Content uploaded by Howie J. Carson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Howie J. Carson on Oct 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
This is a pre-proof corrected manuscript, as accepted for publication, of an article published
1
by Human Kinetics in International Sport Coaching Journal on 22nd October 2016, available
2
online at: http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/pdf/10.1123/iscj.2016-0037
3
4
5
6
Metacognition and Professional Judgment and Decision Making in Coaching: Importance,
7
Application and Evaluation
8
9
Loel Collins*, Howie J. Carson and Dave Collins
10
Institute for Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Loel Collins, Institute for
27
Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK, PR1 2HE. Email:
28
lcollins2@uclan.ac.uk.
29
2
Abstract
30
Previous research has emphasised the dynamic nature of coaching practice and the need to
31
consider both individual performer needs and necessary contextual trade-offs in providing
32
optimum solutions. In this regard, a Professional Judgment and Decision Making framework
33
has been suggested to facilitate an optimum blend of actions against these complex and
34
dynamic demands. Accordingly, we extend this work and address recent calls for greater
35
focus on expertise-oriented assessments, by postulating on the aspirant/developing coach’s
36
capacity for and development of metacognition (i.e., active control over cognitive processes)
37
as a ‘tool’ within the reflective process. Specifically, we propose that metacognition enables
38
essential active cognitive processing for deep learning and impactful application, together
39
with construction and refinement of useable knowledge to inform coaching decisions.
40
Metacognition, therefore, helps to contextualise knowledge provided in training, further
41
optimising the experience, particularly before certification. Finally, we exemplify how
42
metacognition can be developed in coaches through the use of cognitive apprenticeships and
43
decision training tools; and evaluated via a series of observed coaching episodes, with
44
reasoning articulated through pre and postsession interview. Despite challenging traditional
45
competency-based approaches to coach education, we believe that a considered mixed
46
approach represents a vital next step in further professionalising sports coaching.
47
Key words: Assessment; Coach education; Development; Expertise; Training
48
49
3
Metacognition and Professional Judgment and Decision Making in Coaching: Importance,
50
Application and Evaluation
51
Coaching practice is recognised and demonstrated as a dynamic process (e.g.,
52
Abraham & Collins, 2011b; L. Collins & Collins, 2012, 2015; Martindale & Collins, 2012).
53
Such work highlights the need to consider both individual performer needs and contextual
54
trade-offs in providing optimum solutions. For example, despite a coach predominantly
55
working to develop long-term performance, they might deviate from this approach to give a
56
short-term boost to confidence at the expense of skill retention (i.e., a trade-off).
57
Consequently, the ability to respond quickly and efficiently to selected, or preselected,
58
subsets of factors is a crucial skill for any coach.
59
Influenced by the practices of other professions, a process of Professional Judgment
60
and Decision Making (PJDM) has been suggested within the sport psychology and coaching
61
literature, to facilitate an optimum blend of actions against such demands. This process,
62
involving reflection during coaching (in action; Schön, 1983), post coaching activity (on-
63
action; Schön, 1983) and by creating time within the coaching session/process for reflection
64
(on-action/in-context; L. Collins & Collins, 2015; Schön, 1987) has, to date, been implicit
65
within these suggestions. As such, this Insights paper extends these ideas by postulating on
66
the requisite cognitive skills for a coach to employ a PJDM approach and, consequently, the
67
implications for training and evaluation.
68
Successful operationalisation of the PJDM process relies on a coach’s declarative
69
understanding of ‘what needs to be done’ (e.g., blocked practice to generate a rapid
70
performance gain or random practice to promote better long-term retention and transferable
71
skills) which, in turn, cyclically links back to their intentions (Abraham, Collins &
72
Martindale, 2006); in short, knowing why particular action(s) should be taken in response to
73
the multifactorial demands of a situation (cf. Winter & Collins, 2015). Of course, knowing
74
4
how to enact those decisions is also important. We suggest that integrated application of the
75
what, why (declarative knowledge) and how (procedural knowledge) of a PJDM approach are
76
facilitated by metacognitive skills. Specifically, metacognition underpins the ability for
77
reflection in-action, on-action and on-action/in-context, enabling the essential consideration
78
and weighing up of alternative coaching options within the PJDM process (Cruickshank,
79
2013). Crucially, such reflection supports coaches to recognise and address novel or complex
80
problems while coaching. By addressing the coach’s capacity for and development of
81
metacognition, we aim to stimulate thought and debate within this developing avenue of
82
research.
