It turns out there's not much evidence that what we teach about coaching styles and learning preferences is demonstrably true. We've got to teach something, and in a way it doesn't matter what theoretical framework sits behind what we deliver as long as it gets the coaches we're tutoring out there trying new ways of doing things. It would also be nice if we all delivered roughly the same stuff, so that coaches have a some common concepts and a common language to discuss coaching.

I'd argue that on a course where you're trying to squeeze as much in as level 1, not only should what we deliver help to make people better coaches, it should also be more effective at making people better coaches than all the other stuff we've left out. I don't know if that's currently the case.

Changes to what we deliver and the evidence to support those changes won't happen overnight. They'll happen as new evidence and new concepts from teaching, psychology, physiology and sports science trickle their way into paddlesport coaching. On the other hand, I'd be very surprised if the content of coaching courses doesn't change significantly over the next twenty years.

In the meantime, we should beware of being too dogmatic in the way we deliver coaching concepts. They represent some academics opinions of how the coaching process works. If they're helping people to coach better then that's great. If they're not helping then find something else that does!

In a way it all comes back down to the age old question, "is coaching an art or a science?" I'd argue the answer is that it's an art, but one where a deeper understanding of the science can be one of things that helps us!