Framing the construction of coaching knowledge in experiential learning theory

Wade Gilbert

Pierre Trudel

University of Ottawa

Although coaches repeatedly cite coaching experience as the primary source of coaching knowledge, researchers have yet to examine the process of how this experience is transformed into knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to discuss Schön's (1983; 1987) experiential learning theory as a conceptual framework for examining the process of how coaches construct knowledge through experience. The unique aspect of Schön's theory is its focus on the construction of domain-specific knowledge in the context of professional practice. Research using Schön's theory can be applied by coach education program designers and directors of youth sport programs to create contexts that nurture the experiential learning process.

To accomplish their various roles, youth sport coaches are expected to understand and use an increasingly complex and specialized body of knowledge. For example, coach education programs typically include sections on anatomy, biomechanics, pedagogy, physiology, nutrition, and sport psychology (Campbell, 1993; Coaching Association of Canada [CAC], 1989; Martens, 1997). Coaches must also develop a repertoire of sport- specific techniques and tactics, knowledge of athlete personal characteristics and knowledge of the context (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995).

Like teachers, coaches are expected to possess knowledge across a wide range of domains. However, the training provided to coaches and teachers is very different. Most teachers, for example, must first obtain a university degree and several months of field experience before receiving certification. Even this extensive period of professional development has been considered inadequate to allow teachers to develop the required professional knowledge.

Indeed, properly understood, the actual and potential sources for a knowledge base are so plentiful that our question should not be, Is there really much one needs to know in order to teach? Rather, it should express our wonder at how the extensive knowledge of teaching can be learned at all during the brief period allotted to teacher preparation. (Shulman, 1987, p. 7)

On the other hand, formal educational programs for youth sport coaches are a fairly recent phenomenon. Large-scale coach education programs have only emerged in the last 20 years, and therefore are still in the formative stage of development. In addition, the effectiveness of these programs has been questioned (Douge & Hastie, 1993; Gilbert & Trudel, in press; Siedentop, 1990; Woodman, 1993). Furthermore, the typical youth sport coach will have minimal exposure to these programs. For example, fewer than one percent of the over 600,000 coaches registered with the National Coaching Certification Program in Canada will ever complete the first three levels of the five level coaching certification program (CAC, 1996b).

To summarize, youth sport coaches are expected to develop knowledge in a wide range of disciplines, and typically receive sparse formal training through coach education programs that have been considered suspect on at least some accounts. The obvious question then becomes: How do youth sport coaches construct coaching knowledge?

Questionnaires and interviews with coaches of all levels repeatedly indicate that the primary source of coaching knowledge is direct coaching experience (CAC, 1996a; Gould, Giannini, Krane, & Hodge, 1990; Salmela, 1996). Although experience is considered paramount to the development of coaching knowledge, the simple accumulation of experience is not sufficient.

It would be a relief to believe that one need only spend a certain amount of time teaching or coaching, and the lessons learned in the experience would elevate one to the next level of expertise. Unfortunately, that is not the case. To become better skilled at one's professional practice, a novice teacher or coach needs to do more than simply spend time on the job (Bell, 1997, p. 35).

The process of how coaching experience is transformed into coaching expertise remains a mystery. Researchers in other domains, however, have developed theories that provide insight into how experience is transformed into knowledge (Kolb, 1984; Lave, 1988; Schön, 1983). The purpose of this paper is to examine the appropriateness of using Schön's experiential learning theory as a conceptual framework to study the construction of coaching knowledge.

Numerous researchers and philosophers have challenged the traditional view of objective de-contextualized knowledge acquisition, and instead have proposed that direct experience is central to the construction of knowledge. This alternative view is generally attributed to the philosophical writings of Dewey (1933; 1938/1963). Dewey believed that all genuine education resulted through experience. However, not all experience was considered to be educational. Learning is dependent upon the process of reflective thinking: "The kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration" (Dewey, 1933, p. 3). Furthermore, reflective thinking results from puzzling situations or uncertainty followed by the act of deliberate inquiry to resolve the troubling situation.

Dewey's (1933) philosophy has influenced the development of several theories of how individuals construct knowledge through experience (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Lave, 1988; Schön, 1983). The common thread among these theories is that knowledge and learning are fundamentally embedded in the activity, context, and culture. Furthermore, knowledge construction is dependent on reflecting on problems or dilemmas encountered in the activity. Schön's theory stands apart from other experiential learning theories because of its focus on the construction of domain-specific knowledge in the context of professional practice. For this reason, Schön's theory may be the most appropriate to use as a conceptual framework to examine how coaches construct coaching knowledge through coaching experience.

Schön's (1983; 1987) theory was developed from case studies of professionals in six domains: (a) architecture, (b) psychotherapy, (c) engineering, (d) scientific research, (e) town planning, and (f) business management. His theory has since been extended into the field of education (e.g. Schön, 1991). For Schön, knowledge construction is a process of critical reflection-in- and on-action that is dependent on the element of surprise. If a practitioner's decision leads to the anticipated result, there is no need to critically reflect on underlying theories. When a decision or action leads to an unexpected outcome, however, this stimulates (in some practitioners) a process of critical inquiry. Schön (1983) describes the process as follows:

When a move fails to do what is intended and produces consequences considered on the whole to be undesirable, the inquirer surfaces the theory implicit in the move, criticizes it, restructures it, and tests the new theory by inventing a move consistent with it. The learning sequence, initiated by the negation of a move, terminates when new theory leads to a new move which is affirmed. (p. 155)

Reflection is considered a dialectic process of thought and action (Kruse, 1997). Furthermore, it is not to be confused with random trial and error. The reflective process is a series of deliberate moves with the objective of improving a practice situation, "Meaningful strategies are not isolated random actions, but carefully coordinated and independent tactics designed to achieve important and valued goals by the participants in the action" (Kruse, p. 47). Four themes central to the reflective process emerged among the practitioners that Schön (1983; 1987) examined.

