Research on how higher education students tackle their day-to-day academic work and the effect it has on them, has highlighted the need to think of learning as the outcome of a range of interacting factors. These include the individual characteristics of learners, their past educational experiences, in addition to perceptions of the courses undertaken (Entwistle, 1995). Although learning can be seen as reproduction, a perhaps not altogether unreasonable conceptualization when facts need to be learned, what universities usually pride themselves on is the transformation by learners of the knowledge presented. According to Entwistle (2000), this knowledge transformation depends, in part, on the nature of the concepts used within the teaching, which have to resonate with everyday experience and be couched in accessible language. Such concepts also need to provoke critical reflection on practice, something that Entwistle (1994) described as pedagogical fertility. The (anticipated) resulting transformative learning relates to the ability of the student to make personal sense of the information presented. What is required is a quality of reflection and interpretation which enables a learner to construct “an integrated knowledge-in-action” (Jones et al., 2011); a process which very often changes him or her as a person.

For the past few years, researchers in (student) coach education have been promoting cognitive attributes such as reflection and meta-cognition which focus on critique and contextual decision making as necessary for operative working identities (Reid et al., 2011). An emphasis has been placed on the promotion of ‘practical wisdom’ (Schwab, 1971; Shulman, 1987); a concept that involves the development of craft knowledge within complex and ambiguous practice (Cushion et al., 2010). Although end-of-course evaluations and external examiner reflections somewhat assess the quality of programmes on offer, little evidence exists about the process and influences experienced by enrolled students. Consequently, as Coffield et al. (2004b: 13) suggested, it is imperative to develop more “independent, critical longitudinal studies” that review and evaluate the applicability of theoretical structures for the coach learning agenda (Cushion et al., 2010).

Using Perry’s (1970) framework, this paper (and presentation) focuses on the findings of two complementary longitudinal studies conducted at Cardiff Metropolitan University (Wales, UK) and the University of Porto (Portugal). More specifically, the aim of the project was to examine students’ perceptions of their learning experiences on the respective BSc (sports coaching) degree programmes enrolled upon, and to explore the related aspects that allowed and facilitated the development of their professional identities. The intention was to examine how the students’ moved through different stages of intellectual development, and what were the catalysts for such movements by examining the interplay between notions of self, structure and agency (Roberts, 2000).

Coffield, F.,Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning (London, Learning and Skills Research Center). Entwistle, N (1995) The use of research on student learning in quality assessment. In Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving student learning: Through assessment and evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Entwistle, N (2000) Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at TLRP Conference, Leicester, November. Entwistle, N. J. (1994). Generative concepts and pedagogical fertility: Communicating research findings on student learning. Presidential address to the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. EARLI News, June, 1994, 9-15. Hammersley, M. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp.159-174). Leicester: BPS Books. Jones, S. R. & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414. Jones, R.L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C. & Ronglan, L.T. (2011) (Eds.) The sociology of sports coaching. London: Routledge. May, T. (1999). Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open Perry, W.G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Pini, M. (2001). Video diaries: Questions of authenticity and fabrication. Available: 13th December - http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr1201/mpfr13a.htm. Powney, J. & Watts, M. (1987). Interviewing in Research Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Reid, A., Abrandt Dahlgren, M., Petocz, P. and Dahlgren, L.O. (2011). From expert student to novice professional. Dordrecht: Springer. Roberts, L. (2000). Shifting Identities: An investigation into student and novice teachers’ evolving professional identity. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(2), 185-186. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schwab, J.J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. School Review, 79(4), 493-542. Shulman, L.S. (1987). The wisdom of practice: Managing complexity in medicine and teaching. In D.C. Berliner & B.V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers: A fests shrift for N.L. Gage (pp. 369-386). New York: Random House.