Google AI a noté :
Dafotec Récupération De Données

Le 2025-04-21 12:38:38

Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings Kevin R. Lou West Virginia University, krl0018@mix.wvu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons, Psychology Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons Recommended Citation Lou, Kevin R., "Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings" (2023). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 12214. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/12214 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu. Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings Kevin R. Lou, M.S., M.A. Dissertation submitted to the College of Applied Human Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology Jack Watson II, Ph.D., Co-Chair Valerie Wayda, ED.D., Co-Chair Scott Barnicle, Ph.D. Matthew Campbell, Ph.D. School of Sport Sciences Morgantown, West Virginia 2023 Keywords: learning theories, qualitative, coaching, sport psychology, education Copyright 2023 Kevin Lou Abstract Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings Kevin Lou The purpose of this study was to identify how integrating learning theories into the design of a formal university course helps facilitate students’ resources, goals, and orientations (Schoenfeld, 2011) of learning theories for their future career work in coaching, sport psychology consulting, or other sport-related professions. Sixteen students signed up for a fifteen-week fall semester course at a Mid-Atlantic university in America and were asked to annotate, create, and reflect upon examples of future work in their desired fields for their three major written assignments in the course. Students reflected on their learning experience through pre-and-post semistructured interviews and most stated that they benefitted from the way the course was designed with learning theories in mind and that it helped their understanding and application of learning theories. Results showed large increases in resources associated with learning theories, changes in goals from being ego-centric to learner-centric and shifts in orientations to recognize how helpful learning theories could be to participants’ future careers. Future directions include increasing the number of face-to-face meetings each week, making this course available for Master’s level students, and improving clarity around the definition of orientations shared with participants from Schoenfeld’s framework (2011). Practical implications include adding learning theories courses to sport-related programs which could increase the quality of the work that coaches, sport psychology consultants, and other sport-related professionals will engage in with their athletes after taking a learning theories course. Keywords: learning theories, qualitative, coaching, sport psychology, education LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS iii Acknowledgements I could not have undertaken this journey without my advisor and (former) chair of my committee, Dr. Scott Barnicle, for his guidance, support, and help throughout this entire process. It has been a long five and half years but I am happy to say that we reached the finish line after all the ups and downs together. I am also grateful to my current co-chair of my committee, Dr. Jack Watson, for all your help and support over these five and half years. Although more recently, it has become more hands on, I have always felt that you were there to support me throughout my time at West Virginia and to that I am very grateful. I would also like to thank my other co-chair, Dr. Valerie Wayda, for being a support throughout this journey as well and for being the only person left on my committee who is still in the department. I would like to thank you for your time and support even from when I first came to you with this idea. I would also like to thank Dr. Matthew Campbell for being willing to guide me through this qualitative journey. It has been a wonderful last three years working with you and learning how to conduct qualitative research from never having done it before. I always appreciated your time and weekly calls! I would like to thank the person who first took me on and gave me a job when I moved to Morgantown when I had thought I had missed all GTA deadlines and gave me the inspiration for this project in the first place, Dr. Malayna Bernstein. There was a big hole when you left WVU but I am proud to say that I saw this project through to the finish line and was able to put what we talked about into reality. I would like to thank Megan Hut for her time and support through not just this qualitative project, but my qualifying project as well. Thank you for your time and support throughout both projects and I couldn’t have done all this without you! I am eternally grateful for your qualitative and editing support! I would also like to thank Kristen Bowman, David Lerner, Joe Wargo, and Matthew DiFonzo for all their time and help with my research. I also wouldn’t have been able to make all this happen without you. Thank you to my sixteen students who trusted me to go on this semester-long journey with me. It was your curiosity, eagerness, and engagement that made teaching a course for my dissertation possible and I had a joy showing up each week getting to work with you all. I know you all will do well in your futures! I would like to thank my cohort members (Karly and Andrea) and all my friends and colleagues that I met while in Morgantown at WVU. My life and five-year experience wouldn’t have been the same without you all and the bonds made and time spent together have helped me get through the tough times but also made me the person and professional I am today and I couldn’t have done it without you all. Thank you to my mom (Emily), my sister (Sophia), and my dad (Chad) for their support over all these years. I don’t think we all knew what was going to happen when I moved from a block from the beach in San Diego to Morgantown, West Virginia but after five and a half years, I am happy to say I did it! And last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my partner, Ashley, for all her time and support throughout this process. When we first met, this project had just barely started and what a journey it has been to go through all this together. I couldn’t have done this without your love and support, and I can’t wait to see what the future has in store for us! LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS iv Table of Contents Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings ........................1 Learning Theories in Sport-Related Professions ................................................................................1 Learning Theories in Formal Sport-Related Course Settings...............................................................3 Methods............................................................................................................................................7 Design............................................................................................................................................7 Positionality Statement...................................................................................................................7 Setting ...........................................................................................................................................9 Participants....................................................................................................................................9 Data Collection Instruments ..........................................................................................................10 Assessments from the course.............................................................................................................10 Individual