A Chinese perspective on the actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge

Abstract

Efforts to improve coaching effectiveness require an understanding of the common sources of coaches’ knowledge acquisition. Sports coaches utilise multiple learning sources, yet limited direct evidence elucidates the manner in which Chinese coaches learn to coach and the evolution of their learning sources throughout their careers’ development. This research examines the actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge for Chinese coaches and analyses changes in learning sources from Junior to Senior level coaches. One hundred coaches from China, including 60 Junior coaches, 23 Intermediate coaches and 17 Senior coaches, completed an online questionnaire. The survey results indicated that coaches acquire knowledge from formal, informal and non-formal learning situations. However, formal coach education (coach education programmes) is the most important source of knowledge acquisition for all coaches. Furthermore, as coaches develop, the sources to acquire knowledge will gradually change from athletic experience to interaction with other coaches. Based on these findings, we suggest that national sport governing bodies build more comprehensive coach education systems by establishing a scientific mentoring system and organising regular coach-themed clinics, seminars, meetings and so on. Future research is needed to examine how coaches in China’s dominant programmes learn to coach and how this learning is practically applied.

Keywords

Career development,coach education,learning

Introduction

Coaches are central to the development of expert performers and athletes’ continued participation in sports.¹ Because coaching is a complex and fluid endeavour,² coaches must develop a wide range of knowledge and skills to adapt to the given environmental conditions.³ An increasing body of research focuses on enhancing understanding of the manner in which coaches develop their craft and learn to coach.⁴ Indeed, a total of 36 articles published between 1999 and 2016⁵ affirms the study of coach learning situations as a distinct and legitimate area of academic enquiry.^4,5

Expert, high-performance and experienced coaches from various sports have been the main objects of researchers for some time.^6–11 For example, Nash and Sproule found that long-term follow-up and observation of experienced coaches, reflection and summary of self-teaching practices, accumulation of multidisciplinary knowledge and the formation of coaches’ own philosophies are the key elements for the development and growth of elite coaches.⁸ Similarly, work by Sherwin et al. concluded that formal education does not meet the needs of high-performance coaches who rely more on self-directed learning and coaching experience as their main sources of professional coaching development.¹¹ Discussions among coaches regarding the sources of their learning are another important factor.^5,12–15 For example, Stoszkowski and Collins studied 320 coaches from different countries, sports and contexts and found that the preferred way for coaches to acquire knowledge was interaction with other coaches or colleagues, followed by using the Internet and reading.¹⁵ Mesquita and colleagues studied 336 coaches from Portugal under different contexts and found that compared with formal learning, coaches attach more importance to informal learning sources such as cooperating with experts, learning by doing and interacting with peer coaches, among others.¹³ These data, which vary depending on the sample of coaches used as the object of study, suggest that learning to coach is a complex process that does not follow one specific pattern. Among the various sources, the findings have failed to reach a consensus regarding the perceived importance of formal coach education in the development of coaching knowledge.¹¹ Although coach education programmes can promote the development of a coach’s theory and practice, their influence is often limited and cannot meet the actual needs of the coach’s development.^2,16–18 Other scholars have revealed that coach education programmes at this stage resemble a type of training or even indoctrination.¹⁹ This is not, however, to say that coaches do not see any value in more formal learning opportunities. For example, many studies confirm that coaches draw information and knowledge from participation in formal professional clinics, seminars and workshops.^20,21 Although coaches have their own sources of knowledge, in general, coaching is influenced by formal, non-formal and informal sources. Nevertheless, most studies suggest that the learning outcomes of informal sources are superior to those of formal and non-formal sources.^4,12,13,15

Although international research on the knowledge acquisition sources of coaches has made myriad achievements, coaches from Europe, America and Australia dominate the samples of these studies.^8,22–24 Meanwhile, research concerning coaches’ needs in Asia remains sparse. He et al. identified a major gap in the English literature regarding Asian coaches,⁵ and the need to broaden coaching’s theoretical and empirical basis has been acknowledged within the coaching literature.²⁵ Furthermore, globalization and advances in technology not only facilitate the flow of coaching knowledge but also the circulation of players and coaches.⁵ As the country with the largest population in the world, China has cultivated many international-level coaches such as Lang Ping and Liu Guoliang. At present, there have been a certain number of excellent coaches from China coaching all around the world, and the number will probably increase in the future. But Williams noted “there are still major gaps in our understanding of specific contribution of international migration to knowledge transfer, of the processes involved, and of the conditions that facilitate or constrain this”.²⁶ Thus, from these perspectives, it is necessary to clarify the knowledge acquisition sources of China coaches.

