|
| |
ATHLETES AND COACHES.
Term Paper ID:30707
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Examines perceptions of coaches.... More...
|
8 Pages / 1800 Words
26 sources, 35 Citations,
APA Format
$32.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Examines perceptions of coaches. How these perceptions are influenced by winning and losing, and coaches' feedback patterns. Discusses the CBAS (Coaching Behavior Assessment System); how it is used to measure and understand social reinforcements given to athletes by coaches. Research findings. Motivation theory. Associatioin between outcomes and coaching behaviors. CBAS Chart.
Paper Introduction:
Introduction
This literature review will examine athletes’ perceptions of coaches and how those perceptions are influenced by winning and losing and coaches’ feedback patterns. The organization of the literature review focuses on the following topical areas: (1) athletes’ perceptions of coaches; (2) coaches’ feedback patterns; and (3) the effects of winning and losing on athletes’ perceptions of coaches.
Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaches
Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1977) developed the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) to measure and understand the social reinforcements provided by coaches to athletes and the effects of these reinforcements on the athletes and their performance. The general findings of research examining coaching behavior within t
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
(2 1, Fall). The determination of behavioral frequencies occurs throughresearcher observation of a coach's behavior (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Although such an outcome doesnot necessarily follow, losing did have negative effects on athletes'perceptions of coaching behaviors. Salmoni, A. Contextual influences and goalperspectives among female youth sport participants. (1977, March). Jubenville, C. Physical Educator, 57(4), 17 -177. J. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 176-187. (1998). & Yetton, P. This approach is simply another approach to measuring thefrequency of coaching behaviors defined by the CBAS. (1996). Coaches' feedback and changes in children'sperceptions of their physical competence. The outcome is easily reversible by behavioral changes amongcoaches. Smoll, F. Morgantown, West Virginia: Fitness Information Technology,Inc., pp. (1973). D. Mannie, K. Positive coaching feedback correlated with positive perceptionsof coaching behavior. When athletes orient themselvestoward tasks, as opposed to winning or losing, however, their perceptionstend to be immune to winning and losing. In Duda, J. Chen, D. Athletes' perceptions of coachingperformance among NCAA Division III and NAIA head football coaches in theState of Mississippi. The CBAS also provides a basis for the measurement of athletes'perceptions of coaching behaviors. DiMarco, Ohlson, Reece, and Solomon (1998) found that positivefeedback from coaches resulted in better athlete performance, but they alsofound that more feedback from coaches produced superior performanceoutcomes to lower levels of coaching feedback. In Roberts, G. Journalof Sport Behavior, 32(1), 1-1 . (Eds.). Why female athletes quit:Implications for coach education. R., & Snipes, J. The organization of the literature review focuses on thefollowing topical areas: (1) athletes' perceptions of coaches; (2) coaches'feedback patterns; and (3) the effects of winning and losing on athletes'perceptions of coaches. (2 , March). Results of studies of the instrument's validity vary greatly,although research established the content validity of the CBAS (Chelladurai& Riemer, 1998). Springfield, Massachusetts: Springfield College.levels of youth sport soccer athletes. Effects on athletic performance filtered through perceptionsof athlete self-efficacy induced by athletes' perceptions of coachingbehaviors. Using athletes'perceptions of coaching behaviors measured through this approach provides abasis for relating such perceptions to both athlete perceptions of thesports participation experience and player performance (Chelladurai &Riemer, 1998). Coach-athlete compatibilityand athlete's perception of coaching behaviors. (1994). Sinclair and Vealey (1988) found that the character of coachingfeedback affected athletes' self-perception and, in turn, athletes'performance. Inter-rater reliability is important in relation to the use of theCBAS, as the CBAS is not an objective instrument. An additional finding ofthe study was that coaches provided more feedback to athletes for whom theyhad high expectations than to athletes for whom coaching expectations werelower (DiMarco, Ohlson, Reece, & Solomon, 1998). W., Schmidt, R. (1989). The anomaly was that, while coaches tendto emphasize winning and losing in actual games, they tend to emphasizeeffort in practice. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 383-3 9. (2 , March). Stewart and Taylor (2 ) found, however, that perceptions of negativecoaching behaviors correlated with higher dropout rates among femaleathletes. Conclusion The literature review shows that gaps exist in research investigatingathletes' perceptions of coaches that specifically relates to theperceptions of female athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(1),A1 8-A1 9. The research alsofound positive associations between outcomes and coaching behaviors thatare less controlling and which include lower levels of punishment (Duda &Balaguer, 1999). A., & Walter, C. Williams (1998) found an anomaly concerning the effects of winning andlosing on athletes' perceptions. (1992). Duda, J. Descriptive assessment focuseson defining actual feedback delivered. (Ed.). R., & Widmeyer, W. The goal-perspective theory of motivation holds athletes' perceptionsof the sports environment in which they participate affects theirmotivation to perform (Ames, 1992). 