Research suggests that problem-solving abilities qualitatively vary among coaches with different expertise levels and superior problem solving is a distinct characteristic of expert coaches. Problem Representation occurs as “a cognitive structure corresponding to a problem, constructed by a solver on the basis of his domain-related knowledge and its organization” (Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser, 1981, p. 122).
To date, however, there has not been an examination of coaches' problem representation during competition. Such a study would contribute to closing the gap between the body of literature on expert problem-solving and coaches’ decision-making research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the problem representation of expert and novice high school basketball coaches during competition.
Method:
Four expert and four beginning coaches (N=8) conducted two tasks using a think-aloud protocol (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). First, participants were shown four segments from a collegiate game and asked to describe aloud their speculation as to what problem might have led to the time-out being called. Next, a stimulated recall task required the coaches to elaborate about the problem that might have led to their time-out while observing video segments of their own team’s game. When needed, follow-up questions were asked to clarify responses and to elaborate on thoughts.
Analysis/Results:
A six-step process of (a) transcription and organization of data, (b) reading of data, (c) creation of categories, (d) emergence of themes, (e) modification of categories, and (f) definition of categories and themes revealed five categories that explain the ‘building blocks’ the coaches rely on during problem representation: (a) descriptions, (b) analytics, (c) connections, (d) solution-oriented statements, and (e) anticipation, prediction, and speculation statements.
Differences regarding the use of these blocks and the subcategories were found. Expert coaches utilized more connections with events or experiences beyond the game, verbalized intent statements and uttered more specific references to the score and time throughout the game.
Conclusions:
Results indicated that the coaches displayed a common approach to construct a problem representation (Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981). The use (i.e. amount and frequency) of the building blocks differentiated the expert and beginning coaches.
Characteristics of the experts’ problem representation and the perceived importance placed on analysis of the problem situation supports McCullick and colleagues’ (2006) findings regarding experts’ working memory. Furthermore, the superior ability of experts to anticipate has previously been illustrated in areas as nursing and physicians’ problem solving (Hoffman et al., 2009; Auclair, 2007).