In an attempt to foster coaching knowledge and expertise in China, the national sports administrative department has organised the formal training of coaches since 1987; the department’s work, which includes holding various types of coach training classes, primarily targets on-the-job coaches. In July 2019, the ‘Interim Measures for the Management of Post-Training for Sports Coaches’ proposed that ‘on-the-job training as coaches [should be] divided into Junior, Intermediate, Senior and National levels’.²⁷ The first to study the actual and ideal sources of Chinese coaches’ knowledge acquisition, He et al. found that coaches acquire their actual knowledge mainly through ‘being an athlete’ and ‘having a mentor’, but they desire a better balance between these two sources and formal learning situations.⁵ Although their study provided baseline information on Chinese coaches’ sources of knowledge acquisition, it focused solely on coaches from Gyms or R-gyms and thus left unclear the sources of knowledge acquisition coaches of other sports use. In addition to different sports, coaches also exhibit different levels of experience. The State Physical Education and Sports Commission’s 1994 publication ‘The Grades of Sports Coach’ divides coaches in China into four levels: Junior, Intermediate, Senior and National, and the growth track of Chinese coaches entails the gradual development from Junior to National coach. While the scant research that is available emphasises that coaches’ learning sources will change as their careers develop,^28,29 it is imperative to clarify whether Chinese coaches also exhibit this evolution. Such knowledge could inform coach educators’ efforts to develop diversified coach training strategies. Unfortunately, however, no existing empirical study has taken Chinese coaches as a sample.

Utilising a large sample comprising coaches of various sports, genders and levels, the study contributes important guidelines for improving China’s coach education by analysing the actual and preferred sources of coaches’ knowledge acquisition and comparing these sources at the different stages of coaches’ career development. The specific purpose of the present study is to answer the following research questions: (1) What are Chinese coaches’ actual and preferred sources for acquiring coaching knowledge? (2) How will coaches’ actual and preferred sources change as their careers develop?

Material and methods

Participants

A total of 100 coaches—70 men (70%) and 30 women (30%)—from three team sports (basketball, football and volleyball) and 16 individual sports (track and field, shooting, archery, table tennis, swimming, trampolining, wrestling, gymnastics, weight lifting, aerobics, taekwondo, tennis, boxing, fencing, diving and martial arts), voluntarily participated as informants in this study by completing the online questionnaire. Studies have found that from 2011 to 2015, female coaches accounted for less than 30% of the total number of coaches in China,³⁰ and the percentage of female coaches in this sample underscores the country’s shortage of female coaches. The selection of coach participants was based on the following criteria: First, the coaches were required to hold certificates; second, the coaches were required to coach a national, provincial, university or youth team; and third, they were required to serve as head coach for their respective teams. The participants’ ages ranged from 23 to 55 years, and their demographic details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic details of the participants (n = 100).

		Number		Number
Gender	Male	70	Female	30
Age	20–30	36	31–40	32
	41–50	24	51 or older	8
Academic education	Secondary	2	Post-secondary	12
	Undergraduate	60	Graduate	26
Coaching level	Junior	60	Intermediate	23
	Senior	16	National	1
Coaching experience	1–10	59	11–15	9
	16–20	15	21 or more	17
Athlete grade	No level	44	Second-level national	20
	First-level national	25	Master of sports	11
Career expectation	Staying	8	Moving up	92

To perform the comparative analysis, the study classified the participants according to ‘The Grades of Sports Coach’ that the State Physical Education and Sports Commission issued in 1994, i.e. Junior coaches (n = 60; 60%), Intermediate coaches (n = 23; 23%) and Senior coaches (n = 17; 17%). It should be noted that the study included only one National coach, who was incorporated into the Senior coach category. All of the coaches participated in the study voluntarily and understood that they were able to withdraw from it at any point.⁵

Measurement instruments

Questionnaire survey was used to gather information on the actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. Due to the coaches come from different sports and career development, the sample size is large and the regional distribution is wide, this method can better help solve the research problems. Furthermore, this method has been widely used in previous studies.^13–15 A common element of these studies is the large sample size ( n > 166) and study subjects all over the world.

A initial questionnaire was designed for the purposes of the present study, contained 12 items derived from a deductive analysis of the eminent coach learning literature.^{4–7,9,13,15,31} To ensure the comprehensiveness, effectiveness and accuracy of the questionnaire content, the following procedure was followed: (a) The questionnaire was reviewed for construct and content validity by a panel of experts consisting of three university professors in sports coaching and two experienced senior coach. This process resulted in three modifications, with two items removed and 11 sources have been identified, (b) The revised questionnaire was evaluated for clarity and comprehensibility though a pilot study with a small convenience sample of coaches (n = 10) from different sports and levels. The survey took between 7 and 16 min to complete and follow-up cognitive interviews, resulted in the following questions: 1) the definition of preferred sources is not clear; 2) there is a bias in understanding the sources of trial and error. Then a supplementary explanation is given for the two problems in order to improve intelligibility and clarity. Following these stages, the final version of the questionnaire was comprised 2 parts and 10 items. The first part requested demographic information regarding eight topics: gender, age, academic education, sports events, coaching level, coaching experience, athletic grade and career expectations. The second part investigated learning source for coaching knowledge. One conceptual frameworks influenced this part’s development: the learning situations of Nelson et al. (formal, informal and non-formal).³² Based on a review of the most representative empirical qualitative research,^5,13,15 10 potential learning sources of coaches were selected from the literature: athletic experience, being mentored, coach education programmes, clinics/seminars/meetings, trial and error, observing other coaches, interacting with other coaches, coaching reflection, videos or books and the Internet. In addition, although academic education has not been cited as an important source of knowledge in the existing research, we added it as eleventh source because many in-service coaches in China improve their academic qualifications through academic education and many have become coaches through undergraduate or graduate studies.

