INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
A Bell & Howell information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800:521-0600 THE DEGREE OF CONGRUENCE BETWEEN THOUGHT AND ACTION OF MALE COACHES OF GIRLS' INTERSCHOLASTIC TRACK AND FIELD
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
David Michael Kahan, B.S., M.Ed.
The Ohio State University
1995
Dissertation Committee: Approved by Daryl Siedentop Deborah Tannehill Donna Pastore dviser School of Health, Physical Education & Recreation UMI Number: 9612206
UMI Microform 9612206 Copyright 1996# by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17# United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor# MI 48103 THE DEGREE OF CONGRUENCE BETWEEN THOUGHT AND ACTION OF MALE COACHES OF GIRLS’ INTERSCHOLASTIC TRACK AND FIELD
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
David Michael Kahan, B.S., M.Ed.
The Ohio State University
1995
Dissertation Committee: Approved by Daryl Siedentop Deborah Tannehill Donna Pastore Adviser School of Health, Physical Education & Recreation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to my committee each of whom contributed uniquely and significantly to this endeavor--to my adviser Dr. Daryl Siedentop whose uncanny knack of saying so much in so few words guided my thoughts throughout the research process; to Dr. Deborah Tannehill whose professionalism, structure, and empathy kept me in the race when my pace lagged; and to Dr. Donna Pastore whose collaboration on and supervision of an independent study and related coursework set the stage for this study.
Many thanks to Paula Stebbins who transcribed many hours of audiotapes and to Nancy Knop, who as an assistant embraced the research as if it were her own. A special acknowledgment to Ron and Jon for allowing me to share their coaching lives so intimately.
Finally, without my family and their support, none of this would have ever been realized. To my parents for their unwavering support and guidance from far away and the value of education they instilled in me. To my siblings, Lisa and Yehoshua, for the high standards they set before me that have always inspired me. To Loren and Marilyn for their solidarity, empathy, and paper-trail assistance. And to my wife, Amy, who entered into a partnership that has stood the difficulties of graduate school life and who I now will begin to pay back with interest.
ii VITA
September 21,1967 ...... Born-Los Angeles, California
199 0...... B.S. University of California at Los Angeles
199 1...... M.Ed. University of California at Los Angeles
PUBLICATIONS
Kahan, D. (1995). Coaching females in a coeducational setting: suggestions for aligning beliefs and practices. Scholastic Coach. 64 (10), 100-101.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Health, Physical Education and Recreation Studies in Teacher Education, Professor Daryl Siedentop Studies in Exercise Physiology, Professor Tim Kirby
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii
VITA...... iii
LIST OF FIGURES...... viii
CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Statement of Problem ...... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 6 Research Questions...... 7 Significance of the Study ...... 8 Delimitations of the Study ...... 9 Definition of Terms ...... 11
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...... 13 Gender Issues in Coaching Research ...... 13 Documentation and explanation of the declining numbers of female coaches of girls' sport teams ...... 13 Differences between male and female coaches of girls' teams and characteristics of male coaches of girls' teams. 19 Expectancy Research...... 26 Classroom ...... 26 Physical Education ...... 30 Sport ...... 33 Ecological Research ...... 40 Classroom ...... 40 Physical Education ...... 43 Sport ...... 45 iv III. METHODOLOGY...... 49 Overview of Theoretical Framework ...... 49 Qualitative Method ...... 51 Sampling ...... 51 Subjects...... 52 Settings ...... 55 Entree ...... 57 About the Researchers...... 59 Data Collection ...... 60 Observation ...... 60 Interview ...... 62 Document Analysis...... 64 Data Analysis ...... 65 Early Analysis ...... 65 Later Analysis ...... 68 Trustworthiness...... 71 Transferability ...... 74
IV. FINDINGS...... 75 CASE 1-RON...... 75 Question 1 ...... 75 question 1.1...... 75 question 1.2 ...... 78 question 1.3 ...... 82 question 1.4 ...... 85 Question 2 ...... 91 Ron the instructor ...... 93 Ron as organizer, Ron as planner ...... 97 Ron as psychologist ...... 99 Ron as wit, storyteller, and sidebar participant 103
Question 3 ...... 108 question 3.1 ...... 109 managerial domain ...... 109 instructional domain ...... 117 psycho-sodal domain ...... 131 question 3.2 ...... 140 experiential variables...... 140 contextual variables ...... 143 theme 1-the schism between distance and sprint squads ...... 145 theme 2 -out with the old, in with the new.. 148
CASE 2-JON...... 152 Question 1 ...... 152 question 1.1 ...... 152 question 1.2 ...... 156 question 1.3 ...... 158 question 1.4 ...... 161 interview 1 ...... 161 interview 2 ...... 162 Question 2 ...... 166 drill sequence ...... 173 relay sequence ...... 173 athletic check sequence...... 174 theme 1-coaching errors ...... 174 theme 2-the social and tactile aspects of practice .. 176 theme 3-seeking help and confirmation ...... 178 Question 3 ...... 180 question 3.1 ...... 182 managerial domain ...... 182 instructional domain...... 188 psycho-social domain ...... 200 question 3.2 ...... 207
V. CONCLUSION...... 215 Cross Case Analysis ...... 215 question 4.1 ...... 215 question 4.2 ...... 218 Comparisons to the Literature ...... 222 Comparisons to Theory ...... 226 Recommendations for Future Inquiry ...... 227
LIST OF REFERENCES...... 229 APPENDICES ...... 241
A. University and investigator consent forms ...... 241 B. Team rules handout-Conquistador HS ...... 245 C. Cautions, considerations, and responsibilities handout- Conquistador HS ...... 247 D. Varsity standards handout-Conquistador HS ...... 249 E. Practice plans ...... 251 F. Track and field code of conduct, player rules and responsibilities, and drug and tobacco policy handouts- South-Central HS ...... 256 G. Sample weight lifting log book sheet-South-Central HS . . . . 262 LIST OF FIGURES
Coding system for raw data reduction CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The first pedagogical studies of coaching effectiveness date back to the early to mid 1970’s (Rushall, 1973; Tharp & Gallimore, 1976). These descriptive, observational studies sought to catalogue the practice behaviors of coaches in an attempt to construct a model of coaching effectiveness. Although a number of systematic observation studies were completed in the ensuing two decades in various sport settings (Claxton, 1988; Darst, Langsdorf, Richardson, & Krahenbuhl, 1981; Jones, 1990; Lacy & Darst, 1985; Miller, 1992; Segrave & Ciancio, 1990), no universal model has resulted, owing in part to the non- programmatic approach to studying coaches and coaching (Hastie, 1992; Hastie & Saunders, 1989; Metzler, 1989). Paralleling the methodological evolution of Physical Education-Teacher Education research, several coaching studies in the last several years have begun to look beyond mere descriptions of decontextualized, discrete behaviors; instead situating coaching behavior within the sport ecology created by coach and athlete (Hastie, 1993; Hastie & Saunders, 1989,1992). Building upon an ecological model of coaching is an important next step in the evolution of coaching research—that is to study what coaches do from a qualitative perspective. Ecological study of coaches allows voyeuristic glimpses into sport contexts by giving richer and fuller descriptions of coaching behaviors and their target, timing, and meaning.
1 2
The work dynamics involving coaches of female athletes is another research concentration in the coaching literature that is salient to the present study. Interest in this research area began as a result of the unexpected demographic changes in the work force that resulted from post-Title IX employment patterns. Title DC, part of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, precludes discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational programs and activities. This statute theoretically paved the way for unlimited participatory opportunities for girls in interscholastic sport programs. Indeed, the number of girls participating increased greatly (Hasbrook, 1988), necessitating a need for more coaches. Since prior to Title IX, over 80% of girls were coached by females in several states (True, 1986), it was conceivable that females would continue to coach girls and fill the newly created coaching vacancies. Since Title DC's passage however, the number of females coaching girls' interscholastic sport has plummeted from well over 80% to just below 50% in at least nine states (True, 1986). Ohio, the state in which the present study was conducted, showed a 43% decrease in the number of females coaching girls from 1974-75 to 1990 (Stangl, 1990). This decline in the percentage of female coaches in girls' sports has gone hand-in-hand with an increase in the number of girls participating in interscholastic sport, which in 1993-94 reached an all- time high of 2.1 million girls (NASPE, 1995 reporting NFSHSA statistics).
The second most popular girls' sport by number of teams and participants is track and field with a reported 14,000 teams and 345,000 individuals. Although, no known data concerning the number of males coaching girls’ track at the interscholastic level exist, intercollegiate data obtained at both national (Acosta & Carpenter, 3
1992) and state (Baumann & Pastore, 1994) levels, suggest that males significantly outnumber females as coaches of girls' interscholastic track teams. Stangl (1990, p.5) characterized the general disparate gender employment pattern in coaching girls in Ohio as "bad news", while Knoppers (1989) and Whitaker and Molstad (1985) suggested outright that there are more benefits for girls being coached by females than by males.
Such a suggestion raises important philosophical questions, such as why should females be coaching girls' sports and why should males not be coaching girls’ sports? While answers to these questions may assuage the controversy, they would not solve the crisis at hand: the seven-fold increase in girls' participation since 1970-71 has not been met by a concomitant and proportional increase in the number of female coaches involved with girls' interscholastic sport programs. Thus, whether the notion of males coaching girls' sport is good, bad, or neutral, it seems likely that for some time to come, males will continue to coach girls. Faced with this reality, it is important to study male coaches of girls' sports teams. It is from this proposition that the present study of male coaches of girls' interscholastic track and field emerges. Upon its completion, the localized dynamics of the coach- player ecology will be better understood and from this case example, we may return to the philosophical debate over who should be coaching girls' sport equipped with observational evidence instead of theoretical rhetoric.
Statement of Problem
In the dissertation, I explored the degree of congruence between expectations, beliefs, and attitudes (henceforth refrerred to as EBA) and 4 the coaching practices of twolnale high school girls' track & field coaches who differed in their amount of coaching experience.
The EBAs coaches hold are in part a product of the unique lifelong socialization they undergo (Sage, 1980a). Male coaches may hold gender specific EBAs about female athletes (Young, 1986). Holding such EBAs may predispose coaches to act in ways that parallel their internal views, and when based on stereotypes and sex role standards of society, these actions will be harmful to the athlete and team (Shapiro, 1979). Harm is thought to occur because some athletes respond to the coaching act in ways that fulfill an initial prophecy for their performance. By this logic, an athlete's response feeds back on original expectations to perpetuate a confirmatory thought-action cycle and a resultant strengthening of original coach EBAs (Canic, 1983; Horn, 1984a; Russell, 1993).
While EBAs may be revised through the course of interactions a coach has with athletes on a particular day and over a season, the foundation for those EBAs is unlikely to be altered since it is based on an amalgamation of antecedent experiential factors (Horowitz & Bordens, 1995). The foundation is formed both before a person ever becomes a coach and during the early years of one’s career (Sage, 1980a, 1980b, 1989). Prior to coaching, parental, peer, socio-cultural, and academic factors influence a prospective coach's ideological stance about a particular sport or the athletes who play it. EBAs may be challenged during an initial socialization phase into the coaching profession when myriad presage, process and product variables provide information relative to the goodness of fit between a specific coach and a specific environment (Sage, 1987). However, the effect of this ecological contextualization on a coach's prior socialization at any career stage may not be significant enough to alter prior EBA patterns. 5
Equipped with preformed EBAs, coaches begin coaching and discover to what extent their EBAs match the present context. This context is formed through the continuous interactions and communication cues transacted between athletes and coaches regarding the performance of tasks (Doyle, 1977a). Operating out of a socially constructed reality of what their athletes are like, coaches communicate EBAs to athletes through the verbalization of tasks and through reactions to task performance. Athletes make sense of both verbal and nonverbal communication content and form perceptions of what the coach expects by weighing the ambiguity and risk involved with the task as stated (Siedentop, 1988). At times, initial task products reflect upward negotiations of the intended task on the athletes' part and may exceed expectations or even contradict attitudes held by the coach. Task performance may also be adjusted downward due to high risk, high ambiguity, and/or lax accountability (Tousignant & Siedentop, 1983) which then bears out the coach's initial expectation and thereby reinforces stereotypical thinking by perpetuating a thought-action cycle that underestimates athletes' true capabilities.
Though most coaches of female athletes report that they do not behave any differently toward their female athletes (Taggart, 1991) and thus show an ability to subvert harmful EBAs and/or act upon positive EBAs, there are some male coaches of female athletes who bring stereotypical views about female capabilities, characteristics, and traits into the sport setting (Eitzen & Pratt, 1989a, 1989b, Molstad, 1992). These coaches might unintentionally convey these questionable EBAs to their female athletes, who will in turn act on these communications and fashion responses that may unfortunately perpetuate the coach's initial assumptions. This perpetuation further threatens the chances of 6 females reaching their potential by undermining self-perceptions or affective approach tendencies.
Because of the theoretical impact EBAs have on player thoughts and actions coupled with the questions about the appropriateness of males coaching girls, this dissertation catalogued the EBAs of males coaching girls' high school track and field. The EBAs of the coaches were compared to the coaching practices to ascertain the degree of congruence between thought and action. Studying this problem yielded insight into the factors that influence a male coach's EBAs for female athletes both before and during a season. The EBAs’ position and operation within the sport ecology was described in attempting to show how a coach acts out his EBAs and reacts to athlete behaviors during a season. Most importantly, much needed ethnographic data were generated to describe what goes on during sport practices from a qualitative perspective.
Purpose of the Study
This study's purpose then was to describe male track coaches' EBAs and behaviors for/toward their female athletes, their dynamics over the course of the season, and how they contributed to the formation of a sport ecology. Additionally, this study sought to compare the participants and their settings to each other to determine how the quantity of coaching experience and the context in which the sport season occurred affected the sport ecology. From analysis of the data, cases are presented whose purpose are to clarify the issues surrounding the appropriateness of males coaching girls. 7
Research Questions
Four general questions framed the study. More specific questions within each general question are listed.
1. What are male coaches' EBAs for their female athletes?
1.1 participation and behavior 1.2 physical capabilities 1.3 personality and psychological characteristics
2. What do these coaches do during practice?
2.1 proactive behaviors: planning, initial rules/routines, and instruction 2.2 reactive behaviors: feedback, management, instruction and other behavior categories in response to athlete performance
3. How do the coaching actions and EBAs relate to the sport ecology?
3.1 on what dimensions and to what degree is there congruence between thought and action 3.2 how do the contextual and experiential variables shape the sport ecology
4. How are the two coaches similar/ dissimilar in their EBAs and in their coaching behavior?
4.1 how does experience explain dissimilar EBAs and behaviors 4.2 how do the particular contexts these men work in conducive to similar and dissimilar EBAs and behaviors 8
Significance of the Study
If the content of a sport pedagogy literature review truly reflects what has been studied and its omissions suggestive of what remains to be studied, then this study of coaches and coaching is sorely needed and an important contribution to the profession. Coaching is omitted from consideration as completed research (Harrison, 1987; Pieron, 1988,1994; Schempp, 1992; Schempp & Choi, 1994; Silverman, 1991, 1994) or as a direction for future research (Griffey, 1991; Locke, 1986) in all but one (Metzler, 1989) recent review of sport pedagogy literature.
Hastie (1992) suggested that despite coaching research’s methodological problems, stepchild tradition, and inability to define a research base for itself, the need for the study of coaches is justified due to the increasing profile of the profession. That need is magnified when the research focus is on gender issues in coaching which to date has largely focused on statistical documentation of the increase in numbers of men coaching women (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992) and theoretical explanations of this trend's consequences for female athletes and coaches (Kane & Stangl, 1991; Knoppers, 1988; Whitaker & Molstad, 1988). This study will indirectly provide needed field evidence to either support or refute arguments made concerning whether female athletes' needs are adequately served by male coaches.
In addition, the qualitative epistemology driving this research study is nonexistent in published coaching research. Ethnographic techniques for data collection, analysis, and presentation allow for an understanding of coaching behavior in its context and for discovery of grounded theory, which may in turn be tested in future studies (Templin & Griffin, 1985). 9
Expectancy research and ecological research in sport have been pursued separately, though when assessing expectancy effects, careful consideration of the contextual factors specific to the coaching situation has been advocated (Horn, 1984b). By blending these two separate, though complementary research foci together, Horn’s methodological consideration was adhered to and the chances for accurate assessment of expectancy effects improved. Accurate documentation is important in this kind of a study because as a case, this study may suggest to the reader what to do or not do in a similar situation and population (Merriam, 1988).
Delimitations of the Study
Since the study is limited to a single outdoor track and field season, the history of the team and between the coach and his athletes can not be ascertained directly. Brophy & Good (1974) identified history as an important mediator of teacher expectations, suggesting that extended contact with students over the course of an entire year allows expectations to be built up gradually and not be formed as a product of extreme and stereotyped thinking. In this study, although neither coach coached their athletes prior to the outdoor track and field season, as teachers they had many interactions with their athletes during the schoolday over the course of the year prior to the track season. These interactions which were not privy to the investigator influenced some prospects into coming out for track and helped the coaches develop EBAs for their athletes prior to the start of the study. Additionally, some of the coaches had contact with their athletes during summer and during non-school hours outside the sport setting. While these issues were dealt with during interviews with the coach, this particular 10
study was unable to go beyond what the coaches said happened before the investigator's arrival and how they felt it affected their thoughts and actions during the outdoor track season.
A second delimitation relates to the transient nature of the investigator's observations at each site. Due to similar practice times at each site and demands on the investigator external to the study, daily visits could not be made. The sporadic nature of observations was evident in that visits to one site were at times made on consecutive days while at other times consecutive visits to that same site were separated by more than a week. Doyle and Carter (1984) used only those observations of classrooms made on a daily basis, because they felt that only a daily record could precisely monitor and record specific tasks. While losing data on specific tasks during a practice in this study probably did not compromise identifying and clarifying task systems and their ecology in the two settings as a whole, critical incidents as judged by the coaches occurred on several occasions when the investigator was absent. These events were not always directly related nor volunteered by the coaches on the following visit; rather they often came out indirectly through questioning about some other topic. There were some days, when the coaches asked a second observer where the principal investigator was and when he would be back next. These inquiries were often accompanied by regret that the principal investigator was not there to witness the day's practice or would not be with the team to witness an upcoming meet.
A third delimitation relates to the effect on transferability of the inherent sampling methodology used in case and qualitative research. By strict positivistic standards, the participants selected, their small number, and the criteria used in their selection restrict generalizing 11
beyond the scope of this study. However, in qualitative research it is not the researcher who generalizes; rather it is the interested practitioner who upon reading the case, judges the applicability of the study's findings and conclusions in light of his or her own situation (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). This notion of reader generalizability is possible in case research to the degree that reporting the case's context is done completely and in rich, deep description (Wilson, 1979).
Definition of Terms category-based expectancies: suppositions that lead us to assume that members of a particular category of people will behave in consistent ways (Horowitz & Bordens, 1995). target-based expectancies: suppositions about a specific individual based on information about that person (Horowitz & Bordens, 1995). beliefs: convictions of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on examination of evidence. attitudes: private mental states of readiness organized through learning from a variety of experiences and influences that are directly related to our actions toward objects, people, and situations (Rajecki, 1990). coaching experience: in this study, the amount of time in years a coach has spent coaching girls track and field. -less experienced: coaches with 3 years or less experience -more experienced: coaches with 8 years or more experience 12
EBA: acronym used throughout the study; short for Expectation, Belief, and Attitude females reaching their potential by undermining self perceptions or CHAPTER n REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter reviews gender and coaching research, expectancy research, and ecological research. The first section on gender issues is included to suggest that the number of males coaching girls far exceeds the number of females coaching girls, and that this discrepancy carries ramifications for the athletes due to the differences between male and female coaches. The second and third sections of this chapter deal with the theories that undergird this study-namely, that the coach's expectations and the ecological context in which the coach operates in are two variables which shape the behavior of the coach toward his athletes.
Gender Issues in Coaching Research Documentation and explanation of the declining numbers of female coaches of girls' sport teams
At the collegiate level, Holmen and Parkhouse (1981) noted through survey data that although the number of coaching jobs between 1974 and 1979 increased, these jobs were filled disproportionately by males. In the sport of track and field at this level, they reported a five-year increase of 54 jobs to 183 and an increase of 75 males filling the total number of jobs, representing a 192% increase. Acosta and Carpenter (1985) reported similar results, with track and field growing from 46.1% to 58.7% of schools offering it from 1977-78 to 1983-84, accompanied by a 25.5% increase in the percentage of males coaching the sport over these same years. In a follow-up study, Acosta and Carpenter (1992) reported a
13 14 further increase in the percentage of males coaching females overall and in track and field--up to 52.7% overall and 80.4% for track and field. At Ohio two-year and four-year institutions/ the situation closely reflects the above dted trends, with 54% of two-year and 51% of four-year coaching positions overall and 100% of two-year and 82.4% of four-year track and field coaching positions occupied by males in 1992-93 (Baumann & Pastore, 1994). These findings should be tempered by results from a survey administered to collegiate female athletes (George, 1989), who as a group showed a lack of preference for being coached by a female (38%). Thus, although demographic data clearly show at the collegiate level that males predominantly occupy overall coaching positions and track and field coaching positions in girls' sport; these data must be weighed against evidence which indicates female athletes do not care about the gender of their coach.
At the interscholastic level, declines in the percentages and numbers of female coaches of girls' sports have been reported on a state-by-state basis. Pastore andWhiddon (1983) reported an over 11% decline in the percentage of women coaches of girls' sport teams in Florida over a six- year period, while True (1986) reported declines in percentages ranging from a low decline of 17% for Nebraska to a high decline of 55% for Wisconsin over an 11-year period, beginning one year prior to the passage of Title DC in 1972 through 1982-83. Sisley and Capel (1986) reported that over 82% of the coaches the previous year in Oregon were male and that almost 95% of the state's head track and field coaches were male, while in Ohio the percentage of female coaches of female sports decreased from 78% in 1974-75 to 35% in 1988-89 (Stangl, 1990). In Virginia over a 15-year period, percentages of female head coaches of girls' sports shrank from 15
80.3% to 43.9% by 1987, and during those same years the percentage of female coaches of girls' track and field decreased from 86.2% to 40.3% (Heishman, Bunker, & Tutwiler, 1990). True (1986) reported percentage declines for girls coached by females in nine states over a 13-year period with only Illinois still above 50% by 1984-85. Five years later, survey data confirmed that the situation in Illinois had stabilized, as Wilkinson and Schneider (1991) reported that females occupied 64% of the nearly 4000 positions available coaching girls' teams. Thus with the exception of Illinois, on a state-by-state basis, the percentage of female coaches of girls' sport declined from high points established before Title DCs passage to lows under 50% during the mid to late 1980's. The next task is to explore the reasons behind the forecited percentage declines.
There are many reasons attributed to the attrition of female coaches in girls' sport and they range from simplistic explanations to complex, theoretical propositions. These reasons are next presented in order of complexity. Sisley and Capel (1986) explain the skewed percentages in Oregon, thusly:
Some argue that few females want the pressures and responsibilities of being a head coach. Others maintain that females put family and home responsibilities above extra pay opportunities and thus do not want the extra time commitment of a head coaching position. A third contention is that females are discriminated against in the hiring process and thus are not hired for coaching positions, (p. 43)
The first two explanations are examples of blaming the victim while the third contention of discrimination shifts the blame to the system. Hart, Hasbrook and Mathes (1986) though not discounting disrimination, 16 suggested that declines could be explained by differential value orientations between present and former coaches; namely that those who left the profession coached for more process-oriented variables while those coaches who were just entering the profession began coaching for more product- or performance-oriented variables.
Hasbrook (1988) suggested that on-the-job discrimination may in part explain why many females left coaching. This type of discrimination took one of two forms beginning in the late 1970's. In one form, the heightened profile of girls' sports led athletic administrators to believe that females would be ill-equipped to handle more demanding and competitive positions. In a second form, the prospective female coach is not devalued; rather female sport teams as a whole are thought to be less important, which would be manifest in Title IX violations, scuttling female coaches' efforts and frustrating them out of the profession.
Another reason cited for female coaches leaving the profession is the differential burnout levels they report when compared to their male colleagues (Felder & Wishnietsky, 1990; Pastore & Kuga, 1993). In the Felder and Wishnietsky sample, females had greater teaching loads than males and these course loads were skewed away from physical educataion, implying that these female coaches had not contemplated a coaching career prior to graduating from college, and as such were under prepared for the extra coaching responsibilities in addition to their teaching loads. While the Pastore and Kuga sample’s results led the authors to postulate a reason for differential burnout levels similar to Felder and Wishnietsky, the female coaches were significantly younger and less experienced than their male colleagues, necessitating further 17 studies to resolve the relationship between burnout and age/ experience demographic variables.
Acosta and Carpenter's (1985,1992) offered reasons for the trend of declining percentages of coaches, based not on why females leave the profession, but why they are not hired. Athletic administrators responded to a survey asking them to rank reasons explaining the changing status of women in sports.
The number one ranked reason for the declining numbers of female leaders in sport was the success of the old boys' network followed closely by the failure of an old girls' network to exert influence (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992). With a male-dominated network in place, percentages of female coaches in all sport could be explained through a theory of homologous reproduction, whereby the dominants reproduce themselves based on social/physical characteristics in order to maintain status quo. Since the majority of administrators are male, then it would not be surprising to observe male coaches being hired. This theory was validated in two studies (Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991), in which the gender of the athletic administrator(s) and/ or the principal strongly correlated with the gender ratio of the coaching staff and/or the gender of the to-be hired coach.
Yet another reason for the post-Title IX decline in the percentages of female coaches is based on the concepts of marginalization and tokenism. Kane & Stangl (1991) reported that although the number of females coaching males had increased in Ohio, their meager 2% representation indicated only token influence. Moreover, the sports that these coaches were hired to coach were more likely to be less prestigous ones, indicating marginalization. Though these concepts were used within the confines of 18 the study's boys' interscholastic sample, they may yet be shown to be applicable to girls' interscholastic sport. According to the operationalization of these concepts, in a girls' setting, males would occupy coaching positions in the most prestigous sports and the percentages of female coaches in these sports and overall would decline.
Finally, Annelies Knoppers over the course of the 1980's has taken many of the aforementioned reasons and blended them into a theoretical structure, moving away from the individualist approach, embracing and then foregoing the structuralist approach, and finally explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching by the social relational approach (Knoppers, 1992). In the social relational approach, a dynamic discourse between males and females reconstructs the meaning of gender from noun to verb, whereby we gender structure, jobs, activities, and workers in the workplace to fit hegemonic notions of appropriateness. This theory replaces her structuralist approach of opportunity, power, and ratio which proposed that women entered and remained in professions based on their relative hierarchecal status and location within the organization (Knoppers, 1988). She rationalized the resistance to women entering an occupation through five dynamics: (a) group differences; (b) affirmative action fallout and reverse discrimination; (c) rule reproduction; (d) homophobia; (e) and valuing of sport as a male preserve.
In conclusion, this section has demonstrated the demographic decline in female coaches and cited some of the explanations for this phenomenon. While research attempts to generate theories that explain phenomena in many contexts, it might be premature to adopt the latter theories of this section to explain local employment dynamics of female coaches. Perhaps better questions to ask rather than why males occupy 19 more coaching jobs than females or why females have left the coaching profession, are: since men coach girls' sport and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, what are the differences between male and female coaches and how do these differences affect the girls they coach in significant ways according to the literature? These questions are addressed in the following section.
Differences between male and female coaches of girls' teams and characteristics of male coaches of girls' teams
This section restricts itself to coaches of girls' teams because the participants in this study are coaches of girls' teams. Moreover, they are male coaches and representatives of the gender that predominantly coaches interscholastic girls' sport teams. What might be their generic contributory strengths to female athletics? Whitaker and Molstad (1985) suggested that male coaches of girls' teams offer greater potential for competitive success because of their greater experience and higher performance history than females. Male coaches also offer greater potential for recognition because sport media traditionally recognize product-oriented, meritocratic performances associated with males and their place in girls' sports adds legitimacy toward publicly exposing this venue. Men might also be taken more seriously by their female athletes because they are considered group leaders in our society. Conversely, female coaches have characteristics and strengths different from males that would also contribute to girls' athletics. Female coaches, according to Whitaker and Molstad (1985), would share and reinforce values with their athletes; provide rich, affiliative interaction; add to the perceived value of the group; provide an opportunity for athletes to exercise instrumentalism; give athletes a sense of career potential; and function as role models. Knoppers (1989) suggested that as role models, female 20 coaches "model leadership skill and competence and serve as an advertisement that similar people can function in that environment" (p. 39). In addition to serving as role models, Knoppers contended that many female coaches, due to their nurturing, relational style would serve as a counterpoint to the rigidity of the justice-oriented, individualistic and autonomous style used by many male coaches.
Putting theory aside, what are the actual differences between male and female coaches of girls' teams and/ or what are the characteristics of males who coach girls? To begin with, Pratt and Eitzen (1989a) found that male coaches of boys' and girls' basketball teams differ on dimensions of their role in the overall development of athletes; what it takes to optimize team performance; and number and type of team rules. The male coaches of girls' teams responded that they were less likely to try and influence the athlete's life outside the athletic arena; that they considered off-season conditioning, tightly run practice sessions, and "all work-no play" practices less important; and that they adopted fewer rules and were less likely to adopt rules related to practice behaviors, travel, clothing, and grooming. These same male coaches of girls' teams when compared to female coaches of girls' teams (Eitzen & Pratt, 1989b) tended to be more liberal on the above dted three dimensions and on an additional dimension related to their expectations for their athletes. Eitzen and Pratt suggested that female coaches may be more traditional than males because of differing socialization patterns and that male coaches may be more liberal because they do not take women's sports seriously.
Similar results to the Eitzen and Pratt were found by Young (1986) in her study comparing leader style, behaviors, and effectiveness of male and female basketball coaches. Significant differences between male 21 coaches of boys' teams, male coaches of girls' teams, and female coaches were found on leader style and leader behavior indices. For leader style, males coaching girls were least task-oriented, followed by males coaching boys, and female coaches. For leader behavior, female coaches were the most structured, followed by males coaching girls and males coaching boys. Male coaches of girls were the most considerate, followed by female coaches and male coaches of boys, and male coaches of boys emphasized production the most while male coaches of girls emphasized it the least.
In her discussion of the results, Young (1986) explained the males' coaching girls higher relations orientations thusly:
Men have had less experience coaching girls and may be reacting to social stereotypes of girls and women. Stereotypical responses might lead male coaches to expect lower levels of competition. They may tend to coax rather than demand, and generally provide more social-emotional encouragement, (p. 230)
When these male coaches of girls were asked what they thought the differences between coaching boys and girls were and how they felt they behaved differently, they responded that they should be less demanding, more supportive and less critical with girls. They considered girls to have less skill, less drive, and be mors easily distracted than boys. Young thought that their espoused behavior modulations may be necessary to assure maximum success in opposite-gender combinations of coaches and athletes.
Other studies have found differences between male and female coach perceptions. Molstad (1992) surveyed male and female girls' basketball coaches about who they thought their female athletes preferred and why the coaches thought males coach females. Male coaches thought that only 22
6% of female athletes would prefer a female coach, while female coaches thought that this same percentage would prefer a male coach. As to why males coach females, male coaches ranked in order from first to third: easier to motivate, easier to coach, and prestige. Female coaches ranked from first to third the following reasons for why they thought men coached females: required to keep job, second sport assignment, and less pressure than boys. Interestingly, the top two reasons dted by the males had to do with their perceptions of female athletes, while the top two reasons dted by females had to do with administrative constraints. Molstad (1993) reported a year later that these same coaches' perceptions differed as to who they thought was a better role model and on their rankings of six coaching qualities believed to be important for coaches to possess. Ninety-eight percent of the female coaches thought females were better or as good a role model as males, while 97% of males thought that they were better or as good a role model for female athletes as female coaches. Female coaches ranked the expressive quality of being a good role model as highest while males ranked the expressive quality of relating well to athletes highest. These coaches also differed on their perception of what qualities they thought their players think are important, with males thinking that the instrumental quality of being a strong leader was most important to their players, while females thinking that bringing recognition to the team was most important. These two studies suggested that male and female coaches differ in their self perceptions as well as their perceptions of their female athletes.
The only non paper-and-pencil study of male and female coaches of girls' sport was a systematic observational study of coaching behaviors of girls' basketball using the ASUOI instrument (Lacy & Goldston, 1990). Gender differences in frequency favoring males on the categories of pre- 23
and concurrent instruction, modeling and questioning were found, while those favoring females were found on categories of first names, management, praise and hustle, and post-instruction. No explanations were offered for the observed frequencies relative to gender, and no known studies since have explored the area of gender differences using behavior analysis.
With the camera focused on the male and female coach of girls' sport, the literature provides a picture of differential perceptions and valuations by gender, and a less than clear picture as a basis to contend that male and female coaches of girls' sport behave differently. Would the picture look different if the camera lens was aimed at the female athletes? It is on their viewpoint that this review next focuses.
Richardson and Tandy (1986) suggested differential reasons for why female athletes might prefer a male or a female coach. The preference for a female coach might stem from the athlete’s belief that the coach can communicate with them and that she has a better understanding of the athlete's physical capabilities, whereas the preference for a male coach stems from social conditioning through exposure to male sport models to believe that males know more about sport than females. This hypothesis gains some credibility in light of survey data of female collegiate athletes in Indiana (George, 1989). Athletes' reasons for preferring a male coach were most often tied to their beliefs that a male coach demands their best effort and commands more respect. Athletes' reasons for preferring a female coach were most often tied to their beliefs that a female coach understands their needs and demands their best effort. Preferences for a particular gender coach might be influenced by the sport in which the female athlete participates. Coakley and Pacey (1982) reported that those preferring male coaches typically played in individual sports (swimming, 24 gymnastics) while those preferring female coaches typically played in team sports (basketball, scocer, softball, and field hockey).
Further evidence to support Richardson and Tandy's (1986) hypothesis concerning an athlete's coach preference may be furnished on the communication dimension, which according to them may be easier for female athletes with female coaches to accomplish. Sabock & Kleinfelter (1987) found that in their sample of female high school basketball players, those athletes that were currently coached by females reported that they felt more comfortable talking over their personal problems with their coach than those girls coached by males. When female athletes do feel comfortable talking with their coaches, their communication patterns in terms of disclosure are vastly different depending on the coach's gender (Officer & Rosenfeld, 1985). Athletes in the sample communicated with their female coaches on topics related to self-concept development and role clarification and those coached by males communicated with them on topics related to school matters and relationships with men in their lives. Officer and Rosenfeld (1985) contended that the male coach is perceived as an authority figure whereas the female coach is perceived more as a counselor, and that the amount that was disclosed to a male coach was related to the degree that the perceived status difference between athlete and coach was reduced (i.e., he was regarded as a friend) while an opposite pattern was observed when girls were coached by females.
While the above study suggests that high school girls seek their female coaches out for purposes of personal development and role clarification, and as such these coaches act as role models, this behavioral trend may not be stable over time. Though high school female athletes responded that female coaches were better role models, were better examples of what 25 they wanted to be, and were more preferred when a preference was expresssed, collegiate female athletes responded equivocally that female coaches were better role models and unequivocally responded that male coaches were better examples of what they wanted to be and were more preferred when a preference was expressed (Whitaker & Molstad, 1988).
Still, there are female athletes who display no discernible attitudinal differences toward being hypothetically coached, by males or females at any level of school contested sport (Weinberg, Reveles, & Jackson, 1984). Additionally, athletes who are coached by males and females of differing philosophies may be incapable of discriminating their coach's implicit agenda (Lirgg, DiBrezzo, & Smith, 1994).
These two studies are purposefully placed here as bookends and counterbalances to the theoretical assertions of Knoppers (1989) and Whitaker and Molstad (1985) leading off this section as to what female coaches may have to offer female athletes that males can not. While the data reported in this section on coach differences by gender and athletes' differential perceptions of their male and female coaches seem to indicate that differences between male and female coaches are real, the final two studies beg the questions: what does it matter if the athletes have no preference for a particular gender coach or experience their male and female coaches similarly? These questions hint at the caveat of not applying research findings particularistically and serve as a reminder to the reader that the present study's situatedness in time and place may preclude generalizations of prior research from being projected onto this study. 26
Expectancy Research Classroom
Cognitive expectations and affective attitudes toward students are based on perceived student characteristics (Brophy & Good, 1974). It is thought that in turn, these expectations and attitudes may either influence teacher process behaviors and/or student products in particular settings. The self-fulfilling prophecy, steeped in negative connotations, results from expectations that are inaccurate and inflexible. The prophecy is a dynamic, circular process by which teachers expectations direct what they attend to and do not attend to in their classrooms. From these perceptions, teachers behave accordingly toward the targets of their expectations. Teacher behavior toward continuously targeted students puts pressure on them to behave in ways that conform to teacher expectations, in turn reinforcing teacher expectations even more (Brophy & Good, 1974).
Brophy and Good (1974) suggested that teachers' expectations form from initial impression cues and are typically stable and accurate. Students shape teacher behavior and expectations since the job of teaching necessitates reactive rather than proactive behavior toward most individuals. Teachers also often favor high expectancy children because highs reward teachers, lows present difficult problems, teachers lack awareness of their expectancies and behaviors, and because teachers feel less competent in dealing with failure.
From Jere Brophy's work with Thomas Good, a model for teacher expectations was proposed that encapsulated research into a five-step process (Brophy & Good, 1974; Good, 1981). Their model elevated the 27 student from passive recipient of/ conformist to teacher expectations to possible resistor/change agent, such that they do not necessarily buy into the teacher's communicated expectation or they change teacher behavior in ways that are more conducive to student achievement. The differential teacher behaviors identified in the research that a student might try and affect include: (a) seating slow students farther away; (b) paying less nonverbal attention to slow students; (c) calling on slow students less often; (d) waiting less time for slow students to answer; (e) failing to provide due or follow-up prompts to slower students in response situations; (f) criticizing slow students for incorrect answers more often; (g) praising slow students less often for acceptable answers; (h) demanding less effort and work from slow students; and (i) interrupting slow students more frequently (Good, 1981).
Expectancy studies are either experimental or naturalistic in nature. In experimental studies, teacher expectations are manipulated through some kind of treatment, usually involving fictitious labelling of students as high or low achievers and then recording teacher behavior. Results of these studies are mixed with failure of teacher expectations affecting teacher behavior due to failure at inducing the prescribed expectations (Jeter, 1975). In naturalistic inquiry, no expectation induction is carried out. Instead, the teacher ranks students according to perceived ability or achievement. Interactions between teacher and student are observed as they occur in the natural setting and as a result of real teacher expectations. Results from studies using this mode of inquiiy (Alpert, 1974; Clifton, 1981; Good, Sikes, & Brophy, 1973; and Jeter, 1975) have substantiated the basic tenet of the expectancy phenomenon (i.e., that divergent expectations for students based on perceived abilities lead to distinct and differential teacher treatment of students). 28
Although the expectancy phenomenon was postulated as a result of research on mixed-ability students independent of other personological variables, there is some evidence to suggest that the phenomenon as postulated in its original form exists intact in classrooms on the variable of gender. In a nonobservational study, Palardy (1969) reported that when teachers believed that the boys in their classrooms were less successful than girls in learning to read, their scores on reading tests at the end of a six-month instructional period were lower than girls in their classroom, whereas when they believed that the boys in their classrooms were as successful as girls, the boys scored as well as girls on the postinstruction tests. In a more recent study of teacher expectations, Clifton (1981) found that Canadian high school teachers expected female students to be more reliable, cooperative, industrious, and more likely to complete grade 13 than male students. In a behavior observational study, Good, et al. (1973) found that teacher treatment in mathematics and social studies, junior high classrooms followed traditional patterns of preferential treatment for high achievers; that teachers had more positive contact with male high achievers compared to female high achievers; and that male low achievers as compared to female low achievers received more criticism, less teacher feedback about their work, and fewer OTRs. They explained the gender differences as resulting from differential presses that boys exert on teachers (i.e., teachers reactions to students are in part influenced by the stimuli they are presented with by their students, and boys either present more stimuli or teachers are more aware of what boys are doing in classrooms).
Deaux (1984) suggested that gender is a variable that functions as a perceptual cue in expectancy formation, but that it is mitigated by the gender orientation of the task being performed by the student (i.e., the 29 more masculine the task, the more a female would be expected to perform it poorly, and thus success in it would be attributed to her luck). She added that attributions based on gender stereotypes are products of multiple sex-related characteristics such as traits, role behaviors, and physical characteristics, and that judgments about one charactersistic are not made independently of others, nor are judgments about characteristics' sex appropriateness exclusive of the other gender. Thus, merely being female does not predict the expectancies teachers form; rather an array of impression cues that are both internal and external and are variously associated with a particular gender interact to form an overall teacher expectancy devoid of the singular variable gender, typically dichotomized as male and female.
