The coach remains a significant influence on the success of winning teams in collegiate athletics. Studies of winning coaches behavior have been undertaken in basketball (e.g., Becker & Wrisberg, 2008), football (Voight & Carroll, 2006) and volleyball (Lacy & Martin, 1994), with these being limited to training contexts only. There remains a critical need to understand the coaching behaviors and practices of coaches in other NCAA sports to develop an understanding of ‘effective’ coaching across different sports. This study reports on observations of one female NCAA D1 head coach, ranked among the top 25 winningest active women’s soccer coaches, to determine her utilization of coaching behaviors within training sessions and competition.
Method:
The coach was videotaped during spring training sessions (N=4; M = 91.5mins; SD = 11.79) and competition matches (N=3; M = 118 mins; SD = 5.77). Video was analyzed using the Coach Analysis Intervention System (Cushion et al., 2012). This was supplemented by field note observations both ‘live’ and from the videotaped records. Systematic observation data were initially analyzed deductively using descriptive statistics. This was followed by an inductive analysis to ascertain potential ‘patterns’ of coaching behavior. Multi coder reviews were conducted to ensure inter-rater reliability exceeded recommended levels of 85% (van der Mars, 1989).
Analysis/Results:
The findings demonstrated the coach’s alignment of intervention behavior in training and competition. Instruction (19.76% training; 29.82% in competition), positive feedback (19.01%; 24.39%) and silence (9.32%; 14.50%) were the predominant behaviors across the two contexts. Higher percentages of these behaviors were present in competition because the coach was freed from management responsibilities (23.26%; 5.59%). Qualitative analyses documented that a positive feedback statement was made either prior, during, or after each intervention.
In both contexts the coach’s behaviors were primarily tactical (64.56%; 60.02%) with more behaviors directed towards individuals in competition (78.02%) when compared to training (55.11%). Intervention behaviors that contributed sparsely in both contexts included questioning (5.69%; 2.15%) and negative feedback (4.70%; 2.35%).
Conclusions:
Consistent with previous research, in training the coach used high levels of instruction and feedback, which was interspersed with periods of silent observation (e.g., Tharp & Gallimore, 1976). This current study also demonstrated that the coach’s competition behaviors were consistent with her training behaviors, something not yet documented in the previous literature. These findings suggest the importance of aligning training and in-competition behaviors to assist coaches in creating a positive environment within which athletes can improve performance.