Content uploaded by jan-erik Romar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by jan-erik Romar on Dec 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
44
Original article Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018), ISSN 1318-2269
IZVLEČEK
Predhodne raziskave z orodji za sistematično
opazovanje trenažnega procesa so poročale, da se
lahko vzorec vedenja trenerja razume kot zaporeden
cikel nenačrtovanih in reaktivnih vedenj, kjer trenerji
najpogosteje dajejo navodila, povratne informacije
in spodbude, pri tem pa sočasno upravljajo okolje
treniranja. Ne glede na to pa obstaja jasna ločnica,
kdaj je trenerski proces enosmeren in ne upošteva,
da lahko vedenje športnikov zaznamuje postopke
treniranja. Zato je bil namen te raziskave opisati
in interpretirati »ekologijo učnega procesa« na
treningih mladih plavalcev. Okvir raziskave so tvorila
naslednja raziskovalna vprašanja: (a) Kako so trenerji
strukturirali treninge? (b) Katera vedenja trenerja
glede dajanja navodil in vodenja so prevladovala v
tem kontekstu? ter (c) Kako aktivni so bili športniki
med treningi? Dva trenerja in njuni mladi plavalci
so bili posneti z videokamero med petimi treningi.
Za sistematično opazovanje plavalnih treningov
smo uporabili prilagojeno različico instrumenta za
opazovanje strukture nalog. Rezultati so pokazali, da
sta oba trenerja športnikom omogočila veliko časa za
trening motoričnih spretnosti, malo časa pa namenila
vodenju in dajanju navodil. Poleg opisovanja nalog in
razla g, kako jih izve sti, sta trenerja daja la navodila med
tem, ko so plavalci vadili, pri čemer sta posredovala
tako pozitivne kot korektivne povratne informacije.
Kot nazadnje, športniki so se aktivno udejstvovali in
pokaza li visoko raven doslednosti pri iz vajanju navodil
in sledenju vodstvu.
Ključne besede: treniranje, šport mladih, »ekologija«
učnega procesa, plavanje
ABSTRACT
Previous studies with systematic observation tools in
the coaching context have reported that the pattern of
coaching behaviour can be understood as a sequential
cycle of unplanned and reactive behaviours where
coaches most frequently instructed, provided feedback
and encouragement while simultaneously managing
the training environment. Nonetheless, there is a
clear limitation when the coaching process is viewed
as unidirectional without accounting for how athletes’
behaviour can inform coaching processes. Therefore,
the purpose of this study is to describe and interpret
the ecology of youth swimming training sessions. The
following re search questions fra med the study: (a) How
did the coac hes structu re the trai ning sessions? (b) What
kind of coach instruc tional and managerial behav iours
were prevalent in this context? and (c) How active
were athletes during the training sessions? Two youth
swimming coaches and their athletes were videotaped
during f ive traini ng sessions each. A mod ified version of
the task st ructure obse rvational i nstrument was us ed to
systematic ally obser ve the swimmi ng traini ng sessions.
Results showed that both coaches provided much time
for athletes to practice motor skills, and little time was
used for management and instruction. In addition to
describing tasks and explaining how to perform them,
the coaches instructed while athletes practiced and
provided both p ositive and correcti ve feedback. Final ly,
athletes were actively engaged and showed high levels
of compliance in instructional and managerial tasks.
Keywords: Coaching, youth sport, classroom ecology,
swimming
1Faculty of Education and Welfare Studie s, Åbo Akademi
University
Corresponding author:
Jan-Erik Romar
Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies,
Åbo Akademi University, 65101 Vasa, Finland.
(+35863247371)
E-mail: jromar@abo.fi
EXPLORING THE COACHING ECOLOGY IN
YOUTH SWIMMING: A MULTIPLE CASE
STUDY
PREUČEVANJE »EKOLOGIJE« TRENINGA
MLADIH PLAVALCEV: ŠTUDIJA VEČ
PRIMEROV
Jan-Erik Romar1
Emma Samuelsson1
Exploring the coaching ecology
45
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
EXPLORING THE COACHING ECOLOGY IN YOUTH SWIMMING: A
MULTIPLE CASE STUDY
Coach behaviour, practice activities, context and the relationship between these are seen as
essential components in athlete development and learning, and they shape participants’ athletic
experiences. Athlete development and learning is described as going beyond just the physical
performance of motor skills and techniques (Metzler, 2005). Sport part icipation provides athletes
with the opportunity to develop decision making skills (Grehaigne, Richard, & Griffin, 2005).
Furthermore, participation also includes affective benefits, such as enjoyment, increased self-
esteem, and social learning (Rylander, 2015). The coaches and athletes all have central positions
in achieving these effects.
Therefore, to understand coaching and develop coach education, research has, i n recent decades,
focused speci fically on coach behav iour in the coaching context (Gilbert & Trudel, 20 04; Harvey,
Cushion, Cope, & Muir, 2013). Here, one accepted line of research is t he use of systematic observa-
tion tools in describing coaching behaviours. Findings indicate that coaches most frequently
instructed, provided feedback and encouragement as well as managed the training environment
(Cope, Partington, & Harvey, 2017; Ford, Yates, & Williams, 2010; Smith & Cushion, 2006).
However, the pattern of coaching behaviour can also be understood as a sequential cycle of
unplanned and reactive behaviours (Kahan, 1999). Turnnidge, Côte, Hollenstein, and Deakin
(2014) reported that the most frequently occurring behavioural sequence was observation fol-
lowed by organisation. In addition, coaches often combined obser vation with subsequent positive
reinforcement, technical instruction with modelling, or general communication to individual
athletes, which again wa s followed by silent observation. However, the relationship between coach
behaviour and athlete activity is relatively under-researched.
Research on traditional team games from college, high school, and youth sport contexts tend
to dominate the coaching education literature (Gallimore & Tharpe, 2004; Kahan, 1999; Smith
& Cushion, 2006). The structure and content of coaching sessions varies between different
sports and contexts (e.g., differing situations of competition, organisation, and training) (Côté,
Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russel, 1995; Cushion, Harvey, Muir & Nelson, 2012; Harvey et al.,
2013). Furthermore, within practice sessions various instructional strategies might be used to
provide appropriate instruction to different individual athletes (Erickson, Côté, Hollenstein,
& Deakin, 2011). Hall, Gray, and Sproule (2016) also reported a large variance in individual
coaching activities from session to session and across the season as well as between training
and match day. Consequently, it is important to consider context when reviewing the research
literature a nd little is currently k nown about coachi ng in individual spor ts and particu larly about
coaching in swimming. Only one study has looked at competitive and recreational level athletes
in swimming through systematic observation and the researchers had a focus on coach-athlete
interactions (Turnnidge et al., 2014).
Systematic observation can provide rich information about coach behaviour. Nonetheless,
current observation data remain, to some extent, incomplete, as the focus is on direct styles
of coaching and the behavioural aspects of the coach. This is a clear limitation of the existing
coaching behaviour literature, where the coaching process is viewed as unidirectional (Kahan,
1999). While the mainstream research has mainly concluded that coaches’ behaviours inf luence
athletes’ experiences without accounting for how athletes can actively inform coaching pro-
46
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
cesses, Turndidge et al. (2014) proposed that examining athletes’ behaviours as well as coaches’
behaviours may contribute to a more in-depth understanding of the broader coaching processes.
There is an evolving acknowledgement and acceptance of coaching as being educational or
pedagogical, which assumes that coaching has more to do with teaching and learning than
anything else (Cassidy et al., 2009; Jones, 2007; Smith, Ward, Rodrigues-Neto, & Zhang, 2009).
Within research on physical education, the ecological paradigm has emerged as a powerful
and helpful framework for understanding physical education teaching and learning (Hastie &
Siedentop, 1999, 2006) and on the work students do in their classrooms (Hastie & Siedentop
2006). Therefore, in this article we analyse coaching in swimming through the theoretical lens
of an ecological approach to teaching physical education. In our coaching ecology research, the
coach was seen as equivalent to the teacher, the athletes to the learners, and training tasks to the
academic tasks. As a consequence, this study fits well within the suggestions from the review of
Hastie (2016) who proposed that the ecological model can serve as a useful heuristic for studying
physical activity engagement sports coaching settings.
Fundamental to the study of a classroom ecology is the notion that teaching consists of a series
of tasks, and researchers have identified three important task structure systems (Doyle 1983,
Doyle & Carter, 1984). The instructional task system focuses on student learning and consists
of the various learning activities in which students engage (Doyle, 1986, Hastie & Siedentop,
2006). The manager ial task system is about al l non-subject matter fu nctions, such as routi nes and
classroom rules, necessary for students and teachers to work productively together over a given
period of time. This system brings order and organisation to a classroom and facilitates student
engagement in instructional tasks. The student-social task system relates to the intentions for
social interaction that students seek. These systems are interrelated, inf luence each other in dual
directions, and organize academic work in classrooms (Hastie, 2016; Leriche, Desbiens, Amade-
Escot, & Tinning, 2016). Thus, the ecological paradigm provides an understanding about the
interactions bet ween students and teachers in a learning environment: How is content organised
and presented, and what are the student responses to that content? The academic work in a
classroom has a program of actions that describes how subject-matter content and management
come together in ways that are not easily separated (Hastie et al., 2007). It includes the sequence
of content presentation and the organisation of the class in connection with the setup of the
content (Hastie & Siedentop, 2006, Tannehill, Van der Mars, & MacPhail, 2015). Studies in
physical education show that the strength of the program of action in a physical education class
seems to be related to the work that eventually gets done in class (Hastie, 2016; Tannehill et al.,
2015). Accountability is a key concept within the ecology framework and Doyle (1983) indicated
that how a teacher accepts and rewards students’ answers defines the academic work. A strong
program of action is characterized by consistently high engagement and low off-task and task
modifying behaviours by students coupled with high levels of accountability. Thus, students
attempt to change tasks, the conditions under which tasks are performed, or the performance
standards for task completion, which is defined as task negotiation (Doyle, 1986).
Researchers in physical education have also identified momentum, pacing, and signal systems
as concepts that relate to the maintenance of the program of action (Hastie, 2016; Hastie et
al., 2007). Momentum is defined as a continuous flow of student work with a high level of
student engagement. Fast pacing occurs when a majority of t ime is allocated to act ivities in which
teacher and student transitions are fast and activities require little modification in equipment
and space. Finally, the concept of signal systems relates to how a teacher maintains pace with
Exploring the coaching ecology
47
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
accountability and feedback about task requirements, performance standards, and using other
statements to energize student efforts. The signal system can also be seen in a coaching setting
through the number of accountability checks, feedback on errors, hustle statements, incidents of
public recognition, and task reminders during a practice session. Therefore, a verbal hustle from
a coach and directed at a particular athlete or group might serve to either reinforce appropriate
pacing or signal the need to increase the pace (Hastie, 2016).