212-23 . Bray, S. The effects of formtraining on foul-shooting performance in members of a women's collegebasketball team. Evaluative assessment focuses onthe need for comprehensiveness in feedback. Sinclair, D. Further, when a focuson winning and losing does introduce environmental instability, winning andlosing does affect athletes' perceptions. A., & Vealey, R. Feedback, viewed in this context, is consistent with theknowledge of results (KR) concept (Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter, 1984).Positive feedback generally receives higher reviews than does negativefeedback (Lucas, 1994). Trends in augmented feedback research andtips for the practitioner. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(3), 329-339. Expectancy theory, thus, could be applied effectively in ananalysis of an individual's performance in any environment. Williams, L. Analyzing feedback style. Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. Vroom, V. Athletes' Perceptions of Coaches Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1977) developed the Coaching BehaviorAssessment System (CBAS) to measure and understand the socialreinforcements provided by coaches to athletes and the effects of thesereinforcements on the athletes and their performance. Journalof Sport Behavior, 24(3), 277-297. Athletes'perceptions of social support provided by their head coach, assistantcoach, and athletic trainer, pre-injury and during rehabilitation. There are further differentiations within thereactive-spontaneous framework. B. Again, O'Neill (2 ) found no significant(p<. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2 (3), 311-32 . (1985). C. (1985). Kladopoulos and McComas (2 1) found a positive relationship betweenimprovement in basketball performance and coaching feedback. Steward, C., & Taylor, J. Horn's (1985) study produced similar results. The general findingsof research examining coaching behavior within the framework of the CBASare that positive associations exist between outcomes and coachingbehaviors characterized by feedback that includes mistake-contingenttechnical information, as opposed to general feedback. References Ames, C. This dichotomy tended to create mixed messages forathletes. 5) linear relationship based on athlete gender. E. Kenow and Williams (1999) found support for the hypothesis underlyingthe CBAS that athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors are positivelyrelated to athletic performance and athletes' perceptions of the sportenvironment. (Ed.). Kladopoulos, C. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 19, 1522-1551. Jubenville (2 1) found that the character of coaching feedback(positive or negative) affected athletes' perceptions of coachingbehaviors. Coaching behaviors and self-efficacy. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, pp. S. J., Reece, S. Effective feedback skills for trainers andcoaches. The CBAS distinguishes between reactive behaviors and spontaneousbehaviors by coaches. (1984). 161-176. (2 1, January). Introduction This literature review will examine athletes' perceptions of coachesand how those perceptions are influenced by winning and losing and coaches'feedback patterns. S. Bray and Widmeyer (2 ) also found apositive relationship between winning and athletes' perceptions. D. M. Lucas, R. Inthis context, the important variable is not how accurate or inaccurateathletes' perceptions are, but rather the character of those perceptions.If an athlete has negative perceptions of coaching behaviors thatcontribute to substandard athletic performance, the accuracy of the athleteperceptions does not change the relationship. Robbins and Rosenfeld (2 1)found that athletes' perceptions of social support provided by theircoaches were more important in relation to athletic performance than was afocus on winning and losing. Mastrofski, S. The Effects of Winning and Losing on Athletes' Perceptions of Coaches' Behaviors Expectancy theory is relevant to the effects of winning and losing onathletes' perceptions of coaching behavior. DiMarco, A. Expectations and coaching experience: Is more better? W. S. Journal of Sport Behavior,22(2), 251-259. On balance,however, the literature supports the relationship. Expectancy theory functionsthrough four factors: (1) the effort/performance expectancy (individualsmust perceive that they possess both the ability and opportunity toperform); (2) the instrumentality of performance (a recognized linkagebetween specific behavior and reward must be in place); (3) theperformance/reward expectancy (the level of effort required to obtain aspecific level of reward must be known); (4) and the reward/cost balance(potential rewards must be commensurate with the effort required to obtainthem). W. The FAP assesses coaching feedback as either positive or negative.The four categories of feedback measured by the FAP are evaluative,descriptive, prescriptive, and affective. (1994, July). Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport, 69(1), 47-57. Coaches' Feedback Patterns There is a general recognition of the importance of feedback fromcoaches to athletes in relation to improving the performance of athletes(Mannie, 2 ). Morgantown, West Virginia:Fitness Information Technology, Inc., pp. (1998, June). There are studies of the correlation between athletes' perceptions ofcoaching behaviors and researcher-observed classifications of coachingbehavior (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). JOPERD (Journal of Physical Education Researchand Development), 72(1), 32-36. 