View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Art of the Question: The Structure of Questions Posed by Youth Soccer Coaches during Training

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Art of the Question: The Structure of Questions Posed by Youth Soccer Coaches during Training
Language: English
Authors: O'Connor, Donna (ORCID 0000-0003-1825-2727), Larkin, Paul (ORCID 0000-0002-0493-4148), Robertson, Sam (ORCID 0000-0002-8330-0011), Goodyear, Peter (ORCID 0000-0001-9903-737X)
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2022 27(3):304-319.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Team Sports, Athletic Coaches, Questioning Techniques, Athletes, Youth Programs, Training, Foreign Countries, Drills (Practice)
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2021.1877270
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: From a sports perspective, pedagogical researchers have suggested questioning is an effective instructional tool and pedagogical strategy for developing critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making skills. Questions enable coaches to contextualise athlete learning by encouraging and guiding them to identify and explore solutions to game-based problems. While previous investigations have explored the frequency of questions and provided some understanding of the interactions within a coaching session, there is still limited empirical knowledge related to the structure and profile of coach questioning strategies. Purpose: This study aims to explore how youth soccer coaches, implementing the FFA National Curriculum, have used questioning techniques within specific coaching contexts/activities to promote athlete learning. Method: Australian youth soccer coaches (i.e. U12-U16; n = 19) were filmed during regular training sessions. A questioning profile coding system was developed and used to provide a detailed profile of the types of questions asked by the coaches in different coaching situations. The frequency of each coded event (i.e. type, context, who, what, knowledge, and activity) was recorded. Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) were used to describe all coded information. Association rule models were generated to determine the extent to which a questioning profile descriptor (i.e. Question Type, Knowledge, Context, Who, What) occurred in the presence of another. Results: Coaches asked on average 71 questions per session (0.88 questions per minute), with slightly greater use of convergent (i.e. closed) questions (52.2%) than divergent (i.e. open) questions (47.8%). Coaches use convergent questions that are instructional and promote lower order thinking. In contrast, divergent questions are generally related to a game tactic or principle and are asked when the team has stopped an activity. The rule models indicated there is a general trend when considering the structure and profile of the type of question (i.e. convergent; divergent) asked in the different training session activity types. During drills and small-sided games, coaches asked convergent questions to the team, which were instructional in nature and required lower level knowledge. For large games, the question was more targeted to the individual while the activity was on-going, but still required lower level knowledge. Divergent questions generally related to game tactics although only 7% of these questions asked players to problem solve. Conclusion: The results of the current study indicate that coaches are posing more questions within a coaching session, compared to previous studies, possibly reflecting the emphasis placed on questioning as an athlete learning strategy within the FFA National Curriculum. Association rule models provided greater insights into the distinct 'styles' or profiles typically implemented by coaches during specific types of activity. From a learning perspective, coaches should consider the players needs and wants when determining which type of question best suits the situation and be prepared to move between types of questions depending on player responses. Future research should consider the perspectives of coaches and athletes to determine why questions were asked, and how effective they were in reaching their intended purposes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1340618
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHSpFjuuIplnAzRjH0Z85dkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGXRvClYOTKPCz_98QIBEICBm6OYl8OWhfSANjPO34DjXJ2rrjxG2YFHTwzFRKawfrxp2c3afLEdTicUS2Sa6TfffdUS6tXj4gAVXlqFEQzYbLlCXEbPYw8a86fWqY3ezT4GV4ROIeMZeyu5zugEkuWGBh7y6M-parMjlQgSP8vBSoTdHCH6TKvNFapfWbq7_sVcgZ3JC1iVagaiHdVsIkh7TwXpwUIz5X9H5bTl
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155971652;z3x01may.22;2022Mar30.03:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155971652-1">The art of the question: the structure of questions posed by youth soccer coaches during training </title> <p>From a sports perspective, pedagogical researchers have suggested questioning is an effective instructional tool and pedagogical strategy for developing critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making skills. Questions enable coaches to contextualise athlete learning by encouraging and guiding them to identify and explore solutions to game-based problems. While previous investigations have explored the frequency of questions and provided some understanding of the interactions within a coaching session, there is still limited empirical knowledge related to the structure and profile of coach questioning strategies. This study aims to explore how youth soccer coaches, implementing the FFA National Curriculum, have used questioning techniques within specific coaching contexts/activities to promote athlete learning. Australian youth soccer coaches (i.e. U12 – U16; n = 19) were filmed during regular training sessions. A questioning profile coding system was developed and used to provide a detailed profile of the types of questions asked by the coaches in different coaching situations. The frequency of each coded event (i.e. type, context, who, what, knowledge, and activity) was recorded. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) were used to describe all coded information. Association rule models were generated to determine the extent to which a questioning profile descriptor (i.e. Question Type, Knowledge, Context, Who, What) occurred in the presence of another. Coaches asked on average 71 questions per session (0.88 questions per minute), with slightly greater use of convergent (i.e. closed) questions (52.2%) than divergent (i.e. open) questions (47.8%). Coaches use convergent questions that are instructional and promote lower order thinking. In contrast, divergent questions are generally related to a game tactic or principle and are asked when the team has stopped an activity. The rule models indicated there is a general trend when considering the structure and profile of the type of question (i.e. convergent; divergent) asked in the different training session activity types. During drills and small-sided games, coaches asked convergent questions to the team, which were instructional in nature and required lower level knowledge. For large games, the question was more targeted to the individual while the activity was on-going, but still required lower level knowledge. Divergent questions generally related to game tactics although only 7% of these questions asked players to problem solve. The results of the current study indicate that coaches are posing more questions within a coaching session, compared to previous studies, possibly reflecting the emphasis placed on questioning as an athlete learning strategy within the FFA National Curriculum. Association rule models provided greater insights into the distinct 'styles' or profiles typically implemented by coaches during specific types of activity. From a learning perspective, coaches should consider the players needs and wants when determining which type of question best suits the situation and be prepared to move between types of questions depending on player responses. Future research should consider the perspectives of coaches and athletes to determine why questions were asked, and how effective they were in reaching their intended purposes.</p> <p>Keywords: Coaching; coaching pedagogy; learning; Football; questioning</p> <p>Coaches have a significant impact on the learning outcomes and achievements of the athletes they seek to educate (Amorose [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Cushion [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]), with the behaviours they use shaping the teaching and learning environment (Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). Therefore, the coach needs to convey important concepts to their athletes, which can be achieved by creating meaningful teaching and learning activities (O'Connor and Larkin [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]). In addition to this, coaches also have to ensure they develop critical thinking athletes who have a deeper understanding of the skills and tactics involved in the sports they play to ensure specific performance-based objectives are achieved (Pearson and Webb [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]). Within this context, researchers have identified a disconnection between evidenced-informed research and the applied coaching environment (Gréhaigne, Godbout, and Bouthier [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]). For example, while researchers have highlighted the benefit associated with more game-based or playing form activities for athlete development (e.g. provides a holistic approach to developing technical and tactical skills in a game-related learning environment; promotes player enjoyment and engagement; O'Connor, Larkin, and Höner [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref8">38</reflink>]), studies have still demonstrated an over reliance on drill-based or training form activities in youth sport coaching sessions (Ford, Yates, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Coach development programmes are not always accessible to all coaches or informed by the latest research findings (Eather et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]). Furthermore, the link between research and coach education programmes is complex and generally not a linear relationship when considering course design and dissemination of new policies (Dempsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]). However, in an attempt to address this, the Australian soccer governing body, Football Federation Australia (FFA), has taken a research informed approach to guide coaches on how to create learning environments to promote technical and tactical athlete development. The National Curriculum (Football Federation Australia [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]), provides a philosophy on how the game should be played and guides youth coaches to structure training sessions through a holistic approach to development, rather than trying to develop individual components in isolation. To achieve this, the National Curriculum recommends that coaches should create purposeful practice sessions, using the constraints-led approach and manipulating task and environmental constraints provides opportunities for players to adapt to various situations and explore solutions to problems within activities that are representative of the sport context (Renshaw and Chow [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref15">52</reflink>]). For example, activities are designed so players are always perceiving-deciding-executing (one instructional skill-based activity followed by 2–3 game-based activities), coupled with quality feedback and questioning techniques. A key element highlighted by the curriculum is for coaches to 'Ask smart questions to develop player understanding and enhance learning' (FFA curriculum, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]; page 192). While this is a key suggestion for coaches to employ, there is limited understanding about how coaches use questioning techniques within a coaching session, and the type and structure of questions they pose to athletes.