Developing Elite Strength and Conditioning Coaches’ Practice Through Facilitated Reflection

Abstract

Recent research has suggested that strength and conditioning (S&C) coach development should consider constructivist learning theories to promote coach development and learning of psychosocial coaching competencies. Reflective practice can encourage holistic learning through promoting an internal dialogue of the meaningfulness of an individual’s experiences. Our study aimed to examine the efficacy of a facilitated, guided, and longitudinal reflective process to promote coach learning of psychosocial coaching practice using Moon’s reflective framework. Over a four-week period, six elite S&C coaches engaged in a guided process reflection process with a facilitator. This included daily journaling in an e-diary with the facilitator providing feedback at the end of each week. At the end, each S&C coach participated in an exit interview. Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Findings revealed that there were potential benefits for the S&C coach’s process of reflection such as providing accountability through developing a close relationship with the facilitator, which enabled the S&C coaches to more critically link learning to behaviour change. Furthermore, S&C coaches’ learning resulted in developing awareness of self/athlete’s needs, increased flexibility, and enhanced confidence. This resulted in S&C coaches developing psychosocial coaching competencies that enabled them to change their practice to become more athlete centred.

1. Introduction

The International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) promotes a life-long learning process for coaches to embrace both the learning of technical knowledge and the development of coaching practice (ICCE, 2013). Psychosocial competencies are essential in coaching practices, which include psychological (i.e., focusing on mindset, anxiety, and motivation), pedagogical (i.e., demands of designing practices, effective instruction), philosophical (i.e., values, visions, and missions), and sociocultural (i.e., managing cultural diversity) skills (Callary et al., 2022). Researchers suggest that psychosocial competencies are necessary to implement an athlete-centred coaching approach, which, in turn, can develop not only the athletes’ performance but also their overall well-being (Kidman & Lombardo, 2010). Coach educators have effectively developed accreditation frameworks that teach and assess technical knowledge (e.g., Avner et al., 2017). However, to deliver technical knowledge, the coach must effectively use psychosocial skills (Gearity et al., 2021). Although the inclusion of learning strategies that encourage the development of psychosocial skills has been encouraged in formal coach education (Callary & Gearity, 2020), the process of how these strategies influence coach development requires further exploration.

Researchers suggest the use of constructivist learning approaches in coach education, which focus on the learner being an active participant in their learning journey, including reflecting on experience to develop new knowledge (Paquette & Trudel, 2016; Stodter & Cushion, 2017). Reflective practice is an internal learning process as it encourages coaches to make sense of, and learn from, their coaching experience (Callary et al., 2012; Werthner & Trudel, 2006). Reflective practice is widely promoted in coach education and has the ability to develop psychosocial coaching competencies (Cropley et al., 2023). Reflective practice has been seen to enhance self-awareness and promote internal dialogue of the coaching experience that is meaningful and relevant to the learning activity (Knowles et al., 2012). Researchers suggest that coaches value acquired knowledge through reflection as being more relatable to their coaching practice than formal education (Nash & Sproule, 2012; Wright et al., 2007). Effective reflection should enable the coach to engage in critically evaluating and analysing their experiences (Moon, 2004). This means understanding the why and how of what went well or what went wrong in their coaching practice. More importantly, the outcome of critical reflection should be a constructive change in coaching practice, with the deep evaluative, analytical exploration of the experience being the motivation to change (Moon, 2001). However, what has been labelled as ‘critical reflection’ has often fallen short of changing coaching practice or developing psychosocial coaching competencies (Cushion et al., 2010). Coaches often do not progress to the critical stage and have been seen to describe superficial and negative aspects of experiences, which is likely to have a limited impact on changing coaching practice (Knowles et al., 2001).

Jennifer Moon, a learning theorist, outlines a constructivist learning theory that has the potential to encourage critical reflective practice (Moon, 2004). Her approach focuses on ‘meaningful experiences’ of the learner (coach) and how the learner makes sense of these. The learner decides what is a ‘meaningful experience’ and, as such, will feel more impelled to critically explore their feelings and perceptions (Moon, 2001). Moon (2004) outlines five specific phases of critical reflective practice. The first phase is ‘noticing’, where the learner describes what is meaningful, making connections with existing knowledge (i.e., what they perceive effective coaching would be like). This is followed by ‘making sense’, where the learner aims to understand what they have noticed (often quite superficially). The learner then starts to ‘make meaning’ where they ask questions and connect ideas together to understand what has happened in more depth. Closely related is ‘working with meaning’, where the learner becomes more critical and evaluates why and how this experience was meaningful. This critical aspect leads to modifying and developing new ideas, which is based upon learning new perspectives and new knowledge (e.g., becoming more self-aware and aware of others’ feelings and how this might be connected to the current literature on effective coaching practice). The last phase is ‘transformative learning’, which allows the learner to change their behaviour as they actively experiment with different strategies to overcome the problem. Applying these stages to coach development through reflective practice, coaches typically struggle in Moon’s last three phases, which represent the critical element of reflective practice and research (Callary et al., 2011). Hence, more research is necessary to explore how coaches might engage with these critical phases and how this might impact on their development.

