A Review of Reflective Practice and Its Application for

A Review of Reflective Practice and Its Application for the Football Strength and Conditioning Coach Clayton R. Kuklick, PhD1 and Brian T. Gearity, PhD2 Athletic Coaching Education, College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia; and 2Online Master of Arts in Sport Coaching, Graduate School of Professional Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

1

ABSTRACT REFLECTIVE PRACTICE (RP) IS AN ESSENTIAL SKILL TO MAKE MEANING FROM EXPERIENCE AND IS CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFIED AS A WAY TO ENHANCE COACH EFFECTIVENESS. RESEARCH ON RP IN COACH EDUCATION CONTINUES TO GROW, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A PAUCITY OF RESEARCH SPECIFIC TO STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING (S&C). GIVEN THE POPULARITY AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH S&C FOR FOOTBALL, AN URGENT NEED EXISTS TO HELP FOOTBALL S&C COACHES (SCCS) LEARN HOW TO ENGAGE IN RP. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EMERGING LITERATURE ON HOW COACHES DEVELOP KNOWLEDGE BY CONCEPTUALIZING RP IN THE CASE OF FOOTBALL SCCS. SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

he National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) contributes to the field of

T

strength and conditioning (S&C) by publishing research and educational materials to numerous practitioners, who in turn use this knowledge to enhance athletic performance and well-being (8). The majority of the research contributing to S&C coaches’ (SCC) knowledge has focused on examining the scientific components of S&C program design, assessment, and technique (2,3,32). However, researchers have provided theoretical and empirical evidence that out in the field (i.e., professional practice), there are psychological, social, and environmental factors that influence athletic performance beyond what is highlighted in the majority of scientific research (19,47). Likewise, basic knowledge from scientific research does not always fit directly into practice but rather results in SCCs crafting that knowledge to the environment (16). Consequently, to understand the relationship between science and practice, researchers have explored how SCCs apply scientific knowledge and personal professional knowledge into practice (16,46). In total, understanding the fluid relationship between research, or scientific-based knowledge, and professional, or practical, knowledge is essential to the preparation

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association

of coaches and directly aligns with the NSCA’s mission. However, research examining how coaches develop and apply knowledge has been conducted outside the SCC context (7,22,49). A general consensus across this line of inquiry is the importance of reflection as a mediating factor to knowledge development and use (16,17,21). Although people share similar experiences, an individual’s ability to reflect will determine how he or she makes meaning or knowledge from experience. Other research on reflection has shown that knowledge development is contextualized to the environment in which a coach practices (22,23,26). At face value, it makes sense that coaches working in different contexts reflect on various or differing components of practice. REFLECTION IN STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING

Existing researchers have conceptualized reflection in the context of rugby KEY WORDS:

strength and conditioning; knowledge development; coach learning; reflection; practical knowledge

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

43

Reflective Practice

SCCs (24) using Van Manen’s (48) view of reflection to differentiate between 3 progressing levels of reflection. Van Manen (48) theorized that practitioners develop their scientific knowledge, or what he calls curricular knowledge, by connecting it to their practices through a process of conscious thought. In this process, a practitioner uses critical reflection through 3 levels of conscious questioning. At the first level, called the technical level, the application of curricular knowledge is questioned when the practitioner focuses on the outcome of their practices. Within the second level, called the practical level of critical reflection, the practitioner questions their own practice and delivery rather than the product. At the third and most critical level, the practitioner becomes emancipated from their curricular knowledge by questioning all knowledge, practice, and outcomes within each and every context. Although Van Manen’s (48) view of reflection in the context of the rugby SCCs is insightful, the authors note that this view is not superior to other models of reflection (24). Rather, the view is useful for creating questions that facilitate conscious critical reflection with the intent to engage practitioners in knowledge development (24). Yet, one weakness of Van Manen’s (48) view of reflection seems to be its deficiency in providing a clear theoretical perspective that explains how and why knowledge would be developed through conscious and unconscious questioning out in field. To show how our understanding of reflection can be improved, we turn to one of the few studies on an SCC’s knowledge development. Examining the knowledge and practice of one elite collegiate SCC, Dorgo (16) determined that in over 12 years in practice, the coach drew on practical knowledge from 10 different content areas. Interestingly, 6 content areas originated from scientific knowledge presented in the coach’s formal education, which were then transformed to fit professional practice. However, there were 4 additional areas of knowledge that

