Evaluation, Reflection and New Comprehension

Evaluation, reflection and new comprehension of knowledge, are presented as three consecutive stages in the Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action.

Evaluation looks at the in-learning-evaluation with “checking for understanding” or the lack of it during lessons. It also looks at the post-learning-evaluation with “more formal testing and evaluation that teachers do to provide feedback and grades”. To be able to conduct a learning check one needs to comprehend both the “material to be taught and the process of learning itself”. Pedagogical

content knowledge is very important here (Shulman, 1987, pp. 18-19) as in- teaching evaluation and post-teaching evaluation reflect on the pedagogue’s performance, the material presented, and the teaching styles employed. For Shulman (1987, p. 19), reflection follows evaluation. This is when the teacher gathers the information evaluated before and “reconstructs, re-enacts, and/or recaptures the events, the emotions, and the accomplishments”.

Shulman seems to distinguish between evaluation and reflection with the former being an assessment of teaching and learning, while the latter being the

comparison of that achievement in comparison to the pre-set outcomes. As Shulman (1987) says this can be done alone or with the assistance of others, using recording devices or referring only to memory.

It is important at this stage to understand that the act of reflection is not only dependent on one’s dispositions, or merely on the strategies applied, but also on ‘analytical knowledge’ (Shulman, 1987, p. 19), which is not easily acquired.

The Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action starts and ends with comprehension. Generating a new comprehension is possible by reasoning about the process itself. Through this reasoning, the teacher “achieves new comprehension” of the purpose, the subject, the students and the pedagogical process (Shulman, 1987, p. 19).

2.6.2 A Theory of Instruction

Instruction is defined as “an effort to assist or to shape growth” (Bruner, 1966, p. 1). A Theory of Instruction (TI) is, therefore, a theory that focuses on how

different means assist growth and development (Bruner, 1963). “A theory of

instruction is about 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).

I assume that for instruction to be effective it needs to “occur within a coherent framework known to the teacher and communicated to the students” (Metzler, 2011, p. 1). Henceforth, A TI can be valuable in informing the Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP with this necessary framework. A TIshall shed light on how CPP can help in instructing athletes and provide them with a “guide to what to do in order to achieve certain objectives” (Bruner, 1963, p. 524).

In trying to shed further understanding in the Coaches’ Process of

Knowledge Generation for CPP, I will strive to recognise that coaches commute

“from the status of a learner to that of teacher” (Shulman, 1987, pp. 12-13). The Coaches’ Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP needs to provide a

learning process with a purpose. With the purpose being coaching instructions, based on one’s own philosophy and the needs of the team, the Coaches’

Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP provides the learning coach with the

opportunity to engage in a learning process which is intrinsically motivated, and which has a tangible direction.

This shall offer an alternative to coaching education which is normally influenced by the courses’ objectives, which in turn are not set by the learning coaches, but by the coaching educators. Furthermore, from my experience, it looks to me that it normally requires contemporary knowledge rather than skills for coaches to become ongoing learners.

A TI is prescriptive; it is about “how what one wishes to teach can best

be learned” (Bruner, 1972, p. 40). It prescribes optimal outcomes, sets normative targets, directs instruction and curriculum design (Bruner, 1963). Taking that players are active learners who can generate their own learning (Williams & Hodges, 2005) and create meaning from their own experience (Ertmer, Newby, 2013), when taking coaching instructions in consideration, it is important for coaches to understand how learners take information and break coaching instructions down into pieces that they can bite into (Bruner, 1963, 1966), rather than having that knowledge already divided into small pieces in a one-size-fits-all approach.

TI can guide soccer coaching practice in how to explicitly organise its overt and covert knowledge. Its focus on preparing knowledge for ‘instruction’

makes it ideal to underpin the Process of Knowledge Generation for CPP, which is after the systematic understanding of the process coaches go through when preparing implicit or explicit, existing or newly generated knowledge, for

coaching instruction. It is important to have the conceptualisation developed in this study, grounded in a TI, as ultimately instruction, on the soccer pitch, is a main purpose of the coaching process.

Bruner (1963, 1966) divides the TI into four aspects; predisposition, optimal structures of knowledge, optimal sequence, and consequence. Table 4.2 includes a visual representation of a TI as explained by Bruner (1963). It offers a practical guide to the process of passing on knowledge (Bruner, 1963, 1966). This visual representation is the result of the analysis process but will be used as a point of reference to assist in the readers’ understanding of A Theory

of Instruction.