Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Coaching without Borders: the Role of the international Sport-Coaching Framework in Promoting Physical Literacy worldwide.

Pat Duffy & Sergio Lara-Bercial

Abstract

Using the definition of physical literacy proposed by Whitehead (2010) as a backdrop, this article will consider the implications of the publication of the International Sport Coaching Framework (International Council for Coaching Excellence, Association of Summer Olympic International Federations and Leeds Metropolitan University, 2013). We will argue that the education and development of suitably qualified and skilled coaches at all levels of the participation spectrum is paramount to the fostering of motivated, confidence and competent individuals who value and take responsibility for pursuing meaningful physical activity throughout their lives.

The International Sport Coaching Framework: Bringing Coaching to the Fore.

All over the world, millions of volunteer and paid coaches guide the participation of hundreds of millions of children, participants, players and athletes on a daily basis. With growing appreciation of the role of coaches in society and the challenges that accompany the job, the global sport community and its partners recognised the need for a common, worldwide set of criteria to inform, guide and support the development and qualification of coaches. To this effect, the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE), in conjunction with the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) and the support of Leeds Metropolitan University (LMU), brought together back in 2011 a project group containing a wide representation of international sport coaching stakeholders, organisations and experts to develop the International Sport Coaching Framework (ISCF). Version 1.1 of the ISCF was released in London in August 2012 and, following a 12-month consultation period, version 1.2 was launched at ICCE’s Global Coach Conference in Durban, South Africa, in September 2013. Both versions have been published by ICCE’s partner Human Kinetics.

The purpose of the ISCF is ‘to provide an internationally recognized reference point for the development of coaches that is flexible and responsive to the needs of different sports; countries; organizations and institutions and which provides benchmarks for the recognition and certification of coaches’ (ICCE, ASOIF and LMU, 2013; p10). The ISCF therefore recognises that the context for implementation of coaching systems will vary significantly between sports, countries and continents. Nevertheless, a globally accepted reference point provides all members of the coaching family with a common language and a powerful tool to evaluate, plan, develop and compare their systems and processes around coach education, development, deployment and employment.

The Framework’s Key Features

The ISCF emphasises that a person’s engagement in sport1 throughout the lifecourse follows varying trajectories underpinned by different motives, goals and aspirations. This is captured in the definition of sport coaching:

‘a process of guided improvement and development in a single sport at identifiable stages of athlete development’ (ICCE, ASOIF and LMU, 2013; p14).

Such definition implies a focus on the long-term development of the person as well as the athlete throughout the lifecourse. Based on the work of Côté (1999), Balyi and Hamilton (1995) and Lyle (2002), two main categories of sport engagement are proposed, namely Participation and Performance Sport, and six associated domains (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Sport participation spectrum and pathway (reproduced from the International Sport Coaching Framework v 1.2 (ICCE, ASOIF and LMU, 2013; p 20)

Participants and athletes in the various domains will have different motivations to take part in sport, diverse goals, needs and requirements. The obvious consequence for coaches is that in order to meet their needs, they will require distinct capabilities according to whom and where they coach. Therefore two discrete coaching categories are defined: Participation and Performance Coaching (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Coaching Categories and Domains (reproduced from the International Sport Coaching Framework v 1.2 (ICCE, ASOIF and LMU, 2013; p 23)

Coaches, and conversely the organisations that employ and/or deploy them, are responsible for developing their capability and competencies to do the job in relation to the domain in which the coach practises.

In summary, the ISCF proposes that coaching should concern itself with both the development of lifelong participation and enhanced performance; that in doing so it can and should produce a wide array of multiple developmental outcomes beyond the acquisition of physical skills; that for this to happen, it is necessary to match coach capability to the needs and stage of development of participants and athletes; and that providing relevant and continuous development and learning opportunities for coaches should be a major goal of coaching organisations.

Coaching and Physical Literacy: The Big Picture

Physical Literacy (PL) is defined as ‘a disposition in which individuals have the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for maintaining purposeful physical pursuits throughout the lifecourse’ (Whitehead, 2010; pp11-12). Within the context of this definition, Whitehead argues that physically literate individuals will achieve enhanced quality of life related to the development of self-esteem, self-confidence, healthier lifestyles and more positive relationships with others. Moreover, Whitehead goes on to propose that PL is not a ‘state of being’ but rather a capability that has to be both developed and maintained through the course of a person’s life. Most importantly though, it is the belief that PL can be achieved by all and that, in doing so, the support offered by others such as teachers, coaches, parents and peers is of paramount importance. Whitehead’s conceptualisation of PL contains a great number of ideas which resonate strongly with the coaching literature.