</p> <p>From a learning perspective, pedagogical researchers have found that questioning is an effective instructional tool and pedagogical strategy to enhance learning outcomes in education (Engin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]; Walsh and Sattes [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref18">56</reflink>]); medicine, (Adams [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]); and sport (Harvey and Light [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]; Kidman et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]). Questioning techniques are critical for focusing attention to key concepts, clarifying understanding (Engin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Hill [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]; Tofade, Elsner, and Haines [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref24">55</reflink>]), memory recall (Caram and Davis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]), stimulating high levels of thinking (Metzler [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]), developing critical thinking (Shim and Walczak [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref27">53</reflink>]), and problem-solving and decision-making skills (Gréhaigne, Godbout, and Bouthier [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]; O'Connor et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref29">41</reflink>]). When players retrieve knowledge from their memory to answer a question this reinforces the relevant cues and improves long-term retention of that information (Binks [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Dirkx, Kester, and Kirschner [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]). Therefore, coaches are encouraged to use questions, prompts, and feedback to contextualise the athletes' learning by encouraging and guiding them to identify and explore solutions to game-based problems, rather than merely telling them what to do (O'Connor, Larkin, and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]; Pill [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref33">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>While questioning is a key strategy for learning, coaches need to take into account the capabilities of the athlete and the coaching situation, to ensure they are matching questions to the athlete's needs (Long, Blankenburg, and Butani [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]). In the literature, questions are commonly classified as either convergent or divergent. Convergent questions are closed in nature, and offer few response options. They assume a single answer, or a narrow range of 'best' answers (Tofade, Elsner, and Haines [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref36">55</reflink>]). In contrast, divergent questions are more open in nature, encouraging exploration of diverse perspectives, with multiple response, promoting deeper thinking (O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref38">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]; Tofade, Elsner, and Haines [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]). A further classification for questions can be based on the level of cognitive processing required to answer the question. Questions which require lower levels of cognitive processing, such as recall and comprehension, are classified as lower-order questions. In contrast, questions which involve analysis, synthesis and evaluation to generate new knowledge are classified as higher-order questions (Bloom [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Metzler [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]). While some researchers highlight the benefit associated with asking higher order questions to promote quality educational outcomes (Metzler [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]; Chambers and Vickers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>]; Harvey, Cushion, and Massa-Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref46">32</reflink>]; Práxedes et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]), it should be noted that lower order questions also serve an important educational function to monitor understanding and to establish and situate a common understanding for new information or problems (Myhill and Dunkin [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]). For example, recall questions can be used by coaches to focus athlete's attention on actions or concepts which have previously been explored/learnt (Pearson and Webb [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]). Therefore, one effective questioning strategy is to start with convergent lower-order questions and progress to divergent higher-order questions, by building from the recall of facts to higher levels of thinking and problem solving (Caram and Davis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]; Engin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]). Progressing from simple questions to more difficult ones that require reasoning helps athletes develop cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills, through the formulation of, and reflection on, ideas that are needed for personal sense-making, which players can then test within the game-play environment (Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>]; Light, Harvey, and Mouchet [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>To understand how coaches use questioning within their sessions, researchers have conducted observational studies of the coaching environment. Results have shown that during a session coaches ask few questions to their athletes (between 2.29% and 7.83% of the session; Potrac, Jones, and Armour [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref54">47</reflink>]; Potrac, Jones, and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref55">48</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref56">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>]). In addition to this relatively low frequency of questioning, it has also been found that coaches generally ask more convergent than divergent questions. Cope and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]) built on prior observational research by exploring coaches' questioning practice and the discursive nature of questioning approaches. They conducted conversational analysis of five youth soccer academy coaches' training sessions. They found three underlying problematic themes: coaches wanting an immediate response from players, the use of leading questions to elicit a desired response, and the monological nature of coach/athlete interactions. The findings show coaches positioning themselves as gatekeepers of knowledge, with athletes cast as passive learners. O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]) found coaches asked more questions in their sessions (compared to earlier studies) and were aware of the need to use questions aimed at developing athlete decision-making skills.</p> <p>Previous investigations have explored the use of questions within a coaching session in relation to the type and frequency of questions asked (Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]; O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref62">43</reflink>]). While this provides some understanding of how coaches use questions within a session, there is still limited exploration of the structure and context of questions asked by coaches within the coaching environment. Determining the structure and taxonomy of coach questioning strategies will provide insight in how they are used by coaches to potentially promote athlete learning. Therefore, this study aims to extend the current knowledge of coach questioning by exploring the structure and profile of questions used by youth soccer coaches, who are guided by the FFA National Curriculum, during specific contexts/activities within the coaching environment. This will provide a better understanding of the type of questions asked during specific contexts/activities within the session and how they are used by coaches to potentially promote athlete learning.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155971652-3">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were selected for this study using a convenience-based sampling method, whereby clubs competing in the New South Wales National Premier League Youth competition (i.e. the highest level of youth participation) were contacted regarding participation. A total of 19 coaches who are currently coaching elite youth soccer teams (i.e. U12 – U16) and implementing the FFA National Curriculum volunteered to participate in the study. Of the 19 participants, 10 were coaching teams within the Skill Acquisition Phase of the FFA National Curriculum (i.e. U12 – U13), and nine participants were coaching within the Game Training Phase (i.e. U14 – U16). All teams played in 11 v 11 competitive matches, apart from the five Under 12 teams who play competitive 9 v 9 games. On average, coaches had been coaching for 9.76 (SD = 5.67) years. All participants were qualified youth coaches, with one coach holding a grassroots football certificate (i.e. Level 1), nine coaches had a Football Federation Australia (FFA) / Asian Football Confederation (AFC) C license (i.e. Level 2), and nine had an FFA/AFC B license (i.e. Level 3). Ethical approval was obtained from the lead institution's research ethics committee with informed consent provided by the participants. In addition, the parents and/or guardians of all the players within the teams provided informed consent prior to data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-4">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155971652-5">Questioning profile system</hd> <p>A questioning profile coding system was developed to provide an understanding of how coaches use questioning in training sessions. The questioning profiling system was an extension to the Coach Analysis Intervention System (CAIS) (Cushion et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref64">42</reflink>]) used to measure coach behaviour. The questioning profile coding system was used to provide a detailed profile of the questions asked by the coaches during the coaching session. As indicated in Table 1, the coding system outlined the type of questions (i.e. convergent; divergent) and the context in which they were asked (i.e. freeze in position; player huddle; activity ongoing). Further, information relating to who the question was asked to (i.e. individual or team); what the question was about (i.e. instructional; tactics/principles; technique; problem solving; general) and whether the question required higher or lower order knowledge was also coded. To establish the content validity of the questioning profile system, definitions and content were examined by leading learning scientists and participants in two international coaching workshops. The questioning profile coding system measured the frequency and structure of questioning used by coaches.