First, reflective practitioners engage in a process of framing their roles. Regardless of whether frames are considered psychological constructs (e.g. Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) or social constructs (Goffman, 1974), the common feature of role frames is that they are used by individuals to interpret situations. Bateson's (1972) analogy of a picture frame illustrates the idea of delimiting certain features of a situation based on an individual's frame of reference. The picture frame analogy is a useful one to interpret Schön's use of the term frame when discussing how practitioners frame their role. Schön defines role framing as "the ways in which they [practitioners] construct the reality in which they function" (p. 310). Within any profession, each practitioner may frame his or her role differently. For example, in youth sport coaching, some coaches may see themselves as principally responsible for the social and moral development of youth, whereas other coaches may view their primary responsibility as teaching sport specific techniques and tactics. For Schön, the way practitioners frame their role determines what information is most salient for them. Differences in role frames help to explain what type of knowledge is viewed as important, and therefore what type of knowledge is constructed. Furthermore, their role frame allows for the development of a cumulative repertoire of exemplars, facts and descriptions.

A second component of the reflective process is problem setting. Problem setting is considered central to professional practice because problems don't simply present themselves. Reflective practitioners reframe dilemmas in a way that allows them to develop a solution. They treat each problem as a unique case that does not apply to standard solutions. Although they may recognize many familiar aspects in the dilemma, they treat the situation as a whole as a unique case. Each situation is compared to the practitioner's repertoire of strategies, that consists of examples, images, and actions based on past experiences. Therefore, each situation is seen as both familiar and different. This process provides a frame of reference for the practitioner to construct new, or modify existing strategies. Learning, therefore, occurs when a professional adds to his or her existing repertoire of strategies.

Third, knowledge is constructed through experimentation with new strategies, as well as modifications of existing strategies from the practitioner's repertoire. When a reflective practitioner encounters and sets a problem situation, one or more series of experimentation will be conducted. In each experiment there are three steps: strategy development, experimentation, and evaluation (Schön, 1983; 1987). After each experiment with a strategy, the practitioner will listen to back-talk from the experiment. This evaluative procedure will then determine whether additional strategies and experiments are required. Depending on the degree of challenge posed by the problem situation, the practitioner may engage in numerous iterations of the experimental cycle. Each experimental cycle is referred to as a local experiment, and a series of local experiments is called a global experiment. Lastly, experiments in reflective practice are highly subjective. The ultimate goal is to construct a strategy that will allow the practitioner to resolve the dilemma. Experiments are terminated when the dilemma is resolved.

Fourth, Schön (1983; 1987) posits that for most professionals, the reflective process relies on the creation of virtual worlds. Virtual worlds create opportunities for professionals to practice or try out their hypotheses, without risk of the consequences that would accompany failure in actual practice. For example, an architect plays with designs on a sketchpad or computer simulation, and engineers use scaled down models. Schön (1983) concludes that regardless of the profession, the way professionals solve problems, and construct professional knowledge, is a process "whose underlying structure is the same: a reflective conversation with a unique and uncertain situation" (p. 130).

In summary, we know that youth sport coaches require knowledge from a diverse range of disciplines, receive sparse formal training, and reportedly learn best through direct experience. However, the process of how coaching knowledge is constructed through experience has yet to be examined. Schön's (1983; 1987) theory of experiential learning can be used as a guiding framework to examine how coaches transform coaching experience into coaching knowledge. His emphasis on the development of domain-specific knowledge in the context of professional practice differentiates his work from other experiential learning theories. The results of this type of research with coaches (e.g. Gilbert, 1998) will help coach education program designers and youth sport directors structure learning contexts that foster the construction of coaching knowledge.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

Bell, M. (1997). The development of expertise. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(2), 34-38.

Campbell, S. (1993). Coaching education around the world. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 62-74.

Coaching Association of Canada. (1989). Course conductor manual: Level 2 Theory. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Coaching Association of Canada. (1996a). NCCP Model coach survey analysis. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Coaching Association of Canada. (1996b). Results of the NCCP evaluation project: A blueprint for change. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Côté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 1-17.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company.

Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier.

Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 14-29.

Gilbert, W. (1998). The construction of coaching knowledge by coaches of youth team sports. Doctoral dissertation in preparation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (in press). An evaluation strategy for coach education programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(2).

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S. national team, pan American, and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 332-344.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kruse, S.D. (1997). Reflective activity in practice: Vignettes of teachers' deliberate work. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(1), 46-60.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching (Updated 2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Salmela, J.H. (1996). Great job coach: Getting the edge from proven winners. Ottawa, ON: Potentium.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D.A. (Ed.) (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Siedentop, D. (1990). The practice of sport pedagogy. In M. Lirette, C. Paré, J. Dessureault, & M. Piéron (Eds.), Physical education and coaching: Present state and outlook for the future (pp. 269-280). Sillery, QUE: Université du Québec.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 1-13.

Copyright sociology of sport online, 1999