Data Displays and Analysis

Analysis based on unreduced text may be weak and cumbersome as the text is dispersed over different pages, which makes it difficult to see everything

simultaneously (Williamson & Long, 2005). This makes it hard to read and understand the different areas a data source might be presenting, making the process tedious and time-consuming (Dey, 1993).

With this in mind, I considered expressing concepts visually to condense relevant data and facilitate analytical thinking. Displaying data, or its selected meaning units, in an organised and condensed manner, on one or a few pages, and organising this systematically in line with the research question, can

facilitate drawing the necessary conclusions and identifying the required action. If coherently organised, data displays will permit careful comparisons, detection of differences, patterns, themes and trends (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Hence, it facilitates the categorisation process.

Thus, at this stage of analysis, I developed a Network visual display (Verdinelli & Scagnoli, 2013) so as to deeply understand:

i) Pedagogical Reasoning and Action, ii) Instruction

iii) How these interact within the idea of CPP

This process enabled me to identify the themes, categories and sub-categories within the highlighted meaning units, and understand the relationships between them.

I began drafting visual representations on my fifth reading. The use of data displays as “aids to qualitative data analysis” (Williamson & Long, 2005, p. 8), helped me in the organisation and reduction of information and facilitated the process to conclusions and actions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

The articulation of the process enables transparency in this study. The first visual representations show the selection (hence the reduction) and the compression stage of data analysis. This part of the process of Qualitative Content Analysis led to the development of domains, categories and sub- categories through the development of data displays on:

i) The Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action (Table 4.1)

ii) A Theory of Instruction (Table 4.2)

iii) Tactical Periodization (Figure 4.3)

Subsequently, this first set of visual representations made it possible to analyse the integration and relationship of domains, categories and sub-categories across each display, and identify where and how the displays interact. This led to the first categorisation process of this study (Appendix 4.2).

Framing Theory 1: The Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action

The Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action put forward here was my

theoretical foundation and my starting point to conceptualise how coaches transfer content knowledge into pedagogical representation and actions. Here, I am following Shulman (1987, p. 15) in reconstructing the visual

representation from the original source.

It is immediately evident that each section within the model is relevant to the answer to my research questions. While with ‘pedagogical reasoning’ one can clearly understand that there is an ongoing thinking process intended at teaching and learning, with action, here, we shall not be misled. “Reasoning and action…imply a dynamic state in which knowledge is being tested and refined and new understandings generated” (Wilkes, 1994).

To engage in a Pedagogical Reasoning and Action process, coaches need to comprehend the relevant content knowledge, curriculum knowledge, and contextual knowledge. This would form the foundation for the

transformation of the obtained content knowledge which would reflect contextual realities. The transformation goes hand in hand with pedagogical content knowledge as this is where the coach prepares, represents, selects and adapts the selected content knowledge for his/her learners’ and his/her own needs. Following this process, the coach would be ready for coaching

instruction during training sessions, which would be followed up by evaluation and reflection, leading to consolidation and new comprehension.

A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action

1.Comprehension Of purposes, subject matter structures, ideas within and outside the discipline.

2.Transformation Preparation Critical interpretation and analysis of texts, structuring and segmenting, development of a curricular repertoire, and clarification of purpose.

Representation Use of a representational repertoire which includes analogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations, explanations, and so forth.

Selection Choice from among an instructional repertoire which includes modes of teaching, organizing, managing and arranging. Adaptation and Tailoring to Student Characteristics Consideration of conceptions, preconceptions, misconceptions, and difficulties, language, culture, and motivations, social class, gender age, ability, aptitude, interests, self-concepts and attention.

3.Instruction Management, presentations, interactions, group work, discipline, questioning, and other aspects of active teaching, discovery or inquiry instruction, and the observable forms of classroom teaching.

4.Evaluation Checking for student understanding during interactive teaching.

Testing student understanding at the end of lessons or units. Evaluating one’s own performance and adjusting for

experiences.

5.Reflection Reviewing, reconstructing, re-enacting and critically analysing one’s own and the class’s performance and grounding explanations in evidence.

1.New Comprehension Of purposes, subject matter structures, students, teaching and self.

Consolidation of new understandings and learnings from experience.

Table 4.1: Data Display of The Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action. (Shulman, 1988, p. 15).

Framing Theory 2: Theory of Instruction

Coaches, like teachers, need to reason through a process which includes both “thinking about what they are doing and an adequate base of facts, principles and experiences from which to reason. They must learn to use their knowledge base to provide the grounds for choices and actions” (Shulman, 1987, p. 13).

For this study to deal with how the transformation from knowledge to action takes place, a ‘Theory of Instruction’ (Table 4.2) was identified as the second theory to frame this study. This is so, because, A Theory of Instruction is “…as practical a thing as one could possibly have, to guide one in the

process of passing on the knowledge, the skills, the point of view…” (Bruner, 1963, p. 523).