interviews...........................................................................................................................10 Quantitative objective self-report scales in interviews......................................................................12 Weekly journals...................................................................................................................................12 Instructor logs.....................................................................................................................................12 Procedures...................................................................................................................................13 Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................13 Data Analyses...............................................................................................................................13 Results.............................................................................................................................................14 Increases in Resources ..................................................................................................................14 LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS v Discussion........................................................................................................................................24 References.......................................................................................................................................72 Appendix A: Positionality Statement..................................................................................................32 Appendix B: List of Semi-Structured Interview Questions....................................................................45 Appendix C: Written Assessment Rubric Example ...............................................................................32 Appendix D: Syllabus ........................................................................................................................39 Appendix E: Review of the Literature .................................................................................................46 Learning Theories in Education ......................................................................................................46 Learning Theories in Physical Education .........................................................................................49 The Sport Coaching Profession.......................................................................................................50 Sport Coaches’ Various Roles.........................................................................................................52 Coach as a Performer..........................................................................................................................53 Coaches as Counselors........................................................................................................................55 Learning Theories in Coaching Education........................................................................................56 Applied Strategies of Learning Theories.............................................................................................56 Learning Theories in Sport Psychology ...........................................................................................61 Learning Theories in Athletic Training ............................................................................................66 Learning Theories in Physical Therapy ............................................................................................67 Learning Theories and Positive Youth Development........................................................................68 Conclusion and Future Directions ..................................................................................................71 LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 1 Exploring the Conceptualizations and Utilizations of Learning Theories in Sport Settings The Evolution of Learning Theories Across Research Fields Learning is often at the core of many daily activities and largely goes unnoticed or done without awareness or intention (Collins et al., 1991; Rumelhart, 1980). Most current research on learning theories resides within the field of education (Woolfork Hoy et al., 2013) as the research emphasis naturally started with youth learning in school settings. Learning theories can be defined as theories that “guide one’s actions in terms of how one goes about learning new skills, knowledge and attitudes” (Wang, 2012, p. 5). Drawing from the field of education, learning theories became more prevalently researched after the turn of the 21st century in the fields of physical education (Light, 2011; Moura et al., 2020), sport coaching (Cushion et al. 2010; Lyle, 2007; Roberts & Potrac, 2014), athletic training (Peer & McClendon, 2002), physical therapy (Jensen et al., 2016), and sport psychology (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2016). Aspiring sport-related professionals can utilize learning theories when developing practices, training sessions, or mental skills sessions by focusing beyond the content of the sport or mental skill, and more on how the concept is introduced and transferred to usable knowledge for the athlete. This relates to Shulman’s (1986) work of identifying the differences between content knowledge (what one knows) and pedagogical knowledge (how to teach that knowledge) and may differ depending on one’s previous experience, education, or role. Implementing learning theories from educational psychology can help sport-related professionals develop pedagogical skills to help athletes learn and improve their performance (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2016). Learning Theories in Sport-Related Professions At their core, learning theories can be helpful tools while to enhance the quality of communication and interaction between sport-related professionals and their athletes. Learning theories can be used by instructors to focus their attention on how their athletes learn in an attempt to LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 2 better convey information in a manner that is most likely to result in learning and skill improvement. In the professions of sport coaching and sport psychology, learning theories have received differing amounts of attention. For sport coaching, as demands on sport coaches increase, so have the number of coaches who have made coaching their full-time profession. As of 2016, there were 276,100 full-time sport coaches in the United States and many more who were volunteer coaches (Fawver et al., 2020). This is an increase of approximately 60,000 full-time coaches over seven years, when in 2009, 217,000 individuals reported themselves to be full-time coaches in the United States (Duffy et al., 2011). Not all, and possibly not even most, of these coaches have received formal coach education. To help coaches draw upon more than just their own personal experience (Lou et al., 2023), learning theories could help coaches provide the best learning environments for their athletes and enhance their training. In previous literature, researchers have explored which learning theories would be useful in the coaching realm. Knowles and colleagues (2005) identified expert and novice coaching differences that are linked to a coach’s critical thinking and decision-making skills. Mesquita and Riberio (2014) identified that reflection is a vital skill to help coaches grapple with new and modifying information. Bowes and Jones (2006) discussed scaffolding, first introduced as an educational concept by Vygotsky (1978), as one theory that could benefit coaches in their work as reflective facilitators to make sense of their own and other’s actions within a particular culture. Learning theories help provide a