44

this coach developed that could not be linked back to any origin of basic scientific knowledge. These content areas included planning adjustments, supervision (i.e., technique analysis), pedagogical strategies (i.e., motivating athletes), and self-reflection. Not only does this study provide evidence for the wide range of practical knowledge used in S&C but also demonstrates that certain knowledge was developed unconsciously out in the field. Thus, this practical knowledge was not, as Van Manen (48) would suggest, linked to scientific knowledge. Although Dorgo’s (16) research validates the idea that SCCs grow and apply scientific knowledge more effectively into professional practice, the study failed to examine how practical knowledge was developed beyond experience. It seems quite plausible that SCCs develop practical knowledge through reflection; however, there is hardly any research in this area. Tod et al. (46) extended on Dorgo’s (16) research by determining what knowledge sources 15 SCCs drew on in professional practice over their career. The findings from this study suggest that initially in their career, coaches drew on knowledge from external sources such as formal education, books, and research. However, over time, the coaches described how they drew on their own personal knowledge that considered the psychological, social, and environmental factors involved with enhancing athletes’ performance. Rather than reporting biomedical scientific-based training programs as the key factors for enhancing performance, the SCCs cited developing trust with athletes, being flexible in workouts, and motivating athletes as the most influential aspects of their coaching. Although outside the scope of this study, the findings suggest that SCCs learn practical knowledge through reflection to develop effective coaching practices (46). In summary, we know that SCCs craft their knowledge from scientific knowledge into practical knowledge (46). However, there is a lack of research

VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2015

that explains how and why this process occurs in the SCC context. Existing research outside S&C would suggest the mediating factor within experience is reflective practice (RP; 17,22,26). Conceptualizing reflection in the context of football S&C is valuable because many SCCs in the United States work in football (38) and that knowledge development is contextualized (22,23,26). Also, to enhance professional competence, SCCs should understand how to apply RP to refine pedagogic and performance enhancement strategies to effectively improve football players’ performance (30). NEED FOR REFLECTION IN FOOTBALL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the emerging literature on how coaches develop knowledge by conceptualizing RP in the case of football SCCs. The authors address the needs and gaps in the existing literature using Scho¨n’s (39,40) view of RP to explain how and why knowledge is developed in professional practice. A football SCC’s ability to reflect provides the opportunity, as Scho¨n (39,40) would describe, to build on technical rationality (i.e., scientific knowledge) into a form of professional artistry (i.e., practical knowledge). A desired outcome of this article is to provide a theoretically and research informed explanation that could be used by coach educators and football SCCs to facilitate professional competence and ultimately enhance athletic performance. To address the aforementioned purpose, the authors first provide a detailed explanation of Scho¨n’s (39,40) theory of RP. Subsequently, the authors provide several lifelike examples of how a football SCC would use RP. The authors conclude with strategies for coach educators and football SCCs to facilitate RP individually and as a staff. ¨ N’S VIEW OF REFLECTIVE SCHO PRACTICE