In closing this section on classroom expectancy research, it is worth reporting that an updated expectancy model was proposed by Cooper (1979). Instead of a serial model of expectations and behaviors, Cooper branched out from the step of teacher perceptions of control over performance to parallel streams based on teacher feedback contingency and teacher created sodo-emotional climate, ending in a terminal product of student attitudes and performance outcomes and a terminal process of teacher control of content, timing, and duration. This separation suggests that teacher expectations simultaneously influence what teachers do and think and what students do and think but along different pathways, hinting at a bi-directional ecology of dynamic interactions that at times sustains, while at other times recapitulates teacher expectancies. This notion of a classroom ecology regulating events that would lead to the enactment of the expectancy phenomenon is not conceived of in most classroom expectancy research because it postdates by several years the 30 majority of the research. It is however manifest in physical education expectancy research which is where we turn to next.
Physical Education
Martinek, Crowe, and Rejeski (1982) proposed an expectation loop that is in part based on the gymnasium's ecology to explain the expectancy phenomenon in physical education. While teacher/ coach behavior resulting from expectations is purported to influence the child, the child emits impression cues such as skill level, sex, race, physical attractiveness, and I.Q. which shape perceptions of the child and resultant expectations. In the physical education setting, Martinek, et al. suggested that teachers use social comparison as a means of inferring task difficulty and then relate individual performance to derived absolute standards while also using the structural features of a game or skill to educe expected competencies for a child. The child in turn becomes aware of the behavior needed for an acceptable response and this awareness modifies the student's effort at the task. The student's effort coupled with the teacher's expectancies of the student provide the basis from which the teacher evaluates the task and reinforces or amends original expectancies. If the student’s effort was contrary to the teacher's expectancies, teacher attributions for the student's effort may be external and unstable, implying that the student was lucky and could not duplicate their performance. The authors suggested that this scenario points to the reciprocal, cause and effect nature of the expectancy phenomenon, whereby outcomes affect expectancies and expectancies affect outcomes.
Martinek and Karper (1983) suggested that certain traits may be more powerful than others as impression cues in forming certain expectations in teachers. Those traits, which include sex, age, race, skill, SES, physical 31 attractiveness, handicap status, behavioral attributes, intelligence, past records, and instructional setting serve to modulate the quantity and quality of dyadic interactions between teacher and student, ultimately affecting student growth on such variables as skill level, self-concept, student expectations, attitudes, anxiety, social distance, physical and academic performance, and locus of control (Martinek, 1981a). But Martinek (1983) was quick to warn that not all expectancies are bad, separating expectanices into the effects that they cause. Galatea effects occur when there is a positive effect from the expectations, whereas Golem effects occur when there is a negative effect from the expectations. Moreover, the differential behaviors toward high and low expectancy children may have no effect if they are not interpreted as such by the students (Martinek, 1988).
Expectancy research in physical education has been conducted primarily in elementary settings with the following results. Perceived physical attractiveness was associated with teacher expectations for overall physical performance, social relations with peers, and differential teacher behavior on the CAFIAS variable of teacher acceptance and use of students’ ideas (Martinek, 1981b). Perceived skill level was associated with differential teacher behavior on the CAFIAS variables of teacher praise, encouragement, and acceptance, and greater gains in self-concept were realized by the high-expectancy group (Martinek & Johnson, 1979). Martinek (1988) observed differences between observed and student- perceived teacher praise and corrective behavior feedback for high and low expectancy skill level students. Additionally, attributional data suggested that low expectancy students internalized the attributions for teacher corrective behavior feedback while high expectancy students attributed the behavior to teacher characteristics. Morency, Brunelle, & Tousignant (1988) used six teacher expectancy variables to dichotmize children into high and low groups, finding that teachers responded more 32 often to the correct completion of stated tasks by highs; that they noticed lows who had difficulty with tasks more frequently than highs who had difficulty; that the lows who had difficulty with tasks were more likely to receive negative teacher reaction than highs who had difficulty; that off- task highs were reacted to more positively than off-task lows; and that when off-task behavior disturbing the activity was demonstrated, highs would be given more gentle behavior feedback than lows.
Overall, Martinek (1983) summarized the results of the research program he and his colleagues conducted from the late 1970's to the early 1980's on the expectancy phenomenon in the gymnasium. The behaviors associated with differential expectancies noted up to that point were: verbal and nonverbal praise, analytic questions, response opportunities, evaluative comments, rephrasing or repeating of unanswered questions, dyadic contacts, information on content related behaviors, and criticism.
In the only published studies in the physical education literature whose main purpose was solely focused on expectancy and gender in the gymnasium, Hoferek (1981,1982) examined the expectancy phenomenon as it related to class composition and activity type. The most liberal teachers in terms of attitudes toward women's role in society, held more favorable atttiudes toward female participation in coed classes. These same teachers favored girls' participation, expected higher performances of girls and had a wider range of expectations for girls in the least traditional activities (football, wrestling, and ice hockey) than their more conservative peers. In her discussion of the results, Hoferek suggested that because teacher's classroom attitudes reflect their perceptions about women in general, that more traditional physical educators are apt to 33 contribute to a hidden curriculum/ whereby female students integrate their teacher's negative attitudes into their own self-concepts, and as a result are less likely to participate and excell in sports deemed unfeminine by their teachers.
In her studies, Hoferek categorized track and field, the sport context presently studied, as less traditional. From such a typology, does the ensuing cross-domain inference from observations in the gymnasium to life on the sport field have transferability (i.e., that coaches of girls' track and field hold more negative expectations for their athlete's performance than more traditional, girls' tennis coaches)? The answer to this question may lie in the literature on expectancies in the sport setting, the newest and methodologically most equivocal venue for expectancy research.
Sport
Indeed, while the gendertyping of a sport may affect a coach's perceptions toward his/her athlete, a host of other situational factors and individual difference variables may also impact on a coach's perceptions and behaviors (Smith, Smoll, Curtis, & Hunt, 1978). Smith, et al. proposed a mediational model of coach-player relationships in which a player's evaluative reactions are mediated by their perceptions and recall of antecedent coaching behaviors. These player mediational strategies are influenced not only by the coach's behaviors, but by a host of situational factors, player demographic variables, and by the player's evaluative reactions themselves. The player's evaluative reactions and the coach's perception of a player's reaction feedback onto future coaching behaviors. This model suggests reciprocal causation of coach and player attitudes and behaviors. 34
It is not however, just the coach's behaviors that are affected by his/her expectancies. Canic (1983) proposed a model whereby expectancies affect a coach's external behavior, a coach's internal perceptions of what happened after the player performance, and judgments of why the player's performance happened. Judgments by the coach about why good and poor performance happens differ for high and low expectancy athletes. While high expectancy athletes are judged to be good players and needing time to adjust as a result of good and poor performance respectively, low expectancy athletes are judged to be lucky and poor players under these same performance outcomes. These judgments then feedback onto the expectancy and coupled with additional external and/ or internal stimuli, modify or intensify the original expectancy.
It is even more complex, for although Horn and Lox (1993) reduced the expectation-performance process down to four basic steps, they also included the discriminating features of each step in the sport setting. In step one, coaches form expectations. Horn and Lox (1993) confined expectations to the beginning of a season, when coaches make initial judgments regarding each athlete's physical competence and sport potential. These initial expectancies originate from information sources of two types-person and performance cues. Examples of person cues would include SES, race, family background, sex, physical attractiveness, body size, and dress style. Examples of performance cues would include an athlete's behavior in practice or tryouts, an athlete's past performance achievements or current performance in skill tests, and other coaches' comments concerning an athlete's performance and behavior. Depending on what cue sources a coach attends to, a coach may arrive at an initial expectancy that is either accurate or inaccurate and differs from coach to 35 coach. If the expectancies are inaccurate and inflexible, then step two of the expectation-performance process is reached (i.e., a coach's expectations affect his/her behavior).
In step two, a coach's behaviors may be affected by his/her expectancies on any number of dimensions. The Pygmalion prone coach typically initiates less interpersonal contact with lows, resulting in more time spent with highs. Additionally, the climatic quality of the interactions may differ, with highs receiving more smiles, nods, and personal contact than lows. The coach may also demonstrate instructional behaviors of differential quanitity and quality. The Pygmalion prone coach reduces the amount of material and/or skills lows are expected to learn and allots less time for them to practice drills. The coach may also not persevere with a low in learning a difficult skill, but will do so with a high having similar difficulties. The Pygmalion prone coach may also be distinguished by the type and frequency of feedback given to lows and highs. Such a coach may give lows less frequent reinforcement, give them less appropriate and helpful feedback after successes, and less technical feedback. Finally, the coach as Came (1983) suggested, may use different attributions for high and low expectancy athletes' performance. If the coach's differential behavior consistently limits the ability or opportunity of the athlete to learn, then step three is reached—the coach’s behavior affects the athlete's performance and behavior.
In step three, Horn and Lox (1993) proposed that when a coach's behavior does affect athletes, it does so on the following dimensions: rate of learning, level of achievement, psychological growth, self-perception, and expectancy. These affected characteristics may then induce the athlete to perform in ways that conform to the coach's expectancies, which is the fourth and final step of this chain reaction. 36
In step four, the athlete's behavioral conformity reinforces the coach's expectancies at the start of the season by confirming for the coach that his/her original judgment was right all along. Horn and Lox (1993) cautioned against lumping all athletes together as equally susceptible to expectancy effects. Pygmalion resistant athletes do not rely solely on what the coach does or says as proof of their competence. Instead, they filter out the coach behaviors that are disconsonant with the peer, parent, and other adult feedback they attend to. In contrast, athletes who are socialized toward the values and attitudes advocated by the coach, who are dependent, adult oriented or who adopt a more external locus of control, who are younger or novice and therefore more dependent on adult feedback for performance validation, or who are female may be more easily molded by the expectancies and subsequent behaviors of a Pygmalion prone coach (Horn, 1984a).
With the theoretical foundations for the expectancy phenomoneon in sport now laid out, it is interesting to note that the actual field studies in sport settings have yielded decidedly mixed results. Rejeski, Darracott, and Hutslar (1979), using the CBAS in a youth basketball setting, found that while coaches reinforced highs more than lows, lows experienced fewer incidences of nonreinforcement and received more general technical instruction. They explained the latter results' seeming refutation of the Pygmalion phenomenon as being a function of three factors. First, coaches in this league were required to play all children and as such would benefit from working extra with lows. Second, coaches may have perceived that children may participate just for the fun of it, and thus while lows’ performances were inferior, the coaches saw fit to act in ways that would enhance the children's sport experience. Third, generally 37 children in sport settings are more active than they are in classrooms and as such lows can effectively compete with highs for the coach's attention.
In another study using the CBAS, Horn (1984b) observed expectancy effects in a five team, girls' junior high school softball league. Horn found that the athletic situation influenced the differential behavior patterns of coaches toward highs and lows. Only in game situations were differential behaviors observed, and then in a direction counterintuitive to expectancy theoxy. Lows received more technical instruction and feedback both in general and in mistake-contingent situations. Additionally, lows also received more reinforcement after successes while highs' successes were more often ignored. Although not directly recorded, Horn suggested that the absence of predicted expectancy effects was due to the program's emphasis on instruction. In general, Horn hypothesized that programs designed and administered for instructional, rather than competitive purposes, are more likely to utilize coaches who do not exhibit biased instructional behavior. In fact, Horn reasoned that such nonbiased coaches may consciously act in ways to facilitate and motivate lows' performances, rather than discriminate against lows on the basis of perceived ability.
From the same data set, Horn (1985) analyzed the association between the coaches' feedback and the changes in the children's perceptions of their physical competence over the course of the season. Children's perceptions of their competence were most influenced by their attained skill ability, self-assigned ability ranking, and elements of their coaches' feedback during practice situations only. High frequencies of either reinforcement or nonreinforcement were negatively associated with a child's gain in perceived competence, while high frequencies of criticism were positively associated with perceived competence. According to Horn, these startling 38 results were a function of the information value that each type of feedback behavior contained. Coaches' higher reinforcement of lows was actually inappropriate because it fostered lower perceived physical competence gains in them. Some of this extra praise may have been incorrectly targeted and timed and thus carried little to no information about how the task itself was accomplished. Too much praise devalues the task by inducing lowered ability attributions in the performer. The lows in receiving less criticism were done a similar disservice. In contrast to excess praise, criticism after player failure, reinforces the player's perceptions of ability congruent with the result of the performance, i.e. the coach's feedback was genuine and not contrived as a means of boosting player perceptions of ability when no information from the failure would truly lead to that conclusion. Thus, Horn's (1984b) conclusion that differential coaching behaviors favoring lows was favorable for low athletes' skill progress, failed to take into account that the same differential coaching behaviors the lows received and did not receive compared to the highs, in fact limited their ability to achieve similar degrees of perceived phsyical competence.
Sinclair and Vealey (1989) observed coach feedback toward high and low expectancy athletes in a girls’ high school/college field hockey setting. Differential feedback patterns were exhibited by the coaches on several dimensions. Highs received more individual communications from the coach, more specific and evaluative feedback, and less prescriptive feedback than lows. Highs also received more precise information and less instruction on how to perform a skill or what to do next time than lows. Self-confidence changed over the course of the season and was most correlated with the immediacy of feedback. It was thus not surprising that 39 highs achieved greater gains on this measure than did lows. In this study then, the results were more congruent with expectancy theory, perhaps explainable in part by the fact that the program's orientation was counterphilosophical to those studied by Horn (1984b, 1985) and Rejeski, et al. (1979), in that it was a short, competitive season with the goal of winning a national title. Such an orientation was suggested to lend itself to expectancy phenomenon (Horn, 1984b).
Though the expectancy phenomenon appears to occur to some degree in sport settings, its occurrence may not be apparent in all athletic settings for a variety of reasons (Horn, 1984a, 1984b). Variables such as program orientation, unobservable coach-athlete interactions, situational context, expectation flexibility, ability to subvert pro-Pygmalion belief systems, and the susceptibility of children to their coach's expectations and behaviors have all been implicated to the lack of generalizability of the expectancy phenomenon in sport.
In closing this section, it is worth reiterating that although the expectancy phenomenon seems to operate as it is theorized in the classroom and gymnasium, its dynamics are less clearly demonstrated on the playing field. Several understudied variables that modulate expectancy effects have been suggested in the sport literature. It is to be concluded then that initial expectancies reported by the coaches in the present study will need to be weighed against the host of variables that confound a clear expectancy-coach behavior-player- performance link. 40
Ecological Research Classroom
Well before Doyle proposed an ecological approach to studying teaching, researchers doubted that the process-product model, in which teacher behavior directly causes student products, was wholly responsible for what went on in the classroom. Klein (1971), in an experimental study which manipulated student behavior, found that teachers changed their verbal and nonverbal teaching behaviors in response to the experimentally manipulated, episodic changes in student behavior. Fiedler (1975), in a naturalistic, systematically observed study of teacher-student interaction found that in certain school contexts, students were as likely as teachers to attempt to influence the other and teachers and students were as likely to modify their behavior as a result of the steering actions of the other.
Both these and other studies pointed to the bidirectional influence of teachers and students in the classroom, making the process-product paradigm rather untenable. An alternative, mediating process paradigm was offered instead, whereby student outcomes were a function of the mediating processes students employed during classtime, which in turn were influenced in part by the classroom's instructional conditions (Doyle, 1977b). According to this paradigm, students do not simply stand between process and product variables as passive recipients of stimuli, but rather process and distinguish between nominal and effective stimuli from an instructional display before responding.
However, Doyle (1977b) while accepting the basic tenets of this paradigm, thought that it lacked generalizability to real school learning conditions. Instead, Doyle thought of a classroom in ecological terms, in which "environmental demands interact with performance to shape 41 observed behavior and to establish limits on the range of response options" (Doyle, 1977c, p. 2). The interaction occurs through a series of overlapping task structures that affect both teachers and students in their roles as grader and performer. Additionally, through an ecological perspective, teachers are thought not to be in control of a situation, but under the control of a situation, and thus to change teacher behavior, the teacher has to change the environmental contingencies that have control over them (Doyle & Ponder, 1975). In this framework, teachers indirectly affect student outcomes in the ways they define and manage the performance-grade exchange. Teachers create tasks which activate student response, but not before those tasks are understood to the extent of their safety and ambiguity boundaries. A task consists of a goal and the materials and processes needed to achieve that goal, and by providing optimal risk to the inherent ambiguity of a task, a teacher fosters an accountability system that drives the task (Doyle, 1983; Doyle & Carter, 1984).
Classes have their own history which carries consequences for academic work (Doyle, 1983). At the start of the school year, students carefully attend to the explanations and expectations that teachers convey about tasks. As these tasks are accomplished, evaluated and given feedback by teachers, the emerging character of the task system becomes clearer. Students subsequently attend selectively to stimuli that have consequences for completing a task, whether or not teachers explicitly define it. If stimuli suggest to students that an answer is not required or any answer will suffice, then little substantive academic work will beaccomplished since the accountability for that task is suspended (Doyle, 1983). 42
The inferred, myriad demands that a dassroom environment makes on teachers have great implications for them and necessitate a reconceptualization of teachers as not merely instructors, but as behavioral managers as well. Doyle (1977a, 1977d) borrowed from Kounin's work on group management skills to suggest that effective teacher-managers as defined in an ecological paradigm, are able to communicate awareness of dassroom events, manage two or more dassroom events simultaneously, regulate the pace and variety of instruction appropriately, and indude as many students as possible in activities. Yet, these management abilities do not exist independently. They are dosely linked to the instructional adivities that teachers plan for which requires knowledge of organization, content, allotted and effective activity duration, physical space, type and number of students, materials, and the expected student and teacher behaviors (Doyle, 1981). Thus, a classroom ecology consists of an intertwined and mutualistic relationship between instructional and management task systems.
Doyle (1977c) partially formulated the dassroom ecology construd as a result of a three-year, naturalistic study of his student teachers in their extended field experiences in various school settings and teaching various subject matter. From his observations, he conduded that dassrooms were multidimensional, simultaneous, and unpredidable places. They were multidimensional in that they served a variety of purposes and contained a variety of events and processes. They were simultaneous in that teachers concurrently attended to many instructional and management dimensions. They were unpredictable in their sequence of events in that as simultaneous events occurred, there were always possibilities of internal and external interruptions. 43
Doyle also found Brophy and Good's expectancy model (1974) congenial to the ecological rendering of the classrooms he observed.
From an ecological perspective/ teacher expectations are viewed as adaptive responses to the complex environmental demands of the classrooms. This is not to say that personal bias is justified or that expectations do not have negative consequences; rather it suggests that the origins of these expectations might have origins in the ecology of the classroom rather than simply in the personal wishes of the teachers. Changing expectations becomes, therefore more than simply changing teachers. (Doyle, 1977c, p. 17)
Thus Doyle's iteration of the learning environment as an ecology sharply contrasted with process-product models while redefining teacher effects and the relationships between actors and objects in the classrooms.
Physical Education
Published physical education literature of this genre is rather sparse, as most of it is in the form of unpublished doctoral dissertations conducted in a chain of programmatic research studies at The Ohio State University. Siedentop (1988) reported that while the gymnasium's ecology was quite similar to Doyle's classroom ecology, it nonetheless featured nuances in the ways teachers and students negotiated instructional and managerial task systems. Physical education research borrowed the notion of a student social system from classroom research, in which fun is superordinately pursued by students in ways that force teachers to either structure their gyms in ways that suspend the social system or encourage them to integrate social pressors into their activity planning. 44
Two of the doctoral dissertations have been reported in the literature. Tousignant and Siedentop's (1983) analysis of task structures in required physical education classes marked the genesis of ecological research in the gymnasium. Analysis of task accomplishment led to the identification of four basic student behavior categories: engagement with the task as stated; engagement in a modified version of the original task; engagement in off-task behavior; and nonengagement with the task via competent bystanding. The level of challenge involved in a task was associated with the degree of on-task behavior. Bystanding behavior was most likely to occur when challenge was high. Off-task and task-modified behaviors were most likely to occur when challenge was low. On-task behavior was most likely to occur when challenge was optimal. The degree of on-task behavior was also affected by the explidtness of the task presentation/ the type and focus of the accountability system/ and the amount of active supervision.
The other published dissertation was an analysis of task systems in elementary schools (Jones, 1992). Jones' major finding was that managerial, instructional, and social task systems interacted with one another. Managerial routines were taught to the students in order to gain their cooperation, and in so doing more time for instructional tasks was created. Teachers' rules, routines, and expectations were practiced during the course of instructional tasks, while instructional tasks such as warm up became self-management routines, freeing up the teachers to interact socially with the students. Core skills and drills were used as anticipatory sets, allowing the teachers to help individuals, devote more time to other instructional tasks, and interact socially with the class. Teachers chose instructional activities that incorporated both skill acquisition and fun. Behavioral reinforcement strategies in the form of star charts earned for appropriate behavior in managerial and instructional areas and prizes 45 awarded for completion of instructional tasks during competitions were further examples of how teachers blended all the task systems together.
It is apparent that ecological descriptions of the inter-relationships between teachers and students, the events of learning, and the events of teaching in classrooms are suitably generic for application to gymnasia (Siedentop, 1988). By virtue of physical education's purpose to promote movement as an end in itself, the gymnasium as compared to the classroom, requires more stringent application of a managerial system and more active monitoring to enforce it. Since movement for children is inherently fun, a social task system with important ramifications for the structuring of managerial and instructional task structures emerged from task-systems research in physical education.
Sport
As was the case in sport expectancy research, the sport ecology is a special exception to the general findings of classroom and physical education research in this area in that the phenomena transpiring in the sport environment do not readily conform to existent theory.
In her dissertation on interscholastic volleyball, Griffin (1991) found a host of factors unique to competitive sport which affect the ecology in ways not found in the gymnasium. Specifically, she identified the mastery focus of instructional tasks, practice intensity, practice duration, strategic play focus, unidirectional instructional style, player numbers, and the nature of accountability contingencies as unique to the particular setting studied and vastly different than what is typically found in physical education. Some of these factors interacted to limit the student-social 46 system, while others informed the coaches' choice of tasks and their structure. Accountability contingencies took the form of sought after reinforcers such as opportunities to travel, suit up, get in the game, win approval of the coach, and be recognized by the school. As such, the coach's managerial task structures were minimally constructed, since it was the instructional task system's constant evaluative component that motivated players.
England (1993) examined only the instructional task system in her dissertation on tutorial tennis settings. She found that coaches typically delivered initial tasks in task sequences by verbally describing the task, physically demonstrating it, and manually guiding the student. Coaches engaged students in tactical play which emphasized strategy and game like situations and prompted active instruction throughout as a means of maintaining flow. Students responded most often to task demands successfully and correctly and were highly congruent with stated tasks. Students also actively asked questions in order to clarify task demands as stated by the coach or to obtain feedback. Though tennis tutorials may be considered part of the sport domain, the dual-directional influence present here but absent in the volleyball context (Griffin, 1991) suggests a perhaps greater affinity of sport tutorials to physical education settings than to traditional sport ecologies.
Hastie and Saunders (1989) in observing coaching behaviors and player involvement in elite schoolboy rugby teams, found that the most effective coach engaged in a unique, active instructional cycle of observation, concurrent instruction, and intervention. Such a cycle allowed for more player involvement due to its effectiveness as an accountability system, by which players were aware through the coach's 47 activity that their work was being monitored and that the coach was more likely to attend to those players who were not working up to the coach's expectations. Active instruction may indeed be a powerful predictor of on-task behavior, as athletes (Hastie, 1993) identified active instruction as a more influential determinant of their task involvement than rewards/consequences, implying that athletes tend to be task oriented and less reliant on external reinforcers to direct their task involvement.
In another elite level sport study, Hastie and Saunders (1992) identified elements unique to sport settings to try and explain differences found between the sport ecology found in the study and those found in physical education. These elements were part of the instructional task system and included homogeneity of skill level, clear results of formal accountability, greater knowledge of individuals by the coach, and individual differences not due to differences in motivation. Homogeneity of skill makes planning instructional tasks easier for the coach because a narrower range of responses are elicited from players. While formal accountability is often publicly obscured in physical education, in sport everyone knows who gets cut and who wins and loses. By knowing fewer players better than teachers know their many students, coaches can modify their level of accountability for response quality in tune with each individual's capability. In the sport setting, accountability measures will vary only on skill level since individual differences are not typically due to differential levels of motivation (i.e., players voluntarily participate in sport but do not have that option for physdal education classes).
In closing this short section, the research suggests that the while the task systems identified in classroom and physical education literature exist in sport settings, their dynamics are vastly different due to the disparate purpose and nature of sport. In view of the temptation to make 48 comparisons between physical education and sport ecologies, any conclusions drawn from such comparisons should be regarded with caution and in reference to their individual contexts. CHAPTER m METHODOLOGY
Overview of Theoretical Framework
To examine coach expectancies as they operate in sport ecologies, a qualitative approach to study design and data collection was selected. Coaches' thoughts and feelings are high-inference variables which can not be adequately and accurately recorded through quantitative techniques. Additionally, naturalistic observation of coach-athlete interaction allows compilation of observational records that describe intact the surrounding environment and events which help shape the observed behavior. Since no research exists about the gender dimensions of expectancies from an ecological standpoint, this study's main purpose was to describe what male coaches of girls' track teams think/expect and do during a sport season—a purpose especially conducive to qualitative methodology (Jorgensen, 1989).
The localization of the coaching act in time and place assumes that coaching behavior is defined by the context in which a coach works. It is in the natural setting of the practice field that the coach produces, influences, and gives meaning to his behavior (Schempp, 1987). Graham, Green, & Earls (1986) four assumptions about life in a sport environment help clarify how using an interpretive lens suited this study.
49 50
1) sport offers a dynamic, communicative environment in which interactions between and among participants have mutliple outcomes and meanings.
2) context is actively created and multiple levels co-occur as coach and athlete interact.
3) meaning is situation specific.
4) interpretation is required for understanding instructional conversations and related actions.
These assumptions form the basis of symbolic interactionism, a sociological theoiy which attempts to understand the social context and what happens in it by determining how people give meanings to their actions (Chilcott, 1987). Although symbolic interactionism has been criticized as an incomplete theoretical basis for interpreting the beliefs and actions in sport pedagogy research because it "omits the influences and expectations of outside agents and situations" (Templin, Sparkes, Grant, & Schempp, 1994, p. 276), it nonetheless was adopted as a filtering mechanism to the data generated from the expectancy and ecology models. Its theoretical propositions are complimentary to the premises of both expectancy and ecology models and the data collection techniques used in them. The symbolic interactionist approach begins with a problem regarding the empirical world, and it seeks to clarify the problem by inductively examining that empirical world. Its modes of inquiry comprise exploration followed by inspection, together referred to as naturalistic inquiry (Wallace & Wolf, 1991). Its methods of getting close to the empirical social world, including direct observation, interviews, listening to conversations, reading local newspapers, and consulting official documents, were techniques adopted in the present 51 study to generate data about coach expectancies and the ecologies in which they operated.
Qualitative Method
Sampling Two criteria were used for initial inclusion on a generated list of candidates for the study: (1) being male; and (2) coaching girls' track in Franklin County. Thirty coaches met these criteria according to the OHSAA 1994-95 Directory. Two of the thirty were deviant cases based on context (one a fundamentalist Christian school and the other a girls' only school) and were omitted from further consideration. Letters were mailed to these twenty-eight coaches in which the nature of the study was described, their participation solicited, and a follow-up phone call from the principal investigator guaranteed. Included with this letter was a demographic survey which was completed by the coach if he wished to continue in the selection process. If he did not wish to continue or needed additional information, the coach checked off the appropriate option and remitted the survey in a postage-paid envelope.
Returned demographic surveys indicating a wish to participate (n=15) were used to screen and separate remaining coaches on various presage variables related to coaching experience, coaching responsibilities, and work experience. Coaches whose presage characteristics and setting variables indicated considerable interaction with girls in an array of events and greater than 8 or less than 3 years coaching experience of girls' track were retained. They were then grouped into dichotomous categories of more (> 8 years) and less (^3 years) experience. 52
From the less experienced category, two of the five coaches were excluded due to their ages (49 and 52), posited to perhaps confound the experience variable. A third coach from this category was excluded because he coached at a school where the investigator formerly and recently coached, representing a potential confounding variable.
Ten candidates composed the more experienced category and the criteria for exclusion were not as readily apparent as those used to deal with the less experienced group. Ultimately, choices for inclusion were based on the criterion of program reputation. This criterion fits Patton’s (1990) notion of extreme or deviant case sampling by which cases are selected for their uniqueness and interesting manifestation of the phenomena. From the two experiential categories then, five initial participants were selected for study in order to guard against participant mortality and/or weak contexts.
Sage (1980a) suggested that coaching experience is one of several powerful determinants of attitudes, and as such, the amount of coaching experience made a suitable variable for distinguishing among coaches. Use of this variable increased the chances of selecting coaches who differed on one of the constructs under investigation—namely thoughts and actions toward female athletes. Two main participants expanded the scope of this study by offering greater opportunity to observe and record the phenomena of interest and by providing a basis for cross-case comparison.
Subjects Both the nature of the research questions and the perceived degree of difficulty in obtaining their answers influenced the process of 53 reducing the sample from the original five coaches down to two. Based on initial interviews with all five prospective coaches, it was determined that three coaches posed problems related to team composition (one national caliber athlete on an overall average team), starting date (assistant coach responsibilities for basketball overlapped with track), and access/programmatic emphasis (limited time available for coach-investigator interactions/superordinate agendas not in mainstream compared to others). Although these factors by themselves necessitated choosing the two coaches who participated in this study, it became apparent as the study progressed that the two coaches selected almost by default would have been the best selections from the pool of five from the outset because their dissimilar experiences and contexts and their effects on EBAs provided striking contrasts .
Ron, a 47-year old language arts teacher and district wide specialist at Conquistador High School, had coached track and field for twenty- three years overall and girls' track for the previous nine years. A native of Columbus, Ron attended a local high school, where he sprinted and was coached by the same man who now coaches the distance running squad at Conquistador. Ron ran in college and got into coaching as a natural progression of his athletic career. He became titular head of the girls' team when the previous coach retired, and it was decided to combine the boys’ and girls' teams together under one coaching staff. Under this setup, Ron currently coaches boys’ and girls' sprints. Ron has spent his entire professional career at Conquistador and now coaches athletes whose parents were in his classes or program. The success that he and his team have enjoyed are known state wide, while his program is both highly regarded and copied at local and state 54 levels. Though at first uneasy about coaching girls, Ron now would not return to coaching boys exclusively under any circumstances, in part because he now sees boys' attitudes as antithetical to the purposes of athletics, as suggested by the following statement from the initial interview.
I'm frustrated now by the lack of commitment and the selfishness of young male athletes. And I don't see that in girls right now. I see a much broader perspective from women about team and commitment and the social aspect of the sport whereas boys just want to go out and win. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Jon, a 27-year old art teacher and religious club leader at South- Central High School had coached track and field for four years and was beginning his first year as girls' coach. Locally raised, Jon mainly played football in high school, participating in track as a high jumper, hurdler, and mile-relay runner during his senior year. Jon became a coach because of his "love for kids" and also coaches football and helps run a strength and conditioning program at South-Central. Jon was promoted into the vacant girls' coaching job this season after the previous coach stepped down. The boys' coach and administrators suggested that Jon run a separate girls' program, so that Jon could take ownership of his team and be recognized as head coach. Thus the structure of coaching roles for Jon dramatically changed for him this year. As an assistant in past years, he worked with boys and girls on sprint events only. This season he was responsible not only for an entire girls' team but for all their events, some of which he admittedly had insufficient knowledge of to coach effectively. Additionally, Jon was taking over a girls' team that last year had fewer than 10 participants, and that unlike Conquistador, had no acknowledged 55 performance or programmatic reputation. He had mixed feelings about distancing himself from the boys’ sprint program that he helped build into a recognized powerhouse. However, several months into the current school year, after working with some of the girls from the track team, Jon expressed commitment to coaching the girls as a result of having fun with them, seeing how they became more excited than boys, and wanting to take the opportunity to build the best program around. Settings Observations of the settings occurred over the entire 1995 Track season, beginning in early March and continuing through the week of the Regional Meet, contested in late May.
Conquistador High School is in an affluent community, highly regarded for both its academic and athletic excellence at the state level. Students are from upper-middle to high socioeconomic status homes, often attending prestigous universities and utilizing the many amenities available to them, such as cars and trips. With a student population of greater than 1100, the Explorers compete in Ohio's first division which is composed of large-size schools. Fifty-one athletes comprised the girls' team this season, 22 of whom were returnees. Eighteen of the athletes were primarily sprinters, coached by Ron and his assistant, Mike. Last year, the girls' team, with many senior leaders, won the league championship and advanced both individuals and relay teams to regional and state competition. This season, 10 of the 18 sprinters were freshmen, many of whom were heavily relied upon to carry the load of the sprint team. The Explorers are supported by a booster club, local press coverage from two municipal papers, and broad-based community and parental support. 56
South-Central High School is located in a semi-rural area, 25 minutes outside of downtown, drawing its students from a mix of nearby municipalities and rural townships. South-Central consistently ranks significantly lower on academic achievement and the number and quality of its sports' teams when compared to Conquistador.
About 40% of the students are from single-parent homes of low to middle socioeconomic status. Most graduates choose one of three routes after completing high school: (1) direct entry into the work force; (2) vocational or technical school; (3) community college or local colleges/universities. Unlike Conquistador, more students do not have access to cars, trips, and other luxuries, and more students' parents are not college educated or working professionals. With a student population of just over 500, the Yankees compete in the smaller schools, second division. Twenty-four girls comprised the team this season, a doubling over last year when the program was run by a different coach. Seven of the athletes were returnees, only one of whom was a senior. The remaining seventeen were all underclassmen, and like the situation at Conquistador were called upon to contribute to the program immediately. Unlike Conquistador where Ron only coached sprinters and had an assistant, Jon was wholly responsible for coaching the entire girls’ team and had only a part-time skeleton coaching staff, who assisted him with the throwing and high jump events. Last year, the team took seventh out of eight at the League Meet and advanced an athlete to the State Meet for the first time ever. No support in the form described for Conquistador exist at South-Central, due in part to a comparative lack of resources and the existence of multiple communities which feed into the high school, each with its own ties and interests. 57
Entre£ Patton (1990) regarded entry into fieldwork as a two stage process consisting of negotiations with the participant about the nature of the field work and actual physical entry into the setting to begin data collection.
Stage one was facilitated by an introductory letter from the investigator and co-signed by the advisor describing the nature of the study, its importance, and extending an offer of university credit for participation. This letter was followed by phone contacts prior to the investigator coming out for a first meeting. At that first meeting, the coaches were encouraged to ask further questions about the study's purpose and scope. As I am a former track coach, conversation during this first meeting flowed smoothly and abundantly. Having had their questions answered and concerns satisfied, they signed the required university consent form and an additional consent form drawn up to inform them of the reciprocal nature of coach-investigator responsibility during the study (Appendix A).
Stage two, gaining physical entry to the setting, was planned in accordance with the reciprocity model, by which entry is gained because some reason can be found for participants to cooperate and the opporunity for mutual exchange is high (Patton, 1990). Based on this model's tenets, I was welcomed into both settings.
Ron welcomed an outsider's observations and viewpoints concerning his program at Conquistador. By my presence, Ron voiced that he felt pressure to prove to me that his philosophies, as they were expressed in his program's structure and by its success, not only 58 worked but were also appropriate (I.W.C.r.18.11). Ron introduced me to his team the first day of practice and formally introduced me to their families at parent orientation night. Over the course of the season, my relationship with Ron grew to the point where I was solicited for thoughts on particular runners or how to treat injuries. The athletes over time also warmed considerably, as I made it a point of interacting with them regularly and in meaningful ways. My worth in their eyes seemed considerable as they proactively asked me questions by mid season and later took to teasing me. Our relationship culminated on the final observation day, when one of the captains brought out the yearbook photographer to take a picture of Ron and me, since she felt that I had been such a large part of the season. Another runner traced my handprint on the "wall of fame" for posterity.
Jon welcomed me for somewhat different reasons. At the start of the season, Jon was somewhat concerned about not making coaching mistakes and welcomed any corrections that I might give him. While, I did not correct him, we often had long conversations after practices about what he did on that day or what he did at a previous meet, discussing the pros and cons of his actions and decisions. Jon invited me to work with his distance runners which I turned down for fear of altering the reality of the ecology as it was originally foreseen and constructed without knowledge of my future presence. Jon sought my advice about a number of issues and stated that he benefitted greatly from the field notes and interview transcripts I gave him, using them to compile a list of "twenty things to change for next year". Jon even voiced that he felt that I helped him more than he did me and would welcome a return visit in the future. Jon's consultations of me posed problems related to minimizing reactive effects. Indeed, by 59 implementing some of my comments, the ecology was changed to something different that if I were not there. However, the hypothetical impact of turning down his solicitations for help were thought to be more costly than the reactivity issue. It was felt that if he was turned away from the help he sought, Jon would have been less hospitable and open in his relationship with the researcher. A by-product of our interactions concerning his coaching was his stated feeling of safety with me hypothetically coaching his girls, a feeling that he would not have for most others. In contrast to the relationship I shared with Ron, my relationship with Jon was more intimate in the sense that Jon had few other people to share his first-year struggles with as girls’ coach and felt that I was "fatefully sent" to him to help him out during his first year. Jon's athletes were less overtly enthusiastic about my presence than their coach and compared to athletes at Conquistador High. While I adopted an approach in forming relationships with athletes at South-Central similar to the one used at Conquistador, Jon's athletes' behavior seemed most notably more circumspect and controlled around me when in my observational mode or in close proximity. They were also more guarded during their interviews and conversations with me than their counterparts at Conquistador. This difference may be attributed to the regularity by which students at Conquistador serve as subjects in studies conducted by university researchers. In short, my relationship with South-Central athletes never blossomed like it did at Conquistador, and as a result, the limited access they granted me made for more limited insights into their side of the sport ecology. About the Researchers This brief section's purpose is to familiarize readers with who the researcher and his assistant in this investigation were. The principal 60
investigator coached girls' interscholastic track and field and cross country for two years and women's intercollegiate cross-country for three years. As participant and / or coach, I have been involved in track and field for almost thirteen years beginning in 1982. Since the threat of subjectivity is always high in qualitative fieldwork, a second observer was solicited to assist in data collection and peer debriefing for the final nine weeks of the study. Nancy served as a counterpoint from a female perspective, questioning initial insights on the part of the principal investigator based on her own independent observations, while offering personal insights as both a former athlete and current track and field coach. Nancy's involvement in track and field began in 1973, as a junior in high school, when her school began a girls' running program in response to Title IX. She later went on to run distances at the University of Illinois, after which she began coaching primarily women in virtually all field specialties while at UC Davis, Saint Cloud State, Texas Tech, and currently at Ohio Wesleyan.
Data Collection
Chilcott (1987) links the theory used in a study with data collection methods particularly suitable to it. Data collection techniques typically used when operating from a symbolic interactionist framework include observation, interview, and document analysis. These techniques were selected for the present study of coach expectancies and their manifestation and operation in the sport ecology.
Observation Thomson (1977) spoke to the continuum of roles in participant observation, when he warned that the closer the researcher gets to 61 becoming fully involved, the greater the risk of introducing personal bias and producing reactivity. Yet, the problem in this study dictates the use of participant observation. According to Jorgensen (1989) when little is known about the phenomenon, it is obscured from outsiders' views, and there are important differences between emic and etic views, participant observation is called for. The less extreme role of observer as participant is offered by Glesne & Peshkin (1992) in which there is some interaction intermixed with observation. In this study, I primarily adopted this role. Pilot data suggested that participants may perceive my observations to be evaluative in nature, making them less likely to engage in full disclosure. To this end, I made it clear from the first meeting that I was only there to watch and learn, and it was not assumed that coaches felt reassured by this promise. It was thus very important to me that my observations be considered as nonreactive as possible so that I did not intrude upon the naturalness of the social setting in attempting to collect data (Bird, 1977).
A field notebook served as the primary data source. The open nature of track and field practices makes field notation a suitable data collection method. Through fieldnotes, events may be described, initially reacted to, and analyzed while still on-site or shortly thereafter. Twenty observations comprised the data set at Conquistador High, which included a parent orientation meeting, an awards banquet, one dual meet, one invitational meet, and 16 practice sessions, two of which were audiotaped. Seventeen observations comprised the data set at South-Central High, which included an awards banquet, one dual meet, one invitational meet, and 14 practice sessions, two of which were audiotaped. Due to suspected threats to trustworthiness from observer bias, a graduate student-peer observer 62 was recruited and observed at both sights £or nine weeks of the study's duration, making a total of either five or six visits per site.
Data were recorded in two of the three different notebooks suggested by Locke (1989): a theoretical diary that recorded personal reactions, speculations, questions, concerns, and alternative explanations; and steno notebooks containing field notes with all nondescriptive commentary bracketed for identification.
Simple observations of exterior physical signs, expressive movement, physical location, verbal behavior and time duration were obtained through non-participant observation. Microphoned audio tapes of the coaches during practice served as an additional data source for verbal behavior. Reactive effects on coach and player behavior from the novelty and awareness of being audiotaped were minimized by spending a considerable amount of time leading up to audiotaping establishing rapport and trust, and noting through comparison to other observations that recorded practices were no different than non recorded practices (Patton, 1990). Forays into the sport ecology as participant yielded insight into the dyanmics of practices, from the emic perspective of athlete.
