Skill acquisition specialists, coaches and athletes: the current state of play?

Steel, Kylie A. ; Harris, Ben ; Baxter, David 等

In recent times there has been an increase in the utilization of sport and exercise scientists within the sports community in Australia, which has been aided by the establishment of sports institutes, increased tertiary training and the creation of governing bodies such as Exercise and Sport Science Australia (ESSA). A recent ESSA review (2011) reported a membership of over 3200 individuals predominantly in the area of exercise physiology (1910) and exercise science (691). Only sixteen members were accredited and registered as sport scientists (motor learning and control [skill acquisition], biomechanics, strength science). Further, a study by Williams and Kendall (2007) which investigated the interaction of coaches and sport scientists mentioned physiology, biomechanics, nutrition and psychology as important areas of scientific support, though did not acknowledge the areas of skill acquisition or performance analysis. This omission is reflective of current community trends (universities, health consultancy) whereby exercise physiology dominates as a course of study or service compared to others. This trend does not recognize the importance of disciplines such as skill acquisition and performance analysis in the holistic development of individuals participating in physical activity or competitive sport.

Of specific interest in this study was the sport science sub-discipline of skill acquisition. This is the science that underpins movement learning and execution and is more commonly termed motor learning and control (Williams & Ford, 2009), and are components of the science of motor behavior. The domain of motor behavior has its genesis in research conducted in experimental psychology by such individuals as James Gibson (Gibson, 1966), Franklin Henry (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2004) and Stanley Stevens (Stevens, 1951). These early researchers amongst others investigated the processes involved in the learning of movement skills that included instruction, practice, feedback and perception (Fairbrother, 2010), in addition to neurological, mechanical, and behavioral aspects of movement control (Magill, 2009). Furthermore many investigations have also explored the development of motor behavior across a lifespan (Gabbard, 2011). Motor behavior is an integral area of knowledge and application within human performance and is a core unit of study within human movement degrees, though paradoxically rarely afforded more than a single unit over the course of a degree program compared to other sport science disciples.

Researchers in the area of skill acquisition have found that the development of expertise requires over ten years or 10,000 hours of experience (Ericsson & Lehman, 1996) and is influenced by several factors including instruction, practice, feedback and decision-making (Magill, 2009). From an instructional point of view, studies by Masters and colleagues (Masters, Law, & Maxwell, 2002; Masters & Maxwell, 2004; Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000) have shown that implicit methods (analogy, errorless, and discovery learning) are effective for both retention and performance. Implicit methods have been associated with decreased performance anxiety, thus increasing levels of performance, paradoxically few coaches employ implicit methods. In addition practice type and amount have significant impacts on performance level. The deliberate practice framework developed by Ericsson and colleagues suggested that it is not sufficient to simply practice skills. Engagement must also be characterized by effort and attention with the aim of improving performance rather than gaining immediate social gains, i.e., practice should be work-like (Farrow, Baker, & MacMahon, 2008).

A model of performance development that has its foundations in deliberate practice is the long-term athlete development (LTAD) pathway which emphasizes the need for this type of practice when addressing skill acquisition (Lang & Light, 2010). The principles of the model suggest a wide base of learning skills in the initial phases provides more options in skill performance as an elite performer. Moreover LTAD research often highlights that multidisciplinary backgrounds provide for a more resilient and effective performer. From the perspective of a coach however, a perceived limitation may be that longer periods of time are required to attain expertise in sports with larger skill sets such as football or hockey, compared to that of cycling, skating or rowing (Vaeyens, Gullich, Wart, & Philippaerts, 2009). This type of situation is likely to be facilitated by common underpinning 'skill sets', movement patterns, fitness attributes or skill sets that are more closely aligned in complex team based sports such as rugby league/rugby union, cricket/baseball where there has been traditional transfer of athletes from one code to another at the high performance level.

Despite the problematic and dynamic nature of coaching it is still surprising that many coaches choose not to employ a wide variety of instructional, feedback and practice methods related to improving skilled performance. Coaches for the most part, base decisions on their own experiences as athletes or utilize intuitive approaches (Nash & Sproule, 2009), frequently overlooking effective evidence-based methods such as modeling, implicit learning or deliberate practice that can be combined with traditional coaching methods. Given the emphasis on skilled performance proficiency and the continued efforts to facilitate not only coach education but also that of athletes, the lack of scientists employed in this specialist area is perplexing. Therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate the understanding coaches and their athletes had regarding skill acquisition and their perception of the role in sport, and secondly what factors affect their utilization of sport scientists working in this domain.