theoretical basis for coaches to help facilitate information and learning for athletes. Although some current research on learning theories in coaching exists, researchers (Lyle, 2007; Stodter & Cushion, 2016) contend that coach learning research is insubstantial and coach education could be bettered by incorporating more learning theories into formal coach education coursework. On the other hand, in the field of sport psychology, very few studies have examined the use of learning theories on mental skills instruction. Gilbert (2007) wrote an applied article that bridged the gap for coaches and their use of sport psychology concepts when working with teams. Gilbert (2007) LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 3 recommended the use of a 12-week sport psychology curriculum called UNIFORM which emphasized goal setting, imagery, relaxation, and routines. Although not specifically related to learning theory, the researcher recommended a game-plan format, a teaching system, that helped make sport psychology concepts more applicable for coaches to use when working with teams. To evaluate a graduate level sport psychology program, Kraft and colleagues (2021) asked three participants through semi-structured interviews to reflect upon what was helpful to their learning experience. The researchers found that reflection and experiential learning theory were most helpful to the overall graduate sport psychology program experience. Headrick and colleagues (2015) identified that learning and affect would be a fruitful avenue of research to help create the most effective learning environments. Outside of a few research studies, future recommendations have emphasized the importance of continued research in mental skills instruction that incorporates the use of learning theories (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2016). Across the sport psychology and sport coaching fields, some initial research has been conducted, however, more research is needed to identify the impact of using learning theories in practice. Such information would help to design formal coursework to effectively train aspiring professionals in these fields. Learning Theories in Formal Sport-Related Course Settings In sport-related professions, there have been some initial studies that have examined the implementation of learning theories on formal course design. In sport coaching educational programs, students often learn in formal settings (coach education courses and certifications), informal settings (knowledge acquired from personal experiences and social interactions), or semi-formal settings (conferences, clinics, seminars and workshops provided to coaches; Pope et al., 2015). However, in the United States, “one of every three youth sport coaches have been trained in sport skills or tactics and fewer than one in five are trained in effective communication techniques” (Fawver et al., 2020, p. 240). Coaches are not typically required to complete or attain a certain level of education, experience, or LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 4 certification and if they are mandated to complete any training, it is usually related to first aid safety and safe sport training, but this varies by state and league (Fawver et al., 2020). In a review of literature conducted by Cushion and colleagues (2010), coaches generally believed that formal learning opportunities are overwhelming with the amount of information taught at once and that theories that are provided in an abstract way do not seem relatable to their practices. Cushion and colleagues (2010) found that only one study as of 2010 had investigated formal learning implications on coach development and that many approaches to coach learning were without a focus of how people learn. Jones and Turner (2006) did investigate how problem-based learning was used in a formal course setting for eleven undergraduate coaches over the course of a semester in the United Kingdom. The course was split in half including groups of students assigned to work with each other and getting a problem to work through in their groups. Problem-based learning entails students grappling with realistic and problematic scenarios to challenge thinking and potentially be used in future similar situations (Jones & Turner, 2006). The students provided reflection and participated in semi-structured group interviews as the researchers used continuous observation throughout the course. The researchers found that students started to think differently about coaching after being in the problem-based learning intervention and recommended that future research could help coaches with their learning, transfer knowledge, and create effective practices. These calls to action provide rationale for a formal learning theories course structured around how people learn in sport related academic programs. Sport psychology researchers have recommended that more focus be placed upon learning theories in the sport performance literature (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2016) and that formal course settings could be improved by offering opportunities to directly apply the theories learned (Ardelean, 2019; Hutter et al., 2017). Sato and Laughlin (2018) implemented Kolb’s experiential learning theory to teach sport psychology theories to nine students using weekly golf-putting tournaments to create sport psychology-based learning situations throughout the course. After the 15-week course, the authors LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 5 found that experiential learning was helpful in teaching students about sport psychology theories like goal setting and imagery. The researchers recommended instructors be more flexible by including more learning theories when teaching sport psychology. Other research has looked at structuring weekly coursework to teach in a formal setting as well. One such study utilized the implementation of a 15- week course focused on sport psychology theories (Aoyagi, 2013). The instructor recommended future courses focus on just one theory a week instead of trying to fit many theories in at a time. Other approaches were used with gamification of the classroom to build learning opportunities (Shipherd & Burt, 2018), an active learning approach to improve engagement in the classroom (Stowe & Whitfield, 2020), and assessing sport psychology students’ employability (Heaviside et al., 2018). However, no other studies have focused on learning theories being implemented into the course design while also being the main course content to improve athlete learning. Within the sport-related fields of physical therapy and athletic training, researchers have assessed the implementation of learning theory into educational curriculum. For athletic training, Gillette (2017) used problem-based learning in a 15-week athletic training course to evaluate its impact upon the learning environment. During this course, problem-based learning was utilized to help provide a framework with which to develop a beneficial and effective learning environment. These researchers recommended educators work to include or incorporate learning theories into their future instruction. In another investigation into pedagogic strategies used in a classroom setting, Mensch and Ennis (2002) identified through interviews students’ and instructors’ perceptions of their educational experiences that case studies, genuine experiences, and creating a positive classroom environment were key to the learning of 21 athletic training students. Similar incorporation of learning theories were done with sociocultural learning theory in athletic training courses (Peer & McClendon, 2002) as well as Kolb’s experiential learning theory in a 15-week athletic training course (Schellhase, 2008). Research has also been conducted to explore the effect of analogy learning, implicit learning, and explicit learning in LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 