Applied Coaching Research Journal Research Journal 4 | Page 32

APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 4
There is a move from coach education, which is
highly regulated and qualification-led, to coach
learning and development, which is more adaptable
and learner-centred. This article will review past
developments and explore current and future
opportunities. It will provide recommendations for
those working in the system based on the learning
and assessment model proposed.
How did we arrive at the current system?
Since the mid-1990s, the awarding of a coaching
qualification has been constructed around a linear,
four-level structure aligned to the UK national
qualification framework. At levels 1 to 3, this
approach is primarily:
1) D
 esigned around the assessment of functional
competencies drawn from the national
occupational standards for coaching (NOS).
Back to the Future:
Rethinking Coach Learning
and Development in the UK
Dr Alex Twitchen and Professor Ben Oakley
The Open University
Abstract
A shift from coach ‘education’ to coach ‘learning
and development’ is currently taking place in the
UK. This article will examine some of the reasons
for that shift by exploring the principles and
attempted introduction of National Vocational
Qualifications (NVQs) into coaching during the
1990s. The introduction of NVQs represented a
significant change but did not necessarily deliver
the desired outcomes. Rethinking coach learning
and development is then described with reference
to current developments. The article makes
recommendations by outlining a learning and
assessment framework that is flexible, learner-led,
and captures the current momentum for change.
Key words: education, learning, assessment,
qualifications, coach development.
32
Introduction
Learning is a complex, personal and continuous
process. It can be hard work, and often involves
making connections between different types of
learning and interpreting existing ideas and beliefs
from an alternative perspective. Developing an
effective coach learning and development system
to support this process is equally challenging. This
article explores the history of the coach learning
and development system in the UK and presents
a potential model of learning and assessment that
could inform the development of a more flexible
and agile system.
The aims of Coaching in an Active Nation: the
Coaching Plan for England (Sport England, 2016),
the introduction of professional standards for
coaches, the outcomes of the review of the United
Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC), and a new
definition of coaching, signify a paradigmatic shift.
2) O
 wned and delivered by training providers –
predominantly national governing bodies of
sport (NGBs).
3) Q
 uality assured by approved awarding bodies.
4) E
 ndorsed (from 2002 onwards) through the
United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC).
This approach, and the system through which
coaches progress, has attracted much criticism.
The system is dominated by regulated coaching
qualifications which, research suggests, have limited
impact on coach behaviour or practice (Nelson et
al, 2013, Piggott, 2012). It also seems to be failing
the development of female and Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) coaches (Norman, 2008;
Norman et al, 2018) and ignores the informal
learning that coaches seem to substantially benefit
from. To better understand this system it helps to
understand how it came about.
In 1986, a White Paper, Working Together: Education
and Training, laid the foundations for a new system
of national vocational qualifications (NVQs) that
would fundamentally reform vocational education
and training (VET) in the UK. The following principles
informed the design and implementation of NVQs
(Jessup, 1991):
1) E
 mployers and professional bodies would
write functional competencies which define the
behaviours, expressed as national occupational
standards, required to fulfil job roles.
2) I  n assessment – a learner is either competent or
not yet competent.
3) C
 ompetence is demonstrated and assessed
through a broad array of evidence gathering
methods including the recognition of prior
learning.
4) A
 ssessment of competency should be continuous
and ongoing and undertaken by line managers,
supervisors and assessors in the workplace
wherever possible.
5) A
 ny learning and teaching should be distinct and
separate from assessment.
From the outset these principles were contentiously
debated by researchers, employers and policy
stakeholders. Table 1 provides a brief summary of
the most prominent criticisms.
Table 1: Criticisms of the NVQ system of
qualifications in the UK
1. D
 esigned around functional competencies
which are based on discredited evidence
and are associated with a system of practical
training designed to maximise the efficiency
of labour (Hyland, 1994).
2. I  ndicative of the assumption that functional
competencies are external to the individual
and can be objectively discovered, defined
and measured (Hodkinson, 1992).
3. W
 ritten in complex, jargon-laden and
ambiguous language that prohibits a clear
understanding of them (Raggatt and Williams,
1999).
4. P
 ractically constrained by the challenge of
implementing individualised learning and the
absence of a curriculum that structures the
learning process (Smithers, 1993).
5. S
 ubject to concerns regarding the validity
and reliability of assessment when this
is undertaken in the workplace by line
managers and supervisors (Wolf, 1995).
Through continuous debate, a lack of consensus,
and the necessity of cost-effective delivery and
administration, VET and NVQs have been subject to
constant change (Raffe, 2015). In coach education,
the introduction of NVQs were viewed as a way
to restructure the existing approach to coach
education.
33