Reflective practice is considered to be the basis of all experiential learning

situations (15,39) where contextualized knowledge is developed through a process of critical thought that creates meaning through experience. Scho¨n’s (39,40) view of RP goes beyond existing frameworks and models (20,29,48) because of its theoretical basis of how one constructs knowledge by encountering and working through problems in professional activities. The knowledge development process is said to occur in response to resolving either single loop or double loop problems. Single loop problems are thought of as casual or routine-like problems and tend to produce a lesser degree of reflective processing than double loop problems, which elicit the deepest and most significant meaning. In double loop problems, the practitioner challenges their preconceived assumptions of a given situation. During RP, practitioners make sense of their experience by applying personal knowledge into professional practice. The practitioner moves beyond the technical rational model of thinking and more towards the craft of professional artistry. Scho¨n (39,40) describes this process through the use of concepts such as role frames, reflective conversation, reflection-in-action, and reflection-onaction (Figure). Role frames are labeled as a practitioner’s personal approach or theory of practice, which is framed by their previous experiences, knowledge, and education. Role frames lead the practitioner to, and interpretation of, certain problems they encounter out in the field. Furthermore, once a problem is attended to and interpreted, a practitioner’s role frame also influences their professional knowledge that is used to generate strategies to solve the problem. Scho¨n (39,40) went on to describe how a practitioner develops knowledge through a reflective conversation. A reflective conversation is a spiral of appreciation (i.e., problem situation), action (i.e., the strategy generation and experimentation process), and reappreciation (i.e., re-experience problem situation). Appreciation, which is

Figure. Reflective practice.

confined by the practitioner’s role frame, is the identification and setting of the problem. Action involves the process of generating strategies and actively experimenting with a strategy to either overcoming the problem, or if the problem remains unsolved, then the practitioner would engage in reappreciation. In some cases, a practitioner may reframe the problem, which would result in new action (i.e., modifying the strategy to solve the problem). A practitioner may engage in multiple cycles of a reflective conversation where problems are reframed or reappreciated to produce a satisfactory outcome; the practitioner pursues a double loop problem. Reflective conversations occur at 2 different times: reflection-in-action or reflection-onaction. Reflection-in-action occurs when practitioners engage in a reflective conversation while in the midst of their professional practice or what Scho¨n

(39,40) called the action present. During the action present, the practitioner’s problem solving strategies can still make a difference on the problem. In contrast, reflection-on-action is a reflective conversation that occurs before or after the action present. In this way, reflection-on-action does not have an immediate impact on the problem. Yet, it offers further strategizing to be tested at a later time. To make RP to be of use for pedagogical purposes for coach educators and practitioners in formal, nonformal, and informal settings (36), the authors provide several lifelike football-specific situations of how scientific knowledge is transformed into practical football S&C coaching knowledge. These situations, which are presented in the following section and in the Table, demonstrate how a football SCC would engage in appreciation, strategy generation, experimentation, and reappreciation for a double loop problem


45


Problem

Why was this a problem Reflection

SCC explores new ways Athletes to better athlete demonstrate performance a decrease in strength at the end of the season

RIA/ROA

Generated strategies

(1) Implement endurance training intervention; (2) implement squat and bench press resistance training intervention; (3) implement multiset intervention; (4) implement nutrition intervention; (5) seek council from a peer

Source of strategy Experimentation (implemented strategy)

(1) Book; (2) research; (3) coaching clinic; (4) coaching peer; (5) coaching peer

(2) Implement squat and bench press resistance training intervention

Evaluation

Reappreciation

Decrease in athletes’ strength performance

RIA/ROA Perceived as being a change in a strength and conditioning schedule and not the squat and bench press resistance training program

Reappreciation (2) Continue squat and bench press (1) Talk with head football (1) Internal; (2) resistance training program and assess internal; (3) coach to change athletes and motivate at times in need coaching course schedule; (2) continue squat and bench press resistance training program and motivate at times in need; (3) assess athletes regularly and implement multiset intervention

Decrease in athletes’ strength performance

Perceived as being a product of fatigue

(1) Asks groups of athletes to describe (1) Asks groups of athletes (1) Internal; (2) their level of fatigue research; (3) to describe their level of internal; (4) fatigue; (2) decrease coaching intensity; (3) implement course; (5) peer; motivational strategy; (4) (6) internal; (7) implement nutrition book intervention; (5) seek council from a peer; (6) discipline; (7) provide a rest period