Methods

Participants

Ten participants (5 coaches, 5 athletes) volunteered to take part in this study. The coaches (5 men, [M.sub.age] of 42.2 years ([+ or -] 4.4)) worked professionally in this role for an average of 18.2 ([+ or -] 6.0) years, while the athletes (1 man, 4 women, M of 20.6 years ([+ or -] 3.0)) were all pre-elite and had a playing experience of 10.4 ([+ or -] 1.7) years, (i.e., considered developmental). All participants were sport institute-based, with the athletes aiming to make selection in national squads. The sports represented within the participant group included kayaking, water polo, soccer, hockey and basketball for the coaches, and water polo, hockey and soccer for the athletes. Ethics approval was gained from the university human ethics committee and all participants gave informed consent before participating in the study.

The investigation presented here examined the factors that contribute to the utilization of skill acquisition specialists by male and female sports coaches and athletes from a variety of sports and their understanding of this role. The sports represented by the participant group require a diverse number of skill sets and game intelligence. In total ten individual semi-structured interviews were conducted for this study, one per participant. As in the study by Durand-Bush and Salmela (2002), all participants were familiarized with the purpose of the research and the procedures prior to giving consent to be interviewed.

The purpose of each interview was to investigate each participant's understanding of the role of a skill acquisition specialist, their utilization of a specialist, and the stage of learning where they perceived a specialist would be of most use to a coach and athlete. Questions were developed by members of the research team with expertise in the area of qualitative research, and conducted by the lead researcher based on the availability of each of the participants. Further, the interviews were conducted in locations convenient to the interviewees when distractions were not present. Each interview was recorded and lasted approximately thirty minutes depending on the length and detail of response from the participant. Transcripts from each interview were then constructed for later analysis. Moreover, as each interview progressed and salient information emerged, more directed questioning then took place to gain additional information if the response appeared to allow further discussion.

Data Analysis

The interviews provided data that were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach (Patton, 2002; Irwin, Hanton, & Kerwin, 2004). Interviews were repeatedly listened to, transcribed and read in order to ensure that a high level of familiarity was established with the data. The transcribed interviews assisted with the identification of emergent themes based on trends found in the text of the participant responses.

Results

Common themes were identified within and across individual cases that consisted of quotes of varying lengths and descriptive depth. The quotes from the item responses provided raw data for the inductive analysis. The analysis of this data yielded a number of themes including: understanding of role, utilization of specialists, importance of skills in sport, level of development, and instructional style. These themes were further divided into thematic categories based on the key terms identified from participant responses (Table 1). The following section provides the context for the responses given by the participants in relation to the themes identified during data analysis.

Understanding of Role

A common theme emerging from this study was the participants' understanding of this role, evident from the frequent use of the term 'skills coach'. The term was used to describe the participant's knowledge of the role and illustrated their incomplete understanding of the role of such a specialist. Further, many coaches displayed a lack of confidence in their awareness of this role, evident in such responses as: "I guess for a specialist it would be to try and improve nay skills as a coach, I guess I should learn more about that, I believe it would be something along these lines, repetitive exercises for skills acquisition". Athletes conveyed similar responses and suggested skill acquisition specialists were skills coaches. In addition one athlete thought skill acquisition specialists were responsible for biomechanics which may provide a basis for why specialists are rarely utilized:

   ... my understanding would be in something similar to what I
   described, that biomechanics element so that all the analyzing in
   shot by shot of our video's, doing specific technique, analyzing,
   being able to give feedback ... skill acquisition so it's not
   really a role I'd be too familiar with. It would be someone who
   knows the skill and can see what someone is doing and try and help
   them develop to get to the right technique or something like that.

Utilization of Specialists

As expected, four out of five coaches stated that they did not utilize a skill acquisition specialist while the remaining coach did when possible: "I try to use it regularly and have one that comes when they can. I think it is very important and anyone who can offer you a skill outside of your chosen skill that you have definitely helps". Upon further questioning the coaches stated they did not have access to a specialist or funding if one were to be available, though most coaches seemed open to utilizing a specialist if possible. One coach stated an oppositional view:

   I've never really used one as I think it is the coach's job ... if
   it was an external skill acquisition specialist I think they would
   have to understand the context of the game. As I said because it is
   a highly skill-based sport ... it would have to be someone with
   that background. I know ... Australia have just employed a
   specialist skill acquisition coach, so that is their term, and
   started with new development groups ... the actual appointment is a
   skill acquisition coach, that's his title ... he's not a skill
   acquisition expert, they have labeled him as a skill acquisition
   expert.

