The rationale for engaging this group in training and then studying their
experiences addresses the need to have formalized, program-specific training for coach interns at the Get Ready program. This section will give a rationale for the training by first providing an overview of competency-based training and how it applies to sport coaching. Second is a description of the Boston University sport psychology and
coaching programs as it relates to the graduate students that participated in this training. Third, the context of the Get Ready program and coaching internship will be described. Fourth, the everyday functioning of the Get Ready program is detailed in order to understand what the intern coaches do on a daily basis. Fifth the PD design and training procedures are summarized for an idea of what the PD modules look like.
Competency Based Training
Competency-based learning is grounded in the idea that learners must develop knowledge-based skills before they can be allowed to work in certain trades and professions. Competencies to be acquired when using this approach are described as integrated practical knowledge, skills, and attitudes (behaviors) that are associated with one’s ability to perform the tasks required of a job, trade, or profession (Fletcher & Maher, 2013; Kenkel & Peterson, 2010). Competency-based training typically requires that learners pass assessments where they must demonstrate that they can successfully apply these knowledge, skills, and attitudes in a practical context (Bawane & Spector, 2009; Diez, 1988; Kenkel & Peterson, 2010; McInerney & Buckeridge, 2011; Vorhees,
2001). Though this approach to training began with the trades, in the 1970’s and 1980’s, many professional fields such as healthcare, business, and education, began adopting competency-based approaches to training in an attempt to make new hires in these fields “job-ready” and thus more effective workers upon arrival (Bawane & Spector, 2009; Diez, 1988).
Using a competency-based approach to learning essential skills relies on giving learners opportunities to practice them in action or as repetitions of simulated events. Bers (2001) writes that a competency-based approach to learning is based on applied knowledge:
In brief, measuring competencies to assess learning and the extent to which students can do something is a process that takes place in settings that simulate the real world in which the task or set of tasks would be performed. Even if the physical setting is a classroom, the problem that students are asked to solve or the exercise that they are asked to perform is derived more or less from real situations. (Bers, 2001, p. 33)
In simpler terms, competencies are often described as, “what one can do with what one knows” (Demers et al., 2006). Competencies are also, "the building blocks for more complex professional roles and for the vision of training for multiple roles” (Kenkel & Peterson, 2010, p. 25)
Designing a competency-based training program starts with identifying competencies that are discipline appropriate. Because competency-based training has such a broad scope of application, the context of the occupation or performance domain
will determine the most realistic method for identifying competencies. Blank (1982) offers three options for how to do this:
…(1) go out and observe workers on the job for a length of time and record the tasks they actually perform. We could (2) meet with a group of workers from the occupation and, together, identify tasks performed. Or we could (3) compile a tentative listing of tasks from our own knowledge of the occupation and other sources and have workers from the occupation verify them. (p. 69)
The professional accreditors, associations, and institutions of higher education that have embraced this sort of undertaking, maintain that the most thorough or rigorous way to develop competencies includes using expert teams that include practitioners, scholars, and empirical analysis (Bers, 2001; Diez, 1988; Fletcher & Maher, 2013; Kenkel & Peterson, 2010). Though, this process is arduous and can take years to develop. At the same time, it is not always realistic or necessary. For example, in the 1970’s, the faculty at Alverno College embarked on a curriculum overhaul to adopt competency-based and ability-based approaches to teacher education for their undergraduates. What was intended to be a two-year project ended up lasting over a decade. In changing their teacher education programs, Alverno assembled an interdisciplinary team of faculty, including scholars and practitioners from the fields of nursing, psychology, management, and teaching to conduct empirical studies to evaluate what models were effective. At the same time, they were also undergoing a thorough analysis of the existing literature that helped them develop competencies appropriate for teacher education (Diez, 1988). After years of preparation and program evaluation, Diez (1988) asserts: "faculty were now
ready to move to professional programs in teacher education, that is, to develop a clear sense of what the beginning teacher should know and be able to do, and to teach and assess for those abilities" (p. 7).
