Formal vs. Non-Formal Coach Education

“An exemplary coach and better than many school coaches that I’ve come across.”

That was my reply to colleagues who asked about the lesson observation I did for Coach Tim Kwo Liang while he was coaching at Kranji Secondary School last week. My colleagues and I are developing a competency assessment, and Coach Tim had kindly agreed to allow us to use him as a “test subject”.

Coach Tim has been a table tennis coach for more than 20 years. Although he has the relevant technical certifications for the sport, he has not gone through the formal education pathway (classroom lessons followed by a written test) to earn his theory accreditation. Despite that, I found his lesson to be highly organized and engaging (although this was not reflected by his lesson plan). He has a positive approach and made time to personally coach and play against every single one of the 21 students present. He provided quick demos and specific feedback, and nippily modify the drills according to the ability of his students.

The experience with Coach Tim reignited an internal debate that I’ve been having regarding Formal vs Non-Formal coach education. Personally, I’m biased against formal coach education even though both forms of education has helped me develop both as a sport and psychology coach. I feel that coaches learn best when they are coaching, through their own research, and mentorship (even discussions in forums). Hence, over the next few days, I went through some studies (see references at the foot) that have been published on this topic to test against my own bias.

Here are some common findings from these Formal vs. Non-formal studies:

Formal education may lack context, meaning, and individualization is limited. Since assessment drives learning, coaches may end up learning how to pass the assessment rather than how to coach.
Less formal opportunities such as workshops, mentoring, peer discussions and even reading are found to be more meaningful and contextualized. Some findings have shown that coaches also learned without the direct guidance of others during their day-to-day coaching activities.
In a Canadian study, it was found that unguided and self-directed learning provided the largest contribution to youth ice hockey coach development.
Less formal education may lack quality control, direction, feedback, and innovation.
Coaches may have difficulties accessing non-formal opportunities due to the competitive nature of sport at all levels, i.e., some coaches who are deemed as competitors or outliers may be excluded from participating in certain workshops or sharing.
Formal education (e.g., tertiary education) has a better capacity to lead to the development of critical thinking skills, i.e. reflection. Critical self-reflection is vital to continued success for coaches. (i.e., I’m sure we all know of “experienced coaches” who continue to stick to the same old coaching practices despite having coached for decades).

Objectively speaking, both formal and non-formal forms of education should be valued, and there shouldn’t be a dichotomy between the two. However, since the pervasive perception here is that formal education’s better and highly educated (i.e., having a degree in sport science or PE) persons probably make the best coaches, more should be done to recognize and respect the value of non-formal coaching. Any potential disadvantages of non-formal coaching can be rectified by adding elements of structure, reflection, and evaluation. We also need to shift from the traditional classroom “download” style of formal coach education, to one that is more facilitated and applied.

p.s. I reckon this fixation on formal education is not exclusive to sport coaching. Singaporeans and employers (especially the civil service) on a whole still buy into the notion that you need to have a degree in order to be qualified to do a job!

Coach Hansen

References:

Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M. and Jones, R. L., Coach Education and Continuing Professional Development: Experience and Learning to Coach, Quest, 2003, 55, 215-230.

Werthner, P. and Trudel, P., A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to Coach, The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 196-210.

Wright, T., Trudel, P. and Culver, D., Learning How to Coach: The Different Learning Situations Reported by Youth Ice Hockey Coaches, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2007, 12, 127-144.

Rynne et al., High Performance Sport Coaching: Institutes of Sport as Sites for Learning

Bpàt-jù-ban

The Thai word bpàt-jù-ban means ‘Present’ or ‘Now’. I learnt this from the participants during the recent ‘IPC Intro to Para Coaching Course’ in Korat, Thailand.

IPC Korat — International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Intro to Para-Coaching Course at Korat, Thailand

While I was sharing with the Thai coaches why it was important for an athlete to refocus on the process goals whenever she “time traveled” to outcome goals or past mistakes. One of the coaches shared (through a translator) that this was similar to bpàt-jù-ban – a Buddhist notion familiar to the Thais about not dwelling on the past nor dream of the future, but to be in the present/ bpàt-jù-ban.

Bajuoan small — The word under Process is bpàt-jù-ban

I got excited when I learnt of this as my main purpose for coaching mental skills has always been to help athletes see the relevance of these skills not only in sport, but in life.