There is no doubt that sport participation, like many other forms of physical activity (think dance, fitness classes or outdoor pursuits), has the potential to develop motivated, confident, competent, knowledgeable children, youth and adults who value and take responsibility for being physically active2 (and if we dare say, develop individuals who are mentally alert). However, for coaching and sport to have this kind of impact, it has to happen in a particular way. Sport is no magic bullet (Coalter, 2012) and it has been shown, particularly with adolescent and young adults, to harvest the potential to produce both positive and negative outcomes if delivered the wrong way (Alexander, Stafford and Lewis, 2011; Côté and Fraser-Thomas, 2011). At the very least, when inappropriately delivered, sport can leave people indifferent and/or apathetic… for life.

Various authors (Côté, Strachan and Fraser-Thomas, 2008; Duffy, Muir and North, 2012; Fraser-Thomas, Côté and Deakin, 2005; García-Bengoechea, 2008; ICCE, ASOIF and LMU, 2013) have recently used Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2001) to offer an explanation of the role that sport and coaching can play. In line with Bronfenbrenner, these authors propose that an individual’s participation in sport happens within a bioecological niche consisting of a number of concentric layers of influence or nested systems at micro, meso, macro and exo level (from the immediate proximity to more removed, yet important influences). They also describe four interrelated components which impact on development: (a) proximal processes involving bidirectional exchanges between the individual and the context; (b) the person, with his or her existing individual characteristics; (c) the context as a multi-layered backdrop; and (d) time, consisting of the various dimensions of temporality such as duration or frequency. Together, and for every individual, these Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) configurations account for if and how development happens.

Using this model, it is fairly straight forward to understand the positioning of coaching within the PL jigsaw. Invariably, despite the importance of the meso, macro and exo layers of the context, a great deal of influence on the direction and outcome of the proximal processes is exerted at the microsystem level. In this layer, the interactions between the individual and any significant other in his or her immediate environment will condition the outcome of the experience. In respect of children, youth or adult participants, these significant others will include family, peers, teachers, and most importantly to us, sport coaches. Their ability to, over time, affect not only the participant, but also others around them in the microsystem, and in the outer layers of influence if necessary, is vital.

As aforementioned, Bronfenbrenner’s model places high relevance on the existing characteristics and resources of the person as key factors to determine what people will gain from their interactions with their environment. In other words, PL is not something that happens to the person, PL happens because and within the person. Such realisation puts extra value on the early experiences of sport for children and young people in order to provide them with the necessary tools to maximise their participation and to drive it throughout their life cycle. As with everything else in life, if we lay the foundation appropriately we will be able to build taller and long-lasting buildings. But moreover, it also signals the need for trained coaches who work with adults that perhaps have missed out on positive early experiences as children and young people, or those whose participation has lapsed, and need a guiding hand to help them rebuild their confidence, motivation and drive.

This led the ISCF working group to explicitly highlight, not only the need to align coach education and development with the needs and wants of participants, but to promote coaching that goes beyond the teaching of only technical skills and towards the fostering of the holistic development of the person and an intrinsic desire and motivation to be and remain involved in sport and physical activity for life.

Developmental Outcomes of Sport: The What, Where and How

There is no doubt sport can have very beneficial effects for participants at many levels. However, we contend that what they actually get from it is highly dependent on the actual person, the people around him/her, the features of the context and the duration, intensity and frequency of the activity. Simple as it sounds, we feel it is very important to recognise that sport cannot be all things to all people. Otherwise we run the risk of painting every sporting experience with the same brush and creating dislocated expectations amongst participants, stakeholders, administrators and the coaches themselves, thus paying lip service to the overall experience.

In recent times, a plethora of authors and reviews, particularly in relation to youth sport, have brought our attention to the fact that personal development in and through sport should be considered from a bio-psycho-social perspective by contrast to the more traditional approach concerned only, or mostly, with the development of physical and technical skills (Bailey et al, 2010; Fraser-Thomas, Côté and Deakin, 2005; Weiss and Weise-Bjornstal, 2009). This current push has being heavily influenced by the Positive Youth Development (PYD) movement (Benson, 1997; Lerner et al, 2000) and its view of youth as ‘resources to be developed, not problems to be managed’ (Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2003).

