Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(3), 456460 2002 National Strength & Conditioning Association

An Analysis of Teaching and Coaching Behaviors of Elite Strength and Conditioning Coaches
C. DWAYNE MASSEY ,1 MARK W. MANEV 2 JERRY PHILLIPS,2 AL, 3 4 JOHN VINCENT, GEORGE WHITE , AND BOB ZOELLER5,
The University of West Alabama, Livingston, Alabama 35470; 2Pedagogy Laboratory, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406; 3University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; 4Montana State University at Billings, Montana 59101; 5Florida Atlantic University, Davie, Florida 33314.
1

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to analyze the coaching behaviors of 6 elite strength and conditioning coaches from the southern region of the United States. The Arizona State University Coaching Observation Instrument, consisting of 16 behavioral categories, was used for the collection of data. Each coach was observed and lmed on 3 occasions. All observations occurred in the respective teams weight training facility. The data collected in this study consisted of a percentage analysis of the observed coaching behaviors. The most frequently observed behaviors were silent monitoring (21.99%), management (14.62%), and hustle (11.12%). These results indicate that this population of strength and conditioning coaches was predominantly engaged in observation of their athletes (silent monitoring), organization of the weight training activity (management), and verbal statements to intensify effort (hustle). The results are similar to other studies with coaches who were also involved in individual rather than team sports.

Key Words: systematic observation, weight training, coaching behavior, strength coaches Reference Data: Massey, C.D., M.W. Maneval, J. Phillips, J. Vincent, G. White, and B. Zoeller. An analysis of teaching and coaching behaviors of elite strength and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(3): 456460. 2002.

Introduction
. . . to me, our profession is one of the noblest and perhaps the most far reaching in building up the youth of our country. As I view it, no one is too good to be the athletic coach of our youth. . . [Amos Alonzo Stagg, 1927] (2)

signicant amount of systematic observational research (SOR) concerning the behavior of coaches has been done over the past 30 years. SOR studies on coaching behavior have been conducted in different settings and in different sports such as football, bas456

ketball, gymnastics, tennis, and other sports. As sports have evolved, one group that has not been scrutinized is the coaches in the relatively new eld of strength and conditioning. Only in the past 10 years has this position become a xture on major college Division IA athletic staffs. In fact, before 30 years ago, the position did not even exist (10). Over this short span of time, the strength and conditioning coach has become an indispensable person in the process of preparing athletes to play (1). However, because the strength and conditioning population has never been observed through systematic observation, this study will highlight the behaviors of 6 elite strength coaches in the weight room when working with college athletes. Tharp and Gallimore (23) were the rst researchers to study coaches through systematic observation. They designed a 10-category instrument to specically conduct research in the coaching setting. They used this instrument to investigate the coaching behaviors of John Wooden, the extremely successful basketball coach at the University of California at Los Angeles. Wooden won 10 National Collegiate Athletic Association Basketball Championships in 12 years. The researchers studied Coach Wooden in his nal season of 197475. The outcome of the study indicated that 50.3% of Coach Woodens coaching behaviors were from the instruction category. Langsdorf (9), using an instrument similar to that of Tharp and Gallimore (23), studied the coaching behavior of the legendary coach Frank Kush. Kush, a highly successful football coach at the Arizona State University, was well known for his hard-nosed, nononsense approach to the game. Langsdorf (9) then compared the coaching behaviors of Frank Kush with those of John Wooden from the study of Tharp and Gallimore (23). It was found that the coaching styles of these 2 coaches were similar in many ways. However, some differences were noted. Coach Kush had a higher percentage of behaviors in both the praise and

Systematic Observation of Strength Coaches 457

scold categories, although the ratio of praise to scolds for the 2 coaches were approximately equal. On the other hand, the percentage of instruction for Coach Wooden was approximately 15 points higher than for Coach Kush. From the pioneering work of Tharp and Gallimore (23), several other coaching observation instruments were developed to study coaching behavior. One, in particular, is the coaching behavioral assessment system (CBAS). Developed by Smith et al. (21), this instrument is also an excellent tool to assess coaching behavior. It has primarily been used in youth sport settings (5, 16, 2022). Building on the work of these and other researchers, Lacy and Darst (6) introduced the Arizona State University coaching observation instrument (ASUOI). The researchers divided the instructional category into separate categories of preinstruction, concurrent instruction, and postinstruction. The ASUOI also contained 7 categories that could be related directly to coaching behavior. This allowed the instrument to be more sensitive to the behavior of the coaches being studied and was a factor in its selection for this investigation. Lacy and Darst (7) and other researchers have used the ASUOI to study numerous different coaching populations (3, 4, 8, 1115, 17). An additional factor in the selection of the ASUOI is its proven utility in assessing the behavior of collegiate coaches. The ASUOI or one of the other instruments to which it is closely related has been used in a variety of research at this level (3, 9, 15, 17, 23). It should be noted, however, that no prior SOR studies involving strength and conditioning coaches have been done. This study serves as a beginning database as well as a reference point for coaches involved in the strength and conditioning profession.