6 physical therapy settings (Bobrownicki et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2009; Liao & Masters, 2001; Lola & Tzetzis, 2021; Tzetzis & Lola, 2015). Graham (1996) also explored the factors that help develop conceptual knowledge in a 15-week sport-related course and identified that sociocultural elements of group learning, collaboration and cognitive apprenticeship were influential in physical therapy students’ learning. Across the sport-related fields, more studies exist on learning theories in athletic training and physical therapy literature than in sport coaching and sport psychology. Due to the benefits of implementing learning theories into the classroom on student learning and application seen in other fields, it would be beneficial for sport coaching and sport psychology research to explore how engagement with learning theories related coursework could help improve the training of future professionals and move the fields forward. To address these gaps in the literature, this study provided aspiring sport professionals with a formal university introductory course designed by learning theories to help novice practitioners use learning theories in their future work with athletes. Essential Framework for Study Two studies from the field of education were used to frame the current study. The first study, conducted by Schoenfeld (2011), researched teachers’ abilities to make decisions while teaching in the classroom. Through this study, Schoenfeld identified that teachers relied on their resources, goals, and orientations while teaching. When referring to resources, Schoenfeld defined resources as, “his or her knowledge, but also the social and material resources that are available to him or her” (p. 459). This also includes the “knowledge inventory that he or she can potentially bring to bear in a teaching situation” (p. 459). Goals are defined as “things that people consciously or unconsciously set out to achieve” and help the decision-making process as “decision making can be seen as the selection of goals consistent with the teacher’s resources and orientations.” Schoenfeld defines orientations as “beliefs, values, preferences, and tastes” (Schoenfeld, 2011, p. 460). These three categories help provide a framework through which students’ learning will be assessed in this study. Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy is the second LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 7 framework being used to frame the current study. Within this framework, the stages of learning are described as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. This is a very commonly used framework for understanding learning in educational settings and this framework was used in this study to identify how learning could be measured with aspiring sport professionals. The purpose of the current study is to identify how learning theories utilized in the design of a formal course impacts students’ resources, orientations, and goals for their future career work in sportrelated professions. To be clear, the aim of this study is not to identify or prescribe particular learning theories to use over others, but to provide sport-related professionals with an understanding of how people learn and implement learning theories into practice. This study will aim to answer the following research questions: 1) How did students’ resources change over the span of the course for engaging in their work? 2) How did students’ goals change over the span of the course for engaging in their work? 3) How did the students’ orientations change over the span of the course for engaging in their work? Method Design This qualitative study utilized a descriptive single case study design (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The single case in this study focused on a learning theories course offered for fifteen weeks at a kinesiologybased Mid-Atlantic university during the fall semester of 2022. The case study approach offered the ability to chronicle the instructional design of the course, pedagogical decisions made throughout the course, and the students’ learning experience within the course. The descriptive case study design also lent itself to answering “how” questions and being able to describe the intervention in the real-life context in which it occurred (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Positionality Statement The lead author occupied both the role of the main instructor for the course and lead researcher for this study. The lead author had previously taught pedagogical studies courses as a graduate assistant LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 8 within an educational psychology department. As the main instructor and researcher of this study, the lead researcher accounted for his insider positionality by engaging in reflexive journaling to establish transparency and trustworthiness. A single-blind consenting process was also utilized to help eliminate any knowledge of which participants were involved in the research study from the instructor so as not to have an impact upon grading. The instructor used an objective rubric (Appendix A) while grading to help minimize any preferences that were developed with students while interacting with them in class. Instructor logs were also kept reflecting upon decisions about course design and the first author’s positionality statement can be found in Appendix B. Critical friends helped process the data to improve trustworthiness. The second author is a fourth-year Ph.D. student in educational theory and practice who served as a critical friend in the data analyses, bringing perspectives that were distinct from the other researchers. The third author was a senior undergraduate student who helped transcribe interviews and provided support as a critical friend during data analysis. The fourth author is an associate professor in the School of Education who served as a critical friend and mentor of the qualitative framing of the study. Given the nature of the work, the varied perspectives of the members of the research team helped build trustworthiness during data analysis. Regarding an epistemological perspective and theoretical framework, the main researcher primarily aligns with interpretive and constructivist perspectives that the social world is constantly being constructed by group interactions and can be understood through the actors and their own experiences (Creswell et al., 2003). This belief drives the methodology to understand the learning experience of the students and the instructor who both shape the learning environment. To understand how the students’ understanding changed over the course of the semester’s class, interviews were conducted with students both at the beginning and end of the course to examine their learning. This constructivist approach aligned well with the main researcher’s insider positionality as the instructor and researcher, who was a part of the active change of students’ conceptualizations of learning theories. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 9 Setting The course ran once a week for 15 weeks in a hybrid format where readings, interviews, and assignments were distributed and completed online while lectures were conducted in person weekly. Participants were provided with all information about the course and its requirements in a syllabus and students were given an opportunity to opt out of the study or drop the course on the first day. The inperson class lasted two hours weekly and allowed students to engage with the material and provided students with an opportunity to share with one another and how they foresaw using learning theories in their work. The course was adapted from a previously taught Educational Psychology course that was used to teach learning theories to aspiring undergraduate teacher candidates in an education program. Participants Originally, eighteen junior and senior standing students signed up for this learning theories course. However, one student never showed up to class and withdrew from the course while another student dropped the course after not completing any of the assignments. This left sixteen undergraduate students in the course, with each of the students majoring or minoring in sport and exercise psychology. Of the sixteen students, one’s future professional aspirations included being a university professor and another a physical therapist. These students were treated as outliers. Two other students did not complete all the work necessary and were left out of the final participant group of twelve. In total, six students with aspirations of working in coaching and six students with aspirations of working in sport psychology were included in the study (Table 1). To participate in this study, participants needed to: (1) be enrolled in this special topic course, (2) have interest in working in either the coaching or sport psychology profession, (3) be at least 18 years old, and (4) have completed all work required in the course. Screening for the course occurred during the enrollment process as students expressed interest, demonstrated they met the criteria, and understood the goals of the class. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 10 Data Collection Instruments Assessments from the course The main three assessments from the course occurred throughout the semester (Syllabus for course included as Appendix C). The three assessments included 1) an annotation of an example utilized within their aspiring profession that uses learning theories, 2) a created artifact implemented with a group of athletes or with other students as athletes during class, and 3) a reflection of participants’ resources, goals, and orientations of learning theories while implementing their created artifact using learning theories. These written summative assessments were graded according to a rubric (Appendix A) that assessed the participants’ abilities to identify or use learning theories, its disciplinary authenticity, responsiveness to athletes, ability to be athlete-focused, and amount of detail. Individual interviews Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each student, one at the beginning and another at the end of the course, to provide the most efficient use of time. The semi-structured interviews asked questions flexibly while gathering specific data for previously prepared questions but did not have a predetermined order (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the nature of developed relationships over the course of the semester and insider orientation as the instructor, the inclusion of a research team and critical friends with varying backgrounds helped build trustworthiness in the process. T1 interview with students. The initial semi-structured interview served to understand the participant’s history, collect demographic information, student’s aspiring career goals, and their experiences working with athletes. This initial interview helped build rapport with students as these interviews occurred over the first week of class. The interview guide for the initial interview (Appendix D) was adapted from a previous project exploring teacher-coaches’ conceptualizations of learning theories in both athletic and classroom settings (Lou et al., 2023). LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 11 Table 1 Participant Demographics Participant “Name” Year Gender Group Ideal Future Career Goals Majors Minors? Objective Change from Beg to End P3 (Nina) S F SP CMPC & Master’s in Counseling (University Sport Setting) Sport Psych Scholastic Coaching, Human Services & Counseling (2) 0 – 6 P6 (Cathy) S F SP Mental Health Counseling for Clients in Pageants Sport Psych & Exercise Physiology None 4 – 8.5 P7 (Neil) S M SP Applied Sport Psychology Consultant (Cycling) Sport Psych Leadership Studies, Professional Sales (2) 3.5 – 7.5 P13 (Elaine) S F SP Applied Sport Psychology Consultant (Olympics) Sport Psych Nutrition & Food Studies 0 – 8.5 P15 (Bella) S F SP Applied Sport Psychology Consultant (Professional Sport) Sport Psych Human Services, Sport Communication, Communication Studies (3) 2 – 9 P16 (Carlos) S M SP Applied Sport Psychology Consultant (Professional Sport) Sport Psych None 1 – 7.5 P4 (Joe) S M C Collegiate College Basketball Coach Athletic Coaching Education Strength & Conditioning, Sport Psych, Sport Communication (3) 5.5 – 8.5 P5 (Zane) S M C Division I Power 5 Football Coach Coaching Performance Sciences Strength & Conditioning, Sport Psych (2) 1.5 – 7.5 P8 (Elena) S F C Personal Training & Professor Sport Psych Personal Training 4 – 8 P9 (Eliza) S F C Professor & Applied Work with Twirlers Sport Psych Human Services and Addiction Studies 0 – 7 P10 (Trent) S M C Director of Player Personnel & Recruiting for DI Football Athletic Coaching Education Sport Psych & Sport Communication (2) 2.5 – 9 P11 (Cade) J M C Football Coach (Professional) Sport Psych Sport Coaching, Sport Communication (2) 3.5 – 8.5 SP = Sport Psych C=Coaching LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 12 T2 interview with students. The second interview occurred during the last week of the course and operated as an evaluation of students’ overall learning in the course. The semi-structured interview recounted students’ experiences within the course, identified which learning theories they found most applicable to their future career, and identified future settings where they may use learning theories. Questions were more open-ended and asked about student’s understanding of learning theories. Quantitative objective self-report scales in interviews Additionally, as a part of this case study, participants were asked to create objective self-reports in both the beginning interview and end of class interview. Participants were asked to assess their understanding of learning theories on a scale of 1-10 at the time. During the second interview participants watched a 3-minute video clip of how they answered the same question during their first interview prior to answering this question. Answers were included in Table 1. Weekly journals Participants engaged in weekly journal writing activities for each week’s reading. The weekly journal prompted students to pull one quote from the reading, tie the quote to a personal experience where they may have encountered that learning theory, and identify how that week’s learning theory could be helpful in their future work. These weekly journals helped chronicle students’ engagement and metacognition as they read and learned about each learning theory. Instructor logs The instructor kept weekly logs to keep track of explicit decisions about course content and course design. As part of an instructional design approach, the pedagogical decisions made with learning theories in mind helped facilitate students’ learning throughout the course. The instructor logs helped assess if certain pedagogical moves impacted the learning experience for students. In addition, weekly reflexive journaling was included as part of the instructor logs to help increase trustworthiness. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 13 Procedures Recruitment Participants were recruited via convenience sampling. The main researcher asked academic advisors to advertise the course to students. Students were offered course credits in exchange for their participation in the course. After obtaining IRB approval, participants were given a syllabus for the course and were notified on the first day that the information from the course may be used for research purposes. Participants were given an opportunity to opt out of the study or drop the course if desired. This consent process was conducted with the main researcher’s advisor and the students’ consent status was blinded from the researcher until after the course was completed to not bias any grading. Data Analyses Qualitatively, a document analysis process was used to illuminate the experiences of participants shared in the semi-structured interviews and written assignments (Bowen, 2009). The document analysis combed over the instructor logs, semi-structured interviews, and the three major assessments student completed as a part of the course. The main researcher and two critical friends utilized an iterative three-step process for document analysis: skimming, reading, and interpretation, combining elements of both content and thematic analysis (Bowen, 2009). The analysis of the transcripts and the students’ interviews used a three-step process: 1) gaining familiarity, 2) selecting and focusing, and 3) interpreting. After interviews were transcribed verbatim from Zoom, the first step of gaining familiarity included the main researcher and critical friends taking time to read over all transcripts and assignments from each participant. Two critical friends were included in these reviews to help balance any biases. The critical friends helped look over all material collected throughout the course and how the instructor shaped the overall learning experience. The second step of the analysis included the research team selecting and focusing on parts of the interviews and assignments that were meaningful. Analytic questions were developed to help the LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 14 research team as a more practical and actionable extension of the research questions. Using an inductive approach, the research team read over all the data and then utilized an open coding process to answer the analytic questions. As each interview was coded, there were certain themes that provided meaningful moments of information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each member of the research team identified their own open codes and themes to answer the analytic and research questions and brought them to the joint interpretation process. The third step included joint interpretation meetings where the lead researcher and two critical friends met weekly to discuss codes and themes gained from step two. Elements of the interview gleaned multiple themes that were tracked and discussed within the research team. The data were analyzed together to see how conceptions of learning theories changed over the course of the semester. Using this inductive approach, meaningful units were identified through an interpretive approach to data analysis. Results To explore the research questions, Schoenfeld’s framework of decision making (resources, goals, and orientations; Schoenfeld, 2011) and Bloom’s Taxonomy were used to identify the different levels of learning that participants in the course engaged in (i.e., remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, & create; Bloom, 1956). Students from the course identified, either implicitly or explicitly, their stage through their responses in an interview or through their written work on their three major assignments throughout the course. Increases in Resources To answer the first research question (How did students’ resources change over the span of the course for engaging in their work?), the findings indicate a large increase in students’ resources or knowledge about learning theories from when they started the course to the end of the course. The findings of the current study suggest that students’ ability to interplay with learning theories increased LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 15 from just being able to remember learning theories in the beginning of the semester to being able to evaluate and create plans as they moved through the course throughout the semester. Three themes that were discovered about students’ resources include: (1) students’ resources changing from remembering to creating using learning theories through Bloom’s taxonomy; (2) students’ increased resources helping provide confidence as a future professional and (3) improved resources helped identify learning theories from other theories. Remembering to Creating: Changes in Resources through Bloom’s Taxonomy Nina, a senior sport psychology student, who had previous experience with many sport psychology courses, was able to name the sport psychology theory of the inverted U when asked about learning theories. However, during her second interview at the end of the semester, she stated: I don’t think I learned a learning theory until this class, like I’ve learned sport psychology theories, and, like I guess they could apply to learning. But this was actually about learning. Well, I've heard of like schema and stuff like that. But I didn’t know it was a theory, you know. And, yeah, I know the difference between sports psychology theory and learning theory now. This quote demonstrates that after completing the course, Nina was much better able to tell and evaluate the difference between a learning theory and a sport psychology theory. Similarly, Neil, another sport psychology student, also conveyed an increase in resources. When asked about this during his second interview. Neil responded, “being able to see the theories in action. Before that, I had a very academic understanding, and I could probably regurgitate an academic example, but actually getting to see where they would be used in daily life was huge.” Neil’s understanding changed from a regurgitation, which is oftentimes how college students are evaluated through multiple choice tests, to being able to use his increased understanding of learning theories to create and teach imagery to swimmers whom he conducted his second annotated assignment with. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 16 These increases in resources were conveyed not only during interviews, but also through student writing assignments that asked students to annotate, create, and analyze an artifact in their future career field. In an annotation associated with her created artifact, Bella wrote: A major part of pedagogical knowledge is knowing students' zone of proximal development, which is where individual students fall on a learning continuum for a particular task, in this case attentional focus. My students are in the zone of proximal development throughout the entire lesson since attentional focus is a new concept to the class. Different levels of scaffolding are shown throughout the lesson, as I teach the students what attentional focus is and guide them in skills to improve and induce attentional focus. They are not out of the zone of proximal development until learners elicit articulation, by proving their understanding. This quote demonstrated that Bella not only understood various learning theories gained from the course but was able to apply what she had learned to a sport psychology session on attentional focus. With this understanding and awareness of her learners’ zones of proximal development, Bella was able to do a better job of creating and implementing a plan that actively bolstered her athletes’ learning. Changes in Resources Helped Improve Confidence as a Future Professional Students came into the course with different levels of previous knowledge, which was important for the course design to be responsive to. Bella, a sport-psychology student, shared how she used behaviorism, previous to the course, while working at a daycare where they would reward or take rewards away from children based on their behavior. Naturally, with younger children, behaviorism can be a default learning theory to use. As a result of the course, Bella gained self-efficacy and confidence in her ability to work in the sport psychology field: I have more confidence in being able to teach sports psychology. Like before I felt like I had all the content in my brain, but I didn't know how to present it or explain it to anyone. But now I can actually give a description, and I feel like I know what I’m talking about. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 17 In this example, Bella was able to describe her increased confidence compared to the start of the semester when she only had subject matter knowledge. After this course, she believed she had the ability to teach, present, or explain what she knows to athletes better than before. Joe, a coaching student with a minor in sport and exercise psychology, seemed to have come in with more initial resources. In the initial interview, Joe succinctly described the concept of scaffolding as something that he did in his coaching: One thing I've always loved to do in my practice plans when you’re doing a drill is a progression model. I think if you just start with the basic form, you can get more complex as time goes on. So basically, just starting where it's easy and where everybody can understand it, and then moving on to making it more complex. If you’re doing a dribbling drill, start out with the simple form of it and then start to add more combinations to it. It is evident that Joe entered the course with some baseline knowledge about learning theories even though he did not explicitly name scaffolding as a theory he knew. As he self-reported in his first interview, on a scale of 1-10, Joe felt like he came in with a quantified knowledge base of 5.5. As he moved through the course, he was able to improve his knowledge base to 8.5 which is evidenced by his response in his third assignment where students were asked to reflect on their created coaching plan: For my plan, there was a group of athletes that was struggling with the second portion of the drill in terms of how to move around the cones. The first level of support I offered was demonstration of the actions. The athletes still struggled after this instruction, so the second level of support was slowing down the action. After this, the group athletes showed improvement and could complete the drill successfully without me. Finding the zone in which these athletes felt the most comfortable was paramount to their success in the drill. Joe accumulated a good understanding of the Zone of Proximal Development to add to his incoming knowledge of scaffolding and combined these concepts to change goals while executing his coaching LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 18 plan. This level of awareness and thoughtfulness during his coaching is an ideal outcome of Joe’s understanding of how learning theories could be beneficial to his work and increased his confidence to apply this in future settings. Changes in Resources Improved Understanding of Learning Theories from other Theories Eliza, a sport psychology student who had coaching interests, was able to name SelfDetermination theory that is commonly used in motivational research but mistook it for a learning theory in her first interview. Through her learning during the course, Eliza articulated in her second interview how she has a changed understanding of learning theories because of the course: I know what they're called and how to apply them better and make a plan that utilizes them specifically. But yeah, I think I learned what they were called, and I also learned that they're all connected. It's not just one singular thing. It's all connected, and then they all work together to create the perfect plan. Eliza summarizes her change in Bloom’s taxonomy from going from not even being able to remember the learning theories to now being able to understand how multiple learning theories work together. She had characterized her own self-reported knowledge as a 0 initially but at the end of the course Eliza perceived that her knowledge had grown to a 7 on a scale of 1-10. Lastly, in Cade’s final written assignment for the course where students were asked to reflect on their changes in learning theories, Cade was able to articulate: When designing my plan, the biggest resources that I drew upon were implementing my plan with the use of all types of knowledge (pedagogical, curricular, subject matter) … to best convey understanding and to add a purposeful display of information. I also wanted to scaffold the information so that the learners could gradually learn and understand the skill from its very basic to its complex form in a game situation. I found this important, as many of the learners could be from varying skill levels of the sport as a whole, and by starting at its basic and LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 19 scaffolding towards the more complex concept, it allows for growth as a group regardless of the past understanding and skill level of the sport or concept of this particular skill. Cade’s description of his growth of understanding of learning theories was evident as he weaved the various learning theories from the class in his description of what helped him when implementing his coaching plan. Additionally, Cade was able to articulate in his second interview: I think I had an idea about those concepts, but not the specifics of them, and how to apply them. Specifically, for scaffolding I understood, how the building on top of knowledge on top of each other, but I didn't understand how to actually make that effective, and what information to utilize when that was kind of important for me to learn and how I can potentially even use that in my future field now. Cade articulated the difference between understanding the basics of the concepts of learning theories and being able to apply them and utilize them in the work he wanted to do in his future field. The changes in resources that students experienced also helped shape the goals for learning with athletes. Goals Changed from Egocentric to Learner-Centric To answer the second research question (How did students’ goals change over the span of the course for engaging in their work?), the findings indicated that students were able to change from focusing on what they, as the instructor, were doing (egocentric) compared to what their students were learning or experiencing (learner-centric). As a theme, it was found that students tended to change from worrying about what they were doing or trying to achieve to what the learner was going to be able to take away from either the sport psychology or coaching session. For this section of results on students’ goals, results were split by either participants’ interests in being future sport psychology consultants or future coaches as the goals they had in mind while working with athletes were driven by what role they were working towards and what they were trying to accomplish in each session. Students’ previous LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 20 experiences and the course helped build their existing content knowledge while the course also helped students increase their pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986) to fit the goals of their future ideal role. Sport Psychology Group As Elaine, a sport psychology student, was creating a session plan to help gymnasts work through mental blocks while doing a beam routine, she did a wonderful job of articulating her goals for how the learning theory would impact how she was designing her session plan. Elaine says: I wanted to scaffold it up as much as possible because I feel if you start from learning the skill from the basics and get comfortable it will help the athlete feel more comfortable. In my plan I had it organized in levels. As the levels went up, the difficulty did as well. I feel this helped the athlete feel more comfortable doing cartwheels so when they were on the high beam, they would have confidence in their abilities to do a cartwheel. I used scaffolding at the meso-level. Having the plan athlete-focused was my main goal while still asking questions so I could better improve their learning and their abilities to complete the skill. When Elaine came into the course, she was only thinking about what to do as the instructor but now, as evidenced by the quote, Elaine was able to