behavioral

sciences
Article
Expertise in Coach Development: The Need for Clarity
Christine Nash 1, *, Michael Ashford 1,2 and Loel Collins 1,2

1 Applied Coaching Science Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, UK;
[email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (L.C.)
2 Grey Matters Performance Ltd., Stratford upon Avon CV37 9TQ, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In this position paper, we start by identifying the issues inherent to coach development; we
then consider the current status of coach development and present our position before concluding
with key points and suggesting resolutions for the issues. Our intention is to propose the progression
of appropriate practices and approaches for the professional development and preparation of coaches.
In coach development, a lack of clarity exists at both organisational and individual levels, particularly
around the role of and aims for coach developers. Organisationally, we consider a radical reframing
required to progress the profession of coach development. We also suggest that many individuals
currently involved in coach development do not possess the requisite knowledge to move the field
forward. Our aspirations for coach development include recognising the need for expertise and what
it looks like in practice. Coaching and coach development interactions should examine particular
coaching challenges, concentrating on the thought processes and decision-making strategies necessary
to solve them. This necessitates a bespoke, problem-based approach to learning.

Keywords: critical thinking; epistemology; knowledge; metacognition; reflection

1. The Nature of Coaching

Coaching is complex and dynamic, often carried out in ill-structured and continually
changing environments [1]. It is unsurprising that meeting the needs of developing coaches
is equally challenging. The education of coaches has been extensively researched and
Citation: Nash, C.; Ashford, M.;
reported over the last 20 years; however, the more all-encompassing role of the coach
Collins, L. Expertise in Coach developer is a more recent extension to the coaching literature [1,2]. This addition to the
Development: The Need for Clarity. coaching field requires greater investigation in order to provide clarity to those involved in
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924. https:// coach development with individuals and organizations.
doi.org/10.3390/bs13110924
2. Organizational Views
Academic Editor: Jerrel Cassady
The Chartered Institute for Management of Sport and Physical Activity (CIMSPA)
Received: 19 September 2023 defines coach developers as ‘expert support practitioners who plan for, implement, and
Revised: 27 October 2023 sustain strategies and interventions in support of skilled performance in sport coaching’ [3]
Accepted: 7 November 2023 (p. 4). Challengingly, this definition, while providing some direction, seems at odds with
Published: 13 November 2023 others; for example, the European Coach Development Academy (ECDA) aims to “help to
standardize the training of coaches and allow European values to be common and replicated
in all EU countries” [4]. Similarly, the global organisation responsible for coaching, the
International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE), considers that ‘Coach developers are
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
not simply experienced coaches or transmitters of coaching knowledge. They are trained to
This article is an open access article
develop, support and challenge coaches to go on honing and improving their knowledge
distributed under the terms and and skills to provide positive and effective sport experiences for all participants’ [5] (p. 8).
conditions of the Creative Commons These varied definitions, plus other national and multinational organisational clas-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sifications, fail to provide a clear picture of coach development and the role of coach
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ developers. Importantly these definitions do not provide a meaningful consensus, nor
4.0/). do they provide the coherence required to move the field of coach development forward.

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110924 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 2 of 17

Without conceptual clarity (cf., [6,7]), there is clearly potential for misunderstanding when
considering the role and function of a coach developer, especially when designing and
delivering coach development programmes, systems or strategies for coach learning. This
clarity with respect to terms and purpose is key to moving the field of coaching and coach
development forward in an effective and professional manner.
Much debate surrounds the current status of coaching, coach development and
whether they are considered professions [8–10]. We are not suggesting that the prac-
tice of many coaches and coach developers is not professional, but more of an indictment
against the lack of systematic support and the recognition and development of coaching
expertise that would be aided by clarifying the role for the coach developer [11]. Profes-
sionalism, in this case, is an attitude or approach which we believe is essential for the wider
field of coaching to adopt in order to progress. This approach has been adopted over a
period of time within the medical field [12,13]. We accept that coach development operates
at multiple levels of sophistication across and within countries and organisations; however,
there are numerous examples of inconsistency.

3. The Need for Consistency

UK Sport is a proponent of bespoke coach development within the high-performance
area [14]; nevertheless, this message does not appear to be actioned across sports within
the four countries of the UK. However, the Nordic countries present a more coherent
picture, with Norway and Finland providing examples of ‘joined-up thinking’. Coach
development is identified as a priority in Finland, recognised as an essential element
of growing their sport system, and subsequently receives attention and funding [15].
Similarly, Norway has a very well-defined and regulated coach development process,
leading to the success of their Olympiatoppen and Trenerløftet, high-performance-coach
development and talented-coach-development programmes, respectively [16]. Further
afield, the Australian Government supports coach development through the auspices of
the Australian Sport Commission [17] at the community coach level as well as in high-
performance. These instances exemplify the differences in approaches and degrees of
support for coach development offered globally [18–20].
Therefore, it is important to clarify the differences between education, development
and training and instruction. All are important to the ongoing learning of a coach; however,
their application is dependent on the context of that coach’s development—different set-
tings requiring different approaches. Like effective coaching, effective coach development
is a matter of ‘it depends’, but the key is in what it depends on [2]. For clarity, coach
education describes formal, classroom-based experiences in which participants follow
a prescribed set of learning activities over a period of time. It is commonly offered by
national sporting organisations or coaching bodies and considered, cynically, by some to
be a money-making endeavour [21]. Equally, instruction can be likened to a set of specific
guidelines on how to complete a task, enabling the completion of the task by following the
directions but not requiring an understanding of why the task needs to be completed or
which approach is used. More broadly, coach development is an all-encompassing term
that includes education, instruction as well as other developmental approaches, allowing
for an individualised, nuanced approach agreed upon between the coach and coach devel-
oper. Coach development, therefore, includes formal, non-formal and informal learning
opportunities which are again determined by the needs of the coach and the context of their
development. Coach development is a longer-term process underpinned by a relationship
between a coach and a coach developer and is designed to change as practice evolves.
Key attributes associated with coach development such as expertise, judgment, challenge,
coaching, mentoring, scaffolding, reflection, exploration and articulation differentiate coach
development from other approaches. Attempts have been made to parameterise the role of
a coach developer (cf., [22]), offering a mechanistic, process-driven capture of the coach
development process. Whilst we appreciate the intent behind this process, we would argue
that this mechanistic approach can be too limiting to truly meet coaches where they are.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 3 of 17

