 Welcome
to this month's coaching section. As editorial team members, we
would like to provide you different articles on certain themes.
Article one discusses “Teacher-Coach Role Conflict”
in school-based physical education, and provides certain approaches
and proposals to this problem. Although this topic has not been
revisited in the literature since 1997, we still believe that this
is a universally common problem and we need to think and talk about
it.
Article two provides very useful and practical information about
creativity in coaching. And finally, article three presents how
to achieve goals and cope with disruptive behaviors.
We would love to hear your opinions about these articles, or any
concerns about coaching and teaching sports skills. Please don’t
hesitate to contact me or other coaching section editors and authors
via e-mail. If you would like to publish your work in this section
please let me know. We wish you a happy and healthy winter season.
Warm Regards from the Republic of Türkiye.
Ferman Konukman, Ph. D.
Coaching & Sports Section Editor
|
Teacher
- Coach Role Conflict in School Based Physical Education
Dr. Ferman Konukman, Abant Izzet Baysal University,
School of PE & Sports, Department of Physical Education Teacher
Education, Bolu, TURKEY - E-mail: ferman@vt.edu
Bülent Ağbuga M. Sc., Texas A &
M University, Department of Health & Kinesiology Ph.D. Student,
College Station, TX - E-mail: bakboga@yahoo.com
Teaching is a highly demanding occupation that requires effort
and commitment. In a typical day, teachers instruct many classes,
execute various activities around the school campus, and contribute
to committees; a majority of teachers have extracurricular assignments
as well. These multi-faceted responsibilities often result in full
time exhaustive job conditions (Sage, 1987).
For many physical education (PE) teachers, coaching a sport is
perceived as an expected extracurricular professional commitment.
However, coaching is unlike many extracurricular activities in that
it demands very intense job performance and daily planning throughout
the year. School athletic teams are expected to participate in league
tournaments, with advancement to state championships, and coaches
are publicly held accountable for the performance of their teams.
Although teacher role conflict has not been revisited in the literature
from 1997, there are still signs of this problem in our institutions
as a hidden agenda.
In a recent research study, Pagnano (2002) conducted a case study
to understand dual rules of a teacher-coach using an ecological
comparison. The purpose of this study was to examine the similarities
and differences between the context of teaching physical education
and coaching the same sport. Participants were a male physical education
teacher-softball coach and his physical education class (n= 23),
and varsity softball team (n=15). Data was collected using field
notes, interviews with teachers/coachs & students/athletes,
and recording task descriptions and content development during a
5-day softball unit in physical education and a 12-week softball
training.
The result of this study provided three major findings. First,
the softball program was very rigorous in the sport setting, while
it was very weak in physical education. Second, there were significant
differences in the types of tasks, number of tasks, and the opportunities
to respond (OTR) in each context. A coaching environment had higher
OTR, and more emphasizes on skill and strategy development, while
physical education had fewer tasks, low OTR and minimal skill practice.
Finally, differences in accountability also were reported between
the groups.
Recent research studies show that there are still contextual factors
that promote teacher-coach role conflict in school based physical
education. These contextual factors and multiple roles may cause
a "role conflict," which is defined as the degree of perceived
conflict between expected role behaviors.
Role conflict occurs when an individual has conflicting expectations
from the social environment and the workplace conditions. This conflict
is considered to be a crucial issue for both individuals and their
workplace. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyze
these contextual factors, and provide suggestions to solve teacher-coach
role conflict in school based physical education.
In general, teacher-coach role conflict occurs when the teachers
frequently find that coaching skills are more valued and motivated
(?) than teaching, whereas teaching is usually ignored (Chelladurai
& Kuga, 1996). For example, Stroot, Faucette, & Schwager
(1993) documents the following statements from PE teachers:
"I did not have any support for my teaching. They supported
me as a coach, but as a teacher, I could do anything or nothing
at all. To sit on the bleachers and roll out the ball would have
been fine. Without anyone caring about what you teach, and with
so many other responsibilities, it would have been easy for me to
do that."
