#coachlearninginsport: self-organising networks

Last month, I was invited to join a group of coaches in an online forum.

I was delighted to be asked but I have spent much of the time as a peripheral participant … enjoying the open sharing but not contributing.

I thought listening might be a good way to start in a group of online acquaintances.

Yesterday, I responded to this message from one of the group:

Hi everyone. I’m early in the process of setting up new CPD events. I’ve been slightly dissatisfied with recent experiences and groups like this show the value of sharing and exploring new ideas.

They won’t be linked to NGB/club/County – more of a ‘by coaches, for coaches’ approach focusing on interaction, conceptualisation of ideas and discussion, building a network etc.

From your recent CPD experiences, what have been the best elements? If there was one thing you want, or would want, from a CPD experience then what would it be?

Any ideas and feedback welcome.

It seemed a great opportunity for me to discuss my thoughts about #coachlearninginsport.

It coincided too with my participation in an open online course, Connectivism and Learning. Stephen Downes is the facilitator of this course and he has this to say about connectivism:

At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks. (My emphasis)

Elsewhere, Stephen (2012) has discussed course design. He notes that in  a connectivist course “the content does not define the course”.

By navigating the content environment, and selecting content that is relevant to your own personal preferences and context, you are creating an individual view or perspective. So you are first creating connections between contents with each other and with your own background and experience. And working with content in a connectivist course does not involve learning or remembering the content. Rather, it is to engage in a process of creation and sharing. Each person in the course, speaking from his or her unique perspective, participates in a conversation that brings these perspectives together. (My emphasis)

I am hopeful that our online group might discuss these issues … if they are of interest.

For the time being, I look forward to engaging in a conversation on the platform that explores whether we might move from CPD to CPL and to celebrate the sense each of us makes of our self-organising networks.

Connected by shared interests.

Photo Credits

At Coogee (Keith Lyons, CC BY 4.0)


In an interview published this week, Stephen Downes discusses connectivism.

He observes:

knowledge is the organization of connections in a network of interconnected entities, where a connection is a link such that a change of state in one entity can result in a change of state in another entity.

Later in the interview, Stephen discusses virtualization:

We’re trying to create different experiences for different people, and from the interaction among those people, each with their own perspective, we get new knowledge as a result.

Stephen’s interview was one of the items that appeared in my inbox today.

I am at the point now where I have been able to manage the volume of sharing I receive each day that gives me the opportunity to extend my personal learning through gleaning.

There is a definition of gleaning as “obtaining information from various sources”. I think sometimes I end up with biblical-type gleaning too (“collecting leftover crops’).

One of my pull resources today came from a coach educator who was using Adobe Spark. His innovation led me to try out Spark too.

This first effort pulls together my gleanings in and around the social learning space.

Photo Credit

Fake Tilt Shift (Martin Alleus, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Perceptions of Performance


This week has converged for me around conversations about performance.

On Sunday, I was involved in an after action review of my crew’s performance on a fireground.

On Monday and Wednesday, I continued my critical friend conversations with colleagues at the University of Canberra about performance review and preview … and the ownership of a personal narrative about performance.

On Tuesday, I received a link to Scott McLean, Paul Salmon, Adam Gorman, Gemma Read, and Colin Solomon’s (2017) paper What’s in a game? A systems approach to enhancing performance analysis in football.

All of which sent me back to think about performativity. I noted, in particular, Karen Barad’s assertion:

Performativity, properly construed, is not an invitation to turn everything (including material bodies) into words; on the contrary, performativity is precisely a contestation of the excessive power granted to language to determine what is real. (2003:802)

By good fortune, I had an opportunity to discuss this contestation, at a regular coffee and pizza unmeeting on Wednesdays at the Mizzuna Cafe at the University of Canberra.

Performance Unmeeting

Each Wednesday takes its own turn. There is an open invitation at noon to come to drink coffee and eat pizza. Our conversations mingle and extend around the interests of those who are there. This week there was a data scientist, a philosopher, a football coach, a CEO of an Analytics company and myself.

By a delightful serendipity, the football coach was one of the eight subject matter experts who informed the development of a systems model of a football match used in the Scott McLean, Paul Salmon, Adam Gorman, Gemma Read, and Colin Solomon paper. Our conversation explored the role of analysis in supporting coaches. My colleague had two questions to ask of an analyst:

  • What do you see?
  • What can I do about it in training?

At which point the data scientist joined in a discussion about performance observation, analysis and robustness. He shared an his experience of using Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) scheme for laying out arguments.