</p> <p>Table 1. The category, sub-category, definitions, and associated examples of the questioning profile system.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Category</td><td>Sub-category</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Type of Question</td><td>Convergent</td><td>Any question to player(s) that have a limited number of responses/options (i.e. yes/no; one word answers; closed questions).</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 'Which is the best passing option from here, forward or back?' 'Which team has possession of the ball?'</td></tr><tr><td>Divergent</td><td>Any question to player(s) that have a the potential for multiple responses/options (i.e. why questions; open ended questions)</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 'What options do you have available for you in this situation?' 'when do you think it might be a good option to close the player down?' 'what can you do to help the player in possession of the ball?'</td></tr><tr><td>Context</td><td>Freeze in Position</td><td>Coach stops the activity to talk to the players and the players remain in their current position during the activity.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 'stop and hold there ... ' 'ok just stop in your position'</td></tr><tr><td>Player Huddle</td><td>Coach stops the activity and gets the players to come together for a group discussion lead by either the coach or a player.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 'stop and bring it in ... '</td></tr><tr><td>Activity On-going</td><td>The coach has not stopped the activity, with the players still actively engaged in the activity</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. players are actively participating in an activity</td></tr><tr><td>Who</td><td>Individual player; Others Continue Activity</td><td>A question is asked by the coach to an individual player while the rest of the team continue in the activity</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. coach shadows a players during the activity and speaks to them while they are still playing the game</td></tr><tr><td>Group; Others Continue Activity</td><td>A question is asked to more than one player, however the rest of the team continue to participate in the activity</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. coach pulls a small group of players from the game and asks a question</td></tr><tr><td>Individual or Group but Others are Waiting</td><td>A question is asked to one or more players, however the rest of the team are not actively participating in an activity and waiting for direction from the coach</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. coach singles out one player to answer the question</td></tr><tr><td>Team</td><td>A question is posed to the whole team</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. coach asks a question to the team and anyone can respond</td></tr><tr><td>What</td><td>Instructional</td><td>The question is about the specific activity the group are doing</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. how many touches are we focussing on in this activity?,</td></tr><tr><td>Tactics/principles</td><td>The question is related to the tactics or principles of the game</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. how can we slow the momentum of the game?</td></tr><tr><td>Technique</td><td>The question is related to the performance of a technical skill, such as a pass</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. what determines the direction the ball will go?</td></tr><tr><td>Problem-solving</td><td>The question relates players understanding what to do, when to do it and why</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. How can you stop that player receiving the ball?</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>A question not related to a sport-specific learning or performance</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 'did anyone see John today?'; 'did you watch the game last night?'</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge</td><td>Higher order</td><td>Questions which require the player to comprehend the topic, situation or solution to a sport-specific problem</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. how and when can we use this move in a game?</td></tr><tr><td>Lower order</td><td>Questions which only assess players ability to recall a single fact about the sport-specific problem</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. what went wrong then?</td></tr><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Session Introduction</td><td>The introduction to the training session which is general and not related to a specific training session activity</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. introducing the training sessions main content, discussing the previous game</td></tr><tr><td>Individual</td><td>Activities during training whereby the player is working on skills by oneself.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. juggling, running a lap with the ball</td></tr><tr><td>Drills</td><td>Activities during training whereby the player is performing predetermined actions or movements. There is a set sequence to the activity with minimal options available to the player.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. passing from cone to cone, dribbling around cones, sequence passing (i.e. players have to pass to a specific person next)</td></tr><tr><td>Small-Sided-Activities</td><td>Activities whereby players work in small teams of between 2 and 4 players in a game or activity situation.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 4 v 3 end zone game, 2 v 2 possession activity</td></tr><tr><td>Larger Activities</td><td>Activities during training where players work in teams of 5 or more players in a game or activity situation.</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. 8 v 8 large size game, 5 v 7 offence v defence</td></tr><tr><td>Transitions</td><td>Periods of time were the players are moving (or transitioning) between activities or inactivity periods</td></tr><tr><td>e.g. players moving back into position following a player huddle or drink break</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155971652-6">Procedures</hd> <p>Participants were filmed on two separate occasions at their regular ground using a digital video camera (Sony HDR PJ540E, Japan) in an elevated position to the side of the coaching area. Participants were instructed to conduct a regular training session, with the research team providing no additional information in relation to effective coaching/questioning strategies or the specific aims of the project. During the sessions, participants wore a lapel microphone and hip mounted radio transmitter (Sennheiser EW112P, Germany), which transmitted the audio signal to a radio receiver connected to the camera (Sony HDR PJ540E, Japan). This process ensured both voice and video data were captured simultaneously. Due to logistical reasons, three participants were only filmed on the one occasion (Skill Acquisition, <emph>n</emph> = 1; Game Training, <emph>n</emph> = 2), resulting in a total of 35 recorded sessions, with an average duration of 81.0 (SD = 11.9) minutes per session. In total, over 47 hours (47:15:51; Hr:min:sec) of coaching footage was coded for analysis purposes.</p> <p>Following the coaching sessions, the video footage was analysed using Dartfish 7 (Dartfish, France). The questioning profile coding system was used to provide a detailed profile of the questions asked by the coaches during the coaching session. The frequency of each coded event (i.e. type; context; who; what; knowledge; and activity) was recorded. One independent and trained coder coded each session; with an intra-coder agreement of 96%, indicating a high level of agreement (Nunnally [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref65">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-7">Practice activity</hd> <p>To assess the structure of the questions used in different coaching session activities, the soccer practice activity coding system developed by O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref66">39</reflink>]) was employed. Therefore, the analysis considered the structure of questions within five soccer-specific activities: session introduction; individual activity; drills; small sided games (i.e. 2 v 2 to 4 v 4); and large games (i.e. 5 v 5 or greater) (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-8">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data were coded and quantified for each questioning profile descriptor. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) were used to describe all coded information. A significant alpha was set at 0.05, with effect size denoted as small (<emph>r</emph> = 0.1–0.29), medium (<emph>r</emph> = 0.3–0.49) or large (<emph>r</emph> = 0.5–1) (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Association rule models were generated to determine the extent to which one questioning profile descriptor (i.e. Question Type, Knowledge, Context, Who, What) occurred in the presence of another. Association rules are algorithms which can identify underlying and frequent non-linear patterns in a large dataset. The '<emph>Arules</emph>' package was used to apply the <emph>Apriori</emph> algorithm (Hahsler et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref68">23</reflink>]) to measure the levels of association between the five types of questioning profile descriptor. Six separate models were constructed; one for each session type (i.e. session introduction; individual activity; drill, small-sided game, large-sided game) and one including All. For each model, a minimum support of 10% (i.e. any rules that constituted less than 10% of total occurrences were not analysed) and confidence of 90% were required in order for a rule to be constructed. All analyses were undertaken in the R computing environment (R core team [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>], version 3.6.1, Vienna, Austria).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-9">Results</hd> <p>In total, 2495 questions were coded for the analysis. The descriptive statistics (i.e. mean; standard deviation; minimum; maximum) from the questioning profile coding system are presented in Table 2. In addition, the percentage of each coded descriptor is provided – relative to the total number of questions asked per session. Descriptive statistics for the profile of specific questions (i.e. divergent and convergent) are presented in Table 3. Table 4 shows the distribution of time across different types of activities. It shows that the largest proportion of coaching time was allocated to larger and small sided games.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the coded questions asked during a youth soccer coaching session.