Welcome
to the coaching and sports section of PELinks4U. As editorial team
members, we will provide you different articles and themes in this
month's issue.
Article one discusses Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) in teaching
and coaching sport skills. CAI and technology is becoming an important
part of teaching and coaching in many sports skills. We believe
the 21st Century is a technology oriented period, and many coaches
and teachers have started to implement technology as a tool in their
careers.
Article two provides several opinions about one of the most popular
questions in coaching sports, "Does A Good Player Means A Good
Coach?" We know that everybody has different perspectives on
this question.
Article three gives us a theoretical framework on leadership and
social power in coaching and teaching sports. So this article is
very well focused on research and the theory part of this issue.
And finally, article four focuses on the role of power in coaching
sports.
We hope you will like this month’s coaching and sports section,
and we wish you a happy and healthy spring. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have any questions or suggestions.
Warm Regards from the Republic of Türkiye.
Ferman Konukman
Coaching & Sports Section Editors
|
Computer
Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Teaching & Coaching Sport Skills
Dr. Ferman Konukman,
Abant Izzet Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department
of Physical Education Teacher Education, Bolu, TURKEY. ferman@vt.edu
Bülent Aÿbuga
M. Sc., Texas A & M University, Department of Health & Kinesiology
Ph.D. Student, College Station, TX. bakboga@yahoo.com
Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) has
been used for more than five decades for educational purposes. Although
the use of computers is not new, CAI is still a popular and common
terminology in today’s institutions and schooling process.
CAI provides an instructional interaction between the learner and
the computer in a variety of contents with, or without, the assistance
of a teacher. (Lockard, Abrams, & Many, 1997).
In this process, CAI helps the learner(s)
by presenting material and acting as a tutor. CAI uses the computer
to facilitate and improve student learning. Students interact with
computers at their own pace, and the role of the teacher becomes
a facilitator or coach. CAI programs direct the learner’s
attention to different sections in a learning sequence without the
direct assistance of a teacher (Petrakis, 2000).
Although a wide variety of microcomputers and CAI software are
available in the market, the ideas driving the instructional tasks
in CAI programs are not new. Some of the features of CAI have originated
from the learning theories of B.F. Skinner and E. L. Thorndike.
The effect of these psychologist's research on stimulus-response
relationship, negative and positive reinforcement, and the role
of immediate feedback in a teaching and learning environment, has
promoted the development of programmed instruction (Volker, 1987).
Programmed instruction helps the teachers/coaches to organize lessons
in a linear, or branching model, that allows sequential steps and
provides immediate feedback during the learning process. This type
of programmed instruction is followed exactly in the majority of
CAI programs.
Recently, information technology has been integrated into sports
in many ways, such as CD-ROMs, interactive videodiscs, and microcomputers
with hypermedia/multimedia programs. Computer assisted instruction
is just one of these technological applications.
Although CAI has been used for more than 50 years, there is limited
research on the effectiveness of CAI. In fact, several research
studies have found no effects of CAI on certain subject matters.
Recently, many physical education teachers are becoming familiar
with the use of microcomputers in K-12 physical education classes.
Computer applications are used by physical education teachers in
data management for record keeping, planning, and communication
(Lambdin, 1997). Computers have been used to help 10th grade students
to analyze their tennis strokes using biomechanical principles via
Measurement in Motion software (1994). In addition, students receive
information about health-related fitness by interacting with the
MacHealth-Related Fitness/Portfolio (Mohnsen, 1997).
However, there is limited research evidence about the effectiveness
of CAI on K-12 physical education classes. Research in K-12 physical
education shows that CAI has produced positive results in female
junior high school students’ psychomotor volleyball skills
(Wilkinson et al., 1999) and 12-year old student's badminton knowledge
(Skinsley & Brodie, 1990), and had no significant effect on
teaching tennis rules, scoring, and terminology to fifth grade students
(Alvarez-Ponns, 1992).
Research completed in basic instruction programs at the college
level does not support the effects of CAI on bowling knowledge (Steffen
& Hansen, 1987) and tennis knowledge and rules (Kerns, 1989).
