for Online, Graduate-Level Coach Education. Andrew P. Driska and Daniel R. Gould. Research has shown that coaches learn through reflective practice (Trudel ...
Kinesiology Review, 2014, 3, 227-234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/kr.2014-0061 © 2014 by Human Kinetics
Official Publication of NAK and AKA www.KR-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Evaluating a Problem-Based Group Learning Strategy for Online, Graduate-Level Coach Education Andrew P. Driska and Daniel R. Gould Research has shown that coaches learn through reflective practice (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006), that communities of practice can assist the reflective process (Culver & Trudel, 2008), and that problem-based learning can increase critical thought by coaches (Jones & Turner, 2006). To help coaches develop reflective practice skills in an online course, the authors designed and implemented a novel assignment combining the principles of a community of practice with problem-based learning. Small groups of students were presented with a problem scenario and then met synchronously online using a low bandwidth group chat application (EtherPad) to diagnose the problem, strategize, and outline a solution. Students were able to conduct group meetings with only minor technical difficulties, and their written work demonstrated that a moderate level of reflection had occurred. Future assignment redesigns should allow more opportunities for student-instructor interaction to facilitate greater development of student reflective practice skills. Keywords: coach development, reflective practice, TPaCK framework, problem-based learning One of the main goals of coach educators is to develop the coach’s ability to be a reflective practitioner, as reflection has been shown to be a major component of how successful coaches learn (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). Gilbert and Trudel (1999) posited that successful coaches share the four features of reflective practitioners, as identified by Schön (1987). Reflective coaches frame their roles as coaches, stating specifically what they hope to accomplish in their coaching and letting their behaviors follow from that goal. Reflective coaches engage in problem setting; they develop nuanced understandings of problematic situations and their root causes. Reflective coaches experiment with new strategies and evaluate their effectiveness. Finally, they create virtual simulations of problem resolutions; they think through the application of their solution to the problem, anticipating how athletes might respond. Reflective practice allows coaches to develop knowledge that is highly contextualized and specific, enabling them to become more successful in their own unique coaching situations. As coach educators, we frequently question whether these reflective coaches are inherently reflective people to begin with, or if they have learned to become reflective practitioners through their experience or education. To this end, we have explored a range of pedagogical methods that may enable coaches to develop the skill set of a reflective practitioner. Literature suggests that Driska and Gould are with the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
problem-based learning approaches can be a useful means of provoking critical thought in coaches (Jones & Turner, 2006). Problem-based learning typically presents students with a problem with the goal of devising a solution, as opposed to traditional methods of formal education, where knowledge is presented systematically and students are told how this knowledge applies. Constructivists (Spiro & DeSchryver, 2007) argue that problem-solving approaches may be most useful in helping students to understand ill-structured domains; settings that are disorderly, unpredictable, or do not follow conventions. Many such complex problems arise in coaching. The counterargument from advocates for guided instructional methods (e.g., lectures) is that problem-based approaches can often lead students down pathways that deviate widely from accepted knowledge and practice (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). For instance, should coaches be encouraged to devise a unique solution to a problem (e.g., novel training techniques for children) when there are already evidence-based solutions in place? This supports one of our contentions that there are certain facts and principles that coaches need to know. Traditionally, these facts and principles have been delivered through coach education programs—often referred to as mediated learning experiences (Erickson, Bruner, MacDonald, & Côté, 2008) or formal coach education (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). There are many complex situations, however, that coaches will encounter where the application of an established training method will not work, or may even have detrimental effects on athletes. When these situations arise, it is
227
228 Driska and Gould
essential that coaches possess the skills of a reflective practitioner, because these skills will aid the coach in devising a solution that is uniquely tailored to the demands of this complex problem. The debate regarding best practice for developing reflective coaches is further complicated when online education becomes the primary method of educating coaches. This debate has been of particular interest to us as researchers and coach educators, as we currently offer four online, credit-based, graduate-level courses in coaching science through the Michigan State University College of Education. Three of these courses have been offered since 2000 and address psychosocial, physical, legal, administrative, and developmental issues related to coaching. The first iterations of our online courses in coaching science were lecture-based (i.e., voice-over PowerPoint presentations), and did not stimulate discussion. Subsequent versions employed discussion forums to simulate the classroom discussion that is present in a face-to-face course. Research has validated the