Table 1. Subjects descriptive data. Years at present position 1 2 3 3 3 3 2.5 Conference

Subject* 1 (SEC) 2 (CUSA) 3 (CUSA) 4 (SEC) 5 (SEC) 6 (CUSA) Mean * SEC USA.

Age (y) 45 28 34 42 40 36 37.5

Total years coaching 20 6 11 10 16 14 12.8

Southeastern Conference; CUSA

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Methods
Subjects The population used in this study consisted of 6 male strength and conditioning coaches from 6 elite Division I-A football programs in the southern part of the United States. These coaches and programs were selected because of the annual success of their institutions football programs. All schools reported a 0.600 winning percentage over the past 3 years. Three strength and conditioning coaches were from the Southeastern Conference, and 3 coaches were selected from Conference USA. Descriptive data of the subjects are presented in Table 1. Observational Instrument The instrument used to conduct this study was a modied form of the ASUOI (6). The categories used in this study were as follows:

1. Preinstruction: Initial information given to athletes preceding the desired action to be performed. Ex-

planations about how to execute the lift, strategy, etc., associated with weight training. Concurrent instruction: Cues or reminders given during the actual lift. Postinstruction: Correction, re-explanation, or instructional feedback given after the actual execution of the skill. Questioning: Any question to athletes concerning strategies, lifting techniques, assignments, or personal issues involving the athlete. Manual manipulation: Physically moving an athlete to the proper position or though the correct range of motion of a lift. Positive modeling: A demonstration of correct performance of a skill or lift. Negative modeling: A demonstration of incorrect performance or technique. Hustle: Verbal statements intended to intensify the efforts of the athletes. Praise: Verbal or nonverbal expressions of acceptance. Scolds: Verbal or nonverbal expressions of displeasure. Management: Verbal statements related to organizational details of training sessions not referring to strategies or fundamentals of the sport. Silence: Periods of time when the strength coach is not talking and not engaged with the athletes under their supervision. Silent monitoring: Periods of time in which the strength coach is silent, but engaged in monitoring the activities of the athletes under his supervision. Other: Any behavior that cannot be heard or does not t into the other described categories. Coach participation: Physical involvement by the coach in any practice-related activity. Coach interaction: Conversation with an assistant coach regarding an aspect of practice, usually directed at coaching of a playing technique, management of practice, performance of a player, etc.

458 Massey, Maneval, Phillips, Vincent, and White

The silent monitoring and coach interaction categories were added to the ASUOI for the purposes of this study. Although the coach interaction category had not been used previously with the ASUOI, it was used in a similar instrument by Langsdorf (9). Because the ASUOI and Langsdorfs (9) instrument are very similar, each interaction was easily assimilated into the ASUOI. The coach interaction category has also been used by other researchers using Langsdorfs instrument (18). The silent monitoring category was developed for this study on the basis of a recommendation by Phillips (15).
Data Collection The 6 coaches were observed on 3 occasions. Before lming, the investigator(s) visited each site and collected permission signatures from the subjects and observed a weight training session to familiarize themselves with the coaches styles and teaching mannerisms. This was done to detect noticeable changes in performance once the data-gathering process commenced. No obtuse behavioral changes were noted by the investigator(s). Observations were conducted during regularly scheduled team training sessions and occurred in the respective teams weight training facility. These sessions were videotaped for more accurate coding of behavior. Interval recording was used for this study. An interval of 5 seconds was used for the coding of behavior (17). Each observation session was 40 minutes in length. The time of observation sessions was based on the work of Phillips (15) and Rupert (17), who used this period of time in their studies. Lacy and Darst (6) concurred with this procedure when they stated that observations could be made for the entire practice session or for predetermined portions of the practice. For this study, the observation period began after the initial warm-up. The accuracy of behavioral coding was established by 2 methods. Method 1 included the investigator taking a course in systematic observational research techniques, which included familiarization and actual practice sessions with this research technique. Method 2 incorporated checking interobserver agreement (IOA) between independent observers before data collection. Additional IOA checks were conducted on 3 occasions during the course of the investigation. All IOA checks were above 80%. This is the level of agreement deemed acceptable in observational research (19). Statistical Analyses The data collected in this study were descriptive in nature. Percentages for the behavior of each individual coach in each category were tabulated. The total percentages for each behavioral category were also calculated.