explicitly explain how she used scaffolding as a learning theory to help her athletes as they worked through mental blocks. Similarly, Bella also stated her change in goals for her session plan when creating an attentional focus plan for athletes with physical disabilities. In her third written assignment, she wrote: My goal was to prime students with ideas surrounding attentional focus and initiate thoughts on their focus-abilities. The change in my goal, benefitted my lesson and the students because I was able to add more real-life examples outside of sports, which allowed for an easier understanding of attentional focus and created more opportunities for transfer. The theory I structured my lesson plan around was Vygotsky’s Scaffolding Theory. Furthermore, Bella also talked about how her increased resources in learning theories helped her goals: LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 21 For students to have the ability to transfer their attentional focus skills from activities they enjoy to more challenging tasks or activities. I was able to accomplish this through pedagogical knowledge I gathered on the students before and during the lesson. While implementing the relation to hobbies/interests activity, I thought of Schulman’s types of knowledge and the importance of my own pedagogical knowledge. I used it in the moment by asking the bowlers to share their experience with attentional focus while bowling. I then thought of Jonassan’s ideas of problem-solving while implementing my plan. I used her theory in the moment by setting up a problem of being unfocused. They then solved the problem through the breathing activity and came to this conclusion through the questions I asked, initiating procedural facilitation. In a similar way to how Schoenfeld (2011) describes how math teachers make decisions during their teaching to help meet the goals they have set out for a lesson plan, Bella is able to explicitly identify which learning theories she is aware of or is considering when making decisions during her session plan. In Bella’s initial interview, she was able to name some overlying categories of learning theories due to the first day of class coming the day beforehand. However, throughout the span of the course, it is evident that Bella was able to internalize her understanding of the theories and think of them in the moment when making decisions about her session plan. Coaching Group After Joe created a basketball practice plan, he reflected upon his goal for the session: The main idea and goal I had in mind when creating this plan was to effectively teach defensive technical concepts while steadily increasing the complexity of the task at hand. Increasing the complexity of the tasks allows me as a coach to scaffold my athletes’ learning and tailor the practice plan to their levels of understanding. Once I, as the coach, am able to analyze and determine where my athletes are the most comfortable, skill wise, then I can start to help them improve. Putting the athletes in a comfortable environment gives them a sense of security. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 22 Joe talked about his own learning process in the initial interview when he was faced with a question asking about his goals for utilizing learning theories. But as he reflected upon his practice plan, it became clear that Joe was able to think about how his athletes were going to go through the lesson and conceptualize it in a way that was best for them. Another coaching student, Zane, entered class with some baseline knowledge using a type of coaching method he referred to as the “EDGE method”, which included explaining, demonstrating, guiding, and enabling his athletes while coaching them. Zane talked about how important it was for him to recognize a shift in how he was conceptualizing his goals about coaching: I think [the course] shifted my mindset from more of what I’m teaching to how I teach it. I just knew that athletes needed to know certain things and I talked about a lot at the beginning of the course, about EDGE. But I didn't think there were all these different learning theories that I could use, that could be applied in different settings that could enhance the athletes learning. Zane summarized his takeaways from the course well, shifting from content knowledge to pedagogical knowledge and stated that the course helped provide him with background and knowledge that he could use. Although Zane didn’t talk about “in the moment goal shifts” as Bella did, it seems like his shift was more of a global change and outlook upon how learning theories could be better implemented in his future coaching work. Overall, there were large shifts in goals from the beginning of the course to the end for both groups. This demonstrates the change in some students being able to consider what is best for the goals of their students and how imbedding learning theories influenced their decisions and goals when implementing a session plan. Shift in Orientations To answer the third research question (How did the students’ orientations change over the span of the course for engaging in their work?), the results indicate that students’ beliefs, ideas, and attitudes about learning became more robust and more applicable to their future work. For example, Carlos, a LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 23 sport psychology student, talked about his beliefs and recognition of how helpful learning theories could be to his future work when he asked about how he would design a session plan after the course: Well, designing it now, before I would have, I guess … put things that I would have thought would be helpful to the athletes and I wouldn't have thought about how they would be learning the things. I think I would have just used my own reference before, but now I can use things like scaffolding, which I think is really helpful when working with athletes, especially youth athletes. I think that's super important, with the skill difference and their schemas, and even the transfer to like when, I guess, working with youth athletes, the transfer to their like real-life skills. Carlos talked about how he used to think about learning and how he might have just relied upon his own experience to reference how to help his athletes. But after going through the course, Carlos recognized that he now has learning theories at his disposal to help him better structure and create an environment that best fits the athletes’ learning experience. Nina also shared a shift in her beliefs and attitudes about learning. Nina was able to explicitly share her perceptions of her change when asked about her orientations for learning: Learning is more fluid than I expected if you can engage with the way everyone learns best, which is not always in lecture. Some need activities, some need discussion, some need to face failure or discomfort to understand the importance of learning altogether. I definitely see more of a need to scaffold practices as a coach after seeing the way understanding blossomed when it became impactful personally, starting in a small manner and slowly growing. Nina shared some of her changes in beliefs about learning and how the course was able to help with that shift. The course design was intentionally scaffolded to provide students with a way to first understand the theories, then apply and create their understanding in a created plan and to actually implement that plan with athletes. Walking away from the course, Nina shared that she felt capable of using these learning theories to inform and improve her future. LEARNING THEORIES IN SPORT SETTINGS 24 Cade also talked about a change in his orientation that was similar to the themes from the goals section. When asked to describe his changes in beliefs about learning in the last interview, Cade shared: My beliefs have become more dependent on the learners themselves rather than on the informati