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Category</td><td>Sub-category</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Minimum</td><td>Maximum</td><td>Percentage of total questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Type</td><td>Convergent</td><td char=".">37.20</td><td char=".">12.04</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">52.18</td></tr><tr><td>Divergent</td><td char=".">34.09</td><td char=".">25.41</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">98</td><td char=".">47.82</td></tr><tr><td>Context</td><td>Huddle</td><td char=".">13.94</td><td char=".">9.03</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">38</td><td char=".">19.55</td></tr><tr><td>Activity Ongoing</td><td char=".">18.66</td><td char=".">12.21</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">26.17</td></tr><tr><td>Freeze</td><td char=".">38.69</td><td char=".">19.25</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">99</td><td char=".">54.27</td></tr><tr><td>Who</td><td>Team</td><td char=".">36.91</td><td char=".">15.70</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">74</td><td char=".">51.78</td></tr><tr><td>Individual or group but others are waiting</td><td char=".">19.20</td><td char=".">14.15</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">74</td><td char=".">26.93</td></tr><tr><td>Group – others keep going</td><td char=".">4.57</td><td char=".">7.13</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">6.41</td></tr><tr><td>Individual – others keep going</td><td char=".">10.60</td><td char=".">8.23</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">14.87</td></tr><tr><td>What</td><td>Technique</td><td char=".">4.26</td><td char=".">5.18</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">5.97</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional</td><td char=".">20.94</td><td char=".">9.84</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">29.38</td></tr><tr><td>General Questions</td><td char=".">4.60</td><td char=".">3.73</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">6.45</td></tr><tr><td>Tactics/principles</td><td char=".">38.86</td><td char=".">24.38</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">104</td><td char=".">54.51</td></tr><tr><td>Problem Solving</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">3.49</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">3.69</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge</td><td>Lower order</td><td char=".">53.89</td><td char=".">17.81</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">88</td><td char=".">75.59</td></tr><tr><td>Higher order</td><td char=".">17.40</td><td char=".">13.36</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">50</td><td char=".">24.41</td></tr><tr><td>Practice Activity</td><td>Session Introduction</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">4.45</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">4.37</td></tr><tr><td>Individual</td><td char=".">1.63</td><td char=".">3.88</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">2.28</td></tr><tr><td>Drills</td><td char=".">17.77</td><td char=".">16.86</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">79</td><td char=".">24.93</td></tr><tr><td>Small-Sided Games</td><td char=".">24.91</td><td char=".">22.81</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">85</td><td char=".">34.95</td></tr><tr><td>Large Games</td><td char=".">23.86</td><td char=".">20.44</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">67</td><td char=".">33.47</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. The percentage of divergent (<emph>M</emph> = 34.09) and convergent (<emph>M</emph> = 37.20) questions relative to the specific coded sub-category.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td>Divergent questions (Mean = 34.09)</td><td>Convergent questions (Mean = 37.20)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>%</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Context</td><td>Huddle</td><td char=".">6.40</td><td char=".">6.34</td><td char=".">18.79</td><td char=".">7.54</td><td char=".">4.40</td><td char=".">20.26</td></tr><tr><td>Activity Ongoing</td><td char=".">5.11</td><td char=".">7.24</td><td char=".">15.02</td><td char=".">13.54</td><td char=".">8.95</td><td char=".">36.38</td></tr><tr><td>Freeze</td><td char=".">22.54</td><td char=".">17.50</td><td char=".">66.19</td><td char=".">16.14</td><td char=".">7.71</td><td char=".">43.36</td></tr><tr><td>Who</td><td>Team</td><td char=".">16.71</td><td char=".">13.21</td><td char=".">49.07</td><td char=".">20.20</td><td char=".">8.73</td><td char=".">54.26</td></tr><tr><td>Individual or group but others are waiting</td><td char=".">11.37</td><td char=".">10.95</td><td char=".">33.39</td><td char=".">7.83</td><td char=".">5.82</td><td char=".">21.03</td></tr><tr><td>Group – others keep going</td><td char=".">2.66</td><td char=".">4.55</td><td char=".">7.80</td><td char=".">1.91</td><td char=".">3.30</td><td char=".">5.14</td></tr><tr><td>Individual – others keep going</td><td char=".">3.31</td><td char=".">5.66</td><td char=".">9.74</td><td char=".">7.29</td><td char=".">4.66</td><td char=".">19.57</td></tr><tr><td>What</td><td>Technique</td><td char=".">1.69</td><td char=".">2.42</td><td char=".">4.95</td><td char=".">2.57</td><td char=".">3.55</td><td char=".">6.91</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional</td><td char=".">1.57</td><td char=".">2.39</td><td char=".">4.62</td><td char=".">19.37</td><td char=".">9.54</td><td char=".">52.03</td></tr><tr><td>General Questions</td><td char=".">0.46</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">1.34</td><td char=".">4.14</td><td char=".">3.46</td><td char=".">11.13</td></tr><tr><td>Tactics/principles</td><td char=".">27.71</td><td char=".">22.69</td><td char=".">81.37</td><td char=".">11.14</td><td char=".">6.49</td><td char=".">29.93</td></tr><tr><td>Problem Solving</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">3.49</td><td char=".">7.72</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge</td><td>Lower order</td><td char=".">17.17</td><td char=".">13.82</td><td char=".">50.42</td><td char=".">36.71</td><td char=".">12.00</td><td char=".">98.62</td></tr><tr><td>Higher order</td><td char=".">16.89</td><td char=".">13.22</td><td char=".">49.58</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">1.38</td></tr><tr><td>Practice Activity</td><td>Session Introduction</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">2.13</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">1.74</td><td char=".">2.80</td><td char=".">4.68</td></tr><tr><td>Individual</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">3.68</td></tr><tr><td>Drills</td><td char=".">7.46</td><td char=".">9.80</td><td char=".">21.89</td><td char=".">10.31</td><td char=".">10.15</td><td char=".">27.71</td></tr><tr><td>Small-Sided Games</td><td char=".">13.60</td><td char=".">17.22</td><td char=".">39.93</td><td char=".">11.31</td><td char=".">8.34</td><td char=".">30.39</td></tr><tr><td>Large Games</td><td char=".">11.37</td><td char=".">12.99</td><td char=".">33.39</td><td char=".">12.49</td><td char=".">9.95</td><td char=".">33.54</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. The average time (seconds) and percentage of the training session spent in each coded activity type.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Average time (seconds)</td><td>Percentage of training time</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individual Activity</td><td char=".">304.91</td><td char=".">310.59</td><td char=".">6.32</td><td char=".">6.92</td></tr><tr><td>Drills</td><td char=".">711.37</td><td char=".">535.88</td><td char=".">14.59</td><td char=".">11.37</td></tr><tr><td>SSG</td><td char=".">865.00</td><td char=".">617.92</td><td char=".">18.44</td><td char=".">14.09</td></tr><tr><td>Larger Games</td><td char=".">1169.11</td><td char=".">840.52</td><td char=".">23.52</td><td char=".">17.02</td></tr><tr><td>Transitions</td><td char=".">306.09</td><td char=".">197.19</td><td char=".">6.15</td><td char=".">3.80</td></tr><tr><td>Huddle</td><td char=".">465.34</td><td char=".">263.78</td><td char=".">9.41</td><td char=".">4.98</td></tr><tr><td>Freeze</td><td char=".">799.00</td><td char=".">413.40</td><td char=".">16.53</td><td char=".">8.13</td></tr><tr><td>Drink Break</td><td char=".">252.14</td><td char=".">128.45</td><td char=".">5.04</td><td char=".">2.47</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Results from each of the six rule models are reported below. For each model, two rules are presented. These rules (a) meet each of the selection criteria reported for each model and (b) have practical relevance from a coaching perspective. In combination, they illustrate the utility of the analysis with respect to the aims of the study. To provide further context relating to the rules, examples from the data are also presented.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-10">Overall session</hd> <p>A total of 2495 questions were asked during the whole session model. Among the most notable patterns was one captured by 'Rule 8', which consisted of: Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Context = Freeze Who = Team What = instructional 253==> Knowledge = Lower Order 253 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>)>. This rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 253 occasions when a convergent question is posed, that it is instructional, to the team, during a freeze and only requires lower order knowledge.</p> <p>Rule 25. Context = Freeze What = Tactics/Principle Knowledge = Higher Order 392 ==> Type of Question = <bold>Divergent/Open Questions</bold> 380 <confidence:(0.97)>. This rule indicates, with 97% confidence, for 392 occasions when the coach asks the players to freeze, and asks a tactics/principle and higher order question, most of these are divergent questions (380 instances).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-11">Session introduction</hd> <p>A total of 109 questions were asked in the session introduction model. Among the most notable was 'Rule 11' which consisted of: Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Who = Team Knowledge = Lower Order 39 ==> Context = Player Huddle 39 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>)>. This rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 39 occasions when a lower order convergent question is posed to the team, it occurs in a player huddle.</p> <p>At the start of the session, for the coach to determine the physical condition of the players (as this may influence the structure of the session), coaches would bring the players into a huddle, and ask convergent questions to the team related to the previous day's session or game (external to the coaches session; school game), for example, 'How did you all go yesterday? Any injuries?' (Coach 7).</p> <p>Rule 37. Type of Question = <bold>Divergent/Open Questions</bold> Who = Team What = Tactics/Principle 23 ==> Context = Player Huddle 23 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>)>. The rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 23 occasions when the coach asks a divergent question to the team related to tactics/principles, it occurs in a player huddle.</p> <p>At the start of a session the coach would introduce the session aim and then clarify what the players knew in relation to this aim, for example with the players in a huddle the coach would ask a question such as 'what do we know about running with the ball and protecting it?' (Coach 11) or 'why do we want to have good first touch into space?' (Coach 19).