Within physical education, the ecological paradigm has been used in research with a focus on
task presentation, teacher responses to student work, and teacher accountabi lity strategies, a s well
as on students’ responses to tasks and their negotiation (see Hastie & Siedentop 2006 and Hastie,
2016 for a review). From a coaching perspective, Hastie and Saunders (1992) noted that similar
task systems operate in physical education and coaching, and that the concept of accountability
is important in understanding both teaching and coaching processes. While they also found
that the tasks were clearly defined, Pereira, Mesquita, and Graça (2009) reported a presence of
weak and ambiguous accountability systems and no coach reaction to unaccomplished tasks.
Although some work has been c arried out on task systems and accountability i n volleyball coach-
ing (Hastie & Saunders, 1992; Pereira et al., 2009), little is currently known about coach and
athlete behaviours in an individual sport context. Therefore, to better understand the holistic
nature of coaching, research should focus on individual coaches and athletes and how they
operate within given contexts.
Consequently, the main purpose of this study is to contribute to the existing coaching database
by providing descriptive data relating to coaching behaviours in a youth swimming context.
Therefore, the specific purpose of this study is to describe and interpret the ecology of youth
swimming training sessions with an in-depth, multiple case study of two swimming coaches
and their athletes. More precisely, the following research questions framed the study: (a) How
do the coaches structure training sessions? (b) What kind of coach instructional and managerial
behaviours were prevalent in this context? and (c) How active were athletes during the training
sessions?
METHODS
Participants
The participants in the study were two coaches and their athletes from a local swimming club
in western Finland. This sample of coaches and athletes was purposefully sampled, that is, they
were located close to the university, were willing to be observed during practice, and the club
had private swimming practice sessions, which were conducive to observation. Coach Johan (all
names used are pseudonyms) had been a member of the youth and adult national swimming
team in Finland. He had six years of coaching experience and had levels 1, 2, and 3 swimming
coaching qualifications. Coach Johan’s group consisted of four boys and six girls age 12 to 16
years. This group had practiced competitive swimming three to four years and, at time of the
observations, had six practice sessions a week. These athletes had a focus on participation in the
national championship for their age group. Coach Nik las was ranked in t he top four in youth-age
swimming in Fin land. He had 10 years of coachi ng experience, and he had levels 1, 2, and 3 coach
education in swimming as well as further coach education in triathlon and diving. His group
consisted of five boys and seven girls age 12 to 14 years. Athletes in coach Niklas’s groups had
48
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
practiced competitive swimming from two to five years and, during participation in the study,
they had four practice sessions a week. Most of these athletes participated in regional competi-
tions. As a whole, this study context could be described as a performance domain of coaching
with an emphasis on commitment to a preparation for competition and an attempt to inf luence
performance variables (Lyle, 2002). Informed consent was obtained from all participants and
parents prior to the start of data collection, and is thus in line with the authors’ institutional
review board policies on human subjects.
Data Collection
While the intension was to not disrupt t he practice sessions, the coaches were given the authority
to make all the planning and practice decisions they wished. To reduce the potential impact of
researchers’ presence and equipment (microphone and camera) on the behaviours of coaches
and athletes, one practice session of each coach was also recorded prior to actual data collection.
In addition, the second author was familiar to the athletes, as she was also a coach for another
group in the club and, during data collection, she followed the practice from a nonobtrusive
location. This ensured that participants were more familiar with a researcher being present dur-
ing practice sessions. The observations for the study were conducted by the second author, who
visited the practice sessions for a period of eight consecutive weeks. Practice sessions typically
lasted approximately 90 minutes and were organized to include sets of swimming tasks with
various points of focus (see examples of practice sessions in Table 1). Thus, the organization of
practice sessions followed what is typical for swimming practice (Hannula, 2003).
Each coach and his group was observed and video recorded five times. A total of 971.4 minutes
were recorded, which exceeds t he three coaching sessions of 90 m inutes that has been established
as a suff icient amount of observation time in coaching education resea rch (Brewer & Jones, 2002;
Cope et al., 2017). During practice, the coach wore a cordless microphone that transmitted his
voice to a receiver on a video camera mounted on a tripod, which allowed for simultaneous
recording of video and audio signals.
To capture relevant information, data collection about coach and athlete behaviour was guided
by the constructs within the ecological task structure (Doyle, 1986; Siedentop & Hastie, 2006).
A modified version of the task structure observation system was the systematic instrument used
to describe the ecology in this coaching setting (Romar, 1994; Siedentop, Doutis, Tsangaridou,
Ward, & Rauschenbach, 1993). The main adaptation is the inclusion of swimming focus and
categories to identif y coach signal system. This is in line with previous coaching and ped agogical
research where the instrument is adapted according to the particular research goal and context
(Dyson & Strachan, 2004; Hall et a l., 2015; Layne & Hastie, 2 015; Pereira et a l., 2009). The focus of
the task st ructure observation instrument was on the inst ructional and managerial system, which
allows for coding related to time on task, task type, coach signal system, and athlete compliance.
Figure 1 displays the actual coding sheet, while Table 2 offers the operational definitions of each
component.
The following sequence wa s used to code each instruc tional and managerial task of every practice
session in this study. Each task was initially classified as a managerial or instructional task.