Aspects of a Theory of Instruction Predisposition

Effective Learning Predisposition factors

Structures

Optimal Structuring of Knowledge Sequences Optimal Sequence

Consequences Rewards & Punishments Success & Failures A safe environment that supports proactive learners - exploration, problem- solving, o Economy o Productiveness o Power

Economy: The simplification of knowledge. No matter how complicated, it can be broken into simpler elementary form. Productiveness: The structure of knowledge enables generation of new propositions

Power: The power of language in making (manipulating) knowledge of your own.

It is important to highlight that all this is relative to the learner, and it is suggested that learners should be allowed to encounter knowledge at stages appropriate to his/her level.

For knowledge to be converted into a structure that is economical, productive, and powerful, and therefore transferable: o Induction

o Contrast o No premature

symbolization o Guessing

Induction: Have the learner meet learning concepts and make sense of them on his/her own.

Contrast: 4x3 = 3x4 No Premature Symbolisation: To produce powerful learning let the learner spend enough time in enactive and ikonic representation in a way that symbolic representation does not become rote.

Guessing: Allow the learner to guess, to his/her rights as a mind. This way s/he can become aware of all s/he knows.

Success and failure is the inherent part of the task which identifies if the issue is solved or not.

Reward and punishment is the consequence that follows upon success or failure.

When applying rewards and punishments, attention is diverted away from success and failure and the person giving rewards or punishments takes the initiative from the learner. Clarification of reasons behind failures is more important than punishments. Representation of knowledge o Enactive Representation …by doing. o Ikonic Representation …using an image. o Symbolic Representation …using words

‘you create a structure…by giving it in the muscles, then in imagery and then giving it in language, with its tools for manipulation’.

Any topic has internal prerequisites, easier modes of representation, perhaps less symbolic, more enactive or ikonic (but not only) that lead to the next stage of learning. This is what we know as ‘spiral curriculum’

Revisiting

Learning everything is practically impossible – hence the need to revisit allows the learner to connect previous acquired to actual learning.

“The independent problem solver is one who

rewards and punishes himself by judging the adequacy of his efforts. Equip him with the tools for thinking and let him be

his own man.”

The BLUE TEXT identifies the areas that are explicitly learner-centred in their approach.

The text in the yellow boxes links to a ‘spiral curriculum’ design

Two papers by Bruner (1963; 1966) were identified in the purposeful sampling. The 1963 paper led to my development of a data display of his Theory of Instruction (Table 4.2).

Keeping the research question central to the analysis of the text was essential, as was staying mindful of the original objective of the study (Berg, 2004, p. 278). For this study, ‘instruction’ is only the result of a more complete ongoing process, which is The Coaches’ Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP. Early in the analytical process, the focus was on optimal structuring and optimal sequence of knowledge (table 4.2). Later in the process of analysis, it started becoming evident that a Theory of Instruction is complementary to the

Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action in view of the Coaches’ Process of

Knowledge Generation for CPP.

Framing Theory 3: Tactical Periodization

Extracts from Oliveria’s (2014a, 2014b) work on Tactical Periodization which set out the required structure of the concept of CPP were selected for analysis. The focus remained on the research question and ensured that that Tactical

Periodization was only used to provide a framework for how to look at, and what

to look for, in PoP in soccer.

My visual representation (Figure 4.2) integrates the ‘Model of Play building phases’ (Oliveira 2014a, p. 31) and clarifies the impact of the coach’s idea of soccer on the PoP. Oliveira also highlights the influence of the players’ characteristics on the system of play and then on the PoP as collective,

sectoral, inter-sectoral and individual, that would be necessary during every moment of the game. I have drawn solely on Oliveira in this focus because Oliveira writes on Tactical Periodization in English. In addition, The Coaches’ Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP does not consider all the principles of Tactical Periodization because not all are relevant in the process of

generation of pedagogical tactical content knowledge. Some of the principles of

Tactical Periodization are based on physiological assumptions or

methodological approaches which are not the main focus of the study. This thesis focuses on the ‘process of knowledge generation’ of the coach from a

Pedagogical Reasoning and Action point of view, which is intended at coaching

Integrating the Framing Theories

This first stage of content analysis led to a visual representation which integrates the main purposefully sampled content showing my personal understanding of i) Pedagogical Reasoning and Action, ii) a Theory of Instruction and iii) Principles of Play (in Tactical Periodization). Through this process of making a visual representation, I was able conceptualise how the three areas might interact with each other and how the stages of each one of them could fit or interact with the others. Figure 4.3 shows the first integration of the three areas.

This informal and non-conservative process, could be viewed as the first stage of an ‘open coding process’ (Berg, 2004) where meaning units were indirectly identified through the design of the first visuals and were

unconsciously labelled with a code (the subheadings of each of the areas). Looking through an analytical and conceptual lens, I started identifying common concepts which integrate or relate to each other and which I thought could inform a Process of CPP, intended at coaching instructions through PoP.

Integration of the framing theories began by placing the visual

representations next to each other, to begin visualising how the main framing theories could contribute to the development of The Coaches’ Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP. This was an important pragmatic analytical exercise, which led to categorisation (Bengtsson, 2016).