Coaching as a learning methodology - a mixed methods study in driver development using a randomised controlled trial and thematic analysis.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Coaching as a learning methodology - a mixed methods study in driver development using a randomised controlled trial and thematic analysis.
Authors:	Passmore, Jonathan, Rehman, Hannah
Source:	International Coaching Psychology Review. 2012, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p166-184. 19p. 2 Diagrams, 9 Charts.
Subjects:	Coaching (Transportation), Learning, Unit method of teaching, Automobile drivers, Teaching, Randomized controlled trials
Abstract:	Objectives: This mixed methods study reviewed the role of coaching in the driver development environment. The study sought to explore the impact of coaching as a learning methodology and to compare this with an instruction-based approach. Design: The study involved a mixed methods sequential design. The first part of the study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the second part of the study used semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Methods: The RCT element of the study involved participants being randomly allocated to one of two learning groups. In the first group participants were trained by driving instructors trained in coaching skills using a blended method of coaching and instruction. In the second group participants were trained by driving instructors using solely an instruction approach. In total 208 participants took part with 24 driving instructors delivering the coaching or instruction across the two groups. In the qualitative part of the research, four driving instructors and seven learners were interviewed using semi-structured interviews and the data analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The quantitative study revealed that coaching was a more effective and efficient method for learning in this context. The independent samples t-tests indicated significant differences with learners in the coaching group spending less time in training (p<0.01) and being more likely to pass their test on the first attempt (p<0.01). The coaching group also had fewer attempts to pass the assessment (p<0.01) than the instruction group. The qualitative study suggested that from this group that both learners and 'instructors' observed positive aspects to the coaching style of learning. This was strongest for instructors who suggested coaching facilitated an improved relationship and helped the learner to learn more quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of International Coaching Psychology Review is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Objectives: This mixed methods study reviewed the role of coaching in the driver development environment. The study sought to explore the impact of coaching as a learning methodology and to compare this with an instruction-based approach. Design: The study involved a mixed methods sequential design. The first part of the study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the second part of the study used semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Methods: The RCT element of the study involved participants being randomly allocated to one of two learning groups. In the first group participants were trained by driving instructors trained in coaching skills using a blended method of coaching and instruction. In the second group participants were trained by driving instructors using solely an instruction approach. In total 208 participants took part with 24 driving instructors delivering the coaching or instruction across the two groups. In the qualitative part of the research, four driving instructors and seven learners were interviewed using semi-structured interviews and the data analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The quantitative study revealed that coaching was a more effective and efficient method for learning in this context. The independent samples t-tests indicated significant differences with learners in the coaching group spending less time in training (p<0.01) and being more likely to pass their test on the first attempt (p<0.01). The coaching group also had fewer attempts to pass the assessment (p<0.01) than the instruction group. The qualitative study suggested that from this group that both learners and 'instructors' observed positive aspects to the coaching style of learning. This was strongest for instructors who suggested coaching facilitated an improved relationship and helped the learner to learn more quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	17502764
DOI:	10.53841/bpsicpr.2012.7.2.166