4. Aspirations to Expertise
There does appear to be a confusion of terms, with education, training and develop-
ment being used interchangeably in many instances. We propose, for the avoidance of
doubt, that coach development should be focused on the development of expertise, accept-
ing that there are constraints to adopting this approach so, at present, it may be aspirational.
This expertise approach requires an understanding of the conception of both knowledge
and learning, as highlighted by Collins, Abraham and Collins [11], but we are still not able
to define an expert coach developer with clarity and authority. The key element here is
that coach developers are able to recognize the different points that coaches are at in their
learning journey—a comprehension of the situation in which the development is taking
place. Put simply, meeting the coach where they are. For example, consider the approaches
needed to work with coaches who want black and white ‘facts’ (similar to the instruction
mentioned earlier) as opposed to coaches who are able to grasp ‘what if’ scenarios and
explore the various options that actual practice presents. Within education, Entwistle and
Peterson [23] refer to dualistic, multiplistic and relativistic conceptions of knowledge as
existing on a continuum. Dualism, as espoused by Perry [24], is considered to be the most
basic form of assumption that someone may propose and is often compared to viewing
knowledge as right or wrong. We suggest that coaches and coach developers would not
be able to function effectively within the complex dynamic of coaching practice with this
perspective; however we have had experience of that type of approach. Multiplism is the
next stage of development and applies to those who may question or feel uncertain about
decisions that they make. Multiplicity by its definition suggests there are many different
choices and authority figures, such as coach educators and mentors within organisations,
who are not the only ones with answers [25]. The final category, relativism, is what we
want coaches to reach when they have learned to think critically despite challenges [26].
Here, coaches will have learned to analyse different sources, reason, logic and evidence,
recognising that practices and perceptions should be questioned when they are faulty.
Kahneman and Klein [27] consider that with the appropriate expertise approach,
individuals become more skilled at recognising, accepting and dealing with uncertainties
and, as a result, are more likely to deepen their thinking and progress their practice.
Coach developers, therefore, need an understanding of how to facilitate deep thinking
in themselves and their coaches, challenging assumptions, encouraging problem solving
and widening their knowledge base, using evidence informed materials rather than a ‘gut
feeling’ or just opinion. However, we would suggest that the ‘gut feeling’ improves over
time if appropriate levels of deep thinking have taken place (cf., [28]).
A well-informed coach development workforce would be of significant benefit to
organisations wishing to develop highly skilled, motivated coaches capable of continual
learning who are ‘agile’ in response to situations and provide the best experience possible.
In order to develop expert coaches, coach developers themselves must aspire to be expert
coach developers, displaying the following characteristics:
â Expertise is domain-specific and developed over time. Therefore, coach developers
must have extensive and carefully crafted experiences in specific areas, such as learning
strategies, that reflect their deep understanding of the area.
â Experts are able to structure knowledge for easy access. Coach developers must ‘sift
and sort’ their vast knowledge into an organisational structure that enables retrieval
with little attentional effort.
â Experts develop routines for simple tasks to free up working memory. Coach developers
need to ‘chunk’ information into small units to enable greater use of short-term memory.
â Experts recognise patterns faster than novices. Coach developers must to recognise key
features of emerging situations based on previous experience and solutions, mostly
using schemas.
â Experts take deeper meaning from cues. Expert coach developers need to notice key
features and meaningful patterns of information that can be missed or not recognised
as important by non-experts.
 memory.
 Experts recognise patterns faster than novices. Coach developers must to recognise
key features of emerging situations based on previous experience and solutions,
mostly using schemas.
 Experts take deeper meaning from cues. Expert coach developers need to notice key
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 features and meaningful patterns of information that can be missed or not recognised 4 of 17

as important by non-experts.
 Experts sort problems into categories based on the features of their solution. Experts
â categorize problems
Experts sort problemsbased
into on deep meaning
categories based onand
theanfeatures
understanding of the area
of their solution. and
Experts
categorize
tend to workproblems
backwardsbased
fromona deep meaning
solution and an[28].
perspective understanding of the area and
tend
We to work
argue that backwards
aspiring to from a solution
expertise perspective
is different to just [28].
being a good coach developer.
We argue
Currently, thesethat aspiring to do
characteristics expertise is different
not appear to just being
to be recognised a good
in the coach developer.
recruitment and de-
Currently,ofthese
ployment coachcharacteristics
developers, asdo not appear
presented to be 1.
in Figure recognised
Many coach in developers
the recruitment
follow and
a
deployment
simple of coach
continuum, developers,
moving as presented
from player to coachintoFigure
coach1.developer
Many coachin adevelopers follow
hierarchical, lin-
a simple
ear continuum, moving from player to coach to coach developer in a hierarchical,
progression.
linear progression.

Typicalcoach
Figure1.1.Typical
Figure coachdeveloper
developerpathway.
pathway.

While this
While this pathway
pathway may
maywork
workfor
formany,
many,especially
especiallyin heavily structured
in heavily systems,
structured there
systems,
is little recognition of the different knowledge and skills required for each—they are
there is little recognition of the different knowledge and skills required for each—they are related
but different at the same time. The false assumptions of a good athlete becoming a good
related but different at the same time. The false assumptions of a good athlete becoming
coach have long been acknowledged, although it does still occur [29,30]. Using the same
a good coach have long been acknowledged, although it does still occur [29,30]. Using the
logic, we suggest that being a good coach does not equate to being a good coach developer.
same logic, we suggest that being a good coach does not equate to being a good coach
Whether by accident or design, the systems in place for coach development do not facilitate
developer. Whether by accident or design, the systems in place for coach development do
the transition from one to another. At the heart of the challenge is the incongruity between
not facilitate the transition from one to another. At the heart of the challenge is the incon-
coaching development, coaching practice and the organisational constraints imposed by
gruity between coaching development, coaching practice and the organisational con-
sporting organisations that muddies the waters.
straints imposed by sporting organisations that muddies the waters.
We also believe that there is an urgent need for an expanded range of developmental
We also believe that there is an urgent need for an expanded range of developmental
tools, especially if we wish to meet the needs of the coaches where they are at—there is no
tools, especially if we wish to meet the needs of the coaches where they are at—there is no
one-size-fits all. At the heart of this argument are two fundamental questions—what is
one-size-fits all. At the heart of this argument are two fundamental questions—what is
good coaching, and what is good coach development? However, before these questions
good
can be coaching,
answered,and
wewhat
needistogood coachclarity.
establish development?
The clarityHowever,
of what before thesethe
constitutes questions
role of a
can be answered, we need to establish clarity. The clarity of what constitutes the
coach developer needs to link to similar clarity in what coach developers aim to achieve. role of a
coach developer needs to link to similar clarity in what coach developers aim to achieve.
5. Epistemological Confusion
5. Epistemological
For the coach Confusion
developer, achieving role clarity is inherently difficult. Frequently, the
Fordeveloper
coach the coach sits
developer, achieving role
on a metaphorical claritybetween
see-saw is inherently difficult. focus
the strategic Frequently, the
of a sport
coach developer
or system sits on
and their a metaphorical
wider see-saw
socio-political goals,between
balanced thewith
strategic focus of a sport
the operational focusor
of
system and their
an individual widerday-to-day
coach’s socio-political goals,
practice balanced
[11,31]. Thiswith the operational
incorporates focus of an
wider stakeholders,
individual coach’s day-to-day
including individuals practice
in positions [11,31]. This
of leadership, incorporates
partners wider stakeholders,
of the sporting system, suchin-as
cluding
fundingindividuals
services or in positions
agencies, andofthe
leadership, partners of theteam
wider interdisciplinary sporting system, such
that supports as
coaches
funding services
and athletes, all or
of agencies, and the wider
which contribute to howinterdisciplinary teammay
a coaching ‘system’ thatoperate
supports coaches
[32]. Thus,
the coach developer is required to operate at two levels. There is the top-down level,
which captures the big-picture focus of a system, the system’s philosophy, goals and
direction and the organisation’s epistemological position [33]. In contrast, the bottom
up which captures the perceived values, beliefs, habits and actions of each individual
they interact with, a personal-epistemological system, or the individual coach’s position.
Unfortunately, simplified conceptions of naïve coaching ‘philosophies’ are littered amongst
coach development experiences, which causes a lack of coherence between these top-down
and bottom-up interactions [34]. Instead, more of an emphasis should be placed in the idea
of ensuring coherence between the epistemological positions of a coach, a coach developer
and an organisation.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 5 of 17