Reflective practice is a skill that takes time to develop (Moon, 2004); thus, understanding how coaches can learn this skill and what influence it might have on coaching practice requires a longitudinal approach (Szedlak et al., 2021). Currently, coaches often use reflective processes to provide instant descriptive feedback, not being aware of or moving towards the critical phases (Callary et al., 2011). This has encouraged a common misperception of reflective practice being cumbersome (i.e., writing long journals) and time-wasting, as it is often not formally allocated in their workload (Szedlak et al., 2021). Researchers propose that reflective practice could be more effective if it is facilitated and structured (Knowles et al., 2012; Koh et al., 2015). Facilitated reflection may guide and encourage the learning process, which is a central facet of constructivist learner-centred coach education and preferred by coaches (Paquette et al., 2019). Facilitators can provide much needed structure and motivation to engage in deeper levels of reflection (Koh et al., 2015). Research suggests that this depends on the level of relationship developed between the facilitator and the coach; however, the influence of developing relationships has received little attention in research (Koh et al., 2015). For example, guided feedback has the ability to increase coaches’ awareness of their practice, yet how this translates to applied practice change is not fully understood (Cushion et al., 2010).

Contrary to training methods that produce measurable physiological outcomes such as increase in strength or speed, reflective practice is idiosyncratic, messy, and its impact on athletes’ performance or wellbeing is often difficult to quantify (Szedlak et al., 2019). In addition, the learning of psychosocial competencies that underline coaching practice change is arbitrary and not well understood. This is especially prevalent in the coaching profession of strength and conditioning (S&C) (Gearity et al., 2021). Curricula of international certification bodies, such as the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association (UKSCA), focus solely on biophysiological–technological knowledge, neglecting psychosocial skill development (UKSCA, 2004). S&C originated from the sports sciences defining an effective S&C coach as being competent in biomechanics and physiology (UKSCA, 2004). This science-based perception of effective S&C coaching could explain why S&C coach education has neglected to follow more general sport coaching education to promote the learning of psychosocial competencies (ICCE, 2013). Therefore, more targeted context-specific research is needed to convince S&C coach developers (i.e., UKSCA) to focus on psychosocial skill development. In an ongoing participatory action research process with the UKSCA, Szedlak and colleagues (e.g., Szedlak et al., 2022) examined the necessity of including psychosocial coaching competencies within S&C coach education. In working together with the UKSCA stakeholders, Callary et al. (2024) identified that stakeholders want to formally include learning reflective practice in their coach education to allow S&C coaches to develop psychosocial skills. To build on these findings and to inform its practical application, it is necessary to more fully understand how the S&C coach, unaccustomed to such learning strategies in S&C coach education, learns through the reflective process.

Researchers have utilised guided facilitated approaches to develop coaching practice, yet these often focused on technical and tactical practice (Cropley et al., 2011; Koh et al., 2015). Szedlak et al. (2020) explored the social process to understand the underlying narratives that S&C coaches engage with when utilising reflective practice. Utilising Moon’s approach, S&C coaches’ reflective approaches were underpinned by performance (coach-centredness characterised by autocratic coaching to maximise physiological performance) or helpfulness (athlete-centeredness promotes both wellbeing and performance). However, the authors neglected to identify the impact of the facilitation process on how the S&C coaches practically learned and developed psychosocial coaching practice. Thus, our study aims to examine the efficacy of a facilitated, guided, and longitudinal reflective process to promote S&C coach learning of psychosocial coaching practice using Moon’s reflective framework. More specifically, this study will focus on the process of how S&C coaches engage in critical levels of reflection and how this deeper reflection helps develop their coaching practice.

