CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Foundation Degree in Community Sports Coaching
CSC202 Researching the Coaching Process
2012-2013
Semester One Level Five (Year Two)
1
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Module title
Researching the Coaching Process
Module code
CSC202
Credits
15
Pre-requisites
None
Tutors responsible
Jamie Sims
Rationale This module will further introduce students to the basic principles and techniques of the research process as a development of the Coaching Practice 2 module. The importance of rigorous scientific research as a means of underpinning the coaching process will be introduced and explained through the desire to challenge the many myths that surround the performance of players and teams in individual and team sports. From this basis students will explore both quantitative and qualitative research methods as well as some initial introductory and basic philosophical and epistemological paradigms that define the boundaries of established research traditions. Completion of this module will enable students to acquire the research skills that underpin the development of their critical thinking.
Indicative Curriculum Content This module will initially focus on why research is valuable to the sports coach. It will explore the relationship between research and knowledge and introduce a number of introductory epistemological questions. From this basis the module will then examine both quantitative and qualitative research methods explaining how the importance of reliability and validity are important to both methods. Quantitative methods will develop from the descriptive statistical methods used in the Coaching Practice 2 module to include simple tests of difference and correlation, whilst qualitative methods will include interviewing, survey, questionnaire and ethnographic techniques. The choice of techniques examined has been influenced by the techniques most likely to be used by sports coaches in the workplace.
Learning Outcomes At the conclusion of this module students should be able to: 1) Demonstrate knowledge of the processes associated with conducting research. 2) Understand the concepts of reliability and validity. 3) Undertake research that involves both quantitative and qualitative research methods. 4) Be able to demonstrate findings in an appropriate format.
2
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Learning and Teaching Strategy The module will be delivered via lectures and seminars totalling three hours per week. As an intermediate level module students will be expected to undertake a significant amount of reading and worked examples based around research methods. Students will be encouraged to apply this knowledge to their own experience and by observation of others in the workplace through the opportunities provided in the Community Coaching module. Students will be encouraged to collect raw data from their coaching placements, where possible, and work on this data within the modules programme of learning.
Assessment The assessed work for this module is: 
A 15 minute presentation on your research project (30%)

A 2,000 word report on your project (70%)
For the Research Report: a) Demonstrate competence in the design of a small piece of research. b) Demonstrate the ability to utilise appropriate research methods. c) Collect and analyse data correctly. d) Writing skills to include correct spelling, referencing and punctuation. e) Evidence of critical thinking and the ability to challenge common-sense assumptions and perceptions in sport. For the Presentation: a) Provide and use appropriate audio-visual aids. b) Demonstrate the ability to present research findings to a peer group. c) Demonstrate competence in structuring a presentation appropriately. d) Ability to communicate clearly and concisely. Submission Dates The presentations for this module will take place within timetabled sessions on Monday 26th November (Week Twelve) and Monday 3rd December (Week Thirteen). The presentation slots will be allocated on a random basis and posted on Moodle. The report for this module must be submitted by 10:00am on Monday 17th December (Week Fifteen).
Reassessment Reassessment will be a 3,000 word essay, submission dates to be advised by the board of examiners as published on SONAR.
3
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Assessment Criteria Formative Assessment Formative assessment will be based on an on-going assessment of work leading a time-limited discussion within one of the seminar sessions. Students will be expected to set the framework for the discussion and lead the discussion to an appropriate end point.
Timetabled sessions The weekly lecture will take place on Monday’s at 09:00 in UH11, followed by group seminars at wither 10:00 – 11:00 or 11:00 – 12:00 in UH7.
