Developing Coaches Through a Cognitive Apprenticeship Approach: A Case Study from Adventure Sports

Abstract

A cognitive apprenticeship (CA) approach to the development of professional judgement and decision making has been examined in a variety of professional contexts in recent years. More recently several authors have theorised that CA may be an effective approach to developing judgement and decision making in outdoor professionals. This paper reports on a unique study of an in-house national coach development programme in the Outward Bound Trust (the Trust) in the UK. It examines the extent to which a CA framework is currently utilised in the development of coaches and considers how the current approach to coach development may be enhanced. This embedded mixed methods study proceeded in two parts: firstly a mixed online survey for the coaches, followed by a participatory focus group of the ‘in house’ coach trainers. The results found that aspects of the CA approach are used to varying degrees, depending on the experience and knowledge of the coach trainers, although limitations with the application of the CA approach are compensated by the organisation’s educational culture and through an established community of practice. Additionally, the application is inconsistent across the organisation. The findings highlight the need for increased intentionality, alignment with organisational values, and Trust-wide development of coach trainers in order to expand the existing approach and align it with the application of a CA within the Trust.

1. Introduction

Previous research has identified professional judgement and decision making (PJDM) as key skills for working within interpersonal settings such as coaching, psychology, and leadership. More recently, Barry and Collins (2021) and Mees (2024) have theorised and argued for CA (Dennen, 2004) as an effective approach to developing judgement and decision making in outdoor professionals. To date, however, there has been limited research considering CA’s utility in this domain. Like Barry and Mees, we see possible value in the CA approach in the outdoor context, namely in the development of coaches. Consequently, this paper presents a unique case study of a coach development programme, focused on the development of PJDM delivered nationally by the Trust across UK centres. Furthermore, this study examines how the existing programme aligns with CA principles and then asks how the Trust’s existing approaches may be enhanced through the application of CA. Initially, we first outline CA and its suitability for the development of decision-making skills by the Trust’s coaches, describe the role of a coach within the Trust, and outline the existing development process before asking two questions. Firstly, to what extent is a CA framework currently utilised by the Trust in the development of its coaches? Secondly, how can that current approach be enhanced through application of the CA approach and thus better support the development of PJDM by those coaches, whilst making practical recommendations that build on current practices?

1.1. Cognitive Apprenticeship

CA is a graduated multi-stage approach that has been used effectively in a range of activities, including reading, writing, mathematics, clinical skills, teaching, web-based learning, and musical improvisation (Barry & Collins, 2021; A. Collins, 2005; A. Collins et al., 1991; Mees & Collins, 2022). The approach brings the tacit (Polyani & Sen, 2009) aspects of a process into the open by guiding participation through the learner’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1977). The tacit aspects of the process are articulated and considered alongside the practical as conceptual understanding is gained, facilitating improved training, knowledge generation, and education of an apprentice. CA is rooted in the constructivist assumption of learning (Brown et al., 1989; Tversky, 2009) in that knowledge and meaning are constructed by individuals as part of their professional community of practice. Situated cognition (Tversky, 2009) is, thus, a vital aspect of the CA approach.

During a CA, social interactions between apprentices and experts enable role-related skills, interactions, decisions, judgements, problems, and experiences to be contextually shared. Experts pass down alternative techniques and methods embedded within cultural aspects of the apprentice’s role and development, an approach that encompasses their decision-making processes. Accordingly, apprentices learn in an authentically situated sense, specifically an interwoven cyclical process of cognition, practice, application, and reflection. Therefore, the apprentice understands knowledge as time- and contextually framed, dynamic and culturally integrated via decisions and judgments, and expertise is gradually accumulated and developed over time (Howard et al., 2000; Schommer, 1994).

To be optimally effective, the expert needs to be versed in the original meaning, philosophy, and culture of how and why the skills are used and practiced. Importantly, the CA approach relies on the expert decision maker recognising and comprehending how they make decisions in relation to the task being learnt. Providing a practice environment that has authenticity, validity, and contextual accuracy with plentiful opportunities for situated practice is critical. Receiving prompt, unequivocal, and high-quality feedback from internal and external sources is also vital (Martindale & Collins, 2012).

Utilisation of the CA Approach

The CA approach utilises six teaching methods (A. Collins, 2005): modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration. Blended use of these methods enables apprentices to develop cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support their construction and application of knowledge. This approach addresses criticisms levelled at other situated learning approaches (see Clancey, 1995). Expert modelling is utilised to build a conceptual, contextual, and practical shared mental model of the task at hand. This model is created by engaging with a range of experts (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993), with both cognitive and practical aspects equally supported. The expert may have to help with aspects of situational awareness and comprehension to introduce new tasks that the student cannot yet accomplish (scaffolding), akin to, but not exclusively, a problem-based learning approach.

The modelling, mentoring, and coaching elements of the CA process involve guidance provided by the expert in context. These interactions occur within the apprentice’s zone of proximal development, are authentic (Eastabrook & Collins, 2021), and are pitched at a level to stretch the knowledge and practices of the apprentice. Vygotsky (1977) defines the zone of proximal development as the evolving space between the learner’s current ability and potential ability. Consequently, the zone of proximal development is continually reconfigured and shaped as the learner develops. As the zone of proximal development shifts, so do the social interactions between apprentice and expert. The apprentice takes an increasingly prominent role in the construction and accumulation of knowledge.

Crucially, articulation can also be situated. The apprentice is encouraged to separate, expose, and clarify the component knowledge and skills that might apply, as well as their interaction (McLellan, 1996). Apprentices articulate their knowledge, reasoning, or problem-solving process in context, developing key meta-processes. In turn, the expert asks questions that allow the student to refine and restate their learned knowledge and form conceptual models of the skills being learned (see ‘The Big 5’; D. Collins & Collins, 2020, developed with Outward Bound for this purpose). Concurrent and retrospective thinking aloud approaches can also encourage apprentices to articulate their practices, thoughts, and problem-solving strategies (Kuusela & Paul, 2000).

Learners are encouraged to reflect on action, in action, and on action in context (Schön, 1983) to situate their cognitive processes, PJDM, and to examine their past performances with those of the expert, identifying similarities and differences. In particular, they ‘compare their own PJDM with those of an expert (A. Collins & Stevens, 1991). Doing so enables the apprentice to form a meta-model of their adaptive expertise, a characteristic of coaches in this domain (Mees et al., 2020). Reflection involves analysing their performances with a focus on understanding and making self-improvements in line with the behaviour of an adaptive expert (Carbonell et al., 2014). The apprentice is encouraged to problem solve, make decisions, and develop personal explorative strategies (D. Collins et al., 2018). The former requires the expert to gradually withdraw support (fading), the scaffolding of the problem-setting and solving methods. The latter requires the expert and apprentice to explore, research, and hypothesise in an accurate and authentic context. Such problem-based approaches have a positive role to play within the development of high-quality and agile coaches and are particularly suited to the OBC.

