That's a Wrap

Well, this is the final post from me as part of the Sport Coaching Pedagogy unit for 2012.

And what a fitting topic presented by Keith to wrap up this experience in personal development pathways. Throughout this assessment I think I have, like a lot of my classmates, had their eyes opened to the benefits of blogging and  the advantages to be had by engaging in this self directed (but still helpfully guided by Keith) type of learning environment.

I think the video below addresses exactly the kind of thing Keith talked about a lot throughout the duration of the course. The focus is shifting from lecturers 'lecturing' students to an environment where students and teachers are working together and becoming produsers.

With all this information out there now, there is sure to some that can't be definitively proven (I'm sure there is plenty in my own blog's!), but the fact that someone has put forward a new idea that can be accessed by anyone who wishes to I think is the key point. After all, as I discussed in my previous blogs, coaches and players are never a finished products, so whatever information they can get, no matter how obscure, as long as it helps, is beneficial.

Thanks again for reading, I hope you enjoyed.

Cheers, Leigh.

Coaching Ceiling

Following on from last weeks blog surrounding the topic of the expert pedagogue, this week I got thinking about the same idea but from the perspective of an athlete. Could an athlete ever be considered an expert? And if so wouldn't that mean that coaches got their athlete to a level of expertise that essentially made them redundant?

I came to the conclusion that like coaches, athletes (no matter how talented) could not ever be considered 'complete' or an 'expert'. So by default, if there is always room for improvement, then there will always be a place for a coach to work and develop that room, it's just that as the level of athlete skill increases so does the margin for improvement (the law of diminishing returns).

Even if the coaching role is not filled in a traditional sense (where the focus lies on the technical aspects), there are numerous sources of research within the field of sports psychology suggesting that the psychological side of an athletes performance is as important as physical prowess involved.

While on that point, interestingly enough both Roger Federer and tiger Woods have gone long periods of time in their respective careers without a dedicated coach. I suppose there are always exceptions. But maybe if Federer and Woods had coaches (maybe even operating in a more unconventional sense) Federer may have broken that Grand Slam record already and Woods might still be in the #1 ranking. Who knows, sometimes its interesting to speculate.

I think the best example of the how important a coach can be is the appointment of Jake White to the ACT Brumbies (also discussed in Ben Mudie's blog). At the beginning of this season the Brumbies were widely tipped to finish last by quite a margin, due to their apparently weak playing list, but currently find themselves sitting atop of the Australian conference table. His coaching methods have obviously clicked with the team and his ability to think outside the box has most recently seen him suggest bringing Stephen Larkham out of retirement at 37yrs of age and 5 years since he last played for the Brumbies in an effort to cover an injury crisis.

Personally, having decided that that neither the athlete nor coach could ever be considered experts nor complete I think shows that the role of a coach is open ended. It is a role that is, I guess, in a way limitless and unrestricted in where it can go.

I think that looking at the role of a coach and athlete as something that is is a continual state of change and never finished highlights the interesting dynamic between coaches and athletes. Assuming that neither can ever be considered a finished product, one of them will always be presenting the other with new and unique challenges thus promoting a perpetual relationship.

Expert Pedagogue: A Myth?

My apologies for the delay between my blogs, other university subjects have been taking up a lot of my time of late.

Recently, as part of the assessment for this unit, I (along with 3 of my classmates) made a coaching video looking at the 4 key skills in the sport of AFL. These were kicking, hand passing, bouncing and marking. I was the one responsible for the coaching of kicking, specifically the drop punt.

For me, I find I'm able to do the skill pretty well. In my mind I can go through the steps in a way that makes sense to me and then do it. When it came to coaching the skill, I found I really had to think hard about how I went about it. Our athlete didn't have an AFL background so the skill needed to be learnt by him and coached by us, from scratch. To combat this we used coaching methods mentioned in our research such as the SPIR method:
S: Show - name the skill, demonstrate three times and provide three coaching points.
P: Practice - Have players practice the skill immediately.
I: Instruct - Give feedback on their performance based on what they have been taught.

R: Reward - Encourage and reward effort and achievement.

Although this method was very helpful, I still couldn't help but feel a little bit lost and looking back I think the biggest thing I found, which in hindsight makes complete sense, is that there are glaring differences between coaching and telling an athlete through a skill.

Overall I think as a group we did well to have a bit of fun but still make a useful coaching tool. Also, those interested in seeing a short clip and reading a bit more about our coaching video should head over to Aidan's blog, it's well worth a read.

As I mentioned, we used several resources in the development of out coaching video, some of the ones we came across were quite dated. Looking at the difference in not only the technique of a skill but also the coaching method, it's easy to say just coach it, but the process is tricky.
It made me think about the term expert pedagogue; is it even possible? Or is it just an oxymoron?

John Wooden was an amazing coach, without question. But was he an expert pedagogue?

I think now more than ever, coaches will always be playing catch up with innovation and technology, they will always be students to their profession. The prime example of this came from the discussion within the tutorial sessions in week 13. iPhones, live video feed and the endless information capture/sharing platforms are continually opening new pathways for coaches to diversify their methods and because of this I think the term 'expert pedagogue' contradicts itself. There can certainly be excellent pedagogues (John Wooden for example), but I think its impossible for one to become an expert pedagogue purely because the coaching world never stands still for long enough for an individual to completely master it before it changes again.