Journal of Coaching Education On the Right Track: Maximizing Educational Opportunities for USATF Coaching Education Lawrence W. Judge Ball State University, Muncie, IN Kimberly J. Bodey Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN David Bellar University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA Christine Brooks Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia Terry Crawford United States Track and Field, Indianapolis, IN ABSTRACT In recent years, large scale sport organizations and national governing bodies have produced coaching education programs to prepare coaches to teach and mentor athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine: a) track & field coaches’ familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, b) the alignment of United States Track & Field (USATF) Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, and c) the alignment of USATF Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with coaches’ perceived needs for subject matter training. A 39-item survey was administered during a USATF certification course to measure coaches’ familiarity and perceptions. The results showed the vast majority of coaches (75.2%) were not familiar with the National Standards. At the time of assessment, the Developmental, Level I, and Level II courses were partially aligned with 25 of 40 standards at the Level 1, Level 3, or Level 5 accreditation levels. The courses were not aligned with 15 of 40 standards at any accreditation level. The majority of deficiencies existed in Domain 2: Safety and Injury Prevention, Domain 7: Organization and Administration, and Domain 8: Evaluation. While the USATF coaching education curriculum is partially aligned with many, but not all, of the national standards, the curriculum appears to contain subject matter training that coaches perceived as needed. Curricular revisions, including future directions of the USATF coaching education program, such as new courses and innovative use of technology, are presented.
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 41 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education On the Right Track: Maximizing Educational Opportunities for USATF Coaching Education Introduction Quality sport programs provide athletes with opportunities to thrive. Developmentally appropriate activities are balanced with commensurate competitive events to create a safe environment. A well-qualified coach is defined as a competent coach and is the keystone of a quality program. That is, a person trained in a core body of knowledge and committed to implementing best practices in the sport setting. However, core knowledge and best practices are subject to interpretation and debate and vary from sport to sport. In recent years, large scale sport organizations and national governing bodies have produced coaching education programs to prepare coaches to teach and mentor athletes. Steps were taken to publish national standards and implement a program accreditation process to ensure coaches are exposed to the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes needed to function in a wide variety of environments. However, compliance with national standards is only one, albeit important, aspect of a quality coaching education program. Another important aspect is whether the program meets the perceived needs of targeted groups. The purpose of this paper is to examine: a) track & field coaches’ familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, b) the alignment of United States Track & Field (USATF) Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with the National Standards for Sport Coaches, and c) the alignment of USATF Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education programs with coaches’ perceived needs for subject matter training. Curricular revisions, including future directions of the USATF coaching education program, such as new courses and innovative use of technology, are presented. Rationale for Educating Coaches Research suggests that formal education influences a coach’s ability to affect learning and performance in positive ways (Martens, 2004). Some 50 years ago, AAHPERD and other concerned groups held multiple conferences to address the need for quality coaching education in the United States. Twenty years ago, despite greater availability of face-to-face and correspondence type courses, as many as 90% of coaches had little formal preparation in sport technique and injury prevention (Seefeldt, 1992). Ten years ago, coaching education was rarely mandatory (Clark, 2000) and many volunteer coaches were still not prepared for their coaching endeavors (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). Today, trainings designed for different types of coaches, in classroom seminars and online formats, are available from several reputable organizations including American Sport Education Program, National Federation of State Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 42 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education High School Associations, and National Alliance of Youth Sports. National governing bodies, including United States of America Track & Field (USATF), are educating coaches by conducting instructor-led training sessions, organizing learn-by-doing sessions, and distributing resource materials. As a result of these efforts, hundreds of thousands of part-time and volunteer coaches are better prepared than ever before. And, through persistent advocacy efforts, more coaches are required to complete training prior to or during the initial stages of working with athletes (Treasure, 2007). Despite this progress, the work to prepare quality coaches to lead quality programs continues. Advent of National Standards and Program Accreditation The National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) was established in 1995 and revised in 2006. Significant coaching responsibilities are outlined in 40 specific standards grouped into eight domains: (a) philosophy and ethics, (b) safety and injury prevention, (c) physical conditioning, (d) growth and development, (e) teaching and communication, (f) sport skills and tactics, (g) organization and administration, and (h) evaluation. Each standard has benchmarks to provide concrete examples of actions and orientation that constitute coaching competence. Put simply, the National Standards for Sport Coaches established what novice to master level coaches should know, value, and carry out (NASPE, 2006). These standards serve as the framework to guide quality coaching education program development nationwide. In 2000, the National Council for Accreditation of Coaching Education (NCACE) was formed to establish accreditation guidelines and conduct coaching education program reviews. Based on the National Standards for Sport Coaches, reviewers assess the (a) program content, (b) quality of instructors, and (c) implementation process to ascertain whether the program meets the 16 guidelines for accreditation of coaching education (NCACE, 2006). The level of accreditation is based on a three-tiered system (e.g., Level 1, Level 3, and Level 51). Coaching education providers select the desired level of accreditation based on the scope of the target market’s coaching responsibilities and athlete characteristics. Accredited coaching education programs must maintain an NCACE organizational membership and submit program changes for review to ensure continued alignment with established guidelines. Brief History of USATF Coaches Education As a result of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (1978), The Athletics Congress/USA (TAC) was designated as the national governing body for track & field, long distance running (including road running and cross-country), and race walking. As the national governing body, TAC served as the United States member of the See National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2006). Quality coaches, quality sports: National standards for sport coaches (2nd ed. p. 25). Reston, VA: Author for explanation of three-tiered accreditation system.
