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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. Thank you for submitting your paper to this journal. I very much enjoyed reading it and think that it has the potential to be of interest to readers of the special issue (coaching in adventure sports). However, that said, after reading the manuscript it is clear that further work (of a ‘minor’ nature) is needed in relation to the written communication. I hope you find the comments useful for your resubmission.

Comments:

The manuscript requires a review of written communication and a full proofread (see below) – the following comments are examples of errors and inconsistencies and are not exhaustive.

 

1. Consider phrasing (e.g., line 555 – you centre ‘on’ something and not ‘around’ it [you revolve or skirt ‘around’ something]).
2. Consider the consistent presentation of larger quotations, i.e., over 40-words in length (e.g., line 324 – quotation is within text and italicised; line 341 - quotation is not italicised but is instead indented from the main text).
3. Consider pluralisation and punctuation (e.g., line 7 – the word ‘professional’ should be ‘professionals’ and have a full stop immediately after it).
4. Place a comma either side of a mid-sentence conjunction (e.g., line 274 – ‘development, however, these’; line 546 – ‘term, however, it’; line 591 – ‘OBT, therefore, the’).
5. Do not start a sentence directly with a number (line 239 – replace ‘21’ with ‘Twenty-one’).
6. Missing or inappropriate punctuation (e.g., line 10 – remove first comma after the word ‘development’; line 149 – hyphen is missing between words ‘web-based’; line 170 – include a colon after the word ‘criteria’; line 172 – include a comma after the brackets containing the phrase ‘since induction’ and before the word ‘and’; line 191 – include a comma after the acronym ‘MCTQ’).
7. Consider inappropriate words (e.g., line 171 – remove ‘and’ after OBC; line 399 – is ‘they’re’ the correct word here?).
8. Adopt consistent spacing (e.g., lines 502 and 505 – a space is required between the word ‘Page’ and the number ‘1’).
9. The reference list needs to be proofread in terms of accuracy and punctuation (e.g., line 643 – the word ‘[Online]’ can be removed; line 667 – the issue number ‘SEP’ needs to be replaced by the article number 1652; line 672 – all the authors initials need presenting; line 674 – the word ‘Feb’ needs removing; line 731 – the DOI number is missing).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for your comments, please see below for ours responses;

 

"Thank you for submitting your paper to this journal. I very much enjoyed reading it and think that it has the potential to be of interest to readers of the special issue (coaching in adventure sports). However, that said, after reading the manuscript it is clear that further work (of a ‘minor’ nature) is needed in relation to the written communication. I hope you find the comments useful for your resubmission.

Thank you, please see our responses below and as highlighted resubmitted in the text

Comments:

The manuscript requires a review of written communication and a full proofread (see below) – the following comments are examples of errors and inconsistencies and are not exhaustive.

A full proof has been conducted to include those points listed below, and others, as highlighted, in red in the text.

1. Consider phrasing (e.g., line 555 – you centre ‘on’ something and not ‘around’ it [you revolve or skirt ‘around’ something]).

These have been amended as requested

1. Consider the consistent presentation of larger quotations, i.e., over 40-words in length (e.g., line 324 – quotation is within text and italicised; line 341 - quotation is not italicised but is instead indented from the main text).

These have been amended as requested

1. Consider pluralisation and punctuation (e.g., line 7 – the word ‘professional’ should be ‘professionals’ and have a full stop immediately after it).

These have been amended as requested

1. Place a comma either side of a mid-sentence conjunction (e.g., line 274 – ‘development, however, these’; line 546 – ‘term, however, it’; line 591 – ‘OBT, therefore, the’).

These have been amended as requested

1. Do not start a sentence directly with a number (line 239 – replace ‘21’ with ‘Twenty-one’).

These have been amended as requested

1. Missing or inappropriate punctuation (e.g., line 10 – remove first comma after the word ‘development’; line 149 – hyphen is missing between words ‘web-based’; line 170 – include a colon after the word ‘criteria’; line 172 – include a comma after the brackets containing the phrase ‘since induction’ and before the word ‘and’; line 191 – include a comma after the acronym ‘MCTQ’).

These have been amended as requested

1. Consider inappropriate words (e.g., line 171 – remove ‘and’ after OBC; line 399 – is ‘they’re’ the correct word here?).