"He could have been a good teacher - he knew what to do -
but no one required anything be done, so he put all his energies
into coaching."
"I usually spend 5 hours a day on volleyball. Last night,
I did not get home until 10:30. Right after volleyball practice,
we had a coaches meeting until 10:00. I'm not doing my best as a
teacher, and it makes me feel incompetent."
In contrast, Napper-Owen and Phillips (1995) found that a few
teachers perceived limited benefits of dual teacher-coach role.
One of the teachers reported that she benefited by giving feedback
during her coaching occupation, which then transferred to her teaching
role.
In summary, a majority of physical education teachers may be required
to coach, and some of the literature indicates that teaching and
coaching roles require different characteristics and abilities.
Research indicates that employment as a teacher, who also coaches,
causes role conflict, stress, and burnout (Bain, 1983; Capel et.
al., 1987; Donovan, 1997; Kosa, 1990; Locke & Massengele, 1978).
The heavy time commitment required to fulfill two roles, that are
quite different from one another, is a major source of stress.
As a result, one role is adopted as the dominant one. Consequently,
due to the greater popularity and prestige of the coaching role,
many physical education teachers will likely have a greater commitment
to coaching than to teaching.
What can be done for potential future teacher/coach role conflict
experience?
The teacher-coach role conflict experienced by a PE teacher who coaches is
rarely resolved for teachers who hold two different roles at the
same time. In this reality, the teacher-coach model in American
school systems leaves few choices for physical education teachers.
Therefore, if a teacher chooses to stay in both roles he/she should
accept the reality of both roles and develop skills to cope with
stress.
Withdrawing one of the positions that causes role conflict is a
way that is frequently preferred as a possible strategy (Sage 1987).
However, this solution is rarely presented to physical education
teachers, with the exception of those with health problems or other
alternative jobs. As an alternative to the total removal of one
position, Sage (1987) suggested decreasing the time demands of one
or both occupational roles.
On the other hand, it is possible to train undergraduate physical
education majors about teacher-coach role conflict by providing
proper education and practicum in appropriate settings. Brigham
Young University nontraditional FLIGHT (Blakemore, 1997) program
is a good example of this. Although there is limited systematic
data about it, this program integrates coaching courses into its
design, and student experiences in both teaching and coaching settings
are very clearly defined.
continued top of column
two...
|
|
 |
|
continued from previous
column...
In reality, it is best to have a separate undergraduate major for
coaching programs in Health and Human Performance, Kinesiology or
Exercise, and Sport Sciences departments in the future. Thus, a
different professional coaching identity may occur, and this may
promote the removal of role conflict problems. In general, as long
as institutions have, and offer, dual roles to physical education
teachers, teacher-coach role conflict will exist. Therefore, physical
education majors must be educated according to realities of these
conditions.
According to Graham (2004) a teacher constructs, and then builds,
the climate for a classroom environment by doing a number of different
tasks that lead to a pleasant environment for learning. Overall,
the ideas below generally emphasize a well-organized teaching and
learning environment with different instructional strategies.
At this point, Aicinena (1999) proposes a five steps behavioral
strategy to become a better teacher and coach:
 |
Organize skeletal block plans for yearly PE activities
to have better and clear objectives. |
|
Not to compare the achievements of non-athlete versus athlete
PE students. |
|
Understand and prepare for PE classes prior to teaching. |
|
Have clear, appropriate and different objectives to work effectively
with PE students and athletes. |
|
Avoid teaching highly skilled and performance oriented sports
in PE and coaching in a single day. This directs the teacher/coach
sense of working on the same sport and objectives in a single
day. |
On the other hand, there is another side to this ongoing teacher-coach
conflict and the stress and problems it brings to everyone involved:
the teacher-coach, the school administration, the student-athletes,
and the students. The majority of the arguments are over how the
teacher-coach should cope with the situation. What kind of behavior
should the administrator, who is pressed by the community to create
a winning team and is also responsible of creating the best educational
atmosphere for the teachers and the students, be displaying? What
takes priority? It is easy to answer, "The education of our
children".
