a master’s action research thesis by elisha de jesus to new england college april 2009

A Master’s Action Research ThesisBy Elisha De Jesus

To New England College

April 2009

“In What Ways Do Different Coaching Styles Impact the Motivation of Female High School Varsity Basketball Players?”

As a coach I want to know if I am doing my job as a motivational leader. I have always wondered how much influence a coach can have on their players during practices and games.

The purpose of this action research was to find out how my style of coaching had an impact on my Female Varsity High School Basketball Players.

WHERE: Morristown Central School Gymnasium.

WHO: 2008 – 2009 Morristown Lady Rockets Varsity Basketball Team. (2 Sophomores, 4 Juniors, 4 Seniors, 1 Female Head Coach, 1 Male Assistant Coach)

RESEARCHER: Head Coach

AUTOCRATIC COACH: A style of coaching also known as the command or dictator style because the coach is always the one to make all the decisions.

SUBMISSIVE COACH: A style of coaching in which the coach makes as few decisions as possible, offers little instruction, provides little guidance, and solves few problems. The coach lets his/her players do what they want.

COOPERATIVE COACH: A style of coaching that allows athletes to give input into decisions which affect the team. This style is known as the “teacher.”

The more a coach motivates through a cooperative coaching style, players will perform at higher levels.

The female basketball athletes in this study will be motivated more through the use of positive feedback, and a more team geared approach to coaching.

These female athletes will benefit from a coach who has high warmth and who promotes learning and growth of the athletes by listening to their ideas and providing a role model for well informed decision making.

At the beginning of the season, permission was granted by all ten of my female athletes with the use of a consent form signed and turned in by each athletes parents/guardians.

Data was collected during the 2008-2009 winter basketball season, which was approximately 4 months.

Athlete and Coaches Pre and Post Surveys- Surveys based on a likert scale given at the beginning and end of the research project.

Attendance Chart- Players were held accountable for being at practices, games and team events.

Athlete and Coaches Practice/Game Journal Entries- Daily journals were kept by players and coaches after every practice and every game.

Key1 = Disagree2 = Somewhat Disagree3 = Somewhat Agree4 = Agree

Student-Athletes # of Practices Practices Attended % of Practices Attended

# 1 40 40 100%

# 2 40 39 97%

# 3 40 30 75%

# 5 40 38 95%

# 6 40 40 100%

# 7 40 35 87%

# 8 40 40 100%

# 9 40 39 97%

# 10 40 35 87%

# 12 40 39 97%

Student-Athletes # of Games Games Attended % of Games Attended

# 1 22 22 100%

# 2 22 22 100%

# 3 22 19 86%

# 5 22 22 100%

# 6 22 22 100%

# 7 22 22 100%

# 8 22 22 100%

# 9 22 22 100%

# 10 22 22 100%

# 12 22 22 100%

“Coach/I used an authoritarian style of coaching today”


“Coach/I used a submissive style of coaching today.”


“Coach/I used a cooperative style of coaching today.”Key

1 = Disagree2 = Somewhat Disagree3 = Somewhat Agree4 = Agree

“I motivated myself today.”Key


“I felt like I motivated my players today.”Key


“I was motivated by my coach today.”Key


“Coach/I used an authoritarian style of coaching today.”


“Coach/I used a submissive style of coaching today.” Key


“Coach/I Used a cooperative style of coaching today.” Key


“I motivated myself today.”


“I felt like I motivated my players today.”


“I was motivated by my coach today.”


It was very common in practices for coaches to be frustrated with how the team performed during drills and frustrated with how they acted and reacted to simple requests from the coaches.

The coaches frequently agreed on expecting the most out of their athletes even though it was quite often the female athletes didn’t always agree or didn’t always know how to expect a lot from themselves.

On the other side of the spectrum, the coaches frequently observed that they felt like they were enthusiastic during most practices and games.

During games some common themes were that the coaches yelled and felt frustrated 80% of the time while they also felt like they gave a lot of positive praise and acted enthusiastically.

From what the data shows, the coaches were dedicated and committed to the improvement of the basketball team.

At the beginning of this project it was assumed that the more a coach motivates through a cooperative coaching style, players will perform at higher levels.

Unfortunately, there was no indication that a cooperative style of coaching was demonstrated on a consistent basis during games and/or practices. Therefore, the team could not be motivated by a behavior that was not seen.

From the data collected it seemed that sometimes the coaches were not aware of the style they were using and reverted to more of the authoritarian style even when they wanted a more collaborative style.

The athletes often identified that authoritarian style rather than any other.

Although the coach believes that a democratic style of coaching will impact motivation and team climate for the enjoyment of the game of basketball, it is concluded that more research needs to be done on this phenomenon.

The results stand as inconclusive given the limitation on players, coaches and coaching styles.

The limited number of participants.

Limited number of coaching styles.

Athletes missing practices due to sickness or injury.

Athletes failing to fill out journal entries at appropriate time.

Next time the pre and post surveys will be identical to each other.

a master’s action research thesis by elisha de jesus to new england college april 2009

Documents