In a successful CA, the apprentice is engaged in situated development and maintains their position in the dynamic region beyond their existing ability and zone of proximal development, with support from an expert to develop their cognition in context (Dennen, 2004). Development through a CA, therefore, is reliant on the ‘expert’ recognising and understanding their own practices, their metacognition, and decision making (Barry & Collins, 2021). Principally, in a CA, the cognitive skills underpin the practical. Consequently, a CA intends to make these tacit cognitions explicit, to allow the learner to acquire skills in context. The CA process is situated in active participation within an authentic community of practice; the learner initially on the periphery, gradually becoming more integrated in the community of practice as the process evolves (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

1.2. The Trust’s Coaches–Characteristics and Context

The Trust is an educational charity offering residential adventurous learning experiences to young people across the UK. Coaches work with approximately 25,000 young people per year, coaching their group through adventurous journeys including mountain expeditions, overnight wild camping, canoe journeys, mountain scrambling, and rock climbing. Grounded in a Hahnian educational philosophy, coaches facilitate young peoples’ development by exploiting the nature of these wild places and adventurous experiences to create and capitalise on challenges presented by the environment, with the intention of allowing them to see and achieve beyond their perceived limits and transfer that learning back to the participant’s life away from the course.

Prior to employment, the coach must hold national governing body qualifications to operate in the adventure environment. However, as a result of the combined complexities of the continually changing physical environment, developing young people, visiting staff, and the intended outcomes of the course, upon joining the Trust, potential employees participate in a company-wide, national, six-week induction that should be delivered to a consistent standard and quality. This induction introduces the organisational structures, procedures, and support frameworks, enhances and enables entry to the Outward Bound community of practice, and teaches the Hahnian educational philosophies that support Trust-wide operations. Following induction, a process of in-house, activity-specific final signoffs, called ‘pass-outs’, are used to authorise the coach to lead different activities as part of week-long educational programmes. Notably, national governing body qualifications alone are viewed as insufficient indicators of expertise since they are competency rather than expertise focused. Accordingly, the Trust emphasises post-induction development of PJDM and adaptive expertise (D. Collins et al., 2014; Mees et al., 2020). Once operating independently, being passed out across sufficient activities and after gaining sufficient experience and possibly further qualifications, OBCs can seek promotion and take on additional responsibilities, such as directing multiple groups on course programmes. Professional growth is supported by Learning and Adventure Managers, other more senior coaches as trainers, mentors, and coaches whose role is to manage and support ongoing development. This formalised, career-spanning professional development is unique to the Trust and is a practical manifestation of the Hahnian philosophies that underpin the Trust’s practice.

1.3. PJDM and the Trust’s Coaches

The decision-making process of outdoor professionals has received considerable interest since 2014 (D. Collins et al., 2014; L. Collins & Collins, 2015, 2016, 2017). PJDM has been proven as an important aspect of safe, (route and activity choice, situational awareness) and effective professional practices (pedagogic, leadership) in this domain. Likewise, PJDM is a synergetic process of classic and naturalistic decision making. Decisions that are not time pressured and that have access to comprehensive, high-quality information are made utilising classic decision-making process. These are frequently pre-activity planning decisions, post-activity (on action) review, and reflective and replanning activities. During activities, however, the decision-making process is more naturalistic and uses elements of heuristics and pattern recognition. This in action decision-making is thus dependent on the coach’s experiences and reflective abilities and includes reflection on the classic decisions of the past. Two notable points of PJDM are a recognition that a single, micro decision occurs within a macro and meso framework that manifests as nested operational plans and, furthermore, the existence of a meta decision process in which the manner of making a decision is reflected by ‘am I making this decision in the best way?’. Indeed, L. Collins and Collins (2016) highlight that the macro and meso aspects enable the coach to be agile at that micro level via a monitor, reflecting and refining the auditing cycle of both the decision’s effectiveness and how that decision was made. This enables the coach to respond to the situational demands of the hyper-dynamic environments that are typical of coaching in this domain (Barry & Collins, 2021; L. Collins & Collins, 2015).

At the practical level, the coach is involved in a complex synergy of decisions dependent on projection levels of situational awareness (Endsley, 1995), in which the coach anticipates the changes in the environment and the development of the client based on a series of coaching interventions. The coach aims for both the environment and the student’s ability to coalesce. The judgements associated with having these two ‘moving parts’ meet in a safe and developmental way requires continual refinement and adjustment. These reflective, preflective, critical thinking, and projection skills are essential for the coach working in this context (L. Collins & Collins, 2015). Hence, PJDM conceptualisation is a multi-looped and nested process, as described by D. Collins et al. (2022).

Consequently, and with the intention to make practical recommendations that build on current practices, it is important to investigate the current approach used to support and enhance the development of coaches and consider the extent to which those align with the approach of CA. Accordingly, the aim of the current study was to establish to what extent is a CA framework is currently utilised by the Trust. Secondly, on the basis of building on existing practices, how can the current approach be enhanced by incorporating the principles of CA and thus improve the development of those coaches, by their PJDM?

2. Materials and Methods

Driven by our pragmatic research philosophy (Cruickshank & Collins, 2017; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) and roles within Outward Bound, our intention was to create practical and applicable outcomes that enhances coach development. Our pragmatic stance considers what works best in a given situation, rather than adhering to a strict absolute truth like a realist or completely depending on the context like a relativist. In essence, we have prioritised practical application over a rigid philosophical stance. Embracing our pragmatic approach, we consider this to be research with rather than of the Trust’s coaches and coach developers.

Consequently, we sought a parsimoniously functional approach (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) and adopted an embedded mixed approach (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007) in two phases: phase 1 was a mixed online survey to elicit a broad set of quantitative and qualitative data from the perspective of the coach; and phase 2 was a focus group with members of the training staff to consider the practical implications of the findings from phase 1.

Both the first and third authors work with the Trust. The first is employed as a Learning and Adventure Manager, with 12 years of experience working in the outdoor sector, principally with the Trust. The third is a highly experienced and qualified adventure sport coach and an independent member of the Trust’s Risk Management Committee—a voluntary position. In this respect, we perceive our experiences with the Trust and our rapport with the participants as advantages in understanding the nuances of responses.

To enhance rigour, trustworthiness (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), and applicability, the second author acted in a critical role during the research design and analysis. In addition, pilots were conducted prior to each data collection point to ensure comprehension and interpretation of the questions by participants. Additionally, member reflections, collectively via the focus groups and then individually via one-to-one meetings (Cavallerio et al., 2020; Tracy, 2010), were integrated into phase 2.