So What Does it mean to be Present or Process Focused?

I would explain it as simply keeping things simple, and the best way to keep things simple is to be in the present – to be in the here and now by focusing on the process instead of the outcome. Sounds simple? Well, it’s simple but definitely not easy. In fact, it is even counter-intuitive!

When you relate this to training and goals…It simply means to shift away from your outcome goal (e.g., to move and react faster during games) to focusing on the training process (e.g., adding 10 minutes of quick feet and reaction drills before every practice session). Athletes who have the ability to let go of their “time” or outcome goals are usually the ones who achieve them.

If you think about it, success really depends on how effective we are in accomplishing a series of practice goals isn’t it? This requires consistent energy and focus and being constantly distracted by worries about not being able to achieve your end goal isn’t going to help.

What it means for skill development and competition…is to focus on the performance and mental cues (e.g., driving your legs, eyes on the ball, running into passing lanes) instead of the outcome (e.g., completing the practice session or winning the game).

You have probably experienced similar thoughts during competition – “I have to score in this game!” or “I’m two strokes down, this drive needs to be perfect.” Such thoughts often make you feel tensed or anxious. If you are a striker, you would probably be more hesitant to shoot, and if you are the golfer, you’d probably “over muscle” your swing.

This isn’t Just About Sport, its Life…

Observe these two former para-athletes who attended the IPC Intro to Para-Coaching Course below.

Would they be able to roll the ball if they focused on what they did NOT have?

When we learn how to focus on the process instead of the outcome, we are also learning one of the most common thinking routine associated with Resilience (i.e., the capacity to overcome challenges) – “Focus on what you CAN control instead of what you CAN’T…” What that means is that you can’t directly control the outcome, but you can give yourself the highest probability of success by focusing on the 50% that you can control, and use a 100% of this 50%!

So how can this approach or mindset help us to overcome challenges in our careers, relationships or any pursuits? As always, I would be delighted to hear from you!

Coach Hansen

Changing the Way We Teach Mindset (and the Mindset of how we teach…)

By now, many athletes are familiar with Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset.

I had a psychology coaching session with a group of young soccer players from 2Touch Soccer last night. When asked what they had learnt in school regarding the Growth and Fixed Mindset, the familiar rhetoric that one mindset is “bad” while the other is “good” surfaced. When probed further, the boys weren’t really sure why the Fixed Mindset was bad, or how to apply the Growth Mindset in order to learn more effectively.

From what I gathered, most Mindset lessons consist of “Information download” where the learner learns about the two different mindsets, i.e., an athlete with the Fixed Mindset is more concerned about looking good rather vs a Growth Mindset who is more inclined towards effort and learning. The learner is often tested for his understanding of the topic through some written test or quiz.

Is this the most effective way to teach Mindset? So what if they know how an athlete with the Growth Mindset thinks? So what if they have been tested? Does it really help them become better athletes?

What’s the value in having the knowledge when you don’t know how to apply it (especially in Sport!)?

Wouldn’t it be more effective if these athletes physically and emotionally experienced how the growth mindset actually helps them learn more effectively?

Learning by Doing

I got the boys to learn and perform a rope-skipping skill known as the 360 . It was quite a challenging task since most of them have not skipped for a long time and none of them have learnt any rope skipping skills beyond the basic bounce.

2TouchMindset

The session was facilitated through a series of practice and reflection. The boys were able to observe how their thoughts changed from those associated with the Fixed Mindset (when they were first asked to perform the task) to those associated with the Growth Mindset as they began to experience more success (see picture above). Every one of them managed to perform the 360 in the end! The boys are leaving next week to practice with a soccer club in Europe, and they also discussed about how they could apply the same thinking skills to overcome challenges and to learn more effectively while they were there.

Now, let me know what you think about this…if i were to give the boys a written test to assess if they were able to remember the definitions or explain the constructs associated with the Growth Mindset, and they failed the test (which they most likely would!), does that mean that the lesson was any less effective and that little learning has taken place?

While we are at it, let’s also think about Coach Education and how coaches learn. Do we learn best by doing and coaching, or by sitting through lectures and being tested through written examinations?

A coach with a long list of certifications vs. one who spends most of his time actually coaching and learning from his peers…which do you reckon is the better coach?

Coach Hansen