Perry [35] suggested that awareness of epistemology is fundamental to learning as

it supports individuals in understanding how we think, perceive, value and learn about
knowledge [23]. Interestingly, by way of some practical examples, research has rarely
explored the coherence or integration of an epistemology which flows from a top-down
collective strategy for improving coaching knowledge. For instance, the strategy established
by the Rugby Football Union is, from the bottom up, made up of a collection of individual
rugby coaches and the coach development workforce available to them. Furthermore,
limited thought is given to the consideration of an appropriate level of desirable variability
between individual beliefs and values at different stages of a system, nor their coherence
with a top down epistemological position within coach learning. If we consider how these
ideas apply to a real-world context such as a Talent Development Pathway (TDP), they may
have a guiding philosophy which might include (i) the maximization of the potential of
those within their system, (ii) a progression of at least three athletes per year into the senior
world-class system and (iii) the delivery of a positive athlete experience for all involved
regardless of the outcome. However, this TDP also forms part of a wider governing body
and agency that prescribes goals, medal expectations and progression expectations per
year. Therefore, it is not surprising that the coach developer, when supporting coaches in
meeting these expectations whilst also balancing the coaches’ individual learning needs,
knowledge development and practice, can experience a melting pot of epistemological
confusion. In essence, coach developers are often faced with a conundrum of either meeting
organisational demands or a coach’s development needs.
Epistemological confusion relates closely to Argyris and Schön’s [36] idea of espoused
theories, which are the values, beliefs, proposed intentions, actions and behaviours we
believe we uphold in practice vs. our theories in use—those actually displayed in practice.
Recently, research was conducted to explore these ideas from a top-down view (cf., [37]) and
a bottom-up view [38] within both practical and applied settings. Hall et al. [37] investigated
the alignment between academy football coaches’ individual beliefs and the academy
system’s overarching ‘philosophy’, which they felt guided how they supported players’
development throughout the system. Through systematic observations and interviews,
these authors highlighted that a substantial gap existed between the academies’ espoused
philosophy and the interactions in use within coaching sessions. Hall et al. [37] also
suggested that ‘philosophy’ was used as a buzzword by participants throughout the
investigation, with limited adherence to how coaches should behave. Similar findings were
unearthed by Ashford and colleagues [38] at an individual coach level with the theories
espoused by academy rugby union coaches and what they intended to do, extracted from
semi-structured interview data, versus the theories in use, demonstrated through systematic
observations of training sessions and self-confrontation interviews. This study found that
coaches were often guided by ideological conceptions of coaching practice, driven through
top down expectation, which rarely played out in the realities of their coaching. However,
these findings from team sports differ from those of Mees et al. [39], who demonstrated
that the attraction for outdoor instructors working within organisations was the alignment
of philosophy and practice. Therefore, these studies suggest that whether the perspective
is bottom-up or top-down, it is the environment that plays a key role.
Close parallels can be made between Argyris and Schön’s work [36] and that of Collins
and colleagues in exploring the epistemological chain (EC) [40,41]). Collins et al. [41]
(p. 227) described the EC as a “consistent, logical relationship between philosophy, modus
operandi, aims and session content at macro, meso and micro levels”. If we extend the
idea of an EC to the top-down epistemological position that many sports and systems
adopt within coach learning and development, it means that we are no longer referring to a
chain but complex, interconnected epistemological pathways that converge on one another
at moments in time. For example, when a coach developer first interacts with a group
of Olympic athletic coaches who work across different disciplines with different athletes.
Unfortunately, research would suggest that coherent, integrated epistemological positions,
supported through coach development, education and instruction, are seldom identified in
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 6 of 17

the sporting world [42]. In fact, the state of play would suggest quite the opposite. By way
of example, sports which hang their hat on a single approach, “game based” or “implicit
vs. explicit” approaches towards coaching and coach development, are likely to result in
epistemological confusion throughout this system (cf., [43,44]) or a perceived lack of value
for a particular approach [39]. We strongly suggest that these two top-down positions
represent the naïve conception of a philosophy expressed by Hall et al. [37], and it is
unlikely that coaches are upholding these epistemological beliefs at the coalface, practicing
from a sophisticated epistemological position. Unfortunately, therefore, such positions will
likely result in regular and sizable epistemological voids, such as an unsophisticated and
naïve assumption by a coach developer, or coach, that anything other than game-based
practice is obsolete as a coaching method [43].
Rather than hanging our hats on a particular approach to coach development, it
seems logical to explore and investigate the coherence, integration and understanding
of epistemology as a coherent framework that supports practice. In particular, what do
systems want their coach development to contain and why, and how will that be coherent
with those it is aimed at supporting? We feel it is important to add a caveat here that a
wider, evidence-informed diet of content, under the umbrella of a pragmatic view that
‘everything works somewhere, nothing works everywhere’ [45] (p. 63), is also a sound place
to start. For example, a coach developer may seek to support a boxing coach in zooming in
on clips taken from video and audio footage of their coaching. This video could present
a tendency to intervene too much and offer ‘white noise’ to the athlete, much of which
is unable to be used. Whilst this method of building self-awareness for a coach may be
useful in this context, it may be confronting and overly disruptive for others; therefore,
more subtle methods may be more appropriate for meeting coaches where they are.
To endeavour to understand the epistemological position, voids and degree of co-
herence throughout a system, a deeper understanding of the political, economic, social,
technological, legal and environmental [46] factors may serve to exemplify the true levels
of coherence and integration between coach development, coaching and the practitioner
workforce [47]. It is important to consider how this applies practically to real-world settings,
for instance, a sporting organisation may choose to conduct a research project auditing
the coherence and integration of the workforce’s epistemological position from top-down
and bottom-up standpoints. They may investigate the following: (1) the socio-political
goals set by leadership and their trickle-down effect on the actions and behaviours of
the workforce, with coach developers as a central mechanism; (2) a consideration of the
amount of funding allocated to coach development, how that funding is distributed be-
tween formal, non-formal and informal learning experiences and their perceived impact;
(3) an exploration of social interactions within learning experiences and the coherence and
integration between them within different stages of the sport and/or between individual
coach developers; (4) how technology, resources and materials are used to support coach
development and their impact; (5) from a legal standpoint, the ethical practices of those
within, across and between the workforce; and (6) how together, these five aforementioned
factors amalgamate to form an environment, and the possible instances of epistemological
coherence, integration, confusion and voids and their wider impact on behaviour.

6. The Challenges for the Coach Developer

The challenge for the coach developer is in facilitating the development of adaptable
coaches—those that can be agile in response to novel demands that are routinely encoun-
tered. Indeed, the only aspect of coaching that is routine is the uniqueness of the interaction
with an athlete. As alluded to earlier, by their nature, good coaches are adaptable, skilled
and agile thinkers [48,49]. With this in mind, investigations of coach thinking and decision
making have shown that decision making and critical reasoning guide practice and have
much to do with how learning experiences unfold for the coach [43,50].
Consequently, coach development can be challenging. There is no single way to teach
a coaching technique and no single way that a coach may learn that technique. Multiple
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 7 of 17

development decisions need to be navigated; therefore, coach development is complex and