83
Such concepts will apply across most, if not all, sports; since the PJDM process is
84
apparent between different contexts (e.g., open vs. closed skill sports), levels of challenge
85
(e.g., practice vs. competition) and within different environments (e.g., indoor vs. outdoor).
86
However, our interests lead to a particular focus on Adventure Sports Coaching (ASC); a
87
hyper-dynamic environment that is especially demanding on coaches’ ability to make
88
effective decisions (see L. Collins & Collins, 2012, 2015; L. Collins, Collins & Grecic,
89
2015). Accordingly, the paper is presented in two stages: (1) we introduce and explore
90
metacognition as a ‘tool’ within the reflective process and (2) we propose how metacognition
91
can be trained and evaluated in developing/aspirant coaches.
92
Metacognition and Reflective Thinking within the PJDM Process
93
In part, the practical success of a PJDM framework relies on a coach’s understanding
94
of the situational demands (Abraham & Collins, 2011a). However, less attention has been
95
directed towards coaches knowing how to apply aspects of their knowledge, that is, the
96
process of translating theory into practice. In offering a potential solution, Abraham and
97
Collins (2011b) proposed that PJDM requires a process of nested decisions that are
98
developed via nuanced in-action, on-action and on-action/in-context reflective processes.
99
5
Inevitably, therefore, alternative actions are always generated, contextualised and critically
100
considered against intended outcomes when using this approach. Working without reflection
101
could explain why coaches sometimes make suboptimal decisions based on heuristic
102
constructs from personal experience (Collins & Collins, 2016b). In other words, Naturalistic
103
Decision Making processes are potentially weakened by the coach’s lack of breadth and
104
depth in experience (Klien, 2008; Lyle, 2003). Accordingly, it would appear essential that
105
coaches develop metacognitive skills as a necessary adjunct to increasing declarative
106
knowledge (Abraham & Collins, 2011a), if they are to safeguard themselves against such
107
potential pitfalls associated with narrowly formed heuristics or ‘recipe coaching’.
108
When considering the scope of metacognition, Kruger and Dunning (1999) argue that
109
“the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills
110
necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one’s own and anyone else’s” (p. 1121).
111
Indeed, Kruger and Dunning’s findings imply that those metaskills, including metacognition,
112
are an important aspect of a coach’s performance evaluation. Crucially within ASC,
113
understanding one’s own coaching and personal ability has safety implications and
114
developmental impact (Collins & Collins, 2012). The highly-dynamic coaching environment
115
in adventure sports, coupled with the inherent risk and requirement for the coach to engage in
116
the adventure activity, means that the coach must comprehend the interaction between the
117
task, environment and participant (L. Collins & Collins, 2016a). In summary, Kruger and
118
Dunning suggest that knowledge used to produce coherent judgments about a situation is the
119
same as that which underlies the ability to recognise good judgment.
120
Action, reason and deliberation are central to the Aristotelian notion of phronesis
121
(practical wisdom). The judgements that are required to exercise practical wisdom, link the
122
capacity to deliberate, evaluate and take action in a practical way. The constant audit of the
123
coaching process (D. Collins, Collins & Carson, 2016; L. Collins & Collins, 2016b) includes
124
6
an evaluation of the decision making process, itself a metacognitive process. Indeed, these
125
skills are well suited to the complex coaching environment and presumably, if they can be
126
articulated can also be taught. Fenichel and Eggbeer (1990) described this process of
127
enacting phronesis as “the ability to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason”
128
(p. 21); notably, this quote has become increasingly synonymous with wisdom and is
129
similarly utilised in the educational domain. In this regard, we can describe phronesis as
130
good judgment (the how), which differs from the knowledge of coaching (the what) and
131
could be considered a metaskill. Crucially, however, Claxton and Lucas (2007) proposed
132
that merely being taught to think is insufficient, being taught to think well is most
133
appropriate. With these distinctions in place, it is worth exploring the mechanisms which
134
underpin thinking well as opposed to thinking per se (cf. cognition and metacognition), if we
135
are to encourage an adaptive, flexible and creative coaching workforce.