Further, the coach stated: "They [the federation] would rather staff go out and get knowledge (psychology etc) and bring it back rather than bring experts in who are not footballers as such". Moreover, this coach stated in response to an item related to anticipated difficulties and problems using a specialist that:

   I think that it is my role to be a specialist in that area. I think
   that is the coach's job ... I really think if a coach does not have
   that skill or ability then I don't know how, if it is not at the
   forefront of a coach's mind, then I don't know what else is?

Like coaches, athletes were open to receiving any additional assistance to improve skill acquisition. Though they indicated they had never been exposed to skill acquisition specialists per se, many stated that they had received specialist coaching (goal keeping, shooting) and services from other sport science specialists, including biomechanists, physiologists, or strength and conditioning scientists. Athletes deemed anything that would improve their performance was worthwhile, e.g., "I would love one, any person such as them who could come in and help us would be great, to advance our ability, like I said it would be awesome". Therefore while both groups expressed varying levels of openness to the utilization of a specialist, the greatest enthusiasm came from athletes. Coaches predominately appeared receptive if the opportunity arose, with the exception of one who stated it was his job the be a specialist, yet he related this statement to coaching principles rather than scientific processes.

Importance of Skills in Sport

Coaches were also asked whether they perceived skill development as an important aspect of their role as a coach. Four coaches stated skills were a very important component of their role while only one suggested they played a moderate part. In addition it emerged that coaches perceived a certain level of plasticity with skill development. All participants stated that they thought skills were a combination of natural and coachable abilities. One coach however suggested that there is the potential for athletes to practice some skills incorrectly for too long thus becoming difficult to coach out of certain motor habits. He stated:

   Definitely combination of the two [natural and coachable
   abilities], but a coach can improve those skills and add to the
   range of skills ... e.g., a core skill in hockey is the ability to
   receive the ball in a position to start the next skill whatever
   that may be ... if the ability of [an] athlete to do this can be
   questioned a lot ...

Motor patterns may become less flexible before athletes reach pre-elite teams thus making it difficult for them to progress further. This view is supported by Elbert, Pantev, Weinbruch, et al., (1995) who suggested that critical periods of learning in skill acquisition occur prior to the early teenage years and thus to some extent as we progress through adolescence plasticity decreases. However it is important to note that they suggest the capacity to improve skills is still evident, if limited. Further, factors such as the willingness of the learner to improve, or the capacity of the facilitator to adopt methods that are helpful in each situation could contribute to enhanced performance.

Level of Development

Participants were asked a series of questions related to when a specialist would be most useful in the development of sports skills; i.e., junior or senior levels. Two athletes stated that skill acquisition occurred more at a senior level of sport: "I would say now as a senior because when you are younger it is more of a free run and playing because you like it and enjoy it ... I focus a lot more on my skill now then when I was a junior". He went on to state:

   At club level it is mainly basic, like get the ball, kick it, score
   ... But here (institute) you are working at your techniques, ball
   handling, techniques with where to run to, but with club it is just
   basic but (institute) and (academy) your skills as are a lot more
   important therefore there is more focus ... It is still both
   physical skills and decision making ... the expectations are
   higher.

This may be a reflection on the notion that decision-making was not viewed as a skill acquisition area by most athletes as opposed to an area for sport psychologists. This is an area that requires clear explanation for coaches and athletes as it is a significant focus of research and application in skill acquisition. In addition, two athletes suggested their junior sport experiences were dominated more by skill development. Only one athlete indicated that skill acquisition occurred across both levels.

Coaches differed in their responses to which developmental stages would most benefit from a skill acquisition specialist with three (3/5) coaches stating that both junior and senior levels of athletic development benefited while two coaches felt junior development gained the most benefit. Moreover, upon further questioning, coaches perceived that advanced motor learning concepts such as decision-making were deemed the domain of sport psychologists rather than skill acquisition specialists who are largely responsible for the research in this domain (Abernethy & Russell, 1987; Farrow & Abernethy, 2002; Jackson, Warren, & Abernethy, 2002).