The final version of the questionnaire was distributed randomly to coaches across the country via training sites, coaching handouts and online questionnaires. To help them understand the research field more quickly and respond more accurately, participants were informed of the purpose and content of the study on site or via WeChat. Before participants completed the questionnaire, informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. Participants were given the opportunity to clarify doubts and had unlimited time to complete the questionnaire. A total of 114 questionnaires were issued. After eliminating questionnaires expressing unclear information (e.g. those where identification of the sport was unclear), 100 valid questionnaires were recovered.

Statistical analysis

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, descriptive statistics were employed to examine trends within and between the sources of knowledge.¹² Based on previous research,^5,12 participants made choices based on the frequency with which they used a source of knowledge to improve their professional practice. The number of times the coaches rated each source as one of the top two most important sources was then used to compile the frequencies, and these frequency counts were converted into the percentage of coaches who cited each source as one of the most important. Chi-square test is used to calculate the difference between the actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition, using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). The reading of the Table goes like this. If we take the number in the Table 1, 28 means that 28% of the coaches (n = 100) selected ‘Athletic experience’ as their first or second actual source of knowledge acquisition. But, we take the number in the Table 2, 28 means that 28% of the Junior coach (n = 60) selected ‘Athletic experience’ as their first or second actual source of knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, only differences of at least 5% were identified in bold in Tables 1 and 2. When P < 0.05, indicating that the sources is significantly different between actual and preferred.

Table 2.

Coaches’ selection of actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition (Top 2, n = 100).

Learning sources of coaches	Actual vs preferred (% of the responses)
Learning sources of coaches	Act	Pre	Dif	χ²	P
Athletic experience	28	11	17	7.786	0.010^*
Being mentored	14	22	−8	4.127	0.042^*
Academic education	9	6	3	1.03	0.31
Coach education programmes	62	64	−2	6.902	0.010^*
Clinics/seminars/meetings	6	21	−15	0.585	0.603
Trial and error	8	12	−4	11.891	0.007^*
Observing other coaches	10	7	3	2.884	0.144
Interaction with other coaches	26	25	1	2.836	0.12
Coaching reflection	20	19	1	2.93	0.103
Videos or books	12	6	6	7.726	0.028^*
The Internet	5	7	−2	22.71	0.002^*

Note: (a)The bold face entry indicates the differences of at least 5% between actual and preferred; (b) The ‘*’ indicates the significant differences between actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition.

Results

The basic descriptive statistics generated from the coaches’ knowledge source choices are presented in Tables 2 and 3, including (a) the coaches’ actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition and (b) changes in their actual and preferred sources throughout the coaches’ career development.

Table 3.

Coaches’ selection of actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition (Top 2, n = 100).

Learning sources of coaches	Junior coaches (n = 60)					Intermediate coaches (n = 23)					Senior coaches (n = 17)
Learning sources of coaches	Act	Pre	Dif	χ²	P	Act	Pre	Dif	χ²	P	Act	Pre	Dif	χ²	P
Athletic experience	28	15	13	3.864	0.101	30	4	26	2.390	0.304	24	6	18	3.453	0.063
Being mentored	20	25	−5	2.222	0.153	4	13	−9	6.970	0.130	6	24	−18	0.327	1.000
Academic education	12	5	7	1.439	0.315	4	0	4	–	–	0	12	−12	–	–
Coach education programmes	67	68	−1	0.963	0.384	57	61	−4	7.078	0.013*	59	59	0	1.252	0.350
Clinics/seminars/meetings	7	17	−10	3.429	0.126	4	26	−22	0.369	1.000	6	29	−23	0.443	1.000
Trial and error	10	13	−3	16.41	0.002*	4	13	−9	0.157	1.000	6	6	0	0.066	1.000
Observing other coaches	10	8	2	0.606	0.421	13	9	4	2.638	0.249	6	0	6	–	–
Interaction with other coaches	20	20	0	1.667	0.234	35	35	0	0.040	1.000	35	35	0	0.878	0.600
Coaching reflection	7	17	−10	0.214	0.528	30	22	8	0.276	0.621	47	18	29	4.098	0.082
Videos or books	13	3	10	0.318	1.000	13	9	4	14.6	0.012*	12	12	0	3.192	0.228
The Internet	7	8	−1	9.740	0.032*	4	9	−5	10.98	0.087	0	0	0	–	–

Coaches’ actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition

The actual source of coaching knowledge mentioned most often was coach education programmes, which 62.00% of the coaches identified. Ranked second and third were athletic experience and interaction with other coaches, which were identified by 28.00% and 26.00% of coaches, respectively. Coaching reflection and being mentored had values of 20.00% and 14.00% and were ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. The remaining six actual sources were also mentioned and had values of 5.00%–12.00%.

