Applied Coaching Research Journal Research Journal 4 | Page 34

APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 4
APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 4
During the early 1990s the National Coaching
Foundation (NCF - operating today as UK Coaching)
sought to introduce NVQs to professionalise and
transform existing coaching ‘awards’ into recognised
qualifications. In 1993 the NCF produced an NVQ
Implementation Manual, which aimed to “assist NGBs
in preparing their awards in order to implement
NVQs” (McQueen, 1993). The question and answer
section of the manual helped to explain and
demonstrate the vision for coach education based on
the NVQ model. For example:
1. “Will I have to attend lots of courses?”
A
 nswer: “Not necessarily. How you get the
skills and knowledge is up to you. You may feel
that you would rather do home learning from
a specially produced pack, or you may wish to
attend a course.”
2. “  I have been coaching for ages. Does this mean
that I will have to start all over again?”
A
 nswer: “No. NVQs are an assessment of your
ability. All you have to do is prove that you are a
competent coach against the national standards
for coaching.”
These responses were very forward looking but only
partial aspects of the NVQ model were adopted.
These included: drawing on national occupational
standards to define course content and competence-
based assessment criteria; quality assurance based
on internal and external verification; the binary
assessment of competence; and aligning coaching
qualifications to the requirements of the national
qualification framework.
It is not known why NVQs did not become the
principle type of recognised coaching qualification.
It could be that NVQs were intended to support
people in, or wishing to enter, paid employment
and as a result were not appropriate for a coaching
workforce that is predominantly part-time and
voluntary. For example, continuous assessment in
the workplace by assessors and supervisors was
too challenging for most sports organisations and
instead the assessment of practical competency
was often simulated during coaching courses.
Furthermore, coaching qualifications remained in the
ownership and control of NGBs and there was some
reluctance to relinquish this control and enable other
organisations, such as Further Education colleges
and commercial training providers, to deliver
coaching qualifications. In addition, government
policy has consistently upheld the status of NGB
coaching qualifications as the primary form of
recognition for qualified coaches. In this respect
34
coaching is very different to other vocational and
professional sectors in the UK labour market.
It is argued that the introduction of VET and NVQs
in the UK in the 1990’s, led to the development
of a coach education system that was a ‘middle
track compromise’ between a traditional course
of education with aspects of the NVQ model
shoehorned into it (Raffe, 2015; Young, 2011).
The system was overtly qualification-led and
represented an often generic approach that failed to
appropriately accommodate the individual learning
needs of coaches. A vital ingredient given the highly
differentiated nature of the coaching workforce.
Great Britain and England Hockey
Great Britain and England Hockey’s rationale is to
provide engaging support and development to the
people that deliver hockey, based on their role:
“The previous qualification terminology suggested
a hierarchical nature to the development of
coaches and did not cater for the differing groups
or capabilities that a coach delivers to.”
They are developing a suite of opportunities
aimed at all levels and types of coaches,
consisting of practical workshops, e-learning
modules and informal learning.
Their vision is that coaches can choose to engage
with workshops and modules that support and
complement the type of coaching that they are
involved in. It aims to enable coaches to plot
a personalised learning journey shown on a
learner’s ‘tube map’.
The current landscape and developments
Sport England’s Coaching in an Active Nation (2016)
seeks to address some of these challenges. Alongside
a broader definition of coaching, and a greater focus
on supporting a more active population, the plan
seeks to:
• ‘modernise [coach development] approaches and
make it easier for more people from a wider range
of backgrounds to join the coaching community’;
• ‘foster an improvement culture … where coaches
are actively engaged in improving their ability to
deliver and develop a lifelong learning habit’;
• ‘utilise technology to improve … and build an ‘on
demand’ learning and development capability for
coaches’.
This is a vision shared by UK Coaching in
Transforming Learning, Transforming Lives (UK
Coaching, 2018) which seeks to create a system
that promotes lifelong learning, empowers coaches
to take ownership of their own development,
recognises different types of learning, advocates
learning through peer relationships, and embraces
new forms of technology. Built on a model of
connectivity, the aspiration is to develop more
reflective, confident coaches who can deliver high
quality experiences to the people they coach.
The challenge for NGBs is how to respond to
these initiatives and how to represent a more
person-centred approach to coach learning and
development. Some NGBs are already taking steps
to do this, and two examples are provided in the
following boxes.
Badminton England
Badminton England has sought to recognise and
provide a broader range of learning opportunities
beyond the normal coach education courses. Such
courses alone “will only provide coaches with a
base level of skills and knowledge, so a wider
structure is essential to support the wide range of
coaches” (Badminton England, 2019).
This represents moving away from a system
that develops qualified coaches, to a system that
develops appropriately skilled coaches. “The
renaming of qualifications (eg Introduction to
Hockey Coaching; Sessional Coach Course) and the
introduction of a far wider coach development
pathway involving many more specific development
opportunities will better equip coaches with what is
needed to deliver in certain environments.”
Through consultation they also learnt “that courses
need to have maximum ‘pitch time’ and more home
study time to allow for coaches to learn in their own
time.”
It is claimed this has reduced the length of courses
and the amount of travel to and from courses. They
also “built in flexible assessment methods so the
coach will be supported through to completion
of the qualification after attending the course.”
(England Hockey, 2019)
As these two examples illustrate, a more flexible
and personal approach shifts the focus of learning
from content to context. It also provides more
autonomy for coaches to be responsible for their
own learning and can help to meet the needs of
more coaches more often. It is a paradox that this
approach is identical to the core principles of the
NVQ system:
“Learning is an individual experience and to
‘standardise’ it by adopting specific modes and
time periods is not the most effective means for
a group to achieve a set of learning outcomes.
Individuals need to manage their own learning
experiences in a manner which recognises
where they start from, their preferred modes of
learning, and the time and opportunities they
have for learning”
(Jessup, 1995).
35