undoubtedly non-linear. Logically, then, coach development cannot, and indeed should
not, be scripted or proffer a prescribed set of routines or a single solution or approach.
However, coach development still must retain coherence with epistemological political,
economic, social, technological, legal and environmental demands. This is dependent on
the coach developer making a series of nested decisions about their educational practices
and making choices about a particular course of action to facilitate development within
the demands of those constraints (cf., [51]). Furthermore, the coach developer must also
develop the requisite knowledge domains in order to even recognise key cues and decision-
making instances in the first place, linking to our characteristics of expertise presented
earlier [31,52]. For example, if we consider a coach developer within an elite team sport
context, for them to first recognize and second provide feedback on the limited speed and
representativeness of skill attempts within a small-sided game, they must possess the prior
knowledge and understanding of what game speed actually looks, sounds and feels like!
From this perspective, coach development is dynamic, demanding and problematic—
it must be responsive to the situational demands of a given context and the coach within it.
The effective coach developer embraces this complexity and requires constant innovation,
flexibility and adaptability—the agility mentioned earlier. Logically, then, the endpoint of a
coach’s developmental process is an adaptable and creatively thinking coach.
However, as we have stated, coach development cannot be just a top-down process;
even at the initial levels of coach development, the experiences of trainee coaches are a
crucial aspect of a given coach’s development. Indeed, we argue that neophyte coaches
may actually benefit from ‘trying’ to coach in a safe, supervised and supported context
before they are supported to develop. This experience, even as an ‘assistant’ provides
a context for their learning. Such approaches have inherent complexities; single visions
of coaching and learning only serve to mask inherent complexities and make simplistic
what should only be made as simple as possible but no simpler. Oversimplification is
an unfortunately common pitfall for the novice coach developer and plagues low-level
coaching awards designed by the NGBs, though it is unclear if this is by design or accident.
Certainly, there comes a point in simplified systems that a coach must make the leap from
procedure, or process, to adaptability. Such a leap highlights the epistemological void cited
earlier but can hinder coach development. Consider two practical and regularly applied
scenarios in practice. First, a coach developer is shown how to deliver a particular coach
education programme; the training takes the same duration as the actual course, and the
reality is that they are shown what and how to deliver the programme rather than why. Or
consider another situation in which a coach developer is able to deliver coach education
to the level they are qualified at, passing on just what they know from their own training
and how it may be used based on their own experience by replicating what they have been
shown. In either scenario, a prescriptive syllabus supports the delivery of an identical
programme that may be little more than indoctrination into the ‘systems way’. Quality
is simply measured using the degree to which the coach developer matches the model
presented and their ability to replicate or mimic rather than apply and adapt, illustrating
the desired and sought-after adaptability. This would seem little more than the naïve
epistemological stance also discussed earlier.

7. Creating the Adaptable and Creatively Thinking Coach

Hatano and Inagaki [53] contrast adaptive and routine expertise, noting that both,
for the coach and coach developer, demand the capacity to perform standard tasks and
functions without error. They differentiate routine expertise in two ways: firstly, as com-
petence with a task’s parts or functional units, and secondly, as an ability to manage low
variability in that particular task. Like routine, adaptive expertise shares domain-specific
and metacognitive skills but differs in a need for innovation driven by context [53–55].
Adaptive expertise is further characterised by efficiency and innovation in applying knowl-
edge when approaching novel situations and challenges [53,56,57], as mentioned earlier.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 8 of 17

The flexible, creative and innovative use of the competencies found in routine expertise
enables adaptability [58].
More recently, Ward et al. [59], Mees et al. [60] and Pulakos et al. [61] all suggested
that adaptability may be the essential ingredient in expertise per se, without which ex-
pertise could not happen—‘Conditio Sine Qua Non’ [59] (p. 35)—suggesting that the
routine-adaptive dichotomy is unwarranted. Mees et al. [60] also suggested a spectrum
of adaptability based on the dynamic nature of the performance environment. However,
this may also be a simplistic solution as adaptability seems non-linear and more dendritic
or network-like, an increasing bandwidth of adaptability in which the more adaptiveness
gained, the more can be considered in an exponential manner. Practically, Hutton et al. [57]
suggest that adaptability has several aspects: (1) high degrees of situational comprehension,
(2) possessing a range of skills to draw on as options in that situation and (3) self-awareness
to balance situational demands with individual abilities. These aspects, in turn, require
a comprehension of the interaction between those components and an epistemology that
acknowledges and values adaptability and new knowledge. Consequently, adaptive per-
formance is multi-dimensional and relevant to particular roles and contexts; therefore, we
suggest that coaching and coach development are two independent entities. Logically,
environments that require adaptation and flexibility should, therefore, require adaptive
experts or experts with greater adaptability. Conversely, those environments or tasks that
do not require adaptation and flexibility do not require adaptive experts, thus linking the
epistemological position cited earlier. Naïve epistemological stances, chains and pathways
have the potential to work in non-dynamic environments; equally, dynamic environments
probably require sophisticated epistemological stances, chains and pathways [62].
Consequently, coach development may be best-suited to a range of approaches that
facilitate situated development in which the What of a curriculum is also supported by a
comprehension of How and Why coaching skills are developed and enhanced in particular
ways. It is for this reason that good coaches may not make good coach developers, although,
as will become clear, it can be an advantage.

8. Adaptability and Creativity Requires Good-Quality Thinking

Explicit to adaptability is the coaches’ ability to select and appraise a range of knowl-
edge sources, make sense of that knowledge when combined with their experiences, and,
importantly, consider that evidence and how it may inform their coaching in the present and
future [26]. Selecting and appraising relevant knowledge and its potential application can
be a daunting task—of course, this can be easy if the coach developer themselves is working
from a script! However, scripted coach development develops script-driven coaches.
This position, if rationally considered, is not surprising given that we know coaches
perceive that they learn most about coaching by engaging in it; they seem attuned to the
‘how’ and why more than the ‘what’ [63–65]. Consequently, the notion of apprenticeship
may be better suited to coach development. Apprenticeship has been influential in teaching
and learning throughout history, especially in trades and professions [66]. Apprenticeship
has value in that it is highly situated, frequently in the workplace, under the tutelage of a
master and takes place over an extended period of time. Therefore, the situated learning
and facilitation of skills regularly associated with apprenticeships would fit nicely with
the support of coaches in responding to the cognitive challenges they regularly face in
practice [67]. Such cognitive challenges associated with coaching processes, are aspects not
typically ‘visible’ that can be developed alongside the practical. Apprenticeships frequently
employ four elements in the pursuit of expertise development [68]: (1) content, the types
of knowledge required for expertise (domain knowledge and metacognitive strategies);
(2) methods, ways in which the development of expertise can be facilitated (modelling,
coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration, see Table 1); (3) sequencing,
the ordering of activities to promote development; and (4) sociology, the social characteristics
of the learning environment.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 9 of 17

Table 1. Cognitive apprenticeship methods (adapted from Collins [68]).

Developmental Approach Description

A demonstration of the skills, usually by an expert, to enable the learner to develop a mental model
Modelling
of the skill. Often includes verbalising the cognitive processes.
Coaching Observing the learner and offering challenges, support and feedback
Putting supports in place to enable the learner to carry out the task in their ZPD. Scaffolding must be
Scaffolding
highly personalised, and if done poorly can have a negative effect on the learner emotionally [69].
The learner separates, verbalises and demonstrates their understanding of the component
Articulation
knowledge, reasoning and thinking processes in a domain
Learners compare their own thought processes and problem solving with that of others, in particular,
Reflection
that of an expert
Giving learners time and space to problem solve on their own, akin to a problem-based learning
Exploration
approach [70], fading supports and self-setting of goals