Practice and Instruction

Additional items in this study were designed to determine how coaches and athletes approached skill development. In every case participants described situations in which they used a skill-based approach (Rink, 1996) to improve performance rather than a game-based method. This may suggest that coaches perceived game-based approaches as separate to skills training. Moreover, when describing their approach to skills training, coaches highlighted instructional methods that utilized explicit rather than implicit techniques which have been shown to be more effective in the long-term (Masters, Law, & Maxwell, 2002; Masters & Maxwell, 2004; Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000). Athletes also provided extensive responses related to drills and activities designed to be relevant to their sport, and like coaches they predominantly described drill-based methods of training (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002). However three (3/5) athletes also mentioned that their coaches often provided video-based methods that aided their physical execution of movement skills during practice.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions held by coaches and athletes in regard to skill acquisition specialists, in addition to barriers that contribute to their underutilization. Firstly, however, the perceived importance of skills must be discussed.

The competent execution of movement skills is vital to successful sports performance with development starting early in life. Skills relevant to sport are generally introduced when an individual has developed the capacity to perform basic skills such as reach and grasp. As movement development continues instructional sources change from predominantly parents to teachers and coaches. The latter group play a vital role in the junior years as this period is characterized by significant plasticity in the neural system (Elbert, Pantev, Weinbruch, et al., 1995), thus effective instruction is paramount.

The participants in this study indicated that while skill development was important in senior years, they also valued its development in junior years. This view is paradoxical as it suggests coaches value the development that occurs during these early years despite the fact that most professional coaches desire to work with elite athletes. As such, the time period when critical periods of learning (Elbert, Pantev, Weinbruch, et al., 1995) occur is not utilized to the full benefit of the learner. Further research of a longitudinal nature is required to determine the impact on motor learning beyond the junior years given decreased junior physical activity participation experienced in many countries (Ennis, 2006; Lee, Burgenson, Fulton, & Spain, 2007; Lowdry, Wechsler, Kann, & Collins, 2001; Koutedakis & Bouziotas, 2003), and the paucity of professional instruction.

The participants overwhelmingly valued skilled development as an important part of athletic development. Coaches and athletes demonstrated a high level of knowledge related to the diversity of skills and methods that contributed to improved performance, though in practice most skills cited represented an explicit instruction method rather than implicit. This point is important as while participants value skill development and understand its importance, they fail to fully utilize the wide variety of techniques that have demonstrated effectiveness such as implicit instruction. While more effective for retention, implicit learning tends to expose skill acquisition for more prolonged periods of time (Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000). Scientific principles related to motor learning would assist the coach and athlete greatly; however the current research has revealed significant barriers to implementation. In this instance coaches may require explicit educational experiences demonstrating the transfer of skills from the practice environment to the playing field as shown in studies with soccer (Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006), Australian Football (Farrow, Pyne, & Gabbett, 2008), and softball (Gabbett, Rubinoff, Thorburn, & Farrow, 2007).

Further examination of participant responses related to the perception of the role of a specialist revealed a number of barriers. The most significant barrier was that coaches perceived the role of a specialist to involve coaching practices rather than of implementing the scientific principles that provide foundational understanding for effective skill development. Moreover, one coach felt that they were the skill acquisition specialist. Frequently in professional settings individuals are influenced by power-based relations that encourage the securing of exclusive areas of knowledge and practices to increase some type of advantage (Baker, Egan-Lee, Martimianakis, & Reeves, 2011; Dew, Dowell, McLeod, Collings, & Bushnell, 2005). In the relationship that exists between coaches and sport scientists, significant improvement has occurred across all disciplines, especially that of psychology (Williams & Kendall, 2007). However this does not extend to skill acquisition, thus prompting the question why? If coaches perceive that skill acquisition specialists are specialist coaches rather than scientists, then convincing the former of the latter's usefulness is problematic. Why do so few coaches understand the specialist role? Is this a result of poor coach education programs highlighting the difference between coaches and specialists? Moreover is this related to the power relationships in the sports profession triggered by something as simple as the job title? That is, coaches distinguish skills development as the main aspect of their role; therefore they may perceive their role in the professional team is not warranted. Whatever the cause, the misrecognition of the role of a specialist has the potential to minimize the continued progress of athlete performance. As we reach the limits of physiological ability new alternatives require exploration with skill acquisition providing significant potential.