Table 2. Arizona State University Coaching Observation Instrument categorical percentage analysis.* Mini- Maximum mum Mean 0.28 3.13 0.83 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.63 0.00 6.04 3.96 13.89 3.54 0.14 1.88 15.21 9.03 4.72 9.31 0.28 2.50 0.56 21.18 9.38 1.39 34.72 8.54 34.72 18.54 6.39 13.40 4.76 5.04 1.84 6.20 Rank order 10 9 12 7 16 13 15 3 8 14 2 6 1 4 11 5

n Preinstruction Concurrent instruction Postinstruction Questioning Manual manipulation Positive modeling Negative modeling Hustle Praise Scold Management Silence Silent monitoring Other Coach participation Coach interaction 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

SD 5.42 2.25 1.53 2.78

0.08 0.12 0.54 0.96 0.10 0.22 11.12 6.09 5.53 3.22 0.37 0.60 14.62 10.53 6.50 1.97 21.99 8.27 10.99 5.37 3.33 2.58 6.39 4.98

* Numbers are reported in percentages.

Results
During observational sessions, 8,640 individual behaviors were recorded. Individually, each coach was observed for a total of 120 minutes for a total of 1,440 behaviors. The average coefcient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) for the 3 most observed behaviors (silent monitoring, management, and hustle) was 0.55. This would appear to indicate that there was a relatively wide variety of coaching styles employed by the participants observed in this study. This nding is consistent with this population of coaches who employ individual philosophies when conducting their strength workouts (10). Table 2 presents the percentage analysis of the total behaviors of all coaches in each category of the ASUOI. The most frequently observed behavior in the study was silent monitoring at 21.99%. Management was the second most often observed behavior at 14.62%. Hustle was the third most often observed behavior at 11.12%, and the fourth most often observed behavior was other at 10.99%. The ndings of the study indicated that 58.72% of the total observed behaviors for this study occurred in the 4 categories of silent monitoring, management, hustle, and other. Silent monitoring and management were the 2 most frequently observed behavioral categories and comprised 36.61% of the total behaviors observed. This nding indicated that the coaches in this study spent more than a third of their time monitoring and managing the activities of the athletes under their supervision. In the past, the rst 7 categories of the ASUOI were

Systematic Observation of Strength Coaches 459

considered to be compartmentalized into instructional categories (3, 4, 8, 1115, 17). The categories that comprise the instructional area are preinstruction, concurrent instruction, postinstruction, questioning, manual manipulation, positive modeling, and negative modeling. The categories of hustle, praise, and scold are compartmentalized into the feedback component of the ASUOI (15). When the means of the instructional component were examined, it was found that 18.56% of the coaches total behaviors occurred in the instructional area. When the feedback categories were examined, it was found that 17.02% of the coaches total behaviors occurred in that area. As previously cited, scold was used infrequently by the coaches in this study. When the categories of hustle and praise were combined, it was found that they accounted for 16.65% of the behaviors observed.

Discussion
Before this study, no research had systematically observed the coaching behaviors of strength and conditioning coaches. The results of this study contribute to the growing database of information concerning the behaviors of athletic coaches. The nding that 58.72% of the total observed behaviors in this study occurred in the silent monitoring, management, hustle, and other categories is in sharp contrast with the majority of studies using this instrument. Early studies in systematic observation of coaching behavior reported the highest incidences of observed behavior in the instructional area. A few studies have gone against this trend, with different percentages within the coaching categories being found. The ndings of the studies by Campbell (3) and Claxton (4) more closely resemble the results of the current investigation. A possible explanation for discrepancies related to the level of instruction in these various studies may have to do with the nature of the sport being coached. The majority of studies that have been done using the ASUOI have been conducted with coaches involved in team sports. What the team sports have in common is that they are dynamic activities that involve primarily openended types of skills. An open skill can be dened as a skill that is performed in an environment that is variable and characterized by frequent change. Open skills are opposed to closed skills, which occur in environments that are more stable and predictable. Closed skills predominate in sports environments that have fewer competing forces that can inuence the outcome of the skill (e.g., golf, diving, shot put, weight training). Consequently, one should expect to nd major differences between sports involving primarily open skills and those involving primarily closed skills. The population of strength and conditioning coach-