Only one study has found results that support CAI on cognitive and
psychomotor skills in tennis (Konukman, et al., 2001).
The majority of the research on CAI has been conducted in PETE
and athletic training programs. Research in PETE programs has been
in the field of biomechanics, kinesiology, and athletic training
courses. Some of these studies have found that CAI has a positive
effect on both undergraduate athletic training courses (Buxton et
al., 1995; Chen et al., 1995). In addition, two research studies
found no significant effect of CAI on undergraduate physical education
majors’ knowledge in biomechanics courses (Boysen & Francis,
1982; McPerson & Guthrie, 1991).
On the contrary, research on the effects of CAI in physical education
method courses is limited, and until now there have only been two
studies that produced results that do not support CAI as an effective
instructional method. McKethan et al., (2000) conducted a study
to determine the effects of a multimedia computer program on preservice
elementary education classroom teachers’ knowledge of cognitive
components of movement skills, such as overhand throw, catch, and
kick. Researchers used critical components of the cues to assess
subjects’ knowledge. Results indicated that there were no
significant differences on specific cue descriptions.
In another study, McKethan et al., (2001) replicated the same study
on physical education major's knowledge of cognitive components
of movement skills. However, the study found no significant effects
of CAI. Consequently, similar to other subject matters, research
in K-12 physical education and PETE has produced different and inconsistent
results related to CAI as an instructional strategy.
Today, a wide variety of CAI software is available in different
subject matters, from preschool to adult learning. It is very interesting,
that despite the common usage of CAI, there is still an ongoing
discussion in the literature and learning environments about the
effectiveness of CAI.
Several studies have recognized the following advantages of CAI
(Kulik et al., 1980; Lockard, Abrams & Many 1997; Petrakis,
2000; Steffen, 1985).
 |
Performance feedback
is immediate, and based on the number of correct or incorrect
responses. |
|
Lessons are individualized. |
|
The environment is paced,
and controlled by the learner. |
|
The learner has the opportunity to back track for
review. |
|
The CAI program maintains performance records for
assessment and evaluation. |
|
The computer provides a useful environment for
simulations. |
|
CAI is time effective for instructional use in
the classroom. |
The graphics, sounds, and color offered by CAI offer a user-friendly
environment. On the other hand, these studies also reported the
following disadvantages of CAI.
|
Students
using CAI are isolated from peers and the school environment. |
|
CAI learning is individualized,
rather than cooperative. |
|
The instruction is offered
in a dehumanization manner. |
|
Teachers take on passive
roles, and become facilitators rather than instructors. |
|
Technical malfunctions
can distract students easily. |
From the above lists, the advantages of CAI, outweighing the disadvantages
are easily recognized. Therefore, these studies show that CAI is
a feasible option for learning in teaching, and coaching, sport
skills. CAI can not take the place of physical activity, but could
be a part of it in terms of cognitive development and skill learning.
In conclusion, the 21st century will be an information age, and
computers will be an essential part of the education system in all
grades and ages. Physical education teacher education programs,
physical education lessons in K-12 education, and coaching education
programs are not exceptions. Computers and instructional technology
should be an integral part of PETE, K-12 physical education, and
coaching without sacrificing the physical activity.
References
Here are good examples of technology web sites that may help you
in teaching coaching sport skills.
www.pesoftware.com/
www.pesoftware.com/Technews/news.html |
| If you have
ideas, comments, letters to share, or questions about particular
topics, please email one of the following Coaching Section Editors:
|
|
|
 |
| In
your opinion, what makes a good coach? Post your answers
in the forum. |
|
| Does A Good Player
Means A Good Coach?
Bülent Ağbuga M. Sc., Texas A
& M University, Department of Health & Kinesiology Ph.D.