 At this point, although there is no research about the role and
effects of contractual obligations, there may be a solution for
teacher-coach role conflict as one of the contextual factors because
when school administrations pay extracurricular stipends to coaches,
this may cause teachers-coaches to work overtime and become burned
out. They may become tired and sacrifice their regular teaching
duties.
In addition, some contracts for teacher-coaches are now interdependent.
For example, if a teacher-coach resigns the coaching position, unfortunately
the teacher-coach loses the teaching position. Therefore, this kind
of contractual obligations should be avoided. However, it is possible
to have different contracts where the coaching duties are essential
part of salary but teaching responsibilities are shortened and well
balanced, such as teaching half day and full time coaching duties
with the same amount of salary.
Moreover, the recent role of physical education is changing rapidly
in schools. It is known that regular physical activity provides
health benefits for participants. Despite the recent emphasis on
physical activity in children, according to the Surgeon General’s
Report (2002) the increase in child obesity is recognized as the
number one threat to the lives of children in the USA. These recent
trends emphasized the concept of a “ New Physical Education.”
The role and function of the physical education curriculum has
started to change in many schools. “New PE” emphasizes
integration of health and fitness concepts into school curriculum,
with individual and lifetime activities as well as cognitive and
affective development. These new roles and concepts increase the
responsibilities of PE teachers who were already giving full time
commitment and dedication to their work. Therefore, it is better
to separate the responsibilities of both teaching and coaching in
our schools to get maximum efficiency.
Although teacher-coach role conflict has not been frequently revisited
since 1997 in the literature, today’s schools still have teacher-coach
role conflict which affects the quality of education from the perspectives
of teachers and students. Consequently, by having a separate coaching
major, redefining and reorganizing institutions, using behavioral
strategies, changing contractual obligations, and being under the
guidance of NASPE’s National Standards for Athletic Coaching,
it may be possible to see promising signs of role conflict reduction
in physical education and coaching in the future.
References
|
Creativity in Coaching
Dr. Hasan Birol Yalçin, Dr. Bekir
Yüktaşır -
Abant Izzet Baysal University, School of PE & Sports, Department
of Coaching Sciences, Bolu, TURKEY - E-mail: yhbirol@yahoo.com
Aylin Önsü - Kocaeli University,
School of PE & Sports, Izmit, TURKEY
Yavuz Durak - Abant Izzet Baysal University,
Faculty of Education, Department of Art & Music Education, Bolu,
TURKEY
In today’s fast-paced decision making in sports, a coach’s
ability to stimulate the creativity and innovation of his/her young
players is becoming extremely important. Since coaching involves
a unique combination of teaching and managing, coaches are called
upon to innovate and reinforce creativity in order to be successful.
Creativity can be considered as the development of novel solutions
to perceived problems. Each individual or athlete has the capacity
to be creative. The only thing athletes need is a team, or place,
which has open channels of communication, internal culture of playfulness,
freedom, challenge, and grass-roots participation. In these types
of teams, athletes are not stuck in the rhythm of routine tasks.
They are allowed to make mistakes, because no mistakes usually means
no development.
One way in which coaches can have an effect on the occurrence
of creative activity is through goal setting. Achievable goals influence
motivation through their impact on self-regulatory mechanisms, and
research has indicated that goal setting is one of the most effective
motivational techniques. Both short term and long term goals increase
attention and effort by providing clear targets toward which athletes
can direct their energies.
Also, goals regulate action directly by affecting what athlete
pay attention to, how hard they work, and how long they persist
on a task. In addition, goals affect action indirectly by motivating
athletes to discover and use task strategies that will facilitate
goal achievement.
Finally, goals are more likely to be attained when athletes are
strongly committed to their goals, and are given feedback concerning
their progress in relation to their goals.
In setting goals, coaches are really cueing their players as to
what is needed for their job, and what is valued by the team. Having
set clear performance goals is a critical factor for high creativity.
In contrast, when athletes do not know what expectations are, or
no clear goals are given, lower levels of creativity may occur.