Instruc tional tasks were coded either as c oach instruction or ath lete practice. T he instr ument also
considered secondary detail of time related to the technical focus of swimming practice, which
was butterf ly, backstroke, breast, crawl, and medley (a mix of various skills). The total time was
Exploring the coaching ecology
49
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
Table 1. Description of practice tasks and content from one practice session for each coach.
Practice task Content
Johan, practice 3
400 m Warm up, self-selected technique
4 x 100 m Kicking (medley)
4 x 100 m 75 m arms + 25 m sculling
12 x 25 m Back swimming
8 x 25 m Sidekicks with balls and fins (strength training)
3 x 4 x 50 m Start every minute (1. Back, 2. Crawl, 3. Own choice)
100 m Easy
3 x 4 x 50 m Start every minute (1. Back, 2. Crawl, 3. Own choice)
Relay
Niklas, practice 3
400 m Warm up, self-selected technique
2 x 200 m Medley
200 m Medley kicking
4 x 25 m Butterfly
5 x 3 x 50 m Breast swim; (1. Kicking, 2. Skill focus, 3. Fast)
150 m Easy
6 x 50 m Breast swim with a start jump
200 m Back swim with fins
2 x 25 m Back swim fast with fins
300 m Crawl with fins
2 x 25 m Crawl fast with fins
200 m Breast swim kicking
4 x 25 m Butterfly fast
200 m Cool down
Relay
Time Start End
Tas k type Org Inst Breast Crawl Back Butterf Medl
Coach Name Concurrent instru Post-instruction
behav Posit model Negat model FB positive
Pre-instr (What) Pre-instr (How) FB negative
Questioning Physical assist FB corrective
Praise Scold Hustle
Athlete Appropriate Inappropriate Non-engagement Off Task
2Appropriate Inappropriate Non-engagement Of f Task
3Appropriate Inappropriate Non-engagement Of f Task
4Appropriate Inappropriate Non-engagement Of f Task
Figure 1. Coding sheet
50
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
based on duration coding with start and end times of each activity recorded. Thus, it allowed
the observers to view the elements of a practice session and determine the amount of time spent
in different categories. For each task, one athlete was first randomly selected for observation for
one minute. After the end of one minute, another athlete from the group was observed. This
process continued until the task was completed. Athletes not being observed would be identified
for observation in the following task. If the task was of long duration, some athletes would be
observed multiple times, thus the order of athlete observation would be followed. If the task was
manageria l (non-academic tasks related to t he organization and di rection of ath lete behaviour) or
coach instruction, athlete compliance was measured in terms of congruence between the stated
task and the behaviour of athletes, with those behaviours being classified as either on-task or
off-task. The percentage of time one athlete was in either categor y was calculated for each prac tice
session. To quantify ath lete compliance in prac tice tasks, the engagement of one athlete was coded
according to their behaviour in one of four categories: (a) appropriate practice, (b) inappropriate
practice, (c) non-engagement, or (d) off-task behaviour. Table 2 shows the definitions of each
of these categories. In addition, field notes was taken to describe non-engagement and off-task
behaviour. The coach signal system was event coded with categories mainly from the Coach
Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS) instrument (Cushion et al., 2012). In line with Ford et
al. (2010), the instrument used for recording coach behaviour focused on 15 key ‘instructional’
behaviours, which have been consistently reported as the most utilized by coaches (Cope et al.,
2017).
Table 2. Definitions of terms
Type of task Definition
Managerial Content related to organizing athletes and equipment
Coach instruction Content related to the coach providing instructions and demonstration of
practice tasks
Athlete practice Tasks where different techniques were practiced in drills or sets with various
speed, and the coach provided instructions about the technique to be used
Coach signal system Definition
Name Use of name when speaking directly to an athlete
Pre-instruction (What) Initial information given to athletes about what to do
Pre-instruction (How) Initial information given to athletes about how to perform the skill (critical
elements)
Concurrent instruction Cues or reminders given during the execution of the task to all athletes
Post-instruction Corrections, re-explanation, or a summary given after the execution of the task
Positive modelling A demonstration of a correct performance of a skill
Negative modelling A demonstration of an incorrect performance of a skill
Physical assistance Physically moving an athlete to the correct position or through the correct
range of movement
Questioning Any questions to athletes or listening and responding to athletes questions,
unless falling under instruction or feedback
Positive feedback Verbal or non-verbal positive information about the athletes’ performance
Exploring the coaching ecology
51
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
Type of task Definition
Negative feedback Verbal or non-verbal negative information about the athletes’ performance
Corrective feedback Specific verbal communication about errors in the performance, including
feedback aimed at improving performance execution
Praise Compliments and statements about general behaviour, such as attitude and
effort
Scold Displeasure about general behaviour
Hustle Verbal statements aimed at intensity effort
Athlete compliance Definition
Appropriate
The athlete is appropriately engaged carrying out an assigned task, such
as moving to correct space, getting equipment, or listening to instructions
(managerial and coach instruction tasks)
The athlete’s performance is consistent with the correct execution of the skill as
described and demonstrated by the coach (Athlete practice tasks)
Inappropriate The athlete’s performance is not consistent with the task as described and
demonstrated by the coach [task modification] (Athlete practice tasks)
Non-engagement The athlete showed no overt signs of being active, yet was not misbehaving
(Athlete practice tasks)
Off-task The athlete was involved in an activity in a clearly unsuitable action (all tasks)
Data analysis
Data obtained f rom the modif ied task structure observat ion instrument was arra nged to provide
an indication of the type of tasks, duration, frequency, percent, and athlete compliance. The
observed tasks were first classified as to type and duration within the managerial and instruc-
tional task categories. The instructional tasks were furt her classif ied into coach presentation and
practice ta sks. Coach behaviour was a nalysed as the signal system t hat structures ath lete practice.