Athletes lie about their level of fatigue when asked

Athletes did not want to RIA/ROA show weakness to the coach

RIA/ROA

(1) Discipline athletes; (2) talk with athletes individually; (3) develop trusting relationship

(1) Internal; (2) internal; (3) internal

(3) Develop trusting relationship

Reframed problem

Reframed problem

Reflective Practice

46

Table Specific example of reflective practice

RIA 5 reflection-in-action; reframe problem 5 new problem derived from experimentation; ROA 5 reflection-on-action; SCC 5 strength and conditioning coach.

Desired outcome (1) Talk with athletes and create note cards for athletes to fill out to dictate training load (1) Internal; (2) internal; (3) peers; (4) internal (1) Talk with athletes and create note cards for athletes to fill out to dictate training load; (2) discipline athletes; (3) seek counseling from peers; (4) talk with athletes individually RIA How to develop Athletes perceive coach as not caring about trusting their level of fatigue relationship

Table (continued )

before experiencing a satisfactory outcome. Because new problems could emerge from experimentation, the label entitled reframed problem demonstrates additional new problems that require strategies. Because there are times when either types of reflection would be an appropriate description, the Table shows when reflection-inaction and reflection-on-action may occur. The following example provides a highly specific lifelike-problem and how a football SCC, “Coach A,” could engage in RP. In the sections that follow, 3 suggested topical areas for RP are offered while elucidating concepts of RP. SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN FOOTBALL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING

Research examining National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players suggests that squat and bench press strength can be maintained if exercise intensity remains greater than 80% (1 repetition maximum [1RM]) in a 2-day per week inseason resistance training program (25). Coach A is an SCC working with football and read the aforementioned study. Because most of the football players demonstrated a significant decrease in squat and bench press performance at the end of the season, Coach A thinks adjusting her current S&C program is a good strategy. Coach A implements the new program and communicates a clear set of goals to the football players. After 2 weeks of the regimen, the head football coach changes the time allotted to resistance training from before practice to after practice. In the subsequent weeks, Coach A then observes a decrease in performance as the athletes do not reach 80% (1RM) on either squat or bench press. She decides to provide some extra motivation by encouraging the athletes during their S&C sessions. However, the extra motivation does not induce a desired outcome. Coach A reframes the problem by thinking that the change in performance may be a result of the after practice lifting

time. She then asks some of the veteran players to describe their level of fatigue as they enter the weight room. To her surprise, the players express how great they feel. Coach A ponders that maybe the players were putting on a front and lied to her about their level of fatigue because they did not want to demonstrate weaknesses (27). Coach A now contemplates her relationship and trust with the athletes. To overcome this problem, she strategizes a more objective way to record fatigue by having the athletes complete a short daily survey of their level of fatigue. Coach A uses this information to prescribe a load for the athletes’ training sessions. In time, she observes that the athletes are motivated and enthusiastic during the workouts rather than fatigued. At the end of the in-season program, 80% of the athletes experienced gains in the bench press and squat. The aforementioned example describes how empirical research and scientific knowledge is developed and applied through RP in the case of a football SCC. However, there are a multitude of reframed problems and reflective conversations (i.e., problem set, generate strategies, experimentation) within the example that would also develop and construct other types of knowledge used by the SCC. For example, the interaction and communication between the SCC and head football coach regarding the intensities and volume of conditioning during practice and its influence on performance, injury rates, strength, etc., are certainly aspects where reframed problems and reflective conversations would take place in the aforementioned example. These interactions and communication would be an example of how RP would be used to develop interpersonal skills in such a way that enables the SCC to influence the head coaches’ preexisting beliefs that more conditioning is better for athletes, which could have been the reason for the decrease in squat and bench press performance in the first place.


