Be empowering. Be athlete-centered. Be autonomy supportive. These are three related topics currently being promoted by sport psychologists and sport pedagogists in an effort to recognize athletes’ unique qualities and developmental differences and make coaching more holistic and coaches more considerate. This has led us to ask, how likely are such initiatives to lead to coaches putting their athletes at the center of the coaching process given that coaches’ practices have largely been formed through relations of power that subordinate and objectify athletes’ bodies through the regular application of a range of disciplinary techniques and instruments [e.g. Barker-Ruchti, N., &; Tinning, R. (2010). Foucault in leotards: Corporeal discipline in women's artistic gymnastics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 229–250; Heikkala, J. (1993). Discipline and excel: Techniques of the self and body and the logic of competing. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 397–412; Gearity, B., &; Mills, J. P. (2012). Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sports Coaching Review, 1, 124–134]? In other words, to try to develop athlete-centered coaches capable of coaching in ways that will empower their athletes without also problematizing the discursive formation of coaches’ practices concerns us [Denison, J., &; Mills, J. P. (2014). Planning for distance running: Coaching with Foucault. Sports Coaching Review, 3, 1–16]. Put differently: how can athlete empowerment initiatives be anything more than rhetoric within a disciplinary framework that normalizes maximum coach control? It is this question that we intend to explore in this paper. More specifically, as Foucauldians, we will argue that coaching with greater consideration for athletes’ unique qualities and developmental differences needs to entail coaching in a less disciplinary way and with an awareness and appreciation of the many unseen effects that disciplinary power can have on coaches’ practices and athletes’ bodies. 相似文献
Background: Within the context of sports coaching and coach education, formalised mentoring relationships are often depicted as a mentor–mentee dyad. Thus, mentoring within sports coaching is typically conceptualised as a one-dimensional relationship, where the mentor is seen as the powerful member of the dyad, with greater age and/or experience [Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for Social Inclusion. London: Routledge].
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the concept of a multiple mentor system in an attempt to advance our theoretical and empirical understanding of sports coach mentoring. In doing so, this paper builds upon the suggestion of Jones, Harris, and Miles [(2009). “Mentoring in Sports Coaching: A Review of the Literature.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (3): 267–284] who highlight the importance of generating empirical research to explore current mentoring approaches in sport, which in turn can inform meaningful formal coach education enhancement. The significance of this work therefore lies in opening up both a practical and a theoretical space for dialogue within sports coach education in order to challenge the traditional dyadic conceptualisation of mentoring and move towards an understanding of ‘mentoring in practice’.
Method: Drawing upon Kram’s [(1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman] foundational mentoring theory to underpin a multiple mentoring support system, 15 elite coach mentors across a range of sports were interviewed in an attempt to explore their mentoring experiences. Subsequently, an inductive thematic analysis endeavoured to further investigate the realities and practicalities of employing a multiple mentoring system in the context of elite coach development.
Results: The participants advocated support for the utilisation of a multiple mentor system to address some of the inherent problems and complexities within elite sports coaching mentoring. Specifically, the results suggested that mentees sourced different mentors for specific knowledge acquisition, skills and attributes. For example, within a multiple mentor approach, mentors recommended that mentees use a variety of mentors, including cross-sports and non-sport mentors.
Conclusion: Tentative recommendations for the future employment of a multiple mentoring framework were considered, with particular reference to cross-sports or non-sport mentoring experiences. 相似文献
This study examined the psychometric properties of a questionnaire developed with the guidance of the socialization model of child behaviour to understand modifiable correlates of toddlers’ physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Findings are based on 118 parents (33.7 ± 4.9 years; 86% female) of toddlers (19.3 ± 2.7 months; 48% female) from Edmonton, Canada in The Parents’ Role in Establishing healthy Physical activity and Sedentary behaviour habits study (PREPS). The PREPS questionnaire encompassed 21 variables across the constructs of the socialization model of child behaviour. Of the nine variables assessed for internal consistency reliability, eight had good (α ≥ 0.70) reliability. Of the 15 continuous variables assessed for 1-week test–retest reliability, 10 had moderate (intra-class correlation = 0.50–0.74) and 5 had good (intra-class correlation ≥ 0.75) reliability. Of the six categorical variables assessed for 1-week test–retest reliability, two had fair (К = 0.21–0.40), one had moderate (К = 0.41–0.60), one had substantial (К = 0.61–0.80), and two had almost perfect (К = 0.81–1.00) reliability. Of the 12 sedentary behaviour variables assessed for convergent validity, 7 were significantly correlated with children’s screen time, of which three were small (r ≤ 0.29), two were medium (r = 0.30–0.49), and two were large (r ≥ 0.50) effect sizes. 相似文献
Attention disorders in the school population include attention deficit, hyperactivity and conduct disorders. A key concept for distinguishing hyperactive from attention disorders is behavioural inhibition as advocated by Barkley, a prominent American researcher. However, the concept itself needs to be understood because, as argued in this paper, there are two kinds of inhibition: Pavlov's original concept and the American one. These should be differentiated if the abnormal conditions associated with attention and hyperactivity are to be rationally connected to cognitive characteristics, rather than to be solely based on clinical symptoms and behavioural ratings. We suggest a consensus on the concept of inhibition and a unified view of attention disorders integrating cognitive and behavioural manifestations. Finally, the importance of basing remediation on a theoretically supported and rationally derived set of cognitive training tasks for the amelioration of inattention and hyperactivity is offered. 相似文献
