Mejora en las búsquedas

Considering the ‘evident need’ for an NDM/CDM balance based on the ideas presented here five principles become evident;

I. Coaching environments encompass pedagogical, social and socio-political contexts that require decisions to be made, where possible against ‘external criteria’, on how to interact with and influence (and be influenced by) various stakeholders.

II. NDM (or at least good NDM) grows out of off-line pre-mortems, cognitive experimentation (c.f. Schön, 1991), critical planning, debriefs and reflections which consider critically what did and didn’t work and which feeds into the next NDM situation. In short, NDM is ‘grown’ by off line debate, practice and thinking, with this thought being both situation-specific and generic. As such professional development programmes will need to offer such opportunities if these skills are to be developed and transferred. This will require a shift in the formal coach development practice.

III. The environment must employ CDM and NDM at different times and under different circumstances (e.g. in strategic long term versus annual versus session planning). However, this ‘blend’ is almost never 100% CDM or NDM. IV. This ‘blend’ principle applies to all components of the coaching environment,

although other constraints will determine the balance for any particular challenge.

V. Irrespective of whether CDM or Rule Based NDM is employed, it should wherever possible draw on formalistic knowledge sources that are embedded within a rich experientially grounded mental model.

The basis of the model in Figure 2.1 is that coaches engage in nested thinking, (an idea originally offered but unexplored by Abraham et al., 2006) where decisions taken at a micro level are embedded (nested) within medium term agendas which

themselves are linked to (nested within) longer term aims. As such, naturalistic

decisions are explicitly linked to decisions taken at a more classical level when time is available to think through ideas. This acknowledges the following principles;

• that the balance of classical to naturalistic decision making changes as a result of the environment and the level of thinking time likely to (or that at least should) exist. It also acknowledges the political, social and pedagogical demands;

• that the knowledge required to think and operate at each level changes in subtle ways from more formalistic sources of declarative knowledge to more interventionist formalistic procedural rules to reflect the demands of the situation;

• that tacit and substantive knowledge use is inevitable but that the focus should be on formalistic knowledge wherever possible;

• that this approach reflects a feed forward critical thinking process and a critically reflective feedback process so that the whole process is dynamic and flexible.

2.11.1

The Socio-Political-Strategic Level (Macro)

Reflecting these principles, coaches should critically consider the required strategic socio-political goals of their work: for example, defining key educational and health goals for the children’s coach, defining retention, transition/progression skill

expectancies for the talent development coach, or managing upwards on performance expectations for the performance coach. Once these are identified, further parameters include who will need to buy into them, how they are communicated and who they will need to be communicated to. In taking this stance, coaches can be proactive in developing a socio-political environment that meets their needs rather than just ‘tolerating constraints’ that they have had no input to and/or control of. Indeed, operating at this level of policy making is seen as being a vital component of being a ‘professional’ by Downie (1990). Given such planning is fundamental to achieving long term goals, I suggest that this should be a predominantly CDM process to which a good deal of time should be allocated. However, this does not mean that there won’t be some element of NDM occurring; this is inevitable in any form of planning process. Furthermore, as a result of critical reflection, quick changes to long-term plans may be needed.

2.11.2

The Socio-Tactical-Motivational Level (Meso)

Once the Macro level of goal setting and planning is agreed, the coach can then begin to work towards goal setting and planning for the socio-motivational and tactical environment that will be required for macro goals to be achieved. While this level of planning would likely focus on developing the environment required to support athlete development and/or achievement, it can equally focus on creating the right

environment for parent and assistant coach buy in. If self-determination is so important for intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008) then the self-determination of all those with an active involvement in enabling the development of athlete needs to be planned for (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002; Weigand, Carr, Petherick, & Taylor, 2001). It is here that

I believe annual planning for athletes fits since the major goal of this approach is to develop self-determination and ownership for the athlete; it also allows for coaches to consider optimal methods for engagement. The tactical element of planning here is not necessarily just about approaches to game play but is inclusive of hitting important performance and development markers that ‘evidence’ progress to anyone with a vested interest. It is interesting to note that this ‘correct environment’ approach is a typical marker of excellence in teaching where specific plans address the initial rigors of teaching new classes so that more meaningful relationships with students are established within agreed behavioural guides (Fink & Siedentop, 1989). Once again, I suggest that this process needs to be a predominantly CDM process where ideas are challenged and thought through by active agents (coaches and senior players for example). Since this level of planning is closer to the realities of practice it will probably be more influenced by day to day reflections, necessitating a NDM process that tweaks goals as progress is reviewed.

2.11.3

The Idio-Tactical Level (Micro)

Finally, the micro level of planning and delivery directly reflects an approach focused on implementing meso targets. Typically working with individual athletes and/or groups of athletes focused on sport specific targets this can also be with significant others in meetings and day to day interactions. At this level, coaches are obviously expected to respond to situations as they arise, so NDM becomes much more prevalent. However, as a result of taking a nested approach and premorteming possible challenges, the coach is better prepared to both make naturalistic decisions and more able to

recognize when a heuristically made decision may be too biased and needs some level of externally referenced critique. It is here that coaches really start to learn how to cope with the ‘swampy lowlands’ of practice because they are able to learn the difference between expert heuristic NDM and novice heuristic guess work.