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 43 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), the world governing body for athletics. In 1992, TAC was renamed USA Track & Field (USATF). The idea for establishing USATF Coach’s Education Schools was explored in 1981. The goal was to provide a nationally uniform body of information, administered through a multi-tiered system, appropriate for coaches working with developmental through elite athletes in track & field. The co-founders, Dr. Joe Vigil, Gary Winkler, Al Baeta, and Vern Gambetta, met in a beauty salon across the street from Long Beach State University to outline the initial coaching education curriculum. The first Level I school was successfully launched in January 1984 and is currently implemented at different locations across the nation several times each year. Level II and Level III schools were started in 1987 and 1996, respectively. The Level II School is held annually at a site that rotates to different highly populated geographic areas of the United States. The event specific Level III schools are held on an annual basis and are often attached to other USATF programs. An entry level developmental course was added in 1995. The developmental course is a state association run course that is held at various times throughout the year. The curriculum is routinely revised by the Coaching Education Committee. The USATF coaching education program provides educational opportunities for all levels of coaches, from grass roots to the elite level. The program is comprised of four progressive levels, each of which has the following components: sports science, technical event instruction, and hands on training. The four levels of training differ in terms of the breadth and depth of material covered in the course, implementation strategies, and evaluation methods. Developmental course. The developmental course is intended for beginning coaches, typically volunteers, who have little experience coaching and little knowledge of track & field. The primary objectives are to present an overview of responsibilities and guidelines for coaching practice and an introduction to ageappropriate training. The curriculum includes philosophy and ethics, growth and development, bio-motor development, practice structure and design, and risk management. General information about goal setting, prevention of common injuries, supervision, safe environment, and proper equipment is also reviewed. This classroom-based, lecture course is designed to last 4-6 hours. Attendance at all sessions is required. There is no evaluation of participant knowledge or skills. The course is preparation (but not a requirement) to attend a Level I course. Level I course. The Level I course is intended for novice coaches who have some experience coaching and a rudimentary knowledge of track & field. The primary objectives are to ground coaches in a common terminology (i.e., speak the same language) and to teach coaches fundamental skills and instructional techniques for all events (i.e., sprints/hurdles/relays, endurance events, jumping events, throwing events, and multi-events). The curriculum includes study of philosophy and Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 44 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education ethics, sport sciences (i.e., biomechanics, physiology, sport psychology, and training theory), talent demands, and training guidelines and progressions. Rules, safety considerations, and risk management are also covered. This combined classroom-based lecture and learn-by-doing course is designed to last 2.5 days. Attendance at all sessions is required. Upon completion of the school, participants must score 80% or better on an online exam to be certified as a Level I coach. Successful completion of the Level I course is a prerequisite for enrollment in the Level II course. Level II course. The Level II course is intended to give experienced coaches advanced, in-depth knowledge in one event area of their choosing (i.e., sprints/hurdles/relays, endurance events, jumping events, throwing events, and multi-events). The primary objectives are for coaches to be able to: (a) properly use scientific language and sport specific terminology, (b) categorize training through a working knowledge of energy systems (physiology) and muscle functioning (biomechanics), and (c) plan for peak performance by alternating volume, intensity, and duration in a periodized manner. Coaches study talent demands, technical models, teaching progressions, training guidelines, and psychology aspects of training and competition as it applies to the event area. This combined classroom-based lecture and learn-by-doing course is designed to last 8 days. Attendance at all sessions is required. While attending the school, participants must score 80% or better on five exams (i.e., biomechanics, physiology, sport psychology, training theory, and event area) and prepare an annual training program to be implemented with his/her athlete(s) to be certified a Level II coach. Coaches wishing to pursue certification in more than one event area may do so one grouping at a time and are not required to re-take the sport science exams. Successful completion of the Level II course is a prerequisite for enrollment in the Level III course. Level III course. The Level III course is intended to provide experienced coaches with “cutting edge” sport science and event specific knowledge. This course is not curriculum