importance of discussion among peer coaches as an important means to professional development; this process is often referred to as a community of practice (Culver & Trudel, 2008). Communities of practice often revolve around single problems, and coaches contribute suggestions and their own experience dealing with similar problems. Despite our best intentions, the discussion forum often became a series of unrelated monologues, rather than a focused dialogue centered on the resolution of a common coaching dilemma. The nature of the discussion forum questions may have prompted students to express their own opinions, at the expense of engaging their peers in focused dialogue. Given that communities of practice have value in helping coaches learn how to solve complex problems, we sought to revise our pedagogy to bring class discussion closer to the idealized community of practice for coaches. Since the year 2000 when these courses were initially offered, substantial theoretical advancements in online learning have occurred, notably the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPaCK) framework for online teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; www.tpack. org). Using the TPaCK framework, an online educator would identify the most appropriate technological and pedagogical strategies for delivering content knowledge and shaping desired educational outcomes. In our case, TPaCK guided our selection of the most appropriate pedagogical strategies to teach reflective practice, given the technological constraints of teaching an online course. In addition to using TPaCK as a theoretical guide in our course redesign, we also employed a range of strategies from the Design Thinking for Educators toolkit (www. designthinkingforeducators.com), which provided a fresh perspective on our online teaching. For instance, we engaged in at least two discovery meetings, which helped us to more clearly define our desired goals and outcomes for the course, and several exploration group meetings, in which we used the collective expertise of faculty and
graduate students to brainstorm potential new directions for our course design. Although it is quite clear that reflective practice can have immense value for coaches, the means by which coach educators can develop reflective practitioners, especially in online learning environments, remains to be seen. Problem-based learning approaches have been shown to have value for teaching critical thought, and communities of practice have demonstrated value for coaches developing their knowledge with regard to solving complex problems. Because we were in the midst of a course redesign, we were at an appropriate point to experiment with a new approach to teaching online. Given our desire to teach reflective practice and provide students with a more idealized community of practice, we created an assignment that merged a problem-solving approach with a community of practice approach, which we termed problem-solving group assignments (PSGAs). Grounded in the literature, this manuscript will detail our design of this course and assignment, its implementation, outcomes of the assignment, a discussion of the assignment’s contributions to student learning, and considerations for future course and assignment redesigns.
Course and Assignment Design Process Course Context The course was Psychosocial Bases of Coaching, a credit-based course that students may take toward a certificate in coaching, housed in the Online Master of Arts in Education (offered through the MSU College of Education). The course covered topics related to sport ethics, coaching philosophy development, psychological principles of coaching, and performance enhancement techniques. The course had four main objectives: (a) gain scientific and best-practice knowledge in the areas of coaching philosophy, ethics, and psychology; (b) develop the skills and abilities to apply that knowledge to maximize athlete performance and well-being; (c) be able to employ problem-solving and ethical thinking skills; and (d) value and know how to use scientific and best-practice knowledge to become a more effective coach. A major emphasis throughout instruction was for each student to adapt knowledge for use in their own coaching context, primarily through the use of reflective thinking (Schön, 1987). The two authors of this paper served as instructors for this course. The first author served as a teaching assistant and assumed an administrative role (e.g., design of course interface and learning materials, communication with students, delivery of tests and quizzes), while the second author assumed a content production and assessment role (e.g., determination of course content, preparation of video lectures, assessment of major course grades). The two instructors worked together to determine appropriate pedagogical and technological methods to accomplish learning objectives.
Evaluating an Online Problem-Based Group Learning Strategy 229
Participants Twenty-two masters and doctoral students (16 males, 6 females; ages 22–60) comprised the student roster. The majority (n = 17) lived in the same time zone as the university (Eastern). These students coached a broad range of sports (e.g., tennis, hockey, swimming, football, basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, strength and conditioning). The level of athletes coached varied widely as well, with four developmental (under 10 years old) coaches, one age-group level or middle school (ages 11–14) coach, seven club-level or high school (ages 15–18) coaches, nine intercollegiate coaches, and one professional-level coach. Students were deliberately sorted into small groups (n = 3–4 students) based first on their coaching contexts, as research has demonstrated that grouping and educating coaches based on shared sport coaching contexts may be more effective than grouping coaches by years of coaching experience (Gould et al., 2012; Werthner & Trudel, 2006). Within these small groups, we attempted to maximize the amount of age and gender diversity whenever possible.
