Educational work
Relationships in a Weightlifting Team and Educational Work with It
English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1982 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1982), pp. 11–15: the text is paraphrased, not translated; data tables are given in full with English labels.
Aim and subjects
Party decisions of 1979–1981 call for tailored, lively educational work, which requires coaches to know their athletes. The authors studied the USSR junior team at a pre-competition camp.
- Team: ages 17–20, all at least Masters of Sport; 5 republics, 18 cities, 6 nationalities.
- Education: 30% incomplete higher, 17.5% incomplete specialised secondary, 52% secondary; 95.7% Komsomol members.
- Methods: sociometry; an acceptability scale (after N. V. Bakhareva, 1970); the TS-1 coach–athlete scale.
Sociometry
Athletes named ranked choices for team captain ("leadership", a working relation) and for four emotional criteria: friend, room-mate, work partner, leisure companion.
Table 1. Group differentiation of the team (number of choices received)
| No. | Athlete | Criteria | Overall sociometric status | ||||
| Leadership | Comradeship | Daily life | Work | Leisure | |||
| 1 | K-y | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| 2 | M-n | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 3 | S-n | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 14 |
| 4 | E-n | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| 5 | P-n | 0 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 14 |
| 6 | M-v | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 14 |
| 7 | G-v | 0 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 18 |
| 8 | K-v | 1 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 26 |
| 9 | Ch-v | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 10 | P-y | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 25* |
| 11 | B-v | 10 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 35* |
| 12 | B-n | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 13 | N-n | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| 14 | P-o | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 12 |
| 15 | Ya-v | 20 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 45 |
| 16 | A-v | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1* | 4 |
| 17 | K-n | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 |
| 18 | A-n | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 |
| 19 | B-y | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| 20 | G-y | 8 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 20 |
| 21 | K-r | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| 22 | K-g | 19 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 38 |
| 23 | M-t | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6* |
Athletes are identified by abbreviated surnames. * The leisure cell for No. 16 is printed "]", a scanning error; 1 fits the total. Printed totals do not match the row sums for No. 10 (24), No. 11 (36) and No. 23 (5); values kept as printed.
- Leadership: 4 leaders (6+ choices: Nos. 11, 15, 20, 22), all experienced, successful, disciplined organisers; 1 "preferred" (3–5; No. 10), 6 "not accepted" (1–2), 12 "isolated". Athletes are demanding about captains, and coaches should use these ratings when choosing one.
- Comradeship: Nos. 11 and 15 led; 11 preferred, 6 not accepted, 4 isolated; reciprocity 40.6%.
- Daily life, work, leisure: choices more even; few isolated for daily life, none for work or leisure; reciprocity 49.3, 37.7 and 52.2%.
- Most athletes can therefore take part in group activities, and overall relations are good.
Acceptability scale
Two situations were simulated: selecting the national team (choice by ability) and choosing a group for a hard hike (choice by character). Indices: acceptance of others and the team by each member (Ap), of each member by the team (Agr), cohesion (U), social dynamics (E), coefficient of variation (C).
Table 2. Indices of interpersonal acceptability
| Index | Team selection | Hiking trip |
| U | 0.48 | 0.57 |
| E | 0.77 | 0.85 |
| Ap | ||
| 1) | 0.35 – 0.5 (11) | 0.2 – 0.55 (12) |
| 2) | 0.52 – 0.65 (12) | 0.6 – 0.85 (11) |
| Agr | ||
| 1) | −0.25 – 0.22 (6) | −0.07 – 0.4 (6) |
| 2) | 0.32 – 0.65 (7) | 0.5 – 0.65 (10) |
| 3) | 0.67 – 0.97 (10) | 0.7 – 0.95 (7) |
| C, % | 18.6 | 41 |
Ranges of coefficients on a scale of −1 to +1; number of athletes in each band in parentheses.
- Ap: modest for selection (0.35–0.65), yet fairly high given competition for places. Higher and wider for the hike (0.2–0.85), as athletes knew each other's character from repeated camps.
- Agr: wide spread (−0.25 to 0.97; −0.07 to 0.95); 10 and 17 athletes in the top bands: strict mutual judgement.
- U, E, C: cohesion fairly high; E above the norm of 0.7; C under 50%, so no tension.
- Relations scored higher when choice rested on moral qualities than on ability.
Coach–athlete relations
- On an 8-point scale: competence 7.3, personal qualities 6.43, communication 6.22.
- 87% rated coaches highly as specialists (8–7 points), 82.5% as people (printed "8 and 6 points"), showing high authority and careful selection of coaches.
Educational work at the camp
- A pre-approved plan covered ideological, moral and labour education.
- On day 2 a general meeting elected the leadership group in line with the sociometry: No. 22, the clearest leader, as team head; No. 15 cultural organiser; Nos. 14, 17, 23 the wall-newspaper board; No. 10, Komsomol organiser, the coaches' chief helper.
- A common daily routine was checked by an athlete and a coach on duty; hygiene and tidy kit were stressed.
- Four political briefings (12 athletes reported), a lecture on international affairs, a wall newspaper for Army and Navy Day.
- Meetings with young workers of the Sergo Ordzhonikidze factory (with a visit to its museum) and with soldiers; visits to the Exhibition of Economic Achievements and the Armed Forces Museum; films; two volunteer workdays on an Olympic building site.
Recommendations
Success came from the coaches' use of the relationship data. The authors recommend:
- well-organised training;
- continuity of educational planning between competitions;
- joint activities of coaches and athletes;
- consistent demands from all coaches;
- team duties for athletes;
- encouraging self-education and self-criticism;
- well-organised leisure and rest.