Student, College Station, TX - bakboga@yahoo.com
Dr. Ferman Konukman, Abant Izzet Baysal
University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Physical Education
Teacher Education, Bolu, TURKEY - ferman@vt.edu
Well-known is the fact that a team's success does not just depend
upon the skills of its athletes, although skilled athletes are certainly
a key factor to success. There are some common characteristics shared
by coaches who direct successful teams, but these characteristics
are not well known and are speculative for people who are not professionally
interested in the science of coaching and sports.
For years we have been experienced as a coach in both high school
and elementary school, and we have been asked about coach characteristics
by both our students and teachers. They generally think a good athlete
or player will be a good coach after retiring from his/her active
sport career. Well! We have two main questions at that point, "What
are the characteristics of coaching?" and "What makes
a good coach?" After listening to them, we can have some idea
if the good player can be a good coach or not.
Let's start with the several definitions of coaching. Emphasizing
coaching in schools, Druckman and Bjork (1991, p.61) claim that
coaching consists of observing students and offering hints, feedback,
reminders, new tasks, or redirecting a student's attention to a
salient feature, all with the goal of making the student’s
performance approximate the expert's performance as closely as possible.
On the other hand, Whitmore (1992, p.8) suggests that coaching
is unlocking a person's potential to maximize their own performance.
Coaching is helping them to learn, rather than teaching them. Hudson
(1999, p.6) proposes that a coach refers to a person who is a trusted
role model, adviser, wise person, friend, steward, or guide to a
person who works with emerging human and organizational forces to
tap new energy and purpose, to shape new vision and plans, and to
generate desired results. A coach is someone trained and devoted
to guiding others into increased competence, commitment and confidence.
Moreover, Grant (2001, p.9) summarizes the center structures of
coaching, "(Coaching is) a collaborative egalitarian, rather
than authoritarian relationship between coach and coachee; a focus
on constructing solutions not analyzing problems… an emphasis
on collaborative goal setting between the coach and coachee; and
the recognition that although the coach has expertise in facilitating
learning through coaching, they do not necessarily need domain-specific
expertise in the coachee’s chosen area of learning."
In addition, Quinn (2005) adds the motivation part of coaching.
To her, the ability to motivate is part of the formula for success.
She claims that the successful coach is a motivator with a positive
attitude and interest for both the game and the players.
Although these are the definitions of coaching, they give us good
ideas about the characteristics of being a good coach. Tom Fakehany
(n.d.) indicates ten main characteristics of highly successful coaches
proposed by the US Olympic Committee Coaching Development. They
are:
|
Committed
to individual integrity, values, and personal growth. |
|
Profound thinkers who
see themselves as educators, not just coaches. |
|
Well-educated (formally
and informally) in a liberal arts tradition. |
|
Long-run commitment
to their athletes and their institution. |
|
Willing to experiment
with new ideas. |
|
Value the coach-player relationship, winning aside. |
|
Understand and appreciate human nature. |
|
Love their sport and work. |
|
Honest and strong in character. |
|
Human, and therefore imperfect. |
Graham, Wedman, and Garvin-Kester (1993) ask the question, "what
makes a good coach?" And Graham, Wedman, and Garvin-Kester
(1994) also give the answer to this question - that good coaches
are found to be good communicators, set clear goals, are able to
see the big picture, give useful advice, and have good people skills.
However, Graham et al. (1994) makes a significant point that good
coaching is hard to perform.
Let's go back our students’ and teachers’ question,
"Does a good player mean a good coach?" It is obvious
that some high-quality coaches are very famous athletes or players
in both professional and amateur sports leagues, but most are not.
As Quinn (2005) proposes, it’s doubtful any one person will
be extremely well in all areas. However, a good coach has to have
many of these high coaching qualities without necessarily being
excellent in his/her past active sport career.
In conclusion, if you have most of these high coaching qualities,
you are a candidate to be an excellent coach, and it is not necessary
to be a very good athlete or player to be a very good coach.
