Systematic Observation of Coaching Behaviours
Introduction
Within this report, analytical software has been used in order to systematically observe coach behaviours of a selected coach. Using this information there has been a review of their coaching behaviours in line with research in order to understand why they may have used particular coaching behaviours and then further recommendations have been included for future development of the coach.
Session plan design
Coaching Behaviours
Coaching behaviours can create different outcomes for those that use them with their players and have an understanding what coach behaviours are effective with different levels of players. Smith, Smoll & Curtis (1978) discovered youth basketball and baseball coaches used similar behaviours (Praise, encouragement and Technical instruction) with their players showing a correlation in behaviours. In contrast, research completed by Lacy & Darst (1985) found that High School basketball coaches used mostly technical instruction with their players. Although there are some similarities this suggests that coaching behaviours can differ with the participants the coach is working with. Measuring and understanding what coaching behaviours a coach uses could be important in linking this to how successful a coach ultimately is. Ensuring that the appropriate coaching behaviours are used is also important in creating a positive learning environment (Rhind & Jowett, 2010) where development can take place. The use of positive behaviours such as praise and encouragement were also used by successful basketball coach John Wooden who never used physical or negative punishments as a way of interacting with his players (Tharp and Gallimore, 1976). This highlights the importance of understanding what coaching behaviours produce what outcome and response from your players or athletes.
DartFish
DartFish is a performance analysis software that allows you to import footage from a session or game and identify key actions or behaviours by tagging particular events or actions. This can then be quantified into statistics which can be used for reflections and inform future practice. This can be used by coaches in two ways: firstly, if they are reviewing the performance of their participants allowing them to produce statistics, clips of the game and even involve diagrams and drawings onto the video clips. This could be useful to share with participants in order to aid understanding and learning but also help to inform practice going forward. Secondly, coaches can also use DartFish as a self-reflective tool by tagging or marking key behaviours within their imported session. This then produces statistics around the frequency of the behaviours exhibited. This gives the coaches objective information around what behaviours they are exhibiting within their session and they can then individually reflect on how effective the behaviours were and inform future practice.
Methodology
The coach selected was filmed completing a 10-minute session of their choice and was wearing a microphoned up in order to help with verbal interactions. The filming focused on the coach and therefore followed them around not focusing on the session as a whole, this allowed the ‘tagging’ process to be more accurate. Once the recording had been completed the footage was imported into DartFish where the tagging could be completed. Using the same 12 behaviours as Bloom, Crumpton & Anderson (1999) tagging panels were created in order for the behaviour to be marked once it had been exhibited. The tagging of each behaviour was done using the definitions defined by Bloom et al., (1999) and this was completed more than once in order to produce the most accurate results possible. The statistics where then produced and presented. In order to improve the reliability of this process the tagging could have been completed by more than one researcher in order to find a mean result for the behaviours. These results can be used by the coach in order to highlight objectively what coaching behaviours are being used.
Results
General instruction was used most frequently by the coach. General instruction could consist of statements which don’t contain any technical or tactical information like explaining a session or assisting a player with the session (Bloom et al., 1999). This would suggest that the coach needed to explain and guide the players a lot with the session rather than providing information around their session outcome. This could have been as a result of a lack of detail and clarity in the explanation at the beginning of the session therefore further information was needed by the older group of players the coach was working with.
The coach used high amounts of praise, mostly praising intent of trying to retain possession in the small area. This could be seen as a strength of the coach’s behaviours as they are trying to keep all the players involved and motivated despite their abilities. Both tactical and technical instructions were used in small amounts within the session, showing he intervened with some of the players however this could have been higher to ensure the session outcome was met.
Discussion
The coach has used general instruction most frequently which would suggest there may have been some clarification needed around the session by the participants. General instruction is a statement which doesn’t include any technical or tactical detail (Bloom et al., 1999). Therefore, this outcome suggests that the coach was using this form of instruction to guide and inform the participants what was happening within the session. Both Tactical and technical instructions were both low and the latter being the lowest. However, the latter of the two being lower suggests the coach was using the correct amount of information as the session objective that was set could be considered more of a tactical session outcome. This suggests that the coach was using the correct coach behaviour in giving tactical knowledge to meet the session objective set. The use of tactical information could also have been as a result of the age and experience of the players. The coach only twice used technical information to encourage dribbling and protecting the ball as a method of retaining possession which was done with individuals who could have been highlighted as strugglers within the session.
Interestingly the coach used very little negative coaching behaviours including no scolding towards players. The coach used a very positive coaching behaviour and manner to conduct their session by praising strengths and things that participants did well rather than focusing and highlighting things that didn’t go well or misbehaving. If the coach intervened with individuals (which they did more than stop the session as a whole) they would use praise to start of a question i.e. ‘good attempt although what else…’ rather than scolding the player for something they did wrong. This could be seen as a strength by the coach as they are creating a positive learning environment where players are trying and persisting at new skills (Curran, Hall & Jowett, 2015). The only time where the coach used a negative behaviour was to hustle the group and encourage them to come in quicker in order to make an intervention shorter. The coach may have used this behaviour as they may have realised that they had spent too long at the beginning explaining and organising and that he quickly wanted to intervene and so they applied the pressure on the participants to come in quickly to do this.
Future practice
To inform future practice the coach could improve two areas in particular. Firstly, they could look to use more concise and clear general instructions in order to explain the session and what is expected. They could do this by using a visual representation like a whiteboard to explain the dimensions and what is going to happen. They could have also modelled the session to group so that they could see a physical representation of the session especially as they were challenged to set up their own game. This would have helped to create a clearer picture for the participants meaning less interactions would be needed to explain and guide the group.
Furthermore, the coach should look to include more tactical information within the session especially as the session objective was based around a tactical idea. The coach could have done this by giving more challenges to the players in order to bring out the decision of retaining possession in tight areas. An example of this is by setting the defender the challenge of winning the ball back within 5 passes. This would have increased the intensity and therefore the challenge for the players in possession allowing for more opportunities to coach the in possession team. By creating more situations to apply tactical information this would have brought out the session objective more in order to develop the understanding of the group more.
Conclusion
To summarise, the research has highlighted a number of varying coach behaviours using Dartfish (an analytical tool) in order to inform the future practice of the coach by reviewing the implications of their behaviours and comparing this against their session objective. The research found a reduced amount of tactical instruction which impacted the effectiveness of developing the overall session objective.
References:
Bloom, G, Crumpton, R & Anderson, J (1999) A systematic observation study of the teaching behaviours of an expert Basketball coach. The Sports Psychologist, 13, 157-170.
Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Hall, H.K., & Jowett, G. E. (2015) Relationships between the coach-created motivational climate and athlete engagement in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, pp. 193-198.
Lacy, A.C., & Darst, P.W. (1985). Systematic observation of behaviours of winning high school head football coaches. Journal of teaching in physical education, 4, 256-270.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 9, 75-78.
Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2010). Relationship maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete relationship: The development of the COMPASS model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 106–121.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B (1978). Coaching behaviours in little league baseball. In F.L Smoll and R.E. Smith (Eds.) Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp.173-201) Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
My Toolkit 