Evaluation Previous student evaluation of the content and delivery of the module has been positive and as such there are no modifications to the current syllabus. Assignment Hand-In Procedures Students are required to submit one hardcopy of their work via the hand in boxes in New Hall (top floor in the photocopy room along the Sport and Exercise Sciences corridor) Make sure you complete the blue MACS form in full, including:
Student number/Programme of Study/Level of study Module Title and SDM code (these are on the hand-in box) Title of Assignment The module leader – Dr Andrea Scott Your Turnitin ID Date of submission Dyslexia stickers (if appropriate) attached to the first page of your essay You should put work in a plastic folder You should not staple work or seal the plastic wallet with sticky tape
Students are also required to upload a copy of their work via Turnitin (the link to this is provided on the Moodle page. Uploading of your work via Turnitin must be completed before the assignment deadline. If for any reason Moodle or Turnitin are unavailable (i.e. if Portia/Moodle is experiencing problems) you must upload it to Turnitin as soon as possible thereafter. Details of system problems/downtimes will be communicated on the Portia homepage via the traffic light system.
4
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Turnitin Turnitin is a web-based plagiarism-prevention service which checks assignments for unoriginal content. The results can be used to help students learn how to avoid plagiarism as it provides better and faster feedback to improve their writing or to identify similarities to existing sources. Turnitin encourages best practice in using and referencing other people’s written material. Once uploaded into Turnitin, an Originality Report will be generated, highlighting unoriginal content. This is useful for you to check that you have referenced everything correctly. Please note that you are not aiming for a 0% score as Turnitin will recognise all unoriginal text including quotes, templates and text which you have referenced correctly Generation of the Originality Report usually takes between 5 and 10 minutes but can take longer at busy times If you choose to edit and resubmit an assignment (before the due date), the Originality Report will be available the following day. Your lecturer will only see the most recent submission.
Tutorial Support Tutorial support specifically for this module is available regularly by appointment, typically Monday 13:00-16:00. Students wishing to discuss assignments are encouraged to email these to the tutor prior to the appointment. Limited additional tutorial support may be available by email, but students should expect this method to take significantly longer. Emailed requests should take the form of assignment plans, specific papers for discussion or specific questions. Drafts of assignment plans or excerpts will be reviewed only once ahead of submission and as such students are encouraged to send a near completed piece of work. Draft documents should be sent only in .doc, .docx or .odt format, and draft presentation slides only in .ppt, .pptx, or .odp format.
Student Support For information on student support, extensions, and mitigating circumstance please see the programme handbook.
Staff Contact Tutor: Room: Tel: Email:
Jamie Sims New Hall 315 01243 816000 (TBC) j.sims@chi.ac.uk
5
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Lecture Outlines Week 1
Introduction to the Module The Nature of Research
Week 2
Assignment Skills Referencing Conventions and Avoiding Plagiarism
Week 3
Key Concepts in Research Methods Experimental Research Design
Week 4
Introducing Qualitative Research Methods Qualitative vs. Quantitative Interviewing Skills Ethics for your Project
Week 5
Observation Skills Questionnaires Evaluation of Qualitative Methods Project Ethics Form Submission
Week 6
Introducing Quantitative Research Methods Key Concepts in Statistics
Week 7
Exploring Data Presenting Data
Week 8
Student Direct Week Data Gathering for Project
Week 9
Using Statistics in Sport
Week 10
Testing for Relationships Using Statistics Drawing Conclusions from Statistics
Week 11
Student Directed Study Preparation for Presentations Tutorial Support Available
Week 12
Student Presentations
Week 13
Student Presentations
Week 14
Student Directed Study Preparation for Report Submission Tutorial Support Available
Week 15
Report Submission
6
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
Resources Indicative Reading Lynch, C. (2010). Doing your Research Project in Sport. Exeter: Learning Matters. Supplementary Reading Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2003). Research Methods for Sports Studies. Oxford: Routledge. Fallowfield, J.L., Hale, B.J. & Wilkinson, D.M. (2005). Using Statistics in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Chichester: Lotus Publishing.
7
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
UNIVERSITY OF CHICHESTER Marking Scale for Coursework GENERIC UNDERGRADUATE MARKING CRITERIA The term ‘answer’ when used below relates to the work that was submitted in answer to the assessment task(s) set: it may refer in practice to a performance, an essay or any other form of assessment.
