The initial certification of handball coaches for the teaching of sport in school-aged children
The purpose of this study was to assess the level of initial certification that coaches of school-aged handball teams have, the type of athletic planning that they develop, and these coaches’ evaluation of the material that was covered in their certification process. A descriptive study using survey...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM) |
| Repositorio: | RIUCAM. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.ucam.edu:10952/6447 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10952/6447 https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v5i14.99 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Balonmano Deporte en edad escolar Coach certification Coach Currículum Formación Handball School aged sport Entrenador |
| Sumario: | The purpose of this study was to assess the level of initial certification that coaches of school-aged handball teams have, the type of athletic planning that they develop, and these coaches’ evaluation of the material that was covered in their certification process. A descriptive study using survey methodology with a 5-point Likert scale was utilized. A total of 269 coaches participated, of which 27.9% were level I coaches, 26.4% were level II coaches, and 45.7% were level III coaches. The results indicate that the coaches of school-aged sport categories are predominantly lower level coaches. Coaches evaluated the following material in their certification classes as neither good nor bad: psychology, medicine, physical education, and training analysis and evaluation. They evaluated the content about new technologies as inadequate or having little relevance. Level I coaches gave a worse evaluation of the content about technique, tactics, game systems, physical conditioning, and training planning and periodization than level III coaches (p<.05). |
|---|