based. Rather, coaches must attend 60 hours of Level III sanctioned seminars implemented around the world. Candidate coaches must produce an original research-based paper on technique, training, or sport science suitable for publication. A committee that includes the Level III chair, event chair, and the CE program chair makes the final determination if a candidate is certified. Need for Coaching Education Program Evaluation Several sport scholars have questioned the effectiveness of large scale coaching education (CE) programs (Douge & Hastie, 1993; Woodman, 1993). Others argued the wants and needs of sport coaches are typically neglected in the design of training Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 45 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education programs (Douge & Hastie, 1993; Houseworth, Davis, & Dobbs, 1990). Large scale CE programs should be evaluated to ensure a worthy experience for coaches (Strean, 1995). A proper evaluation is multi-faceted and involves multiple methods of data collection and analysis to better understand a participant’s needs and wants (needs assessment), program content and implementation efficiency (formative evaluation), and whether desired outcomes are realized (summative evaluation). To this end, this investigation sought to determine whether USATF coaching education courses matched national standards and expressed participant needs. Methods Sampling Procedures Approximately 500 male and female track & field coaches from across the United States, registered to attend coaching education courses at a large Midwestern University in the United States were invited to participate in the study. The site was selected to enhance the likelihood of a diverse sample in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, experience, and athlete characteristics. Further, coaches attending coaching education courses are likely to have considered subject matter training needs and may be willing to report their perceptions to researchers. An introductory email explained the purpose of the study and the general content of the survey instrument. Questionnaires were distributed to participants at check-in. Coaches returned completed questionnaires to the registration table at their convenience. Confidentiality was maintained as no attempt was made to identify a survey instrument with a participant. Instrumentation The authors designed an institutional review board approved survey instrument consisting of 39 items related to demographic characteristics, athlete type, and coaching experience; familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches; and perceived needs for subject matter to be included in coaching education programs. Specific items and response scales were selected to reflect research questions, enhance consistency, and maximize reliability. Participants indicated their familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches on a three point scale (very familiar = 3, somewhat familiar = 2, not familiar = 1). Respondents indicated their level of agreement with including subject matter in coaching education on a five point scale (strongly agree = 4, agree = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1, don’t know = 0). Items used in this study were adapted from the literature. A four-member panel of experts and practitioners analyzed the instrument’s wording, structure, and appropriateness to determine the content validity. Twenty track & field club coaches were used in the pilot study to ascertain instrument readability, face validity, and time needed to complete the questionnaire. Minor revisions to grammar and organization were Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 46 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education made to the instrument. The internal consistency reliability for the coaching education subject matter sub-scale was within acceptable limits (Cronbach alpha = .952). Data Analysis Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and frequencies were generated for all items. Inferential statistics were used to determine if group differences (i.e., gender and level of certification) existed in terms of familiarity with the national standards and perceptions of subject matter training needs. Significance was set at p < .005 to control for Type I error. Next, an inventory of the Developmental, Level I, and Level II curriculum in relation to the 40 national standards was conducted. Specifically, researchers developed a series of rubrics to determine whether key phrases and practices aligned with benchmarks associated with Level 1, Level 3, and Level 5 accreditation. If the curriculum was consistent with all benchmarks it identified as compliant (C). If the curriculum was consistent with some but not all benchmarks it was identified as partially compliant (P). If the curriculum with consistent with none of the benchmarks it was identified as noncompliant (N). Finally, a content analysis was done to ascertain the extent Developmental, Level I, and Level II curriculum content corresponded to perceptions of subject matter training needs. Results Demographic Information The coaches in this study were largely men (76.6%) who identified themselves as either Caucasian (73.3%) or African American (17.6%). They have 8.8 years of experience working primarily with interscholastic athletes (44.4%) and intercollegiate athletes (41.9%). Most coaches were pursuing Level I (40.1%) and Level II (31.4%) credentials (see Table 1).