The athletes’ responses to these tasks were recorded based on their engagement. The length of
each practice session was recorded, and the duration and proportion spent in each of the three
task forms and five content categories were subsequently calculated. To determine the mean
percentage of time spent in tasks and content categories across all sessions, the time variables for
each practice session were summed and div ided by the total number of sessions, Coach behaviour
data were coded and quantified for each behaviour category. Overall totals, percentages, and
rates per minute for each category were calculated and summed. The rate per minute for each
behaviour was calculated by dividing the total for each category by the total number of minutes
observed. Coach behaviour studies have frequently reported findings in terms of percentages
(Cope et al., 2017), and it was recommended as a reliable variable (Ford et al., 2010).
Pilot work was done to verify the validity of the instrument through preliminary observations of
trial recordings. As a result, no categories were added, deleted, or amended. The pilot work also
constituted t he training for the obser vers, which was superv ised by an experienced rese archer (t he
first author). Additionally, intra-observer and inter-observer agreement checks were calculated
for 20 % of randomly selected practice sessions. For intra-observer agreement, the second author
analysed the video on two separate occasions with at least a two-month gap for memory lapse to
occur (Darst, Zakrajsek, & Mancini, 1989). Another trained and experienced observer served in
analysing inter-observer agreement for time, coach behavioural, and athlete compliance data.
52
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
Both the inter-observer (88.1%) and intra-observer (93.9%) agreement for this study exceeded
the determined criterion level of 80% and the overall mean was 91.6% (van der Mars, 1989).
RESU LTS
The data represent how the coaches and athletes create a working ecology in swimming practice.
Results from the systematic observation are broken down into a separate case for each coach.
The coaching ecology for Johan is followed by the ecology for Niklas.
e Coaching Ecology for Johan
Johan’s practice sessions totalled 476 minutes, with a mean duration of 95.2 minutes. A total of 9
managerial, 41 coach presentation, and 66 practice tasks, with an average of 23 tasks per session,
were identified for Johan. Table 3 shows a comparison of the time spent in inst ructional tasks dur-
ing practice sessions under Johan’s direction. At first, these data show that Johan provided much
time for athlete practice (91%), while little time was used in managerial and coach presentation
tasks. Second, the coach a llocated much time (71%) to practice sets with a focus on medley (a mix
of all techniques). A specific focus on backstroke and crawl techniques had a similar amount of
time, while no practice set had a key focus on breast technique.
Table 3. Coach use of practice time by task type and swimming focus
Johan Niklas
Time (min) %Time (min) %
Tas k type
Managerial 2.03 2.1 3.32 3.3
Coach presentation 6.65 7. 0 10.37 10.5
Athlete practice 86.52 90.9 85.39 86.2
Swimming focus
Butterfly 1.33 1.6 9.56 11.2
Backstroke 11.63 13.4 8.85 10.4
Breast 0 0 19.43 22.8
Crawl 12.46 14.4 9.77 11.4
Medley 61.78 70.6 37.78 44.2
A total of 1,289 event behaviours were coded f rom Johan’s practice sessions. Five behaviours com-
prised al most three-fourths of his sig nal system during coach ing (see Table 4). Most of these were
related to providing instruction, while less emphasis was on accountability, particularly through
corrective feedback (14%). In structuring practice sessions, Johan most frequently employed
‘concurrent instruc tion’, ‘pre-instruction (what)’, and ‘pre-instruc tion (how)’. Conversely, he used
‘post-instruction’ and ‘physical assistance’ only one time each during all practice sessions. Simi-
larly, ‘praise’, ‘scold’, and ‘hustle’ were infrequently employed during Johan’s practice sessions.
Exploring the coaching ecology
53
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
Table 4. Overall total behaviours, percent of behaviour (%) and rate per minute (RPM) for Johan
and Niklas.
Johan Niklas
Tot a l %RPM Tota l %RPM
Name 120 9,3 0,25 301 15,6 0,61
Pre-instruction (What) 226 17, 5 0,47 386 20,1 0,78
Pre-instruction (How) 163 12,7 0,34 169 8,8 0,34
Concurrent instruction 268 20,8 0,56 376 19,6 0,76
Post-instruction 10,1 0,002 000
Positive modelling 88 6,8 0,18 103 5,3 0,21
Negative modelling 44 3,4 0,09 46 2,4 0,09
Physical assistance 10,1 0,002 000
Questioning 84 6,5 0,18 133 6,9 0,27
Positive feedback 57 4,4 0,12 83 4,3 0,17
Negative feedback 50,4 0,01 30 1,6 0,06
Corrective feedback 180 14,0 0,38 156 8,1 0,31
Praise 14 1,1 0,03 31 1,6 0,06
Scold 17 1,3 0,04 63 3,3 0,13
Hustle 21 1,6 0,04 46 2,4 0,09
Athlete compliance within the manageria l and coach instruction task was particularly high, w ith
only a few incidences of off-task behav iour (s ee Table 5). When athlete s were off-task during coach
instruction tasks, this involved being slow to respond to a particular protocol or not paying full
attention to coach inst ruction. In term of athlete engagement during practice tasks, Table 5 shows
Table 5. Athlete compliance by each coach
Tas ks Appropriate Inappropriate Non-engagement Off-task
Time (min) %Time (min) %Time (min) %Time (min) %
Johan
Managerial 10.14 100 0 0
Instructions 33.16 99.7 0.11 0.3
Practice 281.47 65.1 0.58 0.1 150.28 34.7 0.25 0.1
Niklas
Managerial 16.58 100 0 0
Instructions 50.67 97.8 1.36 2.2
Practice 283.48 66.3 4.86 1.1 137.60 32.2 1.02 0.2
54
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
the time spent in the four categories. On average, the athletes spent about two thirds of their time
participating appropriately in swimming practice tasks, few tasks modifications occurred, and
few off-task behaviours were observed. However, athletes were non-engaged about one third of
their time in practice, which means they were passively waiting for their turn to swim or receive
feedback from the coach.