The top preferred source of knowledge acquisition was coach education programmes, which accounted for 64.00% of the responses. The second and third most important sources of knowledge were interaction with other coaches and being mentored, which accounted for 25.00% and 22.00%, respectively. Coaching reflection ranked fourth with 19.00%, trial and error ranked fifth with 12.00%, and the other sources ranged between 6.00% and 11.00%.

Table 2, which compare the actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition, indicate some variations. While coach education programmes, interactions with other coaches and coaching reflection were reported with similar frequencies in terms of actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge acquisition, the other sources exhibited vastly different values. For example, coaches’ preferences for being mentored and attending clinics/seminars/meetings were much higher than those sources’ actual use, with differences of 8% and 15%, respectively. Meanwhile, the actual use of athletic experience as a source of coaching knowledge was much higher than coaches’ preferences for it, with a difference of 17%.

Changes in the actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition as coaches’ careers develop

As shown in Table 3 and Figure 1, there are some similarities and differences in learning sources among Junior, Intermediate and Senior coaches. We can also clearly analyze that with the development of coaches’ career, the learning sources will change significantly. Coach education programmes is the most important sources of knowledge acquisition for all coaches. In addition, Junior coaches actually gained coaching knowledge mainly through athletic experience, but they preferred to acquire it by being mentored. Intermediate coaches acquired their coaching knowledge mainly through interacting with other coaches. Finally, Senior coaches actually acquired their coaching knowledge mainly through coach reflection, but they preferred to gain this knowledge through direct interactions with other coaches.

Figure 1.

Comparison of actual and preferred sources of coaches’ knowledge acquisition at different levels (top 2).

Discussion

Coaches’ actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition

As noted in the Results section, coach education programmes were the most common source of knowledge acquisition for coaches. To some extent, this confirms He et al.’s research, which indicated that coaches desire to continue their formal education and decrease their learning through trial and error.⁵ Similarly, our study found that trial and error did not have a high frequency as a source of coaching knowledge. This reflects the notion, prevalent in the literature, that coaches from the same country exhibit certain similarities and further explains Chinese coaches’ recognition of formal coach education. Previous studies^15,29 have also recognised the importance of coach education programmes because such programmes provide training in sport sciences and physical education pedagogy while expanding opportunities for interactions throughout coaches’ career development. Importantly, coach education programmes further enable coaches to obtain certification, which facilitates their professional advancement. Despite formal learning’s apparent value, however, some of the literature has found that coaches attach less importance to it than to informal and non-formal learning.^12,13,33,34 For example, Nash and Sproule argued that coaches struggle to apply the knowledge gained from formal training courses to their actual playing or training environment.³⁵ In this light, the preference seen in our study for formal learning may derive from the unique Chinese coach education context, where coaching is taught in the classroom from childhood and coaches thus become accustomed to instructive learning. Our results suggest the need for measures to increase the relevancy and impact of these formal settings by capitalising on coaches’ previously acquired knowledge, incorporating more experiential perspectives and working cooperatively with coaches to generate knowledge.²

Athletic experience was the second most important actual source of acquiring coaching knowledge, but it seems that coaches would prefer to depend less on this source. This is consistent with He et al.’s results.⁵ The main reason for this divergence between actual use and preference for athletic experience as a source of coaching knowledge may be coaches’ awareness of the rapid development of sports and the resulting need to constantly update their knowledge base. Previous studies have expressed the importance of athletic experience in shaping coaches’ beliefs and practice.^{7,12,21,36–38} Such experience provides them with basic knowledge, including the rules of the game and the technical/tactical skills needed to conduct practices, and can facilitate the coach’s transition from athlete to coach. Contrary to these findings, however, a study reported that expert university coaches developed coaching knowledge and achieved success without drawing upon expert athletic experience.²² Moreover, studies have shown that coaches with lower competitive levels of athleticism are less likely to identify previous athletic experience as the most frequently accessed source of knowledge.³⁴ That said, a coach’s athletic experience may not be the decisive factor affecting his/her coaching success, and other variables affecting coaches’ use of their athletic experience as a source of knowledge acquisition should be explored.