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-12">Individual activity</hd> <p>A total of 57 questions were asked in the Individual Model. Of the 30 rules output, Rule 6 consisted of Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Who = Team What = instructional 28 ==> Knowledge = Lower Order 28 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>)>. This rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 28 occasions when a convergent question is posed to the team and is instructional, it involved lower order thinking.</p> <p>During an individual activity, such as the session warm-up, coaches would provide instruction questions to the players such as, 'Can we slow down the jog coming back please – it is too fast' (Coach 10).</p> <p>Due to the small number of divergent open questions asked (<emph>n</emph> = 9), no rules met the 10% minimum support and therefore no rules were created.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-13">Drill</hd> <p>A total of 622 questions were asked in the Drill model. Among the most salient rules, 'Rule 9' consisted of: Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Context = Freeze Who = Team What = instructional 103 ==> Knowledge = Lower Order 103 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>)>. This rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 103 occasions when a convergent question is posed to the team during a freeze and is instructional, it involves lower order thinking.</p> <p>During an activity, the coach stops the drill and checks what the players were doing wrong. Following another demonstration, the coach then makes sure the players understand the task properly – 'Everybody understand what we are doing then?' (Coach 17).</p> <p>Rule 24. Context = Freeze What = Tactics/Principle Knowledge = Higher Order 101 ==> Type of Question = <bold>Divergent/Open Questions</bold> 98 <confidence:(0.97)>. The rule indicates, with 97% confidence, for 101 occasions when the coach asks a question during a freeze about tactics/principles of a higher order, the majority of the time it was a divergent question (98 instances).</p> <p>During a drill, the coach stops the activity and gets the players to freeze in position. They then ask a question related to the tactical principle they were highlighting in the activity – 'If you come in to receive, can you hit Player 1? Why were you sitting so far away and what happened as soon as you came out here?' (Coach 5).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-14">Small sided games</hd> <p>The small-sided game Model included 872 questions. One notable example of the 30 rules output was Rule 8. Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Context = Freeze Who = Team 117 ==> Knowledge = Lower Order 115 <confidence:(0.98)>. This rule indicates, with 98% confidence, for the 117 occasions when a convergent question is posed to the team during a freeze, the majority of times it involved lower order knowledge (115 instances).</p> <p>After briefly observing a small sided game, coaches will generally stop the activity and get the players to freeze in position and then ask convergent questions to the group in relation to the focus of the activity, for instance, 'Do you understand the shape with how you will defend? One goes, one stays?' – (Coach 12) and 'now can you see all the passing lanes you've got?' (Coach 2).</p> <p>Rule 24. Type of Question = <bold>Divergent/Open Questions</bold> Who = individual or group but others are waiting What = Tactics/Principle 139 ==> Context = Freeze 131 <confidence:(0.94)>. The rule indicates, with 94% confidence, for 139 occasions when the coach asks a divergent question about tactics/principles, to a player or group and the other players are waiting, this generally occurs in a freeze (131 instances).</p> <p>During a small sided game, coaches generally have the players freeze in position and then ask questions to an individual player while the group waits for the response. For instance, 'When XX has the ball and the defenders are like that, where could you go to receive the ball?' (Coach 14); or 'XX after you made that pass you looked to see where the reds were – where were they?' [player responds]; 'and where did you go?' [player responds]; and where is there no one? [player responds] (Coach 1).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-15">Large games</hd> <p>For the large games, 835 questions were considered in the rule model. Rule 6 – Type of Question = <bold>Convergent/Closed Question</bold> Who = Individual Player other keep going 114 ==> Knowledge = Lower Order 114 <confidence:(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>)>. This rule indicates, with 100% confidence, for the 114 occasions when a convergent question is posed to an individual player while the other players keep playing, it involves lower order thinking.</p> <p>During a large sided game, coaches generally asked questions on the go, for instance, they would enter the playing area and speak to a player off the ball and ask them a question, such as 'XX was your first touch into space??' (Coach 9) or 'Can we create opportunities to get one of our players into midfield in control possession?' – (coach 16).</p> <p>Rule 29. Type of Question = <bold>Divergent/Open Questions</bold> Who = individual or group but others are waiting What = Tactics/Principle 143 ==> Context = Freeze 132 <confidence:(0.92)>. The rule indicates, with 92% confidence, for 143 occasions when the coach asks a divergent question about tactics/principles, to a player or group and the other players are waiting, this mainly occurs in a freeze (132 instances).</p> <p>During a large sided game, coaches generally asked tactical/principle divergent questions to an individual player within a freeze situation. For example, 'It was a 3v1, what led you to decide to dribble out of that situation?' (Coach 17) or 'XXX how are you helping your teammates there?'; 'what could you have done better here?' and 'XXX where do you need to be' (Coach 11).</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Researchers have explored questioning in a sports coaching context in relation to frequency of questions and athlete-coach interactions (Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>]; Ford, Yates, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref79">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>]). However, little is known about the structure and taxonomy of coach questioning strategies. The results of the current study highlight how youth soccer coaches, implementing the FFA National Curriculum, have used questioning techniques within specific coaching contexts/activities to potentially promote athlete learning. From a descriptive perspective, coaches asked on average 71 questions per session (0.88 questions per minute), with slightly more use of convergent (i.e. closed) questions (52.2%) than divergent (i.e. open) questions (47.8%). From a structural perspective, generally coaches use convergent (i.e. closed) questions that are instructional and involve lower order thinking. In contrast, divergent (i.e. open) questions are generally related to a game tactic or principle and are asked when the team has stopped an activity. Ideally, coaches should move between types of questions based on the needs of their athletes and the nature of the situation. For example, coaches may start with questions of recall and understanding and get players to build on this knowledge by progressing to asking players to interpret cues, analyse the situation, develop solutions/actions and then evaluate their previous decisions and actions in determining what worked and what didn't. If players struggle to find answers, then coaches can rephrase the question, provide players more time to respond, or let them work together to come up with solutions (Hill [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref81">26</reflink>]; Long, Blankenburg, and Butani [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In comparison to previously published findings (Harvey, Cushion, and Massa-Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]), the descriptive results from the current study would suggest coaches pose more questions to their athletes within a coaching session. This potentially reflects the emphasis placed on questioning as an athlete learning strategy within the FFA National Curriculum. In addition, the current results indicate coaches ask a higher proportion of divergent questions during a session than previously reported (Harvey, Cushion, and Massa-Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref88">43</reflink>]). However, it should be noted the large SD (34 ± 25) recorded indicates considerable variation between coaches in their use of this questioning technique. This finding could be due to several factors, including the confidence of the coach to ask divergent questions, coach understanding of their athletes' needs and capabilities (Long, Blankenburg, and Butani [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]; Caram and Davis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>]), or the belief that divergent questions develop decision-making skills (O'Connor, Larkin, and Williams [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref91">39</reflink>]; O'Connor et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]). While this was not specifically an aim of the current paper, further research should consider elaborating on this by asking coaches to recall why they have posed a certain question, and at that specific time in the session.</p> <p>From a model perspective, rule-based solutions are particularly useful when multiple features exist in large datasets, as analytical approaches like this are able to help identify meaningful patterns in situations where researchers are overwhelmed by the data and unable to recognise such patterns without such an aid. They do so not only by identifying complex interactions between features, but also identifying the frequency of these interactions within a data set. In this paper, they have the benefit of describing questioning behaviour/profiles of coaches during certain sections of a training session in enhanced detail. This can lead to greater insights into the efficacy of such approaches, or to help better define the distinct 'styles' or profiles typically implemented by a coach or in a particular activity. As access to more data types continues to grow in these environments, the benefit of these analytical approaches over human observations will only become more pronounced. The rule models indicated some clear patterns when considering the structure and profile of the type of question (i.e. convergent; divergent) asked in the different training session activity types. For convergent questions, the rule based analysis indicated that across individual, drills and small-sided games, coaches asked questions to the team, which were instructional in nature and required lower level knowledge. This may be an example of a naïve form of constructivism whereby coaches' use instructional questions and believe they are effective (as they are questioning rather than telling them what to do), however, they may actually be limiting the players knowledge, as they are not able to construct new knowledge (Cope and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]; Cushion [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]). As such, the 'power' of learning is still with the coach who is making the decisions and determining the subsequent player actions (i.e. how the game may be played – 3 touches etc ...).