Research Article

Investigation of Self-efficacy Levels of Tennis Coaches

Volume: 14 Number: 20 December 31, 2019
EN TR

Investigation of Self-efficacy Levels of Tennis Coaches

Abstract

The aim was to compare the self-efficacy of tennis coaches according to different variables. Personal information form and Coaching Self-efficacy Scale-II were given to a total of 184 tennis coaches of different levels. One way ANOVA, LSD and t-tests were used for statistical analysis. Statistically significant difference was found in motivation, game strategies, technical teaching, character formation and physical fitness in terms of age, coaching levels, place of coaching, state of being in the national team, and years of coaching (p <0,05 and p<0,001). As age level, coaching level and years of coaching increased, subscale scores also increased. Subscale scores of trainee coaches were found to be low. Subscale scores of the national team tennis coaches were generally higher than the scores of others. In terms of age groups, the average scores of coaches aged 25 and younger were lower than those of coaches aged between 26 and 31. In terms of coaching ranks, the average scores of trainee coaches who did not have certificate were lower than those of coaches who had first and second rank certificates. It was concluded that the more time tennis coaches spent on the court and the more experience they had, the higher their self-efficacy was. It can be said that tennis coaches have moderate level of self-efficacy. It is recommended that they should improve more about game strategies and fitness efficacy.  

Keywords

Tennis coach,Competence,Self-efficacy

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.
  2. Bandura A (2001): Social cognitive theory: an angetic perspective. Annual Reviev of Psychology, 54(1), 1-26.
  3. Cervone, D. ve Peake, P.K. (1986) Ancholoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of Judgmental heuristic on self efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
  4. Çelik, V.O. (2005) Amatör futbol antrenörlerinin liderlik özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri, Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  5. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., ve Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765-776.
  6. Güllü, S. ve Donuk, B. (2019). Futbol antrenörlerinin duygusal emek ve antrenör yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD), 12(38), 58-79.
  7. Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In (T. S. Horn Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed.), (p.309-354). Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.
  8. Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed.), (p. 239-268). Champaign, IL: Human Knetics.
  9. İmamoğlu, R. (2001). Bazı takım ve ferdi spor branşlarındaki antrenörlerin is tatmin düzeylerinin incelenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi,Gazi Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  10. Koçak, V.C. ve Güven, Ö.(2018). Voleybol antrenörü mesleki öz yeterlik ölçeği geçerlik ve günenirlik çalışması.SPORMETRE,16(2),162-177