Creating the opportunity to learn

 It has long been argued that teaching and coaching must be based on sound, rigorous research and systematic evidence of what works, how and why it works, where it works and for whom it works (Slavin, 2002). Teaching and coaching often relies on idiosyncratic (Mosston & Ashworth, 2008) and incomplete, inaccurate or 'folk' understanding of research and evidence, what Green (2000) described as 'everyday philosophies' of practice. 

Optimising learning

There are factors which accumulated education research lead to them being considered as 'known' to optimise learning regardless of field or subject matter. 

    Engagement

Engagement is a precursor to achievement (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). A teacher or coach must ensure the learner is engaged in the learning process (Mosston, 1966). Engagement can be considered in three areas. Firstly, behavioural engagement: that is, 'on task behaviour' characterised by observations such as attentiveness/attention, questioning and clarifying, participating in discussions. Secondly, cognitive engagement: that is 'processing' understanding. Thirdly, affective engagement: that is, emotional investment characterised by interest, curiosity, and attitude. Teachers and coaches need to target the three areas of engagement in their planning.

    Self-efficacy

Encountering a task, individuals evaluate 'can I?'': that is, what is the reasonably likelihood that with effort I can succeed or be successful. Expectations of success are referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). That self-efficacy has a functional value with respect to learning is well documented (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Bandura (1994) proposed self-efficacy is derived from encounters with key sources of information, such as past performance (enactment mastery: Margolis & McCabe, 2006), observational learning that occurs from watching others perform a task with competence, verbal persuasion or social influence, and physiological state or reaction before, during and/or after the task. Meaningful learning experiences are encouraged when capacity beliefs are targeted for the promotion of feelings of self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) suggested mastery experiences are the 'most powerful' drivers of self-efficacy: that is, taking on new experiences and succeeding. A concept that can help PE teachers and sport coaches plan for mastery experiences is the zone of proximal development: the 'space between what a learner can do without assistance and can do with guidance from a more experienced or knowledgeable other. To target this space, teachers and coaches need first to know what learners already understand, know, and can do.

    Self-regulation

This is where a learner sets goals and then monitors, regulates and controls behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement guided or regulated (self-evaluation) by the goals (Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997, 2007; Zimmerman, 2002). Self regulation connects to willingness to persist and engagement (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Self regulated learning is not an innate ability, it is an ability that can be developed. To develop self regulation, encourage learners to plan out their engagement in a task or a program of study, and provide time at the end of a session for learners to consciously review how they spent/used their time and the quality of the work they produced and they way they related with others in the class/session. A 'rating scale' like Hellison's 5 level TPSR scale is useful for reflection on the 'quality' of personal and social engagement. (if interested in Hellison's concept of Humanistic Physical Education I summarise the ideas here). 

    Attribution/Incremental ability belief

Attribution is the allocation by the learner of an explanation for events and their consequences in which they have participated (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Over time, attributions develop into enduring beliefs about prospects for success or failure. The attribution becomes what the learner thinks about their intelligence or ability. However, attributions are effected by feedback and can change. 'Effort praise/feedback' provokes malleable attributions that teachers and coaches can work on changing, while 'ability praise/feedback' seem to provoke a fixed attribution on competence or ability (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).

    Teacher/coach-learner relationship

The degree to which a teacher/coach displays empathy, support, optimism, and encouragement in what is perceived by the learner as a genuine and fair approach matters with respect to learner engagement and attainment (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). In sport, an athlete-centred coaching approach is associated with these characteristics to create a 'humanistic' coaching style. If interested in reading more, I blog on athlete-centred coaching here and here. 

    Teacher/coach expectations

Expectations that teachers/coaches have for their learners, collectively as a class or squad of players, and for individuals, affect how often the teacher/coach engages with the learner, whether they praise or criticise the learner, whether they accept ideas and suggestions provided by the learner, the feedback and information they provide the learner, the opportunity or time provided for a learner to answer a question, and whether a correct answer is provided or a direction given as opposed to an instruction beings re-phrased or clues provided to the answer to a question (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).

    Learning goals

Learning goals are important for transparency on what is to be learnt, how it is to be learnt, and to what 'level' or 'degree' of ability. They provide clarity of purpose and direction, and thus the ability for learner self-regulation (Redelius et al., 2015). Learning goals with a mastery focus give direction to individual gains in comprehension or competence and provokes malleable attributions. In comparison, performance goals give direction to a 'norm' or comparison to others. A focus on performance goals can lead to fixed ability attributions (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).

    Autonomy support

Autonomy supportive learning environments have been found to lead to greater levels of engagement and information processing. Teacher/coach activities that foster an autonomy-supportive environment include empathy for learning thinking, the provision to learners of a compelling rationale for involvement, learner choice within the limits of the learning context, and the encouragement of learner thinking (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). I have written previously here there is evidence a mastery climate should be aimed for in PE as it promotes higher levels of student perception of physical and motor competence than performance climates. In youth sport, a mastery climate has been shown to promote higher levels of engagement (e.g., Curran et al., 2015).

How could you apply/are you applying  Engagement, Self-efficacy, Self regulation, Attribution/Incremental ability belief, Teacher/coach-learner relationship, Learning goals to optimise learner outcomes in your sport teaching, whether that be sport teaching in PE or sport coaching?