%Grade
Characteristics of % grade band
Fail 0% Non-Submission or work of no value. Fail Contains little of relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. Fails to answer and 1-9% address the set topic. No practical, academic or intellectual application. Minimal Quality Fail Contains limited relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. May address the topic but 10-19% not the assignment brief. May be scanty and brief. Work is descriptive and anecdotal. Minimal Very Poor or no argument. May be entirely reliant on the work of others, with no practical and /or academic Quality application to demonstrate understanding of the material. Fail Inconsistency of relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. Addresses topic but not 20-34% always the assignment brief. May be significantly short of required length/ time. Descriptive or Poor Quality anecdotal work with scanty or no argument. Reliant on the work of others and does not use this to develop own arguments. No critical discussion or theoretical engagement. Little practical and intellectual application. Fail P/P May be some deviation from objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address 40-49% set question or assignment brief. May be short of required length/time. Descriptive or anecdotal Weak with little or no critical discussion and theoretical engagement. Unconvincing or minimal line of Quality argument. Mostly reliant on the work of others, displaying little understanding or ability to apply the material. 3rd Satisfactorily addresses most objectives of the assessment task completed to acceptable 40-49% tolerance, limits of time/length. Work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited Acceptable theoretical engagement. Too much reliance on the work of others rather than developing own Quality understanding and application of the material. 2 (ii) Competently addresses objectives of the assessment task, but may contain minor errors or 50-59% omissions at the lower end, where treatment of issues may be superficial. Completed to Sound required time/length, etc. Some limited critical discussion, but argument is unconvincing, Quality, particularly at the lower end where the work is more descriptive. More reliance on work of competent others rather than developing own arguments. Limited theoretical and conceptual analysis. with some limitations 2 (i) Clearly addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those elements requiring 60-69% critical analysis. At the higher end the work will not contain errors or omissions. Generally clear High line of critical and evaluative argument, with ability to develop own ideas from the work of Quality, others. Ability to engage in theoretical and conceptual analysis. skilled work 1st Authoritatively addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those components 70-79% requiring critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. A clear and consistent line of critical and Excellent evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop one’s own insightful ideas from the work of Quality others. Excellent engagement in theoretical and conceptual analysis. 1st Innovatively addresses objectives of the assessment task, especially those components 80-89% requiring sophistication of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. A clear and consistent line Outstanding of highly critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop one’s innovative ideas Quality) from the work of others. Creative flair in theoretical and conceptual analysis.
8
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
1st Professionally addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those components 90-100% requiring originality of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Consistent line of profound Exceptional critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from an or innovative synthesis of the work of others. Creative flair in advanced theoretical and conceptual Distinguishe analysis. d Quality
9
CSC202 – Researching the Coaching Process
PLAGIARISM AND ACADEMIC MALPRACTICE Academic malpractice is cheating, which is defined as “to trick, defraud, deceive” (OED). Academic malpractice can take a number of forms including: Academic Malpractice relating to a student’s own work: Collusion
Where a student works in a fraudulent manner with another (or others) being assessed independently (either wholly or in part) in the same module Impersonation Where somebody undertakes an examination or assessment posing as another person Commissioning Getting another person(s) to complete work, which is subsequently submitted as the student’s own work Duplication The replication of elements(s) of material in more than one assessment within the same institution or elsewhere, simultaneously or at some other time Data Falsification Where data have been invented, altered, copied or obtained by unfair means Plagiarism To “take and use another person’s thoughts, writings, inventions as one’s own” (OED) Syndication The submission of substantially similar piece(s) of work by two or more students, either in the same institution or in a number of institutions, either at the same time, or at different times Academic Malpractice relating to the work of other students: Aiding & Abetting Where a student assists another student in any form of dishonest academic malpractice It is always important to make it clear when you are using work of another. It is never permitted to copy unacknowledged passages from sources or to represent the ideas of another as if they were your own, to do so is to run the risk of a charge of PLAGIARISM. You should ensure that:
All passages taken word for word from any source, whether primary or secondary appear within quotation marks
The sources of such a quotation are clearly identified
Where a quotation from primary material has been taken from secondary work, without the student having consulted primary material, acknowledgement is made to both the primary and secondary source of the quotation
Any work, part or all, of which has been paraphrased is clearly identified
10