Consistent with previous studies,^11,13,15,22 interaction with other coaches was considered an important source for coaches to acquire coaching knowledge, which further highlights the role of communities of practice as valuable contexts for learning. This finding also reiterates the fact that coaches’ learning is developed through ‘ongoing interactions in practical coaching context (P.217).² However, Lemyre et al.’s studies of youth sport coaches revealed that when coaching at the competitive youth level, coaches were unlikely to share information with the other teams’ coaches.¹⁶ Currently, it is not clear whether the coaches in the present study interacted with rival or non-rival coaches (e.g. assistant coaches, coaches from other sports).¹² Interestingly, other studies have suggested that observing other coaches can be valuable,^39–42 as it can help coaches to learn from appropriate actions and errors observed.^41,43 However, few coaches in our sample identified observing other coaches as either their actual or preferred source of knowledge. Perhaps these differences in the literature can be explained by the fact that interacting with colleagues helps coaches to generate new coaching ideas, address confusion experienced during coaching and observe other coaches in a particular context; once they return to their own context of coaching, however, the observed behaviour or method of application can be restricted. Simultaneously, it may also suggest that in the course of coach training, coach educators do not prioritise strategy to organise peer observation opportunities for their students.

Reiterating the knowledge sources cited in previous research, this study identified coaching reflection as an important source of coaching knowledge. A reflective approach to practice is frequently advocated as a key skill for understanding and enhancing coaches’ learning and increasing their vocational standards.^37,44,45 Among the greatest values of this source is its ability to raise coaches’ awareness regarding appropriate decisions or behaviours when facing environmental challenges and discriminating among elements to reach effective coaching practices. To this end, reflective processes should be integrated into coach education to enable coaches to better interpret and understand their practice.

The present study also found significant differences between coaches’ actual use of and preferences for certain sources of knowledge. While being mentored and attending clinics/seminars/conferences were preferred sources for many coaches, their actual use was much lower. This finding indicates that the current Chinese coach education system is imperfect and could entail two explanations. First, coaches may be overwhelmed by myriad training tasks every day and have little time to attend seminars or conferences. Second, the Chinese coach education system may not have adequately structured these sources. Many researchers have discussed the important role that mentors play^8,13,46–48 in imparting valuable knowledge and coaching-related skills to guide their mentees’ coaching philosophies and enhance their overall performance^46,49,50 and personal growth.⁵¹ Nevertheless, there were many limits. For example, Trudel and Gilbert suggests that too much emphasis on mentoring programs will lead coaches to work in isolation instead of working with the other coaches in their league to solve common problem.⁵² In addition, the presence of mentors may hinder the depth of the coach’s thinking about the coaching puzzle. At present, the Chinese coach education system has gradually begun to attach importance to mentorship for coaches and similar cases have been presented in the CBA league. With the gradual deepening of research, the mentoring system varies from informal to formal across different contextual domains.⁵³ Thus, coach educators should design mentoring programs to circumvent these limitations and endeavour to extend mentor schemes to more coaches in the league and to match corresponding mentoring schemes to various contextual domains.

Notably, the participants in the current study did not appear to use academic education as their main source of coaching knowledge. In contrast some studies have shown that coaches attribute their knowledge acquisition and teaching skills to university pedagogy, psychology or skills classes.⁴⁰ This is despite the Chinese General Administration of Sport’s ruling in 1985 that ‘in the future, the retired athletes who have not achieved a college degree should not be appointed as coaches of elite athletes’.⁵⁴ Perhaps the status of coaches as retired athletes with higher levels of physical conditioning explains this divergence by allowing them to discern which teams or sports schools accept professional training. Because these coaches spend more time on motor skills training and less on cultural learning, so that they have rich experience in training and competition but relatively poor culture literacy, so they prefer to acquire their knowledge from coaching practice.

Finally, although some studies have indicated that obtaining information from videos, books and the Internet is crucial for coaches to formulate strategies to solve special problems,^21,55 this study found that frequencies for using these sources for acquiring coaching knowledge were low. Indeed, the Internet provides coaches with a more convenient form of information exchange and enables them to interact with other coaches around the world. However, most of the coaches in our sample failed to realise the full interactive potential of the Internet for constructing coaching knowledge—perhaps because the vertiginous increase that technological resources exhibit year after year makes it difficult for coaches to remain current and less likely that they will devote the time needed to learning to use this source of knowledge effectively.³⁴ Functioning as a possible gateway for coaches into the realm of technology-facilitated learning, blogs have been identified as one of the most useful tools to promote coaches’ informal learning and development.⁵⁶ The continued evolution of technologies (e.g. WeChat, QQ, Weibo and others) has engendered a fundamental change in communication, knowledge production and knowledge dissemination. We believe that in the near future, the Internet will become one of the main sources of knowledge for coaches.

