Introduction: The way in which an athlete is coached may be manipulated to gain certain responses from the individuals taking part. Implementation of athlete and coach centred approaches may be used to improve the athlete’s ability, but also to create a positive learning environment so that learning can take place. (Light and Harvey, 2015) The importance of a positive learning environment within coaching can help to create the holistic nature and have the athlete feel recognised and acknowledged by the coach or coaches and build the athlete relationship which is vital in creating a positive learning environment. (Jones, 2009) With regards to the context in which I conducted my coaching observation within, it took place at St Georges Lawn Tennis Club in Surrey. A private members club providing both indoor and outdoor tennis courts with 5 different surfaces and 32 courts. As well as glass exhibition squash courts, swimming pool, fitness facilities and a spa. (St Georges Lawn Tennis Club, 2018). I watched two highly qualified tennis coaches. Coach A; M. Siddall, LTA Master Performance Coach Level 5, LTA Licenced Tennis Coach. Coach B; D. Collins, LTA Level 4 (Senior Performance Coach), LTA Licenced Tennis Coach, RPT Professional Tennis Director, International Coaches Institute Professional Tennis Director, European Institute Professional Tennis Director, Cardio Tennis Instructor.
Observation of Coach A: There were two coaches delivering the session in this instance, however for the purpose of this assignment I was only watch the behaviours of one coach.
This session was an all-women’s groups session aged 40-60 years old. The session takes place weekly therefore there is a strong element of familiarity for both the coaches and athletes. Coach A used the element of familiarity to aid the creation of a positive learning environment. The positive nature was created before the session actually begun as Coach A adopted a holistic approach. “How was your weekend’, Coach A asked. Here, there is clear evidence of viewing the athlete as a whole person. This is a monistic view which shows how the coach may view the mind and body of the performer as one and not separately. (Whitehead, 2010) This shows how the coach is using a holistic nature to make the environment comfortable and positive and therefore accelerated learning may take place during the session as a positive environment can enhance athletic ability. (Light and Harvey, 2015)
As the session began the delivery of the coaching in holistic manor remained, however the use of coach or teacher centred pedagogy was adopted. Here, the responsibility of the session shifts and is now heavily weighted with the Coach A. “Everybody grab a partner and warm up rallying in the boxes”. Here the coach uses coach centred language for the delivery by the coach ‘telling’ and the players ‘doing’. This may be used due to the group size. With around 15 players participating it may be easier to manage using a teacher centred delivery. The athletes can therefore remain orderly and the coach has full control over the learning of the athletes. The coach can then direct the learning of the athletes with instruction and drill and practices he wants to use. (Otukile-Mongwaketse, 2018) Even though the session was very coach centred in terms of the activity, the drills provided were still able to be explored by the players as Coach A would occasionally use the coaching behaviour of silence to analyse the situation. This positively helped with the engagement from the participants’ as it gave them the opportunity to think and make decisions helping to create the positive learning environment. (Kidman and Penney, 2014) It may have been more beneficial for the learning of the athletes to incorporate more athlete centred activities by the coaches. This is as learner centred pedagogy encourages reflection on experiences, therefore by reflecting positively it can promote ability and motivation to learn. (Light and Harvey, 2015)
Observation of Coach B: This session included one coach (Coach B) with two professional players who are in the top 8 doubles pairings in the world and have previously won grand slams. The session is in preparation for the ATP World Tour event at the O2 arena. In this session, right from the start, the levels of convocation and ‘friendly banter’ was incredibly high. It was obvious that Coach B and the participants had practiced and known each other previously. Therefore, this social interaction instantly crated a comfortable atmosphere to be in for the coach and the players, helping to improve the coach-athlete relationship, creating a positive environment. (Stillwell, 2002) As the session begun it was clear that the coach adopted an athlete centred approach as Coach A asked, “what you want to work on, what’s the plan?”. McGladrey, Murray and Hannon (2010) said, ‘Involve the players in identifying and determining the team/individual goals and objectives. Ask the players why they want to play, and what they hope to achieve through the experience. This process will enable the players to take ownership of the team/individual goals’. Coach B uses the idea of using personal objectives for the two players to focus on and use to succeed. This way, the athletes take control of there on development during the session which can help to increase motivation and performance. Coach B adopted a slightly less holistic approach as the session became outcome driven, rather than considering the athlete as a person. This meant there was more emphasis on the execution of shots that were taken. This view of focussing on the needs of the body is used by most professionals. Therefore, Coach B used more dualism and separates the mind from the body meaning that he wanted to see perfect execution rather than the wellbeing of the athletes. (Kudláček, 2009)
Although, it could be argued that using a dualistic approach may hinder the creation of a positive learning environment as there is disregard for the personal feeling of the athlete during practices whereas monism, according to Carus and Hegeler, n.d in The Monist, ‘it is the vital centre our entire being’.
However, due to the elite level of the athletes, this dualistic approach may not have affected them negatively as they perform at such a high level. Due to the elite level of the athletes and from my personal encounter with their training, it suggested that they were most concerned about their own execution and level of performance anyway. Therefore, it felt as if during training the athletes may view themselves from a dualist viewpoint in some circumstances as the outcome and shot execution is a priority. Subsequently, if they are to execute shots to perfection they will receive satisfaction, adding and helping to create a positive learning environment. (Kudláček, 2009)
Comparison: By observing both coaches it was interesting to see how both used completely opposite coaching styles for the delivery of their session and yet both showed evidence that they can create a positive learning environment for the participants. This is shown in the immediate feedback given by the coaches to the athlete being completely different. Coach A would use more detailed explanation in feedback to the group of women. This would explain how correct technique for example would allow the players to increase their learning possibilities with enhanced challenges. (Hattie and Timperley, 2007) Whilst Coach B would use loose terms in his feedback such as, ‘don’t do that!’. But negative feedback was used in a deliberate way to try and stimulate intrinsic feedback from the two professionals as it is powerful at self-level and can help commitment and mastery orientation. (Hattie and Timperley, 2007) These two different types of feedback were subsequently used to gain the same response in both sessions. That response being, correct behaviour and therefore a successful a shot or successful series of shots. It is clear that using different types language, either positive or negative, to different audiences can result in the correct behaviour. This correct behaviour can add to creating a more positive learning environment.
However, if the feedback used by the coaches was changed. (Coach A uses negative feedback and Coach B uses positive feedback). The outcome may have been negative for both parties. In a study by Wulf et al., 2002 with experienced footballers it showed that external feedback by a coach resulted in greater shooting accuracy than internal feedback did. Therefore, it can be said Coach A used correct feedback in his group session. However, with reduced feedback frequency and allowing the players to use internal focus feedback, this was beneficial for the players also. This supports the feedback that Coach B used with less information and allowing the players to explore their faults. Both result in the creation of a positive learning environment for the athletes. (Wulf et al.,2002)
Conclusion: It can be said that from my points made previously that a positive learning environment can be created through the use of athlete centred coaching as well as coach centred coaching. But it may be down to how the athletes respond to the type of coaching used that determines its successfulness and therefore the coach-coachee relationship. (Carter, Blackman and Hay, 2016) Both Coach A and Coach B were successful in creating a positive learning environment, it was interesting to observe that both used holistic approaches, however opposite coaching styles that still resulted in a positive learning environment for the athletes. Deliberate behaviours may have been adopted (e.g. silence) to try and gain a response that the coach was wanting. But if used incorrectly could result in a negative response damaging a potential positive environment. (Cushion, 2010) But in my observational context, behaviours that were used by the coaches fitted perfectly with the athletes.