Interview Participant observation is a flexible, open-ended and opportunistic process of inquiry in which dialogue between participant and researcher forms as a function of the status of the phenomenon under investigation (Jorgensen, 1989). Initially, my interviewing was semistructured; questions were specified in advance, in outline form but sequence and wording decisions were made during the interview 63
(Patton, 1990). Though conversational and situated, this form of interviewing increases comprehensiveness and imposes some systematization which is necessary at the study's outset in order to frame later observations in light of interview data about the coach's background, attitudes, perceived behavior, and feelings about their coaching. Initial interviews were conducted on a single day in the privacy of Ron's coaching office and Jon's home and took between one-and-one-half to two hours with each coach. This structure worked so well that it was used again for midterm interviews with the coaches and for interviews with the athletes as well.
Formal interviews with the athletes were conducted on a one-time only basis, at pizza restaurants close to each school, and in groups of between three and seven based on grade level. Using a focus group approach, question sheets were given to the athletes in advance of the interview date. At the interview, they were instructed not to repeat anything discussed outside the interview context, to tell the truth as they knew it to be, to feel free to disagree with their peers, to answer to only those questions which they had strong opinions about, and to feel assured that their responses would be anonymously reported. A running list of respondents was kept to identify people who monopolized the conversation and those who volunteered little. Periodically, these people were respectively reminded to speak less and to speak more, and the overall record indicated a fairly equal response distribution. Some questions from the original list were skipped or quickly solicited for consensus of opinion based on my paraphrasing, due to the fact that in responding to some questions, their answers incorporated others. Subtle differences in questions between grade levels allowed for interviews to be tailored to the observed experiences and reported roles that particular groups seemed to occupy leading up 64
to the interviews. They were treated to dinner as a token of reciprocity, and they seemed to enjoy the overall experience judging by the feedback relayed to me by each coach.
Although many questions were answered during formal interviews, during the course of observation, questions emerged from the immediate context that were asked through informal conversation. Though informal interviewing may seem haphazard and unsystematic, it is a vital recourse for asking questions that are particulaliy salient and relevant to the observations at hand (Patton, 1990). During informal interviews, emphasis was placed on connecting what was going on presently to what had transpired days or weeks before and to also capture each coach's thought process in light of certain coach and athlete behaviors.
Informal interviews with athletes and coaching peers were less often used to confirm or disconfirm the coach's espoused beliefs and attitudes. From these interviews key informants were selected, whose input via informal chats served to "verify events recalled [by the coach], triangulate perceptions held by others, provide leads for interviews and observations, and inform [me] of coaching behavior changes" (Schempp, 1993, p.5). At Conquistador, Mike, the assistant coach and some of the first tier athletes served in this capacity, while at South-Central I was dependent on two to three oft-injured athletes. The athlete informants' comments may have been unrepresentative of unsolicited athletes' views, and as such were regarded with caution. 65
Document Analysis Participants gave me copies of their practice plans and other printed materials they used during the season. The practice plans served as a guidebook to the training philosophies of the coaches and provided an opportunity to identify practice days deviating from plan, so follow-up questioning of the coaches' reasons for deviating could be pursued. In addition to these documents, newspaper articles about the Conquistador track team, particularly those that quoted Ron were collected, analyzed, and used in case construction. The newspaper articles, offered permanent written evidence of the coach's thoughts, and more importantly allowed insights into Ron's philosophies, values, performance evaluations, and future predictions. Additionally, the newspaper content often spawned new questions and confirmed previous observations.
Data Analysis
Early Analysis Analysis begins with the collection of the first data point (Siedentop, 1989) and takes up greater portions of the research act over time, as data collection slows (Chism, 1994). When done concurrently with data collection, early data analysis enables one to focus and shape the study as it proceeds (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).
Early data analysis might involve memo writing, analytic files, rudimentary coding schemes, and monthly reports (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Of these methods, only rudimentary coding schemes were used. The coding scheme used for the organization of raw data, and in citations throughout the report, is based on one used by Fortin (1992). 66
Combinations of letters and numbers describe the particulars of a data source as shown in Figure 1 below.
I »Type of Data: Observation (O); Informal Interview (I); I Formal Interview (F); Document (D); Taped Proceeding (T) I I •Source: Word (W); Action (A) I I *Type of Participant: Coach (C); Runner (R); Both (B); Other I Coaches (X) I I • First Initial of Participant(s): Ron (r); Jon (j); Explorer (e); I Yankee (y) I I ‘Sequence: 1-20 (Observation); 1-20 (Informal Interview); I 1 with superscripts designating grade level z(seni°r) I j (junior) s(sophomore) f(freshman) (pormai interview- I Athlete); 1-2 (Formal Interview-Coach); I 0 (D-Practice Plans), 1 (D-Team Packet), and 2 (D-News) I I •Timing: 0-13 (Weeks of Study with 0=preseason) I Figure 1. Coding System for Raw Data Reduction
According to this coding scheme for example, a predominantly verbal interaction observed between Ron and one of his athletes during the fourth observation would be reduced to: O.W.B.r-e.4.2 67
As another example, the response obtained from asking Jon after practice why he told his athletes at a team meeting that they should be nervous the day before League Meet would be reduced to: I.W.C.j.15.10
Early data analysis may also include searches for negative cases, peer debriefing, member checks, audit trails, and reflective journals (Earls, 1986). Peer debriefing was most commonly used in the present study. Little new evidence was gained from member checks, although they proved to be a methodological liability in terms of safeguarding against reactivity since coaches changed some of what they did or attended to by reading them. Conversely, if coaches did not have access to the data, trustworthiness would have been comprised. Additionally, some invective comments made about Jon by his athletes were struck from his copy of the fieldnotes as it was felt that this kind of information would have influenced Jon's behavior and the relationship with the investigator. Maintaining a separate reflective journal was soon subsumed in the compiled case record, with entries scattered sporadically when strong feelings came to the forefront. Peer debriefing was conducted on a weekly basis with the graduate assistant who served as a second observer and separately with my advisor. My advsior metaphorically functioned in this role as a canyon wall, echoing back my reports to him and clarifying each week's events and where I wanted to head. My assistant, also a track coach, metaphorically functioned in this role as a "devil's-advocate", having been out to a site and then matching her observations with personal perceptions based on her coaching experiences and the literature. These impassioned sessions proved quite fruitful; they exposed subjectivities and offered different perspectives for understanding what was going on at each site. 68
Together, these methods begin to categorize the researcher's own best sense of how datums stick together while checking the veracity of one's hunches against one's own subjectivity and against others' reading of the data. Jorgensen (1989) described this stage of analysis well.
Analysis of qualitative data is dialectical: data are disassembled into elements and components; thesematerials are examined for patterns and relationships, sometimes in connection to ideas derived from the literature, existing theories, or hunches that have emerged during fieldwork or perhaps simply commonsense suspicions, (p. 110)
It was important during early analysis to "constantly compare" what I observed daily with emergent hypotheses and theories (Wilson, 1977). Constantly comparing reality with constructed explanations for it constitutes what Glesne & Peshkin (1992) termed "making the familiar strange and the strange familiar." During early analysis, it was vital to always question an initial theory's place in light of the evolving case. What seemed clear on a given day often was unclear the next or vice versa; therefore early analysis functioned to sort out pieces of a puzzle into areas of possible fit, whereas later analysis attempted to link presorted puzzle pieces together.
Later Analysis The first task in later analysis was to refine the initial coding scheme into more stable categorization levels. Chism (1994) suggests at least a structural level which relates back to the research questions and a thematic level which requires your making meaning of what is in the structural category. These levels are carefully developed and display 69 five elements that Chism (1994) believes are essential to good category systems.
1) they fit the purpose of the research questions and shed light on the questions asked.
2) they communicate meaning quickly and effectively through use of metaphor, catch phrases, and emic language.
3) they accomodate and describe most of the data without force.
4) they can be corroborated through intersubject agreement because they are based on a language structure and logic that is shared and agreed upon.
5) they are efficient at describing patterns yet do not correspond one for one to each response within a structural category.
Structural and thematic categorization yield data chunks that are ready for in-depth analysis and synthesis into grounded theory. Jorgensen (1989) described this process well.
With an idea in hand, the data are reassembled, providing an interpretation or explanation of a question or particular problem; this synthesis is then evaluated and critically examined; it may be accepted or rejected entirely or with modifications, and not uncommonly this practice is then repeated to test further the emergent theoretical conception, expand its generality, or otherwise examine its usefulness, (p. 110)
This process is a part of generating grounded theory, an inductive and constructive, four-step process outlined at the top of the following page (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). 70
1) compare applicable data to each conceptual category.
2) integrate the categories and their properties.
3) delimit the emergent theory.
4) writeup the theory
The coding products of early analytic, open coding and later analytic structural and thematic categorization become the building blocks of grounded theory construction which calls for axially, then selectively coding.
Axial coding takes the reduced datum and reassembles it in new ways by connecting it to its subcategories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These subcategories include the context of the phenomenon, the intervening structural conditions that favor/constrain the phenomenon from occurring, the actions /interactions that people say or do in response to a phenomenon, and the consequences of those actions/interactions. Identifying these subcategories creates categorical relationships, some of which are retained through selective coding to become core categories in the conceptualization of the story.
Based on the attitudinal, behavioral, and contextual data generated in this study, a grounded, ecological case study of two coaches was built that attempted to explain how Ron and Jon's EBAs and their behavior were interrelated and how they were shaped by their respective environments. 71 T rust worthiness
Trustworthiness is a contentious concept in qualitative research. Because qualitative research is epistemologically based on a coherence theory of truth, validity is never conceived as assured but rather as corresponding to researcher findings and the "real world". Qualitative research products are deemed trustworthy when they "cohere with other propositions in a scheme or network that is in operation at a particular time" (Sparkes, 1989, p. 140). The contextual nature of validity in qualitative research shifts some of the burden on to its readers who must personally make meaning of the research and hopefully reach intersubjective agreement, the standard for qualitative validity. Whitson (1976) described the interface between text and reader as a somewhat epiphanous experience.
Accounts which succeed in representing dimensions of human experience that others can relate to, and which help people to understand that which was previously incomprehensible to them, will be the ones which many people will recognize as having heuristic value in their own lives, and which will widely be acknowledged as valid, (p. 61)
The remaining onus for ensuring trustworthiness lies with the researcher in two ways: he must craft a convincing story and he must use appropriate methodologies to create a storyline. Of the former task, Siedentop (1989) believes that it is the writer's skill as a narrator that becomes trusted rather than the basic data. Thus the researcher as writer must tell a story that is compelling, interspersed with selective quotations that allow the reader to "be there" and possibly see what the researcher saw. 72
Of the latter task, myriad cautionary directives to the researcher have appeared in the literature. Locke (1989) advocates taking an active role in building trustworthiness by staying in the field for prolonged periods, keeping regular habits, behaving unobtrusively, being firmly neutral and nonjudgmental, showing active interest in everyone, peer debriefing and triangulating data sources.
Triangulation is a central methodology used by qualitative researchers in establishing trustworthiness and "can guard against the accusation that a study's findings are simply an artifact of a single method, a single source, or a single investigator's bias" (Patton, 1990, p. 470). Methodological triangulation in the form of observation, interview, and document analysis, source triangulation in the form of interviewing coaches, assistant coaches, and athletes were used to enhance trustworthiness.
Utility is another criterion used by some qualitative researchers in evaluating trustworthiness (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990; Patton, 1990). A study that allows you to do or know something that you did not know before meets such a criterion, and utility was achieved in this study through its original conception of the problem and its use of qualitative techniques to study coaches' attitudes toward girls and the factors that influence their actions toward girls--an as yet underutilized method in coaching research.
Reactive and subjective threats to trustworthiness were addressed. The researcher must report possible "hot spots" that interfere with unbiased interpretation (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Two of the "subjective I's" that are peculiar to me as a researcher are the "justice- 73 seeking I" and the "pedagogical-meliorist I" (Peshkin, 1988). I am very intentional in my own coaching to provide an equitable experience for women and may not be able to maintain neutrality if 1 see my participants behaving in ways toward their female athletes that I construe as sexist or inequitable. I am also very intentional in my own coaching to provide high quality teaching and learning environments and may pass judgment on my participants who don't meet my pedagogical standards. To help offset these biases, peer debriefing was used to expose my thoughts for others to respond. As the study progressed, these subjective threats seemed to wane, as I found myself defending some of the coach's social and pedagogical actions that my assistant found indefensible. In short, Ron and Jon's questionable statements and behaviors did not personally phase me as I thought they would.
Finally, although more aligned with critical research, the notion of catalytic validity (Lather, 1986) was included as a criterion measure of data trustworthiness. Critical research attempts to enlighten and empower disenfranchised participants to effect change in their oppressive environments. As such, critical research is concerned with the emancipatory value of its research product; did the research promote change? Although not intentionally operating out of a critical paradigm in this study, by sharing the data with the coaches and asking for their clarifications and insights, they came to see undiscovered particularities about their attitudes and actions invisible to them before my entree into their lives. Jon, upon reflecting on the field notes given to him, commented: "it helped me be positive I wanted to change some things." (F.W.C.j.2.10). Ron, though not necessarily 74
moved to change anything, was also affected by the field notes, referring to their effect on him in the following comment:
I just think it's a real advantage to look at the program through another set of eyes and to get to sit and think about it, because you can't do that at a practice. There is so much going on, you don't have time to analyze every little nuance, everything that takes place. (F.W.C.r.2.7)
Transferability Transferability, or external validity, is a secondary concern in qualitative research, which typically does not seek lawlike relationships with predictive and control value (Earls, 1986). It is more important to get the story in its fullness than it is to produce an axiomatic story. Though qualitative research is written as localized, ideographic case studies, given the thick contextual description and vivid portrayals of participants, most readers have little difficulty recognizing situations that are parallel to their own, or detecting assertions that make no sense in their own experience (Locke, 1989). In attempting to attain transferability, the researcher is challenged to create a case that has some commonality to the reader's experiences so that it may be understood, but with enough distinction so that it will be noticed (Stake, 1994). Ultimately, if the case arouses a knowing nod in its reader through the identification of oneself in the report, then the case study has stimulated reader insights into possibly applying what is reported to one's life, thus attaining a degree of transferability (Schempp, 1993). Transferability as described above was not a primary concern of this study due to its situatedness in context and its limited scope. Any degree of transferability achieved through the study's presentation in these cases, as judged by its readers, is an accidental result of the writing process. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS
This chapter proceeds according to the order of the first three research questions, but separates the two coaches as distinct cases, such that responses to the three questions begin with Ron first and when answered, continue with Jon. The fourth question which compares the two coaches' EBAs and coaching behaviors intermingles the two cases and forms the foundation of chapter 5.
CASE 1 RON
Question 1: What were Ron's EBAs for his female athletes? Originally, this first question contained subquestions related to EBAs for participation and behavior, physical capabilities, and personality and psychological characteristics. While EBAs for these subquestions were noted over the course of the season, a fourth general category of EBAs related to Ron's program emerged.
Question 1.1: What were Ron's EBAs for participation and behavior? Ron expressed clear expectations regarding athletes' attendance requirements.
...you are at practice every day, you are on time, you are appropriately equipped, and that you dear your calendar to participate in your meets in the spring. That you don't schedule conflicts of the ACT test on
75 76
the day of a big meet. That you are aware of your commitment to the team. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
While this statement sounded like it was etched in stone/ Ron quickly added that over the years these expectations had to be modified due to changing priorities by athletes and parents.
...So we now have to balance family responsibilities and family expectations which may be different from ours into a pattern of participation. So we have to tolerate now more athletes kind of picking and choosing...We want to know well in advance if there are participation conflicts...That's one of the hard things about coaching now. I mean I never would have missed a meet when I ran. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Ron's expectations for attendance were conveyed to parents at a parent orientation meeting which the athletes also were required to attend and separately to the athletes at the first day of practice. In addition to these verbalized expectations, attendance rules and procedures were outlined on a team rules handout (Appendix 8) distributed on both the first day of practice and at the parent orientation meeting.
Ron's expectations for individual behavior were expressed less clearly than his EBAs for attendance: "We expect our kids to be good representatives of our school and community and good representatives of themselves and their attitudes." (F.W.C.r.1.0) This vagueness was perhaps related to how Ron interpreted the question. Indeed, behavior expectations were related to both parents and athletes verbally and through handouts. Expectations for behavior related to activity outside of the practice context that might indirectly impact on track performance were voiced at the parent orientation, such as timeliness 77
for busses, uniform care, eating and sleeping habits, and academic performance. Additionally, a list of 33 cautions, considerations, and responsibilities to increase safety and enjoyment was distributed (Appendix C).
Ron's EBAs for his athletes' participation and commitment were typically reflected in succinct statements based on years of experience.
They are out there because they either enjoy the physical activity, they enjoy the feeling of team, or they like to win...We expect the same level of commitment from everybody. We don't get it, but that's what I believe about track...(F.W.C.r.l.O).
Later, during that interview Ron added that the feeling of team had become a strong attraction for girls' sustained participation: "1 now accept that girls treat the team as a social organism as much as a place for individual athletic performance...” (F.W.C.r.1.0) And to his athletes on their first day of practice, Ron expressed his belief as to why athletes should be participating: "We think Track is one of the best programs in all the high school's sports. You should be here because you like it and get a kick out of it." (O.W.C.r.1.1)
In summary, Ron's EBAs for participation and behavior were typically conveyed in formal settings [parent orientation], early in the season [first few days of practice], and were verbalized and committed to permanent products [handouts]. Ron's iterations throughout the season of how great the kids were presumed a belief that excessive concentration on rules and regulations was not necessary. Ron's EBAs hinted at a mellowing of expectations over the years for participation due to personal realizations of the changing nature of sport values 78
and a flexibility in dealing with individuals and their various behaviors and reasons for participating.
Question 1.2: What were Ron's EBAs for his athletes' physical capabilities? While Ron's EBAs for participation and behavior were temporally confined to the beginning of the season, Ron's EBAs for his athletes' physical capabilities were manifest throughout the season.
Ron only once addressed his athletes en masse about the discrete performance goals to which they all should aspire to. During the opening day of practice's briefing, Ron told the athletes what kinds of performance times they should expect: "...all girls should have goals in mind~a 28 second 200 and a 14 second 100. One of the beauties of track and field is the individual goals that you can improve toward with our help." (O.W.C.r.1.1). Interestingly, the 100 meter time he mentioned on that day was one-half second too slow to qualify for an automatic varsity letter based on time—standards, which Ron and his colleagues devised and provided to the athletes in order to let them know what their expectations of varsity caliber performance were (Appendix D). However, this small irony belies Ron's overall lack of emphasis on time. Ron rarely based performance on time, but rather on place—his expectation for physical performance was predicated on how well one competed, such that if the athlete competed and placed well, then the expected time or distance came as a natural by-product of the performance.
Ron admitted to limitations for his runners in general. Without team speed, Ron was forced to focus on relays and the 400 meters at the 79
expense of the true sprint events. He felt that his athletes could only compete with other sprinters by the sheer volume run during practice and the tenacity put into practicing relay exchanges (F.W.C.r.1.0 & I.W.C.r.5.5). Ron voiced pleasure at being able to start this year's freshmen girls with longer sprint races as he had not been able to do so in the past: 'These young girls are already running 400s and should down the road change the tradition of girls' so-so showings in longer sprints." (I.W.C.r.7.6)
This focus on heavy volume sensitized Ron to the possibility of injuries. From the first day of the season, Ron encouraged the athletes to report pain to the coaches and to take up a routine injury prevention program.
If you're getting some soreness you’ve got to get in the routine of icing after practice. It will make an incredible difference. Don’t just tolerate it. Tell us about it and let us come with a plan so we can ease the pain. (T.W.C.r.2.5)
An example of a typical one-on-one communication of expectations on this matter with an athlete was as follows: "...I'm trying to train you and race you and heal you at the same time. That's a delicate little balance and it puts a responsibility on you to clearly communicate with me..." (T.W.C.r.2.5)
However, Ron was not naive to think that his plea to his athletes to inform him of what their bodies were experiencing would be met with complete and instant openness as he related during the first interview: "...a lot of kids come into our program thinking they want to hide 80 those things [injuries] from a coach and it takes a really long time for them to understand where we are coming from." (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Ron did not solely rely on his athletes' health reports to inform his decisions about structuring practice. Instead, Ron had developed a training philosophy over the years based on his admitted mistake of overpredicting the physical limits of his female athletes "thinking that physically they were capable of training closer to the level of young males than they were actually capable of." (F.W.C.r.1.0). Based on his earlier oversights, Ron now shortened practices into high quality, short distance multiple repeats in a light-heavy repetitive cycle. Ron no longer announced the particulars of practice in advance, because he felt that the inflexibility of doing so "set up situations whereby kids would disappoint themselves." (F.W.C.r.1.0).
While repeating workouts based on what worked in years past, Ron was sensitive to feedback he received from athletes' performance limitations and changed training traditions and/or practices accordingly. Ron often used the swimming pool in past years, but did so only once this season. When asked why he did not use it more, he responded:
...last year...we could train on Mondays and still perform on Tuesdays [dual meet days], of really going light on Wednesdays and going into the pool. This year I don't have the same kids. And we didn't come into the season with the same aerobic conditioning...(F.W.C.r.2.8)
An example of Ron's sensitivity on an individual basis was his response to his captain's report of shin pain very late in the season. Ordinarily, Ron would have suggested that an athlete with chronic 81 pain seek medical consultation for possible orthotic therapy, however realizing that Janeen was a senior, not planning to run in college, and on a relay team which he felt would not advance very far, he advised her to tough it out which she did for the remainder of her season. (LW.Gr.14.8)
Ron was often swayed by individual situations at hand and by situations from years past in devising current practice plans based on athlete performance capabilities. However, Ron maintained several beliefs concerning girls' physical performance capabilities and kinesiological predispositions to injury that also influenced how practices were planned and conducted. On a performance level, Ron believed that it did not take too long for sprinters to rise to the top, "especially for girls" (F.W.C.r.2.8). This belief was articulated during the second interview, when in response to the question as to why he seemed to spend more time teaching the freshman boys compared to the freshman girls, he called this group of boys "the wildest [technique] bunch I've ever had" and "unbelievably ragged" (F.W.C.r.2.8). This statement indicated that his freshman girls came into his program more fundamentally sound than did his boy sprinters. On an anatomical level, Ron thought that "...there is a physiological difference in foot placement and load bearing in the lower body in women because of hips and joints and stride patterns..." (F.W.C.r.1.0). This belief led Ron into structuring workouts that included longer rest intervals and less work compared to boys' workouts (F.W.C.r.1.0).
In summary, Ron initially verbalized goal times to the athletes, yet rarely mentioned time as a performance criterion in future verbalizations; instead voicing EBAs regarding place in competition as 82 the primary performance criterion. In order to achieve peak performance/ Ron believed that training should be tailored to the athletes’ capabilities and take advantage of their stamina in longer sprints and their precision in relays. This type of training, Ron believed predisposed his athletes to injury, so he and the other coaches believed in open communication between athlete and coach concerning training response. Many of the statements concerning the athletes' physical capabilities included pronoun references in the first person, such as T, ’me', 'we', 'us', perhaps related to Ron's strong feeling of instrumentalism he played in bringing about good performance. Although Ron expressed some EBAs concerning gender differences which he felt limited physical capacity or predisposed females to injury, these EBAs were not readily verbalized during practice. Instead, they took the less perceptible form of different workouts for boys and girls in terms of expected speed, volume, and rest interval.
Question 1.3: What were Ron's EBAs for his athletes’ personalities and psychological characteristics? Ron could not answer this question from the perspective of knowledge of each individual athlete's personality and psychological make-up. During the first interview, he commented that the size of the program precluded getting to know each athlete that he worked with:
One of the sad things is you've got a team of fifty kids...there is no way you're going to know all the kids...and the sad thing is obviously you get to know the kids with the real talent or the significant contributors to the team a little bit better than the kids who sometimes stick with the program for 83
four years and you just don't have time with them. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Besides the kids that continue in the program who Ron does not get to know well, Ron also felt that the program's reputation scared others away from coming out in the first place:
We have this unbelievable rich tradition and a very close knit group and I think it's a wonderful experience and we lose kids, and I think sometimes they are intimidated by what they think the training level will be...or they feel that they won't be successful because the program is so successful that there won't be any place for me. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
As Ron saw it most of the team reflected psychological values that he and the staff themselves instilled, since Ron believed that "most kids aren't aware of the psychological twists and turns of athletic competition." (F.W.C.r.1.0) The primary thrust of Ron's program was aimed at psychological development, as he put it in the first interview: "...the key is handling kids psychologically and having them understand that you care about them." (F.W.C.r.1.0) Ron believed that the psychological development in the athletes and their understanding of its primary emphasis by the coaches took time to develop; "...that by the time they are done with the program, they really understand and help each other. The older girls help the younger girls." (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Despite the girls who never made it out for track and field and those girls who Ron never got to know, he very clearly beliEved that a team persona existed:
...there is a personality of our young women. The commitment and desire to win and even the way 84
they carry themselves and act towards opponents... there is sort of a team persona that develops...and that you expect them to conform to that during the time they are a part of the team or really being judged in school." (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Ron's description of a team persona applied to all female athletes on the team, even those whom he did not directly coach. Though he did not coach hurdlers, field event athletes and distance runners directly during practice, Ron still felt obligated to all athletes for their psychological needs and thought it was his duty to intervene when any female athlete needed counseling (F.W.C.r.1.0); thus from his interactions with them, he felt that they too displayed this team persona.
Ron found differences between his sprinters psychological make-up compared to other athletes on his team:
...sprinters have a different psyche and I think that sprinters have a lot to discover about mental preparation and warm-up and we do our coaching about that stuff during the week...or...after the fact if we think they made critical errors. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
In addition to differences by event, Ron articulated gender differences on two psychological parameters. In describing his style of approaching an athlete after a performance, Ron made the distinction of being less confrontational with his girls based on his anticipation "that with a young woman there might be a more obvious emotional response to failure, crying, than...from a boy who might exhibit it as anger." (F.W.C.r.1.0) Ron also enjoyed coaching women more than men, in part because psychologically, "they are not nearly as self absorbed and not nearly as championship oriented as the boys...they develop a sense of team and team accomplishment." (F.W.C.r.1.0) 85
In summary, Ron felt that his team posessed a persona and that it was learned by the younger athletes from watching and imitating older athletes' behaviors in practice and at meets. Ron articulated that team size and individual talent levels influenced the quantity and quality of interactions he had with each athlete. He also believed that some potential athletes never came out for track or never stayed very long because of the intimidating tradition of success the team experienced. Ron felt personally responsible for his athletes psychological needs, in part because he felt most athletes were not capable of controlling this aspect of their training, and in part because he felt that the psychological handling of athletes was what he did best and the training part of coaching is what the assistant coaches did best. Ron maintained several EBAs about psychological differences by gender related to athlete focus on championships and athlete response to failure and feedback, but these were vocalized only during the context of interviews and were not vocalized directly to the athletes.
Question 1.4: What were Ron's EBAs for the girls' program? Ron, in his initial written survey filled out prior to the season, wrote very clear expectations for this year's girls' team:
We would expect to win the League [they did] and compete for the District Championship [finished second]. We arrive at these expectations through our rich tradition. Individually we would expect to be very successful in the distance events [3200 meter relay team and two individuals qualified for State Meet], the hurdles [Regional qualifier in 300 meter event], and the field events [Regional qualifiers in shot put]. Individual goals would include qualifying as many people [seven] to the State Meet as we can. (D.W.C.r.3.1) 86
These expectations were realized in part by the aystallized system of EBAs Ron held for each meet and subsequently conveyed to the athletes. In general the atmopshere at meets was business-like and serious. The team and individuals came in with goals that had been developed over the preceding weeks. Ron, Kyle, and assistant coaches sat in the stands apart from the team observing and evaluating what went on before them, often discussing and deciding on how to use an athlete or how to deal with an athlete in weeks to come. Sprint athletes managed their own warmups, stretching, and cooldowns and were also left on their own to report to the appropriate clerks at the appropriate times. In essence, meets were viewed as"hands-off" affairs which culminated and validated the work done in practice. Meets were dichotomized into Tuesday League meets and Saturday relay and invitational meets. Greater stress was placed on Saturday meets and greater stress still was placed on key meets in the season that signified checkpoints along the way to achieving outlined goals. This dichotomy was explained by Ron:
...we use those Tuesday meets...to make sure that we reward our seniors and juniors who have been in the program and have stuck with us and have talent but maybe not the raw talent of some younger little kid who has come along. We want to keep them in. We want to give them their rewards for being with us. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Ron also explained the dichotomy to parents at the parent orientation:
We do not believe that a Tuesday meet in the first week of April should have a bearing on who's the 87
champion in the League when the whole purpose...is to reach your peak sometime in May or June...Tuesday meets are an opportunity for every team member to participate and for us to experiment and for each athlete to judge their own individual improvement. (T.W.C.r.1.3)
Ron even explained their purpose to a news reporter to in part respond to his observation that they always lost by wide margins at dual meets: "The dual meets are an opportunity to run all of our kids and experiment with some in different...It is a chance to see what the kids do in a meet situation." (D.W.C.r.2.9).
Ron had distinct EBAs for each invitational meet. The first invitational of the season was against top competition, was meant for learning, and was not designated as a winnable meet. Ron related these beliefs to his athletes during practice:
You might as well get toasted the first time out and see how good we have to become. No sense in fooling yourselves. We could line up some wonderful sprint meets for you where you would think you were fabulous. I would rather you face reality. (T.W.C.r.2.5)
Ron did not waver from these beliefs after a sixth place [out of twenty-one teams] showing at this meet, telling the paper that with "a little patience, a little better weather, well start seeing some improvements." (D.W.C.r.2.6) Ron confided after the meet that he discovered things about the team:
....that right now, we have no speed yet. Others finish on their toes, though in coming weeks we'll improve. We found out that the girl sprinters can run...by May we'll put together a competitive team 88
with goals of making it to Regionals in the relays and winning Districts and League as a relay team. (I.W.Gr.5.5)
The second meet of the season was a more local meet allowing a chance to see Central Ohio teams and a more even spread of talent in the events so that Ron's sprinters could experience success. (I.W.C.r.5.5)
Other meets were specifically planned with certain purposes in mind, leading up to the home invitational which preceded the League Meet by a week and which brought out the best teams from Central Ohio in a sort of pre-post season showdown. This meet catapulted them toward the high-point meet of the season thus far—the League Meet, whose importance was stressed by Ron to his athletes on repeated occasions. During practice two days prior to the League Meet, Ron took his girls aside before the last repeat, telling them: "this meet [League] is much larger than our home invite and is where we’ve been pointing toward all year long...You ought to be going to compete and win championships." (O.W.C.r.15.9). In a team meeting with his League Meet sprinters the day before the first day of the Meet, Ron gave a pep talk to them that converted any last doubters to firm believers as to the importance of this meet:
We're defending League champs forever [four years running]...other teams have to preach magic...we are the best and will score our points...this is a team thing this week. Individual League champs don't mean anything, the team does...think of the success we've had against elite people and realize that this can be done...go down with a tiny swagger, confidence. Do not fear this meet, it's an opportunity. (O.W.C.r.16.10) 89
After winning the League Meet for the fifth consecutive year, Ron reaffirmed his belief in his sprinters in a newspaper interview: "The distance runners scored the lion's share of the points and we expected that. But the thing is right across the board—our sprinters, field events, and hurdlers-eveiybody contributed. That's what happens when you come to a championship meet." (D.W.C.r.2.11)
Though Ron's programmatic focus was mainly on team performance at big invitationals and postseason meets, Ron realized that his program had to cater to all individuals and had to sustain all athletes regardless of talent level. To this end, Ron incorporated EBAs into his program which reflected the importance of fulfilling individual needs. For those runners without enough talent to be part of postseason plans, Ron felt that the season itself and the dual meets...
...provide them an opportunity to compete and be coached and get better and be a part of the varsity program...and if it's an activity they enjoy we want to be there to make it the most enriching experience it can be. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
When asked to surmise an athlete’s response to the question of how satisfied they were with their role on the team, Ron responded:
I like running in the Tuesday meets, I like training with the group that I'm with, I like the coach taking enough interest in me to remember what I did last year, how I progressed, to say a few encouraging words and to give me an opportunity to compete in a varsity program even though I might not be one of the top runners. (F.W.C.r.2.8) 90
Ron acknowledged that he knew that there "are a number of kids who run second line who say I really didn't feel that the coach knew me or cared about me or spent enough time with me." (F.W.C.r.2.8) Ron defended these rare occasions by intimating that many of those athletes brought on their own frustration by staying in sprinting when they would have been better served in another specialty and were encouraged to explore other events and failed to do so. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
Even though only a handful of athletes made the post-League Meet sprint squad, Ron felt it was important that all athletes experience a culminating event, so he and other coaches set up a quadrangular meet coinciding with the week of the District Meet so that athletes could go into the summer on a positive note and achieve their best marks. In fact, at the awards banquet Ron especially recognized one female who earned varsity letter status by shot putting the standard distance at this quadrangular meet [the last meet of her season] on her final throw.
In summary, Ron's programmatic focus was aimed at team performance, using key meets as barometers of the success of a season. Expectations for performance at these key meets were particularly high this season in light of the team's youth and inexperience. Yet, these expectations did not change from year-to-year and were punctuated by EBAs for representation at regional and state competition. Despite Ron's emphasis on big-meet performance, Ron believed that Tuesday meets also served key purposes, offering opportunities for all to compete and achieve their personal bests while working their way toward Saturday meet status and allowing experimentation with lineups and events. Ron felt that his program offered something for eveiyone and believed that athletes saying otherwise were those that 91
were persevering in events they were ill-suited for and were reluctant to try other events.
Question 2: What did Ron do at practices? Originally, this question contained two subquestions that distinguished proactive from reactive behaviors. Upon reviewing the data base, reducing practice behaviors to discrete categories was abandoned, because in so doing unitaiy behaviors would be extracted from strings of behavioral interactions between coach and athlete, making them devoid of the context in which they occurred. Instead, a summary of events which typically transpired will be presented first and then short vignettes and recorded interactions from the data base depicting Ron in his various roles as coach will be presented to confirm the initial summary.
After the last class period of the day, Ron would come down to the office located in the basement of the gymnasia wing and proceed to change and "talk shop" with the other coaches. Conversation about individual athletes, organizational details, or school matters filled the office and Ron would sometimes talk with newspaper reporters who would call at this time to catch either him or the boys' coach before going out to practice. Sometimes athletes would come down into the office to ask a question or inform Ron of their health status, but in general athletes waited for the coaches to come up to meet with them. Twenty minutes after school was dismissed, the coaches would emerge. If it was Monday or the day before a meet, a meeting was convened in the main gymnasium, Ron typically talking first and relating information about pre-meet details, about the week to come, or meet lineups. Then, Kyle, the boys' coach would often tell a moralistic story 92 before taking his distance runners and holding a separate meeting. Ron and the assistant coaches would then walk the sprinters, hurdlers, and field event athletes out to the track, during which time the first personal interactions of the day between coach and athlete often transpired.
Ron sent the athletes to do a two lap warmup and stretch on their own as he and Mike [his sprint assistant] chatted about individual athletes and meet lineups. When the warmup was done, Ron might often make rounds, chatting with individual athletes about how they were feeling, making small talk, or addressing the group with a story about himself, reminders, or meet strategy. After the athletes completed sets of 100 meter striders, Ron would tell them the day's workout, the next few minutes devoted to transitioning athletes to their proper places. Mike would often work alone with the short sprinters on technique while Ron worked with the long sprinters. Early in the season, team workouts were done en masse and were co supervised, with Mike serving as technical diagnostician as Ron ran the workout. Later in the season, "Tuesday runners" [those athletes who did not run in Saturday meets] were often left on their own the day before a meet, as Ron and Mike worked with relay teams on exchanges. After doing their workouts and two lap cooldown, athletes would often check in with Ron before going to the training room. The training room was a place that Ron and Mike took turns supervising with other coaches, and when there, used as a place for socializing and dealing with athletes psychologically.
Ron never ran with athletes, while Mike did on rare occasions. During the core portion of workouts, Ron and Mike would stand on the infield starting waves of runners, at first grouped by personal 93 preference and then later in the season by coach's decision; and then follow them visually around the track while crossing the field to meet them. Before a repeat, Ron would typically emphasize critical elements and stress to them important things to think about when running. After a repeat, Ron would often encourage individuals and groups, sometimes teach in response to mechanical flaws noticed during a repeat, or continue to psychologically prep his athletes. Many of these interactions incorporated humor, story telling, or sidebars. In fact, as the season progressed, the more likely Ron was to infuse practices with humorous tangents in order to lighten their mood. With fewer runners to deal with (i.e., his 4x400 relay team members were the only athletes left after the Regional Meet), time devoted to tangents sometimes even exceeded time devoted to practice.
Ron the Instructor Ron's first instructional episodes during practice typically came after striders and just before athletes embarked on their first repeat of the day. By announcing critical elements, Ron prompted athletes to focus on performance elements before an interval based on what he observed while watching previous intervals. A typical pre-interval instructional stream from the very first practice session follows:
Don't be concerned that I have my watch out. We’re not making any judgments in relation to time [proactive encouragement]. Be sure to lift your knees, rotate your legs, get up on your toes, and be smooth all the way [technical critical elements]. Do not compete, run as a group, stay together, and help each other [social critical elements], (interaction 1- O.W.C.r.2.1) 94
Sometimes, after striders and before beginning a workout, Ron checked on the energy level or injury status of the group, as the following excerpt from the fourth day of practice suggests:
How many of you have sore calves, hams, quads, and QMB? (proactive questioning) [athletes ask what QMB is] QMB-when you go around one whole lap, you hurt in your butt, lungs, and head— quarter-miler's butt, (reactive defining) [Only some of the athletes responded that they had QMB and Ron followed] Based on your response, I think we'll have to do something today...We'll start with a nice easy 600 [meters] in 1:20, and that's for the women, (reactive informing with humor) (interaction 2-O.W.B.r,e.3.1)
Sometimes, in the middle of repeats, during a rest interval, Ron would call attention to technical flaws that he or Mike observed committed by one or more of the athletes, as the following vignette suggests.
Vignette 1: After running four 200 meter repeats at 36 seconds, Ron instructed them to take a long walk before continuing so that quality would be maintained. Before sending the athletes off, he addressed the group:
When you're getting tired, you're pulling your arms up and into your body. They're useless to you in that position because they don't allow you to drive forward. Think about keeping them down and using them even though there's a natural tendency to do that when you're tired, (reactive post-instruction) (O.W.C.r.7.6) 95
However, most instruction occurred during relay exchange practice, limited to a select eight or so athletes who consistently comprised the sprint relay teams. A typical instructional stream was recorded the day before the District Finals as Ron worked with the 4x100 team.
• post-exchange 1: [Ron instructs Laurie to drive as if she were trying to run away from Missy who was coming in] (reactive post-instruction) •post-exchange 2: That was perfect Missy...exactly how you're going to do it tomorrow, (reactive general feedback and general encouragement) • pre-exchange 2J This is big time competition...People will be all around you...You're excited but under control...You want to go to Regionals. (proactive encouragement and psychological instruction) •pre-exchange 4: Concentrate on your mark and not the crowd around you taking off at different times. You've got to have a sense of discipline. Let's hit it...here we go, we're in the race, (proactive encouragement and psychological instruction) •post-exchange 4: I’m not gonna end on a shaky one. Once you get confident in your mark, then you have confidence to wait. She hasn't rim over you yet, you've got to hang in there, (reactive instruction and encouragement in response to athlete leading out teammate too soon) (interaction 3-O.W.C.r.l7.11)
Occasionally, Ron spent large quantities of time teaching an individual, usually about exchange techniques, and typically toward the end of practice when fewer people remained and he had more uninterrupted time to teach. It was in these interactive moments that Ron's role as instructor was most apparent. An example of such an occasion occurred between Ron and Taryn, a freshman long sprinter 96 who was just being worked into the Saturday meet lineup and did not know how to do an open exchange for the 4x400 meter relay.
Ron: ...you spot back about eight to ten feet and just pick out a little mark right here and when she hits that area you turn and do three or four acceleration strides, then you turn the upper part of your body so you can see her and you put your palm out straight and up. (initial verbal description of task) Taryn: Wait, I don't understand. Ron: I'll demonstrate. So you're standing here and she is coming up and you go 1, 2 , 3 and then you reach like that. It's called an open exchange. It's visual. Palm to the sky, but you gotta do three acceleration strides, (reactive demonstration) Taryn: Like full speed steps? Ron: Yeah, so you get yourself moving or she is going to run over you. And then when you look back if she is struggling to catch up with you, you can adjust, (reactive additional information) Taryn: Like stop and wait? Ron: ...The worst thing that can happen is standing like a statue, this moment of panic. Should I take off or shouldn't I? And then she runs all over you. The big thing is to get moving and then you can adjust once you look back, (reactive reinforcement of information) Taryn: So when is the best time to start moving? Ron: ...just look for a spot right around here and when she is about this distance from you turn your back to her... (reactive demonstration and reinforcement) Taryn: So I wait until she gets here? Ron: Yes, you watch her until she gets to this area, you're turning for three acceleration strides, then you are tuming...and you turn your palms up to the sky. (final reactive demonstration and reinforcement) Taryn: Gotcha, (interaction 4-T.W.B.r,e.2.5) 97
In summary, Ron instructed both groups and individuals throughout all phases of the season. Though standout athletes, especially those involved with relay teams, received the majority of instruction, Tuesday runners received instruction during whole group training in the form of critical elements delivered during interval work. Instruction was often tinged with psychological elements and encouragement, the psychological elements being proactive and related to upcoming meets and specific races and the encouraging elements being reactive and related to just completed intervals and exchanges.