Design of the Assignment There were four problem-solving group assignments (PSGAs) during the course, but for the sake of clarity, this manuscript will focus exclusively on one PSGA. Using the TPaCK framework, the two instructors devised a simple method to address the content, pedagogy, and technology concerns of implementing the assignment. The first step was to determine the relevant content to be addressed and reinforced; in this case, we wished to address the complexities of athlete motivation. To emphasize the need for students to adapt course knowledge to specific contexts, we developed a scenario where a team of coaches was taking over a mediocre program where athletes showed substantial levels of complacency. This scenario deliberately included several nuanced problems (e.g., formation of cliques, talented athletes who did not want to work hard in practices) that would push students to draw upon related course content in their solution to the problem. The pedagogical approach was designed to fit two broader objectives: the use of a community-of-practice and the use of a problem-solving approach to apply course content to a specific context. To accomplish these objectives, we designed an assignment that would require students to work in their small groups to diagnose the problems presented in the scenario, discuss how these problems could be solved by applying theory learned during the course, and then craft a solution to the problem. The students presented the results of their discussion (their diagnosis, their application of theory, and their specific solution) in the form of a brief paper (approximately six pages, double-spaced). While the process of diagnosing the problem and devising a solution was carried out through participation from all group members, the responsibility of writing the final paper would fall to
one student in the group. We planned four PSGAs, with the intention that each group member would write the final paper at least once. Given that students were working remotely, technological considerations for this assignment were crucial to its implementation. The instructors saw a value in synchronous online communication (i.e., communication that takes place with all group members present at the same time), because that would allow for coaches to share ideas, respond to the ideas and critiques of others, and work toward a shared solution in real-time, much the same as it would happen in a face-to-face class. Although we encouraged students to make use of videoconferencing programs (e.g., Google Hangouts), we defaulted to a low-technology solution that would enable students to connect synchronously online. This low-tech solution came in the form of EtherPad, a lowbandwidth freeware program that was hosted locally on the MSU College of Education server. EtherPad is little more than a chat room, in which each user’s text is color-coded for clarity. We generally defaulted to low-technology solutions in planning the technological features of this course to minimize the amount of student and instructor time devoted to overcoming technological difficulties. Although we valued the process of group collaboration, a goal of this assignment was to determine if having a group product that counted significantly toward the student’s final grade would be sufficient to drive meaningful participation and collaboration in the group process in the absence of deliberate participation and facilitation of group process from course instructors. We felt that the final grade for the assignment would largely reflect the amount of effort that was put into the group process.
Delivery of the Assignment To explain the assignment, we created a rubric, a brief video outlining instructor expectations and best practices for group interaction, and a brief instructional video for operating EtherPad. The assignment was introduced through the course management system, supported by sufficient e-mail contact from the instructors to the students. Group assignments can often be fraught with problems, so to ensure that groups abided by best practices, we employed a high degree of management with the first PSGA; we asked groups to meet a set of deadlines for establishing contact with their group members, for deciding on group member roles and responsibilities, and for agreeing on a time to meet. The group leader was instructed to e-mail the instructor with appropriate progress reports on these decisions. The level of management was reduced for the remaining PSGAs. We asked group members to assign specific roles and responsibilities (e.g., planner/organizer, group leader, writer) rather than to divide work equally. With four PSGAs over the course of the semester, each student would serve as the group’s writer (i.e., the person who wrote the final paper) at least once.
230 Driska and Gould
Assessment Assignments in the PSGA category accounted for 20% of the course grade, with a total of four PSGAs. Thus, 20% of each student’s grade was determined through a process that involved substantial group interaction. Although the instructors intended for students to complete four PSGAs throughout the course of the semester, the final PSGA was removed due to concerns regarding student workload. The instructors assessed each group’s paper on a percentage scale for the degree that it successfully used a motivation theory to explain and diagnose the problem, the degree to which students understood the theory of motivation they had employed, the degree to which that theory was used to devise a proper and feasible solution to the problem, and the use of specific examples to elucidate the proposed solution.
