Introduction In todays society much is made of trying to assist those individuals who are performing below acceptable levels

of achievement. Whether it be in academics, athletics or industry a large amount of resources have been allocated to helping to bring the under achiever. It is important to provide coaching to help motivate people to be effective at all levels, especially in education. However it is important to realize that what works for one individual will not work for another. Marzano speaks of two types of motivation in his book. He asserts that students are either driven by a drive for success or they are driven by a fear of failure (p.148). If Marzanos assertions are factual than these two different mind sets would require two different types of coaching. I examined and analyzed a report that studied the coaching of high achievers and looked at the unique differences in coaching these men and women who were already successful in their given fields of sport or business. Description In their article published in Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Graham Jones and Kristy Spooner assert that while much attention has been spent recently on coaching lesser achievers there has been little research on coaching people who are already high achievers (HA). In order to show that a one size fits all approach to coaching is not effective (p.40) when working with HA they instituted a phenomenological study to identify common characteristics of HA that must be taken into account when coaching them, identify coaching needs of HA, and to identify key implications of HA. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2001) the focus of a phenomenological study is to better understand a particular phenomenon as it is typically lived and perceived by human beings (p. 157). Jones and Spooner do just that as they focus their study on needs and characteristics of HA as well as attributes that the coaches of high achievers (CHA) must have when dealing with HA. They enter into the study with the belief one-sizefits-all coaching is prevalent in both the worlds of sport and business and is not effective in either. They also believe that the relationship between in the CHA and HA is one of particular importance. Jones and Spooner selected 14 HA, six were from sport where they excelled at the international level and eight were from business where they were described to be fast track executives. Seven CHA of also selected as part of the purposive sample. Both genders were represented and the median age of all participants was 36.93 years (p.42). The CHA had all provided one-to-one coaching in both sport and/or business. The total number of participants in the study was 21; Leedy and Ormrod claim that the number of participants in a phenomenological study should be between 3-25 (p.157). Jones and Spooner used direct semi-structured interviews to collect their information. This is considered to be a very effective way of gathering information for qualitative studies. In particular when many of the elements being evaluated and studied are not tangible. "In-depth interviews are particularly useful when the phenomena under investigation cannot be observed directly (Taylor " (Darlington & Scott, 2002, p. 50). Each of the participants participated in a 30-45 minute interview. These were conducted either over the phone or in person. Ten of the HA and three of the CHA were interviewed over the phone. All interviews were recorded. All participants were given a set of questions 2-3 days prior to the interview they had also been informed of the nature of the study (p.42). The questions addressed the areas of important characteristics of coaching HA, needs of HA, and key elements in the practice of coaching HA. Participants were given the chance to comment on areas pertinent to them as either a HA or CHA. Interviewers would probe for information depending upon answers given to initial questions. Darlington and Scott go on to further discuss the importance of deriving meaning from an interview and in particular the exchange of information between participant and interviewer and how both become part of a the information gathering process.
The advantage of being able to clarify what the other means, there and then, is arguably more apparent the less structured and more conversational the interview process. Holstein and Gubrium talk of interviewing as an active, meaning-making process. Both parties to the interview are necessarily and ineluctably active. Meaning is not merely elicited by apt questioning, nor simply transported through respondent replies; it is

actively and communicatively assembled in the interview encounter. Respondents are not so much repositories of knowledgetreasuries of information awaiting excavation, so to speakas they are constructors of knowledge in collaboration with interviewers (Holstein (Darlington & Scott, 2002, p. 49)

The answers were then analyzed using content analysis (p.42). Quotes were categorized by theme. The process involved in analyzing and reducing data was very thorough. Information on the audio tapes was first transcribed, a practice Darlington and Scott consider essential and time consuming (p. 143). During this process researchers would go through and make notation as to long pauses, emotional cues, non verbal context etc. In the next phase researchers immersed themselves in the data, familiarizing themselves with the information. At this point common themes were identified by each of the researchers and the participants responses were combined when possible. Once the responses were placed into themes the participants were given a chance to discuss the themes. Analysis The information obtained in the study shed a great deal of light on the subject of coaching high achievers and the need to address these individuals differently than others. It is important to note that although the interviewers spoke with three groups, CHA, HA in sport, and HA in business, I do not feel that there was triangulation of data sue to the fact that they did not differentiate between high achievers in sport and business in the results. The only reference made is in the summery where the Jones and Spooner claim that there is a commonality of themes across business and sports (p.49). The authors are able to help the reader better appraise the nuances of coaching high achievers by the infusing numerous quotes by HA and CHA that assist the reader in understanding and relating to the findings of the study. They group the quotes by theme and identify which are from CHAs and which are from the HAs. I feel that the categories that Jones and Spooner arrived at are very comprehensive and provide an accurate tool by which to asses the feelings of HA and CHA. They made it easy for me to understand the main concepts that the findings addressed. The study is very thorough however I feel that the telephone interviews are a limitation to the study. Jones and Spooner cite a source claiming that telephone interviews are as effective as face to face interviews (p.42) however I feel that a 30-45 minute interview over the phone adds variables to the study that cannot be controlled. For one there is no way of knowing what distractions could be occurring on the participants end. Also, there is no way to see any non-verbal responses or cues; this in turn would make the transcribed version of the interview less comprehensive than those that took place face to face. Perhaps the reason for this was to secure the integrity of the studies natural setting, by interviewing the participants in a comfortable and familiar setting as opposed to a laboratory. If this is so then it makes sense that the participants were told what the study was about and given questions ahead of time. Pamela Maykut and Richard Morehouse speak of the importance making participants overt collaborators in a qualitative study. "We view the participants in the research study as essentially collaborators who together with us mutually shape and determine what we come to understand about them and their situation" (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 70) The study does distinguish the differences between coaching high achievers and one-size-fits all coaching. They found that while many high achievers are confident in their abilities they also feel isolated at times and need a coach that can address both of these issues. The coach must also have confidence in his/her ability, have credibility with the HA, however must not have an ego. Trust was identified as the primary quality necessary between CHA and HA and the existence of a coachs ego puts that trust in jeopardy. Jones and Spooner are quick to point out that many of the attributes needed to coach HA are only relevant to HA. Most of the factors identified are common among coaching in general. They go on to construct a list of practices that are particularly important when coaching HA (p.49). An example of this is that CHA should realize that HA are continually striving for new information in their field and they should be ready to supply them with the most up to date cutting edge information available.