One PYD construct which has found a lot of support in sport is the 5 Cs for positive development developed by Richard Lerner and colleagues (Lerner et al., 2000). In a nutshell, young people who score highly on the areas of Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character and Caring have been shown to be less prone to engage in risk or anti-social behaviours and to be able to thrive through the transitions between childhood, adolescence and early adulthood in their way to making important contributions to themselves and to their communities. Returning to the definition of PL, it would seem that three of the Cs (i.e. Competence, Confidence and Connection) would be paramount for the development of physically literate individuals. It is therefore plausible to assume that coaching for PYD would likely result in the development of PL as well.

As we highlighted previously, it is also important to keep in mind that, while there are many positive outcomes arising from sport participation, the literature is also rich in showing the potential for detrimental effects (Côté and Fraser-Thomas, 2011). In the UK, the NSPCC’s Child Protection Research Centre produced a comprehensive report highlighting that, while most children and young people described participation in sport as a positive experience, there were worrying levels of harm reported some of which was institutionalised as part and parcel of the sporting experience (Alexander, Stafford and Lewis, 2011). This should never be so.

Ensuring that coaches understand their role from a long-term, holistic perspective and that they are in possession of a small, yet effective set of tools to allow them to bring it to life is the real challenge. A growing number of authors have written extensively about the 5 Cs in a sporting context (Fraser-Thomas and Côté, 2005; Holt and Jones, 2008; Jones et al, 2011; Côté, Strachan and Fraser-Thomas, 2008) and the concept has been practically used in a number of resources to support children’s, adolescent’s and adults’ coaches, enabling them to offer a more holistic experience to the people they coach (Haskins, 2010;, Lara-Bercial, 2012; Lara-Bercial, 2013; sportscoachUK 2011).

However, it is vital to acknowledge that people’s participation in sport ranges from participating for as little as one session a week to as much as over twenty hours and is, in the main, led by lowly-qualified, volunteer coaches (North, 2009). The implications of this are far-reaching for the coach and programme developers.

It is about time!

Returning to Bronfenbrenner’s model (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), vital to human development is the dimension of time. The interaction between the developing person and his or her context needs to meet certain parameters of frequency and duration in order to produce any effects (hopefully positive ones!). How do we then get children and young people into sport and most importantly, how do we keep them there, how do we buy time? Richard Bailey and colleagues (Bailey, Cope and Pearce, 2013) conducted an extensive review of the literature concerning children’s motivations to take part and stay involved in sport and the implications for coaching. They found five primary mediating factors: (a) perception of competence; (b) fun and enjoyment; (c) parents; (d) learning new skills; and (e) friends and peers. Yet, most importantly they highlighted the pivotal role of the coach in aligning the sporting environment to the ever evolving needs and wants of children and young people as they progress through childhood and adolescence.

Along the same lines, ‘a caring and mastery-oriented climate, supportive relationships with adults and peers, and opportunities to learn social, emotional and behavioural life skills’ have been proposed as fundamental features of an environment conducive to positive development in and through sport (Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009; p7). If a mismatch occurs between children’s needs and motivations and the socio-cultural environment of sport, drop-out is the likely outcome. If children drop out of sport we have lost the battle of time and more than likely, the war for PL too.

It is highly relevant to signal that there should not be an expectation that every coach working with children and young people should put everything else (i.e. skills development) to one side for the sake of developing the psycho-social aspects or PL. This is not a case of either or, but a case of (a) trying to integrate the two in a seemingly seamless way, and (b) being able to prioritise developmental outcomes based on the needs and stage of development of the child and the context, intensity, frequency and duration of the activity. Our educated guess is that the mix will be very different for a soccer coach who only sees a bunch of 8 year old kids for 45 minutes every Saturday morning for 25 weeks of the year compared to a swimming coach who sees the same 8 year old over 10 hours a week for 45 weeks. Both coaches will have to account for the five factors elicited by Bailey et al.’s review, and create a positive environment, but how they select and bring together the components to realise this situation may be very different.

Nonetheless, with the above in mind, programme developers should carefully consider how to enhance the ‘time-buying’ features of the programmes they build such as coach continuity and training, appropriate levels of competition, parental understanding of and support for programme objectives, built-in opportunities for social development and the overall motivational climate.