Outcomes The results will be presented in two sections. First, we will examine the results of the learning product by comparing the characteristics of student papers that scored higher versus those that scored lower on the final grade. Second, we will examine the process results, including an analysis of one group’s EtherPad discussion, our implementation of this assignment, and student perceptions of the assignment.
Product Results Groups that scored higher showed that they understood the theory of motivation that they chose to apply to diagnose and solve the problem. For instance, one group clearly explained that the problem had arisen because the coaches had not successfully addressed player’s three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—an application of selfdetermination theory (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Mallett, 2005). Higher scoring groups also provided much more extensive examples of what they would do to solve the problem. For instance, the group that applied the three basic needs from self-determination theory provided three ways in which they could increase athlete autonomy, which ranged from giving athletes simple choices between two different sets of agility drills to involving players in the process of setting team rules and expectations. Groups that scored lower provided incomplete examples and showed less evidence that they had thought through their solutions. For instance, one group suggested promoting player autonomy by increasing player decision-making power over practices one day a week, but provided little explanation of specifics, such as which players would be able to make this decision. Lower scoring groups also applied theories incompletely (e.g., discussing and addressing athlete autonomy, but not addressing competence or relatedness) or attempted to use multiple theories to explain the problem (e.g., achievement goal theory and attribution
theory), which presented a level of complexity that was well beyond the scope of this assignment. Higher scoring groups integrated concepts that were presented earlier in the course (e.g., goal-setting, team cohesion), showing evidence that they had learned how these principles and practices could be applied in context, and explained the specifics of how they would employ these techniques. Lower scoring groups did not use concepts previously taught in the course, thus not showing evidence that they had been able to integrate these concepts into a solution for a more complex problem. Instead, in more than one case, a lower scoring group borrowed practical examples of techniques or strategies that had been implemented by well-known coaches and documented in the popular sport media. While borrowing coaching techniques and strategies is an acceptable coaching practice, the techniques that were proposed had not been passed through a filter of a motivational theory, thus they were not theoretically guided. Furthermore, these groups did not tie these coaching practices they had obtained from sport media to the course content and motivational theory. We had hoped to see more evidence that groups had thought through their solutions and anticipated potential problems that could throw their solution off-track. While some groups acknowledged they would need to monitor the team’s response to the solution and adjust accordingly, neither the higher-scoring or lower-scoring groups showed much evidence that they had discussed potential roadblocks. It should be noted that the assignment rubric did not specifically request that the paper should discuss anticipated roadblocks to the proposed solution.
Process Results Analysis of One Group’s EtherPad. The EtherPad
discussion contained over 4,500 words and was shared with the instructors willingly, without request. The group members started by framing the problem, discussing all of the specific problems that the team was experiencing, and clarifying the specific nature of the problem. This is strongly akin to the practice of problem setting, an essential component of reflective practice (Schön, 1987). In looking for an explanation of the problem, the students discussed the four major motivational theories presented in the course (i.e., self-determination theory, achievement goal theory, attribution theory, flow theory), presenting their understanding of the theory and taking preemptive guesses as to whether this theory could explain the problem being experienced in the scenario. After significant discussion, the group arrived at applying self-determination theory. They presented knowledge of self-determination theory from the course video lecture on the topic, the self-determination theory website (www.selfdeterminationtheory.org), and the course textbook, and then went through a process where they matched the tenets of the theory to the specific problems presented in the scenario, thereby attempting to use the theory to explain the problems outlined
Evaluating an Online Problem-Based Group Learning Strategy 231
by the scenario. They discussed several potential solutions through the lens of self-determination theory, borrowing significantly from examples provided in the course textbook. After discussing all of these potential solutions, the group came to consensus regarding if they were ready to ship this solution to the group writer. The tone of the conversation was generally friendly, open, and accepting of new ideas. Assignment Implementation. There were few