2.1. Phase 1: Survey

2.1.1. Participants

A purposive total population sampling approach was utilised. Participants were OBCs, self-identified as meeting the following criteria: (1) currently working as an OBC; (2) having participated in the Trust’s ‘induction’ process within the last six years (M = 3.2, SD = 1.7 since induction); and (3) a willingness to explore their developmental journey. Of the respondents, 36 identified as male, 19 as female. Participants were aged between 20 and 55 years. Coaches had held their initial national governing body qualifications between one and 37 years (Mean years qualified = 9.3 years, Median = 7 years, Mode = 6 and 7 years).

2.1.2. Procedure

Following university ethical approval and agreement from the Trust, we developed on online survey. Coaches who met the criteria were invited to complete an online survey via email and their centre’s leadership team. Fifty-five coaches consented and responded, an 80% response rate. The survey took on average 48 active minutes to complete. Participants were able to begin the survey and return to complete it later, resulting in responses being submitted over an average 25 h period. This feature enabled respondents to consider their responses and fit around their working commitments and patterns. In this respect, the survey was also situated as the participants responded during work time.

A four-cycle pilot of the draft survey was conducted with a representative sample of coaches (n = 8). These pilots were not included in the final survey responses. Through the pilot, changes were made to part 3 of the survey, including the order of questions, two similar questions were merged to reduce the time to complete the survey, ambiguous language modified, and meaning clarified. The pilot was completed when no further changes were identified and the meaning of the questions was consistent and coherent.

The final survey was deployed using Qualtrics XM (2023) and consisted of 49 open, closed, and ranking questions split into three parts: Firstly, a consent, participant demographic, qualification, and experience section. Secondly, a quantitative questionnaire, informed by the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (Stalmeijer et al., 2010), consisting of 14 questions in which participants were asked if their Learning and Adventure Managers demonstrated particular CA methods (

Table 1. Outline of questions in part 2: 5-Point Likert scale questionnaire about Learning and Adventure Managers’ (LAMs) practices, using an online survey adapted from Stalmeijer et al. (2010).

Modelling
1. LAMs demonstrated how to do things which were new to me
2. LAMs created opportunities to observe them, or another instructor when appropriate
3. LAMs served as a role model as to the kind of coach I would like to become
Coaching
4. LAMs gave useful feedback during or after observation of my practice
5. LAMs adjusted their level of coaching and support to my level of experience
6. LAMs offered me sufficient opportunities to deliver sessions independently
Articulation
7. LAMs asked me to provide a rationale for my actions and decisions
8. LAMs asked me questions aimed at increasing my understanding and awareness
9. LAMs encouraged me to explore my strengths and weaknesses
Exploration
10. LAMs encouraged me to formulate goals for my development
11. LAMs encouraged me to pursue the goals set for my development
Safe Learning Environment
12. LAMs created a safe learning environment
13. LAMs were genuinely interested in my development as an instructor
14. LAMs showed that they respected me

) and scored each item utilising a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. Questions 1–3 related to modelling, 4–6 related to coaching, 7–8 related to articulation, 9–11 related to exploration, and 12–14 related to the creation of a safe learning environment. The question on the learning environment was an addition from Staalmeijer et al.

Finally, the survey used a qualitative section of 24 questions, in which short vignettes illustrated contextual applications of the CA approach (e.g.,

Table 2. Example of qualitative questions in part 3 of the survey.

Scaffolding
Description of CA approach	Scaffolding is the support provided to help the learner carry out the task/skills/decision process. Successful scaffolding allows the learner to work at the limit of their ability, or do more that they could alone. Support can be gradually faded out until the learner is on their own.
Example Vignette	“The Learning and Adventure Manager was aware of my previous experience and offered me enough opportunity to work independently. I was encouraged to work within my ‘stretch zone’ rather than my ‘comfort zone’. I was supported with activities which were at the top end of my skillset, and the support was gradually reduced so that I could become more independent.”
Question 1	Please describe generally your experiences of scaffolding over the past 12 months. Think about when, where, and how you experienced or engaged in scaffolding. You could compare to the example above if you prefer…
Question 2	Describe a specific experience at Outward Bound during the past 12 months which demonstrates scaffolding. What impact did this have on your development as a coach?
Question 3	In your experience, what are the challenges with scaffolding as part of your development at Outward Bound?
Question 4	How do you think the process of scaffolding could be improved at Outward Bound?

). These vignettes acted as thought stimuli based on real world examples that the participant would be able to contextualise. These were designed by the first and third authors, reviewed by the second author, and piloted as highlighted earlier for relevance and accuracy. Subsequent questions explored participants’ experiences of, challenges with, and possible improvement in the use of the CA approach (e.g., Table 2). Questions probed participants’ understanding and experiences of their development, and how the approach was used by the Learning and Adventure Managers.

Phonic.ai (2023) was integrated within the questionnaire, following the pilot process, to enable participants to choose to record an audio response rather than writing it if preferred. The Trust recognises that their workforce has a high proportion of staff with specific learning needs, such a dyslexia. This approach supported response rates and enabled deeper responses by avoiding the need for a written response for those who preferred to communicate by voice and was used by six participants.

2.1.3. Analysis

A descriptive analysis of the quantitative data was applied to Section 1 and Section 2. Each Likert response was given a numerical value (1 = never, 5 = always). As common practice in the field, for the purposes of these descriptive statistics, we treated these data as ordinal (Norman, 2010), providing a mean score for each respondent for each question. Data for Section 3 were thematically analysed using a six-step approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). (1) Familiarisation: This phase involved building upon the transcription process by checking and correcting for accuracy, followed by reading and re-reading the transcripts. Audio data were transcribed through Phonic.ai (2023) and then corrected against the original recoding. (2) Coding: Working systematically through the data several times, starting at different points in the data set each time. Codes captured data that appeared potentially interesting, relevant, or meaningful to the research question, rather than simply the number of occurrences. Codes were given at both semantic and latent levels. (3) Generating initial themes: Shared meaning and patterns across the data were identified through the collated codes, which were interpretively grouped into candidate themes. (4) Developing and reviewing themes: Candidate themes were reviewed, re-reviewed, and refined to ensure that coded extracts were accurately represented and that coherent patterns were identified. Themes were accepted, reworked, or discarded depending on how well the themes captured the coded data from the interviews. An inductive–deductive approach was employed to discern potential themes and identify data codes. (5) Refining, defining, and naming themes: Once reviewed, the themes were clearly defined and named. (6) Writing up: The findings and analysis were documented in this report, utilising direct quotations to support the narrative.

2.2. Phase 2: Focus Group

Reflecting on our pragmatic research philosophy, the aim was to gain further insight on the findings from phase 1, and further ground the research in its practical setting, by seeking the views, experiences, and perceptions of the trainers who develop coaches—those who the coaches in phase 1 reported to. We intended to co-construct a shared mental model of coach development and an infographic that accommodated the social complexities of co-created models (Ashford et al., 2023), which was informed by the findings of phase 1 and the principles of CA and that could be utilised nationally in the Trust’s coach development.