2. Methods

2.1. Philosophical Approach and Methodology

We assumed a social constructivist epistemology and a relativist ontology, meaning that truth is socially constructed, multiple, and mind dependent (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). To make sense of the participants’ learning experiences, we used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; J. A. Smith, 2011). IPA is effective to understand and make sense of sports coaches’ experiences (Callary et al., 2015), which, in this study, is the learning experience of developing coaching practice through a guided, facilitated reflection process. IPA embraces the process of double hermeneutics, which is a dual interpretation process where the participants make sense of their experiences, followed by the researchers interpreting the meanings made by participants (J. A. Smith, 2004).

With the researchers playing an integral part in the process, it is important to outline our positionality. The first author has extensive counselling experience, as well as experience in using different reflection models to encourage critical reflective practice with sports coaches. He has mentored S&C coaches in his applied role as coach developer (tutor) for over 13 years at elite level, which has included facilitating critical reflective practice leading to behaviour change. To practice the application of Moon’s stages of learning, he completed a six-week pilot study with one elite S&C coach. Analysing the data, he learned the importance of communicating with S&C coaches in a more applied way, avoiding academic language. The second author is an experienced sport coaching researcher who has often utilised IPA, a coach developer for 20 years, and an expert in learning strategies for coach development. The third author, also an experienced qualitative researcher, is an outsider to the sports coaching context, and has a background in sport psychology. Both co-authors acted as critical friends, challenging the first author’s sense-making, and provided alternative interpretations to enhance the rigor of the IPA analysis process (B. Smith & McGannon, 2017).

2.2. Participants

After gaining ethical approval from the third author’s university, we purposefully recruited elite S&C coaches who wanted to develop their reflective skills. Through the first authors’ connections, we contacted three international organisations who promoted our research as a learning opportunity for their S&C coaches to develop their reflective skills and enhance their coaching practice. There are typically small numbers of participants when utilising IPA due to the depth of data collected and analysed (Larkin et al., 2008; J. A. Smith et al., 2013); hence, we limited the numbers to five S&C coaches (the first five out of fifteen who were interested in participating). This provided enough time for the first author to interpret their journal entries throughout the week and deliver individualised feedback to progress through the stages of critical reflection. The S&C coaches had an average experience of 12 years in elite/international sport (McKay et al., 2022). Providing synonyms for the participants, we outline their demographics in

Table 1. Participant demographic information.

Name	Gender	Age (Years)	Experience (Years)	Sport	Accreditation/Education	Country
James	male	40	15	Athletics (Sprinting)	NSCA/UKSCA & MSc	USA
Layla	female	36	12	Motorsport (Formula 1)	NSCA/UKSCA & MSc	UK
Jack	male	36	10	Motorsport (Formula 1)	UKSCA & MSc	France
Jane	female	10	10	Athletics (Endurance)	UKSCA & PhD	UK
Nathan	male	14	14	Athletics (Sprinting)	NSCA & PhD	Finland

.

2.3. Procedure

The participants engaged in a four-week reflection process using e-diaries, which were shared with the first author (word document via Dropbox). Prior to the start of the four-week period, we taught the S&C coaches how to engage with the reflective process. We provided them with guidelines and examples of reflective practice (i.e., Evans & Maloney, 1998; Moon, 2004). To become familiar with the process, all S&C coaches reflected on one experience, with the first author providing detailed feedback linked to the reflective process. For the duration of the four weeks, we encouraged the S&C coaches to only provide a reflective entry after an actual meaningful coaching session. At the end of each week, the first author would provide detailed feedback regarding the level of their reflective entry using Moon’s reflective framework. The feedback included suggestions of what to address in the following week based on the next phase of Moon’s reflective model. For example, at the noticing stage, the first author, acting as coach developer, would consider the following reflective questions for their feedback such as “To what are they attending? What are they not seeing? What are they noticing most often?”. This allowed the first author/facilitator to be more specific in moving the learner to the ‘making meaning’ stage, asking, “Why do you think this way? Try expressing your feelings about the situation and how you perceive your athletes might feel” and to then encourage ‘working with meaning’, prompting “Have you considered a different approach or another perspective?”. This was conducted online face-to-face using Teams (average = 32 min) between Friday and Sunday. At the end of each week, the first author wrote his own reflections regarding the process to reflect on assumptions and how his approach to facilitation might impact the participant. He reflected on the interactions with participants, the level of reflective entries, anything that might be a surprise to the process (i.e., the overarching reflective focus on the negative aspect of the S&C coaches’ experiences during the first two weeks), and his challenges and successes as a facilitator (e.g., challenges: reiterating the same tasks for a couple of week, being patient; successes: participants started to embrace their positives and made sense of their athletes’ feelings).