</p> <p>For large games, the convergent question was more targeted to the individual while the activity was on-going, but still required lower level knowledge. While lower order questioning requires only lower levels of cognition and positions the athletes as responders, a coach may use this type of questioning to assess athlete understanding (i.e. 'which passing option is best from here, forward or backwards?'), recall of key cues (i.e. 'when you see the defence step up, what should you do?'), comprehending the activity (i.e. 'does everyone understand what we are doing in the activity then?'), and direct the athlete's attention toward specific aspects of the game environment and potential outcomes (Raab and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref95">50</reflink>]). Further, the responses players provide to questions posed may assist the coach in deciding when and how to progress the activity or session (Mitchell, Oslin, and Griffin [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref96">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>With respect to divergent questioning there is a greater focus on higher order thinking, through the formulation and reflection of ideas. It also stimulates critical thinking and problem solving which players can then test within the game-play environment (Chambers and Vickers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref97">7</reflink>]; Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref99">32</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref100">42</reflink>]; Práxedes et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref101">49</reflink>]). The divergent questioning rule models for each type of activity indicate coaches generally ask the question to the whole group, with the question having an emphasis on a key game tactic or principle. The potential benefit associated with divergent questions is they promote deeper level thinking: stimulating the athletes to go beneath the surface appearance of the problem (Kracl [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>]). However, it should be noted that while divergent questions should provide more opportunities for higher order thinking, in the current study, approximately 50% of the divergent questions asked by coaches only required lower order thinking – that is, questions which assess an individual's ability to recall and understand a single fact about the sport-specific problem. Further evidence of this was that only 7% of divergent questions asked players to problem solve. This potentially reduces athletes' opportunities to evaluate a situation and formulate their next decision or action. This finding supports education-based research which indicates that, despite evidence to suggest the benefit to learning from the use of divergent higher-order questions, this is not reflected in practice, with teachers predominantly using lower-order, recall questions (Jiang [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>]; Tan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref104">54</reflink>]). However, using limited problem-solving questions may reflect the capability of the athletes, within the specific context, to respond to such questions. Asking unrealistically challenging questions may lead athletes to lose self-confidence and becoming disengaged from the task (Long, Blankenburg, and Butani [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref105">31</reflink>]). Therefore, as researchers highlight the relationship between the complexity/type of question posed and the level of athlete thinking required for depth of learning (Chambers and Vickers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref106">7</reflink>]; Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref107">10</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref108">32</reflink>]; Práxedes et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref109">49</reflink>]), coaches should consider when it is appropriate to use higher order problem solving divergent questions to promote athlete development.</p> <p>While the results may suggest coaches are attempting to ask more questions to their athletes in comparison to previous studies (Potrac, Jones, and Armour [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref110">47</reflink>]; Potrac, Jones, and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref111">48</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref112">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref113">43</reflink>]), more attention needs to be paid to who they are posing the question to. The results suggest the coaches predominately pose divergent questions to the whole group. However, whole group questioning has been shown to be less effective for athlete understanding compared to inductive questioning scaffolded for an individual or small group (Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref114">10</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref115">32</reflink>]). A potential issue with posing whole group questions is some athletes will not answer a question while others may dominate the responses. This may be influenced by the confidence of the athlete in their ability to articulate their thoughts. Coaches could address this issue by giving everyone time to think of an answer before asking one or more players to share their answers. Further, coaches need to be aware of whether the question relates to the whole team or specific athletes. If they believe the question is important for the whole group, then they need to ensure everyone is fully engaged (i.e. all athletes can hear and potentially respond). However, if the question is only relevant for one or several players, they could consider whether questioning on the run is more effective. Harvey and Light ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref116">25</reflink>]) recommend the 'debate of ideas' as a strategy coaches can employ to achieve greater athlete engagement and discussion during several 'tactical time-outs'. Based on Gréhaigne, Richard, and Griffin's ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref117">22</reflink>]) framework of four generic tactical questions, the coach pre-plans the questions for small groups of players to discuss while the coach moves from group to group listening and adding probing questions if required. The scaffolded questions encourage players to reflect, analyse and debate amongst themselves, providing a better understanding of each other's perspectives (Harvey and Light [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref118">25</reflink>]; Hill [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref119">26</reflink>]). Therefore, while coaches may be encouraged to use questioning within the learning environment to promote student/athlete learning (Butler [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]; Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>]; Football Federation Australia [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref122">18</reflink>]) there is still limited empirical evidence to demonstrate their practical effectiveness as an athlete teaching and learning strategy.</p> <p>While researchers promote the benefits associated with effective questioning techniques (Chambers and Vickers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref123">7</reflink>]; Cope et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref124">10</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref125">32</reflink>]; Práxedes et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref126">49</reflink>]), when exploring questioning techniques and performance, interventions tend to couple questioning techniques with other pedagogical tools, such as instruction or feedback behaviours (Chambers and Vickers [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref127">7</reflink>]; García-González et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref128">20</reflink>]). The lack of studies which have focused on questioning as a learning strategy within interventions impacts the ability to establish causal relationships between teacher questioning and student learning outcomes. While we acknowledge it would be challenging for researchers to develop interventions to isolate questions as a pedagogical technique (e.g. 'test' questions providing retrieval practice; Binks [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref129">3</reflink>] Dirkx, Kester, and Kirschner [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref130">15</reflink>]), researchers should consider taking an ecological research approach by examining the combination of learning environment, questioning strategies, and learner preparation that makes for success.</p> <p>This is one of the first studies to explore the nature and structure of coach questioning within real coaching environments. Findings are limited by some aspects of the study design and further research is needed to pursue some of the following matters more deeply. First, while the data provides an overview of the number of questions asked during certain activities, the time engaged in each kind of activity was not equal and therefore direct comparisons between the number and type of questions asked during each kind of activity is not straightforward. Future studies exploring the structure of coaches' questions may control for the time invested in certain activities to provide clear comparisons between the structures of questions within these different practice activities. Second, the data collected provide a descriptive account of the type of question, when it was asked and to whom. However, the data do not allow exploration of why the question was asked – the specific purpose for the question. Further, we acknowledge the lack of player voice in the study, which may also limit the understanding of the outcome of the intended question. Future studies should consider the perspectives of coaches and athletes to determine why questions were asked, and how effective they were in reaching their intended purposes. Finally, the data collected does not consider the effect of the questioning on the athletes' performance. While questioning has been proposed as an effective pedagogical tool (Harvey and Light [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref131">25</reflink>]; Kidman et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref132">28</reflink>]; O'Connor et al. 2018), the current findings do not indicate how the question may have effected athlete performance of a skill, either positively or negatively. Future studies may consider implementing an intervention programme which measures the impact of a certain questioning technique or style and the potential benefits they may have on athlete performance.