以前的教练被看作是传统的延伸，如，心理学，教育学，指导和培训。然而，教练还没有区分自己作为一个独特的、可识别的边界来自其他领域的相干场（ber，2003）。原来，教练研究了教师（劳克林和劳克林，1994）谁扮演了双重角色，作为体育教师和教练员，贷款支持的概念，辅导是教学的一个延伸（Kahan，1999）。基于这一假设大多数的教练研究移动与物理教育研究系在第二十世纪（Kahan，1999）。因此，为了充分理解教练研究是如何发展起来的，重要的是要提到体育研究的发展。根据桑代克的“心理学的主题是行为”（卡尔森和buskist，1997，第16页）因此，教育成为科学致力于控制而不是把教育和教学的形式和过程的意义”（多伊尔，1992，p.489），其中心理学”成为基础学科教育思想研究”（多伊尔，1992，p489）。采用科学的方法意味着教练研究走向训练的方法，而不是原来的观点，教练相关的教学（琼斯，在新闻界）。然而，最近的研究已经开始承认与教练的复杂性（琼斯，2000，potrac et al.，2000，potrac和琼斯，1999）。此外，认知过程和定性方法增加了教练研究（吉尔伯特，2000）。这种转变反映了教育研究的转变，从行为研究，检查认知和建构取向（卡西迪，2004）。指导研究人员承认有复杂和独特的执教过程中，如需要检查辅导过程没有其它学科的影响整体的、个性化的方法
美国南达科他论文代写:传统的延伸
Previously coaching was seen as an extension of traditions, such as, psychology, pedagogy, mentoring and training. However, coaching has not yet distinguished itself as a distinct, coherent field with identifiable boundaries from other fields (Stober, 2003). Originally, coaching research was conducted on teachers (Laughlin and Laughlin, 1994) who played a dual role as physical education teachers and coaches, lending support to the notion that coaching was an extension of teaching (Kahan, 1999). Based on this assumption most of the coaching research moved in line with the physical education research during the 20th century (Kahan, 1999). Therefore, in order to fully comprehend how coaching research has developed, it is important to mention the development of research in physical education. According to Thorndike "the subject-matter of psychology was behaviour" (Carlson & Buskist, 1997, p.16) and thus education became a science 'dedicated to control rather than making sense of the forms and processes of schooling and teaching' (Doyle, 1992, p.489), in which psychology "became the foundational discipline for educational thought and research" (Doyle, 1992, p489). Adopting a scientific approach meant that coaching research moved towards a training approach instead of the original view that coaching was related to teaching (Jones, in the press). However, recent research has begun to acknowledge the complexities associated with coaching (Jones, 2000, Potrac et al., 2000, Potrac and Jones, 1999). In addition, cognitive processes and qualitative methods have increased within coaching research (Gilbert, 2000). This transition reflected the transition of educational research from behavioural research to examine cognitive and constructivist orientations (Cassidy, 2004). Coaching researchers have acknowledged the complexity and uniqueness of the coaching process and as such call for a holistic and individualised approach to examining the coaching process without the influence of other disciplines
