The following entries detail post-session reflections for the fourteen sessions coached at NK school. Reflective practice is considered integral to successful coaching.

 “ten years of coaching without reflection is simply one year of coaching repeated ten times”
(Gilbert & Trudel, 2006, p.114).

Session One

The session flowed well and included logical transitions. All activities were pitched at the right level, with participants enjoying the session. The Head of Sport (HoS) also provided good feedback regarding the content and delivery.

Demonstrations were an obvious strength – they were simple albeit effective. Hodges and Franks (2002) assert that demonstrations can enhance the memorial representation of a given sequence of actions, and can have a positive effect upon skill acquisition. Furthermore, the use of questioning was well implemented – “Questioning is an instructional strategy that encourages athletes to explore different solutions” (Isabel et al., 2008, p.47).

Participants varied in their level of understanding of the tasks. There needed to be greater prior research of the group’s ability to understand their needs. Also, the instructional content lacked clarity. The delivery of instruction is considered to be one of the most significant aspects of a coach’s role (Jones, 1997; Isabel et al., 2008). The quality of instructions given before a practice determines the level of understanding of how the coach expects the athletes to perform.

Future sessions must develop the question and answer (Q&A) approach, ensure that activities are thoroughly explained before and during the drills, and improve the quality and conciseness of instructions given.

Session Two

Session ran well. No behavioural issues. All participants enjoyed the session.

Strengths included: the continued effective use of questioning, good differentiation between activities and the correction of poor technique.

However, the warm up did not run well, group seemed unchallenged and needed energising. Also, captain roles were assigned to two of the group (see Heath et al., 2009), but failed to be effective due to the selected participants lacking confidence. In addition, more demonstrations could have been given to improve visual understanding. A common assumption is that demonstrations are more favourable than verbalization and trial-and-error methods for acquiring information during skill acquisition (Horn et al., 2002).

Future sessions must provide effective group demonstrations, appropriately challenge the entire group within the warm-up context by using hustle techniques (see Appendix E), and apply post-instruction (see Appendix E) to summarise the session and provide greater learning (Becker & Wrisberg, 2008).

Session Three

Very good session. Session was inclusive throughout. No behavioural issues.

The main strength of the session was the differentiation content. All activities challenged the multi-abilities through application of the STEP principle. Other strengths included the use of visual demonstrations to the group, and the use of effective praise given to participants to enhance confidence and self-efficacy (Isabel et al., 2008).

The warm up this week was better but could still be improved. Too much time was spent on the basic activity (Piggy in the Middle) with less time allocated for the more complex activities. Group segregation was a slight issue with ‘best friends’ constantly wanting to work together and trying to manipulate segregation.

Future sessions must use energising warm-ups to encourage, motivate and improve participant performance (Cervantes & Snyder, 2011). Activities must be carefully planned with opportunities for cognitive problem solving and more time should be allocated to difficult tasks to increase understanding. The pairing method of segregation should be used to combat attempted manipulation of teams.

Finally, future sessions should be planned for fewer participants. Attendance appears to be between 10 and 12, and not the original 25-27 as thought.

Session Four

The creation of courtball was a success; however rules will need to be slightly amended for future use, such as dribbling rules. Due to the combination of two invasion games, rules often conflicted. Most participants were actively engaged although some lacked effort, which caused slight behavioural issues.

The warm up game ‘Bib Collect’ was fully engaging, and included opportunities for problem solving. ‘Adapted Zone Defence’ activity was a success, good progressions allowed for effective use of differentiation techniques (See Appendix F). Morley and Bailey (2006) assert that differentiation is a “central feature of provision for talented pupils” (p.68). Session was concluded well and discussed the cognitive elements used in the session.

The participants who lacked effort began to disrupt others in the group; this was due to a lack of understanding during ‘King of the Ring’.  The implementation was hardly effective and caused more problems than success. Also, pre-instructional content lacked clarity which caused further behavioural problems.

Future sessions must focus upon the balance of quality and quantity of pre-instructions (Potrac et al., 2007; Ford et al., 2010), to ensure that tasks are fully understood. Furthermore, a new behaviour management strategy should be researched and employed to control the group.

Session Five

10 participants. Behaviour issues continue to persist. Session had mixed-success. A highlight of the session was that most participants actively volunteered throughout (meeting the aims of the social aspect).

The warm-up effectively challenged the group. The ‘Keep the Ball’ activity worked extremely well, allowing multiple opportunities to give praise, use Q&A, and differentiate the task. Brandball was a success, although it could be more challenging for some of the group. The participant-led cool down worked well, and the leader showed confidence in her communication.

