Motivational Climate in Sports Training Environment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Most psychologists agree that motivation is the best approach to enhance learning (Carr and Wyon 2003). However, the extent to which this approach has been applied in sports education is not clear. This paper analyses a particular soccer coaching session with the aim of assessing how the coach creates motivational climate for learners. The TARGET (Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation and Time) framework is used in the analysis. The observed coaching session involved training of under-twelve soccer team comprising of seventeen boys.

Motivational climate is the psychological mind set in which learning takes place (Digelidis et al. 2004). There are two types of motivational climate that can exist in a training environment. The first one is called task-involving. This is the approach that emphasises self-improvement. Task-involving climate supports all learners and mistakes are not harshly condemned. This is the approach that encourages working together rather than competing with each another. Rewards are given for efforts made (Digelidis et al. 2004). On the other hand, there is an ego-involving climate which encourages learners to be the best. This approach favours best performers and mistakes are harshly condemned. Learners compete with each other and successful performers are rewarded (Digelidis et al. 2004).

The task in Coach Andrew’s training session was about taking penalty shots. After receiving instructions from the coach, each boy was given ten chances from which he was expected to score at least eight times. In this regard, the coach informed learners that a good player should be able to automatically covert a penalty into a score. To demonstrate this fact, Coach Andrew took ten penalty shots and scored all of them.

In the first round of the shoot-out, only five boys managed to score at least eight out of ten. The coach openly praised the five boys and rebuked those who performed poorly. Unfortunately, most of the students who performed poorly in the first round worsened their performance in the second round. At the end of the lesson, Andrew informed learners that he was not happy with the way some of them performed.

The task in this session is characteristic of ego-involving climate (Morgan & Carpenter 2002). The coach decided both the task and the target without involving learners. From the body language of the learners, one could tell that they were not sure about their ability to beat the target. As Morgan and Carpenter (2002) notes, learners are likely to be less enthusiastic about tasks and targets set for them. In this case, Andrew’s boys may have performed poorly in the first round because they did not know why they needed to perform well. In addition, they may have failed to perform in the second round as a result of demotivation caused by their poor performance in the first round. The coach should have allowed the boys to decide the tasks to be performed and targets to be met. It should be noted that not every soccer player can be a striker. Some players can be good scorers while others good defenders. In this regard, the coach should have used several tasks so that each player gets a chance to do what he is good at (Morgan & Carpenter 2002). The coach should have aimed at creating task-involving climate.

Andrew was authoritative because he did not allow his learners to air their views. At the end, he got frustrated because things did not work the way he anticipated. In this regard, involving learners would have made them more enthusiastic about the activities they performed (Morgan & Kingston 2008). This could have helped avoid frustration and the subsequent worse performance in the second round. In this case, Andrew created ego-involving climate in a situation where task-involving climate was appropriate (Morgan & Kingston 2008).

Mr Andrew publicly praised best performers and condemned poor performers in equal measure. This discouraged poor performers to a level where they worsened their performance in the second round (Miulli and Nordin-Bates 2011). They became more worried about their ability to meet targets rather than enthusiastic about becoming better. Public comparison of abilities makes poor performers to feel undermined (Miulli and Nordin-Bates 2011). In this regard, the coach should have praised the boys who met his target in private.

Andrew engaged the whole class in a single task. This makes it hard to enhance individual talents (Morgan & Kingston 2010). He should have divided his class into smaller groups and assigned them different tasks. After forming the groups, he needed to encourage the boys to cooperate within their groups rather than compete (Morgan & Kingston 2010). This encourages team work and ensures that no child is left behind. A group should move from one task to another so that every child gets a chance to do what he likes. Learners who perform poorly in one task would be motivated when they perform better in the next task (Walker, Nordin-Bates and Redding 2011). In this case, evaluation of performance should be based on self-targets rather than comparison with others. In relation to timing, Andrew gave his learners enough time to complete the task.

In general, Andrew created ego-involving climate and failed to get the desired outcomes. There is a clear connection between his approach and the poor outcomes he obtained. In this regard, he needed a task-involving climate rather than an ego-involving one.

References

Carr, S, Wyon M. 2003, The impact of motivational climate on dance students’ achievement goals, trait anxiety, and perfectionism. J Dance Med Sci, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 105-14.

Digelidis, N., Papaioannou, A., Laparidis, K., & Christodoulidis, T, 2004, A one year intervention in 7^th grade physical education classes aiming to change motivational climate and attitudes towards exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, vol. 4, pp. 195-210.

Miulli, M., and Nordin-Bates M. S. 2011, Motivational Climates: What They Are, and Why They Matter. The IADMS Bulletin for Teachers, Vol. 3, N. 2, pp. 5-7.

Morgan, K., & Carpenter, P. 2002, Effects of manipulating the motivational climate in physical education lessons. European Physical Education Review, vol. 8, pp. 207-229.

Morgan, K., & Kingston, K. 2008.Development of a self-observation mastery intervention programme for teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, vol13, pp. 109-129.

Morgan, K. & Kingston K. (2010). Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports class. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 1-9.

Walker, I. J., Nordin-Bates S. M., Redding E. 2011. Characteristics of talented dancers and age group differences: findings from the UK Centres for Advanced Training. High Ability Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43-60.

Click Here To Order Now!

Motivational Climate in Sports Training Environment

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)