Applied Coaching Research Journal Research Journal 4 | Page 38
APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 4
APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 4
3. A clearly identified compulsory ‘core’ learning
This would focus on the essential aspects of
coaching. Again, the NGB could decide what core
learning is and how it is delivered. The example
of hockey reducing content and time is perhaps
an instructive example that careful thought needs
to be given to what, and how much time, this core
learning takes.
4. Coaches curate their own additional learning
An individual would decide, just like the learner
driver scenario, what best supports their progress
towards summative assessment and is specific to
their needs. For example, support from a mentor,
attending workshops, online learning, short courses
or learning provided by their employer or another
organisation (eg club, school, college or university).
Appropriate guidance and advice would be
provided as to what is ‘recommended learning’
(i.e. opportunities that a coach is strongly advised to
follow) and ‘optional learning’ (i.e. useful for specific
coaching contexts). It is the learner’s responsibility
to keep track and collect evidence of completion of
their additional learning, not the NGB. This might
be done through digital badges, a reflective journal
or e-portfolio submission as part of the summative
assessment.
5. A coach decides when they are ready to be
assessed
The summative assessment process only takes place
when a coach feels ready. Some coaches may be
ready almost as they register, for others the process
may take a lot longer.
This model of learning and assessment enables a
coach to move through the system and between
stages by pursuing an individualised and personal
learning experience. The model in this respect
creates a framework that is ‘learner-centred’
not ‘provider-led’. The model also lends itself to
building a more agile and flexible system that does
not force coaches along a single ‘one size fits all’
pathway of attending a coaching qualification with
integrated assessment. Instead, by combining and
connecting different experiences and opportunities
learning is tailored to the needs of a coach and their
coaching context. The model also enables NGBs and
other organisations to deliver bespoke learning
experiences for specific groups of coaches that
instead of being ‘outside’ the system become part of
the system. The following box provides an example
of this.
38
Football Association Women’s High Performance
Centres
The FA Women’s High Performance Centres were
established in partnership with eight Universities
in 2017. Part of the purpose of the Centres is to
support the learning and development of female
coaches and coaches working within the female
game. To do this the Centres have developed and
delivered different types of activities ranging
from workshops to mentoring and creating
support groups for coaches at similar stages
of development. These activities at present lie
outside the FA’s qualification framework and
therefore represent additional forms of support
operating in an almost detached way from the
main coaching pathway. In the model of learning
and assessment proposed such activities become
part of the framework, they become integral by
representing ‘recommended’ learning for specific
coaches.
The model of learning and assessment described still
incorporates the underlying aspects of vocational
education and training in the UK, no new concepts
or theories are being introduced. However, there are
some implementation challenges:
• Supporting coaches to learn and become qualified
is an income stream for many organisations so
changing the approach could be more challenging.
• Some organisations have limited resources to
restructure their provision and may need to be
incentivised to collaborate and share common
coaching related modules or online resources.
• Deciding what is core and how much time is
devoted to this.
• Reallocating resources from content delivery to
coach developer and mentor support.
• Deciding if coaching qualifications should remain
on the national qualification framework (currently
the Recognised Qualifications Framework – RQF)
and accepting the constraints on design and
delivery this entails.
• Delivery at scale across the UK given
the challenges associated with devolved
administrations in Scotland, England, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
Change, particularly substantial change is never
easy or straightforward. Nevertheless, there is a
sense that change is now needed, but with this
change comes risk. As this article has described, the
proposed introduction of NVQs during the 1990s
represented another significant moment of change
in the coaching landscape that did not deliver the
intended strategic outcomes. In this article we
have sought to present a future framework that is
designed on an outcomes model of learning and
assessment. Coach education in the UK has been
criticised due to variability, lack of coherence, and
inconsistencies in practice Coaching Matters (1991)
and the Coaching Task Force Report (2002). Such
criticisms also seem evident in the more recent
review of the UKCC endorsement process, where
it was perceived as being either too prescriptive
or lacked standardisation, and featured too much
variation across and within sports (Sport and
Recreation Alliance, 2018). Some type of common
framework would therefore seem beneficial to
underpin the development of a new coach learning
and development system.
Conclusions
Rethinking a coach learning and development
system that embraces a more diverse workforce,
ensures that nobody is excluded from developing
their potential, and helps coaches to develop their
practice so they can enhance the experience of
the people they coach, will not be easy. It requires
imaginative thinking, a willingness to change,
recognising and embracing different ways of
learning, and collaboration. It also requires learning
from the past and re-evaluating the lessons learnt.
In this article we have sought to contribute to this
process. Building a system requires frameworks
and models that can act as a point of reference,
a thinking tool or a conversation prompts. Any
framework must also be realistic and aligned to
the strategic outcomes of a policy. The model of
learning and assessment proposed in this article
is intended to stimulate debate about how a coach
learning and development system might evolve. Its
aim is to continue the conversation already started,
to generate reflection and encourage even more
creative ways of thinking.
References
Badminton England. (2019) Medal CPD
Programme [online]. Available from: https://www.
badmintonengland.co.uk/coach/find-a-course/
medal-cpd-programme/ [Accessed 24 June, 2019].
Collins, D, Burke, V, Martindale, A, & Cruickshank,
A. (2015) The illusion of competency versus the
desirability of expertise: Seeking a common standard
for support professionals in sport. Sports Medicine.
45 (1): 1-7.
England Hockey. (2019) My Coaching Pathway: FAQs
[online]. Available from: http://www.englandhockey.
co.uk/page.asp?section=1994§ionTitle=FAQs
[Accessed 24 June, 2019].
Hodkinson, P. (1992) Alternative models of
competence in vocational education and training.
Journal of Further and Higher Education. 16 (2):
30-39.
Hyland, T. (1994) Competence, Education and NVQs:
Dissenting Perspectives. London: Cassell Education.
Jessup, G. (1990) National vocational qualifications:
Implications for Further Education. In. M. Bees and
M. Swords, (eds). National Vocational Qualifications
and Further Education. London: Kogan Page.
Jessup, G. (1991) Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging
Model of Education and Training. London: The Falmer
Press.
Jessup, G. (1995) Outcomes based qualifications
and the implications for learning. In. J. Burke, (ed).
Outcomes, Learning and the Curriculum: Implications
for NVQs, GNVQS and Other Qualifications. London:
Routledge, pp. 33-54.
McQueen, S. (1993) Scottish and National Vocational
Qualifications: Implementation Manual. Leeds:
National Coaching Foundation.
Nelson, L, Cushion, C., and Potrac, P. (2013)
Enhancing the provision of coach education:
The recommendations of UK coaching practitioners.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 18:
2014-2018.
Norman, L. (2008) The UK Coaching System is failing
women coaches. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching. 3 (4): 447-476.
39