每一个参与体育运动的教练都会有不同的经历和不同的学习方法。这影响了教练课程的有效性在几个方面。许多教练参加教练课程，他们自己已经收到了一些以前的经验，无论是作为运动员或准备方案。这通常意味着这些参与者将进入一个预先设定的关于教练的信念课程，他们甚至听到他们的导师的第一个指令。这些观念很难改变，这是一个问题，如果信仰是错误判断（Ennis，1994）。明知或无意中，这似乎塑造了教练教育课程的方式运行。基本上，教练教育的两种方法已经演变。教练教育课程使用的最普遍的方法是使用经验的方法，也就是说，参与者被纳入教练的情况下，他们的做法是由自己的信念。然后，这是挑战，并希望，新的形成（库伯，1984）。那是你从错误中学习。 这种方法是基于认知线。从认知的角度来看，信念代表非常强大的生产过程中的知识，教练。理想的情况下，这个程序的知识应该在教练教育计划的挑战，如果发现不正确的，它会被削弱（安德森，1982）。在最好的实践中，参与者也暴露了为什么会出现这种情况，产生新的陈述性知识。这种陈述性知识的来源将有助于形成新的，在许多情况下更合适，程序性的知识如何教练。整个过程在很大程度上依赖于新手教练，或被教导，要批判反思型教练的能力（Brookfield，1995；特里普，1993）。此外，削弱和形成新程序的过程需要很长的时间，在最基本的教练奖励罕见的商品。这种特设的方法意味着很少有“模型”教练教育存在，大多数是理论拼凑模型，以满足运动管理机构的需要，以证明其教练（卡西迪，2004）。这些问题在心里，也许是不足为奇的，大比例的教练知识和实践没有来自教练的教育，但从以往的经验，个人的解释（垫et al.，2003，吉尔伯特和特鲁德尔，2001，古尔德等人，1990）。教练教育模式的发展将明显受益于一个明确的理论框架。
Every coach involved in sport will have different experiences and different methods of learning. This impacts the effectiveness of coaching courses in several ways. Many coaches who take coaching courses will themselves have received some previous experience either as athletes or through preparation programs. This generally means these participants will go into the course with a predetermined set of beliefs about coaching before they even hear the first instruction from their tutor. These beliefs can be very difficult to change, which is a problem if the beliefs are ill judged (Ennis, 1994). Knowingly or unknowingly, this appears to have shaped the way in which coach education courses are run. Essentially, two methods of coach education have evolved. The most prevalent method utilized by coach education courses are using an experiential approach; that is, participants are put into a coaching situation where their practice method is formed by their own beliefs. This is then challenged and, hopefully, new ones are formed (Kolb, 1984). That is you learn from your mistakes.This approach is based on a cognitive line. From a cognitive viewpoint, beliefs represent very strong productions in procedural knowledge about coaching. Ideally, this procedural knowledge should be challenged in the coach education program and, if found to incorrect, it will be weakened (Anderson, 1982). In the very best practice, participants are also exposed to why this is the case, producing new declarative knowledge. This source of declarative knowledge will help to form new, and in many cases more appropriate, procedural knowledge about how to coach. The whole process relies heavily on the novice coach having, or being taught, the ability to be critically reflective on coaching performance (Brookfield, 1995; Tripp, 1993). In addition, the process of weakening and thus forming new procedural takes a long time, a rare commodity in most basic coaching awards. This ad-hoc approach has meant that few “models” of coach education exist, most are theoretical patchwork models created to meet the needs of a sport governing body to certify its coaches (Cassidy, 2004). With these issues in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that a large proportion of coaching knowledge and practice has not come from coach education, but from personal interpretations of previous experiences (Cushion et al., 2003, Gilbert and Trudel, 2001, Gould et al., 1990). The development of a model for coach education would clearly benefit from an explicit theoretical framework.