problems in the design and administration of the assignment, with few student questions regarding the assignment. Significant scaffolding was used in the implementation of the first PSGA, and all groups met the deadlines for communicating their progress and completed the final assignment on time. Given that group progress proceeded without problems, this scaffolding was removed for the second PSGA, which we believe caused a decrease in the quality of the group process (e.g., groups meeting for the first time too close to the assignment deadline), as well as in the final product. In addition, while the course originally prescribed four PSGAs, the fourth PSGA was removed because the instructors felt that it would take student’s attention away from the final term paper (which had a competing deadline). Despite the fact that administration of these assignments did not go as planned, the assignment showed unique potential as a means to generating meaningful reflection among the coaches in the course. Student Perceptions. A variety of student responses to this assignment were obtained informally, through e-mails, informal conversation, and the MSU Student Instructor Rating System (SIRS). Although these responses were not collected formally, they are offered here as our best approximation of student response to the assignment, in an effort to provide some exploratory information on this assignment’s value. The largest source of stress regarding this assignment was that one member of the group would prepare the final paper, but the grade for that paper would be assigned to the entire group. Although the instructors considered that students would be anxious regarding this policy, it was implemented to hold all group members accountable for a productive group meeting. Despite the fact that individual members of a group are held accountable for their group’s output in many professions and that group work is generally a fact of life, it was apparent that this approach created higher than expected levels of anxiety. We had very little communication from students in the course regarding student difficulties with group cooperation. Based on previous experience implementing group projects, however, we know that many students do not discuss group cooperation difficulties with instructors until after the course has been completed. In retrospect, it would have been useful to collect more data regarding student perceptions of this assignment, such as their accounts of the group process and collaboration with their peers, or their beliefs about the assignment’s ability to promote critical and reflective thought. While
the university instructor rating system provides some measures of student satisfaction, it tells us very little regarding student perceptions of specific assignments. Extensive and granular data on student perceptions could provide instructors with valuable tools by which to make pedagogical and technological decisions.
Discussion Our purpose in the development of PSGAs was to employ specific technological and pedagogical practices that would enable coaches to work in a community of practice to solve a problem, with the intent that this assignment would develop reflective practice skills and a greater understanding of content knowledge. The outcomes from this assignment were mixed. Although we experienced few technological limitations, it was apparent from reading the papers of all groups that the depth of discussion, problem-solving, reflection, and mastery of content varied significantly between groups. This has led us to reflect on our implementation of this assignment and to find better ways to enhance the reflective process for all students in this course. This learning experiment sheds some light on the nature of how coaches problem-solve, and the role of theory in guiding the problem-solving process. Theories of motivation may serve as a lens through which appropriate motivational strategies may pass. The learning products of this assignment (the six page paper) clearly showed that having a stronger understanding of theories of motivation enabled a group to then apply that theory and devise a solution that was more feasible and proper, which also supported our belief that theoretical knowledge can be used to guide and inform reflective problemsolving. The work of higher scoring groups demonstrated that a better understanding of the motivational theory led to more appropriate efforts to diagnose and solve the problem. The work of lower-scoring groups showed less adequate understanding of motivational theory, less extensive diagnosis of the problem, and the application of techniques and strategies that they borrowed from other reputable coaches. Thus, there was an apparent need for all students to increase their content knowledge in the course before engaging in the problem-solving and reflection process. The converse to this observation is that the problem-solving and reflective process might make it apparent to the student that he or she has a need to learn more. The degree of reflective thinking that this project induced, assessed indirectly by examining the learning product, appeared to be moderate. Through the examination of the EtherPad discussion of one group, it was apparent that group spent an extensive amount of time engaged in problem setting. However, the process of thinking through a solution or plan of action was not clearly observed in any of the students’ work. A potential explanation for the lack of thinking through solutions could be that students often foreclose on solutions without requisite critical analysis of the potential outcomes
232 Driska and Gould
of those solutions. Another explanation for the lack of thinking through solutions could be much simpler; the assignment did not explicitly ask the students to show evidence that they had thought through their solutions. In our experience teaching online courses, we have found that verbatim interpretations of assignment rubrics, with few requests for clarification, are more common online than in face-to-face courses. The ability to informally elaborate and expound on assignment expectations, often in response to student questions, is almost ritualistic in face-to-face courses, but these opportunities do not spontaneously occur in asynchronous, online courses. Thus, spending time addressing student questions and clarifying expectations might need to become a deliberate and planned activity. We were quite relieved by the fact that students reported very few limitations on their abilities to connect with each other