( 2017) recommend establishing one common language when defining coaching behaviour. Therefore, it fails to provide evidence regarding coaching effectiveness. Although this is supposed to be a more sophisticated systematic observation instrument, it only focusses on context-sensitive descriptions of coaching behaviour, answering the question “What is going on here?” (Cushion et al., 2012). Only the computerised CAIS was developed more recently (Cushion, Harvey, Muir, & Nelson, 2012). Cope and colleagues suggest that this could be explained by the mostly dated nature of these instruments. However, in almost all cases, these instruments were not used in their original form, but were modified to address specific research questions. The authors identified a range of instruments used in these studies including the Arizona State University Observation Instrument (ASUOI), the Coach Behaviour Recording Form (CBRF), and the Coach Analysis Intervention System (CAIS). A review from 2017 identified 26 studies using systematic observation between 19 (Cope, Partington, & Harvey, 2017). Observation instruments may be superior to them in terms of differentiation and quality standards.Īlthough observational instruments seem to be receiving increased attention in educational research in recent years (Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018), they are still sparsely used in sports coaching research.
This discrepancy is an important argument that addressees’ reports cannot be considered satisfactory indicators of the pedagogical coaching quality in themselves. Moreover, Richartz & Sallen ( 2013) were able to demonstrate considerable differences between the assessments of pedagogical quality by expert observations and the assessments by children and their parents. Helmke ( 2010) showed that only in some parts are learners’ judgements in good agreement with expert judgements of teaching quality. They usually have plenty of experience, having already observed multiple groups, and they are not personally related to the people involved in the teaching–learning scenario (Praetorius, Rogh, Bell, & Klieme, 2019). However, the advantages of observations can be achieved with qualified observers who are specially trained to make objective, reliable and valid assessments. Observations can be highly selective and unreliable, as prominent experiments like the “Invisible Gorilla” show. With these measures, one can assess the instructional quality and simultaneously gain information about strengths and areas of growth of individual coaches. by questionnaires for coaches, athletes and parents or by external observations. In order to reconcile these goals, it is important to examine effective coaching behaviours and thereby identify environments that are most healthy for children’s and youths’ social, emotional, athletic and cognitive development.Ĭoach–athlete interactions as the most dominant part of coaching behaviour can be measured with different methods-e.g. Training in children and youth sports aims at achieving multiple goals: the optimal improvement of learning and performance, the support of motivation, as well as the promotion of positive social and emotional growth. Overall, the results support the transfer of the CLASS to sports contexts. ICC consistently reach the statistical significance level ( p < 0.01) and range between 0.54 and 0.87. Values for more stringent reliability measures are also acceptable to good, with individual exceptions.
PWO across the eight dimensions are very good to excellent, ranging from 88–98%. Moreover, interrater reliability was determined using several measures including Percent Within One (PWO), Cohen’s κ, weighted κ and intraclass correlation (ICC).
Confirmatory factor analysis supports a three-factorial structure of the quality dimensions thus confirming the assumed “Teaching Through Interactions Framework”. In all, 221 sequences were independently rated by two certified observers in 8 dimensions on a 7-point scale.
To test the suitability of CLASS for sports training, 26 coaches were video-recorded in their training session with children aged approximately 8–12 years. Each domain comprises three to four dimensions, from which eight seem applicable for the context of sports coaching. The CLASS follows a hierarchical structure with three domains: Emotional Support, Classroom Organisation and Instructional Support. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)-a systematic observation instrument for the assessment of generic pedagogical teaching characteristics-was transferred to the context of extracurricular sports training.
0 kommentar(er)