References |
| Implication
of Fiedler's Contingency Model of Leadership and French & Raven’s
Sources of Social Power in Coaching and Teaching Context
Dr. Hasan Birol Yalçin, Abant Izzet
Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching
Sciences, Bolu, TURKEY - yhbirol@yahoo.com
Dr. Bekir Yüktaşır, Abant Izzet
Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching
Sciences, Bolu, TURKEY - byukta@yahoo.com
Sedat Sönmez M.Sc. Abant Izzet Baysal
University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching Sciences,
Bolu, TURKEY - Sonmezs2000@yahoo.com
Fiedler's Contingency Model of Leadership (1973) postulates that
the success of either task-oriented, or interpersonally-oriented,
leadership is dependent on the favorableness of the situation which
is defined by (a) leader-member relations, (b) task structure, and
(c) leader's position power.
Leader-member relations refer to the nature of the relationship
between the leader and the members of the group (Fiedler, 1973).
If the leader and the group members have a high degree of trust
and respect, and if the members like and admire the leader, the
leader-member relations are assumed to be good. In this case, it
is easier for the leader to exert influence members.
On the contrary, if there is little trust and respect. and if the
members do not like or admire the leader, the leader-member relations
are assumed to be bad. Good relations are assumed to be favorable,
and bad relations are inferred to be less favorable. In a teaching
and coaching context, it is proposed that coaching may foster more
favorable leader-member relations because of the small size of athletic
teams, the lengthened contact between the leader and member, and
voluntary participation (Chelladurai & Kuga, 1996).
Position power is the extent to which power is vested in the leader’s
position. If the leader has the power or control over sanctions,
it is said that the power position of the leader is great or strong
(Chelladurai &Kuga, 1996; Fiedler, 1973). Thus, the greater
the power positions of the leader, the greater the favorableness
of the situation for the leader. Before we make any connection about
teaching and coaching in terms of power position of the leader,
let’s revisit the French and Raven’s concept of sources
of social power.
According to this approach, some leaders are capable of influencing
the members on the basis of power more than others. This power comes
from five different sources; (a) reward power, (b) coercive power,
(c) legitimate power, (d) expert power, and (e) referent power.
Reward is the extent to which the leader has
the control over valued resources. He/she determines who gets various
rewards, in what form, and at what times (French & Raven, 1959).
In our context, since coaches generally have control over the selection
of team members who show desire to be part of the team and activities,
coaching may have greater reward power (Chelladurai & Kuga,
1996). On the contrary, participation in physical education is almost
guaranteed by the school system, and teachers are supervised by
a professional norm of encouraging the participation of all members
in class activities.
Coercive power is the extent to which the leader
has control over punishment and sanctions (French & Raven, 1959).
It is the ability of the leader to impose punishments of various
kinds (e.g., oral reprimands and suspensions in our case) on the
members (Chelladurai & Kuga, 1996). This form of power rests
primarily on fear (French & Raven, 1959). If the members do
not behave as the leader (who has coercive power) wishes, they will
have to bear consequences in the form of criticism or assignment
of unpleasant tasks (Erchul & Raven, 1997).
In a teaching and coaching context, Chelladurai and Kuga, (1996)
state that "it is not acceptable for a teacher to verbally
punish a student when the student does not execute a skill well.
On the other hand, it is permissible (and often expected) for a
coach to yell and scream at athletes when they perform poorly"
(pp. 478-479). Thus, the power or impact of such coercive actions
may be greater in coaching than teaching (Chelladurai & Kuga,
1996).
Legitimate power is the extent to which the members
believe that the leader, who is exercising authority over them,
has a legitimate right to do so (French & Raven, 1959). In our
case, Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) suggest that teachers and coaches
might have similar legitimate power within their respective area
of activities, because legitimate power is vested in a position
in the organizational hierarchy and defines the domain of operations
in which the leaders can make decisions for their group members.
Referent power is the extent to which the leader
is liked and admired by the group members (French & Raven, 1959).
That is, when the members like, and respect or admire the leader,
they are often willing to change their behavior in accordance with
the leader’s directives. In teaching and coaching context,
Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) indicate that coaches may have greater
referent power because of the smaller size of the group, homogeneity
of group members in ability, goal acceptance, longer duration of
contact, and intense interactions between the leader and the members.