2.2.1. Participants

Participants (N = 4) were two Learning and Adventure Managers, one Head of Learning and Adventure, and one Head of Centre. This reflected a typical development team in each of the Trust’s four centres.

2.2.2. Procedure

The focus group lasted 75 min. The findings from phase 1 were presented to the focus group (Krueger & Casey, 2000) using an infographic (Figure 1). The infographic and short presentation framed the subsequent discussion and critical joint reflection (Lofland et al., 2006) and provided additional data (Tracy, 2010). Participants were encouraged to discuss and share their thoughts and reflections on the findings and the implications for coach development. Following the focus group, a second infographic was created and then shared with group members individually. Subsequent individual member reflections created an opportunity for reflexive elaboration (Cavallerio et al., 2020; Tracy, 2010), which were then included in an iterative process to create a final infographic (Figure 2).

2.2.3. Analysis

The focus group was digitally recorded and a transcript was created by the first author (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The transcript was analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s six step thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), as outlined above.

3. Results

3.1. Phase 1

Part 1. The demographic section of the survey identified that all participants met the criteria. Twenty-one had completed their induction between 5 and 6 years prior to participating, 10 between 4 and 5 prior, 7 between 2 and 3 years prior, and 17 between 1 and 2 years prior. No new staff were inducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, there are no coaches with between 3 and 4 years since induction. Participants responded from all four of the Trust’s residential centres—Aberdovey-Ogwen, Eskdale, Loch Eil, and Ullswater-Howtown.

Part 2. Participants’ scores ranged from 23 to 70 (M = 50.56, SD = 10.66) out of a possible 70 (

Table 3. Mean question and total scores for the online survey with adapted Likert-scale questions within the Outward Bound Trust.

CA Approach	Modelling			Coaching			Articulation		Exploration			Learning Environment			Total Score	N
Question	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
Overall M	3.18	2.78	3.18	3.87	4.02	4.02	3.8	3.75	3.35	3.4	3.07	4.22	3.76	4.16	50.56	55
SD	1.00	1.01	1.02	1.00	1.05	1.13	1.01	1.02	1.06	1.08	1.23	1.03	1.14	0.90	10.66
Centre 1	3.64	3.00	3.27	3.73	3.91	3.82	4.18	4.00	3.36	3.45	3.27	4.36	3.45	4.18	51.64	11
SD	0.67	0.89	0.78	0.90	0.94	0.87	1.07	1.09	1.28	1.12	1.34	1.20	1.21	0.75	11.03
Centre 2	2.77	2.31	2.77	3.54	3.62	4.00	3.38	3.00	2.85	3.00	2.92	3.77	3.46	3.77	45.15	13
SD	0.92	0.85	0.92	1.05	1.20	1.00	1.04	1.15	0.80	1.08	1.12	1.16	1.39	1.09	10.98
Centre 3	2.60	2.80	3.60	3.40	4.60	4.80	3.00	3.80	3.40	3.60	3.20	5.00	4.60	4.60	53.00	6
SD	0.89	0.83	1.14	1.14	0.54	0.44	0.70	0.83	0.89	1.14	1.09	0.00	0.54	0.54	5.22
Centre 4	3.31	2.92	3.27	4.19	4.15	3.96	4.00	4.00	3.58	3.54	3.04	4.23	3.88	4.27	52.35	26
SD	1.08	1.12	1.11	0.93	1.01	1.34	0.89	0.80	1.06	1.06	1.31	0.90	0.99	0.87	10.67

). The highest scores were in learning environment (Questions 12 and 14) and coaching (Questions 5 and 6), suggesting these aspects were most utilised. The lowest scores were in modelling (Questions 1, 2 and 3) and exploration (Question 11), suggesting these methods are less frequently used. The greatest variation in responses were coaching, exploration, and learning environment (Questions 6, 11, and 13), suggesting that these methods were employed inconsistently or were misunderstood by the respondents. While the differences between standard deviations were small, these findings offered an initial indication of the coaches’ perception of their development. This was further evaluated through the qualitative responses in part 3 of the survey.

Variation between the Trust’s centres (Table 2) was considered, as coach development was a Trust-wide aspect of operations. Reflected in the overall variation (M = 50.56, SD = 10.66) and individual centre mean score variation, elements of CA were applied inconsistently across the Trust’s centres. For example, in Question 1 (modelling), Centre 3 scored 2.60 while Centre 1 scored 3.64, and in Question 12 (learning environment), Centre 3 scored 5.00 while Centre 2 scored 3.77.

Variation by years since induction was also apparent. For example, in Question 1 (modelling), the 5–6 years group scored 2.86, while the 1–2 years group scored 3.47, suggesting that modelling was used less frequently with more experienced coaches and more frequently with coaches newer to the Trust. There were also several lower scores seen in those with 2–3 years since induction. For example, in Question 11 (exploration), the 2–3 years group scored 2.00, while all other groups scored at least 3.10. This may potentially be a result of the timing of the pandemic, and the impact that this had on the time available for coach development, at the time when these coaches would have started with the Trust. We will discuss this later. These differences correlate with responses in Section 3 of the survey.

Part 3. Two overarching themes comprising of 4 themes and 14 sub themes (

Table 4. Thematic table showing the overarching themes and associated themes and subthemes in the use of cognitive apprenticeship within the Outward Bound Trust.

Overarching Theme	Theme	Subtheme	Example Quotation
Developmental needs of the coach in conflict with the organisational needs of the Trust	Choosing the right approach at the right time for the coach	OBIs’ PJDM development was a consequence of the trainers’ PJDM around individualisation	I felt like it could possibly take away your autonomy (OBC16)
		Appropriateness of timing when giving freedom and independence	I felt almost pushed to be independent straight after the induction phase (OBC12)
		Lack of follow-up for exploratory PJDM development	These experiments are never checked or questioned (OBC13)
		The quality and quantity of the CA approach decreased over time	I was given many opportunities to observe… however, after [the induction] this has dropped (OBC9)
	Challenges of PJDM development situated in the workplace	Client needs were prioritised over development needs	I do think that [opportunities to work with] peers need to stop being used as resilience for the course and used as development (OBC50)
		Development conflicts with OBIs’ desire/the Trust’s need to do the job	If a time urgency suddenly turned up, it would be the modelling and the questions that took a hit (OBC20)
		Developing PJDM through a CA added to the OBIs’ workload and cognitive demands	Under stress or time pressure it is easy to slide back into bad habits rather than modelling (OBC34)
		Sound PJDM required to provide safety	It creates an opportunity for failure, which clearly creates limitations in its use with technical skill sets (OBC13)
Developmental Culture	Development as an organisational value	The learning environment	It’s self-generated with me. We use ’one note’ and I often write something up after a course. (OBC32)
		Development was underpinned by quality of rapport between trainer and OBI	I want it to be authentic… All about building rapport for me and noticing when my ‘cup is full’ (OBC39)
		OBIs value PJDM development	[The LAM] would give me freedom to make decisions and execute them, allowing me to reflect on the outcome then he would give advice or other options (OBC2)
		A mismatch between values and actions	Rarely am I challenged by anyone to be a bit more reflective (OBC16).
	A community approach to CA	PJDM development was multi-directional	I was able to work with another [OBC]… I really liked this style of coaching where they were empowering me (OBC52)
		PDJM development was done with the OBI, not to the OBI	I have had lots of encouragement to pursue qualifications such as sea kayak leader, canoe leader. I have been coached predominantly on the water by my line manager, who has challenged my thought process. (OBC42)