136
In applying effective decision making within a PJDM framework, we suggest that
137
metacognition is used to operationalise the knowledge generated by coaches’ reflective
138
process. Consequently, this enables the modification of existing schema and generation of
139
new versions through a multilooped comparative audit in which current experience and
140
potential coaching solutions are contrasted and considered (Collins & Collins, 2013). This
141
adaptation and generation of new, accessible and internalised schemata allows the coach to
142
be adaptive, flexible and creative in response to situational demands as they unfold. In short,
143
coaches become capable of accurately selecting and activating an optimum behaviour from a
144
broader repertoire under naturalistic conditions; that is, a heuristic for adaptive expertise (cf.
145
de Oliveira, Lobinger & Raab, 2014).
146
More specifically, metacognition utilises both analogous and metaphoric dimensions
147
to problem solving. Using analogies, the coach is able to create understanding through a
148
contextual relationship between the known and the newly experienced coaching scenario (cf.
149
7
Carbonell, 1985) and, from this, to select a best fit rather than optimum solution which, in
150
turn, may be adapted in situ (adaptability and flexibility): for example, linking a carved turn
151
on skis with a carved turn in a kayak, when a kayaker is on skis for the first time. When
152
encountering novel and/or poorly defined challenges, the coach reconceptualises the
153
challenge in a metaphoric way by aligning the experience more broadly with a range of
154
known strategies and approaches, considering the challenges in a more thematic, or
155
principled, manner; as shown when asking a skier to “crush a grape under your big toe” to
156
encourage use of an edging with a ski. Font, Bolite and Acevedo (2010) proposed that such
157
metaphoric thinking would enable coaches to anticipate, solve and address the novel
158
problems that are encountered in dynamic environments. In both analogous and metaphoric
159
thinking, however, there is a requirement for a higher level of contextual thinking skill that is
160
fundamental to the PJDM process, namely metacognition. The coach processes the flow of
161
information in each coaching situation (micro level), at an intervention level (meso) and
162
programme (macro) level. Metacognitive capacity allows the coach to better organise,
163
prioritise and make accessible (e.g., the metaphoric or analogous strategies) newly
164
constructed or adapted information across long-term timescales, in this capacity
165
metacognition improves the flow of information.
166
Despite this seeming advantage towards designing high-level practice, Collins,
167
Collins and Carson (2016) identified that metacognition cannot always be articulated by the
168
coach. Such inability raises concern over how the coach could communicate such nuances
169
while training or mentoring others. In order to act as a coach educator therefore, an ability to
170
consider and apply necessary decisions from reflections on-action/in-context (e.g., when
171
facing new situations or the need to implement trade-off decisions) becomes a critical skill; in
172
simple terms, an ability to provide a commentary of one’s own metacognition in practice.
173
8
The need for metacognitive skills in coach educators is, therefore, an important aspect of
174
coach education (cf. Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
175
Metacognition is also important because it enables the active cognitive processing that
176
is essential for deep learning (Claxton & Lucas, 2007; Schön, 1987) and application,
177
construction and refinement of useable knowledge. Metacognition helps the coach to
178
contextualise the knowledge acquired in training, further optimising the experience between
179
training and certification by providing the tools for reflection and supporting the
180
developmental aspect of professional practice. As such, we now address how metacognition
181
might be developed and assessed by training organisations (e.g., national governing bodies)
182
when implementing a PJDM framework within coach education.
183
Developing and Evaluating Metacognition within the PJDM Process
184
A PJDM focus in coach education would need to be in concert with the developments
185
of an expertise focus for evaluation (EFE) of coaching practice. Furthermore, education and
186
evaluation would need to reflect the appropriate synergy of skills required in the coaches’
187
role. Realistically, and despite recent criticisms of competency-based approaches (see
188
Collins, Bruke, Martindale & Cruickshank, 2015), some aspects of the coach’s performance
189
will be suitable for competency focused assessment methods. These are essentially the
190
components of the coaching process (e.g., equipment setup, maintenance, aspects of safety),
191
the essential content which often has a right or wrong catagorisation, while an expertise-
192
oriented assessment would measure the interactional and decision making aspects of
193
coaching in practice; a situation where shades of grey solutions (or ‘it depends’) are more
194
appropriate. In simple terms, our proposal here is not for an either/or approach, but that
195
current competency-based approaches, best utilised for specific and stereotypic skills, ought
196
to also emphasise an expertise-based approach for the complex situations such as coaching.
