I followed the proliferation of “online coaching” during the first COVID lockdown in the UK in 2020 — a lot of online demos, and quite a few “Me-Me” posts (“look at me — me!”).
For all the online “coaching”, it is, of course, impossible to tell if there was much actual learning. And no evidence, to date, of any development in online coaching beyond a straight replacement for face-to-face instruction & demonstration.
Surely, we can do better?
How do we learn? How should we teach?
I participated in a couple of online programmes during the early months of lockdown on how to teach online — designed principally for teachers and other educators, sent home in March 2020 and told to transition to remote teaching almost overnight.
The courses were based on a solid understanding of how people (children or adults) actually learn, and the range of teaching options that are available to support online learning. Quite fascinating.
Based on this insight, I wrote a couple of posts on an alternative approach to online coaching — on using video analysis to develop game sense, and, relevant to online and face-to-face coaching, I’m coaching, but are they learning?
But what do we mean by “online education”?
Learning online vs. Online learning
Learning online is not the same as online learning.
Alex Twitchen, Medium.com
That is to say that independent learning, supported by research carried out online is not the same as completing an online learning course, with set curriculum and pre-defined outcomes.
Independent learning requires more of Laurillard’s Learning Types — beyond Acquisition, Inquiry (going beyond the set text), Practice & Production (actually doing something with the newly acquired knowledge), Discussion (if you are fortunate enough to have access to a learning community — oh, for more online Communities of Practice!).
Moving beyond eLearning
How can we facilitate better (more effective, more transferable) online learning? Is this a function of the coach educator/developer/mentor? Or the online learning designer?
If the Sport Coach Practitioner becomes a Sport Ecology Designer, what of the online educator? Online learning ecology designer? Not so far fetched, perhaps, if we phrase this as “creating an environment in which learning can occur”?
Incorporate Laurillard’s learning types — Acquisition, Discussion etc. — to facilitate more development alongside the simple retention of imparted knowledge (“teaching” — I know teaching is much more than just “telling”, but surely coaching is something else, again?).
Finding the appropriate hybrid model for eLearning is the challenge.
I think that “culture of convenience in coach education” is a two-edged sword.
Yes, eLearning makes the coaching pathway more accessible, but it can leave candidates unprepared for actual coaching.
I help to deliver training for National Programmes “Activators”, volunteers with little or no experience of cricket or any sport.
In our first year post-lockdown we delivered face-to-face Activator training in the open air (in “bubbles” of 6 or less), but introduced a 1 hour “virtual induction” session — online webinar, classroom and q&a — to build in more interactive learning opportunities to supplement an eLearning programme, and also to prime the candidates for the face-to-face session. It also removed the need for the tutors to call the groups together to look at handouts and a whiteboard — we protected those bubbles!
For 2024, we have dropped the 1 hour webinar and added 30 minutes for presentation & discussion to the face-to-face delivery. The eLearning component is still required, but with no support beyond what we can provide in an already crammed face-to-face session.
I am still to be convinced that this will be adequate.
This post was started back in November 2020, but not completed at the time. It has been expanded to include some limited experience of a more sophisticated online learning experience…and its probable demise.
The Teesra 