75 www.ISCJ-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH 75 International Sport Coaching Journal, 2014, 1, 75-85 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2013-0006 © 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc. A Sport Federation’s Attempt to Restructure a Coach Education Program Using Constructivist Principles Kyle J. Paquette University of Ottawa Aman Hussain University of Winnipeg Pierre Trudel University of Ottawa Martin Camiré University of Ottawa Building on Hussain et al.’s (2012) analysis of Triathlon Canada’s constructivist-informed coach education program from the perspective of the program designer, this case study explored the structure and initial imple- mentation of the program, as well as coaches’ perspectives of their journey to certiication. Through a series of document analyses and interviews with the inaugural group of coach participants (N = 4), strategies for the application of constructivist principles are presented and discussed in relation to the coaches’ perspectives and coach development literature. More speciically, through its innovative use of learning activities and formative evaluation and assessment strategies, the program is shown to place considerable emphasis on coaches’ biogra- phies, relection, and representation of learning. Finally, recommendations for coach educators are presented. Keywords: coach development, coach educators, constructivism, learning, triathlon The design and delivery of coach education has tradi- tionally been approached from what may be considered a positivist framework (Trudel, Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010). Coach education programs informed by positiv- ist assumptions are typically anchored by standardised curriculums that are designed using a global needs assessment strategy (Gilbert & Trudel, 2006). Determin- ing the knowledge and competency needs of coaches is often achieved by consulting a group of coaching experts (Trudel et al., 2010) and/or surveying a representative group of coaches (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Once the curriculum is determined, these programs rely heavily on the course instructors or teachers to relay the information to coaches. Learning is predicated on the effectiveness of these individuals to instruct (Kirkpat- rick & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Werthner & Trudel, 2006); therefore, the emphasis is placed on what is taught (i.e., material of teaching) (Moon, 1999). The impact of these programs on coach learning has been brought into question (Mallett, Trudel, Lyle, & Rynne, 2009; Trudel et al., 2010). Some researchers have critiqued these programs for using approaches that decontextualise the coaching process (Cushion, 2011; Gilbert & Trudel, 2006) and disregard the inluence of coaches’ previous learning experiences (i.e., biographies) on their journey to becoming a coach (i.e., lifelong learning) (Trudel, Culver, & Werthner, 2013). Moreover, coach development researchers and practitioners have been encouraged to adopt approaches that better represent “the messy reality of everyday practice” (Jones, Bowes, & Kingston, 2010, p. 23), thereby acknowledging the diverse and context- speciic knowledge and competencies required by all coaches (Cushion & Lyle, 2010; Trudel et al., 2010). A possible solution may be the adoption of a constructivist approach (Armour, 2010; Trudel et al., 2013). Coach education programs informed by constructiv- ist principles embrace the concept of lifelong learning, and therefore the emphasis is placed on what is learnt (i.e., material of learning) (Moon, 1999) and “what the learner is becoming” as a result of his/her learning (Jarvis, Paquette, Trudel, and Camiré are with the School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Hussain is with the Department of Kinesiology and Applied Health, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Address author correspondence to Kyle Paquette at kpaqu098@uottawa.ca.