The philosopher, who was in another conversation, caught the word ‘argument’ and joined in an exchange that engrossed the whole table for the next half hour.

I have been asked ‘when does an unmeeting end?’. At the University of Canberra it occurs either when we have exhausted a conversation or more usually at the end of the free one hour parking place. Wednesday was that kind of day. We had run the argument to a natural conclusion and the time was up at parking.


Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) scheme for laying out arguments involves the clarification of:

  • Claim
  • Grounds (Data)
  • Warrant
  • Backing
  • Qualifier
  • Rebuttal

I am midful that Bart Verheij (2005) has elaborated on Stephen’s scheme but I have not included his clarification of defeasible argumentation here. I think this will be a fertile topic for subsequent posts.

In Stephen’s work:

A claim is “a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact”.

Grounds are “the basis of real persuasion and are made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim. It is the ‘truth’ on which the claim is based.”

A warrant “links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit”.

The backing for an argument “gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions”.

The qualifier indicates “the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. They include words such as ‘most’, ‘usually’, ‘always’ or ‘sometimes'”.

“Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument.”

In deference to our unmeeting, I thought I would apply Stephen’s approach to the (2017) paper What’s in a game? A systems approach to enhancing performance analysis in football.

Deciphering Research

Many years ago (1982), I was very impressed by Gerry Rose‘s approach to deciphering sociological research. He was my methods tutor at the London School of Economics and his course used the draft of his book on deciphering as the reading material for the course. Each week was a chapter.

To my knowledge, he did not use Stephen Toulmin scheme, but my thoughts about using Stephen’s approach to deciphering the football paper owes much to the insights Gerry shared with me all those years ago.

My reading of the papers is:

Feature Illustration
  1. Despite more than five decades of research in this area, current football Performance Analysis (PA) methods remain beset by various issues, including a lack of standardised operational definitions, a lack of match context, and the discrete measurement of isolated variables.
  2. Previous PA research has had only a minimal impact on practice.
  3. Football match performance has not yet been described in its entirety.
  4. There remains a substantial number of features that need to be defined and measured in football PA to ensure that the data are of benefit to practitioners
Grounds Three major contributions to PA research were identified in the current study.

  1. The analysis confirmed that the game of football is indeed characteristic of a complex sociotechnical system.
  2. A substantial contribution of the analysis is that it has identified aspects of performance, considered by the elite level football Subject Method Experts as important to optimal match performance, that are not currently measured (e.g. adaptability, communications), where existing knowledge is minimal (e.g. tempo, regaining possession), or where the investigated variable is not currently measured in the appropriate context (e.g. area of the pitch where important actions occur).
  3. The WDA revealed a substantial gap that exists between current football PA literature and the measures that are useful to coaches in everyday practice.
Warrant A different approach is needed to advance the current approaches used in PA for football. In particular, the novel measures identified in the current study require new measurement techniques, and the complexity engendered during football matches requires an integrated approach that considers multiple aspects of performance.
Backing Recent comments from researchers have indicated the need for a multi-disciplinary approach for the development of sport science. Applying Human Factors methods to football research helps to address this issue, and can be used to examine the complexity of football and some of the gaps in existing PA methods. Furthermore, we have identified that a research-practitioner gap exists that needs to be addressed in order for PA research to be beneficial in everyday practice for coaches and practitioners. Lastly, several new PA functions and measures have been identified, which in the opinion of football experts, has the potential to advance our understanding of PA in football.
  1. In our opinion, to align research and practice more closely, the integration of sport scientists and football experts is required to fully understand PA in football.
  2. We hope that this article provides the impetus to bridge this research-practice gap.

I have not included a rebuttal section here.

Excessive Power

I did not introduce Karen Barad’s assertion about performativity as “a contestation of the excessive power granted to language to determine what is real” into our conversation on Wednesday. But much of my week has been about this contestation.

Just as I was completing this post, I received an alert from John Kessel about a New Yorker article written by Elizabeth Colbert, Why facts Don’t Change Our Minds. Elizabeth writes:

Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science.

Which seems like a cue to let her and Elizabeth to know about Wednesdays at Mizzuna’s … and Scott, Paul, Adam, Gemma, and Colin.

Pizza anyone?

Photo Credit

Air Tanker (Paul Jenks, Twitter)

Hit by a car (Nationaal Archief, no known copyright)

Cyclists crossing a closed railway crossing (Nationaal Archief, no known copyright)

Getting ’em up (The US National Archives, no known copyright)