Similar to the efforts of Alverno College, professional psychology’s NCSPP (National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology) spent two decades developing their competency-based education model to match the American Psychological Association's (APA) Commission on Accreditation and licensing standards. Kenkel and Peterson (2010) write:
The educational model developed by NCSPP uses a competency-based core curriculum, including seven competencies seen as essential for psychological practice. Each competency has major domains and consists of a set of KSAs [knowledge, skills, and awareness] that should be covered in the training program…the model stresses preparation for actual roles as practitioners in a variety of service delivery settings…(p. 7)
When working as a practitioner, technical skills are vital. Kenkel and Peterson (2010) argue for the potential value competency models have for preparing practitioners to be successful. They argue that explicit practitioner-based education is the preparation that is needed to enter the workforce, which will also help graduates be "educated as clearly as the realities can be known or the future unseen" (Diez, 1988, p. 35).
While the examples of Alverno and NCSPP involve competency based design at the institutional level, less sophisticated program design is possible. For example, table 7 shows Blank's (1982) criteria to consider when designing a small-scale training program.
Blank (1982) also suggests instructors should be trained in a similar way that they are giving the training−under a competency-based system that looks very similar to the one he/she will deliver (p. 326).
Table 7
Criteria for Designing a Competency-Based Training Program (Blank, 1982, p. 320–
321)
• What will students learn?
• Which students will be enrolled? • When will students learn each task? • How will students lean?
• If students have mastered tasks?
• Who will provide the instructor with the training, curriculum, administrative, and technical support needed?
Once competencies are decided upon, they need descriptive criteria to make it clear what needs to be performed. As it applies to sports coaching, McInerny and Burckeridge (2011) suggest that:
units of competency are made up of a number of elements of competency, each with specific performance criteria that are the standards by which coaches are measured. The training provided to coaches is structured to build the knowledge and skills of coaches to meet these standards. (p. 22)
Coach education, moving towards competency-based frameworks. There is a
frameworks for coach education are superior to traditional content or information-based models, like the CET frameworks of the past. Competency-based models have shown to help foster increased coaching confidence by focusing on skill development, problem solving in context, and learning by "doing" (Brachlow & Sullivan, 2006; Deek, Werthner, Paquette, & Culver, 2013). As such, Canada's National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) has adopted competency-based frameworks for training their coaches. When compared to the traditional theory-based models, these trainings have yielded statistically significant results regarding effectiveness at helping coaches develop coaching
confidence (Brachlow, & Sullivan, 2006; Coaching Association of Canada, 2003, 2012; Demers et al., 2006). Higher education has followed suit as Canada's Laval University has established a competency-based approach to the Baccalaureate in Sport Intervention (BIS) coach education program. This includes a 3-year course of study that blends course-based learning and structured internships (experiential learning) while also training students how to become reflective practitioners. The design of the BIS competencies provides that students are expected to progress through three learning pathways: teaching effectively, integrating all competencies (the internship), and managing a sport program. The reflective piece is then integrated to ensure that the students can intentionally transfer the theoretical skills from their coursework to their internship (Demers et. al., 2006).
In the United States, the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NCACE) has followed a similar path by developing coaching standards for youth coaches in the form of the National Standards for Sport Coaches (2006). This consists of eight competency
domains made up of 38 standards with corresponding benchmarks. Notably, standard three in Domain 1−Philosophy and Ethics−addresses competencies associated with teaching personal and social responsibility (NCACE, 2006). Standard three states: "Teach and reinforce responsible personal, social, and ethical behavior of all people involved in the sport program." (p. 8). While these have been influenced by Hellison's (2011) TPSR framework, unlike the Canadian's competency-based models, the NCACE handbook does not offer a training framework that teaches coaches how to embed these competencies into their practice. Rather, according to NCACE (2006), these standards act as a guide for coaching education program directors. They suggest: "Coaching education program directors should use these standards to construct curriculum for training previously underrepresented populations in the coaching industry..." (p. 3). Furthermore, unlike Canada, in the U.S., there are no laws requiring that youth coaches get training of any kind.