197
A mixed assessment strategy in which competency and expertise foci coexist clearly offers a
198
9
more valid and reliable assessment of requisite skills. Accordingly, the PJDM tools (e.g.,
199
metacognition, reflectivity, adaptability and flexibility) will need to be understood by
200
educators and coaches; they will need to know how knowledge interacts between these
201
various factors and demonstrate an ability to articulate and utilise them. Therefore, coach
202
educators should be skilful coaches and educators who can articulate the dynamics of the
203
coaching process.
204
Reflecting the teaching of PJDM, this would need to identify flexible, as opposed to
205
repeated, mental processes (cf. our earlier conceptions of metacognition). In turn, these
206
require developing coaches to plan, explain and evaluate their own thinking and learning in
207
addition to their coaching. Both Bolton (2010) and Moon (1999) identify that nonroutine,
208
open-ended learning tasks involving a degree of uncertainty serve to encourage higher quality
209
thinking and metacognition. This approach may be challenging for coaches or training
210
programmes that encourage a routine or proceduralised process. Indeed, recent study
211
suggests that firmly fixed beliefs in one solution can counter the acceptance and
212
implementation of others, even when the alternative is proven to be more efficacious
213
(Yarritu, Matute & Luque, 2015). Accordingly, the shift towards PJDM enables learners to
214
construct meaning, make judgments and produce multiple solutions to new or unique
215
problems and to challenge doctrine and dogmatism; all promoted perhaps by a greater
216
tolerance, acceptance or even pursuit of productive ambiguity. As such, upfront selling and
217
gaining long-term commitment to this approach will be essential as a fundamental
218
requirement for intentional, goal-directed change of well-established behaviours (cf. Carson
219
& Collins, 2011; Prochaska, DiClemente & Norcross, 1992).
220
Crucially, explicit pedagogies associated with the teaching of metacognition and
221
PJDM must ensure that the learning transfers beyond the context in which it is taught. In
222
turn, this must be supported by suitable theoretical underpinning, metacognitive ability,
223
10
curriculum design, delivery materials, an explicit epistemology, pedagogy and infrastructure.
224
In particular, an educational environment in which these skills are valued and demonstrated
225
as elements of expert practice, a shift towards an adaptive notion of expertise. Notably, this
226
may necessitate some focused work on broader coach and coach educational cultures before
227
it can be achieved (cf. Cruickshank & Collins, 2012; Stoszkowski & Collins, 2012).
228
Metacognitive Approaches in Coach Education
229
Addressing the combined tuition of practical and cognitive performance elements, the
230
constructivist approach of a cognitive apprenticeship (CA; Collins, Brown & Newman, 1987)
231
offers one pedagogic mechanism to this learning. In practice, using approaches such as CA
232
exposes the implicit processes associated with performing complex skills. In doing so, the
233
CA approach focuses on articulating and identifying the tacit processes within the
234
complexity, encouraging students to observe, identify and practice them with help from the
235
tutor coach. For example, the decisions associated with selecting and placing an anchor
236
while rock climbing provide opportunity for such an approach. CA requires the learner to
237
consciously engage in the cognitive aspect of the process, be motivated to learn and to
238
accurately reproduce the cognitive and motoric aspects of the skill. Adding ecological
239
strength to such practice, the activity being taught is modelled in a real-world context
240
utilising explicit coach–trainee interactions. Following this, situated cognition (A. Collins et
241
al., 1987; Godden & Baddeley, 1975) then aids the development of metacognitive processes
242
by assisting at the skill level just beyond what the learner could accomplish themselves; that
243
is, the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
244
To exemplify how a CA may be achieved in the sporting context, consider Vickers’
245
(2007) decision training model. Indeed, this model reflects a sophisticated epistemological
246
position (Schommer, 1994) that accepts the integrated nature of practical and cognitive
247
performance. It may also align with concepts such as Christensen, Sutton and McIlwain’s
248
11
(2016) mesh theory that advocates a motoric and cognitive aspect to performance and
249
learning. Both Vickers’ decision training model and Christensen, Sutton and McIlwain’s
250
mesh theory provide a pragmatic integration of cognitive and motoric aspects of performance
251
and offer an alternative to purely technically-focused syllabi. Such approaches may allow the
252
integration of PJDM into both the education and practice of the coach.