) were identified. Firstly, developmental needs of the coach in conflict with the organisational needs of the Trust is made up of two themes: choosing the right approach at the right time for the coach, and challenges of PJDM development situated in the workplace. Secondly, developmental culture was made up of two themes: development as an organisational value, and a community approach to CA.

3.1.1. Developmental Needs of the Coach in Conflict with Organisational Needs

Tension between commercial needs, for example, use of resources to provide the best adventurous learning for the young people or the need for coaches’ time to be spent working with clients, created pressure that conflicted with the desire to develop coaches. This limited the trainer’s ability to choose the right approach at the right time for the coach. While the use of the CA approach to develop coaches is not intentionally used by the Trust at present, the CA approach was sometimes employed by the coach trainers. Its effectiveness, however, was reduced in part by the need to apply these methods within the coaches’ workplace and the conflict between coach developmental needs and organisational needs.

Choosing the right approach at the right time for the coach: All coaches offered examples of CA methods being used in their development; however, these were inconsistent. Modelling, including the articulation of ‘expert’ thought processes, was predominantly used with coaches at the start of their development. OBC34 explained:

During staff canoe training we were shown how to construct canoe sails. The trainer found a calm space (both physical and time) to explain and demonstrate… The explanation enabled me to understand the how and why and the risks involved.

After coaches had passed their induction, modelling was used less frequently, potentially limited by the trainers’ ability to articulate their own practices when working with coaches who were more experienced. The less experienced coaches had more time with LAMs in a mentoring role. OBC35 summarised, ‘I think if you’ve been an instructor for a while, LAMs spend more time doing pass-outs for new staff rather than developing older staff’, illustrating the pressure to complete ‘pass-outs’ and the coaches’ perceptions on the impact of this on their own development. Scaffolding was utilised in the induction phase but faded quickly following pass-out. Perhaps as a consequence, pass-outs tended to be venue specific and procedurally based. Consequently, these coaches required high numbers of very specific, narrow pass-outs and were difficult to use across the full programme. The pressure to have deployable staff obliged the LAMs to use the CA method that achieved performance that could be rapidly acquired, potentially without longer term retention, and crucially without PJDM. This may only change the problem from undeployable to partially deployable staff. These ‘narrowly’ skilled coaches were problematic to deploy because they could only work on specific activities and locations. When the conditions prevented a location or a session taking place, these coaches lacked the skills to work in other ways at other locations, i.e., their adaptability. As a knock on the more broadly skilled staff, they found themselves restricted to delivering sessions in the activities and at locations that the neophyte coaches could not use. This restricted flexibility in staffing and programming across the whole programme. This ‘perfect storm’ created additional pressure on the LAMs’ available time. Pass-outs on an activity basis (e.g., canoeing pass-out, which includes all venues) may be more in line with CA principles and may encourage the full range of the CA approach. However, this approach would be lengthier, delaying the time when coaches could operate across the programme. We will return to this tension later, as it suggests a misalignment between the Trust and its coach development practices as well as the CA approach.

A further consequence of the focus on numerous venue-specific pass-outs was reduced time in the field with those who had been passed-out. The pass-out enabled coaches’ independence; however, by encouraging exploration but removing scaffolded support post pass-out, that freedom was too much for some coaches. OBC13 highlighted encouragement to explore and experiment but said, ‘perhaps a more formal reflective journal keeping or more regular sit-down chats with LAMs’ would be beneficial. This was compounded by limited deep reflection on the exploration and experimentation that did occur, and the assumption that coaches used their reflective skills at a deep level appeared unfounded since the reflection appeared principally descriptive. The lack of scaffolding, mentoring, and experimentation combined with limited depth of that reflection had an impact of reducing the combined strength of the CA approach when used in synergy. We suggest it would make the use of these CA methods trainer led rather than coach led. Post pass-out development was ad hoc. For some it was too challenging. OBC20 described the challenges of operating in their zone of proximal development:

I was given the space to take ownership of my own exploration and CPD, however there could be more meetings with line managers. Sometimes I feel a bit out of the loop… I don’t think that the, kind of, self-led works for me. Mostly because we’re so busy here, there’s so much going on for me and I feel like I’m still learning lots.

Working in the zone of proximal development with the CA approach necessitates increased challenge, faded support, and naturally, feels uncomfortable. However, the coaches’ response to this was mixed. This transition to independence needed to be individualised. In contrast to OBC20, OBC10 recognised the importance of engaging with discomfort and while also acknowledging a need for external input when it comes to exploration within their zone of proximal development: ‘I’m definitely someone who, reluctantly, needs that push’. OBC10 and OBC20 worked in the same centre. OBC10 joined in 2018 and OBC20 joined in 2020, both with one year of experience. OBC10 appeared to value the uncomfortable feelings of learning, akin to the experiences they created with the students on their courses; OBC20 less so. Perhaps the distance from the initial induction experience and their subsequent development allowed OBC10 to understand that discomfort was part of the learning process. The varied views highlight the need for appropriately individualised scaffolding and subsequent fading of support post induction.

The impact of this inappropriate scaffolding also manifested in coaches who felt restricted, unable to access the critical experiences they needed. OBC28 said:

While the pass-out system provides a scaffold to allow people to operate inside and at the edge of their comfort zones, sometimes it can feel like a barrier to being allowed to run activities that are well within your skillset and comfort zone.

Clearly, the combination of CA methods needed to be better individualised, differentiated, and adapted as the coach developed, the success of which appeared to be very reliant on the trainers’ understanding of their PJDM and skill in using the CA approach.

Challenges of PJDM development situated in the workplace: Coaches felt ‘pressure’ (OBC52) to deliver safe and high-quality experiences while also professionally developing. OBC7 explained the challenge in this balance: ‘there is not enough time, and you still want to make sure the group have a good week’. The coaches needed the skills and cognitive capacity to fulfil their professional responsibilities and facilitate their own learning. Elements of the CA approach, such as exploration, articulation, and reflection (in-action), are demanding because they are not without risk. Some coaches felt unable to manage these demands and, consequently, prioritised their work over their personal development. This inability or unwillingness to access the zone of proximal development highlights the need for further refinement in the effective application of the CA approach. This was especially apparent across the less-experienced coaches. OBC41, who had between 1 and 2 years of experience since their induction, described:

As a new instructor I feel a lot of time is going into adjusting and focusing on the basics and just getting by. I find it hard to add time for extra exploration into learning models and research, in between managing a group and pass-outs.

