Part B
Intensive 1 coaching session review
Session 1
Coaching Aim and Plan
In Session 1, my coaching goal was to promote engagement and independent learning using the guided discovery style. This aligns with Mosston and Ashworth’s (2018) athlete-centered approach. This is because my plan was to use open questioning to help players reflect on performance, communicate effectively, and think about the decisions they made during game play (Gilbert and Trudel, 2018).
Coaching session 1 plan
Overall, my implementation matched my plan quite closely, as shown in the video evidence.
For example, at 7:27, I asked, “Was there a specific goal that you had there, like communication or spreading out?” This reflects guided discovery, as I prompted players to explain their tactical choices (Light, 2019).
At 10:54 I asked, “Is there anything else you could have improved on for that?” This combined elements of problem-solving and self-check styles, encouraging players to evaluate and take responsibility for their performance.
My final question at 21:16 — “Did you learn anything or were you engaged throughout?” — used a reflective approach, allowing players to consider both their engagement and learning outcomes (Cushion et al., 2017).
Overall, these athlete-centered strategies effectively encouraged critical thinking, open communication, and teamwork. However, I recognised that using a louder voice and higher energy could have improved clarity and engagement further (Kidman and Lombardo, 2019). In some moments, a short directive intervention — such as a brief command-style correction — would have helped maintain structure, especially during drill transitions or technical mistakes. Balancing discovery and direction could have made the session flow more smoothly. The decision to use guided questioning encouraged the class to think tactically. Although, I realized that more time could have let the class explore solutions independently, which highlights the balance between direction and discovery.
Coaching Behaviour Data
|
Figure 3 (Coaching behavior data session 1)
This data shows a learner-centered approach, with short instruction and feedback periods and a long active learning time (9:35). This is consistent with discovery-based methods (Gilbert and Trudel, 2018). The brief inquiry time was shorter than what I had hoped for but suggests opportunities to increase questioning to deepen understanding.
Question Analysis
# | Question | CQ/DQ | C/O | GT/CR |
1 | Was there a specific goal you had there? | DQ | O | GT |
2 | What improvements can you make for name calling? | DQ | O | GT |
3 | Is there anything else you could have improved on? | DQ | O | GT |
4 | Did you learn anything or were you engaged? | DQ | O | CR |
5 | Any improvements? | DQ | O | GT |
Figure 4 (Session 1 question type distribution charts)
All my questions were divergent and open-ended, focusing mainly on game tactics (GT) and class reflection (CR) — aligning strongly with the guided discovery method (Mosston and Ashworth, 2018). Integrating both convergent and divergent questioning highlighted how class responses shape the tempo of learning- which is something that I plan to refine by using structured pauses and peer-led questioning.
Reflection
Overall, session 1 successfully reflected my planned use of guided discovery and reflective questioning. It encouraged communication, problem-solving, and independent learning. Going forward, I plan to combine discovery-based questioning with short directive comments to enhance structure and ensure technical accuracy without losing engagement and autonomy (Light, 2019).
I was also able to notice that giving even a simple quick positive reinforcement when the players were doing a good job motivated them and kept their energy up. Small adjustments like this could make future sessions more effective.
Intensive 2 coaching session review
Session 2
Coaching Aim and Plan
In session 2, my main goal was to help the players improve their accuracy and consistency while still keeping the session engaging. After using more guided discovery in session 1, I decided to take a more directive approach this time, using the command, practice, and feedback styles from Mosston and Ashworth (2008).
Figure 5 (Coaching session 2 plan)
Coaching Implementation and Evidence
From the video, I can see that I gave clear demonstrations and explanations to help improve shot control and technique.
For example, I said, “Because I noticed a lot of you were hitting the ball quite hard and flat, you should be hitting under like that to control it more.” This shows the command style, as I identified an issue and provided a direct solution helping the players be able to hit the ball more effectively (Cushion et al., 2017).
Another example was when I said, “Hold the ball and just go like that, like a punch,” which helped players visualise and copy the correct volley technique. I also used positive feedback like “that’s good” and “nice, guys” to keep everyone motivated (Gilbert & Trudel, 2018).
Compared to Session 1, I felt more confident and clearer when giving instructions. I still finished with reflective questions such as, “What did you all think of that session?” and “Did you feel engaged?” to keep that two-way communication going and give the athletes some ownership of their learning — showing a hybrid coaching approach (Kidman & Lombardo, 2019).
While also continuing to ask for feedback from the group, I asked the group different questions for encouraging reflection and self-assessment. This includes me asking about improvements, challenges that they experienced with certain drills, and suggestions for doing things in a different way. Most of my questions were directive or coaching-focused, this allows the players to critically think about their performance and reinforcing a guided discovery approach.
Coaching Behavior Data
|
Figure 6 (Coaching behavior data session 2)
My Active Learning Time increased by almost eight minutes compared to session 1, showing that the session flowed better and players were more engaged (Light, 2019). I also spent longer giving movement and feedback, which shows stronger interaction and overall management of the group.
Question Analysis
| # | Question | CQ/DQ | C/O | GT/CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Any improvements? | DQ | O | GT |
| 2 | Any feedback? | DQ | O | CR |
| 3 | Was it easier hitting under the ball? | CQ | C | CR |
| 4 | Did you find it harder moving the cone back? | DQ | O | GT |
| 5 | Could we have done anything differently? | DQ | O | GT |
| 6 | What was your feedback on that drill? | DQ | O | CR |
| 7 | What could you improve on? | DQ | O | GT |
| 8 | What did you all think of that session? | DQ | O | CR |
| 9 | Did you feel engaged? | CQ | C | CR |
Reflection
Overall, this session showed a big improvement in my coaching. Using a directive style helped players improve their skills and confidence, while positive feedback kept them motivated. The command and practice styles gave the session structure, and my use of reflective questions helped players stay involved in their learning.
In future sessions, I want to keep improving this balance — using directive feedback to fix skills, and reflective questions to build athlete ownership.
Summary of my coaching styles
Command style: Used for clear demonstrations and corrections.
Practice style: to allow athletes to repeat drills and to build consistency.
Feedback style: I used for motivation and to reinforce progress.
Guided discovery: For reflection and player ownership.
Overall: A hybrid coaching style, mixing directive instruction with athlete-led reflection.
Comments
Post a Comment