Research results show that a clearly stated mission enabled teams
to focus on the development creativity. Therefore, coaches interested
in encouraging more creative activity should set creativity goals.
continued top of next column
...
|
|
|
| Achievement Goals,
and Disruptive Behaviors, in Teaching & Coaching Sport Skills
Bülent Ağbuga M. Sc., Texas A
& M University, Department of Health & Kinesiology Ph.D.
Student, College Station, TX - E-mail: bakboga@yahoo.com
The concept of achievement motivation has been discussed for
over a century. Throughout the years, numerous theories of achievement
motivation have been proffered, but the achievement goal theory
(Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984) is one of the most prominent theories.
Achievement goal theory provides us a link among achievement-related
behaviors, the meanings of those behaviors, and studying an individual's
learning environment (Ames, 1992).
Recently, this model has been challenged by researchers, and
they have proposed a trichotomous, approach-avoidance achievement
goal framework (Elliot, 1999). In this framework, there are three
independent achievement goals: mastery, performance-approach,
and performance-avoidance.
Mastery goals represent a focus on learning, understanding, developing
competence, mastering the material, and self-improvement. Performance-approach
goals involve demonstration of high ability. However, performance-avoidance
goals involve demonstration of high ability. Research has demonstrated
that compared to performance-approach and performance-avoidance
goals, mastery goals are more likely to be associated with adaptive
motivational outcomes, such as working hard for success, showing
intrinsic interest in learning, attributing success to effort,
and persisting in the face of difficulty.
In recent years, achievement goal theory has become a viewpoint
for understanding the reasons of students’ disruptive behavior
in the classroom (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). Disruptive
behavior has been explained as a characteristic of the student,
or as resulting from a deficiency in the teacher's skills of classroom
management, or as a combination of these factors (Bear, 1998;
Kaplan et al., 2002).
Disruptive behavior, such as uncontrolled laughter, wandering
around the room, making disruptive noises, disrespecting others,
and more seriously fighting with others, has always been one of
the most serious concerns of schools. These types of behavior
not only disrupt teachers, but also students from a learning focus
(Fernandez-Balboa, 1991).
For example, learning dissatisfaction, stress, and burnout can
be the results of student disruptive behaviors. This can cause
a decrease in quality of learning as well as education. In order
to deal with disruptive behavior, and to teach children responsible
behaviors, educators use a number of strategies including ignoring,
seclusion time, reinforcing desired behaviors, and positive reinforcement
(Bear, 1998).
However, these behavioral approaches are not enough, by themselves,
to cope with student disruptive behavior. Therefore, as Bear (1998)
indicated, a new preventative approach in the school environment,
and in teaching practices, is needed.
Achievement goal theory underlines the relations between the
characteristics of the educational environment and students’
behavior. Therefore, it can provide a comprehensive theoretical
and practical preventative framework (Ames, 1992; Maehr &
Midgley, 1991).
Kaplan et al. (2002) found that when tasks are meaningful to
students, students have a choice over their learning, and mistakes
are considered as part of the learning process. More on-task behaviors,
less anxiety, and therefore less disruptive behavior will be occurring.
However, when the emphasis on performance goals is high, then
students are being compared to each other. Their end score is
valued, and hense more disruptive behavior will be occurring.
As Kaplan et al. (2002) claims, the strong evidence of a relation
between the goal structure in the learning environment, and disruptive
behavior, may allow identification of possible effective interventions
that will reduce the incidence of these behaviors.
Coaching is also concerned with disruptive behavior. For example,
a player's behavior can negatively affect the performance of other
players, and cause unsuccessful results in the games. It can be
said that a players behavior can destroy their own opportunities
to show themselves to the public or authorities, as well as to
accurately show their team’s performance. Coaching involves
knowing how to motivate players to perform their best, and how
to eliminate the negative aspects of a players disruptive behavior.
Therefore a motivational climate toward mastery, rather than
a performance climate, should be encouraged to reduce your student's
and/or player's disruptive behaviors in classroom or game/training
settings - a preventative action.
References
|
| If you have
ideas, comments, letters to share, or questions about particular
topics, please email one of the following Coaching Section
Editors: |
|
|