These have been amended as requested

1. Adopt consistent spacing (e.g., lines 502 and 505 – a space is required between the word ‘Page’ and the number ‘1’).

These have been amended as requested

1. The reference list needs to be proofread in terms of accuracy and punctuation (e.g., line 643 – the word ‘[Online]’ can be removed; line 667 – the issue number ‘SEP’ needs to be replaced by the article number 1652; line 672 – all the authors initials need presenting; line 674 – the word ‘Feb’ needs removing; line 731 – the DOI number is missing).

These have been addressed while converting the format to APA as requested

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review this article. In general, I found the article informative and interesting. I believe it offers an original contribution in terms of the application of a Cognitive Apprenticeship to the development of outdoor professionals.

The section on Cognitive Apprenticeship is well written and gives the reader a good orientation to the concept. It encouraged me to read more around the idea.

Despite this, I think the paper would benefit from substantial changes. I have organised these by what I consider to be essential, strongly recommended and for consideration. 

 

Essential changes

·         I think some of the wording around the aims and scope of the paper should be clarified. As you state in the introduction, OB doesn’t actually operate an CA structure, yet you refer to the ‘success of the CA’ in the abstract (and allude to the use of CA in OBT throughout). It seems a little incongruent to assess/ measure something that the organisation doesn’t explicitly set out to do. That said, you do acknowledge this is the conclusion. I think a more consistent message is needed. I.e.  CA is a good thing > we think it has application to adventure coaches > we investigated an organisations existing practice according to CA> we found XYZ> we make the following recommendations to implement CA further. I also think there are wider applications (outside of Outward Bound) that the authors could explore.

·         I think you are assuming too much reader knowledge with PJDM. This needs explaining (what is it, why is it important, what are implications of poor PJDM?)

·         Please be more transparent about the adaption/ use of the MCTQ. I.e. the Boerboom paper validated the measure for students in veterinary education using CFA from 1086 respondents. The modified MCTQ these authors detail contains 28 items, whereas in table 1, you detail 14 (though I can’t access the Stalmeijeer paper for comparison). I’m concerned about the validity of the measure, especially due to factors such as merging questions to ‘reduce the time to complete’ the survey. I would consider changing the language around the adaption of the measure to something along the lines of ‘we developed a measure based on the MCTQ’. Otherwise, a more detailed justification is needed.

·         You have a question subset called ‘a safe learning environment’ is this an adaption of ‘General learning climate’?  Question 12 refers to a staff creating a safe learning environment, do you mean safe as in physically safe, emotionally safe, or both? Again, I’m concerned about the adaption of the measure affects its validity. Please acknowledge/ be explicit about the adaptions

·         I’m unsure of the rationale for the inclusion of a qualitative section. Could you provide more detail? Why did you need deeper detail?  What was in the vignettes? What questions did you ask? How many provided voice recordings as opposed to written text (and are these comparable?), How did this improve response rate? In general, I’m not in favour of a mixed method like this, I think you are mixing your ontological assumptions (i.e. when knowing about the use of CA in Outward Bound, are you a relativist or realist?) As a minimum, this section needs further detail and justification, especially as the majority of your results are from this data.

·         Use of the term ‘reflexive’ (line 212). Please describe how are you being reflexive. Normally, among other things, this would include some kind of statement of philosophical assumptions, detail of methodological rigour, positionality statement and detailed account of the analysis process. The following papers would be useful here:

o   Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597

o   Trainor, L. R., & Bundon, A. (2021). Developing the craft: Reflexive accounts of doing reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 13(5), 705-72

Regarding positionality, I think you need to be explicit with your connection to OB. Why connect the research to this specific organisation? Are you involved with them? If so, you need to be clear about this and acknowledge your biases (i.e. be reflexive).

·         Please include standard deviations for all items in table 2. Readers should be able to see the distribution of data. The total SDs indicate a large degree of variation. What would the data look like if you collapsed the groups?

·         I’m struggling to see logical connections between subthemes, themes and overarching themes. I think these need further refinement/ clarity. For example, how is ‘choosing the right approach at the right time’ in conflict with the organisational needs of outward bound?

·         I’m very confused by the connection between the themes/ sub themes presented in table 3 and the names of the themes presented as subtitles in the text.  You seem to switch between theme and subtheme as subheadings. For example, you present ‘Choosing the right approach…’ (theme) as a subheading in bold which makes me think we should have ‘Challenges of PJDM…’ as the next subheading (in bold) as this would follow your format, instead we have a subtheme (‘Client needs prioritised…’) but there is no mention of the second theme from the first overarching theme (challenges of PJDM development situated…). The next subheading is then the final theme from the (not yet introduced) second overarching theme. 