and collaborate as a small group. We preferred the option of synchronous group communication, because we felt that it came closer to simulating the level of engagement that is typically demonstrated in a synchronous face-to-face class discussion. There may also be value in asynchronous communication between group members, in that it can promote flexibility and convenience (two of the big reasons students take online courses), but also because it allows ideas to be processed more slowly and deliberately when compared with a rapid-fire conversation. In the case of problem-based learning, rigorous asynchronous communication may give users more time to develop critical responses, and may give students who are hesitant to jump into a conversation a larger and more influential voice than they would otherwise have. The major issue that arose during the administration of this assignment was the concern of some students about being graded individually for work completed in a group. We wish to point out that this problem is nothing new to many educators, as it typically arises for group assignments in face-to-face classroom environments. While these student concerns about being graded for group work are valid, they do not warrant the wholesale removal of group work from the pedagogical design of this course. American educational institutions trend toward individualist methods of teaching and learning, and are fixated upon measuring learning in the head (e.g., individualized tests and assignments), rather than assessing learning that occurs between the members of a group (e.g., group discussion and reflection). Removing group learning assignments from courses could bias the course in favor of students who thrive in an individualist approach to learning, and would also ignore the reality that group assignments can increase the degree of learning for many students. Group work is a reality of working life in many occupations, and educators have a duty to prepare students for group work in their coursework. Accountability measures could encourage productive group behavior and would allow instructors to find a balance between individualist in the head learning and collaborative methods.
We had hoped that through putting a premium on the product of a group assignment that we could influence more deliberate engagement in the group process than we had previously observed in online courses, and thereby promote deep and intentional reflective practice to help make the course content more applicable to each coach’s own context. It is clear to us that although our experiment increased the amount of deliberate engagement in the group process, the reflective process may require more facilitation and direction from us as the course instructors. Ultimately, if the process of learning to reflect matters, this will require that we allocate more of our instructional time to teaching this process. Finding ways to engage with students during the process of reflection would shift our assessment approach from summative means (i.e., measure the product) to formative means (i.e., assess the process and intervene as needed). These formative means of assessment typically appear in face-to-face graduate courses and would be acceptable for an online graduate course. Formative assessment might occur by having an instructor participate in a group discussion using EtherPad, through videoconferencing methods, or through individual meetings with students to help them grasp the reflective process. Establishing course prerequisites that require all students to have the software and technological skills that enable video conferencing would more closely approximate the discussion held in a faceto-face course. Despite shifting to a formative approach to assessment, we still see a need to assess a student’s contribution to the group process, potentially through a blinded peer evaluation of group members’ contributions to the group process. Finally, we wish to address a paradox that we have encountered as we have adapted to teaching online. When teaching online, as opposed to a faceto-face environment, we have been unable to observe and receive immediate feedback from students as we instruct, which has made it difficult to know how well students understand the content that we present. To overcome this shortfall, we have generally implemented mini-reflections (e.g., reflective journal), or other small assignments that students complete after they watch an online video lecture. These reflective assignments require a demonstration that the content conveyed was both observed and, more importantly, comprehended. The paradox is the amount of assessment and grading required by this approach. Although these assessments are necessary to ensure that students are maintaining progress and are comprehending course content, these types of assignments require timely feedback, and it was unfortunately too easy for us to fall behind in our grading. Grading fatigue and even burnout occurred by the end of the semester. This led us to reconsider both the type and number of assignments we might implement. Assignments that contribute to lesser (but still important) course objectives, such as basic comprehension of course content, might receive less of our attention, or become automated through the use of computer-graded online quizzes.
Evaluating an Online Problem-Based Group Learning Strategy 233
Although seldom discussed, it is our experience that instructor motivation needs to be considered when teaching online. We enjoy face-to-face teaching primarily because of the personal bonds we are able to form with our students and the feelings of fulfillment when we can directly observe them struggling, learning, and developing. It is difficult to experience these interactions when teaching an online asynchronous course, which can decrease instructor motivation. To remedy this state of affairs, we might employ face-to-face electronic conferencing with students to build a more personal connection with each of them.