253
Staying with the constructivist paradigm, problem-based learning strategies focus on
254
engaging learners in a process of collaborative and self-directed inquiry (Jones & Turner,
255
2006). Here, the role of the teacher is to guide, facilitate and challenge the learning process
256
rather than strictly provide knowledge. Accordingly, learners are presented with an authentic
257
problem and, through discussion within their learning group, prior knowledge is used to
258
address the problem; thus formulating a shared mental model to explain the problem (Ojala &
259
Thorpe, 2015). This framework, on which students can construct knowledge relating to the
260
problem, is managed by the coach educator. Following the generation of a shared mental
261
model, students work independently in self-directed study to research the specific aspects of
262
the problem. Finally, the students re-group to discuss and refine their initial explanations
263
based on what they learnt. As such, students are agents in this socioconstructivist process in
264
which meaning and interpretations of the world are based on experiences and interactions;
265
learning becomes a continuous and lifelong process. Identifying a suitable line through a
266
white water rapid prior to allowing a group to paddle it provides an opportunity with a group
267
of trainee coaches. In this case, the problem is to descend the rapid in a safe and controlled
268
manner with a group. Students are allowed to inspect the rapid, individually, prior to
269
developing a strategy for descent that draws on their previous experiences. Then, the trainee
270
coaches share each possible approach and construct a shared mental model to descend the
271
rapid. After paddling the rapid the strategy is reviewed by the team.
272
As another possible method, transformative teaching strategies address psychological
273
12
and behavioural characteristics in an attempt to alter a learner’s perspective relating to an
274
experience of activity from fundamentally rational and analytical positions (Taylor & Collins,
275
2016). The approach focuses on altering the learner’s philosophy by challenging the
276
underlying premises of their perspective. Facilitating such understanding is the goal of a
277
transformative approach and, in that respect, develops autonomous thinking. Mezirow
278
(1997) describes the construction of dilemma by providing options and forcing a choice by
279
the learners. In this way the teacher can facilitate transformation. Transformative
280
approaches have value in the coach education process: For example, Taylor and Collins
281
(2016) highlight a transformational approach in addressing a novice coach’s epistemology,
282
transforming a naive epistemological position towards a sophisticated position (Schommer,
283
1994).
284
Clearly, the development of metacognition plays a pivotal role in these approaches.
285
However, an important aspect must also be considered, that of the right approach in the right
286
place at the right time alluded to earlier. We have advocated that a single approach to
287
assessment is flawed and we must, de facto, extend such observation to teaching approaches
288
(Collins, Collins & Willmott, 2016); this seems to simply strengthen the need for
289
metacognition in both coaching and coach education practice.
290
An EFE process (and the professional development which accompanies it) could
291
potentially be the nature of the decisions that accompany and drive the adaptability,
292
flexibility and creativity within the coaching process, not just the coaching tools. Aligning
293
the philosophy of coaching, education and assessment within the scheme becomes
294
imperative; in this context, a coaching philosophy that values and reflects adaptive expertise.
295
This philosophical position would be aligned with a core of declarative knowledge and
296
declarative skill. This differs from presenting basic techniques for instruction; the emphasis
297
becomes to construct the fundamental techniques from these declarative elements.
298
13
Throughout the educative process, the explicit interaction between declarative elements is
299
illustrated and articulated (i.e., the PJDM process). This would be achieved via a reduction in
300
the instruction of basic content in favour of declarative content, metacognitive skills and
301
PJDM to utilise and operationalise that knowledge. Thus, the focus of assessment becomes
302
how and why we teach, rather than solely the what; the situation which exists at present in
303
competency-based assessments.
304
What could an Evaluation of Adaptive Coaching Expertise look like?
305
A variety of different approaches exist, although all (we suggest) would incorporate
306
some form of questioning on the whys of decisions taken. For example, the evaluation of
307
adaptable coaching skills could be assessed via a series of observed coaching episodes, with
308
reasoning articulated through pre and postsession interview. In simple terms, the coach is
309
asked to overtly discuss the reasoning through which decisions were reached, what
310
alternatives were considered and under what circumstances such alternatives would have
311
been used (cf. the big five approach; Collins et al., 2015). To enhance validity, both coaching
312
session and interview could be recorded, the footage being used to assist in stimulating the
313
coaches’ recall of the session and the audio to form part of a professional development log.
314
Encapsulated within this concept would be the need to generate a constantly learning coach,
315
with an improvement in thinking skill, sophistication and practice being expected at each
316
assessed session. Evaluation would extend over a series of nonlinked sessions in which
317
preplanning, adaptation of that plan and its underpinning rationalisation can be articulated.