After the four-week reflection process, participants took part in a semi-structured interview (average = 64 min) with the first author to understand their perceptions of the learning process, the impact of facilitation, and how they were encouraged to move towards a more critical stage of reflective practice leading to actual behaviour change. General questions included “Tell me what you have learned over the past four weeks”, “Looking back at the feedback after each week, what stood out for you?” and “How did that encourage you to change your practice?”. More specific questions focused on the facilitation process, such as “Was it important to have someone facilitating the process?” and “If so, why?”.

2.4. Data Analysis and Presentation

Analysing the data using IPA is an idiographic and iterative process (J. A. Smith, 2004, 2011). We designed our study so that the first author could engage more deeply in this process, meaning he analysed the data from each participant separately throughout the weeks and could start identifying possible process and impact themes. These initial themes informed the weekly feedback tasks (i.e., Step 1: descriptive reflection), and were defined over the proceeding weeks (i.e., Step 1: descriptive, technical, superficial, and negative; see

Table 2. Themes outlining how facilitated reflection can lead to coaching practice change.

Process Themes	Impact Themes
Step 1: Sharing and discussing information	Descriptive, technical, superficial, and negative
Step 2: Forced to step outside normal routine	Uncovering a new level of self-awareness Awareness of others and own emotions
Step 3: Pushed to deeper reflection	Ability to consider alternative emotional responses
Step 4: Creating accountability and shared responsibility	Empowered to change behaviour

). The steps (1–4) to deeper reflection represented the process, whereas the content of the reflections represented the impact of the reflection. This weekly interaction with each participant illuminated the process of double hermeneutics regarding the detail, time, and meaning making required.

To analyse the interview transcripts, the first author read the first transcript several times and used the initial process and impact themes to outline the learning steps taken by the first participant. This included making interpretative notes, defining these themes, and linking these back to his own reflections. Once all transcripts were coded, the first and the second author discussed how the initial process and impact might intersect across the transcripts. They presented these to the third author, who challenged some of their assumptions to further define the themes. We identified four process themes (steps) and five impact themes (see Table 2).

To best represent the application of double interpretation and enhance resonance to an applied audience, we present our results as an interrupted realist tale (Williams, 2015; Sanders et al., 2020). From the extensive data collected (over 80 pages of reflective data resulting in multiple quotes representing the individual themes), we identified the most appropriate quotes to be included in our report. Here, the S&C coaches’ voices (i.e., quotations) interact with the first author’s reflections. This presentation also critically highlights how the first author becomes aware of their own interpretations (i.e., assuming it is easy to move towards critical levels of reflection more quickly) when trying to make sense of the S&C coaches’ reflections. We wrote the report in the first person to engage the reader more effectively in how interaction between the facilitator and the S&C coaches (double interpretation) resulted in making sense of the S&C coaches’ experiences.

3. Results

We organised the results in process themes (steps 1–4), which examine how the facilitation process encouraged the participants to engage in deeper levels of reflection, resulting in developing their coaching practice: (1) sharing and discussing information; (2) forced to step outside normal routine; (3) pushed to deeper reflection; and (4) creating accountability and shared responsibility. Lastly, we provide an account of some of the barriers that arose during the reflection process. To illuminate the facilitation process and interaction between the facilitator and the participant, we present these themes through the lens of the responding facilitator’s reflections from his reflexive diary. The impact of these themes is highlighted in bold italics for each step.

3.1. Step 1: Sharing and Discussing Information

At the start of this process, I provided the participants with some general information about how to reflect. I suggested that they could reflect on a whole day, a session, or a specific situation, giving them some questions to get them started. These included the following:

How did it go? How do I feel about it? What went well, or OK? Why? What emotions did I feel throughout the session? Why are those emotions important? And how did they impact athletes around me? How might others have perceived my actions and emotions? How would I like them to perceive me? What would I do differently next time? What would be the first step?

I was excited to receive reflections from the first week back from the participants and I felt certain that I provided enough context and information for the participants to engage in what I would classify as levels of critical reflection (i.e., evaluating, modifying, and developing new ideas). However, to my surprise, as I read and re-read the accounts, the participants provided more descriptive, technical, superficial, and negative reflections of their coaching experience. James was a typical example, as he initially reflected on a session with the client:

I did not achieve what I wanted to; therefore, I think that the idea might be to send him a short agenda for the meeting. Emotions during the session were great, I was able to come across in a positive manner and give new ideas to the client. I understand that these emotions are very important to get across to the client. Next time, I maybe need to control the room, in terms of placement of sitting positions, as the client was facing the windows and therefore a few times during the meeting he looked out at his colleagues. This meant that their concentration was lost a few times.

There was no depth to his reflection. I was left with questions: emotions, which emotions? Why did he feel he should have been in control of the room? After analysing all the accounts from the participants, I found similar descriptive approaches. Then, I realised that I needed to help them to get past this stage.

3.2. Step 2: Forced to Step Outside Normal Routine

After the participants’ initial reflections, I wanted them to move towards deeper reflection; I did not want a repeat of descriptive and superficial accounts, as I was afraid that this monotony could have negative influences on their engagement with the daily reflective tasks. I felt that the first feedback should be critical to guide them to a deeper level of reflection; therefore, during the weekly debrief session, I gave each participant some examples of how they can start to evaluate their experiences, which included the following:

You are very good at describing the situation in great technical and analytical detail. As a result, you concentrate on the negatives. But for the next week, I want to challenge you. Concentrate a little more on elaborating the positive of the sessions. You quite often say how your sessions went really well, that is great but why and how did that make you feel and why is that important to you and your athletes? Tell me or yourself about the emotions that you feel during a session and or after a session or after discussing your presentation. Are you happy, confident, knackered, frustrated, offended, motivated, inspired and why? Then consider where that emotion stems from and how it fits into your philosophy as a coach.

I encouraged the participants to step out of their comfort zone and consider different ways of learning and analysing their experiences. Layla sums this second stage of stepping outside her perceived norm:

Your prompt forced me to kind of revisit the session and spend more time reflecting on it. And this links to the way that I process information, I worked at quite a fast pace, moving through things, and getting things done. But your comment made me stop and reflect in the moment and see things from the outside in. Something that I have not done before. This made me realise that there are other ways of working. Sometimes you need to revisit something and reflect on it to learn from that experience.

As part of this second stage, which typically happened in the second week of reflections, the participants started to uncover a new level of self-awareness; it looked like they started to value the reflection process. The learning process appeared to encourage the value that participants placed in reflecting. They started to use a more positive language and examined how the meaning of specific words would best fit their lived experiences, as Jack’s response exemplifies:

Interestingly, when you encouraged me to reflect on something that I have done well, that was a bit of “Oh, Oh, Ok, that was a different kind of angle”. I think moving through the reflection process has kind of prompted me to appreciate my skill set and this experience and that has given me more confidence moving forwards, I mean, I am now looking forward to getting some constructive feedback from my peers, before I would have run a mile.

Furthermore, as the participants intentionally started to consider the meaning of their words when they wrote their reflections, they became more aware of their own and the athlete’s emotions, as Layla elaborated:

I think that [uncovering a new level of self-awareness] was one of the biggest things I have noticed and that’s why I think it became more valuable with having practiced that process of writing and hearing your own [thoughts and perceptions] The first bit is you just have to write the facts and then I think the next stage is when you can emotionally connect to it. Sometimes you might do this for yourself but to also apply this to how the athletes feel. That was something totally new to me.

Practically, this participant gives an example of how this awareness of their own and their athlete’s emotions influenced their perception of the coaching experience. Another example is Nathan, who had a difficult relationship with his head coach. Nathan elaborated how he became more aware of his own perspective and attitudes concerning the overall effectiveness of the S&C program set by the head S&C coach. As a result, he concluded that it was acceptable that his thoughts were different to the rationale of his head S&C coach. This deeper level of self-awareness alleviated his frustration and enabled him to think about how he could be more inclusive in his communication with the head coach.

My relationship with the head S&C coach is one that is very difficult and just because my reflection and thoughts are one way about the program, it doesn’t mean that this matches the thoughts of the head S&C coach. I think there is a lot of ground to be gained in how well the program is delivered. I think I need to try to remind myself that it is not the case of influencing decisions the whole time. Rather, I should try to think about generating conversations that are inclusive and to try and get a picture of his understanding and thought process.