47

Reflective Practice

SUGGESTED TOPICAL AREAS FOR REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN FOOTBALL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING

What is known about RP in this context comes from personal experiences (e.g., books, magazines, blogs) and gleanings from work with a different purpose (i.e., psychological and sociological research with SCCs). Unfortunately, there is no research on RP in football S&C. One of the challenges of using RP is the seemingly limitless areas ripe for reflection. Therefore, this section shows how Scho¨n’s (39) work could be used to enhance performance and lessen injury within the context of football S&C. STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING STAFF DIVERSITY

The role of staff diversity on RP may not appear obvious, but a few findings from related research will elucidate this issue. Most SCCs are white males who were former collegiate football or track and field athletes (5,33,38). Strength and conditioning staffs at the NCAA FBS colleges and universities are limited to 5 full-time SCCs, and at other levels, there are often 1–3 fulltime SCCs on staff. Research in social psychology shows that athletic administrators or sport coaches tend to hire people most like themselves, a phenomenon referred to as homologous reproduction (43). Even when a nondominant or minority administrator or coach is hired, this “token” person is often marginalized and their voice is silenced (37,42). In effect, what could be considered the average S&C staff is often a small group of mostly similar people. As noted earlier, the background and experiences of people influence how they frame dilemmas. A staff who is too alike risks not being able to change their role frames. In this scenario, it would be expected that while RP would occur, it would likely be limited to minor or single loop problems. Researchers have shown that increased diversity in the workplace often leads to greater outcomes (13). Although the researchers concluded that improved

48

decision making resulted from greater diversity, it is plausible that decision making itself was improved by a more diverse approach to RP. In more diverse groups, it is reasonable to assume that there is extended discussion on a greater number of problems. Because a more diverse staff would identify problems differently and subsequently discuss these problems and their roles frames, SCCs would be better prepared to solve problems. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

American football has long had a dubious relationship with the health and safety of its participants. Over the approximate 100 year history of American football, the rules have constantly changed away from its more dangerous origins. In more recent times, calls for football S&C practices to be made safer have also been made (1). It can be gathered that the use of RP has made these changes possible. A number of people have reflectedon-action (i.e., observed football contests and training practices) and have identified serious injury as a problem to be resolved. One way to help football SCCs’ reflecton-action is to revisit the NSCA’s Professional Standards & Guidelines; an informative publication that should be revisited by practitioners on a regular basis (35). Coaches could use the standards and guidelines as a checklist to monitor their compliance with best practices. For example, coaches could take this document and create a rubric to assess 3 levels of compliance such as “noncompliant,” “compliant,” or “exceeds compliance expectations.” In this way, the document becomes a useful tool across contexts to assist in the reflective process to improve health and safety. Interestingly, the Standards (35), and best practices themselves, are revisited by professional organizations to reflect on problems to develop strategies to solve them. Another way to use the Standards (35), and as an added benefit to coach development, football SCCs could check their current strengths and weakness


against the recommended personnel qualifications and program supervision and instruction. Coaches with strong backgrounds in exercise physiology and nutrition, but lacking in knowledge of injury prevention, would likely want to improve their understanding of biomechanics and rehabilitation. It is well known in the coach education research that former UCLA men’s basketball coach and 10-time National Champion John Wooden identified one aspect of his coaching to improve on every year during the off-season (18,45). Similarly, guided by reflecting-on-action, a football SCC could develop a selfimprovement plan to address personally identified areas of improvement. PROGRAM DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND INSTRUCTION