A major area for concern is the behavioural issues that some members of the group are beginning to show. Two had to be sent out to the tutor. On reflection, too many progressions were used which caused the session to constantly be stopped and started.

Future sessions must challenge all of the group (Bailey, 2001). All are supposed to be G&T however there is a great difference between the lower- and upper-end abilities. Pre-instruction continues to be an issue. The quality of instructions given should take preference to the quantity (Ford et al., 2010). Questioning opportunities did not arise due to the nature of the game – ensure that more open-ended Q&A opportunities (see Bailey, 2001) are incorporated into session plans.

Overall, the skills elements of the sessions seem to be causing problems and disruptions. An emphasis on fun should be adopted from this point onwards to overcome the issue.

Session Six

Session was very successful. Only nine participants, but session plan had been designed with a ‘plan b’ in mind, so this was not an issue. Significantly less behavioural issues.

Session strengths included a good blend of activities and games, an efficient warm-up (see Bishop, 2003), and effective use of ability grouping differentiation to allow the more talented individuals to operate together at a higher level (Morley & Bailey, 2006). Moreover, the introduction of visual aids (whiteboard – see video four below) aided the delivery and understanding of pre-instruction. All participants followed instructions and assisted with clearing away the equipment. Effective praise was given to pupils who excelled.

Improvement areas are: the difficulty of the ‘ball train’ activity was too high (see TES, 2011), and the implementation of social leadership skills during the ‘caught behind’ activity (Heath et al., 2009) was not successful – it merely confused the group.

Future sessions must continue using visual aids to increase group understanding, consider the use of more questions to check understanding and probe problem solving and ensure that progressions are logical and easily identifiable to participants.

Session Seven

Behavioural issues were the worst they have been. One child in particular is constantly disrupting others. Advanced roles in captaincy and officiating (see Heath et al., 2009) were given to the individual, but no change in behaviour occurred. Meeting occurred after the session to discuss this with tutor.

Seated volleyball was the focus of the session, and was well-received by the pupils. Due to the relaxed nature of the activity, many opportunities arose for participants to ask questions and to set problem solving tasks.

According to González-Haro et al. (2010, p.859) “students … adopt different learning styles, which emerge throughout the teaching-learning process”. The use of visual aids (whiteboard and increased demonstrations) significantly improved group understanding and skill acquisition. No issues occurred within the first two tasks. The final task could have been improved by using more problem solving aspects to encourage involvement. The concept of ‘hustle’ (see Appendix E) could also be employed to increase effort levels.

Lack of differentiation was evident within the game scenarios. The low numbers in attendance made it difficult to differentiate and meet the needs of all participants. Bailey (2001) advocates that PE and youth sport “should be inclusive of the wide diversity of needs and abilities of pupils” (pp. 122-123).

Future sessions must continue to use a whiteboard to aid the visual learning process (Horn et al., 2002) and meet the needs of visual learners (Hodges & Franks, 2002). If behaviour issues continue, preventing the pupil(s) from attending the session may be option to ensure others are not disrupted. Furthermore, during activities, the use of concurrent instruction (Becker & Wrisberg, 2008) and hustle (Zeng et al., 2009) should be employed to increase effort and involvement. This would allow participants to “actively adjust their behaviours and make corrections without interrupting the flow of action” (Becker & Wrisberg, 2008, p.205).

Session Eight

Eight participants. No behavioural issues. Good management of the group from the onset. Session flowed well with obvious transitions.

A significant strength of the session was the warm up. It was actively engaging and fun for the participants. ‘The pod’ activity was adequately challenging and provided ample opportunities for differentiation. There were no issues with pre-instruction as the visual aids worked well.

On reflection, ‘Throw Tennis’ was not a suitable game to follow the high intensity warm up. The game was too slow and should have been progressed sooner. The creation and teaching idea did not work and had to be scrapped due to lack of understanding from the group. Slight issues with individual understanding, but this did not cause any major issues.

Future sessions must include more Q&A opportunities to encourage problem solving. Smith and Cushion (2006) advocate that “question and answer is a great way of assessing understanding” (p.361) of skill acquisition. Providing visual demonstrations to individuals or small groups could also improve skill acquisition. Furthermore, all activities need to be pitched at the right level with intensity being medium-high.

Session intensity levels should start high with the warm up and remain high by appropriately choosing activities. Energisers should be used to increase intensity.

Session Nine

Session ran smoothly with no behavioural issues. Ten participants who all enjoyed the session.

It was evident that pre-instruction has improved significantly over previous weeks. Cushion and Jones (2001) assert that observations are critical to understanding instructions. The use of the whiteboard continued to enhance understanding. The Q&A approach was well implemented and also triggered participants to ask questions to each other, which aided the learning process. Demonstrations were effective throughout.

Praise was given too often, and should only have been given at the appropriate times to ensure that it doesn’t become meaningless (Smith & Cushion, 2006). During the game situations the session was stopped too often. It would have benefited the session to use concurrent instruction or 1-on-1 coaching instead to correct bad technique.

Future sessions must focus upon the use of concurrent instruction and develop a balance between the quality and quantity of praise given. The overuse of praise can be seen as ‘non-specific feedback’ which can decrease its effect (Potrac et al., 2002; Isabel et al., 2008). Furthermore, it is important to say why something was good and not just what was good.

Session Ten

Session flowed well with ten participants. It was evident that the participants benefited from revisiting brandball. Behaviour issues emerged again towards the end of the session.

Praise was limited and used effectively to recognise good practice (Smith & Cushion, 2006). The interceptor activity (Newark & Sherwood District Council, 2011a) worked well as a main component. Whiteboard demonstrations continue to aid the learning process (see right).

Further work is required to facilitate the Q&A approach to promote problem solving. It is important to ensure that problem tasks are phrased appropriately to achieve the desired results (Bailey, 2001). The first activity (keep the ball) did not experience the same success as the latter activities. Participants were under-challenged and the activity needed progressing sooner.

Future sessions must ensure activities are progressed at the right speed. Failure to progress activities can lead to onset of tedium and other issues. It would also be beneficial to use punishment and reinforcement disciplinary techniques to manage behavioural issues (Marzano, 2003). Marzano (2003) asserts that these disciplinary interventions, such as negative consequences for poor behaviour and rewards for good behaviour, can result in a decrease in disruptive behaviour. Furthermore, praising good behaviour has been found to decrease behavioural issues (Downing et al., 2005).

Session Eleven

Nine participants. Minimal behaviour issues. Game situations were very successful, however the skills and activities were not so.

A strength of the session was the use of differentiation techniques, based upon the STEP principles (see session plan). Multiple progressions ensured that game situations were challenging for all participants. A further strength was the use of concurrent instruction to reinforce good practice and correct poor practice.

The Q&A approach still requires further attention to ensure clarity and conciseness of questions asked (Bailey, 2001). The skills and abilities section experienced minimal success. Activities should have been progressed sooner. It was during these activities that behavioural issues also arose.

Future sessions must implement Q&A activities into session plans to ensure opportunities to utilise the approach. At this stage of the placement, sessions would be more beneficial if they were tailored towards fun and learning through games. Furthermore, the implementation of behaviour management techniques (see Marzano, 2003) should be continued.

Session Twelve

Session ran smoothly with ten participants and no behavioural issues.

All participants enjoyed the rounders session. It was evident that allowing participants to vote to do their favourite warm up was a success. All of the group were challenged throughout and prepared for the game situation. The emphasis of fun was also welcomed by the group and school staff.

The Q&A activity experiences some success but required greater time for participants to solve tasks. Participants were asked to volunteer to lead the cool down, however the chosen leader saw this as an opportunity to talk to his friends rather than lead the group.

Future sessions must allocate further time to the Q&A activity to allow time for tasks to be completed. Allowing participants to choose the warm benefitted the session and should be implemented in the remaining two sessions.

Session Thirteen

Session was successful, with ten participants who all demonstrated good striking and fielding skills. A good summary was also provided in preparation for the final session.

The Q&A activity was very successful; all participants offered tentative solutions to problems set by the coach. Moreover, questioning during game situations probed excellent responses as to why the innings was successful.

Areas for improvement include: the need to differentiate roles for the upper-end G&T pupils (Bailey, 2001) during game situations and the organisation of the rounders.

Future sessions must ensure that the needs of G&T pupils are adequately met (Morley & Bailey, 2006). Furthermore, rounders bases should be positioned further apart to ensure that participants are challenged.

Session Fourteen

Final session ran smoothly with no behavioural issues. Ten participants.

Differentiation was significantly better this session. Progressions during the game, such as batting with the weaker hand, effectively challenged the upper-end G&T pupils. Pupils chose the same warm up as the previous week, due to its success it was implemented and progressed. The participant-led cool down was also a success. The girl who led the cool down showed good verbal leadership qualities.

Certificates were awarded to all participants at the end of the session as a reward for their efforts. Participant self-assessment was also conducted, which aided the final needs analysis process.