3.3. Step 3: Pushed to Deeper Reflection

As the feedback exchange progressed, I could see their reflection changing, moving from descriptive to a deeper level including participants showing a greater understanding of their own emotions. However, what was interesting was how the participants were now starting to become more confident in considering their own emotions and difficulties from a different perspective. Even their language had become more direct and urgent, as James mentioned:

It forced me to think about what I was achieving and compare that with what my expectations were. It made me think about my anxieties in different situations, events and activities and then try to come up with some solutions. I think I found myself coming up with things that reduce the anxiety or pressure in the future so that kind of provided some coping strategies. I actually went and talked to my boss about it, he was like “You come across so well, I did not know that you do not have anything to worry about from my part”. That really gave me more confidence. I am now at a stage where it’s like “Let’s consider this and hit it head on”.

I have seen this before when participants started to consider their own emotions, but what was encouraging is that they went a step further. They now started to consider alternative emotional responses. For example, Nathan also changed his approach, which resulted in alleviating his frustration with the head coach:

These reflections have been a good way to put things into perspective and rationalise what is important and how to then change those frustrations, otherwise you just get even more frustrated. And that is something I need to keep on reminding myself. Like, the last couple of weeks with the head S&C coach, it was one of the best couple of weeks we have had because I was pretty happy [by just acknowledging] that actually I am not going to get what I want. So, I did not worry about it, and it did not become a frustration anymore, because I changed the way I see this situation.

3.4. Step 4: Creating Accountability and Shared Responsibility

Towards the end of the four-week reflection process, I started to understand the impact of facilitating the process and the relationship I had built with the participants. I felt as much responsible for contributing to the process as they did. In fact, I felt privileged and honoured that they confided in me in such depth, and that they allowed me to challenge them. This meant we had created a shared responsibility, indicating how they did not want to let me down and I did not want to let them down. Jane summarised this feeling as follows:

I think the biggest thing for me was that it had like stages in terms of getting used to the process and getting used to writing. I needed that feedback, because I felt that there is someone interested in me becoming a better S&C coach and that spurred me on to take the feedback quite serious.

Furthermore, Jack elaborated on the necessity of someone guiding them to deeper levels of reflection if they had not done so before. The facilitation enabled him to look at practical solutions to his frustrations.

Without the feedback I would not have been able to step outside my thought processes and look at the objective of the sessions and my feelings, and how I can improve. Without that feedback from you, I would not have been able to move forward with the process. Like, I would be doing lots of reflection, but I would not be able to figure out why?

The most important part of this reflection process was that every participant started to change their behaviour. This can often be neglected as it takes courage to change. Jane mentioned how she felt empowered to change her behaviour: “It made me believe I can do this [change behaviour], it was an easy transition”.

Table 3. Participants’ applied coaching practice changes and learned psychosocial competencies.

Name	Applied Coaching Practice Change	Psychosocial Competencies
James	Overcame anxiety about presenting in front of his athletes and peers. He now looks forward to presenting his programs to his senior athletes and feels that he learned to be more confident.	Psychological—managing anxiety
	Implemented a strategy to ensure the athletes are engaged throughout the sessions by rearranging the gym, so that he would be more visible to them.	Pedagogical—managing demands of designing practice data
Layla	Started to take credit for her own actions, which made her look more positively on her career so far.	Psychological—enhanced self-confidence
	More open to feedback from athletes and peers, which in the past would have been threatening and dismissed as criticism.	Philosophical—understanding values and beliefs
Jack	Learned to perceive negative feedback as constructive, realising the athletes and peers want him to become a better coach.	Philosophical—understanding values and beliefs
	Provided the athletes with feedback forms on a regular basis to see if there was anything he could improve.	Pedagogical—managing demands of designing practice
Jane	Felt increased confidence in her ability to try out new techniques that she had not coached before (i.e., Olympic lifts), to enhance athletes’ engagement in the session.	Psychological—enhanced self-confidence
Nathan	Implemented feedback strategies for his athletes regarding their perception of the session and scheduled regular meetings with his head coach to create a more effective relationship.	Pedagogical—managing demands of designing practice

outlines the practical changes the participants implemented in their coaching practice and the psychosocial competencies they developed in the learning process.

3.5. Reflecting on the Barriers

The above account describes quite a rosy picture, but that had definitely not been the case; at times, it was like déjà vu. What I mean is that, during the first few weeks, I continually had to reiterate the same things, like “Have you considered the athlete’s perspective? Can you elaborate on your feelings and why you felt this way?”. It was monotonous, and I felt like “I am actually not doing great here, what is missing?”. I asked some of these questions in the interview and, as James elaborated, he just found it difficult to do what was required as it evoked an emotional response.

