Touch Screen Technology: Implementing a Technologically-Enhanced Profiling System for Student Sport Coaches | La technologie des écrans tactiles : mettre en œuvre un système de profilage amélioré par la technologie pour les entraîneurs sportifs en formation
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27776Mots-clés :
Touch Screen Technology, Coaching, Assessment criteria, Profiling, Coach education & developmentRésumé
This exploratory case study evaluates the implementation and use by student coaches of an innovative coaching profiling system, Touch Screen Technology (TST), to assess coaching behaviours. The study was designed to evaluate the potential of this technologically-enhanced assessment system as a profiling option for gathering, storing, retrieving, and presenting data about coaching competences. The case study documents and evaluates trainee coaches’ (N=100) experiences of using TST during an internship, identifying the advantages and challenges of implementation, and evaluating the potential for coach education and development. Evidence was triangulated from questionnaires, journals, and interviews (N=20). The responses from the coaches were overwhelmingly positive. The touch screen technology, specified assessment criteria, and graphical profiling helped to integrate assessment into the program along with increased awareness and understanding of the assessment process. The students’ subsequent reflections on the components of the coaching process positively impacted their performance. The study concludes that TST has the potential to assist in enhancing the learning process and bridging the gap between education and practice. Attention is drawn to the challenges of implementation.
Cette étude de cas exploratoire évalue la mise en œuvre et l’utilisation, par les élèves entraîneurs, d’un système innovateur de profilage d’entraîneurs, la technologie des écrans tactiles (« TÉT »), pour évaluer les comportements des entraîneurs. L’étude a été conçue pour évaluer le potentiel de ce système d’évaluation technologiquement amélioré comme option de profilage pour la collecte, l’entreposage, la récupération et la présentation de données sur les compétences des entraîneurs. L’étude de cas documente et évalue les expériences d’utilisation de la TÉT par les entraîneurs stagiaires (N=100) durant un stage tout en relevant les avantages et les défis liés à la mise en œuvre et en évaluant le potentiel pour la formation et le développement des entraîneurs. Les preuves ont été triangulées à partir de questionnaires, de journaux et d’entrevues (N=20). Les réponses des entraîneurs ont été très largement positives. La technologie des écrans tactiles, les critères d’évaluation précisés et le profilage graphique, tout comme la sensibilisation et la compréhension accrue du processus d’évaluation, ont aidé à intégrer l’évaluation au programme. Les réflexions subséquentes des élèves sur les composantes du processus d’entraînement ont eu une incidence positive sur leur rendement. L’étude conclut que la TÉT a le potentiel d’aider à améliorer le processus d’apprentissage et à combler l’écueil entre l’éducation et la pratique. L’étude attire l’attention vers les défis liés à la mise en œuvre.
Références
Anderson, T., Varnhagen, S., Campbell, K. (1998). Faculty adoption of teaching and learning technologies: Contrasting earlier adopters and mainstream Faculty. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(2/3), 71-98. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/183321/183278
Araya, J., Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2015). Understanding performance coach development: perception about a postgraduate coach education program. International Sports Coaching Journal, 2(1), 3-14. doi:10.1123/iscj.2013-0036
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5-25. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. doi:10.4135/9781483385648.n8
Borchert & Schlöffel, 2018). Professional development of physical education teachers based on technology. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 13, 82-91. Retrieved from https://jeten-online.org/index.php/jeten/article/view/156/185
Butler, R. J., & Hardy, L. (1992) The performance profile: theory and application. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 253-264. doi:10.1123/tsp.6.3.253
Butterworth, A. D., O’Donoghue, P., & Copley, B. (2013). Performance profiling in sports coaching: A review. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 13, 572-593. doi:10.1080/24748668.2013.11868672
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching : The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge. doi:10.1080/00336297.2009.10483612
Charmez, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1080/107205300265928
Chesterfield, G., Potrac, P., & Jones, R.L. (2010). ‘Studentship’ and ‘impression management’ in an advanced soccer coach education award. Sport, Education and Society, 15(3), 299-314. doi:10.1080/13573322.2010.493311
Chew, S. W., Cheng, I.-L., Kinshuk, Chen, N. S. (2018) Exploring challenges faced by different stakeholders while implementing educational technology in classrooms through expert witnesses. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(2), 175-197. doi:10.1007/s40692-018-0102-4
Choi, E. (1992). Beyond positivist sport pedagogy: Developing a multidimensional multi-paradigmatic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis. The University of Georgia. Athens, USA.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London, England: Routledge. doi:10.4236/jpee.2014.24048
Cook, J., Holley, D., & Andrew, D. (2007). A stakeholder approach to implementing e-learning in a university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 784-794. doi:10.1111/j1467-8535.2007.00755.x
Rynne, S. (2008). Clarifying the concept of community of practice in sport: A commentary. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 15-17. doi:10.1260/174795408784089306
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M. & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215-230. doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800
Cushion, C., Harvey, S., Muir, B., & Nelson, L. (2012). Developing the coach analysis and intervention system: establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation system. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(2), 209-216. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.635310