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 47 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 1: Demographic Profile (N=337) Men F % Ethnicity (N=329) Asian/Pacific Islander 5 1.5% African American 42 12.8% Hispanic 8 2.4% Caucasian 188 57.1% Other 9 2.7% 76.6% Athlete Type (N=313) Youth 22 7.0% Interscholastic 111 35.5% Intercollegiate 98 31.3% Post-collegiate 7 2.2% Masters 2 0.6% USATF Certification Level (N=334) None 57 Developmental 10 Level I 105 Level II 83 Age
(Range: 18-70 years)
17.1% 3.0% 31.4% 24.9%
M SD 34.9 10.83
Experience (Range: 0-52 years) 9.5
9.46
Women F %
Combined F %
0 16 3 53 5
0.0% 4.9% 0.9% 16.1% 1.5% 23.4%
5 58 11 241 14
1.5% 17.6% 3.3% 73.3% 4.3%
10 28 33 0 2
3.2% 8.9% 10.5% 0.0% 0.6%
32 139 131 7 4
10.2% 44.4% 41.9% 2.2% 1.3%
24 4 29 22
7.2% 1.2% 8.7% 6.6%
81 14 134 105
24.3% 4.2% 40.1% 31.4%
M SD 31.4 9.31
M SD 34.0 10.59
6.4
8.8
6.45
8.91
Familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches The vast majority of coaches (75.2%) were not familiar with the national standards. As would be expected, there were no group differences in terms of gender (MM = 1.30, SDM = .527; MF = 1.19, SDF = .426) [t(335) = 1.96, p = .051] or level of certification (MNC = 1.28, SDNC = .454; MD = 1.21, SDD = .426; ML1 = 1.27, SDL1 = .512; ML2 = 1.28, SDL2 = .552) [F(3, 322) = .08, p = .966]. Alignment with the National Standards for Sport Coaches The relative alignment between the USATF courses and the National Standards for Sport Coaches is provided in Table 2. At the time of assessment, the Developmental, Level I, and Level II courses were not compliant with all the benchmarks at the Level 1, Level 3, or Level 5 accreditation levels. The courses were partially aligned (“P”) with 25 of 40 standards at the Level 1, Level 3, or Level 5 accreditation levels. The courses were Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 48 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education not compliant with 15 of 40 standards at any level. The majority of deficiencies exist in Domain 2: Safety and Injury Prevention, Domain 7: Organization and Administration, and Domain 8: Evaluation. Alignment with Coaches’ Perceived Needs for Subject Matter Training The rank, mean, and standard deviations of each topic of the perceived needs for subject matter training are outlined in Tables 3. Coaches agreed coaching education should include all topics listed. When analyzing the top five ranked topics, no group differences based on gender were found in perceived needs for subject matter training (see Table 4). However, there were some notable differences in the rank order of items based on level of athletes coached. Among the top items listed, youth coaches indicated a need to learn about motivation techniques, assessing learning, rules, building team cohesion, and creating an environment to promote sportsmanship. Intercollegiate coaches requested training in how to use feedback and nutrition. Post collegiate coaches were primarily concerned with developing leadership abilities, reflective thinking/coaching, and how to mentor others. There were no group differences based on level of certification in four of the five perceived needs for subject matter training (see Table 4). In one area, care and prevention of injuries, Not Certified coaches (M=3.83; SD = .412) and Developmental coaches (M=3.86; SD = .363) were more likely to indicate this topic should be incorporated into training than Level I coaches (M=3.56; SD = .527) and Level II coaches (M=3.55; SD = .605) [F(3, 328) = 6.26; p= .000]. The placement of subject matter in USATF courses is also located in Table 3. Results indicate a strong alignment between the content of the Developmental, Level I, and Level II curriculum and coaches’ perceived needs. One area of deficiency is in the care and prevention of injuries.