Ron as Organizer. Ron as Planner These two roles are listed together because even combined, they still required less of Ron's time or focus than any of his other roles.
On the first day of practice, Ron apologized for future late appearances and missed days owing due his district duty of running the fourth grade proficiency exam. Ron reassured his athletes that despite his absences [total of five during the season], he still thought that he had something to offer: "I think I still have something to offer so if you'll bear with me and realize my assistant coaches are capable...My missing due to meetings doesn't indicate any lack of care for the program." (O.W.C.r.1.1).
It was because of these duties that Kyle, the boys' coach, assumed responsibility for organizing the administrative side of the program. During the second interview, Ron confirmed this division of labor:
Kyle has correctly concluded that if he empowers me to take the responsibility for certain track things, I'm sorry but they are not going to get done because 98
I'm overwhelmed by running the damn fourth grade proficiency tests...But I told Kyle last year that when I am a hindrance to the program you tell me and I will either move to an assistant's position or leave. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
As Kyle was at hand during this part of the interview/1 asked if he minded shouldering the burden, to which he responded: "I have been doing it for years. I'm the old guy, the foundation/ the cornerstone [sic]." (F.W.X..2.8)
Most of Ron’s practice planning involved conferring with Kyle about how to maximize points at particular meets with various potential combinations of runners and with Mike about the psychological and physical capacity of certain athletes to handle proposed meet situations. A midseason interaction between Ron and Mike about bumping up a Tuesday runner to a Saturday meet typefied Ron's exchanges in his role as planner.
Mike: How about running Saree in this [sprint medley leg]? Or do you want to wait until Tuesday? Ron: I don't have a problem with Saree going. She can run that 200 on the sprint medley...That might help Janeen too [allowing her more rest by sparing her from running in an extra race]...let's see if she's available tomorrow [seeing if she had already made Saturday plans since she was not a Saturday runner]. If she isn't available I don't think it's too much to ask Janeen. (interaction 5-T.W.C,X.r.2.5)
The remainder of Ron's planning was done aloud/ often in response to an athlete's verbalized health status during practice and followed by a subsequent decision by Ron about her availability. Laurie/ a freshman Saturday sprinter/ who was nursing a pulled quadricep and sore knee, prompted one such planning reaction by Ron when she asked about delaying relay handoffs with her partner until the next day at the meet. 99
Yes, that's fine...I want you to go in and ice...Lynn [Laurie's 4x2 relay partner], you are not going to do any exchanges with Laurie today. You guys will check that 4x2 tomorrow when you are warming up...and you're going to run in the 4x4 also. We will do the same order and Janeen will take...Lynn, how about you running anchor? Let's run Taryn and Janeen in the middle, (interaction 6- T.W.B.r,e.2.5)
In summary, Ron's role as an organizer was diminished due to his duties to the school district. Kyle shouldered the administrative duties that ordinarily fell on Ron and when Ron could not attend practice, Mike was put in charge of the sprint workouts. Ron planned lineups in consultation with other coaches and in response to the events of practice. Ron's practices were planned in advance of the season on computer (Appendix E) and were adjusted to reflect athletes' training response or substituted with previous practice sessions that Ron felt were especially valuable in leading up to the State Meet.
Ron as Psychologist As mentioned in question 1, which chronicled Ron’s EBAs, Ron heavily emphasized the psychological side of coaching. This is what he thought he was best at and what he devoted a great deal of time to during practice. Ron knew who was psychologically vulnerable and made a point of proactively dealing with them to prevent these athletes from internalizing mounting pressures.
Cary was one such athlete, a sophomore returnee, who experienced success last season, and this season was counted on to be the on-field leader. While Janeen was acknowledged as captain by title, Cary was 100 acknowledged as "captain on the field" by deed. Caiy sometimes balked at being thrust in this role and Ron, aware of the situation, spent much time boosting up her confidence levels, as the following two vignettes suggest.
Vignette 2: Prior to the second invitational meet, Ron was figuring out relay orders and pegged Cary in the anchor positions of both the 4x1 and 4x4 relays. At the time, Caiy was the fastest girl in both events, but she was reluctant to step into the anchor position, feeling it was too much pressure. Ron responded to her doubts and questioning:
Because you have more experience than anybody else on the team right now. You raced more as a sprinter last year than anybody...[proceeds to list other relay members' inferior experiential qualifications]...so you're it Cary. Who else am I going to subject to the pressure of anchor?...Oh now I understand. You don't like stepping out on the track when it comes down to competition...Well then what are you out here for? (T.W.B.r,e.2.5)
Vignette 3: Although the 4x1 relay team did not qualify to Regionals due to a mental error by one of its members, Caiy's season was still alive as a member of the 4x4, which along with a faster than predicted Taryn and two borrowed athletes, a hurdler and a distance runner, had qualified to Regionals with a 4:05 showing in the District Meet. Although Caiy sported the fastest 200 meter time among the foursome, a strong barometer of 400 meter prowess, she proved to be the weak link among them, doubting her capability of running faster 400s. At the conclusion of a practice before the Regional Meet in which Caiy ran an end of practice all-out 300 meters in 46 seconds, Ron tried bolstering her confidence with a performance prediction. 101
Ron: You know Caiy, if you can run a 300 in 46, you are ready to run 60 point something now. You are not ready to fall down after that either, you know. You could have run a 62 in practice so that's every indication that you are flat out ready to go for it...You're ready to break 60. Cary: Break 60? [said incredulously] Ron: Why not? Did you think you would break 27 this year in the 200 [Caiy ran 26.8]? Caiy: No. (T.W.B.r,e.3.12)
Another example of Ron in the role of psychologist was seen in the way he dealt with Laurie, the chronically injured freshman sprinter mentioned earlier, who Ron labelled as a perfectionist based on early season interactions. She felt that her position on the relays was jeopardized by her precarious health status and was loathe to tell Ron her true condition, while pressing during practice and at meets to prove herself.
Vignette 4: At the District Prelims, Laurie and Janeen had approached Ron in the stands to admit that they were scared. Two days later during relay practice, the day before District Finals, Ron thrust Laurie into Lara's third leg position when Lara pulled up lame after an exchange. Sensing Laurie's nervousness at the prospect of running in Lara's place, Ron used Tuesday’s events to put Laurie at ease while walking with her after an exchange:
You'll feel nervousness like you did on Tuesday. That's good to feel before you race. Draw on Tuesday and expect to feel that way again, but looking back on how well you did...Relax and enjoy it...You’re ready for this. (O.W.C.r.17.11) 102
Sometimes, Ron as psychologist had to deal with outright despair during practice. When Lara pulled up lame as previously described, he had to appear composed in front of a young relay squad while compassionately consoling a sobbing Lara (O.A.B.r,e.l7.11).
On two occasions, Ron's best intentions set the stage for emotional reactions from his athletes, necessitating psychological damage control on his part as demonstrated in the following two vignettes.
Vignette 5: During the second 400 meter interval of a 150,200, 300, 400, 400 ladder, during which Ron urged his runners to be more aggressive, Taryn broke down and began to cry. Ron, in spending several minutes reassuring Taryn of his belief in her capabilities, found out that she had never run a 400 meter distance under any conditions prior to this practice. (O.A.B.r,e.7.6)
Vignette 6; On the other occasion, Mishy, a freshman sprinter with chronic knee problems due to volleyball and basketball, and clad in a cumbersome knee brace, balked at Ron's announcement during stretching that she would run the 400 meters in a dual meet the next day. Midway through the third repeat of an ensuing 150 meter set, Mishy limped up to Ron and before she could say anything, Ron joked: 'That's the ultimate way of getting out of the 400. Only the most creative...[Mishy began crying]...hey what's wrong?" (O.W.C.r.11.7) Ron spent the next five minutes with Mishy on the infield bleachers away from the rest of the team, listening to her medical history regarding her knees and reassuring her that armed with this knowledge, they would set out to limit Mishy's symptoms. 103
In summary, Ron was serious about his role as psychologist, using his daily interactions with his athletes to size up their psychological strengths and weaknesses, and then follow-up when possible with proactive words of encouragement. On several occasions, Ron out of ignorance of the complete situation, behaved in ways that prompted emotional reactions from his athletes. On these occasions, he responded in a less confrontational manner than he was apt to do with high performance athletes who doubted themselves, instead soothing the precipitating hurt while offering the belief that everything was under control or would improve. Interestingly, the vignettes and descriptions of this section were conspicuously confined to those between Ron and his elite athletes. In the data record, few occasions of the intensities reported here were recorded between Ron and the Tuesday runners. This may be related in part to the less frequent interactions Ron had in general with these athletes or may also be related to the different purposes for participating or comfort levels in expressing themselves to the coach that Ron articulated during the initial interview.
Ron as Wit. Storyteller, and Sidebar Participant Ron was surprised to see himself in this light from reading the fieldnotes but readily concurred:
I guess it struck me in reading the field notes how much I am teasing and playing with the kids and using sarcasm with them, which I don't really think about, but is obviosuly an important part of my personality. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
Later in the interview, Ron explained why he used this communication form with his athletes: 104
I'd like to think 1 use it [sarcasm] ...in communicating to the kids that we take this seriously but we don't take it so seriously that you have to be frightened by the program or worried about me and my reactions in trying situations. We are all in this together and we are going to go farther if we keep a little bit of light-hearted attitude about it...I just hope they [comments] aren't too negative. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
Ron's sarcasm during practice often escaped his athletes. Ron's two favorite targets turned out to be the team clowns previously identified, Laurie and Mishy. Although they were freshmen, Ron delighted in their responses to his sarcasm and in turn they would often proactively tease Ron . The following three vignettes between Ron and Mishy and Laurie offer samples of his sarcasm.
Vignette 7: In reporting hip and knee pain to Ron during an early season practice, the following subtly sarcastic interaction between Mishy and Ron was recorded:
Ron: That is such a typical injury [hip pointer] at your age. So just take it easy and do a little jogging and see how it feels. Mishy: Plus my knee. Ron: Yeah, doing what? Mishy: I was in the long jump, [she had jumped last year in middle school] Ron: So, we will try to ruin it again this year. (T.W.B.r,e.2.5)
Vignette 8: Toward the end of the same practice in which Vignette 1 occurred, Ron addressed Mishy about being prepared for relay duty, in the event that she was called upon to run in the 4x100 final at an upcoming invitational. 105
Ron: Mishy, on the slim chance that we would make it to the finals of the 4x1,1 don't want you to eat a lot at lunch. I want you to eat something, but don't overload it, o.k.? Not more than eight hot dogs, o.k.? Mishy: I don't eat any hot dogs. Ron: I was just joking. It's o.k., you’ll understand me by the time you are a junior. (T.W.B.r,e.2.5)
Vignette 9: During stretching several days before a key transitional meet, Ron asked Laurie how she was feeling while making rounds, as Laurie was dealing with leg problems. Upon being told by Laurie that she felt 97% [as mentioned earlier, Laurie was apt to hide the extent of her injuries], Ron responded:
That 3% tells me there's still a little pinch. I guess you're not running Friday. [Laurie became enraged and rushed toward Ron snarling]...That's a joke Laurie and you took it like a big bass. (O.W,A.B.r,e.ll.7)
Later in the season, these two main targets of Ron's sarcasm grew in their understanding of Ron's humorous tendencies and either "rolled with his punches" or doled out some sarcasm of their own as the following two vignettes demonstrate.
Vignette 10: During stretching the day before District Finals, Laurie and Mishy were particularly giddy, joking more than usual, and emoting over the medals the ribbons they won at the League Meet. Laurie began telling everyone how track was the most important thing in her life and how it was even more important than school. Ron chimed in: "Laurie's right on...all we want are our kids to get their 2.0 to stay eligible for track." (O.W.B.r,e.l7.11) 106
Vignette 11: Mishy and Taryn, at the end of a late season practice, were walking with Ron, Mike, and me. In pressing them on the difference between high school and middle school track, Ron found out that Mishy felt her middle school coach pushed her into running track in favor of lacrosse [a sport despised by all Conquistador track coaches due to its notoriety for stealing athletes away from other spring sports], with the following exchange occurring:
Ron: I'm glad he did that [middle school coach pushing Mishy toward track]...It made my season. Good choice. You were going to do lacrosse? Oh Jesus! Mishy and Taryn: You should have heard what we were going to do next year. We were going to come in and see you with lacrosse sticks and say 'yeah, I can't wait until lacrosse starts', just to see what you'd say. Ron: Think I would have seen the humor in that? (T.W.B.r,e.3.12)
While Ron liked to pick on Mishy and Laurie, his sarcasm was not limited to them. Often, Ron addressed his sarcasm to larger groups as the following three vignettes suggest.
Vignette 12: While addressing the entire team the first day of practice, Ron warned them of the repercussions for forgetting their spikes on days that they were requested to bring them: "Infractions will be met with a smile for the first couple of times, then a yell, then a kick in the knee." (O.W.C.r.1.1)
Vignette 13: After practice, the day before an early season meet, a group of girls inquired about getting uniforms. Ron responded: "Didn't you know we're taking you to Fabric Farm so that you can make them yourselves?" (O.W.B.r,e.3.1) 107
Vignette 14: During a rest interval between easy 150 meter repeats, some of the athletes began fooling around as Ron described the changing focus in upcoming practices prompting him to raise his hoarse voice. As a result of having to speak over the noise, Ron went off on a tangent about his daughter Holly, a year removed from the freshmen on his team and known by many of them: "I yelled my voice hoarse on Friday night at my daughter's soccer game. I told her not to let that girl beat her or she’d go to bed without dinner." (O.W,A.B.r,e.l2.8)
Though Ron primarily engaged in sarcasm during practice as an alternative means of communication, he was equally adept at storytelling and at participating in sidebar tangents as the following example of each alternative communication form suggests.
Vignette 15: As Cary [usually a four event athlete] was reduced to running in a single event in the Regional Meet, Ron spent some time with her toward the end of a practice in which she ran fastest at its end, trying to convince her through a story of the benefits of doing extra warmup:
It [running faster at the end of practice] just shows you how much you have to warmup tomorrow...you can't be fooled by the heat and humidity. You'll go out and jog two laps and be sweating...Coach Ron pulled on a day like this. The one time in my whole track career I pulled a muscle and it was on a day like this. Because I was lazy. I thought 'hey, I don't have to warm up on a day like this.' It happened to be the week of my championship meet of my senior year. Nice way to go out, with a hamstring...So you’ve got to really focus. (T.W.B.r,e.3.12) 108
Vignette 16: Later in that same practice, Ron went on a tangent with Mishy about her awards night dress after telling her what she could wear as an alternate to the Regional Meet:
Did you hear how much I liked your dress the other night [a tie-dye]...I thought maybe you were still in oxygen debt from work out when you picked it out...It made a colorful statement. It made me feel like I was in high school again...hippy-dippy as heck. It was very, very psychedelic...Do you know what that means? Helter Skelter. (T.W.B.r,e.3.12)
In summary, Ron incorporated sarcasm into practice as a means of easing the mental intensity associated with workouts, believing that athletics could not be considered in "do-or-die" terms. Ron's sarcasm was often launched at designated targets, who Ron identified as team jokers, and who over time learned how to respond to Ron in complimentary fashion. Ron sometimes burst into parables about the way things were in his younger days as coach and athlete and initiated or joined sidebar tangents during practice.
Question 3: How did Ron's coaching actions and EBAs relate to the sport ecology? A sport ecology is defined by the interaction of the managerial, instructional, and social task systems in a given context. While idealized task systems were originally conceived in Ron’s EBAs for his team, the actual ecology was formed by coaching behaviors in response to contextual and experiential variables encountered in practice. Until now, Ron's EBAs and behaviors have been dealt with separately and have been presented solely from Ron's viewpoint. In order to understand the link between Ron's EBAs and behaviors, the viewpoint of his athletes must be presented because they represented the main 109 targets of Ron's EBAs and were the main fod of his behaviors by serving as foils to Ron in the sport ecology. The link between thought and action in Ron can not be believably established unless his athletes perceived his EBAs. Their perceptions of his EBAs must have resulted from things he said and did at practice. Moreover, a sport ecology can not be definitively identified without information derived from all its inhabitants. Thus, if Ron's athletes operated independently of Ron, in the sense that they were unaware of Ron's EBAs, then a case can be made that a weak sport ecology existed because the nuances of stated task systems were not understood. The athletes thus become important confirmatory sources of any linkages between Ron's EBAs and coaching behaviors, such that if they perceived Ron's EBAs, then interactions must have transpired in the ecology to foster their perception.
Question 3.1: On what dimesions and to what degree was there congruence between Ron’s EBAs and his coaching behavior?
Managerial Domain Ron's expectations for behavior and participation, shared by Kyle, were conveyed at an organizational meeting on the first day of practice and at a parent orientation meeting. Ron made his EBAs for participation and behavior known through both handouts and verbal announcements, revisiting these issues only informally the remainder of the season. As he mentioned in interviews, Ron believed that there were multiple reasons why kids came out for track, and that they stayed because their needs were met, and as such harping on attendance was not an issue. Additionally, leeway was granted in attending all practices and meets, because Ron realized that today's athletes had other activities and commitments beside track. Ron articulated during 110 interviews, and to the athletes, how great they were and what a pleasure it was to be associated with them, essentially suggesting that behavioral problems and compliance with inseason behavioral protocol were also not issues. The one-time, formal treatment of managerial issues was supplemented by upperclassmen modeling expected behaviors throughout the season. Ron felt that incoming athletes often learned more about the program’s managerial structure from veteran athletes than from himself.
Then, were Ron's EBAs in the managerial domain congruent with his actions as perceived by his athletes and by their actions?
Ron missed a total of five practices due to his district duties. Anticipated absences were related to the athletes ahead of time, paralleling his belief that coaches should be informed of absences in advance. In apologizing in advance for his absences, Ron reassured his athletes that any absence was unrelated to lack of desire to coach and be with them; rather it was a by-product of his job as a teacher- administrator. These actions also corroborated Ron's beliefs that sometimes there were other responsibilities which took precedence over track. The athletes understood Ron's EBAs regarding this facet of the managerial task system, by the way they responded to his absences and the way he responded to theirs in kind. This reciprocal understanding is best represented in the following interview response.
Anna: I think everyone understands that it's not that we aren’t a top priority; it's because he has to go. That's an obligation of his. And it's the same thing. If he knows that we have an obligation somewhere else and miss a practice or something...he understands that people have other I l l
obligations and that you have a life outside of track. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Attendance at practices and at meets was rarely a problem for the athletes. Ron believed that athletes participated because they either enjoyed the physical activity, enjoyed the feeling of team, or liked to win. Relative to these espoused reasons for participating, athletes had their needs fulfilled in Ron's program, so it was not surpising that faithful attendance patterns were observed. Despite regular participation as premised by his realized EBAs, that hard workouts, a strong social component, and winning brought out athletes; these factors were insufficient to explain the participatory motives of freshmen, who gave far different reasons for participating.
Mishy: I kind of wanted to do lacrosse but my parents wouldn't let me...I would rather be doing a sport in general than not doing anything...I like more contact things and more team things, but track is fun and it gets you a good workout and it also helps me with my other sports. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Taryn: I was thinking about going out for lacrosse but I really didn't want to because I'd have to buy a stick and there would have been a lot harder workout...And my dad's done it [track] and he's been encouraging me. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Laurie: I don’t really know what made me come out for track...a lot of my friends that were on track last year [middle school] were doing lacrosse and I knew it was going to be a lot more competitive and I wasn't sure if I was up to the competition...I realized how much fun I had last year and how much I would have missed it if I didn't come out this year. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Sheryl: I went out for track in seventh grade because I looked up to my sister and that's what she 112
did...but I just stuck with it because 1 had a lot of fun and I never had any luck with teams you had to try out for. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
These four girls joined high school track this season for reasons of default familial and peer pressure/ and positive middle school experiences. These reasons somewhat contradict Ron's EBAs and suggest a lack of awareness on Ron's part. However, when this same question was posed to upperclassmen, they could not recall what brought them out their first season and dted reasons for coming out this season in line with Ron's EBAs, suggesting that Ron's athletes' initial reasons for participating were transformed as a result of their experience in the track program.
Upperclassmen assumed an unstated role in this transformative process by taking newcomers under their wings, allaying their fears and encouraging their continued participation. Janeen described her role and the transformative process well.
I had one girl who is a freshman...she came up to me the first week of practice and said that she might quit because she didn't think she could handle it and wasn't as good as we were...I just told her to keep going with it...I told her freshman year is always the hardest because you are getting in with all these older sprinters, but your time is going to come...and you're going to improve...There's a lot of people in her place and a lot of people who started with her and it's going to be like that for everybody coming in as freshmen...I enjoy the fact that some of the younger kids come up to me and ask me questions and I try to give them as much possible input as I can because I want them to feel good about what they are doing. (F.W.R.e.lz.7) 113
Cary, only a sophomore, but the acknowledged leader out on the track also described Ron's reliance on upperclassmen well.
...because there are so many freshmen and it is such a young team, he depends on the older people that know the program better...he put more expectations on the older people last year [when she was a freshman], and now it's like we are the older people ...I think he expects us, since we do have a young team, to go out and be leaders and show the freshmen what goes on in the program. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
As for practice behavior, Ron initially verbalized practice routines (two lap warmup, stretching, striders, two lap cooldown), tailing off his supervision as athletes quickly learned these managerial tasks. As mentioned before, Ron believed that simply stating what warmup tasks were and then letting the upperclassmen model how they were to be done was a sufficient stimulus for athletes to comply. Ron trusted individuals to do the right thing because he believed they were good kids. Shifting the onus of these managerial tasks from coach to athlete was congruent with these beliefs. Additionally, weaning runners off Ron's supervision of warmup routines made practical sense at meets, freeing Ron of those managerial responsibilities difficult to accomplish from the bleachers and allowing that time to be spent instead watching and evaluating runners in action. The athletes were aware of these EBAs as the following interview responses suggest.
Cary: I think you are pretty much on your own at meets. You have to know when your events are and when you have to warm-up, how long it takes you to warm-up for certain events...I think you are pretty much on your own on workouts...they always say do a couple of handoffs before in warm 114
up, but they don't make sure you do it...Last year it helped because 1 had all the senior girls and 1 just followed them and did whatever they did. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Anna: It’s like he puts trust in us to know that what we do in practice we are going to do in the meet and they know we are going to stretch well and warm-up and stuff. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Though EBAs and coaching behavior were congruent in the managerial domain, off-task behavior was occasionally recorded for these managerial tasks. On at least one occasion, two lap warmups were reduced to one lap. This incident occurred the week of the Regional Meet, when the remaining girls, all freshmen and sophomores, anticipated a very intense workout. Neither Mike nor Ron were present during warmup and I was sworn to secrecy to not expose their omission. Thus in this instance, a classical downward modification of an implict task occurred because the accountability system from the athletes' point of view was suspended (i.e., the coaches' supervision). Conversely, from Ron’s viewpoint, accountability was still present--an implicit kind that operated through the good conscience of his athletes.
Almost all athletes interviewed hated striders, the second running task in the managerial routine. Janeen best expressed the general resentment felt toward them by the athletes: "They are so annoying. They wear you out...you are so tired by the end of those and they are like o.k., let's start the workout, and you are like wait a minute, isn't that part of the workout?" (F.W.R.e.lz.7). Although downward modification by the younger athletes was the exception, Ron’s 115 assumption that these things would be taken care of by themselves was tested as Taiyn admitted: "I know they are supposed to be really good for you and he always yells at me for like not doing enough or not going full speed and I kind of like shrug it off...I really hate them." (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Even the two lap cooldown, which Ron reminded athletes of periodially was met with downward modification—again, by the younger athletes. Ron followed up on this component of the routine more regularly than the others, because he felt that there were dangerous ramifications of skipped cooldowns on heavily worked muscles and connective tissue. Even so, Cary often ran one lap before jogging from the track into the training room, counting that as her other lap, because as she said: "1 hate running two laps at the end. I wish I could just run one." (F.W.R.e.ls.8) One day, Ron witnessed Cary's abbreviated cooldown and in speaking with her about it was playfully accused of being a watchdog. After explaining to Cary the benefits of doing full cooldown on that occasion, Cary was not further observed omitting laps.
Although managerial tasks during practice were sometimes modified by the athletes, Ron’s expected out-of-practice behavior for his athletes seemed to be complied with as stated. Ron felt that lifestyle adjustments needed to be made during track season in order to create conditions for optimal performance. Ron acted in ways that supported his beliefs, keeping practice length to no more than two hours which allowed athletes to get home early, and urging athletes to do preventive idng immediately after practice, hoping that they would develop a habit of idng at home as well. 116
During practices, when an athlete brought a health problem to Ron, he would take a questioning approach, forcing the athlete to inspect how closely she was following the expected out-of-practice lifestyle. Then Ron would ask the athlete what she ought to do before adding his own suggestions. Judging by interview data, the athletes purposefully made lifestyle changes during track, suggesting that they had personally accepted responsibility for this facet of the managerial task system, resulting either from acknowledging Ron's admonitions as valid or finding out on their own that changes needed to be made.
Anna: I eat differently and I also try to get more sleep. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Tenna: I try to get more sleep...and try to stay more healthy. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Lisa: I don't eat as much grease for lunch...because if you eat too much, you will go out to the track with a stomach ache. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Taneen: I try to eat decent food...I just find myself taking better care of my body...I take baths at night to loosen up my muscles and I try not to do strenuous things. Like last year I went skiing for the first time...a month before track season...and I pulled the muscle in the front of my shin...and I was freaking out...so I find myself more cautious with what I do with my body during track season. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Tesse: I try to get more sleep, especially before meets. And I also ride horses so I try to be very careful when I am at the bam because I don't want to hurt myself. (F.W.R.e.lz.7) 117
In summary, Ron's coaching style and philosophy placed the main responsibilities for the managerial task system in the hands of the athletes. His expectations for behavior both in and out of practice were formally conveyed and then reinforced when athletes sought his counsel for an injury or when Ron felt that nonadherence was detrimental to athletes' health. Ron primarily trusted his older athletes to show younger athletes the practice routines and they merited his trust by rarely going off-task. It was the younger athletes who modified managerial tasks, despite feelings toward tasks that often mirrored the upperclassmen. Thus, it seemed that over time Ron's program transformed freshmen into more compliant and more knowledgeable performers. Ron aided in the process by acting in accordance with his EBAs: by trusting his athletes to do the right thing; allowing them the space to behave as they were wont; letting the program and its veteran performers influence the younger athletes; and subtly catalyzing their transformation through questioning and mirroring their responses.
Instructional Domain Ron's programmatic focus was aimed mainly at top level performance at pre-selected, key meets. Along with Kyle, Ron organized the season's meets with a plan in mind; first relay meets, where multiple relay events required using many different athletes in many combinations, and then on to invitational meets, where individual performance and traditional relays were honed after weeks of experimentation and hard training. To reach his ultimate goal of advancing as many athletes to the State Meet as possible, Ron's practices were formulated with these key meets in mind, and they were periodized, with conditioning , heavy volume, and longer distances dominating the relay phase, followed by shorter distances, greater rest intervals, and fine tuning of technique in the invitational and 118 postseason phase. As a result, practice structure followed a preconceived plan, but it was flexible in that it changed on any given day in response to how athletes coped with a particular workout. As such, Ron never let athletes know in advance what they would be doing exactly, instead letting them know in general terms what would be done, e.g. a hard ladder or easy 150s.
Mondays were typically intense practice days, followed by a dual meet on Tuesday, coming back on Wednesday and Thursday with moderately intense days, and finishing the week with an easy day on Friday, the day before a meet. The sprinters ran out of waves— ultimately based on talent-on all days in which a group workout was assigned. Upon starting them, Ron would give them informational cues related to technique and/or psychology, followed by feedback after they completed an interval. In between work intervals and interspersed with stories and jokes, Ron often shared his programmatic EBAs regarding the importance of meets and his expectations for his athletes' performance.
Mike often served as diagnostician while Ron orchestrated practice. Sometimes, Ron split the group into two, one going with Mike to work on shorter sprints or starts and one working longer distances with Ron. Both Ron and Mike worked relay exchange practice, often leaving the Tuesday runners to complete an "easy day” workout by themselves. In this structure, athletes rarely were successful at negotiating or modifying tasks, though at times they tried. Fatigue, illness, injury, and weather conditions were mitigating factors in whether a planned workout would be seen through to its conclusion or cut short. Boys typically accomplished more work volume than girls, although Ron 119 tended to interact more socially with the girls during practice. If Ron was not engaged in psychological or technical conversation with athletes between work intervals/ he led pulse checks, inquired about an athlete's physical response to the workout, or conferred with Mike, while affording them an opportunity to socialize as they recovered.
Then were Ron's EBAs in the instructional domain congruent with his actions as perceived by his athletes and by their actions?
The emphasis Ron placed on certain meets and the reminders given to his athletes during practice related to meet preparation made profound impressions on the athletes. All athletes quickly named the big meets when asked.
Tesse; ...for relays it's always Dayton. All you ever hear is Dayton, Dayton, Dayton. Dayton is so cool, Dayton is so great...on Tuesday I jumped the best I have all season [dual meet], and they are like good, jump like this on Friday [Dayton]. (F.W.R.e.ls.7)
Carv: I think Districts (are most important) from the standpoint of place and point wise. It determines if you go to States and that is what you work up to. That is the whole point of the track season. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Lame: Probably the League Meet. Because I recall my freshman year we won it and I think, we won it last year...I think they would like to keep that tradition of winning. (F.W.R.e.1^7)
In addition to being able to name the big meets, all athletes interviewed, except the freshmen, were able to conceptually explain 120
why the coaches chose the same particular meets each year and what purpose they served.
Anna: ...we start out with a lot of relay meets that aren't really stressful so that people can get a sense of team, running with their relay teams and not feel like really alone and stressed out...and then we go to the more difficult relay meets which builds more sense of team and are more stressful...then we get into the more individual things,,when we start to hit our peak...so by then you're pretty confident and have more of a team feeling. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Cary: I heard Ron say a lot of times that he takes us to these meets, like the freshmen, to scare them, to show them that this is big time and so that when they get to the District Meet they are not as stressed out. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
In addition to understanding Ron's commitment to certain meets and the purposes they serve, the athletes also understood Ron's expectations for performance, i.e. constant improvement through competitive performance. By often responding in the plural, it would seem that the athletes were as aware of category based expectations for the whole sprint team as they were for target based expectations for themselves.
Lanie: I think he expects us to improve, and for me , just to work on our personal best, do as well as I can. But I don't think he expects some great times out of me...just expects to see personal improvements. (F.W.R.e.lj.7)
Tesse: I just think he wants to see me run the 400 better and then I was third in the League in long jump last year, so I'm sure that he wants to see me 121
get up there and continue to jump well. (F.W.R.e.lj.7)
Taneen: I think he wants to see everybody happy with their times or PR in at least one event...and I think some people he might want to push harder, like me running the 400 this year. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Cary: ...to run a 63 at the next meet...to improve in general in all my running...just always improve. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Tenna: I think he's just looking to see us improve. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Laurie: ...wants us to do the best that we can and just try and improve throughout the season...just do what we can do. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Interestingly, except for Cary, no athlete specified a certain time expectation which was in accordance with Ron's de-emphasis on a time criterion and strong emphasis on competing for place. Additionally, the girls inclusion of 'us' and 'we' in many of their responses in part offered convincing testimony in support of Ron's preference for coaching girls based on his belief that girls were more team oriented and less self-absorbed.
Ron's predilection for coaching girls was never overtly conveyed during practice, yet somehow the girls sensed it, suggesting that Ron acted in ways that were congruent with his EBAs.
Tocelvn: I think he relates to the girls a little bit more. Maybe it's because he has two daughters...he seems to talk to us more...he seems more comfortable with us...he just tends to relate with us more. (F.W.R.e.lz.7) 122
Mishy, in explaining why the boys were treated differently, verbalized beliefs almost verbatim to Ron's own.
I think girls are into a more team type thing and guys are more into individuality...I think guys really push to be the better one and I think the girls work together to make it better for everyone overall and that's what makes the girls...a better team. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
In fact, Ron often reminded his boys to work together and not compete, while praising the girls for working together, perhaps sending signals to his athletes of which trait he valued more.
Beside the girls' sensed gender disparity in interactions between Ron and his athletes, the girls also showed awareness of Ron's EBAs regarding differential workloads for boys and girls based on their physical characteristics. Ron gave boys more work intervals, longer rest intervals, and sometimes longer interval distances congruent with his EBAs. The girls took notice of this; some readily accepted the situation, others were resigned to the fact, while still others were resentful.
Lanie: ...that he works the guys a lot harder than he does us...and at the time it doesn't really bug me because I'm tired and hurting and want to go in. But afterwards the concept kind of bugs me because the guys are getting really good times...because they are out there working longer and harder than us. (F.W.R.e.lj.7)
Melissa; They will say 'girls, you have six 100s and boys you have eight’...It just always seems that they have a couple more...in a way they should because they are stronger and they have more competition so they need to work out more. (F.W.R.e.lf.8) 123
Mishy: We really are not [equal]...It's just because they are built differently and the different workouts are because of this. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Ron's "gendered" workouts partly reflected his fear of injuring his female athletes. In general, Ron expected his athletes to inform him of any pain during/resulting from workout. He realized that athletes may be reluctant to tell him how they feel and as such, often proactively asked athletes how they felt during practice. With already injured athletes, he would ask them how they felt during the schoolday and multiple times during practice. He shortened workouts for injured athletes and counselled them on treatment options. However, his athletes—particularly the younger ones—while verbalizing that they knew Ron expected them to openly communicate to him how they were feeling, often hid their status or understated just how poorly they felt. Thus, despite congruence between thought and action, the athletes ignored Ron and modified downward the task of open communication by hiding pain or telling Ron what he wanted to hear.
Cary: I don't tell him and he doesn't know [hurt leg]...because I don't want to be a complainer or have to sit out when I think I should be running. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
lenna: ...sometimes you have a lot of pain and you want to tell him but you don't want to be complaining all the time. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Lanie: I would feel like a really big wimp going up and complaining. (F.W.R.e.lj.7) 124
Tesse: I just don't think they need to hear any more because there have been a lot of people who have been in pain...and if they hear it, then they think 'oh great, there goes another person'. They need to have some people that they can feel are healthy and that they can count on. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Laurie: I can’t lie to him because he can always tell...I feel bad about telling him sometimes because I feel like a slacker. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Taryn: I feel like a slacker if I tell someone...but he can just read it off my face if I'm in pain. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
These responses indicate a sense of guilt over doing what they were asked to do--reporting their pain to Ron. Additionally, the girls likened reporting pain to complaining and felt that Ron's typical response of pulling them out of practice to rest branded them as loafers. It may be that the girls' team tradition of industriousness and tenacity directed their behavior instead of Ron's expectations for open communication. Since Ron's programmatic emphasis was on performance, the girls perhaps realized that continued improvement would be jeopardized in the face of diminished workouts or roles, expected consequences of reporting their pain to Ron. Thus while Ron was clear about his expectations for this facet of the instructional domain and acted accordingly, the girls were apt to comply with the stated task only as far as they could be sure that the superordinate task of performing their best in key meets was not compromised.
Mixed reaction from the girls was also noted regarding how they felt about not being told explicitly what they would be doing in practice. Ron believed that telling them exact details of practice set them up for disappointment if they failed to accomplish everything planned. He 125 also enjoyed the freedom of modifying practices from their original format based on the athletes' response. At no time during the season was Ron observed explaining this philosophy to the athletes which in a sense proved incongruent to his notion of open communication, even though his purpose for not communicating explicit workouts to the athletes was congruent with his belief that athletes should come away from practices feeling good about themselves. The following sample of interview responses shows the athletes' mixed reaction:
Lanie: ...not knowing is sometimes good because you can sometimes psyche yourself out and think that we re going to have all these 400s to do and then it turns out that you only have 200s...But it does bug me. I always want to know how many because I like to count down. (F.W.R.e.lj.7)
Tesse: When we ran bad [at a Tuesday dual meet] and they are like, 'you have a hard practice tomorrow', and you are kind of scared and thinking it's the day after a meet and we're going to be sore...so at times like that you get a little nervous. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Cary: I don't realty think it makes a difference if they tell us or not...it doesn't have any impact on how hard I try. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Tenna: I kind of prefer not knowing because if you know...you kind of adjust your pace. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Laurie: It's kind of annoying not knowing what you're doing but you get used to it and it's for the better...when you don't know what you're doing he'll surprise you and say 'this is your last one' and you will feel better about the workout...he does everything for a reason, so there must be a reason in his little head. (F.W.R.e.lf.8) 126
Taryn: I think he kind of makes it up as he goes...if we are really slacking off, he's going to make us do more...and if we're doing really well he's going to shorten practice. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Though Cary and Jenna believed not knowing made no impact on them, the other athletes believed that knowing the full workouts in advance would give them psychological relief while admitting that not knowing allowed them to be surprised if practice was ended before they anticipated.
The lack of consensus here characterizes the individuality of Ron's athletes in this matter, yet despite their preference, they were not regularly observed during practice asking Ron for practice details. Thus they were able to subvert their anxiety despite being unable to accurately identify Ron's reasons for not announcing practice details. Putting aside their individual needs is congruent with earlier instructional domain issues related to their identification with the team concept and reticence of reporting injuries for fear of being branded slackers and complainers.
Another important issue in the instructional domain was related to the high intensity workouts run on Mondays, the day before dual meets. Ron articulated that Tuesday meets served as laboratories for testing runners and relay combinations for Saturday meet status while also rewarding non-Saturday runners with a chance to compete and improve. Since Tuesday, for the non-Saturday runners, was their one chance to perform during the week and tty to do well enough to earn varsity letter status through high pladngs [eight or more varsity points] and/or attaining performance standards, it was incongruent with Ron's 127
EBAs that Mondays were designated hard practice days. By running all the athletes hard on Mondays, non-Saturday runners' chances of running well on Tuesday were decreased as their ability to fully recover in a day's time came into question. Tuesday runners were placed in a position of trying to run their best race or improve their performance while tired and sore--difficult conditions for positive results to be realized.
The Saturday runners and Tuesday runners differed in their feelings toward this incongruency, excepting the freshmen, who generally responded in a justice-oriented manner, questioning the fairness of Ron's actions.
Tocelyn (Tuesday/Senior!: Tuesday meets are the only ones I ever run in...they are important to me and I know they are not that important to the coaches...Sometimes it bothers me like how they treat them like nothing...but that's all I do. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Tenna (Tuesday/Sophomore); In the interest of the team, they [dual meets] are really not that important so it's not really that big of a deal. You would rather workout and train the team so it can do its best at the more important meets. But, since that's the only thing I run it would be kind of nice to go easier on Mondays, so that I can do my best on Tuesdays, since it's the only time I have. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Sheryl fTuesday/ Freshman): Some of my friends are like 'why should we have to do this when we have a meet tomorrow, whereas the people who go on Fridays and Saturdays have a really light workout before they go the next day..so why do we have to work through ours when they don't’. (F.W.R.e.lf.8) 128
Although these three Tuesday runners' responses suggested they might have been frustrated, their responses also seemed to acknowledge that a greater purpose was served by running everyone hard on Mondays, even if their own performance was sacrificed.
Laurie, a Saturday freshman, defended the Tuesday runners' concerns in a response that profiled the freshmen collectively.
1 don't think it's really fair for the people who run on Tuesday to have a hard workout on Monday...we [Saturday runners] get it easy the day before our meets and the people who run on Tuesdays have a hard workout the day before and it's not really good for them because they can’t really prove themselves. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Laurie's response to this emotion-laden issue, typical of the freshmen, contrasted sharply with the lone, freshman voice of dissent. Melissa, a Saturday freshman, offered a very pragmatic view of the situation in her response and then offered an alternative.
There's only five days in the week and if they [the coaches] don't have hard days on Mondays when are they going to have them? If we can't do it Monday, if we can’t do it Tuesday, if Wednesdays we're supposed to swim, and if we can’t do it Friday, we have to do it sometimes?...I think they should separate the people that run on Saturdays and Tuesdays for Monday practices...if you are running on Tuesdays you will do a couple less or a little different workout than we do because they divide us almost into groups if you think about it...I think their hard workout should be the days that we have light workouts because he is trying to prepare us for tomorrow [Saturday] and they have 129
three days to rest up before they come back on Monday. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
In general/ the freshmen, who were new to the program, saw only negative consequences of Ron’s incongruent behavior. Older Saturday runners viewed Tuesday meets more in line with how Ron viewed them. Melissa, the prodigal daughter of the freshmen class, in responding in a separatist manner, hinted at more than just Ron's overworking of Tuesday runners, by suggesting that the sprinters be divided. In fact, Ron separated Tuesday and Saturday runners toward the end of the week, when he and Mike supervised relay exchange practice for the upcoming Saturday meet. Ron was aware of the discrepant amount of time afforded to Saturday runners through this practice but rationalized it as a consequence of adhering to the program's premise of advancing as many athletes as possible as far into the postseason as possible. Ron's EBAs and actions in this regard were not lost on the athletes.