Changes in actual and preferred sources of knowledge acquisition as coaches’ careers develop

Our results demonstrate that coaches of different levels rank coach education programmes first in terms of actual and preferred sources. This indicates that at every stage of a coach’s career development, great emphasis is placed on acquiring knowledge through coach education programmes. In China, coach educators strive to align the corresponding educational content to different coaching levels. Thus, Junior coach training involves basic theory, intermediate coach training teaches practical training methods and senior coach training broadens horizons and renews teaching concepts by introducing the latest training and scientific research achievements locally and abroad. Previous studies have shown a clear association between both the competition level and professional experience of coaches, on one hand, and the frequency with which they indicated employing formal education as a source of knowledge acquisition on the other.³⁴ Nash’s studies also found a welcoming attitude among novice coaches toward coach education programmes; in contrast, an expert coach lamented ‘the irrelevance of the NGB course content throughout the levels to her current role’.³⁵ In addition, McIlroy and Sherwin et al. detected an overall downward trend in the use of formal education.^11,57 For its part, our research confirms that a coach’s level of expertise does not affect his or her use of formal education as a primary source of knowledge acquisition. Two possible reasons may explain our findings. First, formal education can involve expert coaches or scholars, provide more systematic and cutting-edge coaching knowledge and enable coaches to encounter and apply innovative trends in the field; each of these benefits, in turn, may be inaccessible to coaches outside of formal settings. Second, participating in a coach education programme and passing the strict examination are prerequisites for obtaining coaching qualifications, and subsequently, the knowledge obtained in the coach education programme plays an important role in coaching practice. Therefore, the value of coach education programmes cannot be generalised, and coaches are keen to acquire knowledge from them within the Chinese context. Our findings also suggest that Chinese coach educators should allow the perspective of coaches to inform their ongoing efforts to optimizing the teaching methods of coach education programmes and diversify teaching content to meet the needs of coaches at all levels.

For Junior coaches, the second actual source of knowledge acquisition came through previous experience as an athlete. However, they preferred to gain coaching knowledge by being mentored. This finding supports Mallett et al.’s view that the value placed on previous athletic experience for coaching development declined greatly as the mentor and scholar coaches’ careers progressed.²⁹ Furthermore, Nash and Sproule suggested that finding appropriate mentors during the initial stages of their coaching careers is key to expert coaches’ growth.⁸ Combining these views, we propose that the discrepancy between coaches of different levels may be due to Junior coaches’ insufficient athletic experience to face various coaching challenges, which leaves them more willing to seek timely guidance from mentors during the coaching process. Finding that novice basketball coaches learnt technical knowledge of basketball, athlete psychology, innovative thinking and time management skills from their mentors, recent empirical evidence stressed the importance of matching mentors and mentees based on personality, coaching level and style of coaching to maximise the benefits of the programme.⁵⁸ Thus, national sport governing bodies should comprehensively consider the coaching situation, level and sports of mentors and mentees to establish a scientific and reasonable mentoring system through a strict assessment mechanism.

Schempp suggested that expert coaches often rely on themselves and their colleagues for the development of expertise.⁵⁹ Our study further confirmed this. Intermediate and Senior coaches preferred to acquire coaching knowledge by interacting with other coaches. This supports the findings of studies^8,35,55,60 where coaches interacted to construct solutions to different coaching problems relatively quickly and efficiently. Such experiences with colleagues provided coaches with opportunities to remain connected, gain new insights and develop the communication skills and other affective attributes necessary to improve their coaching practice.³⁶ Thus, it would seem beneficial for coach educators responsible for training coaches to expand opportunities for such communication and interaction.

Senior coaches also acquired actual coaching knowledge through personal coaching reflection. In sharp contrast, only a small number of Junior coaches took coaching reflection as a sources of knowledge acquisition. Supporting this claim is the evolution of coaching identity referred to as deliberate reflection; that is, as their identities evolve, coaches intentionally devote more time to reflect on their coaching practices.⁶¹ Perhaps having accumulated the experience of hundreds of games throughout their careers, coaches can reflect on what worked and what did not work in those games and thereby judge subjectively how new learning material relates to knowledge gained from previous experiences. Furthermore, our research confirmed that the higher a coach’s level, the less likely he or she was to suggest previous athletic experience as the most frequently accessed source of knowledge. This is consistent with Hanratty and O’Connor who asserted that athletic experience is not essential for high-level coaches.⁴¹ Specifically, athletic experience is not a necessary condition for coaching elite athletes.²² For example, in the NBA, the Celtics current head coach Brad Stevens was the marketing director of a company before he worked as a basketball coach. Lacking any experience as an athlete, he has nevertheless grown gradually into an accomplished NBA basketball coach through his diligence and passion for the sport. Thus, national sport governing bodies should formulate targeted programmes to provide opportunities for individuals who lack experience as athletes but nevertheless wish to coach.

The mix of learning situations that coaches experience typically varies depending on each individual’s developing identity as a coach.⁶¹ In our study, the discrepancies among the three groups with respect to the frequency of their preference for being mentored and interacting with other coaches suggest that different sources of knowledge are perceived to be beneficial at different levels. These discrepancies point to the perceived importance of providing coaches with opportunities to gain direct experience from other coaches when they reach a certain coaching position. Our research emphasises that coach educators should comprehensively consider the coaching level and the knowledge sources preferred by coaches at different levels to build a more targeted coach education system and effectively promote coaching.