De Martin-Silva, L., Fonseca, J., Jones, R. L., Morgan, K., & Mesquita, I. (2015). Understanding undergraduate sports coaching students’ development and learning: The necessity of uncertainty. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(7), 669-683. doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1072153
Denison, J. (2010). Understanding the change process: Valuing what it is that coaches do: A commentary. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(2), 161-163. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.161
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187-199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001
Eide, P., & Khan, D. (2008). Ethical issues in qualitative research participation relationship. Nursing Ethics. 15(2), 199-207. doi:10.1177/0969733007086018
Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(21), 82-97. doi:10.1037/edu0000053
Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change (2nd ed.). London, England: Cassell. doi:10.4324/9780203986561
Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-on-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7, 107-122. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.004
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009) Revisiting the performance profile technique: theoretical underpinnings and application. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 93-117. doi:10.1123/tsp.23.1.93
Hastie, P., & Glotova, O. (2012). Analysing qualitative data. In K. Armour & D. Macdonald (Eds.) Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London, England: Routledge, 309-321. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-11022-0_12
Jones, G. (1993). The role of performance profiling in cognitive behaviour intervention in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 160-172. doi:10.1123/tsp.7.2.160
Kirkbride, A. N. (2013). Media applications of performance analysis. In T. McGarry & P. O’Donoghue & J. Sampaio (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis. London, England: Routledge, 187-209 doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1072153
Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ – A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509-25. doi:10.1080/0309877x.2014.984600
Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Ruud, E. (2018). Learning and teaching with technology in higher education – a systematic review. Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for Education. Retrieved from www.kunnskapssenter.no
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2017). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice. (2nd ed.) London, England: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203126424
Mallett, C. J., & Dickens, S. (2009). Authenticity in formal coach education: Online postgraduate studies in sports coaching at the University of Queensland. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(2), 79-90.
Molloy, E. K., & Boud, D. (2014). Feedback models of learning, teaching and performance. In J. Spector, M. Merrill & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 413-424). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_33
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. doi:10.1080/02602931003786559
O’Donovan, B., Rust, C., & Price, M. (2016). A scholarly approach to solving the feedback dilemma in practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 938-949. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052774
Papailiou, D., Strigas, E., Travlos, A., & Kipreos, G. (2015). The influence of the social context and the coaching environment on the coaching process and performance evaluation. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(6A), 1115-1119. Retrieved from https://saspjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SJAHSS-36A1115-1119.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penual, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
Race, P. (2014). Making learning happen: A guide for post-compulsory education (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage. doi:10.1080/13664530.2013.879006
Race, P. (2015). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching (4th ed.). London, England: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203707340
Redelius, K., & Hay, P. (2009). Defining, acquiring and transacting cultural capital through assessment in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 275-294. doi:10.1177/1356336x09364719
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, England: Sage. doi:10.2501/ijmr-2014
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25-41. doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Rynne, S. B., Mallett, C. J., & Rabjohns, M. W. O. (2017). High performance coaching: demands and development. In R. Thelwell, C. Harwood, & I. Greenlees (Eds.), The Psychology of Sports Coaching: Research and Practice (pp. 114-126). Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315689210-9
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London, England: Routledge.
Scottish Qualifications Authority. (n.d.). What is assessment? https://www.sqaacademy.org.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=10645
Vinson, D., & Peters, D.M. (2016). Position-specific performance indicators that discriminate between successful and unsuccessful teams in elite women’s indoor field hockey: implications for coaching. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(4), 311-320. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1055292
Weston, N. J. V., Greenlees, I. A., & Thelwell, R. C. (2011). Athlete perceptions of the impacts of performance profiling. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(2), 173-188. doi:10.1080/1612197x.2011.567107
Williams, J., & Penney, D. (2011). Authentic assessment in performance-based subjects. Teachers & Curriculum, 12, 31-39. doi:10.15663/tandc.v.12i1
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London, England: Sage.
Zhu, J. (2002). Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4246-6_7
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Tom Browne, John Lyle 2018
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Droits d’auteur
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.