Cary: I think it goes without saying that you are going to spend more time with Ron because you are with him six days a week [Saturdays] instead of five days a week. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
A nna: When Ron has to work on handoffs, the Tuesday kids do the workout on their own. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Tenna: They spend some time on the Saturday people because he has to...he tries to spend as much time and show as much interest in all the runners. (F.W.R.e.ls.8) 130
Although athletes' responses implied that Ron had no choice in the matter, and although Ron, in working more with the Saturday athletes, was true to his programmatic goals, theoretically incongruence still existed. By failing to give equal time to Tuesday runners, those athletes were deprived of Ron's coaching expertise. Deprived of opportunities to receive instruction and feedback, they would be less likely to improve to the degree that their Saturday counterparts could. Since Tuesday runners functioned in a type of minor league, farm system, it behooved the coaching staff to spend more time in developing these runners, as they would in time rise up to Saturday meet status (i.e., Janeen, the team captain, made it to Saturday meet status as a senior after two previous seasons as a Tuesday runner). That they did not spend more time with these runners, meant that their possible, future emergence as Saturday contributors was largely predicated on their self- determination. For the coaches of a traditional power to spend less time with their up-and-coming runners was incongruent with the customary path by which many teams excel, such as committing to all runners equally so that continuous, capable reinforcement is available to fill gaps left by graduation and injuries.
In summary, congruence in the instructional domain proved more problematic than in the managerial domain. Athletes were less clear of Ron's EBAs and the meaning of his actions. Those athletes most affected by Ron's incongruent actions frequently defended Ron on the basis of his actions doing the greater good for the whole team. As in the managerial domain, most freshmen lagged in their understanding of Ron's EBAs and actions. Incongruencies between Ron's EBAs and his instructional actions were not of one-to-one correspondence; instead they resulted as by-products of acting in ways that paralleled 131 higher order EBAs. The most striking of these second-order incongruencies was that while training all runners hard on Monday optimized the training schedule of Saturday runners/ who went on to fulfill Ron's highest order expectation of advancing far into postseason, it hindered Tuesday runners from fulfilling Ron's expectation of personal improvment by everyone.
Psycho-Social Domain Ron expected his athletes to develop a mental toughness toward meets, and the toughening process began at practice. Ron believed that sprinters in general lacked the tenacity and mental approach found in Kyle’s distance runners and his athletes confirmed this belief during interviews. By integrating stories of his own athletic career and speaking about psychological issues with athletes in small groups and individually, Ron hoped to subtly hone his athletes' psyches over time, so that upperclassmen could ultimately model appropriate ways of mentally approaching practices and meets. Ron prided himself as a master psychologist, yet all his athletes except one, identified his primary strength as a master instructor.
Socially, Ron lightened the mood of practice through jokes and participation in sidebars. His athletes reciprocated~on one occasion making fun of his socks [he accidentally wore his daughter's socks one day] and frequently making fun of his school clothes. Not only did the athletes appreciate Ron's humor and low-key demeanor, they understood Ron's reasons for joking and teasing during practice. The athletes verbalized satisfaction in their relationship with Ron, feeling that he made great efforts to make team members feel like individuals and also showed genuine care. Despite Ron's proclivity for 132 interacting more with his "pets", the athletes defended him, citing human nature to have favorites. Ron structured practices to afford unsupervised rest intervals, which he hoped would serve as social opportunities. The athletes tended to commiserate and empathize during rest intervals which helped form a bond, as Janeen reported: "...everybody's trying to give each other tips about how to keep going, but then everybody just kind of complains. We all complain together, we are happy together and all of our emotions are usually the same at the same time." (F.W.R.e.lz.7) While practices fostered intra-group interaction, meets had an even greater impact on building team chemistry, as Cary described: "[at] Dayton you come together completely because you are there for twelve hours and you are sleeping on the floor and you have a two hour bus ride and you get to know people better." (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
In fact, Ron did very little to formally create a social structure, believing that the girls banded together on their own in treating the team as a social organism. The athletes took ownership of the social domain as the following examples suggest: Janeen orchestrated "secret buddy" days before meets; girls planned what music and snacks were brought to meets; Cary began the tradition of "Lucky Lizard" while Taryn started the "Wall of Fame"; and relay girls used the marking chalk to draw pictures on the track and outlines of each other.
Then, were Ron's actions in the psycho-social domain congruent with his EBAs as perceived by the athletes and by their actions?
Ron's beliefs about his athletes' less than optimal mental approach were justified. Many athletes described mental approaches during practice that showed apprehension and lack of enthusiasm. 133
Lame: Before practice I think it's going to be this terrible workout...then during workout I'm thinking about when it's going to be over because I want to go home and sit on the couch. (F.W.R.e.lj.7)
Taneen: I try not to think about running...I think about something that happened during the day or something that's going to happen this weekend. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Melissa: What goes through my head is when is this going to be over...when I’m there I think they are so hard I could just cry...and then after every practice, I think that I could probably do it again, but if I did it again I would probably die. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Sheryl : [I think about] when is it going to be over and what I can do to enjoy it more because it goes by faster if you are having a good time. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Ron intended to use practice time as a psychological classroom, where athletes learned how to channel their doubts and fears into positive thoughts and apply them at meets.
Laurie, who received Ron's advice during practice for overcoming her fears of running in the District Meet, described Ron's efforts in the psychological domain: "...he’s always telling you to motivate your mind and be prepared to run and just concentrate on your race and be mentally prepared." (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Ron believed that training the mind was more important than training the body, which anyone could do, and his emphasis positively affected his athletes' psyches toward meets. The same tentative athletes 134 seen at practice, anticipated meets with some nervousness, which Ron believed was required in order to catalyze performance, but were able to channel the anxiety into positive focus.
Janeen, who gave into fatigue at practice and negotiated workouts with Ron, had a far different approach toward meets: "...in the middle of a race I just keep pushing...I just try to watch the track and stay focused on the lane that I'm in and the finish line." (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Jesse, who viewed practice as tension relief, was able to bury tension at meets and stay focused: "...during meets, it’s a more nerve racking time, so I just think about the race and finishing it and doing better...I'm pretty much focused on the meet and nothing else really comes up." (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
The freshmen responses indicated that they were less able than upperclassmen to adjust their poor mental approach during practice to a better approach at meets, corroborating Ron's belief that developing a sound mental approach took time.
Mishy: If there are other people that I see as good, it makes me a little bit nervous. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Sheryl: [I think] just don't mess up the start...I always take a little step with my front foot no matter which foot it is. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Laurie: I always get really nervous and I worry about who I am running against and whenever I see the other girls warming up, I just freak out. (F.W.R.e.lf.8) 135
Thus, Ron's EBAs concerning his athletes mental approach seemed valid in light of the athletes responses. He used practice to tiy and change their approach, such as talking to them about having confidence in their marks and feeling able to duplicate what they did at practice at meets.
Despite Ron's fear of not being able to fulfill everyone's interactive needs, according to the athletes, he was still able to satisfactorily interact qualitatively and quantitatively with team members. Ron felt that athletes in his program wanted some attention and care from the coaches. By making rounds during stretching, interacting while walking out to practice, or talking with athletes after practice or in the training room, Ron acted in ways pursuant to his athletes' needs.
Qualitatively, the athletes described Ron as personable, approachable, positive, interested, and caring.
Lara: He is easy going and I feel like I can talk with him about anything. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Lanie: He is really positive and he's never once yelled at us. I've had soccer coaches who really chewed me out and I don't appreciate it...Ron's never once been mean to me....I dance with his daughter and one day [at practice, when] we had a competition that weekend, he said 'Wow, you're out here at practice! Aren’t you going to rip up your legs for the competition tomorrow?'...it shows that he cares, that he knows that I have other things going on too. (F.W.R.e.li.7) 136
Toeclyn: He comes up to me and comments on my running, how I can change my form...that shows me he's been watching me and since there's so many people on the team/ I think that shows a lot for the way he care about people. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Cary: He looks at you like a person and not just an athlete. He talks to you and gets to know you and doesn't just say do your workout and go home. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Anna: He is very personal and he cares about you genuinely as a person and not just as an athlete and he is happy and he is fun. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Mishy: He pays a lot of attention to each individual and it really helps, because if you have a coach that doesn't notice certain players they feel out of it and lose interest in the sport. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Quantitatively, the athletes reported that Ron interacted more frequently with his favorites, which although slightly incongruent with his EBAs was not overly troublesome to those athletes mentioning it.
Lanie: I have noticed that he tends to have favorites and he pays a lot of attention to those favorites. Of course if I was one of those favorites, I probably wouldn't mind...the freshmen, the 4x1 team...he really loves his baby sprinters...But then again, who doesn't have favorites? (F.W.R.e.lJ.7)
Sheryl: I don’t care about it [that he has favorites]...because the people who are really good usually deserve the attention. (F.W.R.e.lf.8) 137
Indeed Ron's interactions were skewed quantitatively toward the better runners and toward the younger runners. Ron admitted to having favorites during an interview
In any group of human beings there are going to be favorites. What you hope is that it's not really obvious to the kids and secondly that you also see the value in every other kid. That in some way, in their own way, they all play a favorite role at different times. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
Though according to the athletes, Ron saw value in eveiy athlete, he apparently was unable to mask his feelings, a slight incongruency between attitude and action, of which any damage was minimized by the seeming acceptance of the situation by athletes reporting the favoritism.
Some of the "favored" athletes described Ron as more than just a coach. Their stories revealed budding or well developed friendships that went beyond the practice setting and were congruent with Ron’s espoused view of a successful coach-athlete relationship: "to appreciate each other as individuals and as more than just athletes...I had a close relationship [with my seniors from the last two years] both academically because they passed through my classroom...and even on a personal level." (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Jesse, a four-year athlete, and Caiy, only a sophomore, but recognized by Ron as one of the few younger athletes to really understand him and the program, told stories of their friendships with Ron. 138
Tesse: It's not just a coach-nmner relationship, it's also a friend-friend relationship. You can talk about other things beside track. He'll talk about his personal life with me...his wife and him have been having some problems and he feels totally open to talk to me about it and I can go back and talk to him about the same things...problems with family or anything. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
On one occasion, Cary felt belittled by the feedback she received from the long jump coach. Visibly upset and feeling that she had let the team down, Ron noticed her dying and proceeded to come over and share a story with her.
He was telling me how when he was in college the same situation about how everyone expected him to win and he didn't and he felt bad. Basically, he was showing me that he is a person too and he was just helping me out like a friend and not saying that I shouldn't be upset. He sat me down alone in the bleachers and just talked to me. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Besides being recognized for placing a premium on developing personal relationships with his athletes and interacting in ways that showed care for everyone, Ron was also known socially as a humorous, light-hearted coach who never took things too seriously. The athletes' recognition of Ron as a wit was in keeping with his beliefs that practices should be unstressful, track should be thought of as fun, and that by joking and teasing, he could make their practice experience more enjoyable. Additionally, they understood his reasons for joking and teasing.
Taneen: [he jokes and teases] to lighten the mood...he wants everybody to have a smile on their face while they're doing it [practice]. He doesn't 139
want anybody to be depressed about what they are doing. (F.W.R.e.lz.7)
Taryn: The day just seems to go by faster when he is kidding with you...it seems to break the tension and everything goes faster and he seems more like a best friend than a coach. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Mishy: [the joking is] just to make track seem a little more fun and make the day go faster...they make it fun overall. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
In summary, Ron left the team building part of the social domain in the hands of his athletes, much as in the managerial domain, he left team rule and practice routine compliance in the care of his upperclassmen. Ron spent time psychologically training athletes which he felt was as important as physical training. Despite less than acceptable mental approaches during many practice situations, Ron's older athletes readily changed their attitude on meet days. Younger athletes approached meets with similar feelings of fear and being overwhelmed that they showed during practice. Younger athletes who comprised postseason relay teams showed signs of the psychological transformation that Ron strived to instill, although they still required Ron's input to put them at ease. Socially, Ron interacted in meaningful ways with all of his athletes, though some athletes pointed out that the quantity of his interactions was skewed in favor of the better and younger runners. Ron expected to develop favorites as a natural result of discovering people who connected with him, but by having his favortism noticed by some athletes, he contradicted his belief that this behavior should go unnoticed. Ron was depicted by his athletes as a sensitive and caring coach which complimented his belief that his athletes wanted individual attention and care. Ron's 140 humorous tendencies during practice were outward manifestations of his balanced attitude about the concomitant purposes of practice and its intended outcomes. His stress on fun during worktime specifically engendered more positive feelings in his athletes toward practice and generally helped develop approach tendencies toward the sport of track-outcomes that Ron expected out of his program.
Question 3.2: How did experiential and contextual variables shape the sport ecology?
Experiential Variables Ron's previous nine years spent coaching girls and 25 years overall shaped his current thoughts and behavior in many ways.
During interviews, Ron reported that the experiences over his career in conjunction with changing social values softened his one-time conservative approach to facets of his coaching. Early in his career he was reluctant to get involved in his athletes' off-track problems, and now he is more open and confrontational. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Early in his career, athletes rarely missed attending practices and meets inspite of adverse conditions or competing activities. Today, he realizes that athletes have different priorities, and concedes on strict adherence to attendance policies, even though he personally does not share their modernized sense of priorities. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Ron admitted to overestimating the physical capacities of girls when he first took over the team, training them similarly to boys and facilitating injuries. Today, he readily verbalizes that girls are not the same as boys physically and alters workouts accordingly, giving girls fewer work repeats and longer rest intervals. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Also related to injuries, 141
Ron began an outdoors, winter training program for track season too soon, resulting in overuse injuries. So last year, an indoor, high- intensity aerobics program was started and fewer injuries, steadier performance, and faster 100s and 200s were observed as a result. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Earlier in his career, Ron forced runners into the events that he thought they were best suited for, despite occasional runners who mentally never adapted to Ron's sense of best fit and ran poorly. Today, Ron still nudges girls to events he thinks they are capable of excelling in, but no longer insists on "pigeonholing" them if persistent poor performance in the event is the result. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Ron believed that girls have changed in the last ten years, and are now "stronger, more assertive, and self-confident", allowing them to openly communicate in a "give and take" manner. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Early in Ron's career, he felt uncomfortable discussing sensitive issues with his female athletes and also felt uncomfortable touching them. Today, he feels that "if the athlete isn't uncomfortable about it, why should I be?" Now, he is a 47-year father of middle school age daughters, and both he and the athletes do not feel threatened by physical contact. (F.W.C.r.1.0) Early in his career as girls' coach, he discovered that boys and girls riding to meets on the same bus developed relationships detrimental to maintaining proper focus. Today, girls and boys ride separately, which in part helps build the sense of team for both genders. (F.W.C.r.2.8) At meets, Ron learned over the years to put victories in perspective, because a team beaten on a given day at an early season meet may come back and beat you later in the season. Today, athletes are expected to understand which meet victories are worth celebrating over and why. (F.W.C.r.2.8) Many years ago, dual meets counted toward the League Championship; they were short and contested as real chess matches of high quality competition. With the addition of girls' programs that lengthened the duration of meets, the erosion of 142 competition, and the detrimental effects of racing hard on weekend, big-meet performance, Ron and Kyle successfully lobbied for the end of the meaningful dual meet. Today, Tuesday duals serve more as a workout and laboratory, where elite runners rarely rim multiple events and less talented runners get a chance to compete. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Ron's experiences provided instructional parables that he delivered as forewarnings during practice. Ron warned his 4x400-meter relay team, expected qualifiers from District Prelims to Finals, to run all out at the Prelims based on an admonition and story told to him by his own college coach almost three decades earlier. (T.W.C.r.3.12) Having qualified out of the Districts to the Regional Meet, Ron and Mike shared a story with the 4x400 team of the consequences of standing like statues to accept the baton, based on actual events years earlier. (T.W.C,X.r.3.12)
Over the years, from in-season experiences, Ron developed expectations that he shared with current athletes before they ever experienced the situations themselves. Examples of accrued foreknowledge that he shared with athletes and/or their parents included: unfavorable wind conditions associated with a certain meet; late night return from Dayton; expected placing goals for Trotwood and Dayton meets; and maps of how to get to a meet. Experiential knowledge chunks not directly shared with athletes informed his planning for practices and meets including: expected competition at meets and meet length for deriving meet lineups; spring break effects on athletes for planning pre- and post- break workout content; previous years’ athletes progress over a season for use as a yardstick and barometer; and picture day duration for altering practice content. 143
In summary, experience affected Ron's EBAs and subsequent actions in tangible ways. Ron's abandonment of outdated EBAs and adoption of more salubrious coaching behaviors seemed to be a function of recognizing and learning from his mistakes and becoming more confident as a coach. The information Ron learned from attending competitions and from athletes' work and performance tendencies was used to recreate wanted situations and outcomes and forewarn and inform athletes of future similar situations and outcomes, thereby exercising some amount of control over the track environment.
Contextual Variables In reviewing the data base, several contextual variables seemed to stand out from the rest and had an almost themelike quality about them. They will be reported, but first some minor contextual variables that impacted the sport ecology are listed and described.
1. Ron's duties as a teacher-administrator became so overwhelming that last season he contemplated stepping down as track coach, though this year's team fostered a coaching renaissance for him. His required after-school obligations absented him from a number of practices, necessitating Mike to fill the void. Mike, a teacher at Conquistador, jumped a still-standing, State Meet record in the high jump for Ron in the late 1970's. Ron felt that he alone was responsible for psychologically coaching athletes and assistant coaches were there for training them. He did not regard Mike as much of a psychologist, and during his absence Mike proved Ron correct. During the week of the Regional Meet, Ron was absent from the first part of a very hard practice whose content was a mystery to the athletes. They knew they were doing something hard, and after unsuccessfully pumping Mike 144 for information, began asking if they could run easier that day. While Ron's response would be to allay their fears and do so with humor, Mike responded: "You've got to realize that this is a big meet and we can't do easy workouts...this isn't junior high school where you did Indian runs...this is serious and you have to start realizing what we're doing." (O.W.X,R..e.l8.12) In addition to the different psychological approaches of Mike and Ron, the athletes thought that Mike was much harder on them physically. Not only were athletes getting a different experience when Ron was absent, but also when Ron was present and placed athletes in Mike's care in dividing up the sprinters. Thus, the instructional climate for athletes hinged on whether Ron or Mike was overseeing a workout.
2. The suburban setting of Conquistador High shaped the program focus according to Ron. There was not the talent or depth necessary to compete with city schools in the shorter sprints. In realizing this, Ron attempted to turn the athletes' liabilities into team assets by placing his fastest sprinters in hurdles, concentrating on "precision perfect" relay teams and overdistance training his sprinters to make them competitive 400-meter runners. In essence, Ron took the imperfect cards he was dealt and shaped them into a winning hand, as his 4x400 team advanced to the State Meet, despite not having any of its members advance as individual sprinters.
3. Athletes who had Ron as a teacher had a distinct advantage over their peers who did not in the amount of coach-athlete personal interactions and accurate, diagnostically-based feedback provided to them. Only upperclassmen had the opportunity to experience Ron intimately beyond the athletic domain, because he did not teach underclassmen this year. These athletes dted a personal closeness 145 developed between themselves and Ron as a result of spending time with him in both venues, and Ron reported the same.
You just kind of click with them and I have found that to be a really enriching part of coaching and an advantage to be in the classroom and know the kids and see how they work and think and keep your eyes open to see what you can learn about a kid. (F.W.C.r.1.0)
Though the forementioned contextual variables affected the sport ecology, their effect pales in comparison to those which follow and were deemed profound enough to be labelled contextual themes.
Theme 1 The Schism Between Distance and Sprint Squads Ron was a protege of Kyle, having run for him in high school and coached with him for several decades. Though less than 10 years separated the two men, Ron walked in Kyle's shadow and a definite rift between distance and sprint squads could be felt. Sprinters developed an inferiority complex, comparing themselves unfavorably with their distance counterparts.
Tesse: They [distance runners] work a lot harder and we expect a lot more out of them. (F.W.R.e.1^.7)
Sheryl: I had Kyle for cross-country, and in the beginning I thought we weren’t doing very much [sprinting in track] because Kyle does a lot more because it's distance. (F.W.R.e.1^.8)
Part of feeling like second-class citizens was attributable to practice events. Kyle and Alyssa, a former standout distance runner of his, ran 146
workouts with their runners on the same track that Ron's athletes used. Though technically sharing the track, Kyle indignantly demanded that sprinters make way and urged Ron to start his sprinters before they were finished recovering because they clogged space. Sprinters witnessed Kyle's brutal practices and their payoff.
Another factor contributing to the sprint squad's perceived feeling of inadequacy related to the more prominent point-scoring role and resulting press coverage enjoyed by the distance squad. More distance runners advanced to the State Meet this year and traditionally did so in years past. Their exploits were regularly reported in the newspapers while sprinters achievements tended to be buried in print or trivialized. The two community papers devoted 10 of 17 pictures to distance runners during the season. Three of the remaining seven pictures were of sprinters, but they were all taken at the culminating State Meet performance. In order to even reach the State Meet in the 4x400 relay, the sprinters had to rely on a borrowed, spare part from the distance squad, a freshman phenom 800-meter runner, who was faster than any other 4x400 leg.
Other circumstances that contributed to the fractured nature of the team included: Kyle running his own distance runner meetings, sometimes with guest speakers, after team meetings; split time and total time meet performance handouts distributed to distance runners; and a social separation at practice and meets. Though Ron, by mutual agreement rarely interacted with Kyle's distance runners, when he did, the interactions were just as positive and caring as those enjoyed by his sprinters. In contrast, the few occasions Kyle was observed interacting with Ron’s athletes, the character of those interactions was negative. 147
For example, at a meet, Melissa who competed with strep throat, approached the coaching area looking for Ron who had momentarily left. Having completed her events, she wanted to be released to go home with her parents, which typically was frowned upon by the coaches. Mike reported Melissa's condition to Kyle who then asked Melissa what was wrong. Upon hearing her explanation, he responded in a raised voice: "Is that supposed to mean something to me? I have streaks in my nose. Yeah, go home!" (O.W.X,R..e.9.6)
Though the distance runners' feelings about Ron were not solicited, Ron's runners felt ambivalent about Kyle.
Tenna: Kyle is more emotional. He gets really pissed off sometimes...Ron seems more relaxed about things. (F.W.R.e.ls.8)
Cary: When he makes comments to me, I feel awkward around him. I walk on egg shells around him because I don't want to say the wrong thing. (F.W.R.e.lS.8)
Ron demurred from unequivocally stating that there was tension between the two coaches or squads; on the contrary, he described philosophical congruence, complimentary personalities and healthy, mutual respect. However, as the following interview excerpt suggests, Ron rationalizes the sprinters' subordinate status as a by-product of uncontrollable contextual variables while simultaneously defending their merits.
Kyle is always using track to prepare for cross country. I know he takes great pride in the off season work that they do, but he doesn’t deal with near the number of athletes involved in other 148
programs that 1 do. My kids come from swimming, soccer, basketball, volleyball...whereas he has the same kids all year round...I think sometimes he has the tendency to overlook the fact of where our sprinters come from and why they aren't out here in January and February...our conversations [are typefied] the lack of understanding that distance runners have for sprinters and vice versa. There is a fundamental difference that never comes together. (F.W.C.r.2.8)
It was apparent that the sprinters ran with something to prove that the distance runners had repeatedly proven over time. While Ron avoided any interpersonal conflict with Kyle, the divided nature of the team and "Odd Couple" pairing of coaches palpably affected all three domains of the track sport ecology at Conquistador High.
Theme 2 Out With the Old. In With the New Last season saw the departure of many senior leaders and the success and leadership they delivered. Ron ran perceptibly harder workouts last year, according to returnees, because of the physical and emotional maturity of the team as a whole and the commitment to preseason and spring break training demonstrated by these now-departed senior girls. Without them, Ron was left with a skeleton team accompanied by a large incoming freshmen class who he had to start teaching and personally relating to from scratch. Ron's nostalgic comparisons between last year and this year’s team were sometimes unintentionally overheard by returnees, who resented it and wished that Ron would live in the present.
In addition to the coaching challenges and coping problems Ron faced by the departure of last year's seniors, the formation of this year's 149
squad, glutted with freshmen, also created coping problems for returnee and newcomer alike. Returnees, while excited by the freshmen's reputation as sprint prodigies, amused by their naivete, and energized by their excitement, felt that they had not paid their dues like they should. The freshman did not serve a competitive apprenticeship as was customary—five of them being thrown immediately into Saturday competition. They also did not follow in the leadership steps of their upperclass mentors, feeling that practice leaders were determined by whoever felt best on a given day and that Janeen was too new to Saturday meet status to look to for guidance. The freshmen were not total anarchists; they looked to Cary as their on-field leader. As the only returning Saturday runner, Cary, only a sophomore, was the only link between the old guard and the new order. Cary felt that the loss of the seniors and the heavy dependence on freshmen would pay social dividends by forcing team members to cross traditional social boundaries and mingle. Cary felt revitalized this season and was excited at both the athletic and social prospects in future years with the arrival of the freshmen.
In addition to the rocky social transition, the freshmen experienced growing pains in encountering the tradition and rigors of high school track. Two middle schools feed into Conquistador and Ron felt that the program at one of them was philosophically opposed to what he was trying to accomplish at the high school level. Thus freshmen girls from this school, whose conception of track was based solely on their middle school experience, had to be cleansed of the memories of their middle school experiences before Ron's philosophies could be imparted and his ideas take root. The following two middle school experiences related by Laurie and Melissa suggest what Ron was up against. 150
Laurie: Last year our coach would just tell us to work on our hand-offs and we would just go stand on the track like 20 meters away from each other and basically throw the baton at each other and we never did workouts, or if we did, they were never hard. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Melissa: Last year one time, he [the coach] was like 'make up your own workout’. So me and Mishy ran up to Stop n' Go and bought a two liter and a bag of Doritos and then we got a ride home because my dad drove by. (F.W.R.e.lf.8)
Recapping this theme, while the previous season's seniors' departure influenced the present season's sport ecology, its effect waned as the season progressed, as the freshmen presence erased most memories of the alumnae. In attending to the freshmen more frequently than he ordinarily would, Ron behaved almost like the parent of a newborn second child. In fact, he called the freshmen his "baby sprinters".
Mishy, the most talented of the freshmen class, believed that Ron pampered them for future-oriented reasons: "If he keeps giving a lot of attention to the freshmen like he has this year, a lot more people will stay on the team through the years." (F.W.R.e.lf.8). Ron's favoritism boded well for the formation of a sprint nucleus, which he felt in several years could develop into state-caliber relays and become significant contributors to winning a district championship. The arrival of talented freshmen and the immediate success they enjoyed might relate back to Theme 1, in that Ron hoped to emerge from Kyle's shadows through his sprinters' future contribution to overall team success. Though this linkage is speculative, the impact on team dynamics that the freshmen had was undeniable. 151
The three contextual variables and two contextual themes described here, point in general to the powerful influence that these uncontrollable factors can play in the sport ecology. They in fact dictated what was done by coaches and athletes in this setting and though not the main focus of the present study, undoubtedly are worthy of study in their own right. CASE 2 TON
Question 1: What were Jon's EBAs for his female athletes? As in Ron's case, Jon verbalized EBAs that did not fit the original categories. Thus to the categories of participation and behavior, physical capabilties, and personality and psychological characteristics, a fourth category, titled "programmatic and individual EBAs" was added.
Question 1.1: What were Jon's EBAs for participation and behavior? One of the obstacles Jon had to overcome as a first year coach was assembling a team from scratch, as he had only seven athletes returning from the previous coach's team of twelve. Jon purposefully canvassed four student groups hoping to double this year's team size. Jon targeted students in his art classes because they chose to be in his class, and in Jon's opinion would also come out for track voluntarily based on their positive experiences with Jon in the classroom. (F.W.C.j.1.0) Jon led the local FCA chapter (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) and believed that it attracted the kind of athletes he wanted on his team, the so called "cream of the crop in our school." (F.W.C.j.1.0) As an assistant football coach, Jon had opportunities to interact with the cheerleaders, who he felt were well-suited for track because they "are pretty gymnastic and usually have pretty good attitudes and spirit." (F.W.C.j.1.0) A fourth source of prospects that Jon targeted were middle school students, who shared the practice track
152 153 with the high school athletes. Jon felt that by "seeing me in practice being loud or just stupid things I'll do in practke...they'll think that's kind of funny and he would be a fun person to be around." (F.W.C.j.1.0) Additionally, Jon’s throwing coach, who was the softball coach the previous Spring, persuaded some of his former athletes into coming out for track.
Jon had no prior experience coaching a team of girls, so it was not surprising that his belief as to why girls wanted to participate reflected personal reasons rather than actual reasons conveyed to him by his athletes, as the following comment from Jon suggests.
I can never understand why a girl wouldn't want to run track. I love track. It's my favorite sport to coach...I could work at track all the time so I can never understand why somebody wouldn’t want to run track. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon went on to describe what he felt track's selling points were.
I think it's fun. I think there's always a way to succeed in track. If you are not a great runner by yourself, you have a great chance to be a runner with a relay. You get a chance to be really close to your team mates...and express your personality more. You get to have fun and you get to meet a lot of people. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Though Jon’s beliefs about participation suggest that track's innate characteristics should attract athletes, Jon maintained attendance expectations, exceptions to them, and consequences for tardiness and absence. 154
I expect them to be on the track by 2:45...if they are not there when we are starting, then they have to run a penalty period at the end of practice. They need to be at all practices unless they have a family emergency. Job interviews, after-school detentions, or babysitting are not legitimate reasons to miss practice...If they miss a meet without a good excuse, then they are probably going to have to miss the next meet too and as a punishment, run a penalty period or two. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon had no particular attendance policy at the beginning of the season for spring break attendance, but expected them to attend mandatory Monday/Wednesday practices with optional Thursday/Friday practices. Five days later, Jon amended these above expectations to a mandatory Monday practice and required attendance at one practice session between Wednesday and Friday. He believed that highly skilled athletes would attend all three late week practices while those needing a break would attend the minimum required. (O.W.C.j.6.5 & I.W.C.j.7.6)
A later interview revealed that Jon's attitudes about what brought athletes out had been revised in response the events of the season. While Jon originally thought that the coach was the instrument responsible for drawing forth participants, he now thought that the program should sell itself and become the focus of aspiring participants.
As we build more tradition and as we become better and better, they will be coming out more because of how we do rather than who I am...This year I allowed 32 girls to come out because of me but I want 35 or 40 girls to come out because of how good we are." (F.W.C.j.2.10) 155
While Jon's EBAs for aspects of their participation changed over the course of the season, his expectations for their behavior remained fairly constant. Jon's religious convictions were common knowledge to FCA-involved team members and as a consequence, so were his behavioral expectations concerning morally acceptable behavior. (F.W.C.j.1.0) Additionally, Jon expected athletes to treat him like they would their parents. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
General team behavior was governed by the South-Central Athletic Department policies on player rules and responsibilities; drug, tobacco, and steroid use; and scholarship requirements (Appendix F). Jon believed that "kids basically knew right from wrong and should be responsible for themselves and their actions" and therefore rules were unnecessary, but admitted that an honor code in place of rules would probably be abused by 25% of the athletes. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
On top of policy statements set forth by the athletic department, Jon maintained his own EBAs for his athletes' behavior. At practice, Jon expected them "to take a lot of pride and be serious" and not use the time "to screw around and joke" (F.W.C.j.1.0) At meets, as long as they could maintain their focus, Jon encouraged them to have fun by doing "things that are crazy and different from everyone else." (F.W.C.j.1.0) Asked what he meant by "crazy things", Jon refererred to occasions when he coached the boys which included wearing their socks in odd arrangements and wearing wigs while warming up.
In summary, Jon's EBAs for participation and behavior were indicative of a novice coach because they had an egocentric quality to them. His original EBAs were based on his own beliefs and value orientations and lacked empathy for alternative beliefs about 156 participation and behavior. Jon's experiences during the season made him rethink the validity of building a program around a coach. Instead,. Jon came to believe that a program was built on tradition and tradition was built on the cumulative successes of the team and its individuals during performance.
Question 1.2: What were Jon's EBAs for his athletes' physical capabilities? Jon believed that all athletes were underachievers and if pressed could always find the wherewithal to respond. Specifically, he believed that "a lot of girls who have come out this year can give a lot more than they are giving now to conditioning." (F.W.C.j.1.0) This category- based expectation contrasted with target-based expectations Jon formed during the conditioning phase of the season in response to his athletes' response:
I've heard a lot of kids saying they were going to get sick. We jog two laps and they are ready to get sick or they are walking already so I'm going to have to go a lot slower with them...If I want to have everybody work as hard as my top athletes then I probably will end up having 12 or 13 kids. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon's recognition of individual differences in physical capacity promoted a belief that it was better to tailor work to an athlete's capability than risk losing her, superseding his belief in the ability of all athletes to be capable of more work than they thought.
Jon's belief in tailoring workouts to match an individual's capacities so they could remain a healthy, contributing team member fit well 157
with his goal of building a larger team this season. Yet, he was frustrated with the degree of modifications he was required to make/ confiding during a later practice that;
The biggest problem for me in track is coaching girls who come in with different ability and conditioning levels. All my injured kids are coming in from sports that don't condition, like cheerleading. You have to make separate workouts and you can't train them the same. (I.W.C.j.3.2)
Surprisingly, his beliefs about whether athletes should report injuries were incongruent with his stated goal of building a larger team. With so many novice athletes, Jon's EBAs seemed to place an initial burden on athletes to discriminate the severity of pain and then decide if reporting it was in their best interests, as the following statement by Jon suggests.
I think with your good teams the kids are going to work through pain more so I want them to [feel they] have something to lose [a relay spot]...I don't want them to work through serious pain, but if it's something they can work through, I want them to do it without having to tell me and complain. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
If athletes believed as he did, then they would be loathe to report pain for fear of losing their meet status in an event, ultimately sacrificing their health for retaining their spots, and as a result decrease the number of contributing athletes on the team—contrary to Jon's team building goal.
Jon articulated category-based expectations for sprinters, throwers, distance runners, and mid-distance runners' physical traits. Sprinters 158 were categorized as the "best athletes" based on expected vertical jump and 40-yard dash performances. Throwers were described as "regular athletes" with good jumping ability, hip strength, squatting ability [in reference to weight lifting], and explosiveness. Distance runners were labelled as disciplined, self-motivated, hardworking, academically- oriented and good athletes, while mid-distance runners were categorized as some of "my best athletes" and hybrids of sprinters and distance runners. (F.W.C.j.1.0) Interestingly, Jon used tests and terms of football prowess in arriving at his conclusions, while using psycho social traits (not physical) to describe his distance runners.
In summary, Jon's espoused EBAs for his athletes physical capacities contained mixed messages. In desiring to build a large team replete with tradition, Jon expressed an amenability to deal with athletes individually, overriding his belief that all athletes were capable of doing more work than they thought. By de-emphasizing how much an injured athlete should report to one's coach, he set up conditions that could exacerbate injuries in hope of building character, e.g. subverting pain in the face of losing one's relay spot. Additionally, Jon seemed to conceptualize physical capacity in football terms. While football may still be considered a complimentary sport to track and field, since girls do not play it interscholastically, it may have been unsuitable for Jon to use his football experience as a yardstick for girls' track capabilities.
Question 1.3: What were Jon’s EBAs for his athletes' personalities and psychological characteristics? Jon expressed two category-based EBAs for his athletes' psychological characteristics based on gender. Jon felt that girls "tend to be a lot more 159
emotional than guys", especially in relay situations, when an athlete's valuing of team camaraderie overshadows her individual concerns. (F.W.C.j.1.0) Jon also believed that "you need to be a little more understanding with girls—that if a girl doesn’t feel good or is having a big problem, you need to show more concern for them than you would a guy." (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon also articulated a category-based expectation for his team's mental approach to losing. This expectation was based on his own distaste for losing which Jon thought would become self-evident to his athletes over time as the following comment suggests:
I want them to hate losing. I hate to lose. I like to win and I want them to hate losing too...I think by just getting to know me they will realize how much I hate losing and I want them to hate it...if they do lose and lose to a better person or they have a fluke mistake, I'm not going to make them feel bad about it, but I don't want them to expect to lose or want to lose. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon's target-based expectation for individual personality was also foregrounded in his own personal experience. Jon believed that personal experience and role modeling by some of the better girls shaped an athlete's personality to one suited for track and also included himself in his list of change agents. Jon stated that the personal qualities needed "to be good" included: "competitiveness, self-drive, self-motivation and discipline." (F.W.C.j.1.0)
General, category-based expectations for team personality were based on Jon's emphasis on fun, enthusiasm, and a family atmosphere. Jon felt that without these characteristics, a team could not succeed. Based 160 on his experiences and success coaching sprinters, Jon believed that a team chemistry based on fun and enthusiasm had positive ramifications for team success. A "tight, fun, close-knit family" was thought to have negative effects on other teams' psyches and positive effects on the team's mental approach and resultant physical performance as suggested by the following interview excerpt:
I like my kids to be very enthusiastic and I want other teams to look at us and say 'why are they having so much fun and we're not?’...and I want other teams to hate us because we're having so much fun...one of the most important things in coaching is having a family atmosphere...if you have [one] you’re going to be successful...[because] you're going to have a leader come out, kids pushing each other and knowing what drives each other, team-cohessiveness, determination, and extra effort. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
In summary, Jon maintained some gender-based EBAs for his athletes' emotional frailty relative to males and verbalized a coach's need for flexibility and sensitivity in response to the difference. As was the case for physical capacity EBAs, Jon's EBAs for his athletes' personalities and psychological characteristics reflected values associated with football, a sport Jon was most experienced in as a player and coach. Although fun and enthusiasm were priorities for Jon, his EBAs toward outcome and team climate seemed strongest. Jon dichotomized outcome into winning and losing, a zero-sum product. Jon believed that team climate went hand-in-hand with winning. Yet, track and field success is usually measured in multiple dimensions, most notably by an individual's improvement. Additionally, except for four relay events, girls' track and field events are contested by individuals, and thus team outcome is typically determined by 161 cumulative individual performances and not by team performance as it is classically defined. In fairness to Jon, while his EBAs for his athletes' attitude toward winning reflected a value orientation more akin to that of football, Jon's programmatic EBAs that follow afford a more balanced perspective of the issue raised in this section.
Question 1.4: What were Jon's EBAs for his program and for individual athletes? Jon's programmatic philosophy evolved over the season. Over the ten weeks between preseason and inseason formal interviews, Jon refined his stance.
Interview 1 Jon believed that the most important lesson he could teach his athletes was that "pride and hard work gives birth to success which in turn gives birth to fun." (F.W.C.j.1.0) This axiomatic phrasing suggested that fun was a by-product of success which in turn was achieved through pride and hard work—a unidirectional cause and effect flow.
Jon also believed that a coach directly influenced team and individual performance and therefore held himself accountable for actions leading to those outcomes. Jon's sense of instrumentalism was conveyed in the following excerpt:
So many coaches think that if you don’t get the athletes out you can't be good, that it's all up to the athlete. I don't believe that. A good coach will get the good people out and make an average athlete better just through what he tells them and how he 162
works them...in football if the school is 0-8 or 2-10 for 10 years in a row, he's a bad coach. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Before the season, when asked how he would know the season was successful, Jon first named one low inference variable and proceeded to name four secondary, high inference measures:
I don't think this year I will judge it on performance or how far we make it in the tournament, but this year because it is my first and I'm in a building situation with a lot of freshmen and sophomores, I'll mainly look at times and if they came down because I have certain expectations for times...and team attitude at the end of the year as opposed to what it was at the beginning...if I have four or five different cliques, I won't think it was very successful. I want a family atmosphere and I want to make sure that I don't have kids quit on me or have kids say that 'Jon didn't pay attention to me because I wasn't very good'. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Long term programmatic goals cited by Jon included a top three placing at the district level in three years and a top five placing at the state level in five years. (F.W.C.j.2.10) These ambitious goals reflected Jon's belief that South-Central already was teeming with potential athletes that would come out if a sense of tradition and feeling of excitement associated with girls’ track were created. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Interview 2 By the time of the second interview, Jon's athletes had distinguished themselves against top competition in the 100, 200, 4x100 relay, long jump, high jump and discus. Seven out of a beginning 22 athletes were no longer on the team and more than a dozen athletes had been treated for or were nursing injuries. 163
When asked to reflect on where his team was now relative to his thoughts 10 weeks ago, Jon digressed into how he overestimated his underclassmen's ability to contribute, accepting blame for faulty logic.
I was mainly looking at all numbers, what these people could do instead of looking at the person, grade, maturity and competitiveness levels. I really didn't take into consideration their inexperience and I should have...I thought we'd be top two or three in League [5th out of 8 teams]. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Jon was dissatisfied with overall team performance at this point and found it difficult to wait for the team's budding potential to be realized through high placings at important meets. He owed this impatience to his constant desire to win as suggested by the following excerpt:
I hate to wait on things. If I can’t be the best at something I don't even want to do it usually, but I see a lot of potential for the future...and 1 want to win bad. I think a lot of coaches don't want to win or not badly enough and that carries over to the kids. They realize that there's not such an importance put on winning...I want to win as a team. I want to have great performance across the board and win because of them. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Similarly, when asked hypothetically whether he would prefer to place second at the League Meet with no individual PRs (personal records) or fourth place with as many as six kids achieving PRs, Jon opted for the former situation because "more kids get to enjoy that [team success]." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Despite Jon's emphasis on winning and outcomes, his second interview's enumeration of goal priorities did not reflect such an 164 attitude, as he listed in order of importance: fun, good attitude, team winning, and individual performance. Contrasted with his philosophical position from the first interview, in which fun was a by product of success which was in turn a product of hard work and pride, it was interesting to note that fun was now ordinally ranked first, when ten weeks ago its presence was stipulated by the presence of success or winning.