The coach can be engaged in the dynamic region beyond their current ability, their
Zone of Proximal Development (the Zone of Proximal Development refers to the differ-
ence between what an individual can achieve by themselves with no help versus their
achievement with the help of a teacher or their peers) [71], with support from a coach de-
veloper, a ‘master’ coach, developing cognition and practice in context [72]. However, this
development is reliant on the ‘master’ recognising and understanding their own coaching
and being able to articulate why, drawing on the evidence, practice and experience and,
importantly, their metacognition [73].
Modelling, coaching and scaffolding are tools that would be familiar to a practicing
coach and are typical in any traditional apprenticeship. However, the others, articula-
tion, reflection and exploration, are used with the intention of developing mental models,
macrocognitive and metacognitive skills, rather than a focus on physical skills [68]. These
latter three characterise the developmental approach as a cognitive apprenticeship. Princi-
pally, the cognitive skills being learned are the underpinning skills which are not entirely
observable and may be tacit in nature but are key to enabling the development of adaptabil-
ity and creativity. The intention here is to make these cognitions visible to the learner via
the coach developer articulating their thoughts, role and function—the why. For example,
supporting a fencing coach in understanding what good blade work feels like at the point of
contact is an extremely difficult skill to develop in a coach; therefore, a careful orchestration
of methods to support their understanding is essential. One positive element of scaffolding
for cognitive apprenticeships is the functioning within a community of practice in which
a shared language and set of mental models representing good coaching and good coach
development would exist [66].
A practical way to manage this challenge is to focus coach development on the growth
of critical thinking skills in response to day-to-day cognitive challenges [74]. Critical
thinking skills enable the coach to focus on the most appropriate sources of information, the
highest-quality evidence and knowledge to inform their practice. Logically, then, critical
thinking is a goal for coach development using this method. However, there is a need to
foster a coaching culture that includes critical thinking and supports coaches in being both
analytical and critical. This necessitates a willingness to ‘throw stones at false idols!’ [26]
(p. 129) while also accepting that many of the assumptions made about coach development
may not hold—criticality should be effectively applied to the practices of coach and coach
developer alike [75]. A well-informed and professional coach development workforce [76]
must be professional in its critique of the knowledge and knowledge sources that it uses to
inform its practices [26,50,77].
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 10 of 17

9. Creating Coach Developers as Critical Consumers of Coaching Knowledge

A critically thinking coach developer must position information and ideas within the
larger picture of coaching and the organisation’s epistemology, as highlighted earlier. By
being critical of the content they have presented or have been asked to present as part of a
syllabus, they can comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of a particular approach and
identify evidence that supports or contradicts its potential application.
Importantly, the critically thinking coach developer can problem solve and adapt to
changing circumstances, such as coach needs, and is therefore as pedagogically agile as
the coach they develop. This leads coach developers and coaches to focus their attention
on particular coaching episodes and challenges they may face on a day-to-day basis and
to critically consider initial actions, situational assessment, cues and potential errors in
response to them (cf., [67,78]). Coaches are already critical, for example, recognising the
effectiveness of an intervention based on observed performance is a critical evaluation [79].
Also consider the coach selecting from various approaches based on recommendations
from another coach when this advice is, at least, considered worthy of trial and then critical
appraisal before critiquing its effectiveness. Linked to the creativity highlighted earlier is
an essential evaluation of any information’s appropriateness based on its intended use and
how it has been derived, interpreted and presented. Thus, an essential part of the adaptable,
critically thinking coach developer is their capacity to learn from their experiences; in other
words, reflection.

10. The ‘R-Word’

Nash and colleagues [79] report that many coaches do not perceive themselves as
reflective practitioners, a point Collins and Eastabrook [26] agree with, highlighting that
coaches are more involved in the ‘in-action’ thinking, addressing the problem at hand.
This is in contrast to the ‘on-action’ reflection [80] that academic models often offer [81]
or those typically endorsed in coach-development programmes. Coaches and coach de-
velopers have frequently given reflection ‘a go’ and found it not to have value, so they
discount it. However, they recognise the need to be adaptable and flexible, which requires
them to integrate critical thinking within the coaching process; therefore, managing this
cognitive dissonance is a key challenge for the coach developer as it is desirable in the
developmental process.
However, a pedagogy of coach development is more than defining how to act. It is
more about creating conditions through which coaches learn about adaptability, creativity
and thinking about their coaching in a goal-directed manner. As a consequence, the
contents of any developmental curriculum need to be framed to ensure they are understood
and in such a way that they can be effectively combined. Frequently, if the contents are
limited but interchangeable and can also be interlinked, it has an impact on curriculum
design as well as substance and delivery. Effective coach development facilitates the
growth of effective reflective skills as well as resourcefulness, a resilience and capacity
to work independently or within a team often known as reciprocity or learning to learn
(see Learnacy [82]). It seems that coaching developers and development programmes
need to create opportunities for mentoring coaches and modelling coaching practice, while
also scaffolding those opportunities. Extending coach development opportunities that
enable the coach to reflect on and explore their practice while also having the ability to
articulate what, how and why an approach is selected and applied. Importantly, creating an
environment in which adaptability and criticality are valued and encouraged and ultimately
enabling a space in which adaptability can be explored and articulated by the coach and
coach developer are key to achieving expertise. Thus, to consider the application of these
ideas in a practical setting, coach development curriculums which begin with theoretical
content and rely on a coach’s effective translation of theory into practice may steer coaches
away from this desired end. Instead, more problem- and challenge-focussed curriculums,
bespoke to specific coach episodes faced by coaches on a day-to-day basis whilst still being
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 11 of 17

coherent and integrated within the agreed epistemological approach, are more likely to
support coaches in progressing towards a level of expertise through effective reflection [83].

11. Thematic Discussion

This paper was fuelled by a desire to help advance appropriate practices and ap-
proaches to the professional development and preparation of coaches. It is designed as a
presentation of our thoughts to encourage debate and hopefully move the field of coach
development forward. We realise we have presented some complex information which is
not always supportive of coach development in its current format(s). We also are mindful
that there are many coaches and coach developers who would share our view that there
is a need to change—we need expert coach developers advancing the number of expert
coaches. We use this section to address some of the key questions arising from the evidence
that we presented.

11.1. Why Do We Need/Not Currently Have Clarity?

We are strongly advocating the need for clarity—clarity of the role of a coach developer
is key to effective performance. As we have shown, there are a variety of definitions for the
role of coach developer which often evolve to fit the needs of an organisation or sport rather
than the needs of coaches. We suggest that as coach development is a new and evolving
field for many organisations, clarity may not be apparent in the system, as the system may
not have progressed to meet this new area. It would appear that in many cases, the role of
the coach developer has been ‘shoehorned’ to fit existing systems and available resources,
contributing to the lack of clarity.
We do not have a universally accepted definition of a coach developer that clearly artic-
ulates roles and aim. The definitions from organisations we presented earlier demonstrate
a wide range of interpretations, leaving uncertainty as to the scope of the role. This further
complicates the recruitment and deployment of coach developers as well as how they are
prepared to fulfil their remit of developing sport coaches to work effectively within the
dynamic environments in which they operate. Much of this can lead to the epistemological
confusion that we referenced earlier.
Key Takeaways:
• An accepted definition of the coach developer;
• Coherent articulation of the role and aims of the coach developer.

11.2. How Will Clarity Help?

We stated that our purpose here is to help the field of coach development move
forward. Clarity is instrumental in defining goals and creating steps to achieving them while
making effective decisions. Without this, there may be a lack of motivation, indecisiveness
and a lack of direction or focus—none of which will help coach developers, coaches or
sporting organisations. We need to ensure that the underlying philosophy, or mission
statement, of an organisation is clearly communicated to everyone in the organisation. The
values, beliefs, proposed intentions, actions and behaviours that define an organisation
must also be visible in a coach developer’s practice and be coherent with their activities
and functioning. By having this clarity of purpose, it becomes easier to concentrate on
some outcomes—expert coach developers producing expert coaches.
Key Takeaways:
• Clarity provides conceptual and practical understanding;
• Clarity enables focus on the key outcome.