...continued top of next
column
|
|
|
| Article
Three continued... |
|
...continued from previous
column
Finally, expert power is the extent to which
the leader has control based on knowledge (French & Raven,
1959). In other words, expert power refers to the ability of the
leader possessing high level of knowledge, expertise or experience
in his/her respective field to affect the views or behavior of
others with respect to such matters. In our case, Chelladurai
et al., (1999) indicates that since power coaches are considered
to be expert in their respective areas, coaches may foster greater
expert power than teachers.
In sum, as indicated above, numerous sources of power seem to favor
coaching over teaching. When combined with Fiedler’s contingency
model of leadership, and French and Raven’s sources of power,
such sources equate the coaching role to be more favorable with
regard to influencing the members; thus, a coaching role for the
leader may be more appealing and attractive than a teaching role.
In conclusion, even though it may be true to a certain extent that
"teaching is coaching and coaching is teaching," in reality
this slogan does not consider the inherent task differences between
teaching and coaching in terms of demands, opportunities, responsibilities,
and constraints which, in turn, influence preferences for teaching
and coaching.
References
Chelladurai, P., & Kuga, D. J. (1996). Teaching
and coaching: Group and task differences. Quest, 48, 470-485.
Chelladurai, P., Kuga, D. J., & O’Bryant,
C. (1999). Individual differences, perceived task characteristics,
and preferences for teaching and coaching. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 9 (1), 49-57.
Fiedler, F. E. (1973). Personality and situational
determinants of leader behavior. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G.
Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959).
The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.
|
|
Role of Power in Coaching
Dr. Hasan Birol Yalçin, Abant Izzet
Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching
Sciences, Bolu, TURKEY - yhbirol@yahoo.com
Dr. Bekir Yüktaşır, Abant Izzet
Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching
Sciences, Bolu, TURKEY - byukta@yahoo.com
Sedat Sönmez M.Sc. Abant Izzet Baysal
University, School of PE & Sports, Department of Coaching Sciences,
Bolu, TURKEY - Sonmezs2000@yahoo.com
What formulates or stimulates a good coach? The question is so
enormous in scope that anyone demanding to answer it has difficulty
knowing where to, and how to, begin. Some people might say that
a good coach is the one who has winning records. However, by now,
most coaches themselves know what motivates athletes who, in turn,
run their team successfully. In this sense, the key to their success
has turned out to be what psychologists call ' the need for achievement
approach,' - the desire to do something better, or more efficiently,
than it has been done before.
This approach was largely developed by David McClelland (McClelland,
1966). The theory proposes that individuals are influenced by
their need for achievement (a desire for being productive and
reaching desirable goals), need for affiliation (the desire for
positive relationships with others), and need for power (the desire
for influence and control over others) at different times (McClelland,
1976). Further, the strength of a particular need varies with
the situation.
Some theorists have referred to these needs as learned needs,
because they might be influenced by cultural background, socialization,
and past experiences (Anderson & Kyprianou, 1994). Because
of these influences, individuals are likely to have developed
a dominant bias towards one of these needs. For example, it has
been said that individuals high in need for achievement seek situations
where they have personal responsibility, and where the goals are
moderately challenging but achievable (Slack,1997).
But what does achievement motivation have to do with good coaching?
There is no reason, on theoretical grounds, why a person who has
a strong need to be more efficient should make a good coach. While
it sounds as if everyone should possess the need to achieve, in
fact, as psychologists define and measure achievement motivation,
achievement motivation leads people to behave in special ways
that do not necessarily lead to good coaching.
For one thing, because people focus on personal improvement,
on doing things better by themselves, achievement motivated people
want to do things themselves. For another, they want concrete
short term feedback on their performance, so that they can tell
how well they are doing. Yet a coach, in a large complex organization,
cannot perform all the tasks necessary for success by himself/herself.
He/she must manage others so that they will do things for the
organization.