Future Assignment Redesigns Similar to our approach during the design phase of this assignment, we employed the TPaCK framework to guide our reflection on how this assignment helped us to meet course objectives. On the whole, technological issues did not restrict the implementation of this assignment; rather, pedagogical constraints related to the lack of interaction between students and instructors presented the most dilemmas for us as instructors. To a smaller degree, the problems that traditionally plague group projects (e.g., unequal contributions from all group members, group grading) also created some friction in this assignment. First, to address student concerns about being graded for work completed by their peers, but also to retain the value of group collaboration, we might embrace a group process/individual product approach. Students would continue to employ a similar group problem-solving process, but each student would be accountable for producing his or her own written product detailing solutions to the problem. To hold students accountable for contributing to the group process, we could employ peer evaluations that influence a student’s grade. A second approach would continue to use the process of group problem-solving to resolve a complex scenario that unfolds over the course of the semester, rather than three separate assignments that address three unrelated problems. Pedagogically speaking, this might have more power to teach the reflective process. As the course came to a close, students could reflect on how their problemsolving skills evolved over the course, and how the introduction of new content knowledge in the course might have influenced how they investigated and diagnosed the situation. By extending the number of weeks that students were involved in the group problem-solving process, this would provide more time for the instructor to get involved in the process, which would then provide an opportunity for the formative assessment of student learning. This would also help to address the issue of student groups foreclosing on solutions too quickly, without properly engaging in the process of problem setting. Despite the fact that formative assessment methods are probably more aligned with the principles of teaching reflective practice, they also require a greater amount of the instructor’s time. Relative grade weights ought to reflect the depth of instructor involvement in the assessment and
learning process. During the design phase of the course, we were guided by the maxim that what gets measured gets completed by the students (i.e., the assignments worth the greatest percentage of the overall grade would draw the greatest amount of effort and attention from the students). Because we placed a large measurement emphasis on the term paper (unrelated to the PSGAs) and course exams, student attention flowed to these assignments. However, the reflective PSGAs probably had the greatest potential to induce reflective thought. Thus, if we intend for students to value and practice reflective thought processes, as well as contribute to the group problem-solving process, a corresponding realignment of course grade values might be a third consideration. A fourth consideration involves prioritizing reflective practice throughout the course, beginning with the stated course objectives. Embedding video interviews of active coaches discussing how they engage in reflection and reflective practice might provide valuable modeling to the students. Our final consideration was that we did not collect much data about how student attitudes, skills, and behaviors regarding reflective practice changed over the course of the semester. To evaluate how students evolve over the course of the year, we might employ some measures of reflection, or incorporate mid-semester and end-of-semester evaluations that assessed student development with regard to reflective practice, either through a survey instrument or open-ended questions.
References Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2008). Clarifying the concept of communities of practice in sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 1–10. doi:10.1260/174795408784089441 Erickson, K., Bruner, M., MacDonald, D., & Côté, J. (2008). Gaining insight into actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(4), 527–538. doi:10.1260/174795408787186468 Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). Framing the construction of coaching knowledge in experiential learning theory. Sociology of Sport Online, 1–6. Retrieved from http://physed. otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2i1/v2i1s2.htm Gould, D., Lauer, L., Driska, A., Moyer, M., Bean, E., & Johnson, D. (2012, June). Using coaching education to help save intercollegiate Olympic sports: The NWCA coaching leadership program example. Paper presented at the National Coaching Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Jones, R.L., & Turner, P. (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: Can problem-based learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 181–202. doi:10.1080/17408980600708429 Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
234 Driska and Gould
Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883–904. doi:10.1080/0264041031000140374 Mallett, C.J. (2005). Self-determination theory: A case study of evidence-based coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 417–429. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spiro, R.J., & DeSchryver, M. (2007). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea, and when it’s the only idea. In T. Duffy & S. Tobias (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 106–123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and coach education. In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 516–539). London: Sage. Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2006). A new theoretical perspective for understanding how coaches learn to coach. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 198–212.