Coaches returned to tried and tested approaches if their first explorative attempt at a new practice was unsuccessful. OBC13 highlighted that exploration produces ‘opportunity for failure, which clearly creates limitations in its use with technical skill sets. It requires a level of courage and skill to be ok with something not working’. In relation to technical aspects, there are clearly limitations, which were recognised by the coaches. There is a need for the coach to anticipate novel approaches that will not work, or have varied results, requiring a high level of situational awareness. Early-career coaches are typically preoccupied with safety, potentially an aspect of the Trust’s shared mental model (Mees et al., 2021), leading to imbalance in the risk–benefit decisions fundamental to effective adventure education (D. Collins et al., 2014). This caused reluctance in some coaches to explore their pedagogy, believing that the consequences of error were too great. A focus on learning and pedagogy, alongside safety, appears to be a positive asset to the CA approach, although this seems to be predicated on the development of a balanced risk–benefit decision at both coach and Trust levels.

3.1.2. Developmental Culture

The culture and ethos of the Trust support development through the shared mental model of professional development and a collective desire to improve. However, this relies on assumed self-initiated development post pass-out. These assumptions proved unfounded and consequently, post pass-out, development was ad hoc and its effectiveness was limited.

Development as an Organisational Value: Staff development, referred to as ‘coaching’ within the Trust (different to its meaning in CA) was described as ‘the culture of this organisation’ (OBC8). Coaching within the Trust is perceived as a questioning approach to development, where reflection, exploration, and articulation are favoured over other CA methods. Overwhelmingly, coaches described this culture, the learning environment, positively. OBC2 said: ‘most people are open to being coached [developed, questioned], I think that everyone’s receptive to it, you know’. OBC10 described their own development: ‘I feel I’ve grown into a very reflective person and even though I still make loads of mistakes, I’m super keen to keep learning’. Creating the culture for this, albeit narrow, conceptualisation of coaching is vital to development and relies on effective reflection, articulation, and exploration of practice. Coaches recognised that these approaches require vulnerability and hence a need for security and trust. OBC32 described: ‘both parties in the conversation need to be on a level, without one party overpowering the other in terms of force of personality, perceived experience or authority’. OBC2 noted: ‘if you don’t trust that person [the LAM], don’t respect them, that’s really hard’. This discussion of trust suggests that success in development was built on authenticity, a rapport with, and respect for, the trainer. OBC39 explained they wanted their developmental interactions to ‘feel like it is a genuine interest in my development, not a tick in the job specification’. Coaches acknowledged that improvement was pivotal to their overall development and an aspect of professionalism. The ability to check and challenge decisions (articulation) and reflection were considered as particularly effective methods to develop their PJDM: ‘the most useful element to it is definitely the questions afterwards’ (OBC20). Several coaches highlighted the use of articulation as an encouraged part of their development, notwithstanding our comments earlier regarding scaffolding and mentoring. The coaches referenced ‘The 5 questions’ (OBC9) (a series of metacognitive reflective questions created within the Trust, see D. Collins and Collins (2020)). However, OBC42 proposed instigating ‘a range of almost “standardised” questions that were asked regularly’, suggesting inconsistent and not fully optimised application of articulation and reflection.

Indeed, reflection was considered a core part of coach practices, as OBC16 noted: ‘I’d like to think that I’ve become a fairly reflective practitioner’. However, OBC16 went on to explain that they were not typically encouraged to develop their reflective skills. Reflection is important in the Hahnian ethos that underpins the Trust’s work. However, that reflection appeared to be at a descriptive level (Moon, 2004) and was not explicitly supported through its integration with the CA approach. The Trust may wish to focus on this integration and developing coach reflective skills, ‘practicing what you preach’.

The CA approach appeared to be frequently applied without consideration of the intention for impact (Martindale & Collins, 2005) or its integration. Consequently, its utilisation was unrefined and failed to suit the needs of more experienced coaches (such as OBC21) development. OBC21, a highly qualified and experienced coach new to the Trust, described a desire for their LAMs to ‘justify their actions with either higher levels of practice or study’. Though OBC21 was an outlier, this view appeared to stem from poor rapport with their LAMs, a result of the wrong CA method taken by LAMs and the coach resisting integration into the community of practice. This highlighted the need for further development for the Trust’s LAMs in their PJDM surrounding the use of the CA approach. While CA is not deliberately applied by the Trust currently, the CA approach does create a framework for coach development that may enhance development roles, although ensuring this is applied across all centres in the Trust may also present a challenge.

A Community Approach to Cognitive Apprenticeship, effective application of the CA approach: As a possible result of the Hahnian values cited above, and also reflecting a highly established community of practice, this community operated in both formal and informal ways: coaches offered feedback, modelling, and coaching to one another in a peer-based approach to development and the Learning and Adventure managers worked more formally as part of the Trust’s CPD opportunities. OBC3 described: ‘feedback like this has been more other [coach] based’. The community of practice supported coaches joining the Trust successfully. These peer-to-peer opportunities could be more fully exploited by the Trust; however, even in this form the community of practice compensated for some of the shortcomings highlighted above and were welcomed by coaches:

I was able to work with another [coach] … they coached me in the pros and cons of bellringing techniques over belay devices… at the end of the session, they gave good constructive feedback on my session and then shared what they would have done differently. I really liked this.

(OBC52)

This community CA approach aligned with the Trust’s developmental culture, fostering a sense of development being done with, rather than done to the coach. OBC42 described an example of scaffolded development, demonstrating the effectiveness of the well-applied CA approach and a shift in ownership of development from LAM to coach, leading to a pass-out:

I had no experience of rowing sessions before starting at Outward Bound … I shadowed a couple of rowing sessions, including one run by [a LAM] where afterwards we had a sit-down chat about the session, and I got the opportunity to ask any questions about how they had run things. A few weeks later [the LAM] encouraged me to invite them along for another rowing session, which they offered to let me run and then provide feedback for me, before I did a pass-out. The next opportunity I had after that to row I had a successful pass-out.

However, this example was not the universal experience of the participants. Some of the LAMs appeared more skilled than others with the CA approach, highlighting the need for a more intentional approach to PJDM development and further training for LAMs in applying the CA approach.

3.2. Phase 2

In the focus group, the desire to enhance coaches’ development and a more skilful workforce was an overarching theme that consisted of two sub-themes: (1) acknowledgement of the current status of PJDM development, and (2) the value of a purposeful and intentional CA approach to PJDM development.