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>In summary, our findings show that youth soccer coaches use an array of questioning types to potentially promote athlete learning. In comparison to previous research, coaches pose more questions (Harvey, Cushion, and Massa-Gonzalez [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref133">24</reflink>]; Partington and Cushion [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref134">42</reflink>]; Partington, Cushion, and Harvey [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref135">43</reflink>]), of which a higher proportion are divergent questions (with these evenly split between lower order and higher order questions), which possibly reflects the FFA National Curriculum's emphasis on questioning as an athlete learning strategy. The rule models extends current knowledge by revealing clear patterns when considering the structure and profile of questions, for example, when divergent questions are asked during small-sided games and large games, the coach generally asks the players to stop where they are (freeze) and directs a tactical question to an individual player or the group. Convergent questions on the other hand, were predominantly instructional, involving lower order thinking. While lower order questioning requires only lower levels of cognition to assess athlete understanding, recall, comprehension, and direct attention toward specific information, coaches should consider players capabilities when determining which type of question best suits the situation and be prepared to move between cognitive levels depending on player responses.</p> <p>This research provides an understanding of current coach questioning practice, and by knowing what we currently do we can modify practice to create better opportunities for athlete learning. A key application for coaches is taking the time to specifically plan questions to ensure they guide and promote particular athlete knowledge and behavioural actions (Pill [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref136">46</reflink>]). To achieve this coaches may consider scaffolding questions within the session to ensure an appropriate sequence of questions addressing athlete learning needs while building towards more complex understanding and applications (Pill [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref137">46</reflink>]). Overall, the findings from the study provide an initial exploration of the type of questions asked by coaches within the coaching environment, to provide insight in how they are used by to potentially promote athlete learning. To develop further understanding, future research should consider coaches and athletes perspectives to determine the purpose of questions asked and how effective they were in reaching their intended purpose. Although the current study is unable to determine the explicit impact of FFA's focus of questioning techniques to promote athlete learning, researchers may now consider implementing intervention programmes which examine how questioning techniques impact athlete learning.</p> <hd id="AN0155971652-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0155971652-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, N. E. 2015. " Asking a Great Question: A Librarian Teaches Questioning Skills to First-Year Medical Students." Medical Reference Services Quarterly 34 (4): 418 – 427. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2015.1052691.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amorose, Anthony J. 2007. " Coaching Effectiveness: Exploring the Relationship Between Coaching Behavior and Self-Determined Motivation." In Self-determination Theory in Exercise and Sport, edited by M. S. Hagger and N. L. D. Chatzisarantis, 209 – 227. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Binks, Sally. 2018. " Testing Enhances Learning: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Professional Nursing 34 (3): 205 – 210. DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.08.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bloom, Benjamin S, Max Engelhart, Edward Furst, Walker Hill, and David Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY : David McKay Company Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref120" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, Joy I. 2005. " TGfU Pet-Agogy: Old Dogs, New Tricks and Puppy School." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10 (3): 225 – 240. DOI: 10.1080/17408980500340752.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Caram, Chris, and Patsy Davis. 2005. " Inviting Student Engagement with Questioning." Kappa Delta Pi Record 42 (1): 19 – 23. DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2005.10532080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref44" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chambers, Kristine L., and Joan N. Vickers. 2006. " Effects of Bandwidth Feedback and Questioning on the Performance of Competitive Swimmers." Sport Psychologist 20 (2): 184 – 197. DOI: 10.1123/tsp.20.2.184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, Jacob. 1992. " A Power Primer." Psychological Bulletin 112 (1): 115 – 159. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref93" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cope, Ed, and Chris Cushion. 2020. " A Move Towards Reconceptualising Direct Instruction in Sport Coaching Pedagogy." Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching 18 : Chapter 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cope, Ed, Mark Partington, Christopher J. Cushion, and Stephen Harvey. 2016. " An Investigation of Professional Top-Level Youth Football Coaches' Questioning Practice." Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 8 (4): 380 – 393. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2016.1157829.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cushion, Christopher. 2010. " Coach Behaviour." In Sports Coaching Professionalization and Practice, edited by J. Lyle and C. J. Cushion, 43 – 62. London, England : Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cushion, Christopher. 2013. " Applying Game Centered Approaches in Coaching: A Critical Analysis of the 'Dilemmas of Practice' Impacting Change." Sports Coaching Review 2 (1): 61 – 76. DOI: 10.1080/21640629.2013.861312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cushion, Christopher, Stephen Harvey, Bob Muir, and Lee Nelson. 2012. " Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS): Establishing Validity and Reliability of a Computerised Systematic Observation Instrument." Journal of Sports Sciences 30 (2): 201 – 216. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2011.635310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey, Noel, David Richardson, Ed Cope, and Colum Cronin. 2020. " Creating and Disseminating Coach Education Policy: A Case of Formal Coach Education in Grassroots Football." Sport, Education and Society. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2020.1802711.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dirkx, Kim, Liesbeth Kester, and Paul A. Kirschner. 2014. " The Testing Effect for Learning Principles and Procedures from Texts." The Journal of Educational Research 107 (5): 357 – 364. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2013.823370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eather, Narelle, Brad Jones, Andrew Miller, and Phillip J Morgan. 2020. " Evaluating the Impact of a Coach Development Intervention for Improving Coaching Practices in Junior Football (Soccer): The 'MASTER' Pilot Study." Journal of Sports Sciences 38 (11-12): 1441 – 1453. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1621002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engin, Marion. 2013. " Questioning to Scaffold: An Exploration of Questions in Pre-service Teacher Training Feedback Sessions." European Journal of Teacher Education 36 (1): 39 – 54. DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2012.678485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Football Federation Australia. 2013. The National Football Curriculum: The Roadmap to International Success. Sydney, Australia : Football Federation Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, Paul R., Ian Yates, and A. Mark Williams. 2010. " An Analysis of Practice Activities and Instructional Behaviours Used by Youth Soccer Coaches During Practice: Exploring the Link Between Science and Application." Journal of Sports Sciences 28 (5): 483 – 495. DOI: 10.1080/02640410903582750.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-González, Luis, Alberto Moreno, Alexander Gil, M. Perla Moreno, and Fernando Del Villar. 2014. " Effects of Decision Training on Decision Making and Performance in Young Tennis Players: An Applied Research." Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 26 (4): 426 – 440. DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2014.917441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gréhaigne, Jean-Francis, Paul Godbout, and Daniel Bouthier. 2001. " The Teaching and Learning of Decision Making in Team Sports." Quest 53 (1): 59 – 76. DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2001.10491730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gréhaigne, Jean-Francis, Jean-François Richard, and Linda Griffin. 2005. Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. 1st Edition. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hahsler, Michael, Christian Buchta, Bettina Gruen, Kurt Hornik, Ian Johnson, Christian Borgelt, and Maintainer Michael Hahsler. 2019. "Package 'Arules'".</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, Stephen, Christopher Cushion, and Ada N. Massa-Gonzalez. 2010. " Learning a new Method: Teaching Games for Understanding in the Coaches' Eyes." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15 (4): 361 – 382. DOI: 10.1080/17408980903535818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, Stephen, and Richard Light. 2015. " Questioning for Learning in Game-Based Approaches to Teaching and Coaching." Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & Physical Education 6 (2): 175 – 190. DOI: 10.1080/18377122.2015.1051268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, Joan. 2016. " Questioning Techniques: A Study of Instructional Practice." Peabody Journal of Education 91 (5): 660 – 671. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1227190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang, Yan. 2014. " Exploring Teacher Questioning as a Formative Assessment Strategy." RELC Journal 45 (3): 287 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214546962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidman, Lynn, Rod Thorpe, Robyn L. Jones, and Craig Lewis. 2001. Developing Decision Makers: An Empowerment Approach to Coaching. Christchurch, New Zealand : IPC Print Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kracl, Carrie L. 2012. " Review or True? Using Higher-Level Thinking Questions in Social Studies Instruction." The Social Studies 103 (2): 57 – 60. DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2011.586382.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, Richard L., Stephen Harvey, and Alain Mouchet. 2014. " Improving 'At-Action' Decision-Making in Team Sports Through a Holistic Coaching Approach." Sport, Education and Society 19 (3): 258 – 275. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2012.665803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, Michele, Rebecca Blankenburg, and Lavjay Butani. 2015. " Questioning as a Teaching Tool." Pediatrics 135 (3): 406 – 408. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill, Michael C., Joan M. Fry, Steven C. Wright, Clara WK Tan, and Tony Rossi. 2008. " Structuring Time and Questioning to Achieve Tactical Awareness in Games Lessons." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13 (3): 231 – 249. DOI: 10.1080/17408980701345766.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, Michael. 2000. Instructional Models for Physical Education. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, S., J. Oslin, and L. Griffin. 2006. Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill, M., and F. Dunkin. 