When asked what expectations he would have for next year, Jon's first response was to win League. He added that he would continue to stress fun because he felt that it brought more girls out than if performance was stressed instead. Jon's preseason expression of a unidirectional relationship between success and fun was now beginning to take the form of a cyclical relationship: "I still think having fun is the most important thing and winning is after having fun. But I think that if you can keep your girls having fun, they are more apt to win, I think." (F.W.C.j.2.10) Whereas, Jon first articulated that success bred fun, his current formulation indicated his emergent belief that there was a reciprocal cause-and-effect interaction also working, i.e. that fun somehow bred success.
Jon continued to hold strong beliefs about a coach's responsibility and accountability to all facets of a program. These EBAs coupled with Jon's discontent with his support staff predisposed Jon to run practices single-handedly for all his athletes. Despite Jon’s desire to retain omnidirectional control over all programmatic aspects, Jon envisioned athletes as assistant coaches, freeing himself to spend time more equitably between specialty squads. Jon adopted this expectation from the boys' squad, where State Meet qualifiers in discus taught their 165 event to underclassmen in a line of succession. Jon felt that such a system would work for his girls' team because over the first 10 weeks, several girls distinguished themselves in their events and had displayed positive attitudes valued by Jon.
Jon's identification of these "captains-in-training" suggested that he held EBAs about individual members of his team. While specific, target-based EBAs for his athletes were not expressed in the first interview, Jon articulated many such EBAs during the second interview. EBAs for newcomers were based on their previous performance over the season and middle school reputation, while EBAs for returnees, though shaped by inseason events, typically reflected carried-over beliefs from the previous season, when as an assistant coach, he saw them perform and/or worked directly with them if they were sprinters. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
In summary, Jon’s programmatic philosophy evolved over the season as he used feedback from individual/ team performance /behavior to weigh the success/failure of his coaching beliefs and behavior. Jon believed that as a head coach, he was the most responsible and accountable member of the sport ecology for programmatic outcomes. Jon's programmatic objectives mixed measurable performance and placing goals with less obvious, affective goals of fun, good attitude, and team climate. Jon struggled with a traditional, unidirectional view of the relationship between winning and fun, eventually arriving at an emergent dual-directional sense of the interconnectedness of the two goals. While clinging to steadfast value orientations, Jon showed willingness to tinker with some structural facets of his program in order to reconcile philosophical 166 incongruencies. Jon also formed and re-evaluated EBAs for individual athletes in light of performance outcomes and health and mental status over the season. Those EBAs informed Jon of changes he would make next year for a returning athlete and whether an athlete benefitted from participating from the outset. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Question 2; What did Jon do during practices? A late February parent orientation meeting and an end of May awards barbeque marked the parameters of the practice season. Practices followed a 2:30 p.m. school dismissal by about 20 minutes. In the inteiim/ Jon lingered with his art students in his classroom and then went to change in the coaches' office. Athletes would slowly file into Jon's classroom while he was out, often stopping to admire the engraved door on their way inside. They kept themselves occupied in various ways: sprawled out on tables talking of the school day, non school social matters, the day's upcoming workout, or their health status; watching country music videos on an overhead television; admiring students' artwork; and making use of the art supplies in the room to paint, draw on the chalkboard, and make hair ribbons.
Jon used the team meeting as an opportunity to take attendance and determine no-shows' whereabouts; announce and remind athletes of important information; give an overview of the workout; and begin to learn of injured athletes' most current health status.
Upon dismissal from the meeting, a handful of athletes visited Jessica in the training room for treatment. She was a trainer on loan to South-Central from a nearby hospital and early in the season helped Jon with high jump, sprints, and hurdles. Later in the season, her role 167 was restricted to treating injured runners and supervising their rehabilitation exercises and stretching.
Those athletes not receiving treatment waited on the track for Jon to signal them to begin warmup which was not to start until everyone arrived at the track. A standard two lap jog was completed, later amended to one lap for throwers, who were then dismissed to their specialty areas and coach.
All remaining athletes moved to the south side of the track, where a standard set of drills were run. These drills, with names only South- Central coaches and athletes understood, were complex movement sequences requiring coordination and concentration. Drills required approximately 10 minutes to perform and generally included: eggshells, singles, doubles, A's and 'C's, 'B's, hurdle skips, butt kicks, right legs, left legs, both legs, straight legged bounds, and build-ups. As the season progressed, more athletes were excused from these drills as their injury status dictated. In place of standard drills, these athletes had their own choreographed routine of fence drills, designed to increase their range of motion and minimize excessive pounding.
Stretching after drills was done sporadically. If done, it was frequently the result of athletes' requesting it or Jon’s observation of athletes wincing during drills or massaging/pounding tight muscles. Formal stretching included a ritualistic 20-second count and clap. More often, stretching was left up to the athletes to do informally during and after workouts.
During these first 30 minutes of practice, Jon accumulated information in order to assign athletes to the day's workout groups. 168
These groups were transient in nature and reflected the injury status of the particular athlete. Early in the season, injured runners, regardless of event, were assigned to the distance running group which did most of its running off-site and unsupervised. This designation allowed them to run as they felt, nursing injuries to a point where they could return to the more intense sprint group. Later in the season, when distance runners remained at the track to do interval work, injured athletes were given options of walking, riding a stationary bike, skipping rope, or running sprint workouts on grass.
Athletes reporting injuries usually found Jon sympathetic, although on occasions Jon became overwhelmed with the extent of the team's injuries and was less likely to respond with empathy or to modify an individual's workout, as was the case for Jo. She was the best sprinter on the team and was acknowledged as a leader by Jon. On behalf of the team, Jo often bargained with Jon about the length of a workout or its plodding pace. Because of her high status on the team and Jon's reliance on Jo to lead by example, when Jo had occasion to report pain on a day when others already had reported, Jon ignored her or responded with a joke: "Sometimes, you give me a pain." [in response to Jo's report that she had a pain in her side] (O.W.B.j,y.3.2) On one occasion, informing Jon of an injury's status, caused an athlete to permanently lose her place on the 4x100 relay squad. She never healed to Jon's satisfaction, and her replacement eventually ran slightly faster while not reporting any pain. (O.A.B.j,y.5.3)
After Jon conducted triage, and while sprinters changed into spikes, Jon explained workouts to distance runners and assigned other athletes to their specialties with instructions of what to work on. Without a 169
reliable throwing coach, Jon often had to perform damage control with his thowers while administering and supervising multiple workouts. Jon became a circus ring-master, hustling all over the track to time or observe, because he individualized workouts based on athletes' injury status while insisting on running things with as little help as possible. Indeed, the boys' team which shared the track with Jon's girls, operated as a separate entity, although a few voluntarily taught technique to girls and others interfered with Jon's practices through their social antics. Jon also had a cool relationship with the boys' coach, who specialized in distance. Instead of working cooperatively to their strengths, they worked separately with their respective teams. Interestingly, the boys' coach was able to replicate the success that Jon enjoyed with the male sprinters the previous year.
Workouts were characterized by a fair amount of wait time, teasing and social interplay, drill repetitiveness with top tier individuals and relays, modified training tasks due to persistent injury, silent observation, and unsupervised athletes. All of these factors contributed to the extended length of practices which on weight training days lasted until 5:30 p.m. Weight training concluded practices twice weekly and consisted of rotating core lifts and auxiliary lifts. Jon spotted and taught technique to the girls, who after the first few sessions, followed the routine with minimal supervision. South- Central followed the "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" program which required maintaining weight lifitng log books (Appendix G). The girls began the season lifting three sets of three repetitions per set of core lifts and increased the number of repetitions and the weight lifted throughout the season. 170
Jon capped off a typical practice by driving Tina home as she had no transportation home from practice. If there were no other school functions to come back for, Jon drove home some 25 minutes away, arriving home by 6:00 p.m.
Two practice sessions a month apart were unique. Jon decided that his athletes were getting stale and needed a fun alternative to normal practices. On these two days, he and the entire team played speedball and touch football respectively. In observing the football game, it was interesting to note how Jon took control of the game, playing end and then quarterback when play was ragged. When two girls quit because Jon's team scored, they returned only when they had secured a male bystander to play for their team. As two males ran the game, several girls who did not know how to play or did not want to play stood at the line, their arms folded or playing with their hair. When Jon threatened them with running instead of football, they acquiesced- Amber reflecting many of the girls' attitudes in the group who were now competent bystanders: Til run up and down and you pretend I'm not here." (O.W.R.y.10.8) After a few more minutes, Jon ended the game, dismissed his throwers and high jumpers to work, and chastised his remaining runners before sending them on an "Indian Run": "I want to see a better attitude. I try and do something fun for you guys and you do it with a bad attitude. I know the throwers are like that but you shouldn't be too." (O.W.C.j. 10.8)
Jon's admonition to the girls hinted at the well-developed tension between himself and several of the throwers. Without regular attendance by their throwing coach, two of the throwers often vented their frustrations on Jon. 171
Isa: I ain't gonna take this no more. If he can't make it to practice, then I can't. (O.W.R.y.5.3)
While at first, Jon sided with Isa and Kris (the other openly discontent thrower), he later became irritated by their influence on underclass throwers. Apparently, without regular supervision, these two throwers shirked their workouts and encouraged younger throwers to follow them in their rebelliousness, such as cutting warmup short and sneaking off to lift before allowed to do so. As the throwing squad's attitude deteriorated, they were treated as a separate faction, having little contact with the remainder of the team. Eventually, Kris left the team and Isa was pressured to leave by Jon, exercising team rule stipulations for missing practices. Although frustrated, Jon felt that their departure outweighed the loss of meet points by enhancing team unity and teaching him to be more selective in the athletes he recruited. (I.W.C.j.10.8)
The circus-like quality of practices was another daily situation that Jon dealt with. Though Jon felt good after practices in which he shuttled back and forth between athletes working on various events, as the following observational excerpt suggests, the quantity and quality of athletes' work and interactions with the coach was often compromised by Jon's intentions.
While working with hurdlers, he must simultaneously work with starters [sprinters' workout] to show them how to use blocks and tell the distance runners who have returned from a three mile run their warmdown. As he instructs the sprinters, the hurdlers wait for him before attempting further drills. He then returns to work with the hurdlers and in a few minutes goes back to work with the sprinters a second time while the 172
hurdlers get water. He leaves the sprinting threesome with instructions to do five good starts and watch each other for technical errors. Although Jon is only 30 feet away working with hurdlers, the unsupervised sprinters take more than 10 minutes to complete the required number of starts, interspersing starts with social conversation with waiting hurdlers and finished distance runners. (O.A.B.j,y.2.2)
Visitors as well as several male track runners compounded the situation by distracting Jon's attention away from the girls as the following fieldnote suggests:
The boy sprinters have interacted more than usual with the injured girls who are icing. They throw the girls' shoes across the field and tease them. As everyone congregates around the starting area, Joseph hits Jo and then hits Jon [coach]. Tina yells out 'Don't hit Mr. Jon.' Another boy jumps in and wrestles Jon to the ground. (O.A,W.B.j,y.5.3)
These actions tended to be social in nature, allowing male sprinters, who Jon trained and had developed strong relationships with over the years, an opportunity to connect with Jon even though he was no longer their coach.
Jon's communication style fostered the simultaneity observed in practices. His repetitive phrasing in long, uninterrupted bursts, both informed and encouraged while limiting opportunities for athletes to equally respond. The following audiotaped excerpts from three different phases of a single practice typify Jon's communication pattern. 173
Drill Sequence Recorded during the opening ten minute drill set the following sequence shows how Jon mixed in "global goods", reactive prompts and repetitious phrasings with required instructional and managerial information.
O.K Good job, O.K. This time let’s go buttkicks, buttkicks, except I want your knees down, pointing down this time, toes still up. Here we go. Set. Go. Lots of reps, lots of reps, lots of reps. Work those arms, work those arms. Good, good, good. Soft feet, soft feet on the track. Rim smooth, run smooth. Good, make sure everybody's getting good and loose. Alright, everybody face the football field. O.K. we're going to do sideskips, sideskips. Set. Go. Make sure you drive your knee in front, drive that knee in front. Good, Sharyn, Good. Drive the knee high, Jen, drive the knee high. Good, good, good, good. Good job Kristyn, don't try to take that big step though, Kristyn. Take a short step when you cross over. (T.W.C.j.1.3)
Relay Sequence Compared to drill sequences, Jon's communication pattern tended to be more information rich, more pithy, and freer of repetitive phrasings. Communication interactions still tended to be unidirectional.
Heel to the triangle and then 12 foot over foot [counting steps] and we will go from there. Alright now Tina, you're going from here and you’re aiming for where the corner starts to curve, right there on the inside, O.K., so you are running downhill, O.K. and you're getting it [baton] with your right hand, flipping it with your thumb, putting your thumb on your thigh and back as far as you can get it...Alright, here we go Jo. Hard as you 174
can Tina. You try to beat her out of the zone. Go Tina, go Tina, go Tina. Oh, you almost got it, but we've got to get it under, we've got to get it under [baton placement]. (T.W.C.j.1.3)
Athlete Check Sequence At the end of practice, Jon checked on how athletes felt about practice. These exchanges, consisting of short strings of questions, were meant to solicit athletes' responses. Dialogue also frequently consisted of Jon echoing athlete responses and relating future-oriented information to an athlete about what would be done in the days ahead.
How did you do Sharyn? Did you like that? It's fun, isn’t it? Good, I'm glad you had a good time. Tomorrow, we’re going to go over to the long jump and get your step, O.K.?...How do your shoes feel Tina? You like them? Are you keeping them? O.K., good. How did you guys do Christy? Did you have a good workout? Did you have a good time? Good. How you doing Ashley? Tomorrow, I'm going to have you do a distance workout and then after we'll work hurdles. (T.W.C.j.1.3)
In addition to the typical flow of practice events and communication patterns reported above, three dominant themes came to characterize practice sessions and reflected Jon's lack of head coaching experience.
Theme 1 Coaching Errors Throughout the season, Jon readily told me of errors he made and corrections he would make for the future. Ultimately, Jon developed a list of over 20 things he would change for the following season. Jon's admissions are reported in response to question 3.2. In this section, 175 however, coaching errors that Jon was not aware of and that affected the practice environment are reported.
1. In light of the high incidence of injuries and their chronic nature, some of what Jon did and did not do may have had direct consequences for his athletes' health. (a) not using belts when lifting weights (b) doing bench press exercises with arched backs (c) not regularly stretching (d) practicing relay exchanges at full speed after completing a hard workout (e) practicing 30 meter block starts on a 39 degree, windy day with activity time of two minutes and wait time of 60 minutes (O.A.C.j.8.6)
2. Jon also committed several instructional errors which slowed the progress of athletes or had negative impact on their psyche. (a) On a windy day at the end of practice, Jon's hurdlers struggled with their steps running into the wind for several repeats until Jessica pointed out the errors the athletes were having to Jon, and Jon made task modifications. (O.A.C.j.3.2) (b) Early in the season, Jon rarely worked with distance runners, and the work they did was almost entirely steady-state with little tactical instruction given. Later in the season, these athletes had difficulty running out of their pace zone and starting and finishing races when running in packs. (c) Jon waited until May 8, the day before League Prelims, before instructing sprinters on finishing technique. Several sprinters having not lean finished the entire season were frustrated by their lack of success in mastering this skill in practice. 176
Sharyn: I couldn't do this...how do you do this? (O. W, A.B.j,y. 14.10)
Tina: I don't know how to do that stuff. (O.W,A.B.j,y.l4.10)
Theme 2 The Social and Tactile Aspects of Practice Despite being male, young, and youthful in appearance, Jon interacted with his athletes at their level. When asked if this was risky behavior, Jon responded that since these behaviors were a facet of his personality and were the way he behaved in the classroom, everyone knew he had no ulterior motives. Indeed, in the following list, his athletes initiated social and tactile behavior as frequently as their coach did. (a) on the second Monday of practice, Jon had girls take off their shoes and rim barefoot in the grass, precipitating a sidebar about feet that Jon fueled with comments about individual girls' feet (O.A.C.j.1.2) (b) Dani took ice out of her icebag and offered a piece to Jon. Upon accepting her offer, Dani proceeded to put the cube in Jon's mouth. Later, during stretching Dani threw ice at Jon. (O.A.C.j.1.2) (c) During this same stretching sequence, Deanna chewed on an icebag while talking and not counting out the stretch. Jon then told her: "You're getting awful lippy...I'd better come over there and trounce you." (O.W,A.B.j,y.l.2) (d) After the above practice was dismissed, Dani and another girl approached Jon and threw their remaining ice at him while dowsing him with melted ice water. These actions precipitated a wrestling match between Jon and the two girls. (O.A.B.j,y.l.2) (e) Jon cut his finger before a team meeting. After reporting his injury 177
to the kids and how much it hurt, Kristyn asked if she could suck the blood. (O.W.B.j,y.3.2) (f) Coming over to supervise a relay weave, Biffany tapped Jon on his buttocks with a baton without provocation. (O.A.R.y.3.2) (g) After a lethargic stretching session, some of the girls remained on the ground, refusing to get up because they "were tired", "wanted to sleep", or "couldn’t get up." Jon offered his hand to three girls in helping them rise and lifted a fourth girl up by the waist. (O.A.B.j,y.5.3) (h) During a recovery, Sharee and Kea lagged behind others who they felt were forcing the recovery along too fast. After not responding to Jon's request to get up with the rest of the team, Jon backpedaled to the two girls, gently shoved them in their backs, and speedwalked them up to the front, telling them how great they must have felt. (O.A.B.j,y.5.3) (i) Sharyn was upset with the length of practice because it was cutting into her preparation time for church. She said that she would not budge for any more relay practice. Jon playfully dragged her down to the exchange zone by the arm as she squealed. (O.W,A.B.j,y.6.5) (j) Sharyn also was tickled by Jon at the end of a recovery as she lay on the ground. (O.A.C.j.12.9) (k) A trio of girls approached Jon on the infield and Jamie squirted him with a water gun. When Jon determined who the culprit was, he slung Jamie over his shoulder and airplane spun her as she squealed with delight: "Do it more." (O.W,A.B.j,y.l2.9) (1) Jon joined Deanna in a drill wave exaggerating her movments and making faces as the athletes suggested to him that "he was too old for this behavior." (O.W,A.B.j,y.l4.10) 178
From these observational snippets, it seems that Jon often acted in ways resembling a peer more than a coach. It also seems clear that the targets of Jon’s actions and reactions enjoyed the attention, as some of them repeatedly interacted with Jon on this social level throughout the season.
Theme 3 Seeking Help and Confirmation Jon expressed his eagerness to learn about track and field on several occasions and watched videotapes, went to clinics and consulted other coaches during the season. Assuming responsibility for the entire team, Jon was wary of making mistakes while recognizing that he had a lot to learn about some events, particularly distance. During the 14 practices observed, Jon asked Jessica for advice or confirmation on four occasions, usually in regard to injury prevention or treatment. Jon also sought my opinion or aid on 22 occasions. Sometimes, he needed my watch while other times he sought training information for his distance runners. The following list includes highlights of the solicitous requests Jon made of me. 1. "How long and what should Kyla do in her new orthotics?" (I.W.C.j.9.7) 2. "How come Kristyn whips Jen in practice but can't do it at meets?" (I.W.C.j.6.5) 3. "Do you think Carrie's shoulders go across her body too much?" (I.W.C.j.6.5) 4. "What can I do next year at the beginning of the season to test my runners?" (I.W.C.j.4.3) 5. "What kind of early season workouts would you do?" (I.W.C.j.3.2) 6. "Point out to me any first year mistakes you see me do." (I.W.C.j.3.2) 179
Jon adopted some of my training suggestions with positive results. After spending ten weeks together, when asked who he would allow to coach his girls in the future, Jon responded that he trusted his distance runners to me. Indeed, during our parting at the track banquet, Jon's final comments suggested the degree to which I facilitated his first-year evolution.
You did more for me than I did for you, thank you...if you ever want to come back in say five years for another degree, I'd love to have you...in reading your field notes and from our talks I came up with my list of 20 things...being a first year coach and having another set of eyes helped a lot. (I.W.C.j.17.13)
In summary, Jon's practices, while sometimes fraught with pedagogical behaviors and social interactions that might be considered unorthodox, promoted enhanced athletic performance, i.e. most achieved personal records, school records fell, and more athletes qualified for the Regional and State Meets than ever before. Jon faced managerial dilemmas brought on by unexpected contextual events whose contingencies were left unplanned due to Jon’s inexperience, e.g. dissent among the throwers and a rash of injuries. Jon communicated most frequently in the command style which reflected his belief in shaping the program to his personal specifications. Although opening drills and training were serious in demeanor, intervals in these segments as well as during stretching and weights were differentiated by their ludic quality—as Jon spoke and behaved like his teenage athletes. 180
Question 3: How did Jon’s coaching actions and EBAs relate to the sport ecology? The sport ecology at South-Central was the product of a philosophical struggle waged over the course of the season. The clear, underlying programmatic goal for Jon and his team was to build tradition. What was not clear was the manner in which this was to be accomplished. Since fun and a good attitude were superordinately valued over team winning and individual performance, it might be thought that these qualities would be foregrounded by Jon during practice in the attention he paid to promoting fun, establishing team climate, and maintaining enthusiasm. Such a value orientation would emphasize the social domain over the managerial and instructional domains in building team tradition. On the other hand, Jon prized winning and set lofty goals in winning League and breaking 10 school records [out of 14 contested events]. It was believed that achieving these goals would establish tradition by bringing his girls out of the shadows of the boys' achievements while associating fun with winning (i.e., programmatic results brought athletes back and not the coach). Pursuit of these goals would thus emphasize the instructional domain over social and managerial domains. Yet, the ecology was not skewed in the "all-or-nothing" fashion described above.
Jon heavily emphasized fun, team climate, and having a good attitude through alternative practices, teasing and acting more as a friend and big brother than as a coach. This behavior seemed incongruent with the performance goals Jon outlined. However, in reviewing the database, it became apparent that much of this behavior was targeted at very young athletes and second-tier athletes who were 181 not contributing members to postseason success. Jon thought that these athletes needed to be treated in this manner to sustain their enthusiasm and give them something to be positive about in lieu of their average performances. Jon was much more coach-like with a handful of athletes who achieved success by advancing far into the postseason. With them, Jon emphasized the instructional domain over the social domain. This duality of purpose was manifest in subtle, yet perceptible ways. Most athletes who did not conform socially or behaviorally, no matter their talent level, were ostracized and put into situations that contributed to their quitting the team. Athletes who did not posess the talent required for achieving performance goals or who were in events that Jon was less knowledgeable about were instructionally undercoached relative to their more talented and/or sprint teammates.
While the social and instructional domains dominated the ecological landscape, the managerial domain that undergirded practice structure still powerfully shaped the sport ecology as Jon dealt with three major behavioral incidents which challenged his authority and/or team rules. Interestingly, the athletes involved in these incidents were throwers and a distance runner, representing parts of the team unable to gain equitable social and instructional time from Jon over the season. Despite the lower profile of the managerial domain and the overall congruence between thought and action associated with it, its infrequent events were as powerful as those of the more frequent instructional domain at promoting change in Jon. Interestingly, the emphasis on social climate, constantly interacting with instructional and managerial events, prompted little reaction from Jon as needing change. Though it vied with the instructional 182 domain for the dominant, programmatic focus, because Jon allotted social behavior selectively, its constant presence did not altogether hinder the execution of instructional behavior necessary to partially attain programmatic goals.
Question 3.1: On what dimensions and to what degree was there congruence between Jon's EBAs and his coaching behavior?
Managerial Domain Jon modelled the attendance and punctuality patterns he expected of his athletes and usually adhered to the attendance and lateness policies he mandated for his athletes. Occasionally he did not uniformly enforce consequences for infractions, i.e. while some girls were scolded for lateness (T.W.C.j.1.3), and another lost her spot on a relay team (T.A.C.j.1.3), others were excused-most notably Jo and Mary, the top two athletes on the team. Jon's attitude, described more fully in the social domain section, was generally positive and thus congruent with the same expectation he held for his athletes. When individual or team attitude slipped, Jon addressed those involved directly and quickly. Thus, when a girl began warming up before everyone had congregated, she was admonished and made to do an additional lap (O.W.C.j.2.2), and when athletes had a poorer than expected attitude toward playing football, Jon stopped the game and lectured them. (O. W.C. j. 10.8)
Sometimes Jon shortened practices due to personal schedule conflicts, yet the excuses he tolerated for athletes' missing or cutting short practice were much more circumscribed. When Kris, the best thrower who Jon felt hampered team chemistry, left practice early to go to work and subsequently failed to show up to a meet—both 183 unacceptable behaviors—repercussions led to her eventually quitting the team. Skipped practices without communicating them in advance led to a similar fate for Isa/ the second best thrower, who Jon also felt was a negative influence. Dawn, a senior distance runner, quit the team before she would have been mandatorily expelled for breaking athletic department substance abuse policies while on spring break in Florida.
Most athletes supported the rules that Jon set or followed, with dissension coming from individuals who were close, personal friends of the affected athletes as the following comment by Biffany suggests: "I remember when Deanna did not show up to a meet and did not get into trouble...Kris didn't show up to a meet and had to sit out one meet and she didn't think it was fair so she quit." (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
While Biffany was Kris' friend and perhaps more likely to notice double standards and unfairness in the punishment given to her friend, Amber best expressed the general sentiment of the team in regard to the existence of team rules and the unbiased application of the consequences for breaking them: "I think Dawn ended up quitting, but she would have been kicked off...When we first started, we got a sheet of rules so it's her fault that she didn't follow them and anybody else who doesn't follow them." (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
As for participation, Jon cited his own love for track in explaining why girls would want to come out for it. Jon's enthusiasm while coaching supported one-half of this belief, yet love for track was not what brought athletes out for the most part. In fact, Jon heavily recruited his art students, FCA group, and cheerleaders, which 184 suggested that track was unable to sell itself, congruent with his notion that a coach and eventually tradition brought athletes out. Athletes that loved track for its innate qualities included: Jo, Cary, Mary, and Jen-all athletes that Jon admired for their talent and/or attitude.
Some interviewed athletes' reasons for participating conflicted with Jon's philosophy, suggesting that Jon would be hard-pressed to retain his athletes if he were to rely only on the innate qualities of track to sustain future participation.
Lee: The biggest reason I came out for track was because I had to. My sisters were in track and they would be mad at me if 1 didn’t. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Trista: I only came out this year because Jon was always trying to pump you up and say how good you would be and next year, I'm playing softball. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Sharyn: I was in it in middle school and I liked it...Jon came up and talked to me a lot about it and that's why [I joined]. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Candy: I've been in it for two years [middle school] and my brother really pushed me into it. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Amber: I ran it in middle school and was pretty good at it...also because I was new to the school and I wanted to meet new people so I wouldn't feel like a loner. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Ten: Some people really think he's good looking and they said that they might go out for track because he's the coach and he's really good looking. (F.W.R.y.lf.9) 185
That many of these girls' and others' reasons for planning to participate next year were different than for this year, suggested that Jon did not rely solely on the inherent qualities of the sport to sell the girls on the idea of returning for more.
Tina: Next year I'm going out again, because it's fun. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Dani: I loved it and there is no way...unless Jon would not be coaching next year that I wouldn't come out. I love it. I have entirely too much fun. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Lee: ...because I want to improve and see how far I can go. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
These three girls' responses represented the range of reported reasons for returning next year: fun, the coach, and desire to improve. Such reasons imply that both Jon and his program transformed athletes who joined out of peer /familial pressure and habit into athletes who wanted to return because they had fun and enjoyed some success.
The lengthy duration of practices was another characteristic of the managerial domain. With few assistant coaches to help, coupled with Jon's desire to oversee as many events as possible, practices at specialty areas tended to be disjointed, such that Jon would watch several attempts or repeats, give feedback, and leave them on their own; and athletes would perform in his presence, slow down without it, and then request his supervision and feedback, often waiting for his return before making another attempt. By overseeing multiple workouts, Jon 186 would by necessity move from place to place, causing increased wait time for those athletes he directed to perform only when he watched.
Jo, in particular, often waited and requested his personal attention, and as a result was one of the last to finish a workout. Interestingly, she complained the loudest when she needed to leave early and foresaw a lengthy practice. Other behaviors contributing to prolonged practices included conducting relay practice for 20 to 30 minutes after the main body of workouts and preventing athletes from lifting, even if they completed their workout, before the designated time of 4:15 p.m. Increased opportunities for intrateam social interaction and coach- athlete interaction were positive, social by-products of the lengthy practices. It is unknown whether Jon intentionally extended practices for their socializing effect, but if so, it would have been congruent with his expectation of creating a family atmosphere and discongruous with performance objectives that were predicated on good health, e.g. Jon held extended practices during weather that was conducive to injury.
Sophomores did not object to these protracted practices and actually showed contempt for those who did.
Tina: I don't like the way some of the girls complain that they got stuff to do and want to get out of practice. Why are you here if you complain all the time? (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Mary: I figure that when you are there you have a commitment. Complaining is for babies. Jo complains about practice and that she has to get home to do her homework, yet she gets home, kicks back and watches T.V. [During a separate interview, Jo in fact stated that she did her 187
homework during morning school hours]. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Juniors on the other hand stated that they had sodal and job "things" come up which track practice sometimes interfered with while freshmen, who relied on rides home from friends or relatives, mainly complained that Jon was inconsistent about ending practice at a given time. Why sophomores as a group were the only dissentors is unknown, but there seemed to be some overall discontent with either the length of practice or uncertainty about its time of completion.
In summaiy, Jon expected athletes to follow established rules and through common sense recognize right from wrong in those instances when no explicit rules for a situation existed. Jon handled most minor infractions according to the "letter of the law", though on several occasions he resorted to merely scolding an offending athlete. He gave some of his elite athletes more latitude on tardiness and leaving early. Three major code violations resulted in the involved athletes quitting the team and gave Jon cause to reflect on which types of athletes he would recruit in the future. Most athletes thought Jon’s rules were fair and abided by them. Jon expected athletes to treat him as they did their parents. This expectation was incongruent with the relationship Jon established with his athletes, which they characterized as more fraternal and friendly, and which will be dealt with to a greater extent in the social domain section. Practice duration was variable as was its time of completion, in part due to the manner in which Jon organized and managed practices. While longer practices allowed more opportunities for socialization and fun, which were high priorities for Jon, they were not altogether well-received by athletes and may have inadvertently contributed to some injuries by creating situations 188 whereby muscles altematingly and repeatedly cooled down and warmed up.
Instructional Domain As a sprint coach when he was the boys' team assistant coach, Jon helped create a powerful and recognizable cadre of sprinters that this season, under the direction of the distance coach, advanced farther and placed higher in postseason than ever before. In contrast, Jon took over a girls' team that few athletes came out for and had little tradition, its first ever State Meet qualifier coming only last season. Jon's programmatic goals reflected his desire to build a team comparable to the boys in size and success. To achieve the desired size, Jon recruited heavily, promising fun and selling the program based on his reputation. Achieving overall team success proved more difficult as Jon was faced with coaching events he knew little about and working with quantities of athletes that precluded prolonged interaction with individuals without sacrificing someone else's time with the coach. After starting the season spending more time with sprinters, especially the 400-meter relay, Jon eventually latched on to most individuals showing talent regardless of their event, even if he was unable to help them instructionally. Notable exceptions included a State Meet qualifying discus thrower who was coached by an assistant and a State Meet qualifying high jumper, who along with other high jumpers, coached themselves.
Jon's practices involved previously described behavior and non behavior, e.g. lack of stretching, relay work at end of practice, hard practices off of minimal winter conditioning work and lengthy practices that possibly contributed to the high injury rate seen among 189 his athletes. While wanting to be informed of serious injuries, Jon thought that top athletes could block out minor aches and pain as he had once done as a football player. When athletes told Jon of their injuries and pains, Jon was sometimes unknowledgeable of the proper treatment course to pursue, deferring to Jessica (the trainer) or myself.
As previously described, Jon's communication demonstrated qualities associated with football, namely "global goods" and double talk, and most often communication content was motivational rather than instructional in nature. While congruent with his goals of supporting his athletes in ways that promoted enthusiasm and a good attitude about track and themselves, Jon's lack of instruction had negative consequences for his athletes' performance. Kea, who high jumped 5'2" in running shoes and practiced without Jon’s supervision, was unable to explain a high jump sequence, errors, or how to duplicate earlier clearances. Distance runners ran erratically and were instructed on pace and fighting boxes during starts and finishes very late into the season. Sprinters, the most successful squad, learned curve running and lean finishing techniques during the last weeks of a three month season.
Jon's neglect of athletes in the instructional domain then takes on a dual nature. In trying to win League and set school records, Jon spent more time with those athletes who he felt made the most impact. Yet, without the requisite knowledge for some events, he was unable to help such athletes, even when they helped advance his programmatic goal. In addition, Jon's desire to develop tradition and win immediately, combined with a large, heterogenous group of athletes of varied talent and background and limited knowledge of sport medicine, ripened conditions for injury, which overall delayed the 190 contributions of some athletes toward Jon's programmatic goals until the following season.
Were Jon's EBAs in the instructional domain congruent with his actions as perceived by his athletes and their actions?
Sprinters as a group were satisfied with the amount of attention they received during practice from Jon while distance runners as a group were not. Less talented athletes said that Jon played favorites based on talent regardless of which event they participated in. Even elite athletes recognized the discrepant and preferential treatment afforded to sprinters and talented athletes, though few made a connection between what Jon did and his performance EBAs. Instead, they linked his "favoritism" to his lack of knowledge, which in part was true. The following nine athletes' comments reveal the extent of their awareness of the situation.
Amber (mid-distance): He has only helped distance people one day and that was April 21 and they've gotten really down on that...he has really been there for the sprinters, but distance people, he just sends them off. Jen (2:36, freshman 800 meter runner) has really gotten down on it too because he has not been there for her all the time like he has been for the sprinters...he works harder with people like Jo because she is really, really good and he tries to make her better. I think if he worked with the more average people like me and some other people as hard as he did with the [top people] that we would become better than average. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Mary (top two sprinter and top long jumper!: I've watched him and I think he is more for sprinters. He took a couple of us to a clinic and he didn't 191
attend any of the distance stuff...He'U leave to go see high jump and throwers but he will come directly back to long jump...He told me once that I'm the one that will carry it through and be the one South- Central athlete that he thinks will make it through to States...He gives me too much attention to where I think he should go around to every single person and work on them individually and take time. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Deanna (junior, hurdler-sprinter): I know he spends more time with sprinters than he does with distance and he works on hand-offs and starts more with us. (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
Cary (junior. 7:00 miler); He works a lot more with sprinters and he's like more excited over those events at meets. (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
Kristvn (junior, top two distance runner): He just tells us what to do and we do it but we do it by ourselves. We are not supervised. (F.W.R.y.lj.ll)
Ten: He favors sprinters big time...such as Jo...most of the season if seems that he has coached his sprinters and then [assigns] distance to run a half- hour...It's mostly his sprinters that he spends his time with. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Candy (freshman sprinter!: He favors sprinters, especially upperclassmen...Most freshmen, he doesn't really care about and he doesn't give us too much attention. He gives more attention to boy sprinters than he does to underclassmen sprinters, and the distance and throwers hardly ever get his help...If he worked with us more, we would be better...I realized that no matter what we did we were still going to be underneath them [upperclassmen], so I just slacked up and slowed down the rest of the season because I figured that it didn't really matter anyway. (F.W.R.y.lf.9) 192
Trista (freshman thrower-sprinter): I think he favors Jo and Mary, because hell go through a sprint workout and then he goes 'all you guys, go work on this' and then he’ll go help Jo...he favors her big time. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Tara (sophomore sprinter!: He babies Jo...He respects her as a runner and her ability and thinks that she'll go far. But maybe someone else will go far if he favors them too. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
The athletes also perceived Jon's lack of knowledge of certain events as contributing to his tendency to spend more time with sprinters.
Marv: That's probably what he knows about...he said he doesn't know anything about distance because he's never had to do it. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Ten: I don't think he really knows that much about distance. I don't think he'd know what to tell us what we are doing wrong...the other day Morris (boys' coach and cross-country coach) was telling me that I should go out harder and run with the leader and then at the end catch a second wind. Jon probably doesn't even know what a second wind is. (F.W.R.y.1^9)
Lee (freshman hurdler1): He kind of knows a lot about hurdles. At least I thought he did. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Sharyn (top freshman sprinter and top two high jumperV. I didn't think he knew anything about high jump because he never helped us. (F.W.R.y.lf.9) 193
Kyla (freshman multi-event athlete): It seems like high jumpers would need somebody there to help them and guide them, to show them what they are doing wrong because they only have each other to rely on. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Mary: He doesn't know anything about long jump. He even told me that he doesn't know enough about long jump to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
The situation his athletes described fostered an instructional environment-fueled by the unreliability of the high jump and throwing coaches-whereby Jon had to rely on athletes to coach themselves in events that he lacked knowledge about. This situation was congruent with his belief that future upperclass athletes would assume player-assistant coach roles, passing on what they knew to younger athletes as squad captains. Yet, with groups he did work with, Jon used a command style which would dissuade athletes from developing self-reliance. Kea in high jump, Jo in sprints, and Kristyn in distance were unofficially designated with this responsibility. However, Jo was an unpopular choice, as many athletes saw her as self- centered and monopolizing Jon's time through her need for attention. Tina's comment regarding Jo's high status on the team was the most scathing; "I don't need Jo. I'm not anybody's peon so I'm not going to follow Jo and do whatever she does.", while Mary thought that it was undeserved because "Jon lets her do whatever she wants and then when he’s not around she rests." (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Alternatives to the player as coach structure were offered by many athletes. Some athletes lobbied for Morris to help coach the distance runners, though admitting that Jon would not want that, because he "wants the girls to be as a family, just us together." (F.W.R.y.lf.9) 194
Others felt that interchanging boys' and girls' coaches into the events they fit into best was not enough. Instead, they thought that having more coaches overall would help equalize the disparate amount of coaching that favored sprinters as suggested in Tina's comment: "I think that we should have more than one coach because Jon can't keep track of all the girls doing eveiything. He can't get with distance and then work with long jump and then run over to high jump." (F.W.R.y.ls.9) Still others, such as Jo, Deanna, Trista, Jen, Lee and Sharyn thought that running with the boys would work well due to increased opportunity for social interaction and the boys' superior ability which would help bring out the best in their own performances. (F.W.R.y.lj.9 & F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Jon was aware of his behavior and the effect that it had on his athletes.
My throwers and my distance runners were pretty disappointed at the beginning of the year. I don't know if they still feel that way. I still think at the end of the year I still put more emphasis on sprinting than I did distance which I had a feeling I would do...[because] I know what to do with them. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Jon concurred with his athletes about the need for additional coaches in the statements he made
I wish we had one more assistant...that needed to be there all the time. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
If we had more specialty coaches I don't know if there would have been quite as much dissension amongst the throwers. I had all the field events plus distance and sprinters and relays and the only 195
thing I was excluding were the throwers. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Soon after making these statements, Jon seemed to reverse himself.
I think this year it would have been better if I had done everything...I think there is a way to do it. I just haven't figured it out. You just need to be very, very organized and I'm not as organized as I need to be. I don't think you would be able to put the emphasis on anything like it needs to be. Your field events would suffer a little but you would still have a really well-conditioned team that was disciplined and that would work hard with one coach. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
This inconsistency typefied the aforementioned conflict in focus that Jon had over which programmatic goal to foreground-fun or performance? Later, Jon negated other alternatives recommended by the girls, such as running with the boys and Morris coaching distance runners. While Jon agreed that his girls last year worked harder in the boys' presence, he felt that "not being able to work with them would cause a lot of dissension." (F.W.C.j.2.10) Allowing Morris to coach was also against his better judgment.
I don't really trust other people to work with my girls...Morris had the idea of rotating us, but last year my sprinters didn't want to work for him...I want to work with who I have. If I'm the girls' coach I want to work with girls. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Despite Jon’s wariness of others helping coach his team, Jon named myself and two of his friends as acceptable assistants because he felt he could trust us because we would have the best interests of the girls in 196
mind. (F.W.C.j.2.10) Apparently Jon and Morris had a lukewarm relationship that prohibited cooperation.
I guess I've never been a good communicator with Morris. I have always done my own thing and never ask too many questions...this year I've asked him more questions to let him know that I don't hate him because he doesn't let me work with his boys. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Another instructional issue repeatedly addressed during interviews centered on the usefulness of practice in improving performance. Jon's EBAs for practice were that it was a place for hard work, a serious attitude, and fun. Elite athletes' practices tended to be regimented in ways stressing the former two qualities, with many drill repetitions aimed at honing passing and starting skills for sprinters and sustained, interval work for distance runners in late season. Less talented and injured athletes' practices tended to be organized around the latter concept with more coach-athlete social interaction and fewer supervised workouts, allowing for intrasquad social interaction. While Jon knew which events his elite athletes fit into, he shuttled injured and less talented athletes between events and modifed workouts on the spot, based on their moment-to-moment status.