The coach's job seems to call more for someone who can influence
people, than for someone who does things better on his/her own.
In motivational terms, then, it might be expected that the successful
coach would have a greater 'need for power' than a need to achieve.
It must be stated that the need for power does not refer to dictatorial
behavior, but refers to a desire to have an impact, to be strong,
and to be influential.
So far, our discussion is mainly focused on 'need for achievement'
and 'need for power.' We are not suggesting that the good coach
cares for power alone, and is not at all concerned about the needs
of athletes and other people. In other words, coaches who are
high in power, and are in control, are more institution minded
and they tend to get selected to more teams.
In fact, there must be other qualities beside the need for power
that go into the make up of a good coach. Just what are these
qualities, and how are they interrelated?
Our perspectives from the research studies, that we have discussed
so far, are that the better coaches are high in power motivation,
low in affiliation motivation, and high in inhibition. They care
about institutional power, and use it to stimulate their athletes/players
to be more productive. Now let us list major characteristics of
successful coaches who have institutional power.
|
They
are more organization minded. In other words, they tend to
join organizations and feel responsible for building up a
team. Further, they believe strongly in the importance of
centralized authority. |
|
Because they like
to work, they would like to see some results in less time.
Coaches who have a need for institutional power actually seem
to like the discipline of work, which satisfies their need
for getting things done in an orderly way. |
|
They seem quite willing
to sacrifice some of their own self-interest for the welfare
of the organization/team they serve. |
|
They have a keen sense
of justice. They feel that if a person works hard and sacrifices
for the good of the organization or team , he/she should,
and will, get a just reward for his/her effort. |
References
Anderson, A. H., & Kyprianou (1994).
Effective organizational behaviour: A skills and activity-based
approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
McClelland, D.C. & Burham, D. H. (1976).
Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54 (2),
100-110.
McClelland, D.C. (1966). The achieving
society. New York: Van Nostrand.
Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport
organizations: The application of organization theory. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
|
Substance
Use is Common Among Teens and Student Athletes: Administrators
and Coaches Must Help to Educate, Administrate, & Support
A recent research
report issued by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2004)
indicated that while the percentage of high school students that
are engaging in risky health behaviors has decreased (i.e., engaging
in sexual intercourse, physical fighting, and tobacco and alcohol
use) there is still a large percentage of students that are partaking
in these behaviors.
Another report,
issued by the Women’s Sports Foundation (2001), indicated
that teen athletes were more likely than their non-athlete counterparts
to engage in some risky health behaviors, such as the use of chewing
and dipping tobacco, binge drinking, and drinking and driving.
The findings of both of these studies affirm the need for coaches,
athletic administrators, and parents to educate student athletes
on the health risks involved, and to also establish effective
and appropriate policy, rules, and guidelines that target the
prevention and reduction of substance use among student athletes.
The following are brief descriptions and links to websites that
may be helpful in your campaign against substance abuse.
Smokeless
Tobacco- The Facts
Website includes information from the National Spit Tobacco Education
Program about the effects of using smokeless tobacco and oral
cancer. Provides tips on how to quit using along with other resources
for educating others about the risks of using smokeless tobacco.
For
Coaches and Parents- Information, Advice, and News on Drugs
- Information on steroids and other illicit drugs, including the
risks and signs of use, provided for coaches and parents. Offers
suggestions for encouraging drug-free sport involvement, as well
as information for coaches on how to deal with drug use amongst
his or her athletes.
Freevibe.com
& Checkyourself.org
- Targeting Teen Drug Awareness
Websites offer facts on drugs and current news related to teens
working to prevent drug use as well as real life substance abuse
stories. These websites also offer advice on how to deal with
friends who are using drugs.
Tobacco-Free
Sports Playbook - download
The Tobacco-Free Sports Playbook is a free resource created by
the CDC, and designed to help school administrators, state and
local health departments, certified athletic trainers, and coaches
to reach out to young people with messages about the importance
of choosing a healthy, active, and tobacco-free lifestyle.
|
|