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 49 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 2: Alignment of USATF Training Program and National Standards for Sport Coaches
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 50 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 2 (cond.): USATF Training Program Alignment with National Standards for Sport Coaches
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 51 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 3: USATF Training Program Alignment with Track & Field Coaches Perceived Needs
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 52 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 3 (cond.): USATF Training Program Alignment with Track & Field Coaches Perceived Needs
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 53 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Table 4: Group Differences in the Top 5 Perceived Needs for Subject Matter Training (N=337) Men Women Not Certified (NC) Developmental (D) Level I (L1) Subject Rank M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Matter Sport specific 1 training, 3.8 0.42 3.8 0.39 conditioning, & recovery 3.8 0.37 3.9 0.27 3.8 0.43 Sport specific 2 3.8 0.43 3.8 0.57 skills & techniques 3.8 0.59 4.0 0.00 3.8 0.42 How to break down 3 3.7 0.50 3.8 0.46 & teach skills 3.8 0.40 3.9 0.27 3.7 0.53 Developing leadership 4 3.7 0.52 3.8 0.45 knowledge & abilities 3.7 0.48 3.9 0.54 3.7 0.52 Care & 5 prevention 3.6 0.55 3.7 0.48 of injuries 3.8 0.41 3.9 0.36 3.6 0.53 Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Level II (L2) T-test/F-Test M
SD
t (330) = .56; p = .583
3.8
0.41
F (3, 329) = 1.07, p = .372 t (330) = .25; p = .800
3.7
0.45
F (3, 329) = 1.68, p = .171 t (330) = 1.12; p = .263
3.6
0.50
F (3, 329) = 3.85, p = .010 t (331) = 1.86; p = .065
3.7
0.49
F (3, 330) = .61, p = .610 t (329) = .37; p = .715
3.6
0.61
F (3, 328) = 6.26, p = .000
Page 54 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Discussion Familiarity with the National Standards for Sport Coaches Track & field coaches aim to achieve excellence in the sport environment. Coaching education courses have been implemented to assist coaches (and athletes) to achieve peak performance in a safe environment. At this time, three quarters of coaches surveyed did not know national standards existed for what coaches should know, value, and be able execute. This is likely to change in the near future as USATF is moving towards accreditation. The curricular alignment with the National Standards for Sport Coaches that is required for NCACE accreditation will provide the impetus for increased awareness. USA Track & Field has registered with NCACE their intent to pursue accreditation of the Level I course. Once the course is accredited, information about the national standards will likely be incorporated into USA Track & Field web-pages, promotional materials, and course content. USATF should also consider joining the National Coaching Coalition in its efforts to educate parents and coaches about quality sport programs based on national standards. Alignment with the National Standards for Sport Coaches This analysis of the alignment of USATF Developmental, Level I, and Level II coaching education courses to the National Standards for Sport Coaches showed deficiencies across all domains. The primary areas in need of attention are Domain 2: Safety and Injury Prevention, Domain 7: Organization and Administration, and Domain 8: Evaluation. The absence of course content addressing several of the standards may be explained in part because the USATF courses were largely developed prior to the creation of the National Standards for Sport Coaches. The architects of the coaching education program are expert coaches who are exceptionally well qualified in the areas of: Domain 3: Physical Conditioning and Domain 6: Sports Skills and Tactics. Their expertise is reflected by the curricular content and proximate alignment with the national standards. Domain 2: Safety and injury prevention. Bach & Schilling (2008) reported 3.8 million children sought treatment for sport related injuries in the previous year. Several recognized medical associations have issued statements about the important role coaches play in the prevention of injuries (American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 2007; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001; National Athletic Trainers Association, 2004). Moreover, an understanding of causes and consequences of injuries and the recovery processes must be part of the coach’s approach to developing and implementing athletic training programs (Kutsar, 1988).
