2004 FCA Coach Committee Agenda

May 1-2, 2004, Winnipeg, MB


In Attendance:             Reed Fowlie                Roger Murray             

Roger Garrod              James Wiebe                         

Guests:                       Kathleen Millar, FCA Executive Director

David Hill, CAC Consultant


1.         Call to Order and Welcome

Coach Committee Chairperson, Reed Fowlie, thanked everyone for attending.  The committee reviewed the assigned work and objectives from the last meeting.  Not all members had completed their assigned tasks. 


2.         Outcomes / Criteria / Minimum Standards

Kathy Millar presented a comparison chart of the evaluated tasks required by CAC for each stream with the choices made by the FCA committee at the last meeting. 


It was agreed to add “Analysing Performance” in the Beginner Instructor as an evaluated Outcome.   Now there are 4 outcomes to be evaluated in the context.  The committee agreed to add “Analysing Performance” to Instructor intermediate context as well to change that context to 6 evaluated Outcomes.  All other contexts remained the same.


Roger Garrod stated that the committee had to keep a clear picture of the type of coach and the type of archer defined in each context during the next step in the transition.


5 CONTEXT DESCRIPTION S - areas of coach training and certification:


1.                  Instruction of beginners

2.                  Refining the beginner skills - intermediate performers



3.                  Introduction to competition

4.                  Competitive Athlete Development

5.                  High Performance coaching


The evaluator has to have a picture of what the coach needs to be able to do and have a feel for what the coach is doing.  The evaluator has to be trained to evaluate the most important things and train the rest.  Do we have to actually need to see everything?  A lot of evaluation can be done as a paper exercise.  It is important to separate the “what” from the “how” to get away from logistics.  The committee needs to get the “what” right, so that a contractor can build the appropriate “how” in a new learning process.


Learning and learning opportunities may mirror the two streams (Instruction & Competition), and then each separate context has different evaluation to reflect what is needed when the context changes. 


Learning opportunities have to be flexible and competent and in the competitive stream, the coach should be working with a mentor.  Evaluation should show what the coach can do now, what the coach needs to improve on, and what training is needed.  Then the committee has to decide how the coach accesses this new learning.



ACTION:         FCA CBET Transition Policy needs to be in place by in 2005


Policy statement regarding FCA’s old and new level 3 technical/practical course:

If a coach has taken the new level 3, the person will need to be evaluated, but if the coach has taken the old level 3, then skills will need to match outcomes in the new system.  FCA must ensure that they are trained and then evaluated for certification.


There is a separation from PDM and what their skill level is competitively, and the Athlete Development Model.  The ADM reflects the archer’s progression through the stages of skill inventory.  By this stage (Competitive Athlete Development context), the athlete should be progressing through the system.


ACTION:         Kathy will review the new level 3 in order to see what outcomes are met in the new paradigm.


3.                     Evaluation presentation by David Hill

Dave reviewed the FCA’s PDM and Coach development model. The system that the committee designs must keep in mind the:

(Is that going to be enough?)

(The Coach will lose certification if caught breaking the CAC code.)


Assessment with Evaluation

Evaluation must respect Coaching criteria and Minimum standards.  There should be a balance between judgement, and demonstrating established standards (pass/fail).  Some evaluation requires a step-by-step procedure; requires knowing what to do.  This could be too objective, leaving no room for past experience, and promotes de-selection.


Assessment is a learning process to inform and provide feedback to progress towards achievement to a standard.  The evaluator may have a more global measure since the task requires doing what you know.  This could be too subjective, based on observations and may promote self-selection.


A tool to measure competency must show Reliability on repeated trials, and Validity to measure what it is supposed to.  The committee must:


Dave produced data for 166 archery coaches trained over the last 5 years.  Approximately 23% or 38 were fully certified.  Can FCA certify 30-50 people per year?


Evaluation Tools to choose from:


Formal evaluation

Completion of Making Ethical Decisions evaluation on-line or with an evaluator (multi-sport modules only train but do not evaluate);

AND the option of:

Direct observation (training camp or on-site) or

Indirect observation (video submission)


Dave outlined CAC’s next steps to develop CBET templates for sports to utilise:

Evaluation tool kit



Templates for developing evaluation protocols

Recommended skill set for evaluators


3.         Committee Tasks for this meeting

The Instructor Intermediate Context was completed for minimum standards. (Attached)


Context descriptions and non-negotiables in evaluation were designed for Instruction of beginners, Instructor Intermediate and Introduction to Competition. (Attached)


A learning process draft was designed for 1 stream and 3 contexts:  Instruction of beginners, Instructor Intermediate and Introduction to Competition. (Attached)


ACTION:         The Committee will design a Placement Exam to recommend where the coach fits into the programme and best coach/instructor skill set match according to the streams and the contexts.


4.         Committee Business

·         2004-2005 CAC budget submission was reviewed

CBET project #1

To complete the Coach Development Model in the Non-competitive stream

To complete all projects of evaluation, creation of evaluation tools and transition materials required to complete both contexts in the Non-competitive stream

Contractor honoraria

Contractor expenses (including January 2005 meeting expenses & final report)


CBET project #2

Two committee teleconferences - discussion and approval of contractor's interim work


CBET project #3

Production of materials for presentation of Coach Development Model for the non-competitive stream and transition update for Executive Committee ratification, including contractor presentation to committee; copies of materials to Board of Directors for subsequent conference call and vote-by-mail


CBET project #4

Production/copying/distribution of draft evaluation tools in preparation for learning facilitator training


·         Appointment of contractor

The Committee appointed James Wiebe to continue the process to complete the projects outlined in the 2004-2005 budget submission.


·         Camp Instructor's video

Bruce Savage produced a video in agreement with FCA geared toward camp instructors teaching archery for the first time.  The FCA Executive asked the Coach Committee to review the video and to decide whether or not to approve it as a teaching tool for the coach programme.


ACTION:         Reed will send video to Roger Garrod and then to James Wiebe and Fern Walsh for review and comment.


·         Spirit of Sport video

This video was presented in the old Theory 1 and is still available through CAC.  James Wiebe led the committee through parts of the video to determine its importance as a teaching aid for teaching self-esteem.


ACTION:         Committee members will write articles for Info-E.mail about transition for both coaches and course conductors (LF)

ACTION:         Roger Murray will write a response to Ron Ostermeier regarding course conductor transition..


·         Nomination for Coach of the Year from the FCA Coach Committee

The committee nominated James Wiebe.


5.         Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 15:00 on May 2.