e Coaching Ecology for Niklas
Niklas’s practice sessions equalled 495 minutes, where the average length of one practice session
was 99.1 minutes. Niklas had a total of 16 managerial, 51 coach presentation, and 71 athlete
practice tasks, with an average of 28 tasks per practice session. The ways Niklas spent time in
instructional tasks during practice sessions are shown in Table 3. On average, he provided a
majority of time to athlete practice tasks. In addition, about 10% of practice session time was in
coach presentation task, while only about 3% was used for manageria l tasks. Niklas also a llocated
most time (44%) to practice sets with a focus on medley (a mix of al l techniques). However, breast
technique received the second-most focus during his practice sessions. In addition, Niklas spent
similar amounts of time on crawl, butterfly, and backstroke techniques.
A total of 1,923 event behaviours were coded from Niklas’s practice sessions. Table 4 shows that
five behaviours comprised about 72% of his signal system. Of these, ‘pre-instruction (what)’ and
‘concurrent instruction’ were the most employed behaviours overall. ‘Name’ was the third most
employed coach behaviour. As with Johan, Niklas did not use ‘post-instruction’ and ‘physical
assistance’. However, he more frequently employed ‘scold’ and ‘hustle’ than Johan.
Table 5 shows athlete compliance in time during practice a ll practice sessions. Withi n managerial
tasks, athletes were 100% compliant with coaching instruction, while during coach instruction
tasks, athletes were off-task at 2.2%. In terms of athlete engagement during practice tasks, the
athletes spent on average 66.3% of practice time in appropriate swimming practice. The athletes
showed about one minute of total practice time in off-task behaviour, where they were diving
or talking to other athletes. Similarly, there were few task modifications. Nevertheless, non-
engagement occupied about 32% of the time for practice tasks.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to examine the ecology of two coaches and their athletes during
youth swim ming practice sessions so as to provide some tentative explanations based on previous
research wit hin the ecological pa radigm. This pa radigm suggests a shi ft in thinking from coaches
to the practic al work as the central element of athlete s’ experiences in the coach ing setting. The ke y
findi ngs from this case study wa s that the two coaches showed more similarities tha n differences,
where management and coach instruction time was low and much time was provided to athlete
swim practice. In addition, the coaches created a working climate where athletes were most of
the time on task, although they sometimes waited for their turn. Our findings are particularly
relevant given previous existing coaching studies in team sports (Cope et al., 2017; Ford et al.,
2010), where little focus was on the unidirectional athlete role in the coaching process (Kahan,
1999; Turndidge et al., 2014). Thus, the discussion of coach and athlete behaviour are grounded
within the ecologica l paradigm, specifically concentrating on the concepts of program of action,
signal systems, momentum, and pacing.
Exploring the coaching ecology
55
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
The concept of program of action, introduced by Doyle (1986), is used to describe the notions of
teaching or coaching content and the organization merging together in ways that are not easily
separated (Hastie & Siedentop, 2006). These two coaches were effective managers and created a
strong and robust program of action with high athlete engagement, few task modifications, and
little off-task behaviour. This was noticed in managerial, coach instruction, and athlete practice
tasks. It can be assumed that these coaches were capable of guiding management, content, and
participants along a course toward high-quality performance (Hastie, 2016). The management
of the coaching setting might be different compared to physical education classes, as the athletes
are in the sw imming pool and they utilize little equipment to detract from the establishment and
maintenance of the program of action. Thus, the coaching ecology in this setting was character-
ized by strong program of action, which is different to many physical education classes, which
lack intensity and require little effort from students (Siedentop et al., 1994). However, it also needs
to be recogniz ed that all athletes participate voluntarily severa l times a week, and that each group
was about ten athletes, which may enhance productivity and reduce the potential for disruptive
and non-focused behaviour.
The coaches were working directly with the athletes, and although the athletes were sometimes
required to wait for a tu rn to swim, they showed few off-task beh aviours whi le the coach could stil l
observe them. This supports Ha stie’s (2016) notion about monitoring, t hat unsupervised students
tend to become deviant or to avoid involvement. Similarly, athlete modification of practice tasks
was low, which means tasks were seldom modified to make them more or less challenging, to
increase chances of success, or to hide their social interactions. The high congruence between
tasks as stated and those practiced by athletes, showed a program of action, which has strong
work orientation (Hastie et al., 2007). This might be related to that athletes worked toward some
authentic athletic goals, which is typical in the sporting setting. However, emphasis in practice
was different for the two coaches: One coach had a focus on mixing swimming techniques into
each practice set, while the other coach had practice sets with a single technical focus.