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 55 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education One of the least-stressed, but certainly a fundamental aspect of quality coaching is athlete health and wellness.While risk of illness and injury can be reduced, it is unlikely that either can be completely eliminated from sport training and competition. Nonetheless, coaches have a duty to monitor health and to prevent injury (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2006). In the event that illness or injury occurs coaches are obligated to assist athletes to obtain proper medical treatment in order to return the athlete to full participation as soon as possible. Track and field is a diverse sport with a variety of events with different technical and physiological demands. Athletic contests in track and field are based around running, jumping, and throwing activities. The running events are categorized as sprints, middle and long-distance events, relays, and hurdling. The jumping events include long jump, triple jump, high jump and pole vault. The most common throwing events are shot put, javelin, discus and hammer. There are also "multi-events", such as heptathlon and decathlon, in which athletes compete in a combination of the above events. While it is beyond the scope of this article to list all possible injuries that may occur in track and field, athletes may experience “overuse” type injuries. Overuse injuries are characterized by tissue damage resulting from repetitive demand over time. Beyond shin splints, the most common overuse injury in track & field, athletes may experience overuse symptoms in the lower back, shoulders, elbow joint, and knees. These preventable injuries are linked to technical errors or a sudden change in type, volume, or intensity of exercise (Kutsar, 1988). The care and prevention of injuries was ranked fifth in the perceived needs analysis but appears to have been overlooked in the USATF coaching education curriculum. This area will have to be addressed in the future as coaches who have an understanding of tissue injury and recovery have a better idea of what athletes can and cannot do (Johnson, Haskvitz, & Brehm, 2009). Also, common sense dictates that reducing the incidence and severity of sport injuries comes from educating coaches about many related factors such as growth and development, physical conditioning, training progressions, risk management, and the like. Domain 7: Organization and administration. Sport management involves any combination of skills related to planning, organizing, leading, and evaluating within the sport setting. The managerial aspects of coaching involves the study of the ways in which a sport organization can be managed effectively and efficiently and is often focused on utilizing the limited resources in the most productive way. While administrating and organizing athletic activities may not be the primary considerations when outlining coaching tasks, they are inevitably an important portion of a coach’s job. Further, proper risk assessment and management in sport venues requires a layered understanding of the specific sporting event, amount of spectator participation, and dimensions of a necessarily safe facility. The noted deficiencies in this important domain must be Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 56 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education discussed by the USATF Coaches Education Committee in the upcoming curriculum revision. Domain 8: Evaluation. Program evaluation was not one of the original domains when the National Standards for Athletic Coaches (NSAC) was published in 1995. Advocates strongly urge providers to use the revised National Standards for Sport Coaches as the framework for coaching education. This is true for the USATF coaching education curriculum. Even though evaluating athletic endeavors may not be the first things deliberated when defining coaching responsibilities, they are inevitably an important, if not time consuming, part of a coach’s responsibilities. Testing and evaluation instruments are used to collect information that is compiled, stored, and used for future performance evaluations and decisions. Measures can also provide valuable information to assist coaches manage their programs. By identifying the key determinants of success, and the coaches influence on the outcome, specific strategies can be designed to achieve goals. Program evaluation may have been overlooked as a part of the original USATF CE curriculum because it was not one of the original (NSAC) domains when the USATF curriculum was written and revised. The noted deficiency in this domain must be addressed by the USATF Coaches Education Committee in the future. Alignment with Coaches’ Perceived Needs for Subject Matter Training The content of the Developmental, Level I, and Level II courses appear to be well aligned with the subject matter track and field coaches suggested are most critical. Wiersma and Sherman (2005) recommended that national standards be incorporated into training that meets the needs and specific issues of particular communities. From the coaches’ perspective, one area of deficiency in the USATF curriculum is in the care and prevention of injuries. Not Certified and Developmental Coaches indicated this subject is of particular importance to them. The USATF coach’s education program, therefore, should create their unequivocal purpose to parallel the curriculum with the objectives and benefits of the program (Dils & Ziatz, 2000). In order to present knowledge that will be valuable to those who need it most, ( e.g. coach educators) clear direction must be provided regarding information that should be imparted, communication vehicles that should be used to disseminate this knowledge, and how to best assess this information to reassure its applicability (Abraham & Collins, 1998). The National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) need to be utilized to establish the curricular road map, but must be balanced with coaches’ perceived needs for training. In the event of a conflict, the expressed needs of coaches should be considered without sacrificing the integrity of the national standards. The USATF Coaching Education Committee will be challenged to determine the appropriate level of specificity for each course. The training needs of coaches vary because of differences in knowledge, experience, and athlete characteristics. Levine (2005) recommends that preparation program pedagogy needs to focus on the demands of practicing leaders combining both on-the-job training and classroom instruction. Moreover, the content of coaching education programs should suit the age, gender, and abilities of athletes (Wiersma & Sherman, 2005). In this study, as would be Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 