You told us to simply consider the athlete’s perspective. That is not that easy; the athlete I worked with was rather quiet and the opposite to me, so I struggled with that, or the one thing that stood out was “Why are you thinking this way?” [talking about her anxiety to speak in front of her athletes], and this is quite hard to do. I mean, it is emotional and brings back all kinds of things from the past, and sometimes you just do not want to go there during the week.

Layla described how this emotional process impacted on her perseverance with the process.

Yes, I want to do this [making sure I engage with the critical part of reflection], but every week there is something else that you learn about yourself; it is hard, and then you are trying to make sense of it and work with the athletes on it. At times, I just wanted to go, “F&*ck this, just do as I you are told for once”. I know that is totally against what I am learning, but this job, the time constraints and everything that comes with it, makes reflecting often a difficult thing.

Looking at my reflective entries, I learned a lot during these four weeks, and, to sum up: don’t assume they get it; be patient; focus on the person; if it is too hard, don’t go there; and, for me as a facilitator, ask “what have I learned? How have I developed myself?”. My last thought is that I felt it was a massive privilege that those participants trusted me to be real and talk to me about sensitive areas; being trusted in that way is not a given.

4. Discussion

Our study examined the efficacy of a facilitated, guided, and longitudinal reflective process to promote coach learning of psychosocial coaching practice using Moon’s reflective framework (Moon, 2001, 2004). Our findings indicate that coaches developed psychosocial competencies, more specifically, physiological, pedagogical, and philosophical competencies. Within sports coaching, including S&C studies, researchers have promoted the use of a guided, facilitated, and longitudinal reflective process to enhance coaches’ learning of psychosocial coaching competencies (Szedlak et al., 2021; Knowles et al., 2012). Our findings provide initial guidance on how coaches and facilitators may effectively interact to engage in critical levels of reflection. More importantly, our results highlight how learning critical reflective practice through facilitation was seen to result in coaching practice change, which is often postulated but rarely evidenced (Callary et al., 2011). This study strengthens previous calls for reflective practice to be more formally integrated in the learning pathway or curricula of S&C coaches to promote psychosocial coaching practice (Gearity et al., 2021; Kuklick & Gearity, 2015).

Our findings unpack the latter, critical stages of Moon’s reflective framework (Moon, 2004). However, we notice that stage two, ‘making meaning’, was an integral part of the learning process as the facilitator took time to develop the S&C coaches’ understanding, encouraging them to question themselves and not overly rely on the facilitator’s prompts. This usually happened between week two and three. It was only then that S&C coaches were seen to be able to move on to ‘working with meaning’, feeling prepared and ready to be challenged (enhanced self-awareness and awareness of others’ emotions), which allowed them to be ‘forced outside their normal routine’. The reflection process seemingly moved on to the applied stage of ‘transformative learning’, characterised by shared values, collaboration, and accountability. As a result, the S&C coaches felt more empowered to change their behaviour. It is widely accepted that reflective practice enhances self-awareness (e.g., Cropley et al., 2011), which also underpins the development of psychosocial coaching competencies (Callary et al., 2022). Our findings illustrate the important role of coaches in understanding what might happen in the process and what to expect, which is needed to more effectively prepare for the uncomfortable and challenging critical stages that lead to coaching practice change.

A key finding was the importance of facilitation in the reflection process. This strengthens previous research findings (e.g., Wright et al., 2007) and further emphasises the need for the facilitator to be an expert in guiding people into critical levels of reflection (Koh et al., 2015). The first author was an experienced facilitator and able to create an environment of openness, friendship, and helpfulness, regarded as a ‘thinking, seeing friend’ (Woodburn, 2019). Researchers have proposed the level of relationship between the facilitator and the coach impacts on the engagement and on what motivation the coach might have to change their practice (Koh et al., 2015). Our results suggest that the coaches and facilitator worked together to create mutual accountability, shared values, and collaborative goals. Because of this, the participants felt empowered to change their coaching practice, which is closely linked to the proposition that intrinsic motivation is essential to lasting and impactful behaviour change (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In contrast, we also outline some of the challenges that a facilitator had to overcome to develop such a relationship. Even an experienced facilitator took coach learning for granted and underestimated the patience and time needed to guide the coach effectively. From an applied perspective, facilitators should be aware of those pitfalls as they could be detrimental to the learning process and might have a negative impact on developing an effective relationship with coaches they are supporting.