The essence of Scho¨n’s (39) work on RP was to get practitioners to align desirable and ethical values with practice and to reflect on the relationship among values and diverse forms of knowledge within the complexity of practice. Scho¨n (39,40) was keenly aware that practice could not be reduced to a few variables as is commonplace in scientific research and that practice was inherently valueladen. For S&C for football, RP can be used as a framework to think about big practical ideas as Scho¨n (39) intended. At an applied individual level, this could entail an SCC analyzing an athlete’s skill acquisition and how the coach’s program design, implementation, and instruction facilitates or hinders the learning process. For example, a coach may plan extensively for every repetition, set, load, and rest period. The coach offers an abundance of instruction and yet the athlete does not make the desired or expected progress on the depth or load in the back squat. Dilemmas such as this are commonplace, and the theory of RP can be seen in action by examining the reflective conversation (39). Although the Standards (35) recommend coaches provide adequate supervision

and instruction, watching and talking do not qualify as quality supervision and instruction. Coaches should reflect on what nonverbal and verbal instruction and feedback they offer (4). A growing body of evidence in motor learning suggests that learning is enhanced when the learner solicits feedback (10). However, an athlete questioning the coach for feedback and the coach not automatically giving feedback goes against what is often considered to be normal and best practice by football SCCs. Again, drawing on Scho¨n’s (39,40) concepts, single loop problem solving could occur whereby the coach occasionally stops action to ask if the athlete(s) has questions. More significantly, double loop problem solving could occur by the coach’s restructuring of the training environment and by reframing how the coach should give instruction and feedback. Additionally, the coach could develop a series of strategies to improve motor skill acquisition by reviewing the latest research and identifying contextual factors that could influence learning. Ultimately, the coach would make a decision(s) and evaluate its success by the influence of the strategy on the outcomes. OVERCOMING THE BARRIERS TO REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Although the authors have highlighted the benefits and strategies to facilitate RP throughout this article, this section is dedicated to providing ways to overcome barriers to RP. Because there is a lack of literature exploring strategies to facilitate reflection in SCCs, the authors refer to existing research to extend the body of literature in both coaching and S&C. Existing literature has determined that one of the main barriers to reflection is practitioners’ time constraints (6). Reflective writing has been deemed beneficial but unfortunately exasperates coaches (28), which would be why Gilbert and Trudel (21) have suggested using “R-cards” to facilitate selfawareness in identifying problems during training and competition. “R-cards” are large index cards that

contain the team’s performance goals for each competition (i.e., 10 blocks). On one part of the card, the coach reports the performance outcomes after an event to check the teams’ movement towards reaching their goals. On another part of the card, the coach determines how their existing practices have contributed to the competitive outcomes and also what they will do in their upcoming practices to help the team meet their goals. Although “R-cards” provide a framework for concise writing, can potentially alleviate coaches’ time constraints, and could be modified to the football SCC context, practitioners, without knowing at times, get immersed in their preconceived perception that their coaching practices are of highest quality (31,34). Thus, they find difficulty in identifying problems in professional practice (22). Because of this difficulty, a need exists for other perspectives to facilitate the identification of problems (which could be alleviated with greater staff diversity). In this case, Scho¨n (39,40) would likely suggest opportunities to consider other’s role frames to promote a wider lens for attending to dilemmas in professional practice. A more effective approach to gain selfawareness outside one’s role frame would be to engage approximately 1–80 athletes who congregate the weight room at any one time. Athletes could be used as a resource, despite their limitations, to provide an eclectic view of practice. In this way, when leaving the weight room, the athletes could complete a note asking 3 short questions. For example, questions such as, “What was the purpose of today’s training session?” “What is one benefit of today’s training session?” and “What is one thing you (the athlete) did not like about today’s training session?” could provide insight through different perspectives. Existing literature supports the use of video-taping training sessions, where the focus becomes analyzing one’s own coaching behaviors, to facilitate RP (9). Despite the benefits of critiquing