3.2.1. Acknowledgement of the Current Status of PJDM Development

The focus group confirmed the findings of part 1 as corresponding to their understanding of coaches’ experiences. While some of the findings could have been met with defensiveness, instead, the focus group was open to hearing even the difficult feedback, evidencing the Hahnian ethos:

LAM 1: I think I’d agree with that. Folks get a lot of support up until ‘flying solo’ [pass-out]… they get some feedback which gives them some direction. And then it’s up to them to want pass-outs, to find those opportunities. There are very few cases where we say, ‘right, let’s do this pass-out this week’, which would be more scaffolded than the freedom they have now.

HC1: yeah, ‘off you go’

LAM2: I think the greener [less experienced] staff struggle to initiate that too, to take ownership of it.

The focus group discussed the opportunities afforded by the CA approach, avoiding a hierarchy of approaches implicit in the Trust’s perception of ‘coaching’, and the synergetic use of those CA methods in individualised combinations. The group also highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. LAM1 said: ‘My observation is that instructors who joined since Covid, because maybe they’ve had a gap or they’re new to instructing, their cognitive load is way higher’. The pandemic created an increased workload for the LAMs, in particular the organisational need to get coaches to the point of pass-out. The cohort of potential coaches was reduced, and many coaches in the adventure sector pursued alternative careers (Barkham, 2020, 2021) or were unable to gain the experience needed to develop the ability to manage both environmental and group demands, which generated a sector-wide skill gap. The group avoided a recency heuristic: ‘we’re working with who we’re working with and they’re just gonna get better’ (HLA1). The group felt that the application of CA was key as part of this and was positive about the need for their own development alongside the coaches.

3.2.2. A Purposeful and Intentional Approach to PJDM Development

There was eagerness to increase the quality of staff development. HLA1 said: ‘so I’ve got loads of things on my list here now, a framework for critical, deeper reflection, guided questioning, peer weeks and scaffolded supporting. Can we start doing that now?’. Notwithstanding our point earlier regarding philosophies, the need for an alignment of coach development, the Trust’s own philosophies, and Trust-wide implementation, the enthusiasm was tangible. HC1 said: ‘I’ve just made a note about your point about training and development for LAMs. Not necessarily the [current view of coaching], but specifically around some of this cognitive apprenticeship, and I’m thinking about how we might use that…’

The concept of an infographic to guide the Trust-wide developmental approach that aligned with CA (Figure 1) was welcomed but also recognised that this could not replace face-to-face training. The appetite for a structured CA approach that guided development was clear: ‘Researcher: what are your thoughts on something like this? Is that something you could see as useful or–; HLA1: 100%; HC1: yes, absolutely!’.

Using member reflections, a two-sided infographic (Figure 2) of the CA principles was created for the LAMs, (developed from Figure 1) to introduce CA and support all of the Trust’s staff in their understanding of and commitment to the CA approach. Page 1 outlined a CA structure, while the second page provided details and workable examples.

4. Discussion

The findings support the use of the CA approach for developing coaches by aligning the Trust’s Hahnian values with practices in coach development. This could be achieved through establishing a shared mental model of coach development, implemented across all of the Trust’s centres and that would necessitate further training of LAMs.

4.1. Aligning Outward Bound Trust Values and Practice in Coach Development: A Situated Development in a Hyperdynamic Workplace

Barry and Collins (2021) reported that skilful utilisation of the CA approach outlined here could minimise some of the criticism directed at CA, specifically the need for prior experience (Clancey, 1995). However, our findings highlight other challenges associated with situated development, especially in commercial and high-risk settings. This contrasts with A. Collins’ (2005) description of CA which, confusingly, suggests that CA removes the constraints of workplace demands with development solely informed by pedagogical needs. Instead, it seems that the workplace setting is the advantage of the CA approach, if well managed.

Our findings, however, suggest there will be commercial challenges with the CA approach and that a longer term, strategic rather than tactical approach is required. Development of coaches’ PJDM must be informed by their developmental needs, while also ensuring that commercial demands are met. The workplace demands were significant, and coaches found it difficult to engage in professional development alongside their work. The dissonance between organisational values (Hahnian philosophy prioritising development and growth) and organisational practices (prioritising commercial and client needs) highlighted the need for greater alignment between the Trust’s practices with students and the development of its staff (Mees, 2024). This was likely compounded by early-career coaches’ focus on appraising situational demands and consequent preoccupation with maintaining safety (Mees & Collins, 2022). That is not to say that safety is not important, but there is a need for induction and initial competency-based assessment to evaluate fundamental safety skills and develop the professional culture. However, support needs to extend beyond the pass-out stage.

Implementing the CA approach will also be challenged by time constraints (Stalmeijer et al., 2009). Organisational needs currently drive the allocation of time and resources for development. This was exacerbated by a larger number of coaches new to the organisation, as a consequence of the pandemic. Their skill levels required additional fundamental training that contributes to workload demands for pass-outs, resulting in less focus on mid-career staff. However, the pandemic was not the sole cause of imbalance. Coach trainers’ lack of knowledge, skill, and agility using the CA approach limited the trainers’ ability with experienced staff. Developing the trainers’ PJDM around a skilful application of the CA approach and an appropriately scaffolded professional exploration of practice would enhance longer term professional growth for both trainer and coach.

Prioritisation of resources (time and people) to this growth may not increase the client experience and quality in the short term; however, it seems that it would in the mid to longer term. Developing the Trust’s coaches to be flexible and adaptable should provide higher quality education and adventure and improve learning for all young people in Trust programmes; thus, a longer term strategic approach to Trust coaches’ PJDM development is essential.

4.2. A Shared Mental Model of Development

Our findings identified the community of practice as an important element of development. Algarra et al. (2020) proposed a multi-directional development, where the community of practice forms the base of the approach. Logically, and exploiting and building on the positive aspects of the Trust’s current approach, engaging all members of the community of practice in developing alongside each other through reciprocal, cyclic interaction would be beneficial. A collaborative CA centres on sharing and enhancing the existing language (an aspect of articulation), supporting the culture, use of critical friends, and expert and shared mental modelling. This would support the implementation of intentional, long-term PJDM development where training for LAMs and the implementation of appropriate scaffolding for the coaches are prioritised (illustrated by the Venn diagram in Figure 2). Given that the Trust already uses elements of CA, albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness, adopting the CA approach is an achievable proposition that would be coherent with the Trust’s values.