Signal systems, momentum, and pacing are all concepts that relate to the maintenance of the
program of action. In a coach-centred approach, the coach manages, instructs, and monitors
athletes through the signal system. The signal system can also be seen in a coaching setting
through the number of accountability checks, feedback on errors, hustle statements, incidents of
public recognition, and task reminders during a practice session. Therefore, a verbal hustle from
a coach and directed at a particular athlete or group might serve to either reinforce appropriate
pacing or signal the need to increase t he pace (Hastie, 2016). These two coaches informed athletes
concerning practice task requirements and performance standards through specific tasks, for
example, explicitly describing how many times an athlete had to swim a certain distance. They
also frequently pointed out the technic al swimming focus for practice tasks in task presentations.
Hastie and Sau nders (1992) also reported t hat ambiguity was low when tasks were clearly defi ned
in a volleyba ll coaching sett ing. They noted that most dri lls required players to perform a specific
number of repetitions or to continue until success was reached. Thus, the coach would always
designate the criteria for a perfect pass. Athlete accountability for practice performance was
further improved in our study with coach monitoring and subsequent feedback within these
coaching set tings’ signal systems. Although t here were some differences in t he signal systems for
these coaches, they showed similar instructional patterns as coaches in previous research (Cope
et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2013). They showed high frequency of instructional behaviour, and
the athletes were held accountable for swimming effort through feedback and other prompts.
56
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
Consequently, although coaches can create solid signal systems that keep athletes focused on
improving their swimming performance, we did not measure this in our current study. Our
results clearly differ from Pereira et al. (2009) where volleyba ll coaches basically failed to monitor
players’ task accomplishment and there was a weak and ambiguous signal system. Accordingly,
in the case of youth swimming practice, these various signals are the communications presented
by the coach as well as tasks that are relatively clear and routine; athletes tend to practice actively
with little hesitation or resistance. Thus, we employed the concept of signal systems to explain
how different activity structures and tasks influence athlete involvement.
This continuous flow of athlete work has been defined as momentum within the ecological
paradigm (Hastie et al., 2007). That is, there will be high levels of student engagement that can
be observed from athlete engagement and response rates during practice sessions (Hastie, 2016).
This youth swimming context was characterized by a continuous flow of athlete work similarly
showing a considerable momentum where the level of athlete on-task behaviour for practice
tasks was almost 100%. The results suggest that there is no decrease in compliance compared
to studies in physical education settings (Siedentop et al., 1994.) Thus, in the current study,
athletes showed high success rates, thereby providing evidence that practice tasks were at an
appropriate level of difficulty. One explanation for the high compliance can be that athletes were
part of a strong program of action implemented by experienced coaches. Taking the context into
consideration, we conclude that our findings may represent the higher end of practice engagement
(Romar, Ranta-Aho, & Williams., in review; Smith et al., 2009; Turnnidge et al., 2014). However,
swimming is regarded as an endurance sport and, as this study shows, practice sessions are built
of interval sets of rather high intensity. Thus, there need to be rest periods for athletes between
intensive repetitions, which also was evident in our results, as about one third of time for practice
tasks was in non-engagement.
Finally, the athletes’ high opportunities to practice was also related to the fast pacing in this
coaching ecolog y. Ha stie et al. (2007) defined fa st pacing as when the majority of ti me is allocated
to activit ies in which coach and student transitions are smooth and ac tivities require litt le change
in equipment and space. These coaches provided about 85% of practice session time for athlete
swimming practice, which meant that time for management and instruction was low. Other
studies in the coaching context support our findings (Romar et al., in review; Smith et al., 2009),
although there are also some conflicting results from team sports research (Cope et al., 2017;
Ford et al., 2010). Based on our study, we suggest the format used—swimming practice sessions
with athletes in the pool completing routine task repetitions—may be typical for the context.
Nevertheless, Hastie (2016) suggested that individual tasks are not retained over long periods in
a fast paced ecology. Thus, in the current study, the coaches averaged about ten practice tasks
during one practice session of 90 minutes, which conflicts with fast paced ecology in physical
education. This m ight be related to different sociocultu ral contexts: Coaching-motivated athletes
can sustain productive practice throug h a strong program of actions, whereas physica l education
classroom lessons have shown weaker programs of action leading to lower student effort.
In interpreting the results of this study, it is important to note that the study is not without
limitations. Due to the use of only two coaches and their groups from one swimming club and a
small sample of practice sessions, t here is a potential for limited general izability of the resu lts and
conclusions. Given that the ecological analysis in this study can help us understand the athlete
engagement and learning in youth swimming, the next challenge is to also include the social
task system, where athletes social agenda and the negotiation process is analysed. Consequently,
Exploring the coaching ecology
57
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
this analysis could include a mixed methodology implementing coach and athlete interviews to
gather more information regarding coach intension and athlete responses in practice sessions.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to our understanding of coach and athlete work in a youth swimming
context. It provides clear descriptions of the tasks and how practice is structured in an individual
sport. The analysis using the ecology paradigm demonstrated that coaches can create strong
programs of action that guide athletes through practice sessions. In addition, coaches’ signal
systems, pacing, and momentum are all concepts that relate to the maintenance of the program
of action.