es used in this study was predominantly engaged in observation of their athletes (21.99%), organization of the weight training activity (14.62%), and verbal statements to intensify athletic effort (11.12%). These totals approximate almost one-half of the observed behaviors for the elite strength coaches used in this study. Considering the nature of the environment surrounding the strength and conditioning discipline, these ndings are a natural consequence. An enlightening aspect of this study was the use of verbal encouragement (hustle and praise) by this population. Motivation plays a signicant role in the weight training room. This nding suggests that these coaches recognized the contribution this behavior makes in their eld and actively engaged in this behavior when working with their athletes. These are several limitations of this study for SOR with strength and conditioning coaches. The rst revolves around the limited time spent monitoring and recording the coaches behaviors. This study was limited to 3 observation periods by the researchers with 1 initial visit before the collection of data. Although this technique is documented as acceptable in past research (17), more observation periods may be warranted to offset any possible Hawthorne effect. Variability coefcients within this study indicate a wide variety of coaching styles. It is suggested that future studies employ larger sample sizes to reduce this discrepancy. It should, however, be noted that the majority of past SOR studies in this area have consistently used small populations of 12 or fewer subjects (3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23). As more SOR investigators scrutinize the population of strength and conditioning coaches, there is little doubt that the perceived limitations of this study will be addressed in future investigations.

Practical Applications
It is hoped that the results of this study can serve as a foundation for future research into how strength and conditioning coaches do their job. The information provided by this study is specic to the population used in this investigation and is designed to stimulate further research into this emerging profession. It is only through continued research that we can make the discipline stronger and more respected within the coaching and scientic communities.

References
ARTHUR, M., AND B. BAILEY. Complete Conditioning for Football. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998. 2. BENNETT, G., G. WHITE, AND M. MANEVAL. Strike while the iron is hot! The importance of meeting NASPE coaching standards within the human performance curriculum. Tenn. J. Health Phys. Educ. Rec. Dance 36(2):410. 1998. 3. CAMPBELL, H. Comparisons of male collegiate tennis coaches who coach male tennis players, and male coaches who coach 1.

460 Massey, Maneval, Phillips, Vincent, and White

female tennis players. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1993. CLAXTON, D.B. A systematic observation of more or less successful high school coaches. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 7:302310. 1988. HORN, T. Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting: Methodological considerations. J. Sports Psychol. 6:6076. 1984. LACY, A.C., AND P.W. DARST. Evolution of a systematic observation system: The ASU coaching observation instrument. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 3:5966. 1984. LACY, A.C., AND P.W. DARST. Systematic observation of behaviors of winning high school head football coaches. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 4:256270. 1985. LACY, A.C., AND P. GOLDSTON. Behavior analysis of male and female coaches in high school girls basketball. J. Sports Behav. 13:2939. 1990. LANGSDORF, E.V. A systematic observation of football coaching behavior in a major university environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1979. LAYTON, T. Power play. Sports Illustrated 89(4):6164. 1998. MILLER, A. Systematic observation behavior similarities of various youth sports coaches. Phys. Educator 49:136143. 1992. MODEL, R.L. Coaching behaviors of nonwinning high school football coaches in Arizona. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1983. MOULTON, M. An analysis of teaching behaviors of youth sports gymnastics coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1986. 14. PERKINS, G. Comparison of the male high school basketball coaches of male and female programs through systematic observation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1989. PHILLIPS, T.M. An analysis of teaching behaviors through systematic observation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1991. RESJESKI, W., C. DARRACOTT, AND S. HUTSLAR. Pygmalion in youth sport: A eld study. J. Sports Psychol. 1:311319. 1979. RUPERT, T., AND C. BUSCHNER. Teaching and coaching: A comparison of instructional behaviors. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 9:49 57. 1989. SEGRAVE, J., AND C. CIANCIO. An observation study of a successful Pop Warner football coach. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 9:294 306. 1990. SIEDENTOP, D. Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayeld, 1983. SMITH, R., AND F. SMOLL. Self-esteem and childrens reactions to youth sport coaching behavior: A eld study of self-enhancement process. Dev. Psychol. 26:987993. 1990. SMITH, R., F. SMOLL, AND B. CURTIS. Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. J. Sport Psychol. 1:5975. 1979. SMITH, R., F. SMOLL, AND E. HUNT. A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Res. Q. 48:401407. 1977. THARP, R.G., AND R. GALLIMORE. What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychol. Today 9:7578. 1976.

4.

15.

5.

16. 17.

6.

7.

18.

8.

19. 20.

9.

10. 11. 12.

21.

22. 23.

13.

Address correspondence to Mark Maneval, mark. maneval@usm.edu.