Conclusion

Coaches in our study emphasised a broad range of sources as important to develop coaching knowledge, somewhat corroborating the findings of previous research. Our findings indicate the merit of formalised coach education in China and the need for additional efforts to develop formalised coach education. Based on the findings and discussions presented above, the current coach education system does not appear to meet the coaching needs of coaches. For example, the proportion of coaches who regarded being mentored and attending clinics/seminars/meetings as preferred sources for knowledge acquisition was much higher than the proportion of coaches who actually used these sources, and this difference may be due to the imperfect system of coach education in China. This study also found that coach levels allowed coaches to ascribe varying degrees of importance to informal and non-formal learning sources. Additionally, based on Sfard’s article, it would be inappropriate to discriminate against any learning situation since each seems to play a unique role in the development of a coach.⁵² Furthermore, coaches should be made aware of the potential benefits and disadvantages of these sources and consider the complementary potential among the different sources to acquire coaching knowledge more efficiently.

Despite its contributions, our work—like any research endeavour—exhibited limitations. First, our study did not consider the influence of sports, career expectations, academic education, experiences and gender, among others on the learning sources of coaches. Second, only the first two sources were discussed in the source selection of coaches at different levels. As an extension of this study, therefore, future research should focus on (a) the complementarities of various sources of coaching knowledge and the impact of these sources on a coach’s learning; (b) the differences in the sources of knowledge acquisition among Chinese coaches of various sports, contexts, genders, career expectations and years of coaching experience, etc.; (c) the growth rate and knowledge demand of coaches in China’s dominant sports, for example, table tennis, diving, etc. and (d) coaches’ perspectives regarding the knowledge and resources they need to improve their coaching.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Social Science Fund of China (17BTY094).

ORCID iD

Xiaocheng Zhang

References

Bloom

BS.

Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine, 1985.

Cushion

Armour

Jones

RL.

Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and learning to coach.

Quest 2003; 55: 215–230.

Nash

Collins

Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: science or art?

Quest 2006; 58: 465–477.

Cushion

Nelson

Armour

Coach learning and development: a review of literature. Leeds: Sports Coach UK, 2010.

Trudel

Culver

DM.

Actual and ideal sources of coaching knowledge of elite chinese coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2018; 13: 1–12.

Gilbert

Cote

Mallett

Developmental paths and activities of successful sport coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1: 69–76.

Gilbert

Lichtenwaldt

Gilbert

, et al. Developmental profiles of successful high school coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 415–431.

Nash

Sproule

Career development of expert coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 121–138.

Werthner

Trudel

Investigating the idiosyncratic learning paths of elite Canadian coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 433–449.

10.

Rynne

Mallett

CJ.

Coaches' learning and sustainability in high performance sport. Reflect Pract 2014; 15: 12–26.

11.

Sherwin

Campbell

Macintyre

TE.

Talent development of high-performance coaches in team sports in Ireland. Eur J Sport Sci 2017; 17: 271–278.

12.

Erickson

Bruner

Macdonald

, et al. Gaining insight into actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2008; 3: 527–538.

13.

Mesquita

Isidro

Rosado

Portuguese coaches' perceptions of and preferences for knowledge sources related to their professional background. J Sports Sci Med 2010; 9: 480–489.

14.

Kilic

Levent

Use of sports science knowledge by Turkish coaches. Int J Exerc Sci 2015; 8: 21.

15.

Stoszkowski

Collins

Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 794–802.

16.

Lemyre

Trudel

Durand-Bush

How youth-sport coaches learn to coach. Sport Psychol 2007; 21: 191–209.

17.

Nash

Sproule

Coaches perceptions of their coach education experiences. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2012; 43: 33–52.

18.

Nelson

Cushion

Potrac

Enhancing the provision of coach education: the recommendations of UK coaching practitioners. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2013; 18: 204–218.

19.

Chesterfield

Potrac

Jones

Studentship' and 'impression management' in an advanced soccer coach education award. Sport Educ Soc 2010; 15: 299–314.

20.

Timson-Katchis

North

UK coaching tracking study: year one headline report. Leeds: Sports Coach. 2008.

21.

Wright

Trudel

Culver

Learning how to coach: the different learning situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2007; 12: 127–144.

22.

Carter

Bloom

GA.

Coaching knowledge and success: going beyond athletic experiences. J Sport Behav 2009; 32: 419–437.

23.

Sergio

Calvo

, et al. Development of expertise in Spanish elite basketball coaches. Rev Int Cienc Deporte 2009; 5: 19–32.

24.

Rynne

Mallett

CJ.

Understanding the work and learning of high-performance coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2012; 17: 507–523.

25.

Lyle

Cushion

Sports coaching professionalisation and practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier, Church Livingston, 2010.

26.

Williams

AM.

Lost in translation? International migration, learning and knowledge. Prog Hum Geograph 2006; 30: 588–607.

27.

General Administration of Sports of China. Notice on printing and distributing Interim Measures for The Management of Post Training for Sports Coaches [EB/OL]. 2020-07-19, www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2019-12/19/content_5462372.html (2020, accessed 08 May 2021).

28.

Salmela

JH.