57 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education expected, youth coaches reported somewhat different perceived needs than intercollegiate coaches. The USATF Coaches Education Committee may consider adding themed or specialized sections to the coaching education program on a rotating basis. For instance, a training that focuses on specific issues associated with coaching youth athletes complemented by mentoring from a well-qualified coach may be a more effective way to prepare coaches to work with this type of athlete. Curricular Refinements of the USATF Coaching Education Program A quality curriculum and effective instruction are key elements to ensure successful teaching and learning in a CE program. The first step of integrating the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) into the curriculum is developing a curriculum framework. During the past two years, USA Track & Field has taken steps to meet current, and ever-changing, opportunities associated with educating coaches. Based in part on study findings, the USATF Coaches Education Committee, led by the new USATF Executive Director of coaching, Terry Crawford, has made significant changes to the coaching education program. A curriculum committee (named the Academic Senate) was established to develop and refine the CE program and to address the broader elements that needed to be reflected in the curriculum framework. The process of integrating the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) into the USATF CE curriculum consisted of four steps: a) developing a curriculum framework in the context of the national standards-based reform; b) selecting a curriculum-planning model that further articulates the national standards-based reform outlined in the framework; c) building capacity at all levels of the USATF coaches education system; and d) monitoring, reflecting upon, and evaluating the USATF curriculum as instructors implement it in the CE program. The purpose of this section is to discuss current programmatic changes, recent advancements, and possible future directions for further curriculum development. Fundamentals of Track & Field Course Integrating the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) into the USATF curriculum was an endeavor that introduced added dimensions to the curriculumdevelopment process. The process of integrating the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) into the curriculum emphasizes learning and growth for all as the natural and desired outcome of reform. From that perspective, a national standards-based curriculum includes not only goals, objectives, and standards, but everything that is done in the CE program to enable attainment of those outcomes. The integration process also fosters reflection and revision of the curriculum to ensure coaches' continued growth. The USATF curriculum committee decided that a good starting point would be to partner with the National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS) which had a National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) based sport curriculum that was accredited by the National Association for the Accreditation of Coaching Education (NCACE). USATF, in partnership with National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 58 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education developed an online entry level course for interscholastic teacher/coaches nationwide (launched June 2011). This online training was designed to correspond to the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC) as well as many of the perceived need areas including: (a) principles & practices of coaching (b) sport specific training, conditioning, & recovery, and (c) sport specific skills & techniques. The fundamentals of track & field course will replace the developmental coach course which was not aligned with the National Standards for Sport Coaches (NSSC). Level 1 Revision and Preparation for NCACE Accreditation USATF joined the NCACE registry in January of 2011 indicating their intention to seek NCACE accreditation. A committee was formed in February by Terry Crawford to revise and prepare the curriculum for accreditation. The committee was headed by Larry Judge and included a number of event specialists and sport scientists including: Andrew Alden, Christine Brooks, Matt Lydum, Dave Mills, Troy Engle, and Steve Portenga. Bi-weekly conference calls were held as the team inventoried the alignment of USATF Level I with the National Standards for Sport Coaches and discussed curricular revisions. USATF revised the Level I curriculum to correspond to National Standards for Sport Coaches. Seeking NCACE accreditation in August 2011, USATF curriculum changes were made in seven of eight domains. USATF submitted their folio to NCACE in mid-November and is waiting to learn the result of their submission. Level II Format Revisions USATF revised the Level II curriculum and format in 2010. Changes in the format of the school were enacted to better prepare the adult learners for the large amount of information they would be receiving in the course. Online learning modules in the sport sciences were developed by Christine Brooks and made available to participants two months prior to the course. This addition enabled the course to be shortened from eight to seven days. Online learning modules were added to take advantage of available technology to prepare coaches to attend the Level II course. In addition, the online modules were developed to solve two problems: a) many coaches have limited knowledge of fundamental sport science concepts critical for them to comprehend and utilize more advanced concepts, and b) there was insufficient access to accurate and easy to understand sport science information related to track & field coaching. The online sport science modules innovatively present concepts in a manner that corresponds to the needs of adult learners. Further, online modules allow USATF to reach a larger audience than possible through traditional face-to-face pedagogy. By leveraging new technologies and instructional techniques, USATF can ensure online training yields the desired outcomes. Specifically, a more informed coach who is prepared to grasp the material and ask questions when attending face-to-face, instructor led training sessions. Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 59 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education Inaugural Level II – Youth Specialization Course USA Track & Field developed the Level II Youth Specialization course in 2010. This course is intended to give experienced coaches in-depth knowledge of sport science and track & field events with special consideration given to the unique facets of working with developing athletes. This combined classroom based, learn by doing course is designed to last 4.5 days. Much like the other courses, attendance at all sessions is required. Coaches must pass multiple core knowledge exams and prepare an annual training plan. The Level II- Youth Specialization is offered on an annual basis in August in conjunction with the Junior Olympic National Championship meet. Revised Participant Evaluation Methods USA Track & Field has taken steps to augment the use of standardized tests. The traditional reliance on a single method of evaluation, typically a pen and paper test, is no longer considered appropriate because even well-planned knowledge tests are concentrated on a stereotypical and simplistic interpretation of education and fail to cover multifarious contextual elements (Stake, 1985). Numerous methods of assessment including: online knowledge tests, performance skills assessments, interviews, and observations are now being utilized in the USATF CE program. In some areas, a pre- and post- test design is being used to measure changes in knowledge associated with training. When instructors have data showing what coaches already know they are better able to adapt the face-to-face training to address areas of deficiency. The Podium Education Project The USATF Podium Education Project (PEP) is an annual high performance coaches’ symposium which brings elite coaches and sport scientists together to present and discuss some of the most cutting edge, evidence-based coaching practices in the world. It is designed to promote the exchange of knowledge between sport scientists, elite coaches of national team caliber athletes, and coaches who have developed medalwinning athlete(s) at the Olympic or World Championship levels. Conclusion The USA Track and Field coaching education program exists to prepare quality coaches. That is, to ground coaches in sport science based core knowledge and prepares them to implement evidence-based best practices. A recommendation for future study might be to explore the extent to which different levels of certification in track and field coaches actually makes a difference in the kinds of experiences they provide for athletes. In summary, track and field coaches are fairly unfamiliar with the National Standards for Sport Coaches. The USATF coaching education curriculum is partially aligned with many, but not all, of the national standards yet seems to contain subject matter training that coaches perceived as needed. The USATF Coaches Education Executive Committee continues to make significant changes to the coaching education courses and appear to be Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 60 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education on the right track toward maximizing educational opportunities for coaches. In doing so, USA Track & Field is making a clear effort to provide support for coaches to increase the probability that coaches will have the tools they need to provide opportunities for athletes to thrive.
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 61 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education References Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach development. Quest, 50, 59-79. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Committee on School Health. (2001). Organized sports for children and preadolescents. Pediatrics, 107(6), 1459-1462. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. (2007, February 16). Adolescent sports injuries: Pain is not a gain. Retrieved from http://aaos.org/news/Perm/ press_ release. cfm?prnumber=546 Bach, G., & Shilling, A. (2008). Research update: Combating the overuse epidemic. Parks & Recreation, 43(8), 24-27. Clark, M. A. (2000). Who's coaching the coaches? In J. R. Gerdy (Ed.) Sport in school: The future of an institution (pp. 55-65). New York: Teachers College Press. Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coach training as a strategy for promoting youth social development. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 128-144. Dils, A. K., & Ziatz, D. H. (2000). The application of teacher education curriculum theory to interscholastic coaching education: Learning outcomes associated with a quality interscholastic athletic program. The Physical Educator, 57(2), 88-98. Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coaching effectiveness. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 1429. Houseworth, S. D., Davis, M. L., & Dobbs, R. D (1990). A survey of coaching education program features. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 61(5), 26-30. Johnson, J, Haskvitz, E, & Brehm-Curtis, B. 2009. Applied sports medicine for coaches. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Kutsar, K. (1988). An overview of common injuries in track and field events. Modern Athlete and Coach, 26, 3-6. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Education Schools Project. Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf Martens, R. (2004). Successful coaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 62 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Journal of Coaching Education National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2006). Quality coaches, quality sports: National standards for sport coaches (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author. National Athletic Trainer’s Association. (2004, March 4). NATA news release: Youth coach sport safety course. Retrieved from http://www.nata.org/ National Council for Accreditation of Coaching Education. (2006). Guidelines for accreditation. Retrieved from, http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/grants/accreditation/ncace/ Seefeldt, V. D. (1992). Overview of youth sports programs in the United States. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Stake, R. E. (1985). A personal interpretation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 243-244. Strean, W.B. (1995). Youth sport contexts: coaches’ perceptions and implications for intervention. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 23-37. Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. § 220501 et seq. of the United States Code. Treasure, D. (2007). Interscholastic athletics, coach certification, and professional development: Current status and next steps. The State Education Standard, 8(1), 32-34, 38. Wiersma, L. D., & Sherman, C. P. (2005). Volunteer youth sport coaches’ perspectives of coaching education/certification and parental codes of conduct. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(3), 324-338. Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 1-13.
Volume 5, Issue 1, May 2012
Page 63 of 113
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) 1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410 ©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
