross-sector knowledge exchange and encouraging partnership working between sport and public health sector experts. There is an increasing focus on community sport delivery for public health outcomes. Such delivery is complex and there is a need for research to focus on developing the evidence base on the processes involved in sport coach delivery and the impact of sport coaches on the successes, impacts and outcomes of interventions to support intervention design. It is equally important that findings of such research are disseminated in useful and useable ways, and in varied forms to different stakeholders and user groups so they can capitalise on and use the evidence in their policy and practice work.

Conclusions

Complex community sport interventions have the potential to engage inactive people to increase physical activity for health. Such interventions are likely to be delivered by sport coaches whose knowledge and expertise in public health and recruiting inactive people to sport is partial. This study has shown that with the right training, sport coaches can develop and apply their knowledge and understanding of public health and their skills in targeting, recruiting and retaining inactive people to community sport. The findings emphasise the importance of public involvement in supporting engagement of inactive people in community sport. In addition, the study has shown that through knowledge exchange between the community sport and public health sectors, there is potential for reciprocal partnership arrangements to develop that could further equip sport coaches with the knowledge and skills to design and implement community sport and potentially develop population level interventions for increasing physical activity, reducing inactivity and improving public health.

Abbreviations

Community Sport and Physical Activity Network

The Health and Sport Engagement Projects

London Borough of Hounslow

Royal Society for Public Health

Department of Health. Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity for health from the four home counties’ chief medical officers. London: Department of Health; 2011.

Google Scholar  

British Heart Foundation (2017) Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behaviour Report. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/publications/statistics/physical-inactivity-report-2017 . Available on line. Accessed 25th August 2018.

Sport England. Towards an active nation strategy 2016-2021. London: DCMS. p. 2016.

Department of Culture Media and Sport. Sporting Future: A new strategy for an active nation. London: Crown Copyright; 2015.

Sport England. The active lives survey survey. https://www.sportengland.org/research/about-our-research/active-lives-survey . (Accessed 8 Jul 2016).

Smith L, Ekelund U, Hamer M. The potential yield of non-exercise physical activity energy expenditure in public health. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):449–52.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. Br Med J. 2007;334(7591):455.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.

O'Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid G, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, Matosevic T, Harden A, Thomas J. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Res. 2013;1(4).

Article   Google Scholar  

South J. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. PHE/NHSE London: Crown Copyright; 2015.

Merzel C, D'afflitti J. Reconsidering community-based health promotion: promise, performance, and potential. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):557–74.

Griffiths M, Armour K. Volunteer sports coaches as community assets? A realist review of the research evidence. Int J Sport Pol Pol. 2014;6(3):307–26.

Lord J, Hutchison P. The process of empowerment: implications for theory and practice. Can J CommunMent Health. 1993;12:5–22.

Fawcett SB, Paine-Andrews A, Francisco VT, et al. Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. Am J Community Psychol. 1995;23:677–97.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sports Coach UK. Sports Coachingin the UK III; a statistical analysis of coaching and coaches in the UK. Leeds: Sports Coach UK; 2011.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Physical activity: brief advice for adults in primary care. In: NICE Public Health Guid, vol. 44; 2013.

Beighton C, Victor C, Normansell R, Cook D, Kerry S, Iliffe S, Ussher M, Whincup P, Fox-Rushby J, Woodcock A, Harris T. “It’s not just about walking..... it’s the practice nurse that makes it work”: a qualitative exploration of the views of practice nurses delivering complex physical activity interventions in primary care. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1236.

Donaldson, A., & Finch, C. F. (2012). Sport as a setting for promoting health.

Kokko S, Green LW, Kannas L. A review of settings-based health promotion with applications to sports clubs. Health Promot Int. 2013;29(3):494–509.

Geidne S, Quennerstedt M, Eriksson C. The youth sports club as a health-promoting setting: an integrative review of research. Scandinavian J Public health. 2013;41(3):269–83.

Almand L, Almand M, Saunders L. Coaching sport for health: a review of literature. London: Sports Coach UK; 2013.

Sporta CG. Supporting positive health outcomes through leisure and culture trusts. Perspect Public Health. 2016;136(5):262.

Mansfield L, Anokye N, Fox-Rushby J, Kay T. The Health and Sport Engagement (HASE) Intervention and Evaluation Project: protocol for the design, outcome, process and economic evaluation of a complex community sport intervention to increase levels of physical activity. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e009276.

Sanders, E.B.N., Singh, S. and Braun, E., 2018. Co-designing with communities.

Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, et al. Process evaluation inrandomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332:413.

Wall M, Hayes R, Moore D, et al. Evaluation of community level interventions to address social and structural determinants of health: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:207.