2005. " Questioning Learning." Language and Education 19 (5): 415 – 427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York : McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, Donna, and Paul Larkin. 2015. " Decision-making and Tactical Knowledge, an Australian Perspective to their Development in Youth Players." In International Research in Science and Soccer II, edited by Terrence Favero, Barry Drust, and Brian Dawson, 204 – 214. London, UK : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, Donna, Paul Larkin, and Höner Oliver. 2020. " Coaches' Use of Game-Based Approaches in Team Sports." In Perspectives on Game-Based Coaching Shane Pill, 117 – 126. London, UK : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, Donna, Paul Larkin, and A. Mark Williams. 2017. " What Learning Environments Help Improve Decision-Making? " Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22 (6): 647 – 660. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2017.1294678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, Donna, Paul Larkin, and A. Mark Williams. 2018a. " Observations of Youth Football Training: How Do Coaches Structure Training Sessions for Player Development? " Journal of Sports Sciences 36 (1): 39 – 47. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1277034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, Donna, Dewa Wardak, Peter Goodyear, Paul Larkin, and A. Mark Williams. 2018b. " Conceptualising Decision-Making and Its Development: A Phenomenographic Analysis." Science and Medicine in Football 2 (4): 261 – 271. DOI: 10.1080/24733938.2018.1472388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partington, Mark, and C. Cushion. 2013. " An Investigation of the Practice Activities and Coaching Behaviors of Professional Top-Level Youth Soccer Coaches." Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 23 (3): 374 – 382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partington, Mark, Christopher Cushion, and Stephen Harvey. 2014. " An Investigation of the Effect of Athletes' Age on the Coaching Behaviours of Professional Top-Level Youth Soccer Coaches." Journal of Sports Sciences 32 (5): 403 – 414. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2013.835063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, Philip, and Paul Webb. 2008. "Developing Effective Questioning in Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)." 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education Conference: Ngunyawaiendi Yerthoappendi Play to Educate, Adelaide, 21 January.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pill, Shane. 2015. " Using Appreciative Inquiry to Explore Australian Football Coaches' Experience with Game Sense Coaching." Sport, Education and Society 20 (6): 799 – 818. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2013.831343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pill, Shane. 2016. "Making Learning Visible – The Pedagogy of Questioning in a Game Sense Approach." In 2015 Game Sense for Teachers and Coaches Conference: Proceedings. Edited by J. Bruce and C. North (pp. 143–155), Christchurch, New Zealand.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potrac, Paul, Robyn Jones, and Kathleen Armour. 2002. " It's All About Getting Respect': The Coaching Behaviors of an Expert English Soccer Coach." Sport, Education and Society 7 (2): 183 – 202. DOI: 10.1080/1357332022000018869.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potrac, Paul, Robyn Jones, and Christopher Cushion. 2007. " Understanding Power and the Coach's Role in Professional English Soccer: A Preliminary Investigation of Coach Behaviour." Soccer and Society 8 (1): 33 – 49. DOI: 10.1080/14660970600989509.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Práxedes, Alba, Alberto Moreno, Javier Sevil, Luis García-González, and Fernando Del Villar. 2016. " A Preliminary Study of the Effects of a Comprehensive Teaching Program, Based on Questioning, to Improve Tactical Actions in Young Footballers." Perceptual and Motor Skills 122 (3): 742 – 756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516649716.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raab, Markus, and Joseph G. Johnson. 2007. " Expertise-Based Differences in Search and Option-Generation Strategies." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 13 (3): 158 – 170. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.3.158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria : R Foundation for Statistical Computing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renshaw, Ian, and Jia-Yi Chow. 2019. " A Constraint-Led Approach to Sport and Physical Education Pedagogy." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24 (2): 103 – 116. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shim, Woo-jeong, and Kelley Walczak. 2012. " The Impact of Faculty Teaching Practices on the Development of Students' Critical Thinking Skills." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24 (1): 16 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, Zhi. 2007. " Questioning in Chinese University EL Classrooms: What Lies Beyond It? " RELC Journal 38 (1): 87 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tofade, Toyin, Jamie Elsner, and Stuart T. Haines. 2013. " Best Practice Strategies for Effective Use of Questions as a Teaching Tool." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77 (7): article 155. doi: 10.5688/ajpe777155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, Jackie A, and Beth D Sattes. 2016. Quality Questioning: Research-Based Practice to Engage Every Learner. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Donna O'Connor; Paul Larkin; Sam Robertson and Peter Goodyear</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1340618
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Art of the Question: The Structure of Questions Posed by Youth Soccer Coaches during Training
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22O'Connor%2C+Donna%22">O'Connor, Donna</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1825-2727">0000-0003-1825-2727</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Larkin%2C+Paul%22">Larkin, Paul</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-4148">0000-0002-0493-4148</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robertson%2C+Sam%22">Robertson, Sam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8330-0011">0000-0002-8330-0011</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Goodyear%2C+Peter%22">Goodyear, Peter</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9903-737X">0000-0001-9903-737X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2022 27(3):304-319.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Sports%22">Team Sports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletic+Coaches%22">Athletic Coaches</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletes%22">Athletes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth+Programs%22">Youth Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drills+%28Practice%29%22">Drills (Practice)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2021.1877270
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: From a sports perspective, pedagogical researchers have suggested questioning is an effective instructional tool and pedagogical strategy for developing critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making skills. Questions enable coaches to contextualise athlete learning by encouraging and guiding them to identify and explore solutions to game-based problems. While previous investigations have explored the frequency of questions and provided some understanding of the interactions within a coaching session, there is still limited empirical knowledge related to the structure and profile of coach questioning strategies. Purpose: This study aims to explore how youth soccer coaches, implementing the FFA National Curriculum, have used questioning techniques within specific coaching contexts/activities to promote athlete learning. Method: Australian youth soccer coaches (i.e. U12-U16; n = 19) were filmed during regular training sessions. A questioning profile coding system was developed and used to provide a detailed profile of the types of questions asked by the coaches in different coaching situations. The frequency of each coded event (i.e. type, context, who, what, knowledge, and activity) was recorded. Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) were used to describe all coded information. Association rule models were generated to determine the extent to which a questioning profile descriptor (i.e. Question Type, Knowledge, Context, Who, What) occurred in the presence of another. Results: Coaches asked on average 71 questions per session (0.88 questions per minute), with slightly greater use of convergent (i.e. closed) questions (52.2%) than divergent (i.e. open) questions (47.8%). Coaches use convergent questions that are instructional and promote lower order thinking. In contrast, divergent questions are generally related to a game tactic or principle and are asked when the team has stopped an activity. The rule models indicated there is a general trend when considering the structure and profile of the type of question (i.e. convergent; divergent) asked in the different training session activity types. During drills and small-sided games, coaches asked convergent questions to the team, which were instructional in nature and required lower level knowledge. For large games, the question was more targeted to the individual while the activity was on-going, but still required lower level knowledge. Divergent questions generally related to game tactics although only 7% of these questions asked players to problem solve. Conclusion: The results of the current study indicate that coaches are posing more questions within a coaching session, compared to previous studies, possibly reflecting the emphasis placed on questioning as an athlete learning strategy within the FFA National Curriculum. Association rule models provided greater insights into the distinct 'styles' or profiles typically implemented by coaches during specific types of activity. From a learning perspective, coaches should consider the players needs and wants when determining which type of question best suits the situation and be prepared to move between types of questions depending on player responses. Future research should consider the perspectives of coaches and athletes to determine why questions were asked, and how effective they were in reaching their intended purposes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1340618
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1340618
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2021.1877270
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 304
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Team Sports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletic Coaches
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Youth Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drills (Practice)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Art of the Question: The Structure of Questions Posed by Youth Soccer Coaches during Training
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: O'Connor, Donna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Larkin, Paul
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robertson, Sam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Goodyear, Peter
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1