Although use of the CBAS was suggested as a method for this study, it was decided that it would not be the most effective tool for the job as according to Smith, Smoll and Hunt, (1977), (cited in Smith, Smoll and Hunt, 1996) “in order to be able to record appropriate data, observers and assessors must undertake a four-week intensive training program developed by Smith and Smoll…”
Also, according to Smith, Smoll and Curtis, (1979), (cited in Smith, Smoll and Hunt, 1996) “…prior to observation the assessors must have demonstrated expertise in the use of the CBAS before being permitted to evaluate performance.”
As the experimenter had no previous experience of using the CBAS, and received no training on how to use it appropriately it was deemed better to use an alternative method of observation. It was therefore decided, for the purpose of this study to simply observe and make notes of the coach's behaviours during each session. The information gathered through observation and note-taking during each session was then analysed and links made between examples of behaviours and theory. The key areas that arose through observation were coaching style, communication and feedback.
The most obvious observation made regarding coaching style was that it appeared to vary depending on the group of players being coached. "Coaching style can be defined as a descriptive categorization of the individual's aggregated coaching behaviours." (Cross and Lyle, 1999) According to Martens, (1997) there are three coaching styles: the command style (autocratic), the submissive style, and the cooperative style (democratic). The command style (autocratic) places the coach as the decision-maker and assumes the underlying approach that because the coach has knowledge and experience, it is his or her role to tell the athlete what to do. The athlete’s role is to listen, to absorb, and to do as they are told. A submissive style is one where the coach has very little input whatsoever and allows the athletes to do more or less what they want. The cooperative style (democratic) places a lot more responsibility on the athletes. The coach still maintains the responsibility to provide leadership and guidance toward achieving the objectives set out, but allows the athlete to question and make decisions themselves.
During sessions with the mini-hockey players the coach was observed to demonstrate a more autocratic leadership style, displaying behaviours that showed the coach to be at the centre of decision making and where communication was more directive rather than interactive. For example the children were given instructions and expected to carry them out, without really reasoning their actions. However, at both club-level and international level the coach relied more on input from the players. The style that tended to be adopted at these training sessions appeared more democratic, the players had an active involvement with decision making and it was a more interactive communication process. For example the players were included in discussions regarding game-play strategies, rather than merely being told what to do.
It was also noted that there were differences in communication and feedback that the coach used during the different sessions. When coaching mini-hockey, communication tended to be more verbal, as in the coach instructing the children, and visual in the form of demonstrating the skill. The verbal information consisted mostly of just instructional information and very little questioning of the children’s understanding of the drill or the purpose of doing such a drill. Feedback during those sessions tended to be more negative, the coach pointed out mistakes that the children made while executing the drills and then attempted to correct the mistakes, rather than focussing on what the players were doing right.
During sessions with the club-level and international players communication tended again to be verbal, but often the coach would use pictures and diagrams to demonstrate what they wanted the players to do. Verbal information at this level tended to be a lot less instructional and more questioning in order to stimulate the players to think for themselves and understand the purpose of doing a drill, rather than merely following an instruction. Demonstrations were performed whereby the coach selected a few players, explained to them what they had to do and walked through the drill with them. Those selected players would then demonstrate the drill to the rest of the squad, first walking through it to allow the coach to emphasize key points and then at match speed to demonstrate the drill fully in silence. After all the players had performed the drill the coach would ask them how they felt it went. This gave the players the opportunity to reflect on their own performance, allowing them to focus on their intrinsic feedback, making them more aware of how they felt when performing skills. It also provided the coach with feedback on the drill and after discussion with the players any suggestions to change, or adapt the drill were made and implemented. This process was on-going and could be repeated until the players and the coach were satisfied with the outcome of the drill.
Not all coaches operate in the same way, nor do they have the same beliefs about coaching or treat their athletes in the same way. This should be seen as a difference in the ‘how’ of coaching, rather than the ‘what’. According to Lyle, (Cross and Lyle, 1999):
The differences that are present in coaching practice allow for the individuality of the coach, the preferences of performers and the demands of different organisational settings. On the other hand, the coach’s behaviour will often reflect more deep-seated values… (p25)
Lyle goes on to explain this by saying that there is no one correct method of coaching, rather it depends on the individual coach, and the individual circumstances that determine the ‘how’ of the coaching practice and in turn therefore the coaching style.
In terms of the coach’s behaviours reflecting their underlying values, Lyle (Cross and Lyle, 1999) talks about a ‘humanistic approach’ to coaching. Lyle, (Cross and Lyle, 1999) explains a humanistic approach to coaching as:
...a particular set of beliefs and values that stresses the centrality of the individual athlete’s personal growth and development through an active engagement in the coaching experience. (p.37)
Lyle suggests that the humanistic approach to coaching views the sporting context and the athlete’s training and performance as a vehicle through which the athlete can be influenced to develop and grow. (Cross and Lyle, 1999) However, as with coaching practice and coaching style, individual philosophies can be defended and justified from a number of perspectives and there is not necessarily one right philosophy.
Through the observations made with the hockey coach it can be seen that coaching practice is a dynamic and complex process, one that is reactive in nature. As a coach one must remain adaptable and flexible, able to meet the needs of the participants and the situation. In order to achieve this, a coach may assume a number of different coaching styles, communication methods and in general alter their coaching behaviours, although their coaching philosophy may not change.
References
Cushion, C. (2004). Systematic Observation. Unpublished lecture notes. Brunel University West London.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., and Hunt, E. (1996). Coaching Behavioural Assessment System (CBAS). . Internet source produced by Smith, R.E. At University of Washington, USA. [Electronically accessed 22nd November 2004.]
Cross, N., and Lyle, J. (Eds.) (1999). The Coaching Process: Principles and Practice for Sport. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching. (2nd Ed). Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.