Datta J, Pettigrew M. Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:568. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-568 .

Scott RE. 'Pragmatic Evaluation': a conceptual framework for designing a systematic approach to evaluation of eHealth interventions. Int J E-Health Med Comm. 2010;1(2):1–11.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Clarke V, Braun V. Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. Psychologist. 2013;26(2):120–3.

Miles MB, Huberman MA. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage; 1994.

Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being. 2014;9.

Attride-Stirling J. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res. 2001;1(3):385–405.

Super S, Verkooijen K, Koelen M. The role of community sports coaches in creating optimal social conditions for life skill development and transferability–a salutogenic perspective. Sport Educ Soc. 2018;23(2):173–85.

Santos F, Corte-Real N, Regueiras L, Dias C, Fonseca A. Coaches' perceptions on the role played by football on positive development of underserved youth: what reality? Cuad Psicol Deporte. 2018;18(2):214–27.

Ferguson HL, Swann C, Liddle SK, Vella SA. Investigating youth sports Coaches' perceptions of their role in adolescent mental health. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2018:1–18.

Rees, R., Kavanagh, J., Harden, A., Shepherd, J., Brunton, G., Oliver, S. and Oakley, A., 2001. Young people and physical activity: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators.

Baert V, Gorus E, Mets T, Geerts C, Bautmans I. Motivators and barriers for physical activity in the oldest old: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):464–74.

Shields N, Synnot AJ, Barr M. Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity for children with disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(14):989–97.

Biddle SJ, Whitehead SH, O’Donovan TM, Nevill ME. Correlates of participation in physical activity for adolescent girls: a systematic review of recent literature. J Phys Act Health. 2005;2(4):423–34.

Mansfield, Kay, Meads & Caudwell, Rapid Topic Overview: Physical Activity Among LGB&T Communities in England, Brunel Centre for Sport, Health & Wellbeing, 2014.

Stalsberg R, Pedersen AV. Effects of socioeconomic status on the physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review of the evidence. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(3):368–83.

McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(1):125.

Armour K. What is ‘sport pedagogy’and why study it? In: Sport Pedagogy; 2013. p. 29–41. Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Morgan K, Jones RL, Gilbourne D, Llewellyn D. Innovative approaches in coach education pedagogy. Nuances. 2013;24(1):218–34.

Long, J., Hylton, K., Spracklen, K., Ratna, A. and Bailey, S., 2009. Systematic review of the literature on black and minority ethnic communities in sport and physical recreation.

Lawson HA. Empowering people, facilitating community development, and contributing to sustainable development: the social work of sport, exercise, and physical education programs. Sport Educ Soc. 2005;10(1):135–60.

Spaaij R, Oxford S, Jeanes R. Transforming communities through sport? Critical pedagogy and sport for development. Sport Educ Soc. 2016;21(4):570–87.

Phoenix C, Bell SL. Beyond “move more”: feeling the rhythms of physical activity in mid and later-life. Soc Sci Med. 2018.

Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Bhui K, Fulop N, Tyrer P. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002;325(7375):1263.

Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm Rev. 2007;67(5):846–60.

Hampson M, Baeck P, Langford K. By us, for us: the power of Co-Design and Co-Delivery. In: People Powered Health. London: Nesta; 2013.

Mansfield L. Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research. Int J Sport Policy Politics. 2016;8(4):713–29.

Download references

The study was funded through Sport England’s Get Healthy Get Active Award URN 2012021352.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK

Louise Mansfield & Tess Kay

Department of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK

Nana Anokye

Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, Addison House, Guy’s, London, SE1 1UL, UK

Julia Fox-Rushby

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM, TK, AN, JF-R made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data in the Health and Sport Engagmeent Project. LM, TK, AN and JF-R have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. LM, TK, AN and JF-R have given final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Mansfield .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for the interviews was granted through the ethics award for the HASE project overall. Participants received detailed written participant information and gave written consent to participate. Consent was clarified verbally at the start of the interviews. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time, without penalty and to their right to anonymity and confidentiality. This study was approved by Brunel University Research Ethics Committee, Division of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences (reference RE33–12).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

LM and TK are members of Sport England’s Evidence Review Advisory Panel. LM is a member of UEFA’s Grow Project Advisory Panel. NA and JF-R have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Agenda of interview questions ( and prompts) . (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mansfield, L., Kay, T., Anokye, N. et al. A qualitative investigation of the role of sport coaches in designing and delivering a complex community sport intervention for increasing physical activity and improving health. BMC Public Health 18 , 1196 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6089-y

Download citation

Received : 14 July 2018

Accepted : 04 October 2018

Published : 22 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6089-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community sport
• Complex community intervention
• Sport coaches
• Public health
• Physical activity

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]