one’s practices and the ease of access in gaining new perspectives by sharing the video-taped training sessions with peers, this approach could be hindered by coaches who are constantly moving. Moving throughout the training facility, the resulting video could result in poor sound quality and the need for other individuals to record the coach throughout the space. To overcome this barrier, coaches could use wearable technology (i.e., GoPro, San Mateo, CA) or digital camera accessories to record a first person view of one’s coaching practices. If further collaboration is desired, these videos could be shared easily. Furthermore, SCCs could use the latest coaching behavior assessment instruments to encourage RP (14). Finally, existing literature has reported collaboration as a key factor in not only identifying problems but also facilitating the development and implementation of strategies (17,26). One barrier to collaboration is that some coaches do not like to share their ideas with others (11,12). To promote collaboration, one strategy is to use a trained coach education facilitator (11). Still, this is time consuming and requires coaches to have similar schedules to meet with the facilitator (12). Perhaps, a more practical means for the S&C staff would be to adopt the daily “Scrum” (44) from an organizational learning perspective (41). The daily “Scrum” involves 10–15 minutes of collaboration where each member answers the following, or similar, questions, “What have you done since yesterday?” “What are you planning on accomplishing today?” and “What barriers do you foresee in accomplishing your plan (44)?” After all of the SCCs participate, the staff collaborates to facilitate strategy generation. This could work in such a way where one SCC identifies a potential problem and another coach engages them with a few strategies to potentially overcome the problem. Given the scientific research that has been conducted on improving football performance (30) and the lack of research that has been conducted on how this knowledge


49

Reflective Practice

is developed through reflection, the aforementioned strategies and the conceptualization of RP in the football SCC context can used by coach educators and football SCCs to facilitate professional competence and athletic performance. Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors report no conflicts of interest and no source of funding.

Clayton R. Kuklick is a professor in the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences at West Virginia University.

Brian T. Gearity, is the director of the Masters of Arts in Sport Coaching in the Graduate School of Professional Psychology at the University of Denver.

REFERENCES 1. Anderson SA. The Junction Boys syndrome. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1179– 1180, 2012. 2. Baechle TR and Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning: National Strength and Conditioning Association. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.

strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 14: 483–492, 2000. 6. Burt E and Morgan P. Barriers to systematic reflective practice as perceived by UKCC level 1 and level 2 qualified rugby union coaches. Reflect Pract 15: 468–480, 2014. 7. Callary B, Werthner P, and Trudel P. Shaping the way five women coaches develop: Their primary and secondary socialization. J Coach Educ 4: 76–125, 2011. 8. Campbell B and Spano M. NSCA’s Guide to Sport and Exercise Nutrition. Leeds, United Kingdom: Human Kinetics, 2011. 9. Carson F. Utilizing video to facilitate reflective practice: Developing sports coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 3: 381– 390, 2008. 10. Chiviacowsky S and Wulf G. Selfcontrolled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 76: 42–48, 2005. 11. Culver D, Trudel P, and Werthner P. A sport leader’s attempt to foster a coaches’ community of practice. Int J Sports Sci Coach 4: 365–383, 2009. 12. Culver DM. Enriching Knowledge: A Collaborative Approach Between Sport Coaches and Consultant/Facilitator. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa, 2004.

21. Gilbert W and Trudel P. The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach: Part 2—Reflection. Olympic Coach 24: 35–44, 2013. 22. Gilbert WD and Trudel P. Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches. J Teach Phys Educ 21: 16–34, 2001. 23. Gilbert WD and Trudel P. Learning to coach through experience: Conditions that influence reflection. Phys Educ 62: 32–43, 2005. 24. Handcock P and Cassidy T. Reflective practice for rugby union strength and conditioning coaches. Strength Cond J 36: 41–45, 2014. 25. Hoffman JR and Kang J. Strength changes during an in-season resistance-training program for football. J Strength Cond Res 17: 109–114, 2003. 26. Irwin G, Hanton S, and Kerwin DG. Reflective practice and the origins of elite coaching knowledge. Reflect Pract 5: 425–442, 2004.

13. Cunningham GB and Melton EN. The benefits of sexual orientation diversity in sport organizations. J Homosex 58: 647– 663, 2011.

27. Jones RL, Potrac P, Cushion C, Ronglan LT, and Davey C. Erving Goffman: Interaction and impression management. In: The Sociology of Sports Coaching. Jones RL, Potrac P, Cushion C, and Ronglan LT, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. pp. 15–26.