Additional barriers emerged from the data with one coach suggesting that one sport presented the attitude wherein skill acquisition specialists should have a background in the sport they work with, yet this expectation does not exist for other sport science professionals. Furthermore, it emerged that athlete participants were open to the utilization of additional expertise, especially in the area of skill development as anything that helped them improve was valuable. However coaches stated that a paucity of funding for and lack of accessibility to specialists in this area existed thus they did not explore this expertise.

This point is interesting, as a significant cultural focus for Australia is success in events such as the Olympic Games. However if specialist services are limited at a sport institute level, attainment of such goals is problematic. Generally however, the coaches in this study stated that motor and perceptual skills were very import to sporting success. However few seemed to understand the difference between a skill acquisition specialist and skills coach. Despite this most suggested that they would be open to any additional assistance or increasing their knowledge and skills and those of their athletes. This attitude toward improving their knowledge is likely to develop coaching performance. Jones, Armour, and Potrac (2003) have shown that active engagement in a wide variety of learning experiences by coaches, including formal courses (university degree), show that a greater level of professionalism is evident in their practices with athletes. Furthermore, they are more able to develop a multi-dimensional view of coaching, determine what is useful in current trends and thus identify the areas that require development (Mallet & Dickens, 2009). In addition Jones and Turner (2006) used a problem-based learning (PBL) approach to increase the holistic coaching abilities of final year students in this domain. The study found that despite various issues with this approach (e.g., time constraints), the benefits include the development of holistic coaching practices, which is vital in a dynamic and problematic course of work such as coaching.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicated a misrecognition of the role of a skill acquisition specialist by coaches and athletes. Participants often regarded specialists as a coach who specialized in instructing a particular skill, e.g., a goal keeping coach. This misrecognition constitutes a significant barrier for utilization as coaches and athletes are unlikely to employ the services of a specialist if they perceive they already have access to this expertise. It is also possible that the use of the term 'skill' acquisition specialist leads to confusion as coaches view skills training as significant part of their role. While the term used for this area of sport scientist is appropriate, specialists in this area may wish to investigate strategies designed to educate coaches as to the differences between these roles in order to maximize movement development. Moreover, while participants' expressed a willingness to work with skill acquisition specialists if the opportunity arose they felt that opportunities were limited by funding and accessibility. In addition the legitimization of skill acquisition inclusion within sports settings may be aided by a greater number of empirical research projects investigating the impact of skill development at junior levels in addition to transfer between training and game situations. The current data provides a foundation for skill acquisition specialists to address the difficult problem of gaining the level of acceptance amongst coaches that are given to other specialists such as biomechanics and physiologists.

References

Abernethy, B., & Russell, D. G. (1987). The relationship between expertise and visual search strategy in a racquet sport. Human Movement Science, 6(4), 283-319.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Perspectives on sport; Involvement in organized sport as a coach, instructor, referee or umpire. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, ACT.

Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Martimianakis, M. A., & Reeves, S. (2011). Relationships of power: Implications for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 98-104.

Dew, K., Dowell, A., McLeod, D., Collings, S., & Bushnell, J. (2005). "The glorious twilight zone of uncertainty": Mental health consultations in general practice in New Zealand. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1189-1200.

Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 154-172.

Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Weinbruch, C., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science, 270, 305-307.

Ennis, C. D. (2006). Curriculum: Forming and reshaping the vision of physical education in high need, low demand world of schools. QUEST, 58, 41-59.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehman, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performances: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305 ESSA. (2011). A year in review. Activate (4), 10-13.

Fairbrother, J. T. (2010). Fundamentals of motor behavior. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Farrow, D., & Abernethy, B. (2002). Can anticipatory skills be learned through implicit video-based perceptual training? Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 471-485.

Farrow, D., Baker, J., & MacMahon, C. (Eds.). (2008). Developing sport expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory to practice. London: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Farrow, D., Pyne, D., & Gabbett, T. (2008). Skill and physiological demands of open and closed training drills in Australian Football. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 3(4), 489-499.

Gabbard, C. R (2011). Lifelong motor development (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Gabbett, T., Rubinoff, M., Thorburn, L., & Farrow, D. (2007). Testing and training anticipation skills in softball fielders. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2(1), 15-24.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Holt, J. E., Ward, P., & Wallhead, T. L. (2006). The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 101-118.

Irwin. G., Hanton, S., & Kerwin, D. (2004). Reflective practice and the origins of elite coaching knowledge. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 425-442.

