Qualitative analysis of the interactive decisions of three coaches involved in a “start to run” session

Introduction. A growing number of programs are implemented to enable a smooth resumption of physical activity. “Start to run” is a running program promoted by the athletics federation that has gained a great notoriety in Belgium. It proposes sessions of 10 weeks during which participants are trained to run 5 km without stop (10 km for those who are not beginners). No data seems to be available about the coaching process in this specific context of active leisure. The purpose of this study was to enlarge knowledge on this topic.
Methods. Based on the principles of the qualitative research, we analyzed three sites: three groups involved in a Start to run session in different communities of the Liege’s area (Wallonia, Belgium). In all sites, data were collected before, during, at the end and 12 weeks after the session. They provided information on the context as well as on the process (coaches and participants behaviors and perceptions), and participants’ achievement and maintenance. In this paper, we will focus our analysis on the interactive decisions of the coaches. It will be based on the observation of three lessons in each site (2d, 5th and 8th weeks): one of the authors attended to the training session as participant observer. Moreover, we will also use data collected through interviews (description of the organization and content of the program) and questionnaires (feelings about the lessons). Participants were also requested to provide their perceptions about the lessons. As evidenced above, the validity of the analysis is guaranteed by the triangulation of the data.
Results. The three coaches described a similar teaching model but only subject #2 pointed out technical drills. Only subject #3 respected the “official” program developed by the athletics federation. The two other adapted it according to their experience and purposes of their groups. All of them considered that they were providing enough feedback and were active. On the other hand, they thought themselves as needing to encourage more and to be more effective in group management. Globally, participants confirmed the opinions of their respective coaches but they seemed more critical in group #3, showing a lower satisfaction about the motivational behaviors and feedback. The observation pointed out some problems in the clarity of the explanations (subject #1) and some divergences were reported with the actors.
Discussion. The triangulation of the data allows us to consider that the three coaches are doing a very good job and adapt themselves to the expectations and needs of the participants. The identification of the positive and negative aspects in each subject provides a basis to propose some recommendations. Moreover, we pointed out that encouraged to speak about their own teaching process, all coaches modified spontaneously their interactive decisions during the study. This underlines the interest of this systematic analysis.