5) linear relationshipbetween observed ratings of coaching behaviors (positive or negative) andathletes' perceptions of their own athletic competence. Nevertheless, athletes'perceptions of coaching behaviors correlate more closely with research-observer ratings of coaching behaviors than coaches' perceptions of theirown behavior correlate with research-observer ratings of coaching behaviors(Chelladurai, 1996). A system for thebehavioral assessment of athletic coaches. HR Focus, 71(7), 7. Expectancy theory, as anexample of a universally applied theory of motivation, is a cognitivetheory based on an individual's perceptions "of the likelihood of obtainingdesired outcomes contingent on" specific actions by the individual(Mastrofski, Ritti, & Snipes, 1994, p. Coaching Review, 8,6 -64. L., & Balaguer, I. M., Ohlson, C. Advancesin sport and exercise psychology measurement. A. Chelladurai, P. H. Coach and AthleticDirector, 69(8), 18-2 . Vroom and Yetton (1973)offered the expectancy theory of motivation. Leadership behaviors in sport: Atheoretical model and research paradigm. Kenow, L., & Williams, J. O'Neill, E. (2 1, September). Athletes' perceptions ofthe home advantage: an investigation of perceived causal factors. D., Ritti, R. Effects of coaches'expectations and feedback on the self-perceptions of athletes. Horn, T. Journal ofSport Behavior, 21(4), 444-451. An important element of the sportsenvironment consists of coaching behaviors (Smoll & Smith, 1989). B. (1999). Studies reportreliability coefficients ranging from .62 to .98, with a mean of .86.Reliability also depends upon observation of a coach without her or hisawareness of such observation (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).|Chart 1 - Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) Structure ||Reactive Behaviors | ||Responses to Desirable Performance | ||Reinforcement |Positive, rewarding reaction, verbal|| |or non-verbal, to good play or good || |effort ||Non-Reinforcement |Failure to respond to good effort ||Responses to Mistakes | ||Mistake-Contingent Encouragement |Encouragement following a mistake ||Mistake-Contingent Technical |Instructing or demonstration how to ||Instruction |correct a mistake ||Punishment |Negative reaction, verbal or || |non-verbal, following a mistake ||Punitive Technical Instruction |Adopting a hostile manner in || |providing technical instruction || |following a mistake ||Ignoring Mistakes |Failure to respond to mistakes ||Responses to Misbehavior | ||Keeping Control |Responses designed to restore or || |maintain order ||Spontaneous Behavior | ||Game Related | ||General Technical Instruction |Spontaneous instruction on || |techniques & strategies unrelated to|| |mistakes ||General Encouragement |Spontaneous encouragement unrelated || |to mistakes ||Organization |Administrative behaviors (assigning || |duties, responsibilities, positions,|| |& so forth) ||Game Irrelevant | ||General Communication |Coach-athlete interactions unrelated|| |to athletics ||Source: Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977 | The validity of the CBAS (e.g., does the instrument measure what itpurports to measure) is more problematic that is the instrumentsreliability. Law & Society Review,28(1), 113-148. (1998,December). The relationship betweencompetitive anxiety, achievement goals, and motivational climates. N. Achievement goals, motivational climate, andmotivational processes. (1999, June). Athletes rate coaching behaviorsdefined in the CBAS on a scale ranging from one through seven, with sevenindicating "almost always" and one indicating "almost never" (Chelladurai &Riemer, 1998). AMaster of Science Thesis. In Lidor, R., & Bar-Eli, M. InternationalJournal of Sports Psychology, 21, 328-354. O'Neill (2 ) also measured differences in therelationship between observed ratings of coaching behaviors (positive ornegative) and athletes' perceptions of their own athletic competence whencontrolled for athlete gender. O'Neill (2 ) found no significant (p<. B. Sinclair, G. Prescriptive assessment focuses theeffectiveness of corrective messages from coaches. Exhibit 1 (on the following page)illustrates the structure of the CBAS. (1998, March). Eisler, L., & Spink, K. Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Hunt, E. Ntoumanis and Biddle (1998) found that a focus on winning and losingintroduces instability into an athletic environment. (2 1, March). Robbins, J. N., & McComas, J. Eisler and Spink (1998) found that winning has positive effects onathletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors. Affective assessmentfocuses on of the effectiveness of the influence of the feedback on theathlete (Chen, 2 1). Expectancytheory and police productivity in DUI enforcement. (2 , Winter). Knowledge ofresults and motor learning. (1988). Therealso are suggestions that an athletes' gender influences perceptions ofcoaching behaviors (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). With respect to the effects ofathlete perceptions of coaching behaviors on athlete performance andathlete satisfaction with the sport participation experience, however, thecorrelation between athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors andresearcher-observed classifications of coaching behavior is irrelevant. 227-251. The studyfound improvements occurred over baseline performance for female athletes. Sinclair (1985) developed an instrument for use in evaluatingthe effectiveness of coaching feedback - the Feedback Analysis profile(FAP). Motivation in sport andexercise. Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. O'Neill (2 )applied the CBAS to rate coaching behaviors and the perceived SoccerCompetence Scale (PSCS) to measure athletes' perceptions of their ownathletic competence. (1998, September). (2 , May). B. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 77(2), 174-186. 118). Journal ofsport Behavior, 11(3), 77-91. E., & Rosenfeld, L. Measurements derived fromapplications of the CBAS develop frequencies of specific behaviors includedin the CBAS. Effects of scoringconfiguration and task cohesion on the perception of psychologicalmomentum. Toward an integration of models ofleadership with a contemporary theory of motivation. D., & Solomon, G. L., & Smith, R. Leadership and decision-making.Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press. B. Leadership in sport: A review. Coaching feedback. Research Quarterly, 48(2), 4 1-4 7. The literature is mixed on the validity ofthe relationship between athletes' perceptions of coaching behavior, asmeasured by the CBAS, and levels of athletic performance.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