Learning from the development of expert coaches. Coach Sport Sci J 1995; 2: 3–13.

29.

Mallett

Rynne

Billett

Valued learning experiences of early career and experienced high-performance coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2016; 21: 89–104.

30.

Liu

Research and enlightenment on the career development of female coaches in developed countries. J Sports Adul Educ 2019; 35: 57–60.

31.

Dvoark

Valkova

Belka

Player careers of football coaches. Stud Phys Cult Tour 2011; : 243–251.

32.

Nelson

Cushion

Potrac

Formal, nonformal and informal coach learning: a holistic conceptualisation. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 22: 59–69.

33.

Abraham

Collins

Martindale

The coaching schematic: validation through expert coach consensus. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 549–564.

34.

González-Rivera Maria

Campos-Izquierdo

Villalba

, et al. Sources of knowledge used by Spanish coaches: a study according to competition level, gender and professional experience. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2017; 12: 162–174.

35.

Nash

Sproule

Insights into experiences: reflections of an expert and novice coach. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2011; 6: 149–162.

36.

Douglas

Falcão

Bloom

GA.

Career development and learning pathways of paralympic coaches with a disability. Adapt Phys Activ Q 2018; 35: 93–110.

37.

Irwin

Hanton

Kerwin

Reflective practice and the origins of elite coaching knowledge. Reflect Pract 2004; 5: 425–442.

38.

Stodter

Cushion

CJ.

What works in coach learning, how, and for whom? A grounded process of soccer coaches' professional learning. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2017; 9: 321–338.

39.

Jones

Armour

Potrac

Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport Educ Soc 2003; 8: 213–229.

40.

Wilson

Bloom

Harvey

WJ.

Sources of knowledge acquisition: perspectives of the high school teacher/coach. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2010; 15: 383–399.

41.

Hanratty

Connor

Understanding expert knowledge: a case study of knowledge acquisition in elite rugby league strength and conditioning coaches. Int J Coach Sci 2012; 6: 45–63.

42.

Stephenson

Jowett

Factors that influence the development of English youth soccer coaches. Int J Coach Sci 2009; 3: 3–16.

43.

Callary

Werthner

Trudel

How meaningful episodic experiences influence the process of becoming an experienced coach. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2012; 4: 420–438.

44.

Gilbert W and Trudel P. The coach as a reflective practitioner. In: Jones RL (ed), The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge, 2006, pp.113–127.

45.

Cropley

Miles

Peel

Reflective practice: value of, issues, and developments within sports coaching. Leeds: Sports Coach UK, 2012.

46.

Bloom

Durand-Bush

Schinke

RJ.

The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. Int J Sport Psychol 1998; 29: 267–281.

47.

Bloom GA. Mentoring for sport coaches. In: Potrac P, Gilbert W and Denison J (eds), Routledge handbook of sports coaching. New York: Routledge, 2013, pp.476–485.

48.

Fairhurst

Bloom

Harvey

WJ.

The learning and mentoring experiences of paralympic coaches. Disabil Health J 2017; 10: 240–246.

49.

Chambers

Mentoring in physical education and sports coaching. London: Routledge, 2015.

50.

Chambers

Learning to mentor in sports coaching: a design thinking approach. London: Routledge, 2018.

51.

Banwell

Stirling

Kerr

Towards a process for advancing women in coaching through mentorship. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2019; 14: 703–713.

52.

Sfard

On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 1998; 27: 4–13.

53.

Tourigny

Pulich

A critical examination of formal and informal mentoring. Health Care Manag 2005; 24: 68–76.

54.

State Physical Culture and Sports Commission of China. On the regulations encouraging coaches and elite athletes to learn scientific and cultural knowledge [EB/OL], 1985. http://law.148com.com/html/1886/334573.html (accessed 08 May 2021).

55.

Gilbert

Trudel

Learning to coach through experience: reflection in model youth sport coaches. J Teach Phys Educ 2001; 21: 16–34.

56.

Stoszkowski

Collins

Using shared online blogs to structure and support informal coach learning—part 1: a tool to promote reflection and communities of practice

Sport Educ Soc 2015; 1–24.

57.

McIlroy

The Coaching Panel 2015: a report on coaches and coaching in the UK. Leeds: National Coaching Foundation (Sports Coach UK), 2015.

58.

Koh

Bloom

Fairhurst

KE.

An investigation of a formalized mentoring program for novice basketball coaches. Int J Sport Psychol 2014; 45: 11–32.

59.

Bloom GA. Mentoring for sport coaches. In: Potrac P, Gilbert W and Denison J (eds), Routledge handbook of sports coaching. New York: Routledge, 2013. pp.281–302.

60.

Reade

Rodgers

Spriggs

New ideas for high performance coaches: a case study of knowledge transfer in sport science. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2008; 3: 335–354.

61.

Trudel

Gilbert

Rodrigue

The journey from competent to innovator: using appreciative inquiry to enhance high performance coaching. AIP 2016; 18: 40–46.