11.3. Why Are We Not Drawing on Research in Other Fields?

We have looked extensively at what works in other areas, such as education, medicine,
and military contexts, in which people operate in dynamic environments. We have espe-
cially concentrated on evaluating the development of expertise within different domains.
The shifting of perspective from dualism to relativism [23] demonstrates the benefits of
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 12 of 17

considering coach development from a variety of viewpoints, asking questions, solving

problems and being able to synthesise all the available options.
The apprenticeship model, especially cognitive apprenticeship, has been shown to
add value within the field of education, but this has also expanded to include businesses
and the medical environment. Coaches value coach developers working with them in the
coaching/practice environment, so this model would appear to tick the box of situated
learning. The social environment is crucial to the success of apprenticeship, enabling access
to examples of good practice and varying levels of expertise opportunities to model be-
haviour, seek advice and understand that multiple solutions are possible. This environment
highlights the importance of the clarity and coherence of purpose from all involved in
the process. Before we wholeheartedly embrace and adopt these strategies, and many
others, we need to carefully evaluate whether these approaches would work in coach
development—remember the earlier words ‘everything works somewhere, nothing works
everywhere’ [45] (p. 64).
Key Takeaways:
• Research in other fields is well-established and evidence-informed;
• We need to be more open to new ideas and approaches.

11.4. Why Are We Not Promoting the Benefits of Reflection and Critical Thinking?
We highlighted the importance of both reflection and critical thinking in the develop-
ment of expertise—again, we can draw on work in other domains as to the success of these
strategies. Why is sport coaching different? Reflection is mandatory within teaching, and
the ability to think critically is an integral element of study within higher education. Reflec-
tion can ensure that everyone is benefitting from the learning experience, learning at their
own pace and ensuring motivation to continue learning. Reflective practice can improve
problem-solving skills and address challenges, allowing coach developers to devise individ-
ual strategies to meet the needs of each learner. The implication of focussing on particular
coaching episodes and cognitive challenges is one regularly suggested across the expertise
literature (cf., [78,84]) and offers coaches more value with respect to the reflective process.
In this way, reflection can encourage innovations in how to improve a coach’s practice
in reference to specific coaching problems, demonstrating that reflection and innovation
fully complement each other. Interestingly, reflecting in this way supports individuals in
engaging in skills which align closely to the characteristics of experts mentioned previously
in this paper (cf., [28]). Thus, critical thinking enhances reflection and vice versa as it
allows for the gathering of knowledge, information processing and the analysis of data.
According to Sternberg and Halpern [85] (p. 132), ‘critical thinking allows people to solve
problems more creatively, independently, and effectively’. Given the reported benefits of
reflection and critical thinking, why would we not incorporate both as key elements of
coach development?
Key Takeaways:
• Reflection and critical thinking are essential to developing expertise;
• Reflection and critical thinking require buy-in and practice to be effective.

11.5. Is Simplicity Helping Coaches?

From both research findings and anecdotal reports, there does appear to be a mandate
from coaching organisations to break information down into simple parts that can be easily
presented and digested. We suggest that this is doing a disservice to the majority of coaches
who want to develop themselves, their athletes and their teams. Is this simplicity for the
benefit of the coaches or coach developers? We frequently highlighted the complexity of
coaching and the challenges faced by coaches and coach developers in trying to embrace
the adaptability required to consider all the possibilities and select the most appropriate
approach to a situation. This is not a simple task.
The skills required of a coach developer, contained in Table 1, are complex and require
considerable investments of time and energy to practice. We also suggest that coach
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 13 of 17

developers should accumulate the characteristics of expertise necessary to operate at this

level. We expect coach developers to observe coaches in the workplace, engage with
them around their practice and conceive strategies to help them improve within their own
context. This cannot be broken down into a series of simple undertakings. As put forward
earlier, we stand by the statement that coach development services and coach developers
should aim to make information and learning as simple as it can be, but no simpler!
Key Takeaways:
• Coaching and coach development are complex constructs;
• Breaking elements down into simple components does not reflect the complexity of
the coaching role.

11.6. What Is an Expert Coach Developer?

This is a very difficult concept to define—a bit like trying to nail jelly to a wall! We
mentioned a ‘master’—an individual who is able to identify problems and who can make
effective judgements by using all their knowledge, techniques and experiences to facilitate,
enrich, and deepen learning to improve coaching practice. We emphasised the need for
adaptive expertise for coach developers due to the complexities of practice and the need
for the flexibility to shift approaches based on the needs of the coach in front of them.
This series of questions were designed to highlight some of the key features required for
expertise, underlining the challenges of achieving this goal.
If coaches are required to possess a depth and breadth of knowledge in order to
respond to key challenges (cf., [28,51]), the coach developer’s knowledge must exceed that
of the coach to support critical thinking and reflection as to where improvements can be
made. Consequently, an understanding of these knowledge forms, specific to their coaching
context, is essential. Research in this area, therefore, must attempt to investigate and elicit
coaching and coach developer expertise through the appropriate integration of different
methods. Interestingly, Nash and Collins [28] made the recommendation that a Cognitive
Task Analysis (a Cognitive Task Analysis refers to a research method that uncovers and
makes sense of what people know and how they think) methods and derivatives of it
(e.g., an applied cognitive task analysis) would be a sufficient way of meeting this end.
However, since this recommendation, only three studies of note have been conducted in
a coaching context (cf., [67,86,87]). This leads us to suggest to a call to action to identify
the minimum requirements for experience, learning, breadth and depth of knowledge
across different domains which coach developers should possess in order to fulfil their role
professionally and to ensure that professional standards are maintained in these positions.
Key Takeaways:
• Expertise is hard to attain but often conferred on those who are very good rather
than expert;
• We need coach developers who can encourage adaptive expertise in coaches.

12. In Summary
This is an overview of our views, beliefs and our position on how coaches should be
supported by coach developers. Having posed and hopefully answered these questions
arising from our thoughts, we would suggest that coach development requires a radical
rethink. Our position advocates clarity, starting with a shared language and common ideas
from which to bridge the sizeable gap between the current state of coach development
and our aspirational vision. We require thoughtful coach developers, striving to achieve
expertise to produce thinking coaches capable of adapting to the vagaries of practice.
We hope to offer an evidence-informed position from which to make the following
suggestions:
• We need to re-align our coach development systems to ensure clarity at all levels;
• Coach development systems need to be built on pedagogical, macrocognitive and
metacognitive skills;
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 14 of 17

• We need to develop a coherent framework that supports practice rather than being
ideologically wedded to one approach;
• We need coach developers to meet the needs of the coaches in the place they are at;
• We aspire to expertise—this is an approach that needs to be adopted by all;
• Research in this area should support a deepened understanding of coach and coach
developer expertise to support all of the above.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization C.N., M.A. and L.C.; writing—original draft preparation,
C.N., M.A. and L.C.; writing—review and editing, C.N., M.A. and L.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Mike Ashford and Loel Collins were employed by the company Grey
Matters Performance Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict
of interest.