As a whole Jones and Spooner do an excellent job of providing thick and conclusive information that supports their study. They deal up front with the one perceived weakness, telephone interviews, by citing research to refute it. I believe that they incorporate some elements of grounded theory study into their data analysis as well as content analysis. Synthesis I feel that the information presented in Jones and Spooners study can very easily be applied to education and help to formulate new ways to help students and prepare teachers to work with high achieving students. One area where the information can be applied is in the feedback area. Marzano speaks of the need for effective feedback and cites that achievement in classes where effective feedback is given is considerably higher than where it is not (p.37). Jones and Spooner talk of the need to provide HA with detailed and often instant feedback (p.45). The correlation here is important; Marzano describes the need for timely and specific feedback, Jones and Spooner call for the same to fulfill the needs of HA. As mentioned earlier the CHA must be understand he/she will be expected to provide developmental feedback at all times and not doing so will jeopardize the trust relationship forged between the coach and the HA. In the classroom this translates to being prepared to, not only have papers graded but to give specific verbal feedback as well. Teachers who work with high achieving students need to realize that these students need feedback as well as support. Having worked with high achieving students I can say first hand that expect to be challenged, are committed to their success, and look to their teachers to be confident and knowledgeable. These students also need reassurance from their teachers from time to time. Sometimes they need a confidence boost in areas other than academics. However it is important to keep a professional distance and not try and be their friend. They understand and respect the difference. After reading the study it is very easy for me to see how to integrate Marzanos Plans of Action with the needs of high achieving students. One example of this is where Marzano speaks of having teachers identify important declarative and procedural knowledge in the topics being taught (p.116) and Jones and Spooner talk of the importance the CHA quickly demonstrating how he/she will add value to the HA (p.49). An educator armed with this research could then design a curriculum, or lesson, with these factors in mind thus increasing relevance to the high achieving student. Evaluation / Conclusion After careful examination of the Jones and Spooner study I have to conclude that their findings coincide with all of my experiences with high achievers, both in academics and athletics. When I compare my personal experiences with the research based information presented in the study I better understand some of the behavior of the HA I have worked with and I can evaluate my actions as a teacher/coach. Having read the results of the study I will revise some of my teaching and coaching methods to better fit the research. As I mentioned earlier I have had extensive experience working with high achieving students as well as athletes. I have found them to have very similar characteristics, just as Jones and Spooner did. I firmly believe that it takes a great deal of energy to work with high achievers as they expect a lot from you. It is also immensely rewarding to see them continue to grow and succeed. High achievers are motivated by a strong drive to succeed, not a fear of failure. They have high expectations for themselves and for their coaches. Often I have seen teachers, and coaches, leave the high achiever to him/herself. I believe that the thought is that these students are doing well and do not need feedback and support that the lesser performing students do in order to continue to be successful. I believe Jones and Spooners research shows conclusively that this is not true. The participants in their study were adults and it showed the intense needs that they had, I believe it would be even more so with children. I believe this will help me to be a better school leader because it has given me insight into not only the high achieving students but also the high achievers on the faculty. The research also would be a guide for me in choosing and working with faculty to become policy intermediaries and leaders among the school community. This research, coupled with Marzanos, would also help in the construction of a new teacher

program. I believe that if new teachers were given much of this information throughout their first year it would help them immensely. Not only would it give them solid research based tenants upon which to develop their classroom policies but it would give them a key to developing a trusting yet professional relationship with the students. In summery I feel it is important to mention once again that Jones and Spooner clearly state that coaching is an individual practice and is best approached in that fashion, just as Marzano believes in individualized instruction in the classroom. High achievers however are a unique group of people and coaches of high achievers need to be aware of the practices to most effectively deal with their needs and traits. These coaches must be prepared to be tested, and they must pass the test each time and do so without becoming defensive or allowing ego to replace trust in their relationships. I would like to end with a quote from one of the coaches in the sample describing coaching high achievers: Coaching high achievers is challenging, draining and enjoyable, all at the same time. (p.49) References / Resources Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories from the Field /. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102034302 Jones, G, & Spooner, K (2006). Coaching High Achievers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 58-1, 40-50. Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2001). Practical Research: Planning and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall Marzano, Robert (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action . Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide. London: Falmer Press. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103922503

A Research Journal Article Analysis: Coaching High Achievers Abstract This paper analyzes Jones and Spooners study on coaching high achievers. The paper examines and analyzes the methods, complexity, findings and conclusions drawn by Jones and Spooner. It also compares and contrasts their study with other research and connects the findings to real life experiences as they apply to education and athletics.

Andy Tenney National Luis University ESR 508-1 Prof. Carol Burg