While these actions seem superficially congruent with his dual programmatic emphasis, a number of less talented and injured athletes reported that they did not have fun at practice and were not well- prepared for races they ran. (F.W.R.y.1^.9; F.W.R.y.ls.9; & F.W.R.y.lf.9) Additionally, elite athletes who "bit the bullet" by not reporting pain to Jon (in accordance with his EBAs), accused athletes who reported pain of being complainers and attention seekers. They felt that because Jon gave so much attention to them because of their talent that the injured 197
people had no other means of gaining attention except by complaining about injuries. (F.W.R.y.lj.ll) Athletes of all talent levels suggested that Jon's EBAs and behaviors might be detrimental to their health: some desired more stretching (F.W.R.y.lj.ll & F.W.R.y.lf.9); some felt that Jon worked athletes through pain, and "because of it, the whole team has shin splints" (F.W.R.y.lf.9); and runners on the cusp who realized that reporting pain might cost them their relay spot, regretted telling him (F.W.R.y.ls.9) or purposefully tried hiding their condition from him. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Through what he did and did not do during practice to maximize performance, Jon's behavior was partially incongruent with his EBAs about fun and wholly incongruent with his expectation of athletes who came out needing individualized workouts. Although Jon reacted to injured athletes' requirements for specialized workouts, he was unable to proactively modify group workouts in ways to prevent injuries from occurring.
One area of the instructional domain that showed clear congruence was Jon's ability to transmit his programmatic goals to his athletes. During interviews, athletes correctly identified the qualities of team leaders that Jon ascribed to, team goals, and individual goals related to attitude and hard work. Sample confirmatoiy comments by the athletes for each programmatic goal follow:
Team Leader Goal Tara: Mary will be in French class and tell me that I can't complain, that you just have to go out there and do it and that it's not anybody else's race but your own. She stayed after practice to help me on 198
my starts. It just seems like she's there for everybody. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Team Goals fen: At the beginning of the season he told us that his goal for us was to win League this year. (Jen, F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Lee: He also told us that another goal was to break ten school records. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Kyla: I think he expects the team to try our best and go out there with a good attitude and represent South-Central in a good way. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Tara: He wants you to have a good attitude and have fun doing it and get out there and do your best. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Individual Goals Sharyn: ...to get better each time and work as hard as I possibly can. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Ten: He expects a lot out of me because he told me that he thinks I have potential...that he wanted me to break the 800 record this year. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Io: If he was talking to me, he would tell me to work hard and be a leader. (F.W.R.y.lj.ll)
Tara: [referring to Jon's EBA for appropriate attitude] I'm on the track team and I should have been there supporting my team instead of thinking that because I can't run, I’m not going to go. That was the wrong attitude. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Though aware of Jon's expected team goals, athletes were dubious about the probability of accomplishing them. 199
Kristyn: I thought that some of them could be done, but 1 didn't really think ten [school records]. (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
Sharvn: I think his expectations were too high considering we were really young. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Such statements suggested that Jon’s expected team goals did not particularly influence those athletes who did not take them seriously. However, Jon believed that setting such high expectations was appropriate, even if such expectations were only remotely achievable, because it made athletes focus on what might be possible instead of the impossible. This value was congruent with Jon's belief that all athletes had the means to exceed their physical capability (i.e., everybody was an underachiever and achieved in proportion to how hard they worked).
In summary, the instructional domain of the sport ecology proved to be a volatile area for uninterrupted congruency between Jon's EBAs and his actions. Gaps between thought and action emerged due to strong and often conflicting pulls between Jon's concepts of fun and performance. If fun was exlusively pursued, Jon's elite performers ran the risk of being negatively impacted, with consequences inhospitable toward building a performance-based team tradition. However, if performance was exclusively pursued, marginally talented and injured athletes might fall by the wayside, unable to enjoy socially-based team affiliation and jeopardizing the construction of a team tradition based on esprit de corps. In facing this dilemma, Jon opted to more strongly emphasize performance over fun for his elite athletes and vice versa for his injured and non-elite athletes. Due to this dualism, Jon's behaviors were often incongruous to his EBAs in the instructional domain. 200
Psycho-Social Domain Although EBAs for his athletes' psychological profile indicated some concern for aggressiveness, gritiness, and emotional control, Jon was observed on only one occasion formally addressing his team about psychological preparation (O.W.C.j.14.10, before League Prelims). Apparently, Jon took a backdoor approach to performance-related psychological issues by dealing with off-track problems that impinged upon performance. Jon felt that being young made him approachable to students/athletes who "like to tell me their problems and tell me what's going on in their lives." (F.W.C.j.1.0) Jon dealt with "boyfriend/girlfriend problems, parent problems, and he said/she said problems" (F.W.C.j.1.0), sometimes "prying" into athletes' business at practice so they would tell him their underlying problem and "then when they talked about it, they would have a real good practice." (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Jon's belief in his approachability was verified by several athletes who reported that they sought him out for their problems.
Io: I talk to him about stuff outside track...people were talking about me a lot and I was getting upset...he gave me advice: 'try not to listen to them and do what you have to do.' (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
Kristyn: I had a personal problem and I asked him what he would do...he wasn't exactly sure how to solve it but he gave me an idea. Deanna: Some months ago I was having problems with one of my friends and he helped me through that a whole lot. (F.W.R.y.lj.9) 201
Jon's counseling approach carried over to practices from art class and FCA and coupled with his predilection for teasing and touching, helped create an image of Jon as more than just a coach. Dani thought that a pure coach was someone who "just worked on track and never joked § around with you." (F.W.R.y.l .9) But her follow-up comment, reflective of many others, indicated that Jon was much more than just a coach: "We talk about guys with him...he always wants to know what we are doing and is always in our social life too because he's one of our best friends and is so close to us." (F.W.R.y.ls.9) Kristyn likened Jon to a big brother whom she looked to for guidance and came to whenever she had a problem. (F.W.R.y.lj.ll)
Dani, who shared many on-field social interactions with Jon, offered the strongest comments.
He is more like a friend to us than a coach. We can talk to him or joke around with him...if we are in a good mood we can go up and smack him and he'll just play around with us and play fight...I don't think he's hardly ever serious. He's always joking around about something and he just knows how to have fun...he acts like your older brother...he picks on you and makes fun of you but in a good way...he's like a teenager. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
In addition to seeing Jon as more than just a coach, they attributed any fun they had at practice or meets to Jon's pro-social coaching behavior.
Kristyn: If you're tired or in a bad mood he will mess with you and aggravate you until you finally do something back or laugh...and you have to laugh 202
or you say something stupid or he says something stupid or makes fun of somebody else and it makes you laugh. (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
To: I like it when he acts silly because that's just him and if you're in a bad mood he’ll get you in a better mood by doing stupid stuff and making fun of people. (F.W.R.y.lj.9)
Tina: Jon being so playful makes you want to come back again just for the fun of it. Even if you aren't running he makes it fun at practice and you are not bored all the time. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Tara: It shows that you are noticed when he gives you a hug and pats you on the back and when you're tired and he is walking with you around the track and giving you a hug. That makes you feel a lot better. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Mary: We were at Wendy's after an indoor track meet and he was like one of the kids...we were having a food fight and he played with us and had fun...and what I like most about track is that everbody is happy, and I think it's part Jon making us happy and part ourselves. I've had so much fun this season, whereas last season it was nothing. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Lee: He makes me laugh and helps me out because if it wasn't for him I don't think I would come out to practice every day or work as hard as I do. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
When practices were viewed as an entity separate from Jon, most athletes found them intrinsically unfulfilling, as Jo's comments suggested: "I have fun at practices and meets but sometimes by the end of the year practices get kind of old and you're sick of doing it because we do the same drills and the same thing everyday and it kind of gets boring." (F.W.R.y.lj.9) Jon tried "different things" to combat low 203 morale. (F.W.C.j.2.10) Most attempts at diversion were welcomed by the athletes. Some even wanted more.
Jo: It's a change when everyday you are doing track workouts and you then get to something fun...I want more of them, at least once a week. (F.W.R.y.lj.ll)
Dani: He makes everything fun, especially when we play our games, like the Twit Olympics. That was the funnest thing we've ever done. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Sharyn: I think it makes things more fun and unique. When you do something other than track it makes you enjoy it more. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
Lee: I like playing follow the leader and football...When we ran in our bare feet that was a lot of fun because people were happy. (F.W.R.y.lf.9)
While athletes attributed the fun they had in practice to Jon's enthusiasm and fun-loving nature, they qualified how much fun Jon had during practice based on their teammates' behavior.
To: I think he has fun but sometimes he gets aggravated when people don't do what they're supposed to do or if they backtalk him or get sarcastic or just don't do what he says, he gets kind of mad...He tries to be nice and be all cool with us and people kind of take advantage of him...they should be happy that he's like that instead of a coach that yells at you all the time...He gets this one bad day about once a month...kind of like his PMS time. (F.W.R.y.lj.9) 204
Tina; He tries to make us have fun and people will start complaining and I think that's why we hardly do fun stuff [football]. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Dani: I think his attitude is based on whether or not we have fun. If we have fun then he knows that he is going to have a lot of fun and that makes him feel better, so if we are having fun he has more fun. (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
Jon sensed who had fun in his program as he identified throwers and injured athletes as having less fun and those "kids who I've worked with" as having more fun. (F.W.C.j.2.10) Jon credited himself for his ability to "make sure that people have fun, [by] turning something that's really hard and intense into something fun." (F.W.C.j.1.0)
While satisfied with the fun outcomes of practice, Jon was more self- critical and self-aware of the process contributing to the fun.
[joking, teasing, wrestling] is good, but sometimes I want the girls to know when we need to talk seriously...sometimes I don't know if they know when I’m serious...I did it to try and make it fun for the girls that were hurt and I didn't kid around with Jo and Mary nearly as much. They didn't need it as much, whereas some girls need it to stay motivated and excited about track...I think my personality lends itself to not being quite as disciplined as I want to be. I'm a lot different when I coach football. I wasn't real sure how to coach girls, so I tried to coach them differently than I coached boys. I don't do that [prosocial behavior] as much with guys. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Jon also accurately sensed that his athletes knew when he was aggravated and what contributed to his frustration. 205
I think they can tell when I'm frustrated but I think they also can tell that I have a really good time... Attitudes and injuries frustrate me the most and what makes me the maddest about them is that I probably bring them on myself because I don't work with people. (F.W.C.j.2.10)
Jon's self-awareness and personal critique as noted above were not observed relative to the physical nature of the relationship that he shared with his athletes. Jon's tactile interactions made up a large part of his social behavior toward his athletes and while welcomed and sometimes sought after by his athletes, they seemed incongruent with a previously stated EBA.
I'm not going to be real touchy-touchy with a girl. If they do great I might put my arm around them or give them a hug [because] I think a lot of people take it wrong and would look at it as me trying to hit on a girl. (F.W.C.j.1.0)
Developing a team atmosphere was a social priority second in importance only to fun. Jon's belief in group warmups, handdapping during stretching, cheering for teammates at meets, and alternative practices fostered the team concept. One criterion Jon used to measure the success of a season was how well a family atmosphere, devoid of cliques, developed. Though many athletes articulated strong intrateam attraction, they also noted cliquishness and division among the team relative to the separation of throwers and marginal newcomers from others.
Jo: There are certain cliques, most of us who have been running track for years are like a family but there are people who just come out, don’t know 206
much about track and don't really care [who don't fit in]. (F.W.R.y.llll)
Mary: I think we are not together because everybody is thinking about their individual stuff...I have problems with the throwers because when we have our fun days they complain...all they do is sit. They lift, they throw, they lift and then go home...they are not working as hard as we do and it's harder for a runner than a thrower. (F.W.R.y.l®9)
Trista: I don't feel like I could talk to anyone and that everyone cares, because as a thrower I don't talk to any sprinters. When we had the Wacky Olympics, the throwers couldn't play because they had to go throw. (F.W.R.y.1^.9)
Lee: I think we could be a lot closer than we are now but there are just some people who feel left out and who feel that they don't get the attention they want. (F.W.R.y.1^.9)
The athletes felt that fixing the fractured nature of the team required Jon to "go over and help [throwers] sometimes" and "make them do the same stuff we do like warmup [throwers had to do one lap less than runners] and drills [throwers were not required to participate]." (F.W.R.y.1^.9) Jon readily accepted blame for the dissension and planned on grouping his athletes altogether for the first segment of practice next year. Despite accepting full culpability, Jon's athletes did not entirely comply with his EBAs for supporting others, which partly fueled the schism between throwers and runners.
Tina: When we have a meet they get mad when we don't go over and watch them. Then Isa got mad when Jon told her to come over and cheer us 207
on. She said 'what's the use of coming over and cheering them on when they won't come over and cheer us on?' (F.W.R.y.ls.9)
The end result was that Jon's social goal of creating a family atmosphere was only realized by small event squads. Jon saw this situation as a sign of failure on his part and expected to remedy the divisiveness by taking measures to create a more, all-inclusive practice environment. In essence, this statement confirmed that his actions during practice were incongruent with his notion of team building and that the team climate he envisioned could only be obtained by treating all his athletes in a more uniform fashion.
In summary, the mixing of social and instructional domains seemed unsettling to Jon. Despite many of his athletes achieving fun, affiliating with the team, and directly attributing their positive experiences to him, Jon frequently focused on the minority of athletes who did not enjoy themselves or felt left out. Jon organized practices in ways that contributed to the social schism previously described. Jon's organizational strategy was hastily created in response to unanticipated problems and fallings-out with assistant coaches. Thus Jon was faced with hying to compensate for early remissness of his throwers, whose negative attitudes by this time were beyond repair.
Question 3.2: How did experiential and contextual variables shape the sport ecology? Previously reported contextual variables shaping the sport ecology included: (a) athletes' health status; and (b) managerial dynamics involving elite and returning athletes, non-elite and incoming athletes, and throwers. 208
Due to limited coaching experience, Jon was unable to contextualize events as they occurred. He was unable to foresee conflicts form and did not recognize many of the incongruendes between his thoughts and actions. Instead, Jon made mistakes which reflected his newness to the girls' head coaching position, contextualizing his experiences and mistakes along the way or in hindsight. Upon reviewing the field notes, Jon made a list of 20 things he would change for next year. In a sense, this first season provided a contextual foundation that Jon would use in seasons to come. During interviews, Jon described his mistakes and ways he intended to redress them in the future.
1. "I think I've made more mistakes than I've done good...I'm glad I made the change in the middle of the season to work with distance, to combine them and work that out. That's the only thing I think I did really good. And that's something where I was correcting a mistake I made rather than doing something good." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
2. "I haven't found ways of making distance fun yet...to just go out and run four miles today and three miles tomorrow doesn't seem like it would be much fun. So I need to find a way to make running distance fun so kids will want to do it and have fun with it." (F.W.C.j.1.0)
3. "There's a lot that these kids pick up on that I do subconsciously...things that I really don't think about. I should probably think about it more." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
4. "I probably should have done more with my high jumpers and more with my throwers. But at the beginning of the year, it looked like an ideal situation to have Mick work with them and Jessica work with my high jumpers and Bob work with my throwers...! did it because it 209 was a little bit easier to have them work with them and give me more time to work with runners...I haven’t figured out how to incorporate my throwers yet. I wish we had one more paid assistant that needed to be here all the time [referring to Bob]...I hope he does a better job next year spending more time with the girls. You'd think that by only coaching two events, he'd be more useful and get around to everyone." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
5. "I thought I put more emphasis on sprinting early in the year and less on distance. 1 hope 1 evened it out towards mid-season and I'm going to try and figure out a way to work with both groups more next year." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
6. "I should have done it this year, but I'm going to have my throwers do my warmup and drills with everybody just so they are feeling like a part of the team...With my high jumpers, I let them out of practice on Wednesdays half-way through to work with Mick or to work on their steps and I'm not going to let them do that after this year...It made them happy at the moment but in the long run, they were disappointed that I wasn't over there working with them." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
7. "At the beginning of the year I am going to do a lot more distance things with my sprinters so I can keep them all together in one group and I think it will also help with conditioning and [combat] leg pain." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
8. "I didn't take into consideration that they all came from different levels of conditioning. I should have been more gradual with my 210
workouts and have more intense workouts later in the season and less intense, more continuous type workouts earlier. I think that will get rid of some of the shin splints and leg pains next year. That's just an inexperience move and something I learned from this year." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
9. "I think I just messed up early in the year. I was looking through my workouts and trying to figure out what 1 need to do next year and I had them doing 6x300 the first day out...I think I pushed them too hard too early." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
10. "I let Deanna make too many decisions for me. At the beginning of the year, I wanted to do nothing but the running and keep her away from the hurdles for at least a month. I let her talk me into getting over there too early and she told me her foot didn’t hurt and it was and it ruined her for the year. But I'll make more decisions for them rather than letting them make the decsions." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
11. "I thought my freshmen would be able to [contribute more]. It's lack of experience on my part...I was looking at all numbers and what these people could do instead of looking at the person and grade and maturity levels...I didn't take into account experience and I should have." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
12. "It's hard not to play favorites. I played favorites this year I think, but I've done better at not doing it and I'll get better with time...I really need to work on playing favorites, but I don't really know how." (F.W.C.j.2.10) 211
13. "I think next year I'm not going to put as much emphasis on keeping my relays the same all year long and 1 want to put more girls in individual events as opposed to always having them in relays...to let some of the younger girls run the relays until it gets really important, where if I have a relay that can be really stacked, I'll stack it then. Little things like that will keep morale higher...let other girls have opportunities on relays." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
14. "Dual meets are going to be like glorified practices next year, and if 1 think I have a really good chance of winning an invitational I might work [them] hard to win it but if it looks like we'll be mid-pack, I'm going to work more just to get experience." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
15. "I'm never going to work hard on Wednesdays...that should be an easy day and then lift and I want do speedwork on Thursdays so we have two days to recover and then another easy day [Sunday]." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
16. "I think next year, I want to have more time to meet with kids and talk and get feelings out during the season and hopefully get to know them better and get more kids involved in Breakfast Club." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
17. "Sometimes, I don’t know if they know when I'm serious. I know in teaching you have to be really disciplined at the beginning of the year and less so as the year goes on, and it usually comes out pretty good if you lay the law down like that. So I will probably be more serious next year." (F.W.C.j.2.10) 212
18. "With the coaching thing, I put too much responsibility on people that I didn't know yet or didn't really feel I wanted to...I let them have too much responsibility." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
19. "If I would have had the throwers warmup and do everything with us at the beginning of the year, I would have spent more time with them and the ones who didn't want to be there would have quit." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
20. "With Jo, I put too much pressure on her with hurdles at the beginning and that didn't allow her to get into her groove in the sprint stuff until mid-season and that was frustrating because I felt that she had a lot of potential for hurdles and 1 let that get in the way of what she wanted to do." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
21. "There are things I could do better. At the beginning I was trying to be real structured...exactly this amount of minutes for this and this amount for that in trying to assign specialty events to everyone, and based on meets I realized that some people just didn't fit their events. So I have to now go and figure what these kids will do between the end of their workout and lifting when I'm working with specialty events and they wait around." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
22. "Hopefully, as we get better we can count on leaders to do the coaching. As my team grows that is one of the goals—that I want to build coaches as they go through." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
23. "I would probably go to more high jump things [at clinics] just so I can learn more about approach steps...I'll go to everything on shot and 213
discus and relays. I'm lacking in knowledge in field events because the last three years, all I wanted to do was sprints and that's what they told me to do so I did." (F.W.C.j.2.10)
While not always knowing the solutions to his problems, Jon's "mistake" inventory suggested an awareness of the problematic issues affecting his team in all three ecological domains. Jon willingly accepted responsibility for his athletes' mistakes on top of his own. Jon seemed to have keen insight on many issues expressed by his athletes. In a way, Jon's coaching education comprised the body of experiences he encountered over the course of the season. It may take time for coaches to display "with-it-ness" in spotting their mistakes as they occur. It may take even more time before new coaches become good enough managers to adapt a sport ecology in response to events in-situ rather than responding after the fact. However, time in this context will probably not improve the chances of Jon achieving his goals in their entirety.
It would appear that there are so many barriers to success at South- Central, that no amount of experience could overcome them. An inequality of opportunity exists between South-Central and Conquistador. It permeates both the educational field and the sport field—comparatively insufficient resources, unsupportive community, and student-athletes unenculturated to the sport and educational culture found in affluent, suburban Conquistador. It is imagineable that South-Central does not attract the highest quality teachers to its school and since coaches emerge from the faculty population, the same circumstance may be postulated for South-Central's coaches. Though Jon will undoubtedly grow from his experiences in years to come, 214 added experience may not counteract the effects of context in realizing his programmatic goals. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
The first section of this chapter will answer Question 4 through a cross case comparison of Ron and Jon. The second section will compare Ron and Jon as male coaches to the research literature on male coaches of girls' sport teams. The third section will summarily address the findings relative to expectancy and ecological theory—the underpinnings of the study. The final section will propose future lines of inquiiy for the qualitative study of coaches' thoughts and resulting behaviors in a gendered environment. The reader is forewarned that the cross-case comparison that follows reflects the investigator's own interpretation of the cases. Readers are advised to come to their own conclusions. Additionally, it is difficult to make comparisons between the two coaches because the contexts in which they operated in were truly two different worlds. In fact, a major finding of this study is that context is a salient variable for explaining the thoughts and behaviors of these two coaches.
Cross-Case Analysis
Question 4.1: How does amount of experience explain dissimilar EBAs and behavior? As a nine-year veteran of coaching girls, most of Ron's present-day EBAs and behaviors were results of earlier EBAs and behavior outcomes. Ron retained much of the coaching philosophy he acquired from his
215 216
college coach to successfully coach his girls. However, he was forced to abandon many of the EBAs and coaching behaviors acquired through previous years of coaching boys, because subsequent use of those EBAs and behaviors did not transfer well to girls. Through trial and error, Ron realized that his girls required different workouts and their personalities and psychological make-ups were different enough from his boys as to necessitate a different approach. Ron also responded to changing social values over two decades, adopting a less rigid approach to attendance standards and intrateam socialization. As a result, Ron was usually prepared for anything he encountered. Most of the EBAs he held came to pass: athletes failing to communicate about absences, injuries, emotionalism, gradual performance improvement by all, relay team State Meet qualification, and weak short sprinting. Ron was never caught off guard by unfolding events because he usually had experienced similar situations, and in the process developed coping strategies to make practices flow smoothly. In essence, due to the lessons Ron's experiences afforded him, he was able to create an almost self-sustaining program over the years, one which he could recycle from season to season with minor modifications dictated by the contextual constraints of a given season.
In contrast to Ron, Jon was inexperienced at coaching females, with this season representing his first attempt at coaching a girls' sport. Jon previously coached boys' track and football and elements of both experiences were present in his coaching philosophy and style. Because of his inexperience, it was not surprising that Jon explained many of his EBAs in reference to his own personal experiences as an athlete and coach, stripped of their present context and target group. Jon's egocentric approach to the season, especially at the outset, was expected because he lacked referents to unfolding events. Jon could only nebulously respond to queries about how he would react to given situations and what 217
standards and routines he had pre-established. It was not that he had not considered these issues; rather he had no previous experiences in this setting to inform how he should react. Thus, EBAs at the beginning of the season were more likely to be incongruent with subsequent actions than in Ron's case. For example, while both men thought that physical displays with athletes should be limited, Jon wrestled with and touched his athletes counter to his espoused EBAs, but in accordance with the situations he was discovering; that is, his athletes welcomed, initiated and thrived on physical attention.
While Ron's practices flowed smoothly regardless of circumstances, Jon's practices were characterized by higher amounts of wait, managerial, and off-task time. Jon's inexperience left him unprepared for the eventualities of girls' track practice. Lack of knowledge of certain events, an inability to foresee impending injuries and the distinct needs of event groups, and a slow response to situations involving team dynamics contributed to the choppy nature of practices as Jon had to react in any given practice to an array of events that he had not anticipated developing. In the course of any practice, Jon left groups waiting when more pressing situations arose, took time to transition athletes to their event practices based on immediate decisions regarding their health, and/or increased off- task time by foregrounding social goals at the expense of instructional goals. As the season progressed however, some fluidity was restored to practices as athletes learned self-management routines and Jon learned how to juggle multiple tasks and filter out what was less important from the often simultaneous demands made upon him by his athletes.
The experience variable clearly distinguished Jon from Ron in their EBAs, their actions, and the congruence between EBAs and actions. 218
Throughout the season, Jon continuously reassessed his EBAs and reflected upon his actions in response to his athletes' performance, behavior, and attitude. The situations he encountered and the experience he gained in dealing with them informed what he said he would do in the future. Any modifications Ron made had less to do with experience and more to do with contextual factors that he faced during this particular season. While Jon re-formed his philosophy and style in response to first- year experiences, Ron was generally content with his program, assured by the continuity of successful performance and the consistency of athletes' behavioral and emotional responses.
The apparent gap between these coaches may diminish over ensuing years. The learning curve during one's first years of coaching may be steep, flattening out with additional years of coaching. Thus, in a generic sense, coach development could be considered an evolving process that is highly predicated on learning from experiences, and as such over time the degree of congurency between Jon's EBAs and behavior would more closely resemble Ron's-the operative variable being learning from experience (i.e., reflecting and reassessing EBAs and behavior and then making changes where needed).
Question 4.2: How were the contexts these men worked in conducive to similar and dissimilar EBAs and behaviors? The coaches' dissimilar work conditions provided contextual factors that shaped their distinctive behavior. Conquistador used seven assistant coaches while South-Central used two. Of the seven assistants, five were former Explorer track athletes. Additionally, Ron had one assistant all to himself for the sprint squad. Ron was thus able to shift some coaching responsibilities on to assistants who were already schooled in the program. Ron did not have to know about every event because the program was so 219
specialized. Coaches were shifted around each year to areas of best fit and greatest need. When Ron was required to perform school district duties which interfered with coaching duties, he had reliable and knowledgeable assistants to rely on. Jon's work conditions were in stark contrast to Ron's. Jon's two assistant coaches were unreliable and lacked the longevity of coaching together enjoyed by Ron at Conquistador. Additionally, since boys and girls at South-Central were divided by gender instead of being grouped together and coached as separate event groups as was the case at Conquistador, Jon was required to work in events that were unfamiliar to him and that he had less desire to coach relative to sprints. Interestingly, even though both coaches worked with similar numbers of athletes, the fact that Jon worked with a whole team while Ron worked with part of the team had important ramifications for how and with whom they spent their time during practices.
Both Ron and Jon coached teams sheltered from their more veteran colleagues. Ron, a protege of Kyle the distance coach, tried to defend his sprint squad's contributions to overall team success in the face of media, colleagial, and his own sprinters' opinions suggesting otherwise. Although Ron had great respect for Kyle, their relationship on the practice field was characterized by separation and rivalry. Jon was also trying to emerge from the shadows of a veteran colleague. Morris, the boys' coach, had enjoyed many years of success with his teams which Jon had helped coach until this year. Jon and Morris did not work together on administrative or coaching matters, and Jon only this year began asking Morris questions in deference to his experience as a head coach and Jon's desire to emulate Morris' success. Thus, both coaches held EBAs fueled in part by their desire to gain greater recognition for their athletes' accomplishments compared to their colleague's athletes. 220
In trying to reach their goals, both coaches had to identify talent and the events in which this talent could be best utilized. Both coaches settled on relay teams. Ron traditionally focused on relay teams because his individual athletes had historically been unable to compete against playoff caliber competition while his relays advanced further. In contrast, Jon concentrated on relays because they fostered a family atmosphere, an important social outcome to him. This season, Ron held little hope for his 4x400 relay from the start but was able to develop a State Meet qualifier by borrowing a hurdler and a distance runner who he had identified as capable contributors. In contrast, Jon recognized early on that only his 4x100 relay would be capable of advancing far and quickly established, maintained, and ran the same order throughout the season, even in dual meets.
Both Ron and Jon valued tradition. While Ron had an already established tradition based on high performance standards, an impressive State Meet history, and an athlete-managed apprenticeship program whereby newcomers "learned the ropes" from veterans, Jon wanted to establish a strong program in an environment devoid of tradition. Jon’s athletes were less experienced and less knowledgeable athletes as a whole compared to Ron's athletes, and therefore Jon was limited by factors external to the practice environment in laying the foundation for tradition. Poor diet, improper footwear, poor preventive health care, and heightened socio-emotional problems, combined with a socio-economic level that reduced access to resources, were uncontrollable variables Jon encountered in trying to develop a program. Although at first Jon believed that tradition was built around the coach, he gradually vested his older athletes with leadership responsibilities similar to Ron's older athletes; an exception being that Jon's leaders while being older also tended to be the elite performers as well. 221
Both coaches had a group of talented freshmen to work with this season. While Ron slowly integrated them onto the travelling team and reduced their role when their health was in question, Jon quickly elevated many of his freshmen to his first team and treated their injuries without considering their maturity level. Ron's freshmen came from junior high school programs with sounder training regimes than Jon's, so even if Ron would have treated his freshmen as Jon did, the base training Explorer girls received prior to high school would have likely safeguarded them from the chronic, overuse injuries seen at South-Central. While Ron's athletes experienced an inordinate number of shin splint injuries during the conditioning phase of the season, these disappeared once the fine- tuning phase of the season was reached. Jon's athletes began the season much harder than Ron's as Jon assumed that his athletes had more conditioning than they actually did. While his athletes initially competed well and won dual meets [Ron's athletes lost more duals than Jon's], they soon after came down with injuries. It is unknown whether Jon's desire to quickly establish tradition clouded his judgment about training or whether he had thought long-term about his freshmen's role and health status on the team.
It is clear that Jon and Ron's programs operated in vastly different contexts, and it is almost unfair to compare them on contextual variables. Given a team composition, team dynamics, and working conditions similar to one another (i.e., holding the context variable constant) it would be interesting to isolate and identify the independent effects that Ron's experience and Jon's inexperience would have on their EBAs and behaviors in a given context. 222
Comparisons to the Literature
While comparing these coaches to the research results in the coaching literature was not a primary goal of this study, it was still a necessary task if the question posed in Chapter I concerning the legitimacy of males coaching females is to be answered. Comparing these coaches to the results of previous research is difficult, owing to the qualitiative nature of this research compared to the mostly quantitiative nature and psychometric measures of coaches reported in Chapter n. The following comparisons are confined to research on males coaching females, with the exception of the first comparison to Sage’s work which focused on the experiences of beginning high school coaches.
Jon and Ron strongly resembled Sage's (1989) characterization of beginning high school coaches. Both learned technical aspects of the job and the occupational culture by observing and listening to more experienced coaches—Ron learned from Kyle and Jon learned from Morris. Due to limited professional socialization during preservice, college experiences, most coaches use their own coaches as informal images of what coaches are and how they should behave. Ron identified with his college coach the most while Jon's high school coach impressed him most strongly. Both coaches also resembled Sage's (1989) sampled coaches, in that as novices they reported learning mostly though trial and error.
Ron and Jon less clearly matched results found in the EBA literature focusing on gender differences between male and female coaches of girls' teams. Molstad's (1992) survey results dted males' reasons for coaching girls in order of importance as: easier to motivate, easier to coach, and more prestigous to coach. Ron and Jon acknowledged that some aspects of coaching girls were easier than coaching boys; for Ron, coaching the girls' team afforded more recognition due to their success, however he did not 223
offer this as a reason for coaching his athletes. Instead, both coaches referred to motivations for coaching in more neutral and global terms, such as their love for working with kids was the reason they coached. Molstad (1993) surveyed and differentiated coaching values by gender. Female coaches thought that being a role model was most important to them and that bringing recognition to the team was most important to their athletes while male coaches thought relating well to athletes was most important to them and being a strong leader was most important to their athletes. Ron and Jon resembled the male coaches more in the value they held for themselves but resembled the female coaches in the value they thought their athletes held.
Both coaches compare with other EBA survey research in mixed fashion as well. Eitzen and Pratt’s (1989a) data showed that male coaches of girls' teams were less likely than male coaches of boys' teams to try and influence athletes' lives outside the athletic arena, run off-season conditioning, and adopt more rules related to practice behavior, travel, clothes, and grooming. Ron and Jon, except for the trend toward fewer rules for their girls, did not conform to this pattern as they heavily involved themselves in their athletes' lives and ran preseason conditioning. Eitzen and Pratt (1989b) also found that male coaches of girls' teams were more likely to run practice sessions less tightly and were less likely to have an "all work-no play" attitude toward practices. While both coaches made room in their practices for social components, typical of the sampled male coaches, Ron's practice sessions were in fact very tightly run and thus atypical of the sampled male coaches. Young’s (1986) study of males coaching boys, males coaching girls and females coaching girls, found that males coaching girls were least task oriented and most command oriented in style, provided the most sodal-emotional 224
encouragement, middlemost in structured leader behavior, and emphasized production the least. Jon and Ron functioned at times in the command style, but often embedded instruction and practice in tasks that allowed for individualized content and pacing. Since the other two group types in Young's study did not participate in the present study, comparing Ron and Jon to females coaching girls and males coaching boys is impossible. However, individually Ron and Jon were socially and emotionally supportive, used an active teaching format, and emphasized production—partly confirming and partly discontinuing Young's profile of males coaching girls.
Only one published study focusing on male and female coaching behaviors has used systematic observation. Lacy and Goldston (1990) found that female coaches were coded more frequently on behavior categories of first name usage, management, praise, and hustle while male coaches were coded more frequently on pre- and concurrent- instruction, modelling, and questioning. Ron's coaching style included many instances of questioning, some modelling, and much preinstruction. Jon was more likely to use concurrent instruction and questioned and modelled less often than Ron. Both coaches rarely used athletes' first names, instead calling them by their last names. Management and hustle behaviors were used more often by Jon while the amount of praise behaviors was qualitatively indistinguishable between the two coaches. Thus, in this one study, Ron and Jon compared closely to the sampled males with little resemblance to the sampled females.
Several studies which focused on males coaching females and reported in Chapter II, looked at the issue from the point of view of the female athlete. At the college level, 38% of women surveyed in a state wide sample lacked a preference for being coached by a female. These women 225
along with those preferring male coaches believed that males demanded their best effort and commanded more respect than female coaches (George/1989). Coakley and Pacey (1982), also at the college level, reported that females in individual sports preferred male coaches more often than their counterparts in team sports. These two studies' findings are reinforced by the findings of the present study, in which all interviewed athletes preferred being coached by a male and more specifically by their current coach. Many of the South-Central and Conquistador athletes said that they could not get along with female coaches, would respect them less, and were more motivated to work for a male coach.
The socio-emotional aspects of female athletes' preferences for a particular gender have been studied at the high school level and thus comparisons are at least contextually relevant. The ability to talk with male coaches about their personal problems seems limited in some circumstances (Sabock & Kleinfelter, 1987) and needs to be qualified in others (Officer & Rosenfeld, 1985). While both coaches' athletes felt comfortable communicating with their coaches about personal problems, the more they thought of their coaches as friends, the more likely they were to disclose confidences to them. This was particularly the case for Jon whose athletes felt that he was more their peer than coach. Both coaches tended to talk with their athletes on subject matter hypothesized to be the domain of male coaches, with Ron staying more on school matter topics and Jon going into matters concerning relationships with men (Officer & Rosenfeld, 1985).
In comparing Ron and Jon to this small body of literature, it is apparent that a sufficient empirical base does not exist to predict how male coaches 226
of girls will think and behave. Virtually all studies in this area have been non-observational in nature and not enough published studies of any type have been conducted at the high school level. Yet, despite scant empirical evidence, theorists continually question the role of male coaches in girls' sports. While the findings of this study had more to say about general coaching behavior as it related to congruency and the effects of expectations and the sport ecology, the articulated feelings of the athletes in this study, even those who did not enjoy their seasons from a performance standpoint, indicated that it is a male coach's concern and interest for his team that makes him worthy of coaching girls and not his gender.
Comparisons to Theory
The case for expectancy theory as the dominant explanatory model for coaches' affecting athletes' behavior was found to be less salient than sport ecology theory. While some expectations held by the two coaches followed a theoretically predicted cycle, more often than not expressed EBAs were never manifest without an accompanying contextual or experiential stimulus. For example, Ron's EBA about the difficulty involved in teaching this year's squad, comprised predominantly of lowerclassmen, was transformed into behavior only during a relay practice when the athletes were not wholeheartedly executing a drill. Even then, his comment about how much easier it was last year was heard by only one athlete. Indeed, she later expressed resentment over Ron's comment, yet this category based expectancy affected only a single, unintended individual. This situation points to the modifications that Horn (1984b) made to the expectancy model as it operated in sport; namely that an expectancy's power to affect an athlete's behavior is a function of whether the athlete perceives the expectancy and its accompanying behavior to begin with. A more powerful indicator of coaching behavior as it reflected 227
EBAs was the operative sport ecology of the moment. The long term sport ecology was a stable construct created by the coaches' behaviors as they acted upon their values-for Ron the instructional task system was foregrounded while the instructional and social task systems were almost equally foregounded in Jon's program. However, the short term sport ecology was a product of a given day's practice context. At this level, incongruencies between thought and action were more likely to occur, as the conditions of the moment forced decisions that may have conflicted with the coaches' overall EBAs. Ron, who had far more coaching experience than Jon was more likely in such microecological incidents to behave in ways congruent with his EBAs. It becomes clear then that expectancy phenomena can not be studied without accounting for their location in time and place. The expectancies that transpired here between athlete and coach seemed not to be initiated solely in response to immutable characteristics, such as gender and talent level, but also in response to the environmental dynamics of a given practice.
Recommendations for Future Inquiry
1. Since context is so particular in the naturalistic setting, future research in this area should continue to focus more on coaches' experience than their contexts and match participant programs on a list of descriptor variables.
2. While case study is useful for gaining rich insight into a few examples of the problem, it prevents generalization. Given the growth of youth sports and the continuing need for girls' sport coaches, combining some systematic observation into a qualitative study of a larger sample-one which includes female coaches—may help inform coaching education more than is possible by this study. 228
3. In order to arrive at a consensus statement of what qualities and behaviors girls' coaches should be required to demonstrate, future studies should incorporate the thoughts and behaviors of the female athletes in addition to those of the coach.
4. Other methodologies besides those used in the present study should be employed to better capture microecological events' impact on congruency between thought and action. Stimulated recall is one suggested technique. A mixed method study based on similar assumptions could be done using quantitative sampling principles, data collection modalities and analyses in addition to the methods used in this study. Such a study would improve data trustworthiness in the eyes of the research community and promote greater generalizability.
5. As it appears that experience is a potent change agent for coach EBAs, studying single coaches longitudinally would allow the monitoring of EBAs over time and subsequent determination of those experiences which promote EBA change.
6. Since context was such a salient variable in this study, it would be worthwhile to study many contexts to generate a factor analysis of contextual variables, identifying those factors which play a significant role in affecting coach EBAs and behavior.
7. Since Ron patterned his program after his college coach and his college experience and his program was deemed more successful and congruent than Jon's, studying different levels might prove fruitful, such as college and high school, in an attempt to isolate which coach EBAs and behaviors seen at the college level might be worth incorporating into high school sport. REFERENCES
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (1985). Women in athletics--a status report. TOPERD. 56 (61.30-37.
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (1992). As the years go by-coaching opportunities in the 1990's. TOPERD. 62 (3), 36-41.
Alpert, J.L. (1974). Teacher behavior across ability groups: A consideration of the mediation of pygmalion effects. Tournal of Educational Psychology. 66 (3), 348-353.
Baumann, A., & Pastore, D.L. (1994). An update of women’s intercollegiate athletics programs in Ohio. Future Focus. 15 (1), 10-14.
Bird, A.M. (1976). Nonreactive research: Applications for sociological analysis of sport. International Review of Sport Sociology. 11 (1), 83-89.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Canic, M.J. (1983). The role of expectancies in coaching. Coaching Science Update. 3,48-51.
Chilcott, J.H. (1987). Where are you coming from and where are you going? The reporting of ethnographic research. American Educational Research Tournal. 24 (2), 199-218.
Chism, N. (1994, Autumn). Analyzing qualitative data. Class Notes, Ed P&L 800, The Ohio State University.
Claxton, D.B. (1988). A systematic observation of more and less successful high school tennis coaches. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. Z (4), 302-310.
229 230
Clifton, R.A. (1982). The effects of students' ethnidty and sex on the expectations of teachers. Interchange. 22 (1), 31-38.
Coakley, J.J., & Pacey, P.L. (1982). How female athletes perceive coaches. TOPERD. 53 (21.54-56.
Cooper, H.M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research. 49 (3), 389-410.
Darst, P.W., Langsdorf, E., Richardson, D.E., & Krahenbuhl, G.S. (1981). Analyzing coaching behavior and practice time. Motor Skills: Theory into Practice. 5 (1), 13-22.
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade's research on gender. American Psychologist. 39 (2), 105-116.
Doyle, W. (1977a). Learning the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Tournal of Teacher Education. 28 (6), 51-55.