318
Indeed, distributing sessions has been shown to facilitate more accurate judgments of
319
learning; that is, metacognition (cf. Dail & Christina, 2004). To avoid the potential for post
320
hoc rationalisation of actions, consideration could be given to developing the reflective
321
process as an articulation of the coach’s internal dialogue (not unlike the commentary
322
provided in advanced driver training, blue light response training or those training in
323
14
emergency care). Noninterventionist approaches to assessment may be challenged by such a
324
notion and some would argue that this influences the coaches’ performance and that the
325
assessment is compromised. However, the focus of evaluation is not to measure performance
326
in that instance but rather, to evaluate the rate and nature of development, the individual’s
327
trajectory of development. Consequently, evaluation and feedback would initially be largely
328
formative, a mentoring process or the CA approach highlighted earlier, then developed to a
329
point at which the trainee is operating with full autonomy. Alongside development in the
330
metacognitive aspects of performance, developments in practice should be observed and
331
greater autonomy demonstrated by the coach.
332
Alignment between the desired learning outcomes (adaptive expertise) and delivery
333
(declarative knowledge and skills, PJDM (reflection and metacognition)) would need to be
334
matched with a suitably skilled workforce of trainers, examiners and quality assurance.
335
Indeed, the nuances of coaching and educative practices may differ such that an expert coach
336
may not philosophically be an effective or skilled coach educator.
337
The use of case study approaches and constructing case formulations (Martindale &
338
Collins, 2012) is another way in which the nested nature of planning may be evaluated. This
339
would be particularly relevant from Level 3 upwards (based on the current UK Coaching
340
Certification formulation of levels) as coaches’ decision making becomes increasingly
341
layered; as per the first example presented at the start of this paper. The point here is that, as
342
the timespan of the coaching relationship extends, there is an inevitable need for long-
343
(macro) and short- (micro) term decisions to increase in coherence. As above, metacognition
344
on these levels is essential if such longer-term relationships (which characterise higher
345
performance contexts) are to be optimised. These considerations notwithstanding however,
346
we would suggest that there is strong merit in introducing elements of EFE at the earliest
347
stages of a coach’s education journey. The sense that ‘it depends’ is the correct answer to
348
15
many elements of the coaching process is an important consideration; not one that should
349
suddenly appear at a specific level.
350
Conclusion
351
In this paper we have explained how coaches could develop the metacognitive skills
352
required in adaptive and flexible coaching situations. We proposed that a mixed assessment
353
could be employed to evaluate coaching. Developing metacognition alongside declarative
354
knowledge and skill presents a contrast to more proceduralised notions of coach education
355
and coaching. In this context, universal employment of competency-based approaches does
356
not cater for the often complex reality of coaching and, we suggest, is leading to suboptimal
357
professional standards. As such, we anticipate that adopting a mixed approach will foster and
358
encourage adaptive expertise alongside competency, but with challenge, since the perception
359
of performance is, in itself, influenced by a lack of metacognition. However, through our
360
ongoing systematic, considered and applied-focussed research, we believe that this is a
361
necessary next step in the development and further professionalisation of sports coaching.
362
16
References
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011a). Effective skill development: How should athletes’ skills
be developed? In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards (Eds.), Performance
psychology: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 207–229). Oxford: Elsevier.
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011b). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching
science. Quest, 63, 366–384. doi:10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687
Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation
through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 549–564.
doi:10.1080/02640410500189173
Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice, writing and professional development. London: Sage.
Carbonell, J. G. (1985). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving
and expertise acquisition (1534). Retrieved from Carnegie Mellon University
Computer Science Department:
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2533&context=compsci
Carson, H. J., & Collins, D. (2011). Refining and regaining skills in fixation/diversification
stage performers: The Five-A Model. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 4, 146–167. doi:10.1080/1750984x.2011.613682
Christensen, W., Sutton, J., & McIlwain, D. (2016). Cognition in skilled action: Meshed
control and the varieties of skill experience. Mind and Language, 31, 37–66.
doi:10.1111/mila.12094
Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2007). The creative thinking plan. London: BBC Books.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the
craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN
Laboratories, Cambridge, MA: Centre for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.
