, coaches accentuated the importance of the interaction with peer coaches, following

, coaches accentuated the importance of the interaction with peer coaches, following the tendency confirmed in Erickson et al. (2008) study about the actual sources of coaching knowledge. The authors recognized that the interaction with peer coaches is a source commonly used in Canada, the country where the study was applied, which is far from the current coaching education practices in Portugal. In spite of this reality, coaches of this study highlighted its importance as a source of coaching knowledge, claiming the necessity to be included in the coach education throughout the development of coach career. These findings again proclaim the importance ascribed by coaches to the experiential learning (through own experience and sharing with others) and suggest the value of the communities of practices (Culver and Trudel, 2006). As Trudel and Gilbert (2004) claim, traditionally in the coach education BKT140 site programs the focus has been to foster Pan-RAS-IN-1 clinical trials individual coach development as opposed to recognising the benefits of group discussions into the groups, particularly in relation to the development of social skills.The explicit sources related to books/magazines, watching videos, and information from the internet were also emphasized by coaches as important, corroborating the findings of Gilbert and Trudel (2001) and Wright et al., (2007) where coaches referred to such resources as important in generating strategies to solve specific issues. Moreover, nowadays the improvement of coaching knowledge could be sustained by the information available on websites, specifically developed for coaches’ communities; a situation until now which has had little expression in Portugal. In this study the lowest value given to the source information in internet could be explained by the lack of coaches’ acknowledgement about its actual value. The role of online technology in coaching is already recognized since coaches hold the capacity to select the available information from the internet (VargasTonsing, 2007). Some studies show that coaches use the web mainly to exchange emails (Wright et al., 2007) and read messages from others, and not posting messages. This fails to realise the full interactive potential of the internet in the re (construction) of coaching knowledge. On the other hand, as coaching is a social activity (Cassidy et al., 2004) it is understandable that coaches preferred to meet each other face-to-face to discuss coaching practices (Wright et al., 2007). Nevertheless, additional research is needed in relation to understanding the real value of this source. The attendance at seminars/clinics outside the formal systems as a non-formal learning activity was also highlighted by coaches. This result somewhat reinforces Bloom et al., (1995, p. 403) findings that coaches recognised the benefits of attending seminars and symposiums “where they interacted and exchanged ideas with expert and novice coaches”. Notwithstanding, the impact of these non-formal learning activities on the development of coaches is unknown because empirical research in thisCoaches’ knowledge sourcesarea is rare (Cushion et al., 2010). Furthermore, to better reach stated learning outcomes in coach development programmes such as the one currently operating in Portugal, there should be a more explicit diversity between the objectives of differing coaching curricula (e.g., between formal and non-formal courses) which at present remain undifferentiated. The only source that is related to fo., coaches accentuated the importance of the interaction with peer coaches, following the tendency confirmed in Erickson et al. (2008) study about the actual sources of coaching knowledge. The authors recognized that the interaction with peer coaches is a source commonly used in Canada, the country where the study was applied, which is far from the current coaching education practices in Portugal. In spite of this reality, coaches of this study highlighted its importance as a source of coaching knowledge, claiming the necessity to be included in the coach education throughout the development of coach career. These findings again proclaim the importance ascribed by coaches to the experiential learning (through own experience and sharing with others) and suggest the value of the communities of practices (Culver and Trudel, 2006). As Trudel and Gilbert (2004) claim, traditionally in the coach education programs the focus has been to foster individual coach development as opposed to recognising the benefits of group discussions into the groups, particularly in relation to the development of social skills.The explicit sources related to books/magazines, watching videos, and information from the internet were also emphasized by coaches as important, corroborating the findings of Gilbert and Trudel (2001) and Wright et al., (2007) where coaches referred to such resources as important in generating strategies to solve specific issues. Moreover, nowadays the improvement of coaching knowledge could be sustained by the information available on websites, specifically developed for coaches’ communities; a situation until now which has had little expression in Portugal. In this study the lowest value given to the source information in internet could be explained by the lack of coaches’ acknowledgement about its actual value. The role of online technology in coaching is already recognized since coaches hold the capacity to select the available information from the internet (VargasTonsing, 2007). Some studies show that coaches use the web mainly to exchange emails (Wright et al., 2007) and read messages from others, and not posting messages. This fails to realise the full interactive potential of the internet in the re (construction) of coaching knowledge. On the other hand, as coaching is a social activity (Cassidy et al., 2004) it is understandable that coaches preferred to meet each other face-to-face to discuss coaching practices (Wright et al., 2007). Nevertheless, additional research is needed in relation to understanding the real value of this source. The attendance at seminars/clinics outside the formal systems as a non-formal learning activity was also highlighted by coaches. This result somewhat reinforces Bloom et al., (1995, p. 403) findings that coaches recognised the benefits of attending seminars and symposiums “where they interacted and exchanged ideas with expert and novice coaches”. Notwithstanding, the impact of these non-formal learning activities on the development of coaches is unknown because empirical research in thisCoaches’ knowledge sourcesarea is rare (Cushion et al., 2010). Furthermore, to better reach stated learning outcomes in coach development programmes such as the one currently operating in Portugal, there should be a more explicit diversity between the objectives of differing coaching curricula (e.g., between formal and non-formal courses) which at present remain undifferentiated. The only source that is related to fo.