National governing bodies of sport are also adopting competency-based trainings. For example, World Rugby, formerly the International Rugby Board (IRB), has used a competency-based training model for all of their coaches. As such, their youth coaches must be able to demonstrate competencies with similar intentions to those of the youth development approach. Likewise, competency-based training was developed to provide clear and deliberate pathways toward accreditation as the sport works toward furthering the professionalization of its youth coaches. Even though the training program has not yet been evaluated, researchers used other empirically based frameworks to design the model. As an example, table 8 shows The IRB core competencies for a level three coach
and some of the 42 performance criteria that describe those competencies. This table serves as an example of what a competency rubric can look like that considers the criteria Blank (1982) suggests to create competencies as well as the descriptors of performance criteria that McInerny and Burckeridge's (2011) argue are necessary to help make it clear how competencies should be demonstrated.
Table 8
International Rugby Board - transcripts for accreditation (International Rugby Board,
2013)
Core Competencies Criteria:
The coach is able to:
A. Planning
2. Produce a season plan with defined outcomes integrating psychological, physical, tactical and technical aspects of performance
5. Involve players and other staff in the season planning process
8. Maintain a coaching diary
B. Management & Organization
10. Prepare detailed practice plans with the input of the coaching team where necessary
12. Ensure the coaching environment is safe 16. Monitor and review the performance of the coaching team
C. Observation & Analysis
19. Apply functional roles to analyze player performance
21. Identify critical incident within an episode of play and analyzes root cause
D. Technical & Tactical Application
25. Provide the players and team with practices and appropriate progressions to address weaknesses and reinforce strengths
32. Modify practice activities to achieve the game plan E. Communication &
Interaction
34. Provide feedback which helps players improve performance
37. Seek feedback from players
39. Demonstrate effective questioning skills 40. Demonstrate effective listening skills 42. Self-reflect honestly and accurately
Boston University Sport Psychology and Coaching
Get Ready operates within a TPSR framework, at Boston University, there is no coursework available to sport psychology, coaching, and counseling students that offers training in TPSR-specific teaching strategies. More generally, while the coaching master's students are offered a course on coaching methods, sport psychology and counseling students lack a requirement for any generalized training in pedagogy. For example, the degree requirements for the sport psychology track do not mandate classes about working in schools, teaching and learning methods, athletic coaching pedagogy, or physical education. Rather, sport psychology degree requirements include classes that focus on counseling theory and techniques, ethics, psychology assessment, sociology of sport, issues in sport psychology, and performance theory–to name a few. One relevant elective available is called “Teaching Human Movement” but is often overlooked by masters’ students because it does not count toward certification for the Association of Applied Sport Psychology (AASP)–the only board certification available for sport psychology professionals. This is relevant because the sport psychology students are placed in a working environment for which they receive limited training for teaching, learning, coaching, or pedagogy that they need at Get Ready, and elsewhere: especially if they plan to pursue a professional pathway in either youth development or coaching. Therefore, this project aims to fill this small, but potentially influential gap in these graduate students' professional training. In past iterations of the Get Ready program, no formal training has been offered.
Context of PD
The context of this study is comprised of a combination of four settings: The Get Ready program, Boston's English High School (an urban Title 1 school) where Get Ready takes place, a practicum supervision course, and seven professional development modules. Together, these four settings make up the Get Ready coaching internship and training mechanism for the participating graduate students. This internship was assigned to all six graduate students as a degree-fulfilling practicum requirement with this
placement based on several factors that included matching the site to their professional interests. Graduate students will be referred to as coaching interns or "coaches" throughout the rest of the study.
The first two settings−Get Ready and English High−make up the situated learning aspect of the context. Get Ready is a TPSR-based strength and conditioning program delivered twice a week as a first period class to students in grades 9–12. The population of the school represents a diverse demographic of students from several different
countries and ethnicities. Get Ready serves those that identify as African, African American, Latin American, and Caribbean. Several of the youth served have spoken Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Cape Verdean Creole as a first language. The aim of Get Ready is to be able to teach transferable life skills to participating youth through the physical activity of strength and conditioning training. The six coaching interns at the program help facilitate psychomotor and psychosocial development for the enrolled youth. Moreover, for several of these intern coaches, this was their first experience working with urban youth of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and language.