References
1. McQuade, S.; Nash, C. The Role of the Coach Developer in Supporting and Guiding Coach Learning. Int. Sport Coach. J. 2015, 2,
339–346. [CrossRef]
2. Collins, D.; Taylor, J.; Ashford, M.; Collins, L. It depends coaching—The most fundamental, simple and complex principle or a
mere copout? Sports Coach. Rev. 2022. [CrossRef]
3. Chartered Institute for Management of Sport and Physical Activity (CIMSPA). CIMSPA Professional Standard: Coach Developer; The
Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity: Loughborough, UK, 2021.
4. European Coach Developer Academy. Available online: https://e-cda.eu/ (accessed on 24 July 2023).
5. International Council for Coaching Excellence. International Coach Developer Framework, Version 1.1; International Council for
Coaching Excellence: Leeds, UK, 2016.
6. Beedie, C.; Benedetti, F.; Barbiani, D.; Camerone, E.; Cohen, E.; Coleman, D.; Davis, A.; Elsworth-Edelsten, C.; Flowers, E.;
Foad, A.; et al. Consensus statement on placebo effects in sports and exercise: The need for conceptual clarity, methodological
rigour, and the elucidation of neurobiological mechanisms. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 1383–1389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Eys, M.A.; Schinke, R.J.; Jeffery, S.M. Role perceptions in sport groups. In Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology;
Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 117–134.
8. Nash, C. (Ed.) The coaching professional. In Practical Sports Coaching, 2nd ed.; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY,
USA, 2022.
9. Powell, S.M.; Fasczewski, K.S.; Stevens, N.; Tocci, N.D.; Jewell, S.; Blumberg, J.; Cangas, M.A. Pressure, Stress, and Coping:
Ex-ploring the Professional Demands of NCAA Division I Coaching. J. Sport Behav. 2022, 45, 77–94.
10. Duffy, P.; Hartley, H.; Bales, J.; Crespo, M.; Dick, F.; Vardhan, D.; Nordmann, L.; Curado, J. Sport coaching as a ‘profession’:
Challenges and future directions. Int. J. Coach. Sci. 2011, 5, 93–123.
11. Collins, D.; Abraham, A.; Collins, R. On Vampires and Wolves—Exposing and exploring reasons for the differential impact of
coach education. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 2012, 43, 255–272.
12. Jha, V.; Bekker, H.L.; Duffy, S.R.; Roberts, T.E. A systematic review of studies assessing and facilitating attitudes towards
professionalism in medicine. Med. Educ. 2007, 41, 822–829. [CrossRef]
13. Ng, S.L.; Forsey, J.; Boyd, V.A.; Friesen, F.; Langlois, S.; Ladonna, K.; Mylopoulos, M.; Steenhof, N. Combining adaptive expertise
and (critically) reflective practice to support the development of knowledge, skill, and society. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2022, 27,
1265–1281. [CrossRef]
14. UK Sport (n.d.) Coach Development. Available online: https://www.uksport.gov.uk/learning-and-development/coach-
development (accessed on 24 July 2023).
15. Hämäläinen, K.; Blomqvist, M. A New Era in Sport Organizations and Coach Development in Finland. Int. Sport Coach. J. 2016, 3,
332–343. [CrossRef]
16. Olympiatoppen Olympiatoppens Modellfor Utvikling av Trenerei Norsk Toppidrett; Norges Idrettsforbundog Olympiske Ogparalympiske
Komité: Oslo, Norway, 2019.
17. Australian Government/Australian Sports Commission, Coaching. Available online: https://www.ausport.gov.au/coaching
(accessed on 24 July 2023).
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 15 of 17

18. Nash, C. (Ed.) Career Development of Elite Coach Developers. In Developing Sports Coaches; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2023; pp. 19–35.
19. Mills, J.P.; Denison, J. How power moves: A Foucauldian analysis of (in)effective coaching. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2018, 53, 296–312.
[CrossRef]
20. Cope, E.; Cushion, C.J.; Harvey, S.; Partington, M. Investigating the impact of a Freirean informed coach education programme.
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2021, 26, 65–78. [CrossRef]
21. Nash, C.; Sproule, J. Coaches’ perceptions of their coach education experiences. Int. J. Sport Psych. 2012, 43, 33.
22. Muir, B.; North, J. Supporting Coaches to Learn Through and From Their Everyday Experiences: A 1: 1 Coach Development
Workflow for Performance Sport. Int. Sport. Coach. J. 2023, 1, 1–10. [CrossRef]
23. Entwistle, N.J.; Peterson, E.R. Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour
and influences of learning environments. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2004, 41, 407–428. [CrossRef]
24. Perry, W.G., Jr. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme; Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York, NY,
USA, 1970.
25. Myers, S.A. Using the Perry Scheme to Explore College Student Classroom Participation. Commun. Res. Rep. 2010, 27, 123–130.
[CrossRef]
26. Collins, L.; Eastabrook, C. The importance of critical thinking in coaching: Separating the wheat from the chaff. In Developing
Sports Coaches; Nash, C., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 119–132.
27. Kahneman, D.; Klein, G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. Am. Psychol. 2009, 64, 515–526. [CrossRef]
28. Nash, C.; Collins, D. Tacit Knowledge in Expert Coaching: Science or Art? Quest 2006, 58, 465–477. [CrossRef]
29. Taylor, J.; Collins, D. The Highs and the Lows—Exploring the Nature of Optimally Impactful Development Experiences on the
Talent Pathway. Sport Psychol. 2020, 34, 319–328. [CrossRef]
30. Nash, C.S.; Sproule, J. Career Development of Expert Coaches. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2009, 4, 121–138. [CrossRef]
31. Abraham, A.; Collins, D.; Morgan, G.; Muir, B. Developing Expert Coaches Requires Expert Coach Development: Replacing
Serendipity with Orchestration. In Aportaciones Teoricas Y Practicas Para El Baloncesto Del Futuro; Lorenzo, A., Ibanez, S.J.,
Ortega, E., Eds.; Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva: Sevilla, Spain, 2009.
32. Burns, A.; Collins, D. Interdisciplinary practice in performance sport: A scoping review of evidence of collaboration. Eur. J. Sport
Sci. 2023, 23, 1877–1891. [CrossRef]
33. Abraham, A. Task Analysis of Coach Developers: Applications to The FA Youth Coach Educator Role. In Advances in Coach
Education and Development From Research to Practice; Allison, W., Abraham, A., Cale, A., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016;
pp. 53–65.
34. Schommer, M. Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educ. Psychol.
Rev. 1994, 6, 293–319. [CrossRef]
35. Perry, W.G. Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities
of Diverse Students and a Changing Society; Chickering, A.W., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1981.
36. Argyris, C.; Schon, D. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1974.
37. Hall, J.; Cope, E.; Townsend, R.C.; Nicholls, A.R. Investigating the alignment between coaches’ ideological beliefs and academy
philosophy in professional youth football. Sport Educ. Soc. 2022, 27, 377–392. [CrossRef]
38. Ashford, M.; Cope, E.; Abraham, A.; Poolton, J. Coaching player decision making in rugby union: Exploring coaches espoused
theories and theories in use as an indicator of effective coaching practice. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2022, 1–22. [CrossRef]
39. Mees, A.; Collins, L. Doing the right thing, in the right place, with the right people, at the right time; a study of the development
of judgment and decision making in mid-career outdoor instructors. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2022, 1–17. [CrossRef]
40. Collins, L.; Collins, D.; Grecic, D. The epistemological chain in high-level adventure sports coaches. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor
Learn. 2014, 15, 224–238. [CrossRef]
41. Collins, L.; Collins, D. Integration of professional judgement and decision-making in high-level adventure sports coaching
practice. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 622–633. [CrossRef]
42. Crowther, M.; Collins, D.; Collins, L.; Grecic, D.; Carson, H.J. Investigating academy coaches’ epistemological beliefs in red and
white ball cricket. Sports Coach. Rev. 2022, 1–23. [CrossRef]
43. Nash, C.; Taylor, J. ‘Just Let Them Play’: Complex Dynamics in Youth Sport, Why It Isn’t So Simple. Front. Psychol. 2021,
12, 700750. [CrossRef]
44. Smith, K.; Burns, C.; O’neill, C.; Duggan, J.D.; Winkelman, N.; Wilkie, M.; Coughlan, E.K. How to coach: A review of theoretical
approaches for the development of a novel coach education framework. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2022, 18, 594–608. [CrossRef]
45. Wiliam, D. Leadership for Teacher Learning Creating a Culture Where All Teachers Improve so that All Students Succeed; Learning Sciences
International: West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 2016.
46. Martinez-Contreras, R.M.; Hernandez-Mora, N.C.; Vargas-Leguizamon, Y.R.; Borja-Barrera, S.M. PESTEL Analysis and the
Porter’s Five Forces: An Integrated Model of Strategic Sectors. In Handbook of Research on Organizational Sustainability in Turbulent
Economies; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 292–314.
47. Pereira, F.; Salvi, M.; Verloo, H. Beliefs, Knowledge, Implementation, and Integration of Evidence-Based Practice Among Primary
Health Care Providers: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2017, 6, e148. [CrossRef]
48. Elliott, J.M.; McCullick, B.A. Exceptional adaptability in collegiate coaching. Sports Coach. Rev. 2019, 8, 199–223. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 16 of 17