14. Cushion C, Harvey S, Muir B, and Nelson L. Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS): Establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instrument. J Sports Sci 30: 201–216, 2012.

28. Knowles Z, Gilbourne D, Borrie A, and Nevill A. Developing the reflective sports coach: A study exploring the processes of reflective practice within a higher education coaching programme. Reflect Pract 2: 185–207, 2001.

15. Dewey J. Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier, 1938.

29. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.

16. Dorgo S. Unfolding the practical knowledge of an expert strength and conditioning coach. Int J Sports Sci Coach 4: 17–30, 2009.

3. Beattie K, Kenny I, Lyons M, and Carson B. The effect of strength training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports Med 44: 845–865, 2014.

17. Gallimore R, Gilbert W, and Nater S. Reflective practice and ongoing learning: A coach’s 10-year journey. Reflect Pract 15: 268–288, 2014.

4. Becker KA and Smith PK. Attentional focus effects in standing long jump performance: Influence of a broad and narrow internal focus. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1780– 1783, 2015.

18. Gallimore R and Tharp R. What a coach can teach a teacher, 1975-2004: Reflections and reanalysis of John Wooden’s teaching practices. Sport Psychol 18: 119–137, 2004.

5. Brooks DD, Ziatz D, Johnson B, and Hollander D. Leadership behavior and job responsibilities of NCAA division 1A

19. Gearity B. The discipline of philosophy in strength and conditioning. Strength Cond J 32: 110–117, 2010.

50

20. Gibbs G. Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford, United Kingdom: Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic, 1988.


30. Kraemer WJ. A series of studies—The physiological basis for strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond Res 11: 131–142, 1997. 31. Lawson HA. Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. J Teach Phys Educ 2: 3–16, 1983. 32. Maloney S, Turner A, and Fletcher I. Ballistic exercise as a pre-activation stimulus: A review of the literature and practical applications. Sports Med 44: 1347–1359, 2014.

33. Martinez DM. Study of the key determining factors for the NCAA division I head strength and conditioning coach. J Strength Cond Res 18: 5–18, 2004. 34. Nash C and Sproule J. Insights into experiences: Reflections of an expert and novice coach. Int J Sports Sci Coach 6: 149–162, 2011. 35. National Strength and Conditioning Association. Strength and conditioning professional standards and guidelines. Strength Cond J 31: 14–38, 2009. 36. Nelson LJ, Cushion CJ, and Potrac P. Formal, nonformal and informal coach learning: A holistic conceptualisation. Int J Sports Sci Coach 1: 59–69, 2006. 37. Norman L. Bearing the burden of doubt: Female coaches’ experiences of gender relations. Res Q Exerc Sport 81: 506–517, 2010. 38. Pullo FM. A profile of NCAA division I strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 6: 55–62, 1992.

39. Scho¨n DA. The Relective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1983.

44. Sutherland J. Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time. New York, NY: Crown Business, 2014.

40. Scho¨n DA. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

45. Tharp RG and Gallimore R. Basketball’s John Wooden: What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychol Today 9: 74–78, 1976.

41. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency, 1990. 42. Stangl JM. What a Foucauldian approach might do for the loss of the female coach. In: Routledge Handbook of Sports Coaching. Gilbert W, Potrac P, and Denision J, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. pp. 400–410. 43. Stangl JM and Kane IJ. Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Soc Sport J 8: 47–60, 1991.

46. Tod DA, Bond KA, and Lavallee D. Professional development themes in strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 26: 851–860, 2012. 47. Tod DA, Thatcher R, McGuigan M, and Thatcher J. Effects of instructional and motivational self-talk in the long jump. J Strength Cond Res 23: 196–202, 2009. 48. Van Manen MJ. Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inq 6: 205–228, 1977. 49. Wright T, Trudel P, and Culver D. Learning how to coach: The different learning situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedago 12: 127–144, 2007.


51