Jackson, R. C., Warren, S., & Abernethy, B. (2006). Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica, 123(3), 355-371.

Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 213-229.

Jones, R. L., & Turner, R (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: can Problem-Based Learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11 (2), 181-202.

Koutedakis, Y., & Bouzotas, C. (2003). National physical education curriculum: motor and cardiovascular health related fitness in Greek adolescents. British Journal of Sport Medicine, 37, 311-314.

Lang, M., & Light, R. (2010). Interpreting and implementing the Long Term Athlete Development Model: English swimming coaches' views on the (Swimming) LTAD in practice. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 5(3), 389-402.

Lee, S. M., Burgenson, C. R., Fulton, J. E., & Spain, C. G. (2007). Physical education and physical activity: Results from the school health policies and programs study 2006. Journal of School Health, 77(8), 435-463.

Lowdry, R., Wechsler, H., Kann, L., & Collins, J. L. (2001). Recent trends in participation in physical education among US high school students. Journal of School Health, 71(4), 145-152.

Magill, R. A. (2010). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (9th ed.). New York: MacGraw-Hill International.

Mallet, C. J., & Dickens, S. (2009). Authenticity in formal coaching education: Online postgraduate studies in sports coaching at The University of Queensland. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(2), 79-90.

Masters, R. S. W., Law, J., & Maxwell, J. R (2002). Implicit and explicit learning in interceptive actions In K. Davids, G. J. Savelsberg, S. J. Bennet & J. Van der Kamp (Eds.), Interceptive actions in sport: Information and movement. London: Routledge.

Masters, R. S. W., & Maxwell, J. R (2004). Implicit motor learning, reinvestment and movement disruption: What you don't know won't hurt you? In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Maxwell, J. R, Masters, R. S. W., & Eves, F. F. (2000). From novice to no know-how: A longnitudal study of implicit motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 111-120.

Nash, C. S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 4(1), 121-138.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage.

Rink, J. E. (1996). Tactical approaches to teaching sport games: Introduction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(397-398).

Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2004). Motor learning and performance: A problem-based approach. (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Stevens, S. S. (1951). Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Vaeyens, R., Gullich, A., Warr, C. R., & Philippaerts, R. (2009). Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1367-1380.

Williams, A. M., & Ford, P. R. (2009). Promoting a skills-based agenda in Olympic sports: The role of skill-acquisition specialists. Journal of Sports Sciences (1), 1-12.

Williams, S. J., & Kendall, L. (2007). Perceptions of elite coaches and sports scientists of research needs for elite coaching practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(13), 1577-1586.

Kylie A. Steel

University of Western Sydney

Ben Harris

Equestrian Australia

David Baxter and Mike King

Australian College of Physical Education

Address correspondence to: Kylie A. Steel, School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Locked Bag 1707, Penrith South, NSW, 1797, Australia. Email: k.steel@uws.edu.au

Table 1

Emergent themes.

Themes            Thematic          Key terns
                  category

Understanding     Terminology       Coach, skills coach,
of role                             skills acquisition
                                    coach

                  Role              Coaches role,
                                    my role

                  Attitudes         Job, mine,
                                    not needed

Utilization of    Access            Don't know any,
specialists                         none employed here

                  Sport specific    Outside,
                  cultures          background

Importance of     Skills in sport   Skills, technique,
skills in sport                     tactics, movement

Level of          Level of          Senior, junior,
development       development       decision making,
                                    movement,
                                    technique, tactics

Practice and      Coach led         Skills based, drills,
instruction                         modified games

Themes            Thematic          Characteristic
                  category          responses

Understanding     Terminology       I guess for a specialist it would
of role                             be to try and improve my skills
                                    as a coach.

                  Role              It is one of my main roles I
                                    think.

                  Attitudes         I've never really used one as I
                                    think it is the coach's job.

Utilization of    Access            I don't really know any.
specialists

                  Sport specific    They would rather staff go out
                  cultures          and get knowledge (psychology etc)
                                    and bring it back rather than
                                    bring experts in who are not
                                    footballers as such.

Importance of     Skills in sport   I think it is critical, just
skills in sport                     critical.

Level of          Level of          I would say now as a senior
development       development       because when you are younger it
                                    is more of a free run and playing
                                    because you like it and enjoy it.

Practice and      Coach led         If there is a player with a
instruction                         weakness then I would get them to
                                    do some drills that ...