Chu, D. (1984). Teacher/coach orientation and role socialization: A description and

explanation. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 3(2), 3-8.

Kathleen Wack and David Robertson

Purpose of paper• Is the formal program of the teacher/coach

preparation adequate for both roles?

• How do the following issues play into preparation?– coaching vs. teaching role preferences – Importance of athletics to employing institutions– training for coaching role and number of coaching

courses required for pre-service candidates

Significance• Gave context to why PE and Coaching in America are

currently in the status that they are, arguing that much is based on teacher preparation programs

• Argued that teacher-coach role conflict priorities, as well as priorities of other stakeholders, does not match teacher preparation programs

• Fundamental in the argument for the need for coaching education programs

Background1. Expanded on Chu’s 1978 doctoral dissertation on

teacher-coach role conflict

2. Cited surveys of pre-service teacher candidates on teacher-coach role conflict:a. Prefer teaching or coaching?

65% & 63% prefer coaching (n=159 and 267)

b. What coursework did you take to prepare for coaching?

87% teaching vs 13% coaching (n=30)

Methods/Analysis• Compared these results to all programs:

a. Looked at 1977 College Blue Book and 1975 Peterson's Annual Guide to Graduate Study to see which institutions had the major

b. analyzed 130 institutions and 111 cataloguesc. Classified 2172 courses into either coaching,

teaching, or both

Findings

• Ratio of coaching to teaching courses was 1:14

• Mean coaching courses required was 1.3 per institution

• 59 institutions offered no coaching courses

Conclusions

1. Explained/analyzed the historical perspective of the tie between athletics and coaching:

a. Philosophy of the University?b. Realizing the resource-drawing capabilities of

sportc. How PE came to oversee athleticsd. Struggle to be a legitimate and rigorous field of

studye. Status of most PE majors are recruited to the field

of study due to athletics and the desire to coach

Conclusions

2. Argues that “it should not be assumed that preparation for teaching physical education is adequate for coaching” (p.7).

3. There is “little formal curriculum to prepare students for coaching” (p. 6) and a “paucity of coaching courses” (p. 3).

What We Learned

• Still arguing points today:– Teacher-coach role conflict– Expectations/pressure of stakeholders on coaching

versus teaching– Legitimacy, rigor, and respect of physical

education and coaching as a field of study– Teacher preparation program course offering

variability

Implications for further research

• Repeat study today, almost 40 years later. Has anything changed, and how much?

• Do programs with more course offerings or specialized training (ACE) result in professionals with similar teacher-coach role conflict results?

Questions?