Educational work and psychological aspects of training

A Comprehensive Assessment of the Effectiveness of Educational Work in a Team

A. I. Mikheev, Associate Professor, Department of Pedagogy, GTsOLIFK

English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1986 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1986), pp. 29–32: the text is paraphrased, not translated; data tables are given in full with English labels; figures are the original images.

Success in major competitions depends first of all on preparedness, and indicators for its various sides already exist as model characteristics set against record results from world and European championships and the Olympic Games. Yet the sports press has often stressed that much also depends on the wish to add to the glory of Soviet sport, on awareness of the mission of representing the country abroad, and on ideological conviction. Teams give educational work enough attention, but without objective indicators coaches cannot judge its effectiveness, plan it well or allow for each lifter’s individual features.

A comprehensive assessment could show coaches how things stand in the team and what position, authority and status each athlete holds. From earlier studies and the experience of leading coaches, the author identifies five quantifiable factors: relations among lifters, relations between coaches and lifters, the psychological atmosphere, the moral upbringing of the lifters, and the professional and pedagogical skill of the coaches. They can be measured with sociometry, the TS-1 and TS-2 scales (coach–athlete relations), the “group atmosphere” scale, independent characteristics, observation and questioning.

The team studied

The example is a team of the strongest lifters, aged 20–25, called to a camp before major competitions. Six were Merited Masters of Sport or Masters of Sport of International Class and ten were Masters of Sport of the USSR. They had trained for 7–12 years, twelve had higher education, and they came from 11 cities. Most had been in the team for 5–7 years, and all had pledged to improve their results in the Olympic year. The coaches, with 15–27 years of experience, all had higher education, and some brought their own pupils. The team had every condition for success.

Relations among the lifters

These were studied by sociometry and by observation in and outside training, using six criteria: “captain”, “team leader”, “team”, “work”, “leisure” and “study” (Table 1).

Table 1. Overall indicators of the lifters’ status in the team

The first three criteria describe business relations and the last three emotional, interpersonal ones. On the business criteria three lifters stand out (Nos. 14, 10 and 8), veterans who were Olympic, world, European and USSR champions. The leader is not the best-known of them but No. 14, the society’s strongest lifter, described by comrades as responsive, friendly, decent, hard-working, demanding and serious. He should have been captain, but No. 8, with less authority, was chosen, apparently on sporting results alone. About half the lifters went unrated on some criteria, which reflects how demanding the members were of one another.

A coach must also know how veterans and newcomers get along. A veteran may see a newcomer as a rival, and veterans who disagree with the coach may draw newcomers into conflicts or breaches of the regime. Table 1 shows that coaches should watch Nos. 12, 2, 4, 9, 7, 15 and 13, newly included and invited for the first time. On four or five criteria their comrades did not rate them, so they form an “isolated” group, and their interpersonal relations suffer most. The sociograms showed that coaches should attend to the relations of Nos. 2, 12, 4 and 9, control the behaviour of Nos. 7, 13 and 11, and work individually with Nos. 1, 3 and 6. These findings should guide the planning of events and the distribution of public assignments.

Relations between coaches and lifters

These were studied with the TS-1 scale (Yu. L. Khanin and A. V. Stambulov). The lifters rated coaches on cognitive, emotional and behavioural components by questionnaire (Table 2).

Table 2. Indicators of coach–lifter relations

Most lifters rated their coaches above average on every component, so relations are sound overall. Yet the overall mean and each component mean are below the accepted statistical norms, and the low marks went to coaches training lifters not their own. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 16 rated their mentors low, and the senior coach should look at those pairs. Worrying is the low rating of professional competence: five marks are below three. The team leaders rated their coaches highly. The senior coach must therefore individualise work with coaches, remove the causes of negative attitudes, forestall conflicts, and assess each coach’s contribution correctly.

Atmosphere, moral upbringing and coaching skill

The psychological atmosphere, which shows the unity of training and educational work, was studied with the “group atmosphere” scale, scoring from 1 (highest) to 8 (lowest). Some characteristics, such as friendliness and mutual support, reflect the moral climate; others, such as success and productivity, reflect training effectiveness. Satisfaction, productivity and success scored below 2, so the team was set on winning again and the atmosphere was businesslike. Friendliness (2.3), cooperation (2.1) and enthusiasm (2.1) were also high, and newcomers too found the atmosphere favourable.

Moral upbringing was assessed by independent characteristics over 10 core qualities, such as collectivism, discipline and diligence. Each lifter rated himself and his comrades, and the coach rated them too; the three assessments mostly agreed. The team could thus name its most sociable, disciplined and considerate lifters, which let coaches individualise upbringing and plan leisure events.

The effectiveness of educational work also depends on the coaches’ professional and pedagogical skill: erudition in weightlifting, developed abilities, moral and volitional qualities, knowledge of related sciences, command of educational methods, and the drive for self-education. A survey found the most important to be knowledge of the specialty, moral and volitional qualities and the ability to apply anatomy, physiology, pedagogy, psychology and medicine. Such results help the senior coach avoid the error of “paired” pedagogy and relate feedback on educational work to the coaches’ skill. Knowing these indicators lets coaches raise the quality of educational work.