Research suggests that facilitation can create extrinsic motivation resulting in the coach trying to please the facilitator, which has limited the effectiveness of long-term learning and/or applied practice change (Koh et al., 2015). Such situations are often observed during formalised mentorship and internship programmes (Szedlak et al., 2019). Woodburn (2019) pointed out that internships that utilise reflective practice should be highly structured and formalised, including facilitators that know what they are doing. Yet, as often is the case, especially within S&C, learning through reflection is not well understood and is based on pseudoscience focusing on visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning styles (Woodburn, 2019). Furthermore, facilitators are generally part of existing power relationships (i.e., superior), and as a result reflective practice, have the potential to be harmful and reinforce ineffective coaching practice (Szedlak et al., 2019; Szedlak et al., 2024). Facilitators, if not experienced in critical reflection, could produce mentees that adopt their values and philosophies, limiting mentee’s idiosyncratic learning, as mentees do not have the confidence to challenge normalised language and practice, even if they disagree with what they experience (Geen, 2002). As a result, the focus on performance when coaching, neglecting the wellbeing of the athlete as well as adopting hegemonic masculine coaching practice, is still prevalent within S&C (Szedlak et al., 2024). We are aware that facilitators should be trained and that the process of coaches’ learning through critical reflective practice tends to be lengthy and resource-heavy. However, as our findings indicate, if this is formalised within the curricula of S&C coach developers (e.g., UKSCA), as suggested by stakeholders (Callary et al., 2024), then we would be able to promote the learning of psychosocial competencies more effectively.

Methodologically, our study included an innovative approach that illuminated the process of double hermeneutics. We followed the S&C coaches’ interpretation of their experience by the facilitator making sense of it. Research using IPA has limited applied examples, as ‘double hermeneutics’ happens in the data analysis process, often not visible to the reader (Callary et al., 2015). We provide a step by step, visible example for the reader to follow the interpretation process of double hermeneutics. To further bring this process to life and enhance resonance to the reader (B. Smith et al., 2015), we used the first person to present our results. We are aware that coach development research is not a preferred way for coaches to learn as academic publications are often difficult to practically apply (Pope et al., 2015). To bridge this knowledge to action gap (Graham & Tetroe, 2007), we aimed to take the reader, in particular, other coaches wanting to use reflection to support their own development, on a journey enabling them to become more engaged in the process the five participants embarked upon, hoping they would be inspired to reflect on some of their own practices. Researchers suggest writing a results section from a story analyst point of view, which should be compelling, gripping, and promote resonance to the reader (B. Smith, 2017; Riessman, 2008). We suggest that using the first-person approach might bridge that gap; however, its impact on resonance and naturalistic generalisation to enhance knowledge translation requires further exploration (B. Smith, 2018).

We acknowledge that our study adds scope for future research. Our participants wanted to be involved, which is not often the case. Hence, future research should outline how to develop that initial perceived value of critical reflection to motivate coaches more intrinsically. This might explain why we did not come across many difficulties or barriers in developing critical levels of reflection, which is an area for future research. We used Moon’s framework; however, reflective practice research has used a variety of different frameworks such as Kolb’s (Kolb, 1984) or Gibbs’ (Gibbs, 1988) reflective learning cycles. Thus, further exploration is necessary to understand whether our findings apply to the other reflective practice approaches. Furthermore, and to build on our initial qualitative findings, quantitative approaches such as online surveys to track learning of critical reflection could be used to recruit a larger sample size. Taken together with our findings, this approach might be more impactful in shaping S&C coach education as quantitative approaches are more common and, hence, better understood. Lastly, it is unlikely that coach developers will always be able to recruit experienced facilitators; therefore, future research should explore how coach developers might ensure learning of effective facilitation, which is currently lacking in coach education.

5. Conclusions

Our study explored the efficacy of a facilitated, guided, longitudinal reflective process, a constructivist learning approach. Our findings strengthen the need for S&C coach developers including S&C to promote a more formalised, facilitated reflective approach to encourage coaches’ learning of psychosocial competencies resulting in coaching practice change. From an applied perspective, we outline what facilitators and coaches might expect when engaging in critical reflection. Coach developers could use our findings to effectively prepare facilitators and coaches for some of the processes and impacts they might possibly encounter as well as some of the barriers ahead (i.e., emotions, assumptions) that often have a negative impact on adherence towards coaching practice change.