Doyle, W. (1977b). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L.S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5). (pp. 163- 198). Itasca, HI: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Doyle, W. (1977c). Learning in the classroom environment: An ecological analysis of induction into teaching. (Report No. SP 010 838). New York: American Educational Reserach Association Annual Meeting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 135 782).
Doyle, W. (1977d). The uses of nonverbal behaviors: Toward an ecological model of classrooms. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 23 (3), 179- 192.
Doyle, W. (1981). Research on classroom contexts. Tournal of Teacher Education. 32 (6), 3-6.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research. 53 (2), 159-199.
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry. 14 (2), 129-149. 231
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G.A. (1975). Classroom ecology: some concerns about a neglected dimension of research on teaching. Contemporary Education. 46 (3), 183-188.
Earls, N. (1986). Naturalistic inquiry: Interactive research and the insider-outsider perspective (Special Monograph). Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 6 (1), 1-108.
Eitzen, D.S., & Pratt, S.R. (1989a). Gender influences in coaching philosophy. ROES. 60 (2), 152-158.
Eitzen, D.S., & Pratt, S.R. (1989b). Differences in coaching philosophies between male coaches of male and female basketball teams. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 24 (2), 151-161.
England, K.M. (1993). Analysis of the instructional ecology in tutorial tennis settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Felder, D., & Wishnietsky, D. (1990). Role conflict, coaching burnout and the reduction in the number of female interscholastic coaches. Physical Educator. 47 (2), 7-13.
Fiedler, M.L. (1975). Bidirectionality of influence in classroom interaction. Tournal of Educational Psychology. 67 (6), 735-744.
Fortin, S. (1992). The teaching of modern dance: what two experienced teachers know, value, and do. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
George, J.J. (1989). Finding solutions to the problem of fewer female coaches. Physical Educator. 46 (11.2-8.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. 232
Good, T. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Educational Leadership. 38 (5), 415-422.
Good, T., Sikes, J.N., & Brophy, J.E. (1973). Effects of teacher sex and student sex on classroom interaction, loumal of Educational Psychology. 65 (1), 74-87.
Graham, K.C., Green, J.L., & Earls, N. (1986). A multifaceted approach to systematic discovery and documentation of teaching-learning processes (Special Monograph), loumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6 (1), 50-65.
Griffey, D.C. (1991). The value and future agenda of research on teaching physical education. ROES. 62 (4), 380-383.
Griffin, L.L. (1991). Analysis of the instructional task system in an interscholastic volleyball setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Harrison, J.M. (1987). A review of the research on teacher effectiveness and its implications for current practice. Quest. 22 (1)/ 36-55.
Hart, B.A., Hasbrook, C.A., & Mathes, S.A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of female interscholastic coaches. ROES. 57 (1), 68-77.
Hasbrook, C.A. (1988). Female coaches—why the declining numbers and percentages? TOPERD. 59 (7), 59-63.
Hastie, P.A. (1992). Towards a pedagogy of sports coaching: Research directions for the 1990's. International Tournal of Physical Education. 29 (3), 26-29.
Hastie, P.A. (1993). Players' perceptions of accountability factors in secondary school sports settings. ROES. 64 (2), 158-166.
Hastie, P.A., & Saunders, J.E. (1989). Coaching behaviors and player involvement in elite schoolboy rugby teams. Tournal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences. 11 (1), 21-32.
Hastie, P.A., & Saunders, J.E. (1992). A study of task systems and accountability in an elite junior sports setting. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 11 (4), 376-388. 233
Heishman, M.F., Bunker, L., & Tutwiler, R.W. (1990). The decline of women leaders (coaches and athletic directors) in girls' interscholastic sport programs in Virginia from 1972 to 1987. ROES. f>l (1), 103-107.
Hoferek, M.J. (1981). Sex roles and teachers' messages. The Foil. 64 (1), 6-9.
Hoferek, M.J. (1982). Sex-role prescriptions and attitudes of physical educators. Sex Roles. 8 (1), 83-98.
Holmen, M.G., & Parkhouse, B.L. (1981). Trends in the selection of coaches for female athletes: A demographic inquiry. ROES. 62 (1)/ 9-18.
Horn, T.S. (1984a). The expectancy process: causes and consequences. In W.F. Straub & J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 199-211). Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates.
Horn, T.S. (1984b). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting: Methodlogical considerations. Tournal of Sport Psychology. 6 (1), 60-76.
Horn, T.S. (1985). Coaches’ feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their physical competence. Tournal of Educational Psychology. 77 (2). 174-186.
Horn, T.S., & Lox, C. (1993). The self-fulfilling prophecy theory: when coaches' expectations become reality. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 68-81). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Horowitz, I.A. & Bordens, K.S. (1995). Social psychology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Howe, K., & Eisnehart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher. 19 (4), 63-84.
Hutslar, S. (1981). The expectancy phenomenon. TOPERD. 62 (7), 88-89.
Jeter, J.T. (1975). Can teacher expectations function as self-fulfilling prophecies? Contemporary Education. & (3), 161-166. 234
Jones, D.L. (1992). Analysis of task systems in elementary physical education classes. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 11 (4), 411-425.
Jones, R. (1990). Coach-player interaction: A descriptive analysis of certified football association coaches' teaching basic techniques at the youth sport level. Research Supplement Z, 6-10.
Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kane, M.J., & Stangl, J.M. (1991). Employment patterns of female coaches in men's athletics: Tokenism and marginalization as reflections of occupational sex segregation. Tournal of Sport and Social Issues. 15 (1), 21-41.
Klein, S.S. (1971). Student influence on teacher behavior. American Education Research Tournal. 8 (3), 403-421.
Knoppers, A. (1988). Men working: Coaching as a male dominated and sex segregated occupation. Arena Review. 12 (2), 69-80.
Knoppers, A. (1989). Coaching: An equal opportunity occupation? TOPERD. 60 (3). 38-43.
Knoppers, A. (1992). Explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching: Three approaches. Quest. 44 (3), 210-227.
Lacy, A.C., & Darst. P.W. (1985). Systematic observation of behaviors of winning high school head football coaches. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 4 (4), 256-270.
Lacy, A.C., & Goldston, P.D. (1990). Behavior analysis of male and female coaches in high school girls' basketball. Tournal of Sport Behavior. 13 (11. 29-39.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange. XL (4), 63-84.
Lirgg, C.D., Dibrezzo, R., & Smith, A.N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Tournal. 3 (1), 1-14. 235
Locke/ L.F. (1986). The future of research on pedagogy: Balancing on the cutting edge. The Academy Papers. 20,83-95.
Locke, L.F. (1989). Qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. ROES. (1), 1-20.
Lovett, D.J., & Lowry, C.D. (1994). "Good Old Boys" and "Good Old Girls" clubs: Myth or reality? Tournal of Sport Management. 8 (1), 27- 35.
Martinek, T.J. (1981a). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for communication of teacher expectations in physical education. ROES. 52 (1), 58-67.
Martinek, T.J. (1981b). Physical attractiveness: Effects on teacher expectations and dyadic interactions in elementary age children. Tournal of Sport Psychology. 3 (3), 196-205.
Martinek, T.J. (1983). creating Golem and Galatea effects during physical education instruction: A social psychological perspective. In T. Templin, & J. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 59- 70). Champaign, 111: Human Kinetics.
Martinek, T.J. (1988). Confirmation of a teacher expectancy model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teaching behaviors. RQEg, 52 (2), 118-126.
Martinek, T.J., Crowe, P.B., & Rejeski, W.J. (1982). Pygmalion in the gym: Causes and effects of expectations in teaching and coaching. West Point, NY: Lesiure Press.
Martinek, T.J., & Johsnon, S.B. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic interactions and self-concept in elementary age children. Research Quarterly. 50 (1), 60-70.
Martinek, T.J., & Karper, W.B. (1983). A research model for determining causal effects of teacher expectations in physical education instruction. Quest. 35 (2), 155-168.
Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 236
Metzler, M. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Tournal of Teaching Physical Education. 8 , 87-103.
Miller, A.W. (1992). Systematic observation behavior similarities of various youth sport soccer coaches. Physical Educator. 49 (3), 136-143.
Molstad, S.M. (1992). Gender and coaching high school girls' basketball. The Foil. 75 (2), 9-10.
Molstad, S.M. (1993). Coaching qualities, gender, and role modeling. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Tournal. 2 (2), 11-19.
Morency, L., Brunelle, J., & Tousignant, M. (1988). How P.E. teachers' expectations affect classroom interaction. In H. Rieder, & U. Hanke (Eds.), The physical education teacher and coach today (pp. 240-244). Heidelberg, Germany: Koeln Sport & Buch Strauss.
Officer, S.A., & Rosenfeld, L.B. (1985). Self-disclosure to male and female coaches by female high school athletes. Tournal of Sport Psychology. 7 (4), 360-370.
Palardy, J.M. (1969). What teachers believe-what children achieve. The Elementary School Tournal. 69 (7), 370-374.
Pastore, D.L., & Kuga, D.J. (1993). High school coaches of women's teams: An evaluation of burnout levels. Physical Educator. 50 (3), 126- 131.
Pastore, D.L., & Whiddon, S. (1983). The employment of males and females in athletics and physical education in the state of Florida. The Physical Educator. 40.207-210.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity--one's own. Educational Researcher. 17 (7), 17-21.
Pieron, M. (1988). Studying the process of teaching: research findings. In Seoul Olympic Scientific Congress Organizing Committee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seoul Olympic Scientific Congress (pp. 290-297). Seoul, Korea: Dankook University. 237
Pieron, M. (1994). Studying the instruction process in teaching physical education. Sport Science Review. 3 (1), 73-82.
Rajecki, D.W. (1990). Attitudes (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Rejeski, W., Darracott, C., & Hutslar, S. (1979). Pygmalion in youth sport: A field study. Tournal of Sport Psychology. 1 (4), 311-319.
Richardson, P.A., & Tandy, R.E. (1986). Coaching Jack and Jill: Sex differences and similarities in sport. Motor Skills: Theory Into Eracticg, 8 (1/2), 77-84.
Rushall, B. (1973). Behavior patterns of coaches and athletes: A preliminary study. Proceedings of the Third World Congress of the International Society of Sports Psychology (Vol. 4) (22 pp.). Madrid, Spain.
Russell, G.W. (1993). The social psychology of sport. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.
Sabock, R.J., & Kleinfelter, E.R. (1987). Should coaches be gendered? Coaching Review. 10 (1), 28-29.
Sage, G.H. (1980a). Sociology of physical educator/ coaches: Personal attributes controversy. ROES. 51 (1), 110-121.
Sage, G.H. (1980b). Sport and American society: Selected readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sage, G.H. (1987). The social world of high school athletic coaches: Multiple role demands and their consequences. Sociology of Sport Tournal. 4 (3), 213-228.
Sage, G.H. (1989). Becoming a high school coach: From playing sports to coaching. ROES. 60 (1), 81-92.
Schempp, P.G. (1987). Research on teaching in physical education: Beyond the limits of natural science. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 6 (2), 111-121.
Schempp, P.G. (1992). Effective teaching in physical education: A research report. International Tournal of Physical Education. 29 (3), 10- 15. 238
Schempp, P.G. (1993). Constructing professional knowledge: A case study of an experienced high school teacher. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 13 (1), 2-23.
Schempp, P.G. & Choi, E. (1994). Research methodologies in sport pedagogy. Sport Science Review. 3 (IT. 41-55.
Segrave, J.O., & Ciancio, C.A. (1990). An observational study of a successful pop Warner football coach. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 9 (4), 294-306.
Shapiro, R.L. (1979). Coaching male and female racquet teams: Are different approaches necessary? Proceedings of a National Symposium on the Racquet Sports (pp. 75-85). Champaign, III: University of Illinois.
Siedentop, D. (1988). An ecological model for understanding teaching? learning in physical education. In Seoul Olympic Scientific Congress Organizing Committee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seoul Olympic Scientific Congress (pp. 111-124). Seoul, Korea: Dankook University.
Siedentop, D. (1989). Do the lockers really smell? ROES. 60 (1), 36-41.
Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching in physical education. ROES. 62 (4). 352-364.
Silverman, S. (1994). Research on teaching and student achievement. Sport Science Review. 2 (1)/ 83-90.
Sinclair, D.A., & Vealey, R.S. (1989). Effects of coaches' expectations and feedback on the self-perceptions of athletes. Tournal of Sport Behavior. 12 (2), 77-91.
Sisley, B.L., & Capel, S.A. (1986). High school coaching: Filled with gender differences. TOPERD. 57 (3), 39-43.
Smith, F.L., Smith, R.E., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. (1978). Toward a mediational model of coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly. 49 (4), 528-541.
Sparkes, A.C. (1986). Beyond description—the need for theory generation in physical education. Physical Education Review. 9 (1), 41-48. 239
Sparkes, A.C. (1989). Paradigmatic confusions and the evasion of critical issues in naturalistic research. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 8 (2), 131-151.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 194-208). New York: Teacher's College Press.
Stangl, J. (1990). Trends in Ohio high school sports for girls: Participation and coaching changes since Title IX. The Ohio High School Athlete. 69 (5), 4-5.
Stangl, J.M., & Kane, M.J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport ToumaL 8 (1), 47-60.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbuiy Park, CA: Sage.
Taggart, J. (1991). Coaching female athletes. Belconnen, Australia: Australian Sports Commission.
Templin, T.J., & Griffin, P. (1985). Ethnography: A qualitative approach to examining life in physical education. In C.L. Vendien, & J.E. Nixon (Eds.), Physical education teacher education (pp.140-146). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Templin, T.J., Sparkes, A.C., Grant, B., & Schempp, P.G. (1994). Matching the self: The paradoxical case and life-history of a late career teacher/coach. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 13 (4), 274- 294.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today. 9 , 75-78.
Thomson, R.W. (1977). Participant observation in the sociological analysis of sport. International Review of Sport Sociology. 12 (4), 99- 109.
Tousignant, M., & Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis of task structures in required secondary physical education classes. Tournal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2 (1), 47-57. 240
True, S. (1986). Study evaluates reasons behind declining number of women coaches. Interscholastic Athletic Administrator. 12 (3), 18-19, 21.
Wallace, R.A., & Wolf, A. (1991). Contemparary sociological theory: Continuing the classical tradition. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weinberg, R., Reveles, M., & Jackson, A. (1984). Attitudes of male and female athletes toward their male and female coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology. 6 (4), 448-453.
Whitaker, G., & Molstad, S. (1985). Male coach/female coach: A theoretical analysis of the female sport experience. Tournal of Sport and Social Issues. 2 (2), 14-25.
Whitaker, G., & Molstad, S. (1988). Role modeling and female athletes. Sex Roles. 18 (9/10), 555-566.
Whitson, D.J. (1976). Method in sport sociology: The potential of a phenomenological contribution. International Review of Sport Sociology. 11 (4), 53-68.
Wilkinson, S., & Schneider, P.M. (1991). The representation of men and women in secondaiy physical education and interscholastic athletic programs in the state of Illinois. Physical Educator. 48 (2), 100- 104
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research. 47 (1), 245-265.
Wilson, S. (1979). Explorations of the usefulness of case study evaluations. Evaluation Quarterly. 2 / 446-459.
Young, J.C. (1986). Comparisons of leader style, behaviors, and effectiveness of male and female coaches. In L. Vander Velden, & J.H. Humphrey (Eds.), Psychology and sociology in sport: Current selected research (pp. 221-234). New York: AMS Press, Inc. APPENDIX A
UNIVERSITY AND INVESTIGATOR CONSENT FORMS
241 242
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 't n - n s Protocol No. Zl/.-(o OL>
CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
I consent to participating in (or my child's participation in) research entitled)
The degree of congruence between thought and act-ton of male coaches of gIr l s 1 interscholastic track and field. ______
______Daryl Siedentop ______or his/her authorized representative has (Principal Investigator) explained the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed, and the expected duration of my (my child's) participation. Possible benefits of the study have been described as have alternative procedures, if such procedures are applicable and available. I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am (my child is) free to withdraw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to me (my child). Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily. A copy has been given to me.
Datei Signed) (Participant)
Signed! Signed! ______(Principal Investigator or his/ (Person Authorized to Consent her Authorized Representative) for Participant - If required)
Witness!
HS-027 (Rev. 3/87) — To be used only in connection with social and behavioral research.) 243
Consent Form for Participation in Track & Field Study
You have been selected and have agreed to participate in a study of male coaches of girls' interscholastic track and Held. This study will consist of observations of your practices, audio taping, interviewing, and completion of questionnaires as a means of collecting data regarding your thoughts about girls' track and field and what goes on in practice. The study will begin at the start of the season and continue through the State Meet held the first weekend of June, 1995. Dining this time, 1 will ask for your cooperation regarding several responsibilities listed below. Coach's Responsibilities •allow access to written plans and handouts as needed •consent to several, 1-hour formal interviews prior to the start of the season •make yourself available for informal questioning at your convenience just before and/or after practice •agree to wear a microphone for purposes of audio taping your interactions with athletes and coaches on no more than 5 occasions •explain to students, parents, and assistants who I am and what I am doing •from time to time, allow access to athletes for brief interviews and/or completion of questionnaires •inform me of any changes to plans or procedures as they occur or as you foresee them As a coach myself, I feel an obligation to reciprocate and fulfill some responsibilities myself during the course of this study. They are listed below. Investigator's Responsiblities •answer all your questions as best as I can •follow your requests concerning access procedures •be as unobtrusive as possible during all my visits •allow you access to transcribed interviews and questionnaire responses so that you may verify what you said and wrote •seek out your reaction to any theories that the data collected might suggest •help out with any non-coaching duties that you might need assistance on (e.g. timing, scoring) 244
If responsibilities in addition to those listed above for either the coach or investigator are requested or become needed, they will be included only by mutual agreement.
Finally, by signing below you consent that you have fully read this document and any questions regarding it or about this study have been suitably answered. A copy has been given to you.
Date _ Signed; (Participant) Signed; (Principal Investigator or his/her Authorized Representative)
Witness: APPENDIX B
TEAM RULES HANDOUT-CONQUISTADOR HIGH SCHOOL
245 TEAM RULES
1. PRACTICE WILL BEGIN EACH DAY AT 3.-50. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO BE DRESSED AND READY FOR PRACTICE AT THAT TIME. 2. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO BE READY TO LEAVE AT THE APPOINTED TIME WHEN WE GO TO AWAY MEETS. LATE ARRIVALS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. 3. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW REASONABLE EATING AND SLEEPING SCHEDULES DURING THE SEASON. YOU MUST REALIZE THAT YOUR PERFORMANCE. AND THEREFORE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TEAM, IS DEPENDENT ON YOU TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF. 4. ALL TEAM MEMBERS ARE TO FOLLOW THE ATHLETIC CODE. 5. ALL TEAM MEMBERS ARE TO PLACE THE PROPER EMPHASIS ON THEIR ACADEMIC WORK AND MAINTAIN AT LEAST A 2.0 AVERAGE. 6. ALL TEAM MEMBERS ARE TO WEAR THE ASSIGNED TEAM UNIFORM AND TEAM SWEATS AT ALL MEETS. 7. UNEXCUSED ABSENCES FROM PRACTICE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. YOU MUST PERSONALLY INFORM YOUR COACH IN ADVANCE IF YOU WILL MISS A PRACTICE FOR ANY REASON. 8. YOU MAY NOT BEGIN PRACTICE WITH THE TEAM UNTIL ALL REQUIRED SCHOOL FORMS ARE SUBMITED TO A COACH. 9. THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES FROM MEETS. ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE MUST BE DISCUSSED IN ADVANCE WITH EITHER HEAD COACH. 10. THERE WILL BE NO UNSUPERVISED PRACTICE. ALL PRACTICES AND WEIGHT LIFTING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COACH. 11. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR ALL LOST EQUIPMENT. THEREFORE. YOU SHOULD NEVER LEAVE YOUR UNIFORM OR SWEATS UNATTENDED. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE) 12. YOU ARE TO BE PROPERLY PREPARED FOR PRACTICE EACH DAY. REGARDLESS OF THE WEATHER. AND ONLY YOUR COACH CAN TELL YOU THAT PRACTICE IS CANCELED. APPENDIX C
CAUTIONS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES HANDOUT-CONQUISTADOR HIGH SCHOOL
247 248 CAUTIONS. CONSIDERATIONS, and RESPONSIBILITIES to INCREASE SAFETY and ENJOYMENT of INTERSCHOLASTIC TRACK SCHOOLS
The Boys and Girls Tracksquads extend a CAUTIONS SPECIFIC TO TRACK competitive opportunity to all students. Because ol the 1. Warm-up with easy running and siretchmg pnor to all nature ol the sport, it is imperative that certain practices and competitions. responsibilities, cautions, and considerations be 2. Warm-down with easy running and stretching alter all understood as prerequisites to squad membership. workouts and competitions. 3. Complete al injury prevention exercises pnor to all PREPARATION FOR PRACTICE OR CONTEST workouts and competitions. 1. Pre-season conditioning should carefully progress over the 4. Proper care to prevent and treat blisters is extremely winter months with emphasis on long, slow distance or important. Make coaches aware of all occurrences. easy running. 5. Never do additional workouts (mornings or weekends) a. Never make more than a 10% weekly increase in without checking w-m coach lint. mileage. 6. Do not try to loose weight by cutting calories. Normal training wil bring weight into proper proportions. b. Always Mow a *hard day* wtth an 'easy day.' 7. Eat a healthy diet high in carbohydrates with extra c. Take one day olt each week. 2. Select appropriate dothing. fluids. Fast foods high in lets are to be avoided. Extra protein in the diet is not helpful. a. Well-fitted, appropriate training shoes are 8. Report a l leg pain to coaches immediately. imperative. Do not run in worn out shoes. 9. Water andfor fluid replacement drinks wilt be available b. Wear heat retaining clothing in eold weather. at al practices and competitions. c. Wear heat disspaling clothing in hot weather. 10. If weight trarning is part of your conditioning program, 3. Students who are ill should contact a coach immediately. observe al weight room safety procedures. Do not 0 0 NOT PRACTICE!!! condition wth weights on your own without discussing 4. ALL STUDENTS MUST HAVE THE APPROPRIATE your program with a coach. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION CARO ON FILE BEFORE 11. Runners engaged in street work must face traffic or PRACTICING. use sidewaks. Be aferl at alt intersections. Avoid 5. Players needing protective tape, padding, or bracing heavy traffic streets. Do not wear radio or tape player should arrive early to receive necessary treatment. headphones. 6. Consume at least 8 glasses ol water per day during hot and f 2. Runners must stay alert in all areas of the track, but humid periods. must bo especially alert in al field event areas. 7. Players with seizure, neuromuscular, renal, cardiac, 13. The throws and jumps present specific cautions: insulin/diabetic, ehronc skeletal problems, dis-orders, a. Always remain alert in all field event areas. Do diseases, or medically controlled allergies need a not throw, retrieve implements, or jump until the physician's approval to parUcpate. landing area is dear. b. Inspect al surfaces pis, standards, and boards LOCKER ROOM before competing. Report any irregularities to 1. Be alert to slippery floor your coach(es). 2. Be alert to changes in floor texture and to elevated c Folow proper throwing, jumping, and landing thresholds between shower and locker room. techniques. 3. Keep floors tree ot litter. Place al personal belongings in d. Warm-up in proper areas which are free from assigned locker. other athletes. 4. Keep soap and shampoo in the shower room. e. Be aware that wet surfaces (bides, boards, and 5. Retrain rrom rapid movements, horseplay and rough house runways) pose a hazard. Request that proper pro- m the locker/shower areas. ceduree be followed to insure a safe and dry surface. 6. Close locker doors when away Irom your assigned locker. f. Absolutely no unsupervised practice. 7. Identity incidents ol toot or other skm infections to g. Inspect equipment prior to competition and coach(es) or trainer immediately- make sure that it ia free from defects. 8. Put on spiked shoes at the track only (never in the building). EMERGENCIES Because of the physical demands of track, some injuries will MOVEMENT TO THE PRACTIC£7CQNTE8T__9ITE occur. Most w i be minor and can be managed with first aid. All 1. 8e alert to ramps, stairs, and changes m the texture and injuries must bo called to a coach's or trainer's attention. levels of concrete, fields, and sidewalts as wel as However, some may need more intense management and may changes in levels of head clearance in these areas. also require squad members to: 2. Observe safety regulations on busses to and from t . Stop al practices, activities, or competitions. contests. 2. Cafl a coach or trainer to manage the situation t he is nd 3. Observe all safety regulations and rules of conduct at already et the site. competition sues. 3. SI or kneel in dose proximity. 4. If ill or dizzy, notify the coach. Do not practice. 4. Asset by: a. CaNng for additional assistance. b. Bringing first aid equipment or supplies to the site, e. Keeping onlookers away. d. Deeding the rescue team to the site. 5. Fire or fire alarm: a. Evacuate or remain outside bufldktg. b. Move 100 yds. from the budding. e. Be prepared to implement emergency procedures outlned in 84. - APPENDIX D
VARSITY STANDARDS HANDOUT
249 How to earn a varsity letter in track:
Score B or more varsity points or attain one of the following performance standards Event Boys Girls 100 11 .5 13.5 200 23.5 28.5 400 53.0 66.0 8C0 2:04.0 2:36.0 1600 4:36.0 6:00.0 3200 10:30.0 12:40.0 Long Jump 19' 15' fiign Jump 5' 10" 4' 8" Poi e Vault 11' 6" Discus 125' 90' Shot Put 45' 30' Hign Hurdles 16.0 16.5 Int. Hurdles 43.0 50.0 or Score in the league or district meet or Be a member of the team for four years APPENDIX E
PRACTICE PLANS
251 252
PRESEASON CONDITIONING
WEEK OF MARCH 6 M RUNNING CONDITIONING TU RUNNING CONDITIONING W RULING CONDfTIONING TH RUNNING CONDfTIONING F RUNNING CONDfTIONING WEEK OF MARCH 13 M STARTS /RUNNING CONDfTIONING TU RUNNING/LIFTING OR TIME TRIALS (IF WEATHER PERMITS) W RUNNING OR TIME TRIALS (IF WEATHER PERMITS) TH RUNNING CONDITIONING /LIFTING WEEK OF MARCH 20 (SPRING BREAK) M RUNNING CONDITIONING TU RUNNING CONDfTIONING W RUNNING CONDITIONING TH RUNNING CONDITIONING
COMPETITION CONDfTIONING
WEEK OF MARCH 27 M SPRINT TRAINING 4X100 4X150 (80%) TU 300 M TIME TRIAL 3X300 (80%) W STARTS 200-300-400-500-200 (80%) TH EXCHANGES F EXCHANGES 4x150 (60%) S TROTWOOD RELAYS WEEK OF APRIL 5 M EXCHANGES/STARTS 4X50 4X75 2X100 (100%) TU KILBOURNE W RECOVERY/SWIM OR LIGHT RUNNING TH SPRINT TRAINING 2X300-400-500-2X300(80%) F EXCHANGES 4/6x150 (60%) S FULTON RELAYS WEEK OF APRIL 10 M EXCHANGES/STARTS 2X100 2X150 2X200 (80%) TU WESTERVILLE NORTH W RECOVERY/SWIM OR LIGHT RUNNING TH SPRINT TRAINING 200-300-400-300-200 (90%) F STARTS/EXCHANGES 4/6x150 (60%) S WARRIOR RELAYS WEEK OF APRIL 17 M EXCHANGES 3X300 (90%) TU GROVE CITY W SPRINT TRAINING 3X200 2X400 1X500 (80%) TH EXCHANGES/RECOVERY F DAYTON WEEK OF APRIL 24 M STARTS/EXCHANGES 6x150 (60 sec. int.) (00%) TU HILLIARD W RECOVERY/SWIM OR LIGHT RUNNING TH SPRINT TRAINING 2X300 2x400 1X600 (80%) F RECOVERY S INDIVIDUAL WORKOUT 3X100 1X300 (100%) WEEK OF MAY 1 M STARTS/EXCHANGES 8X150 (90%) TU CHILLICOTHE W SPRINT TRAINING 4X300 (accelerators) TH EXCHANGES F LARKIN WEEK OF MAY 8 M STARTS 4X75 4X100 (100%) TU SPRINT TRAINING 6X200 (60 sec. int.) (90%) W EXCHANGES TH OCC PRELIMS F EXCHANGES/RECOVERY S OCC CHAMPIONSHIPS WEEK OF MAY 15 M STARTS/EXCHANGES 4/6x150 (60%) TU DISTRICT PRELIMS W DISTRICT PRELIMS TH SPRINT TRAINING 8X200 (60 sec. ini) (90%) F EXCHANGES S DISTRICT FINALS WEEK OF MAY 22 M STARTS/SPRINT TRAINING 4X300 (full recovery) (100%) TU EXCHANGES 4X150 (60%) W RECOVERY TH REGIONAL PRELIMS F EXCHANGES/RECOVERY S REGIONAL FINALS WEEK OF MAY 2d M SPRINT TRAINING 2X300 (full recovery) (100%) TU EXCHANGES at OSU W EXCHANGES/RECOVERY TH RECOVERY F STATE PRELIMS S STATE FINALS 254
f W R N P
j£gi: MtccA 7 U Y ///////M fr///r//rt& X //rp /yS /')t* •jr /"i/i w 5 '00° 3-y rtiU Qrllecj (V J ° * t f* * ) D& /m'te pace. : - (i,< .) 20 3L A) i/t r«^/* Ip . m w r M i /O/Voo Lf ai ile { (S jb c (v>*9 f/v/i) MV O ne m i k fa c e - f a y So. sy ______26 ■77 n L,(> 3 0 A> »f> fu * t o M o o y A*ift Ja/jfeC lAv f r^i !*■*> ’w e (fn\& popz G a sy z i ^ y M±d-2- /A *.y V M*.y te . 30 p m fv * /* !* -jC rjitC C A' U* ff/^,Vfrp/ /r jpn# %HtOO h qx^oo f c y (U?) E-asy 4 *1%/1 M a rch & ~7Z *2 /tinsr.4 ~T ijeof McHseA $ 7h'S3 /Here A f firj Ai*rcA & &Bu«r ^ C xjaa z s r fa T l ipec»li ' f ' Q>x fcCt- tfa x /f w <*9>— IG/•>!* ka^««e < g * l i t ) C'ofc lift- -C/A o f 0G*£‘ /3 /V / r /* Bra*/ 5j/4C M!* 3V SW &*3oo ■ Sfee. i* i * f e < 20 0 ■fcs4 3 > e U {-i<3 -tfxZoo stH>ef*f -Speck's fJrtS Clwi? ... «7 ? f jr/ CV -/ltt> ■• *>a>1~S /o-lo -i H**- ^fr/vkjSfui^ A* ^ mm MftTjf fcUy $ -n fr &»■«• Sc , fip n j A p n / 5" y !Z 7mw/mpm 7nm- Sfet<* wttTlf w lS ? i)iftS 4 •■ H i /•>*-/<" 9 - t * > * 0 - - ^ His -*)fcptrvrt» <1 ■UH-tyk*« X 150 /* 2 0 -S£ T.7. -Sp«M M » r k Mt-f oiyj 0l**«O4+S/« - sp*e<#. k in / i n>p* fw/v*, t! V|p,y*‘ ■x/« * w I s - iQ z c 2 7 TV s^ j worii -l/i sf e X < 1 •' APPENDIX F TRACK AND FIELD CODE OF CONDUCT, PLAYER RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DRUG AND TOBACCO POLICY HANDOUTS-SOUTH-CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 256 257 Girls Track and Field Code of Conduct Equipm ent- Track jerseys and shorts will be issued to each girl participating in Track and Reid. Sweat pants and sweat tops may also be issued. All other clothing (shoes, socks, ect) must be provided by the student/athlete. Practice attire- Students/Athletes must always come to practice anticipating cold or bad weather. Except for severe rain, we will always practice outside. Mittens, gloves, hats, extra socks and sweats are strongly encouraged. C urfew - The student/athlete should be home before 10:00pm on the evening before a meet and no later than 11:00pm other nights unless given permission by parent or guardian. Conduct- The student/athlete must conduct themselves in a manner that represents the school, the track team and themselves in a way becoming of a young lady. Any violation will be dealt with accordingly, and could result in dismissal from the team. Any violation of the Athletic Department Code of Conduct will be upheld by the Girl's Track Program. The Athletic Code of Conduct supersedes any code outlined in this code. Any violation of the Student Handbook will be upheld by the Girl's Track Team. The Student Handbook supersedes any code outlined in this code. Any violation of the area Laws and Regulations will be upheld by the Girl’s Track Team. These laws and regulations supersedes any code outlined in this code. I have read, understand and agree to adhere and abide by the codes set forth in this Girl’s Track and Field Code of Conduct If I, in any way, violate one of these codes, I will without resentment and animosity accept the consequences of my actions. S ig n e d ______D a te !__ /. Parent/Guardian. 258 ______>ATHIJRTir, DEPARTMENT PLAYER RULES AND RESPQNSDBILITIES I. EQUIPMENT ALL EQUIPMENT ISSUED TO A PLAYER IS TO BE WORN AT PRACTICE SESSIONS OR SCHEDULED GAMES INVOLVING THAT SPORT. GAME JERSEYS WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE WORN AT SCHOOL THE DAY OF THE CONTEST. A. AT THE END OF THE SPORT SEASON EQUIPMENT ISSUED TO A PLAYER MUST BE TURNED IN OR PAID FOR IF LOST OR STOLEN. B. A PLAYER MAY NOT RECEIVE AWARDS OR TRY OUT FOR ANOTHER SPORT UNTIL: 1. ALL ATHLETIC FEES ARE PAID IN FULL; 2. ALL EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN TURNED IN OR UNTIL THE ATHLETE HAS PAID FOR LOST OR STOLEN ITEMS. •• REPLACEMENT POLICY: THE ATHLETE WILL PAY THE TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST FOR THE LOST ITEM; n . CONDUCT EACH PLAYER WILL EXHIBIT PROPER CONDUCT THAT WILL CREATE A POSITIVE REFLECTION UPON HIMSELF OR HERSELF. TEAMMATES AND THE STUDENT BODY OF THE HAMILTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. PENALTIES: FIRST VIOLATION - DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION FROM A GAME. CONTEST. MEET. MATCH; SECOND VIOLATION - SAME AS FIRST VIOLATION OR POSSIBLE TERMINATION FROM THE ATHLETIC TEAM; M . ATTENDANCE A. A STUDENT WILL ATTEND FOUR PERIODS OF SCHOOL PER DAY TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PRACTICE ON THAT DAY. PENALTIES: DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION FROM PRACTICE ON THAT DAY. B. A PUPIL MUST BE COUNTED PRESENT AT SCHOOL ON BOTH HALF DAY SESSIONS AND ATTEND AT LEAST FOUR PERIODS OF CLASS DURING THE DAY ON WHICH AN ATHLETIC CONTEST OF ANY TYPE IS HELD IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTEST. FOR A MID-WEEK CONTEST. A PUPIL MUST BE PRESENT FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL DAY ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE GAME IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SUCCEEDING GAME. EXCEPTION ON THIS RULE MAY BE MADE IN THE EVENT OF ABSENCE BY APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PRINCIPAL OR ATHLETIC DIRECTOR ONLY. C. ATHLETES ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND EVERY PRACTICE SESSION AND CONTEST SCHEDULED BY THE COACHING STAFF. THE HEAD COACH IS THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE STAFF THAT MAY EXCUSE AN ABSENCE. PENALTIES: AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE CAN RESULT IN TERMINATION FROM THE PROGRAM. 259 IV. VANDALISM VANDALISM, THEFT OR DESTRUCTIVE ACTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AGAINST THE SCHOOL, COACH, FELLOW PLAYER OR FACULTY MEMBER. PENALTY: TERMINATION FROM ALL ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE: THE STUDENT ATHLETE MAY BE REINSTATED TO THE PRESENT PROGRAM OR TO THE UPCOMING SEASON BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE ATHLETIC COUNCIL AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PRINCIPAL; V. SPORTS PER SEASON / TEAM TRANSFER ATHLETES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN TWO SPORTS DURING THE SAME SEASON. A PLAYER MAY NOT TRANSFER FROM ONE SPORT TO ANOTHER AFTER THE FIRST SCHEDULED CONTEST. IF A PLAYER QUITS OR IS REMOVED FROM A TEAM. HE/SHE CANNOT JOIN ANOTHER SPORT UNTIL THE SPORT FROM HE/SHE WAS REMOVED IS COMPLETE. VI. REPRIMAND B Y THE ATHLETIC COUNCIL THE ATHLETIC COUNCIL RETAINS THE RIGHT TO REPRIMAND ANY ATHLETE OF ATTITUDINAL REASONS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE WHICH WOULD REFLECT UNFAVORABLY OF THE HAMILTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ITS ATHLETICS. ACADEMICS OR ADMINISTRATION. THE MAXIMUM PENALTY THAT SHALL BE IMPOSED IS EXCLUSION FROM PARTICIPATION IN CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE. DUE PROCESS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. SCHOOL DISTRICT ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT DRUG AND TOBACCO POLICY THESE RULES MUST BE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CALENDAR YEAR. AT ALL TIME AND ALL PLACES. VIOLATIONS WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND ACCUMULATED THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL CAREER OF THE ATHLETE ONCE THE ACTIVITY COD HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE STUDENT AND PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN. VIOLATIONS A. POSSESSION OR USE OF TOBACCO IN ANY FORM; B. POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; C. POSSESSION OR USE OF UNPRESCRIBED DRUGS; PENALTIES 1. THE FIRST VIOLATION OF RULES "A" , "B" OR "C" WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES FOR TEN SCHOOL DAYS OR FOUR CONTEST. WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. 2. A SECOND VIOLATION OF RULES "A" , "B" OR "C" WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION IN THE ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES FOR 90 SCHOOL DAYS AND THE LOSS OF ANY AWARD THE STUDENT-ATHLETE MAY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR BUT NOT RECEIVED. AN EVALUATION AT A TREATMENT FACILITY WILL BE ASKED OF THE STUDENT AND IF A CHEMICAL DEPENDENCE IS FOUND. THE STUDENT WILL BE ASKED TO GO INTO TREATMENT. IF THE STUDENT UNDERGOES AN EVALUATION. THE PENALTY WILL BE REDUCED TO 45 DAYS. 3. A THIRD VIOLATION OF RULES "A" , "B" OR "C" WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION FROM ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES OF 180 SCHOOL DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING THE DUE PROCESS PAPERS. SELF REFERRAL / INTEGRITY RULE; IF A STUDENT-ATHLETE VIOLATES THE ATHLETIC DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY AND TURNS HIMSELF / HERSELF IN BEFORE BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ATHLETIC / SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. THE DENIAL OF PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETIC ACTIVITY WILL BE REDUCED IN HALF FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE ONLY. 261 SCHOLARSHIP FOR a t m i ETIC PARTICIPATION SCHOOL DISTRICT In order to be eligible in grades 9-12, a student must be currently enrolled and must have been enrolled in school the immediately preceding grading period. During the preceding grading period, the student must have received passing grades in a minimum of four one-credit courses or the equivalent which count toward graduation. The eligibility or ineligibility of a student continues until the start of the fifth (Sth) school day of the next grading period, at which time the grades from the immediately preceding grading period becomes effective. EXCEPTION: Eligibility or ineligibility for the first grading period commences with the start of the fall sports season. A student enrolled in the first grading period after advancement from the eighth grade must have passed 75% of those subjects carried the preceding grading period in which the student was enrolled. A student enrolled in the seventh grade for the first time will be eligible for the first grading period regardless of previous academic achievement. Thereafter, in order to be eligible, a student in grade 7 or 8 must be currently enrolled and must have been enrolled in school the immediately preceding grading period and received passing grades during that grading period in 75% of those subjects carried the preceding grading period in which the student was enrolled. Summer school grades earned may not be used to substitute for failing grades from the last grading period of the regular school year. Hamilton students that receive three grades of 74% or below or two "F's" will be placed on academic probation for the next nine week grading period. Each student on probation will be required to have a probation sheet completed by each teacher on the last scheduled school day of each week. It is the responsibility of the student to pick up the form and turn it in to the appropriate area at the end of the day. The Athletic Director will review the sheets and determine eligibility as listed on the probation sheet. APPENDIX G SAMPLE WEIGHT LIFTING LOG BOOK SHEET-SOUTH-CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 262 l if t s I" AUXILIARY )ATH Lai PvB*wn SCL Hearing llartana ^ 0^ OMitwd Pfaaa ^ 00- ^ ^ 00^ 4-Wa* Mac* ^ _^ ^ ----- x-- ' Ravaraa Hypan/Hypars „__ " ^ -- ^ ^ 00^ ^ 000^ 3* CNn-upa __ ■" ^ 000^ BASEBALL: OvvhMd Pri O E WN f l m f w Hyp«rMHyp«ra TRACK THROWERS MM Tricap fw D ^om FOOTBALL/TRACK jJ a iTE BASKETBALL: 5* Pf«ttA.*Q Cun 5 + TESTING: 40fl0 YD DASH______VERTICAL JUMP______3 CONSECUTIVE LONQ J I M * STRAIGHT K> LEG DEAD - DOTORU3______CO0\ LIFT 10 10 FIEXM1TV