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