17
Collins, D., Burke, V., Martindale, A., & Cruickshank, A. (2015). The illusion of competency
versus the desirability of expertise: Seeking a common standard for support
professions in sport. Sports Medicine, 45, 1–7. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0251-1
Collins, D., Collins, L., & Carson, H. J. (2016). “If it feels right, do it”: Intuitive decision
making in a sample of high-level sport coaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 504.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00504
Collins, D., Collins, L., & Willmott, T. (2016). Over egging the pudding? Comments on
Ojala and Thorpe. International Sport Coaching Journal, 3, 90–93.
doi:10.1123/iscj.2015-0068
Collins, L., & Collins, D. (2012). Conceptualizing the adventure-sports coach. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 12, 81–93.
doi:10.1080/14729679.2011.611283
Collins, L., & Collins, D. (2013). Decision making and risk management in adventure sports
coaching. Quest, 65, 72–82. doi:10.1080/00336297.2012.727373
Collins, L., & Collins, D. (2015). Integration of professional judgement and decision-making
in high-level adventure sports coaching practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33, 622–
633. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.953980
Collins, L., & Collins, D. (2016a). Professional judgement and decision-making in adventure
sports coaching: The role of interaction. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34, 1231–1239.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1105379
Collins, L., & Collins, D. (2016b). Professional judgement and decision making in the
planning process of high level adventure sports coaching practice. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, Advane online publication.
doi:10.1080/14729679.2016.1162182
18
Collins, L., Collins, D., & Grecic, D. (2015). The epistemological chain in high-level
adventure sports coaches. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15,
224–238. doi:10.1080/14729679.2014.950592
Cruickshank, A. (2013). Case study 1: A Professional Judgement and Decision Making
(PJDM) approach to consultancy with an elite junior judo player. Sport and Exercise
Psychology Review, 9, 15–23.
Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012). Culture change in elite sport performance teams:
Examining and advancing effectiveness in the new era. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 24, 338–355. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.650819
Dail, T. K., & Christina, R. W. (2004). Distribution of practice and metacognition in learning
and long-term retention of a discrete motor task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 75, 148–155. doi:10.1080/02701367.2004.10609146
de Oliveira, R. F., Lobinger, B. H., & Raab, M. (2014). An adaptive toolbox approach to the
route to expertise in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 709.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00709
Fenichel, E., & Eggbeer, L. (1990). Preparing practitioners to work with infants, toddlers
and their families: Issues and recommendations for educators and trainers.
Arlington, VA: National Center for Clinical Infant Programs.
Font, V., Bolite, J., & Acevedo, J. (2010). Metaphors in mathematics classrooms: Analyzing
the dynamic process of teaching and learning of graph functions. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 75, 131–152. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9247-4
Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural
environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325–331.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x
19
Jones, R. L., & Turner, P. (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: Can Problem-
Based Learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11, 181–202.
doi:10.1080/17408980600708429
Klien, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, 456–460.
doi:10.1518/001872008X288385
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties recognising
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self assessments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British
Educational Research Journal, 29, 861–878. doi:10.1080/0141192032000137349
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2012). A professional judgment and decision making case
study: Reflection-in-action research [Special issue]. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 500–
518.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 1997, 5–12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401
Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice.
London: Kogan Page.
Ojala, A.-L., & Thorpe, H. (2015). The role of the coach in action sports: Using a problem-
based learning approach. International Sport Coaching Journal, 2, 64–71.
doi:10.1123/iscj.2014-0096
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people
change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102
20
Schommer, M. A. (1994). Synthesising epistemological belief of research: Tentative
understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–
319. doi:10.1007/BF02213418
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stoszkowski, J., & Collins, D. (2012). Communities of practice, social learning and
networks: Exploiting the social side of coach development. Sport, Education and
Society, 19, 773–788. doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.692671
Taylor, W. G., & Collins, L. (2016). Jack Mezirow: Transformative learning in coaching. In
L. Nelson, R. Groom , & P. Potrac (Eds.), Learning in sports coaching: Theory and
application (pp. 150–160). Abingdon: Routledge.
Vickers, J. (2007). Perception, cognition, and decision training: The quiet eye in action.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winter, S., & Collins, D. (2015). Why do we do, what we do? Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 27, 35–51. doi:10.1080/10413200.2014.941511
Yarritu, I., Matute, H., & Luque, D. (2015). The dark side of cognitive illusions: When an
illusory belief interferes with the acquisition of evidence-based knowledge. British
Journal of Psychology, 106, 597–608. doi:10.1111/bjop.12119
