Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 6 (2024)

The Dominant Sports Coaching Style Preferred by the Athletes from a State University in the Philippines

Jenny Danica P. Abayari | Karen M. Tilan | Armand G. Aton | Kristine Denise M. Reyes

Discipline: sport and exercise sciences

 

Abstract:

This research explores the dominant sports coaching style preferred by athletes at Cavite State University Imus Campus in the Philippines. Drawing upon a descriptive research methodology, the study investigates athletes' preferences across various demographic factors and types of sports played. A total of 183 officially enrolled athletes participated in the study, providing valuable insights into their coaching preferences. The findings reveal a universal preference for democratic coaching styles (x?= 4.69) among athletes, emphasizing collaboration, communication, and participatory decision-making. Regardless of age, sex, year level, or degree program, athletes consistently rated democratic coaching as their preferred style. However, variations and exceptions were observed across certain types of sports, highlighting the importance of tailored coaching approaches. An interesting finding emerged regarding archery, where the athlete's average ratings for all coaching styles—Democratic, Autocratic, and Laissez-Faire—were consistently rated as x?=5.00, suggesting a preference for any coaching style by a single athlete. Moreover, exceptions were observed in specific sports. For instance, in Chess, an Autocratic coaching style was dominant, indicating a preference for a directive approach (x?=4.91). Similarly, in Lawn Tennis, athletes showed dual preferences for both Democratic and Autocratic coaching styles. It is significant that coaches recognize and adapt to athletes' preferences to optimize engagement, motivation, and performance outcomes. Aligning the appropriate coaching style to the athletes’ preference, can enhance the overall athletic experience and contribute to the success and satisfaction of athletes in their sporting endeavors.



References:

  1. Allami, F. B. M., Dr., University of Misan, Iraq, allamifathil@gmail.com, Ishak, M., Hussin, F., Sin, I., Don, Y., Fauzee, M. S. O., Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, marniishak1521@gmail.com, Assoc. Prof. Dr., Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, fauzi@uum.edu.my, Dr., Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, ishaksin2015@gmail.com, Assoc. Prof. Dr., Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, d.yahya@uum.edu.my, & Prof., Dr., Uni-versiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, dromar-fauzee@yahoo.com. (2022). Preferred leadership styles of physical education teachers and relationship with athletes’ satisfaction. International Journal of In-struction, 15(2), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15222a
  2. Gomez, A. C. (2022). A Review of the Knowledge Base for the Communication Skills of Educational Administrators. In-ternational Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 3 (5), 748 – 757. doi:10.11594/ijmaber.03.05.03
  3. Groom, R., Cushion, C., & Nelson, L. J. (2018). Coach behaviors and practice structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(6), 684-691.
  4. Jones, R. L., & Turner, M. (2018). Coaching style and its impact on athlete motivation. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(4), 575-583
  5. Jowett, S., & Shanmugam, V. (2016). Relational coaching in sport: Its psychological un-derpinnings and practical effectiveness. In R. J. Schinke (Ed.), Routledge interna-tional handbook of sport psychology (pp (Vol. 613, pp. 471–484). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  6. Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. (2008). Athletes’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: An investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist, 22(3), 269–287.
  7. McHenry, L. K., Cochran, J. L., Zakrajsek, R. A., Fisher, L. A., Couch, S. R., & Hill, B. S. (2020). Elite figure skaters’ experiences of thriving in the coach-athlete relation-ship: A person-centered theory perspec-tive. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1800862
  8. Pido, A. (2018). Conference: The coaching preferences and differences of athletes’ satisfaction among the different demo-graphic factors. At: Taipei, Taiwan
  9. Raanes, E. F. W., Hrozanova, M., & Moen, F. (2019). Identifying unique contributions of the coach–athlete working alliance, psychological resilience and perceived stress on athlete burnout among Norwe-gian junior athletes. Sports, 7(9), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7090212
  10. Richardson, S. J., McRobert, A. P., Vinson, D., Cronin, C. J., Lee, C., & Roberts, S. J. (2024). Systematic review of sport coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of game-based and con-straints-led pedagogy: A qualitative meta-study. Quest, 76(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343.
  11. Stamatis, A., Morgan, G. B., Nyamaruze, P., & Koutakis, P. (2022). Mental toughness development via military-style training in the NCAA: A three-Phase, mixed-method study of the perspectives of strength and conditioning coaches. Sports, 10(6), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10060092

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic