accelerated level 1 courses

[Legolas]

It has come to my attention that if popular enough people can sign up for a 4 day coaching course.

In short is this right?

We already have a problem that people have there know conceived ideas in coaching not like Korea where it is this way or else also it can take years to gain the skills. So by doing the course over a 6 months or however long it is it allows the pupil to talk to the coaches with different ideas and not just 4 days and by.

Let me know your views on this.

[sambow]

It would be nice to just get on a level 1 course. I spent many months last year trying to locate one in Warwickshire/West Midlands and lost count of how many people at GNAS (or people they told me to speak to) I have spoken to with no success. I was advised in the end to go for a Leaders course, which I did, but it was very basic and the vast majority of people on it were not even archers and were due to run archery courses upon completion!!! there doesn't appear to be a great deal of inteest in getting people signed up on coaching courses (at least not in my neck of the woods)

[Cimbian]

Coming to the end of my coach course now after 12 months of what I (a self-motivated business owner) consider to be hard work (still to go through the assessment).

Turning-up for a session is easy but a lot of work goes into the between-session study and research as well as in attending the sessions, despite the comments of some that attempt to dumb-down this level.

It is possible, I think, to do a bare-minimum to get a coaching ticket but is not in the spirit of coaching... To do this properly means exploring and going deep into each part of the subject. To buy the books is one step but to read them, filter the garbage and absorb the good bits takes a lot of time and energy and, sometimes a lot of self-motivation.

Then there's the practical side... Why does bracing height 'x' work better in this case? ... What happens if I do that? ... Will this improve that? ... Why is the group going there?

Outside of the course session one starts to observe a lot more when at the club or other shoots and this then detracts from one's own shooting time... quite a sacrifice IMHO.

Over the last 12 months I have observed and questioned a lot of what I have seen... Where I could work out the cause or remedy I have, but I have also been able to raise questions at course sessions with the county and senior coaches teaching us, as well as fellow course members... How can this happen if a course (even level 1) is crammed into such a short time-frame?

A four-day course for level 1 doesn't feel right, IMHO, as I can't see how anything can be taught AND remembered of any real value (and I'm not just talking about knowing about POA for beginners). Archery is already over-subscribed with the 'knowledgeable' types that just regurgitate bad advice at the drop of a hat... giving them 'authority' to do so after a short course is scary in my view.

I think it is also worth bearing in mind that the title 'coach' is all that a beginner or novice will hear... level 1 or senior makes no odds to them. So the standard should be raised, not lowered and I fear a four-day course would be going in the wrong direction.

An addage I've come to rely on in business applies equally well here, I believe.

"Just because we can, doesn't mean we should".

This has seen the demise of many flawed product and marketing ideas over the years to the benefit of the good ideas and products that may have otherwise been overlooked...

[rohenwto]

Originally Posted by Legolas

It has come to my attention that if popular enough people can sign up for a 4 day coaching course.

In short is this right?

We already have a problem that people have there know conceived ideas in coaching not like Korea where it is this way or else also it can take years to gain the skills. So by doing the course over a 6 months or however long it is it allows the pupil to talk to the coaches with different ideas and not just 4 days and by.

Let me know your views on this.

Can not see it being a Level 1 course, way 2 much to do, what with internal & external assessments to prove you have improved your beginers, not to mention work logs, mentor meetings, workshops on disabled archery, child protection etc etc. Could it be a Leaders Course? have seen these done in 4 days

[Legolas]

If you were to go to Perris web site you will see it advertised as Level 1 course.

[grimsby archer]

I have been an instructor on 2 level1 courses now.
There is a minimum number of hours classroom time (cant remember how many though) which resulted in 4 days on the courses I taught, plus an additional day revision prior to the final assessments. In addition to that is a small amount of homework and "supported practise".
My own personal opinion is that the work involved in getting "the ticket" goes beyond the spec for a level1 coach, basically teaching beginners to shoot. There's no deep analysis of archers or long term development involved or anything like that.
Anyone who has already got a fair background in shooting and has even taught some beginners should walk it pretty easily, with the course just consolidating "the gnas way". On both of the courses I taught on, there were candidates who were virtually beginners themselves with less than 6 months in the sport.
Of course as we reach the point where noone can even look at a beginner without the appropriate paperwork, experienced level1 candidates will become a thing of the past.

Personally I dont think it should be possible to do the whole course start to assessment in just 4 days. Sounds like someone is cutting corners.

I just remembered, one of the sections of the assessment is planning, executing and assessing an archery event. You have to plan an event (novelty shoot, coaching event - that kinda thing) on paper, submit the plan to the internal assessor for approval, then make the event happen and assess the performance at the end. That took days as each candidate had to do their own event, no sharing.

[Cimbian]

Originally Posted by Yorker

My personal inclination is I see no reason for the course to take any longer than it really needs to.

Agreed; however,

Originally Posted by Yorker

To be honest most of the peopole including myself who are going to do coaching courses are already knowledgeable and comeptant but need a piece of paper to make it official.

My dad was a professional driver and taught me to drive when I was 14 years old... I then went on to drive a huge range of vehicles as an apprentice mechanic when 16 years old (all on private land)... didn't necessarily make me SAFE on the road.

Originally Posted by Yorker

Then there is a cohort of people who basically have shot a bit and want to know more so take a coaching course for their own progression.

This doesn't require a coaching qualification so is irrelevant.

By necessity in any activity, let alone one where physical harm can arise from bad practice, a student needs to trust their coach to be properly qualified and competent. Rushing someone through a process just for convenience is not, IMHO, the way to produce coaches of any level and can only serve to dilute the meaning of the qualification which many others take seriously and work hard to acheive.

If anyone is serious about coaching they should not be put-off by normal course duration. If they are not serious about coaching don't do the course... find some workshops run by people that have put in the work to become qualified and learn from them.

[ironmonkey]

Originally Posted by grimsby archer

My own personal opinion is that the work involved in getting "the ticket" goes beyond the spec for a level1 coach, basically teaching beginners to shoot. There's no deep analysis of archers or long term development involved or anything like that.

just to clarify, are you saying that the level1 training/course goes above and beyond what is needed to be a level1 coach? that seems sensible.

IMO, even if a successful level1 "coach" still shouldn't be allowed near archers, without the close supervision of a more qualified coach. the objective of the level1 coach is to introduce beginners to the sport safely. the name is misleading; perhaps "instructor" was better afterall.

as you said, a decent archer who's aware of the peculiar ways of GNAS should walk it.
this might bring on heated debate, but here goes..
we know that not all good archers can coach, but it also seems to me that all coaches should be good archers, or at least have been good archers once.
as ludicrous as it might seem, i cant convince myself that some sort of personal-score based criterion for eligability to coach would be a bad idea.
something like 1st class or BM for level1.. rip this idea apart if you wish!

Yorker, i must point out; in my experience, the majority of archers taking the level1 coarse have been absolutley abysmal. for example two archers who themselves could not draw the string anywhere near their faces. we cant assume most level1 candidates are reasonably competant.

what im getting at is, perhaps its not a bad idea that there should be fast tracks to level1. however, it should certainly be more rigorous and selective!

[mk1]

Yorker

One of the plus points of the new coach levels is that you learn by doing and your learning is supervised and mentored. This is backed up by 4 days in the classroom spread out over several months. Assessment takes place at your Club or where you are teaching so the assessor can witness you at work in a real situation.

It was supposed to be thus with the old coach course but often people would be short of teaching practise (or in my case have lots of practise but unsupervised so we taught ourselves so whats the point of a course?) and real beginners for the assessment and have to "pretend" on each other which really is not the same thing.

[Huffy]

This is the link to the page on the Perris website describing the course,

News

Sounds like its being run with GNAS coaching staff as teachers.

Best wishes, Mark