The third and fourth settings represent the off-site internship supervision and training mechanisms at Boston University. These include a practicum course and professional development training developed specifically for this program and for this study. The practicum course fulfilled the university's supervision requirement, supported the situated learning experience, and met once every week. The PD includes seven professional development modules that were delivered as supplemental trainings designed specifically for this program and met roughly once a month over the course of the eight-month academic year. These PD modules were not degree requirements, were voluntary, and were both designed and facilitated by the researcher.
Get Ready, A TPSR-Based Youth Development Program
Get Ready provides youth with opportunities to experience and learn strength and conditioning training. However, the deeper objective of the program is to deliver a values-based curriculum that teaches youth transferable life skills. Life skills are defined by Danish (2002) as those that are physical, behavioral, or cognitive and that help people survive in the environments in which they live. They may be transferable to other life domains that are required by the demands and challenges of everyday life (Danish, 2002; Papacharisis, Goudas, & Theodorakis, 2005).
Get Ready utilizes TPSR as a framework to work with youth. Don Hellison’s (2011) model for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity (TPSR). TPSR was developed specifically for working with underserved youth and is also considered an effective model. The Hellison (2011) framework offers youth opportunities to make choices, to positively engage with adults, to lead and help each
other, and to express their opinions. This values-based curriculum emphasizes self- reflection and caring for others, which is fundamental to building social competency.
The socially based interventions of TPSR have “Vygotskian” foundations. Because Hellison’s design is based on reciprocation of a helping group dynamic, both from adults and among peers, the concept of engaging the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is continually accessed. The curriculum promotes positive social interactions and relationship building with both peers and adults. Participation in the physical activity requires attention to communication, empathy, and caring for others. Furthermore, every session ends with a reflection talk that aims to give each participant the opportunity to develop his or her voice within the group while also supporting her or his peers.
Hellison (2011) maintains that practicing these kinds of dispositions can promote a sense of autonomy that often helps youth deal with stressful social interactions. This is relevant to a broad range of youth, and can be particularly salient for those from high- needs backgrounds who often cope with turbulent changes associated with having limited resources. These include: poverty, witnessing neighborhood violence, unstable home lives, moving often, homelessness, changing schools, and for many immigrant groups learning a new language. As such, there exists tremendous potential for these talks to offer youth support, affirmation, understanding, and validation that is deeply meaningful.
The Hellison (2011) approach focuses on having students practice and reflect on how they engage in five “responsibilities.” These include: respect, effort, self-direction (referred to as “self-coaching” at Get Ready), helping others (referred to as “coaching” at Get Ready), and transfer−using these skills in other domains of life. TPSR programs aim
to eventually pass off the leadership of the activities, allowing the participating youth to facilitate them. One way the program is perceived to be a success is when the adult leadership and coaches are no longer needed, and the adolescents choose to run the program autonomously. Get Ready attempts to do this by fostering connectedness and a caring climate through various forms of mentoring and leadership opportunities (Bernat & Resnick, 2006).
The activity. The format of the Get Ready program includes 50 minutes of
physical activity, concluding with 10 minutes of reflection time that includes both
reflective writing and reflective talking. The program begins with a dynamic warm-up at 7:25 am. This lasts 13 minutes and includes “relational” time where the coaches engage the students in informal discussions to build rapport. Coaches also use relational time to ask students how they have practiced the life skills they have learned at Get Ready since their last session.
After the warm-up, students collect binders with their workout cards (which can be seen in Appendix A) to complete a checklist of program-oriented skills they engaged in since the last class. This is called the “skillz bank.” Then they listen to a quick mini- lesson called the “skills awareness talk.” The skills awareness talk (mini-lesson) is