REFERENCES
Brewer, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2002). A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid systematic
observation instruments: the case of rugby union. Sport Psychologist,16(2), 138-159.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and pedagogi-
cal foundations of coaching practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Cope, E., Partington, M., & Harvey, S. (2017). A review of the use of a systematic observation method in
coaching research between 1997 and 2016. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(20), 2042-2050.
Coté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russel, S. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded assessment
of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 1-17.
Cushion, C., Harvey, S., Muir, B., & Nelson, L. (2012). Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention
System (CAIS): Establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instru-
ment.Journal of Sports Sciences,30(2), 201-216.
Darst, P. W., Zakrajsek, D. B., & Mancini, V. H. (1989). Analyzing physical education and sport instruction.
Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
Doyle, W. (1986) Classroom organization a nd management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching, (3rd edn.), (pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.
Doyle, W. & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms, Curriculum Inquiry, 14: 129-149.
Dyson, B., & Strachan, K. (2004). The ecology of cooperative learning in a high school physical education
programme. Waikato Journal of Education, 10, 117-139.
Erickson, K., Côté, J., Hollenstein, T., & Deakin, J. (2011). Examining coach–athlete interactions using
state space grids: An observational analysis in competitive youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
12(6), 645-654.
Ford, P. R., Yates, I., & Wil liams, A. M. (2010). An analysi s of practice activ ities and inst ructional behav iours
used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and appl ication.Journal
of Sports Sciences,28(5), 483-495.
Gallimore, R., & T harp, R. (2004). What a coach c an teach a teacher, 1975-2004: Ref lections and reana lysis
of John Wooden’s teaching practices.The Sport Psychologist,18(2), 119-137.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970–2001.Re-
search Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,75(4), 38 8-39 9.
58
Exploring the coaching ecology
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24,
2, 44–59
(2018)
Gréhaigne, J.F., Richard, J-F., & Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. New
York: Routledge Falmer.
Hall, E . T., Gr ay, S., & Sproule, J. (2016). The microstr ucture of coaching practice: behaviours and ac tivities
of an elite rugby union head coach during preparation and competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(10),
896-905.
Hannula, D. (2003). Coaching swimming successfully. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Harvey, S., Cushion, C. J., Cope, E., & Muir, B. (2013). A season long investigation into coaching behaviours
as a function of practice state: The case of three collegiate coaches. Sports Coaching Review, 2(1), 13-32.
Hastie, P. (2016). The classroom ecolog y paradigm and its contribution to understanding context in physi-
cal education.Recherches & éducations, 15, 29-50.
Hastie, P., Saunders, J. (1992). A study of task systems and accountability in an elite junior sports setting.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(4), 376 –388.
Hastie, P., & Siedentop, D. (1999) An ecological perspective on physical education. European Physical
Education Review, 5(1), 9–27.
Hastie, P., & Siedentop, D. (2006). The classroom ecology paradigm. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, D., & M.
O’Sullivan, (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 214−225). London: Sage.
Hastie, P., Sinelnikov, O., Brock, S., Sharpe, T, Eiler, K., & Mowling, C. (2007). Kounin revisited: Tentative
postulates for an expanded examination of classroom ecologies.Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-
tion,26(3), 298-309.
Jones, R. (2007). Coaching redefined: an everyday pedagogical endeavor. Sport, Education and Society,
12(2), 159-173.
Kahan, D. (1999). Coaching behaviour: a review of the systematic observation research literature. Applied
Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 14, 17e58.
Layne, T., Hastie, P. (2015). A task analysis of sport education physical education season for fourth grade
students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(3), 314–32 8.
Leriche, J., Desbiens, J. F., Amade-Escot, C., & Tinning, R. (2016). Compatibility and complementarity
of classroom ecology and didactique research perspectives in physical education.Quest,68(4), 497-520.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. London: Routledge.
Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. Michigan: Holcomb Hathaway Publish-
ers.
Pereira, F., Mesquita, I., & Graça, A. (2009). Accountabilit y systems and instructiona l approaches in youth
volleyball training.Journal of Sports Science & Medicine,8(3), 366.
Romar, J. E. (1995). Case studies of Finnish physical education teachers: Espoused and enacted theories of
action. Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press.
Romar, J-E., Ranta-Aho, M., & Williams, E. (in review). Exploring the coach’s and athletes’ behaviour in
martial arts: A case study. Kinesiology.
Rylander, P. (2015). Coaches’ bases of power: Developing some initial knowledge of athletes’ compliance
with coaches in team sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(1), 110 -121.
Siedentop, D., Doutis, P., Tsangaridou, N., Ward, P., & Rauschenbach, J. (1994). Don’t sweat gym: An
analysis of curriculum and instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 375-394.
Smith, M. & Cushion, C. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of professional, top-level
youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(4), 355-3 66
Smith, R. C., Ward, P., Rodrigues-Neto, M., & Zhang, P. (2009). Practice behaviors of youth soccer play-
ers.Physical Educator,66(1), 2.
Exploring the coaching ecology
59
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 24, 2, 44–59 (2018)
Tannehill, D., Van der Mars, H., MacPhail, A. (2015). Building effective physical education programs.
Burlington; Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Turnnidge, J., Côté, J., Hollenstein, T., & Deakin, J. (2014). A direct observation of the dynamic content
and structure of coach-athlete interactions in a model sport program.Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-
ogy,26(2), 225-240.
van der Mars, H. 1989. Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V.
H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 53–80). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