49. Mees, A.; Sinfield, D.; Collins, D.; Collins, L. Adaptive expertise—A characteristic of expertise in outdoor instructors? Phys. Educ.
Sport Pedagog. 2020, 25, 423–438. [CrossRef]
50. Stoszkowski, J.; MacNamara, Á.; Collins, D.; Hodgkinson, A. “Opinion and Fact, Perspective and Truth”: Seeking Truthfulness
and Integrity in Coaching and Coach Education. Int. Sport Coach. J. 2020, 8, 263–269. [CrossRef]
51. Abraham, A.; Collins, D. Taking the Next Step: Ways Forward for Coaching Science. Quest 2011, 63, 366–384. [CrossRef]
52. Kirschner, P.A.; Hendrick, C. How Learning Happens: Seminal Works in Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
53. Hatano, G.; Inagaki, K. Two courses of expertise. In Child Development and Education in Japan; Stevenson, H., Azuma, H.,
Hakuta, K., Eds.; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 262–272.
54. Crawford, V.M.; Schlager, M.; Toyama, Y.; Riel, M.; Vahey, P. Characterizing adaptive expertise in science teaching intro-duction
and overview. In Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada,
11–15 April 2005.
55. Hatano, G.; Oura, Y. Commentary: Reconceptualizing School Learning Using Insight From Expertise Research. Educ. Res. 2003,
32, 26–29. [CrossRef]
56. Bransford, J.; Derry, S.; Berliner, D.; Hammerness, K.; Beckett, K.L. Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In Preparing
Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers should Learn and be Able to Do; Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Eds.; Jossey-Bass:
San Fransisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 40–87.
57. Hutton, R.; Ward, P.; Gore, J.; Turner, P.; Hoffman, R.; Leggatt, A.; Conway, G. Developing adaptive expertise: A synthesis of
literature and implications for training. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making,
Bath, UK, 20–23 June 2017; pp. 81–86.
58. Trotter, M.J.; Salmon, P.M.; Goode, N.; Lenné, M.G. Distributed improvisation: A systems perspective of improvisation ‘epics’ by
led outdoor activity leaders. Ergonomics 2017, 61, 295–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Ward, P.; Gore, J.; Hutton, R.; Conway, G.E.; Hoffman, R.R. Adaptive skill as the Conditio sine qua non of expertise. J. Appl. Res.
Mem. Cogn. 2018, 7, 35–50. [CrossRef]
60. Mees, A.; Toering, T.; Collins, L. Exploring the development of judgement and decision making in ‘competent’outdoor in-structors.
J. Adv. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2021, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef]
61. Pulakos, E.D.; Arad, S.; Donovan, M.A.; Plamondon, K.E. Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive
performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 612–624. [CrossRef]
62. Elby, A.; Hammer, D. On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Sci. Educ. 2000, 85, 554–567. [CrossRef]
63. Nelson, L.J.; Cushion, C.J. Reflection in Coach Education: The Case of the National Governing Body Coaching Certificate.
Sport Psychol. 2006, 20, 174–183. [CrossRef]
64. Sinfield, D.; Allen, J.; Collins, L. A comparative analysis of the coaching skills required by coaches operating in different
non-competitive paddlesport settings. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2019, 20, 170–184. [CrossRef]
65. Stoszkowski, J.; Collins, D. Communities of practice, social learning and networks: Exploiting the social side of coach development.
Sport Educ. Soc. 2014, 19, 773–788. [CrossRef]
66. Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991.
67. Taylor, J.; Ashford, M.; Jefferson, M. High performance coach cognition in the wild: Using applied cognitive task analysis for
practical insights–cognitive challenges and curriculum knowledge. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1154168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Collins, A. Cognitive Apprenticeship. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology;
Sawyer, R., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 47–60. [CrossRef]
69. Bean, T.W.; Stevens, L.P. Scaffolding Reflection for Preservice and Inservice Teachers. Reflective Pr. 2002, 3, 205–218. [CrossRef]
70. Lonergan, R.; Cumming, T.M.; O’Neill, S.C. Exploring the efficacy of problem-based learning in diverse secondary school
classrooms: Characteristics and goals of problem-based learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022, 112, 101945. [CrossRef]
71. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
72. Dennen, V.P. Cognitive Apprenticeship in Educational Practice: Research on Scaffolding, Modeling, Mentoring, and Coaching as
Instructional Strategies. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology; Jonassen, D.H., Ed.; Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 813–828.
73. Barry, M.; Collins, L. Learning the trade—Recognising the needs of aspiring adventure sports professionals. J. Adventure Educ.
Outdoor Learn. 2021, 23, 120–131. [CrossRef]
74. Al-Kumaim, N.H.; Alhazmi, A.K.; Mohammed, F.; Gazem, N.A.; Shabbir, M.S.; Fazea, Y. Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19
Pandemic on University Students’ Learning Life: An Integrated Conceptual Motivational Model for Sustainable and Healthy
Online Learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2546. [CrossRef]
75. Cushion, C. Changing Police Personal Safety Training Using Scenario-Based-Training: A Critical Analysis of the ‘Dilemmas of
Practice’ Impacting Change. Front. Educ. 2022, 6, 796765. [CrossRef]
76. Culver, D.M.; Werthner, P.; Trudel, P. Coach Developers as ‘Facilitators of Learning’ in a Large-Scale Coach Education Programme:
One Actor in a Complex System. Int. Sport Coach. J. 2019, 6, 296–306. [CrossRef]
77. Tiller, N.B. From debunking to prebunking: How skeptical activism must evolve to meet the growing anti-science threat. Skept. Inq.
2022, 46, 40–45.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 924 17 of 17

78. Klein, G.; Calderwood, R.; MacGregor, D. Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1989,
19, 462–472. [CrossRef]
79. Nash, C.; MacPherson, A.C.; Collins, D. Reflections on Reflection: Clarifying and Promoting Use in Experienced Coaches.
Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 867720. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
81. Collins, L.; Collins, D. The role of ‘pracademics’ in education and development of adventure sport professionals. J. Adventure
Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2018, 19, 1–11. [CrossRef]
82. Claxton, E. Building Learning Power: Helping Young People Become Better Learners; TLO Limited: Bristol, UK, 2002.
83. Nash, C.; Martindale, R.; Collins, D.; Martindale, A. Parameterising expertise in coaching: Past, present and future. J. Sports Sci.
2012, 30, 985–994. [CrossRef]
84. Hoffman, R.R. (Ed.) Expertise Out of Context. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making,
1st ed.; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2007. [CrossRef]
85. Sternberg, R.J.; Halpern, D.F.; Lilienfeld, S.O.; Basterfield, C.; Bowes, S.M.; Costello, T.H.; Baron, J.; Bensley, D.A.; Bernstein, D.A.;
Braasch, J.L.G.; et al. Critical Thinking in Psychology, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press (CUP): Cambridge, UK, 2020. [CrossRef]
86. Downes, P.W.; Collins, D. Exploring the Decision Making Processes of Early Career Strength and Conditioning Coaches. Int. J.
Phys. Educ. Fit. Sports 2021, 10, 80–87. [CrossRef]
87. Downes, P.; Collins, D. Examining the Roles and Consequent Decision-Making Processes of High-Level Strength and Conditioning
Coaches. Societies 2021, 11, 76. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.