The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches
Abstract
In recent years, the value of social learning approaches as part of the design and delivery of formalised coach development initiatives has gained credence in the literature. However, insight is currently lacking into the fundamental social dimensions that underpin coach learning. Accordingly, this study aimed to explore coaches' perceptions of their actual and preferred methods of acquiring new coaching knowledge, the types of knowledge they currently acquire and/or desire, and their application of new knowledge. Responses to an online survey, completed by practicing coaches (N = 320) in a range of sports and contexts, were analysed descriptively and inductively. Results revealed that coaches preferred, and mostly acquired, coaching knowledge from informal learning activities, especially when these permitted social interaction. Notably, however, formal coach education courses were also reported relatively frequently as a source of recent knowledge acquisition. Nevertheless, critical justification for and application of acquired knowledge was largely absent. Based on the findings, we suggest that, before social learning activities such as mentoring schemes and communities of practice are placed at the centre of formalised coach development provision, coach educators must put in place the support structures to better enable coaches to recognise and deal with the potentially mixed influences of the social milieu on coach learning, aiming to ensure that their informal development is sufficiently open-minded, reflective and critical.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,626
The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
Checkoway, B., & Schon, D. A. (1985) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3324262 · Cited by 21,268
The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action
Stewart, C. J. (1984) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/0738-3991(84)90022-3 · Cited by 19,752
Basics of Qualitative Research
Ozanne, J. L., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172751 · Cited by 17,850
(1990) · Cited by 11,110
Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.)
Sharp, C. A. (2003) · Evaluation Journal of Australasia · doi:10.1177/1035719x0300300213 · Cited by 10,489
Mail and internet surveys : the tailored design method
Dillman, D. A. (2007) · Cited by 9,587
Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Chisnall, P. M. (2007) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/s0021849907070232 · Cited by 3,219
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance
(2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796 · Cited by 3,158
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240510590360 · Cited by 1,653
Metadata
- Authors
- Stoszkowski, J., & Collins, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Sports Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-29
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 794-802
- ISSN
- 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-447X
- OpenAlex
- W1902253190
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 47.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02640414.2015.1072279
- The paper
- Stoszkowski, J., & Collins, D. (2016). Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1072279
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.