The established community of practice compensated somewhat for the Trust’s implicit assumption of high levels of personal reflective skill. Developing and encouraging deeper levels of reflective ability seem pivotal to draw learning from experiences that are suitably mentored and scaffolded. Enhancement of articulation by the coaches and LAMs alike would further augment the existing community of practice. A shared mental model of coaches’ PJDM development should, therefore, intend to encourage and challenge deeper reflective practice and articulation and support exploration via effective mentoring and scaffolding. Importantly, sharing of posters and infographics (such as Figure 2) is unlikely to suffice as a sole intervention, and joint training for Heads of Centres, Heads of Learning and Adventure, and LAMs would be required. This option, however, would also be very susceptible to the tensions between operations and development. Nevertheless, the potential for longer term advantages of a more highly skilled, more adaptable, and one assumes more deployable workforce should not be overlooked, as was acknowledged by the trainers in the focus group. An example is offered later.

Additionally, existing training in relation to coach development was constrained by the narrow, hierarchical view of development that favoured methods such as reflection and exploration over modelling or coaching. Pimmer et al. (2012) suggested that rather than beginning with modelling, CA could start with exploration. However, in the Trust context, the LAMs need to move between all approaches, dependent on the context. The use of the CA approach is conditional, and the LAMs must make judgements on the selection and application of the approach. This skilfulness with the CA approach is dependent on the trainers’ situational comprehension of the context, ability to use all CA methods, and their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). The LAMs need to avoid the familiarity bias (Kahneman et al., 1982) and be conversant with CA methods that they may not have experienced. Their PJDM in relation to developing the coaches must take into account all aspects in order to choose the right approach, in the right place, at the right time.

4.3. How Can the Outward Bound Trust Work Toward an Intentional CA?

We offer an example of a scaffolded development for Learning and Adventure Managers, guided by the CA approach and the Trust’s Hahnian philosophies:

(1)

A facilitated day of training by a subject matter ‘expert’. The first half of the training involves technical input on the key components of the coaches’ PJDM to support an understanding of the components to be developed in the coaches. Participants in the training then reflect on the coaches’ practices and on their own experiences and share examples with the group, supporting the development of a shared mental model. The second half of the day focusses on the process of development, introducing the CA approach and teaching methods (modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration). It follows a similar process of input, discussion, reflection, and sharing. At the end of the training, participants identify a specific area of growth, individual to them, to explore further, based on their reflection on their own practice throughout the day. For example, to develop own articulation and to support more experienced coaches to develop their articulation.

(2)

Supported self-directed development. Paired with a Head of Learning and Adventure, Learning and Adventure Managers work on their personal actions, observing others’ practices (modelling), offering them feedback on their observations (coaching), discussing (articulation) throughout the day, and making explicit links to the content of the training. The pair will reflect on the session together, and they may choose to use the ‘big 5’ questions (D. Collins & Collins, 2020) as an initial guide. At a later date, they will switch, and the Learning and Adventure Manager will explore ways of working with a coach to develop an aspect of their PJDM, scaffolding their development at both macro (6 months) and micro (session) levels. The Head of Learning and Adventure challenges the Learning and Adventure Manager to operate in their zone of proximal development (scaffolding), offers feedback throughout the day (coaching), and encourages articulation of rich descriptions of the situation (articulation) (L. Collins & Collins, 2022).

(3)

Continued self-directed development within the role. The Learning and Adventure manager continues to explore ways to develop coaches’ using the CA approach, individualised to each coach. Learning and Adventure managers are encouraged to share their experience of their own developments with each other, ask questions (articulate and reflect), and gain feedback and support (coaching and scaffolding). This is done across centres, via video call, to support the development of a shared mental model across the OBT as a whole. At these sessions, Learning and Adventure Managers also review the initial targets set and establish new areas to explore.

(4)

Peer-supported development. Learning and Adventure Managers pair up with one another and work with a coach for a second day of modelling and coaching each other. They follow a similar process to the previous targeted development day (stage 2), comparing their practice feedback that focuses on their use of the appropriate method at the right time for the individual to allow the coach to work within their zone of proximal development and scaffolding of the coaches’ cognitive load.

(5)

A facilitated day of training by a subject matter ‘expert’. Around 6 months later, a second training day reviews the progress made and offers additional support individually to each Learning and Adventure Manager. The input in this training session focuses on the developmental culture within the Trust. The technical input focuses on the community of practice, the importance of personal and professional experience, and adaptive expertise.

(6)

Cyclical continued development. Stages 3 and 4 are repeated, overseen, and supported by the Head of Learning and Adventure. Learning Adventure Managers continue their development in skilfully applying the CA approach as the new aspects of their practice become embedded. The discussions, reflections, articulation, and curiosity about the way in which others work become a natural aspect of the community of practice and support a continued development.

This example utilises modelling and coaching (in paired development), scaffolding (through the introduction of different aspects by the ‘expert’ periodically), reflection and articulation (both in their pairs, between Learning and Adventure Managers in their own centres, across centres in periodic video call-based discussions, and in the training sessions), and exploration (in personal practice and discussion within their new community of practice of developers). The development of Learning and Adventure Managers can predominantly occur during their usual work time, with periodic focused input to allow them to build on their existing experience and opportunities for development. It creates a community of practice for developers, embedding the Hahnian philosophy into the OBT at the OBI developer level, and encourages a shared mental model of development across the organisation. This approach, however, relies on the Heads of Learning and Adventure to support the development of Learning and Adventure Managers—highlighting the need to also support and develop the Heads of Learning and Adventure and Heads of Centre.

5. Conclusions

Our findings highlight that modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration are all currently utilised in coach development by the Trust with varying degrees of effectiveness. However, as CA is not presently a deliberate strategy within the Trust, the application of the CA approach was unintentional, ad hoc, and lacked integration. The coach trainers tended to use the CA method with which they felt confident and had experience. Operational pressures, such as the need for deployment of the programme, were prioritised and the appropriate level of support for coaches post pass-out faded too rapidly for some. Those methods that suited this post pass-out development tended to be the same as those the coach trainers felt less confident using. Consequently, development post pass-out was less structured and effective. Development post pass-out was dependent on the coaches’ reflective skill and the established community of practice. Positively, the community of practice played a role in supporting development in coherence with the Trust’s Hahnian values and could act as a foundation for developing the CA approach. However, there remains a gap between what the Trust espouses in its programmes and the way in which it develops its coaches. This gap between philosophical underpinnings and actual practices is only partially mitigated by the strength of the existing community of practice. If the Trust chose to adopt the CA approach, the coach trainers would require further guidance.

Development and support for the trainers should focus on their PJDM relating to the synergistic application of all CA methods in response to the coaches’ needs and context. Deliberate use of CA would support the development of adaptable, cognitively, and pedagogically agile coaches who are more easily deployed and responsive to client needs. However, it seems likely that induction may initially take longer. Taking a longer term view, equal prioritisation of development and deployment of coaches is essential. The Trust should better support the growth of their coaches to consequently progress their delivery of quality adventure education in line with the Trust’s values. The positive indication is that the trainers responsible for coaches’ development are eager to take on this challenge and to engage in further training.