Closing thoughts

As we described at the outset of this article, a number of policy documents have recently acknowledged the importance of recognising the specific needs and wants of children, young people and adults in sport, the need to coach in a much more holistic way, and the associated capabilities required by coaches to do so. Most importantly though, is the fact that these policy documents have started to be translated into practical applications for coaches and coach developers in the real world. Both authors of this paper have been involved in the development of many of these initiatives and feedback from coach developers and coaches alike has been very encouraging. Interestingly, many coaches highlight the impact of these resources at an awareness-raising level, but moreover, as liberating them from the traditional, entrenched culture of what Bailey and colleagues have called the technocratic approach to coaching (Bailey et al., 2013). Help us spread the word, help us remove the borders!

1 ‘In the context of this ICSSPE Bulletin paper ‘sport’ should be understood to cover the wide range of physical pursuits or activities available in a society ( e.g swimming, dance, gymnastics etc.) not just competitive team games.

2 For a full review see Côté and Fraser-Thomas, 2011; Holt and Neely, 2011; Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009

References

1. Alexander, K., Stafford, A. & Lewis, R. (2011). The experiences of children participating in organised sport in the UK, Summary Report. NSPCC Research Centre. Edinburgh.

2. Bailey, R., Collins, D., Ford, P., MacNamara, A., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2010). Participant Development in Sport. Leeds: Sportscoach UK

3. Bailey, R., Cope, E.J., & Pearce, G. (2013). Why do children take part in, and remain involved in sport? A literature review and discussion of implications for sports coaches. International Journal of Coaching Science, 7, 56-75

4. Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (1995). The concept of long-term athlete development. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 3, 5-6.

5. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.

7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P.B. (Eds), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences, 10, 6963-6970

8. Coalter, F. (2012). ‘There is loads of relationships here’: Developing a programme theory for sport-for-change programmes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 0, 1–19

9. Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The sport psychologist, 13, 395-417

10. Côté, J. & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2011). Youth involvement and positive development on sport. In Crocker P. R. E. (Ed) Sport and Exercise Psychology, a Canadian perspective. (pp. 226-255). Toronto: Pearson.

11. Côté, J., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2008). Participation, personal development and performance through sport. In Holt, N. L. (Ed.), Positive Youth Development through sport (pp. 34-45). London: Routledge

12. Duffy, P., Muir, B. & North, J. (2012). Understanding the impact of sport coaching on legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 11-18.

13. Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., and Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programmes: an avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40

14. García Bengoechea, E., and Johnson, G. M. (2001). Ecological systems theory and children’s development in sport: toward a process-person-context-time research paradigm. Avante, 7, 20-31

15. Haskins, D. (2010). Coaching the whole child: positive youth development in and through sport. Leeds: sportscoach UK.

16. Holt, N. L. & Jones, M. I. (2008). Future directions for positive youth development and sport research. In Holt, N. L. (Ed). Positive Youth Development Through Sport. (pp. 122-132). London: Routledge

17. Holt, N. L. & Neely, K. C. (2011). Positive youth development through sport: a review. Revista iberoamericana de psicologia del ejercicio y el deporte. 6, 299-316.

18. International Council for Coaching Excellence, Association of International Summer Olympic Associations and Leeds Metropolitan University (2013). The International Sport Coaching Framework, version 1.2. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

19. Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G. H., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring the 5 Cs of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 34, 250-267.

20. Lara-Bercial, S. (2012). Wildcats Activ8 Clubs Coaches’ Resource. Belfast: Sport Northern Ireland.

21. Lara-Bercial, S. (2013). Developing Multi-skills in Sport Award. Glasgow: sportscotland.

22. Lerner, R. M., Fisher, C. B. & Weinberg, R. A. (2000) Toward a science for and of the people: promoting civil society through the application of developmental science, Child Development, 71, 11–20.

23. Lyle, J. (2002). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. London: Routledge.

24. North, J. (2009). The Coaching Workforce: 2009-2016. Leeds: sportscoachUK

25. Roth, J. L. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice, Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94-111.

26. sportscoach UK (2011). The UK Coaching Children Curriculum. Leeds: sportscoachUK.

27. Weiss, M. R. & Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. (2009). Promoting positive youth development through physical activity. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from http://presidentschallenge.org/ informed/digest/docs/september2009digest.pdf

28. Whitehead, M. (2010). The concept of physical literacy. In Whitehead, M. (Ed). Physical literacy through the lifecourse. (pp.10-20). London: Routledge.

The International Sport Coaching Framework can be purchased from ICCE’s publishers Human Kinetics at http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/International-Sport-Coaching-Framework-Brochure-Version-12-9255641

Contact

Sergio Lara-Bercial
Email: s.lara-bercial@leedsmet.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/