 

Strongly recommend changes:

·         The extensive use of acronyms is bewildering and significantly detracts from the read. Please consider reducing these throughout

·         Explain (or remove) what you mean by an ‘identifiable epistemological connection’ (line 137). What will your readers take from this? Is it needed?

·         Line 140. Is the MCTQ designed to evaluate cognitive apprenticeship? Or does it evaluate clinical teaching but is based on principles of CA? This is an important distinction.

·         What was the size/ scope of the data collected in phase 3 (Qualitative questionnaire)

·         The aims of the focus group could be clearer. What is reflexive elaboration? Why was it important to reflect a typical development team?

·         Why was a centre-by-centre analysis appropriate? Your aim suggests you are looking at OBT as a whole.

·         Line 597 – what is an ‘epistemological gap’? What does this term mean to your readers? I think this is an example of overly complicated language that could do with being simplified, explained or removed.

·         I think the structure of the discussion needs attention. For example, I can’t see much discussion of the quantitative data. Why are the higher scores high and the lower scores low? Presumably what you want is all scores to be high, how could OB work towards this? What are your suggestions?

·         Please consider use of the term ‘hyperdynamic’. In the context of some of the papers from the clinical world that you have cited, hyperdynamic probably means an environment where doctors are making slit second decisions in surgery which are the difference between a patient living and dying. In the context of this study, we are talking about taking novices canoeing/ rock climbing on a weeklong adventure trip. Should we really be describing this as ‘hyperdynamic’?

·         Please consider refining subheading 4.1.I have no idea what this means.

 

Points for consideration:

·         Line 175 – do you mean ‘Mean experience’, or ‘Years qualified’? These are different

·         In general, I think the method could be more detailed and include further justification for decisions taken.

·         Line 259 – Is it surprising that CA is applied differently across centres when they have no understanding or explicit use of it?

In the results, I think you have something more akin to a content analysis than a thematic analysis. The participant data (quotations) are generally short and lack any context. Maybe consider a ‘less is more’ approach

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers for the helpful comments, Please see our responses below.

Essential changes  

I think some of the wording around the aims and scope of the paper should be clarified. As you state in the introduction, OB doesn’t actually operate an CA structure, yet you refer to the ‘success of the CA’ in the abstract (and allude to the use of CA in OBT throughout). It seems a little incongruent to assess/ measure something that the organisation doesn’t explicitly set out to do. That said, you do acknowledge this is the conclusion. I think a more consistent message is needed.  

Thank you for this, on reviewing the piece we see your point and accordingly have edited throughout the paper to strengthen a consistent and coherent message.  See edits in red throughout the piece

I also think there are wider applications (outside of Outward Bound) that the authors could explore.  

We agree, and have alluded to this in our edits, we but highlight that the work was for OB and that as a pragmatic study of OB practices that has been our focus.

I think you are assuming too much reader knowledge with PJDM. This needs explaining (what is it, why is it important, what are implications of poor PJDM?) 

Please see insert section on PJDM    P4, Lines 165-200, we have highlighted the value and significance of PJDM.

Please be more transparent about the adaption/ use of the MCTQ. I.e. the Boerboom paper validated the measure for students in veterinary education using CFA from 1086 respondents. The modified MCTQ these authors detail contains 28 items, whereas in table 1, you detail 14 (though I can’t access the Stalmeijeer paper for comparison). I’m concerned about the validity of the measure, especially due to factors such as merging questions to ‘reduce the time to complete’ the survey. I would consider changing the language around the adaption of the measure to something along the lines of  ‘we developed…’ Otherwise, a more detailed justification is needed. 

Agreed and in hindsight the wording overplayed the role of the MCTQ. We have edited our language accordingly. However, we also stress the point in  part 2 that  the Questionnaire is only adapted from the MTCQ as outlined in the Stalmeijeer’s paper to reflect the differing context, and includes all 14 items in this paper. We did not merge or remove any MCTQ questions – only the part 3 qualitative section of the questionnaire has been adapted in response to the pilot. We have highlighted this in the text and have adjusted accordingly to remove implication of adaptation of the MCTQ. In our minds this has NOT effected the validity of the tool and strengthened our rational for a mixed approach, please see our response to your later query.

You have a question subset called ‘a safe learning environment’ is this an adaption of ‘General learning climate’?

See response above re part 2 and its adaptations from the MTCQ. Safe learning environment is the language used for these questions in the Stalmeijeer paper.

Question 12 refers to a staff creating a safe learning environment, do you mean safe as in physically safe, emotionally safe, or both?  

Please see earlier response, within this context, Outward Bound and the Outdoor sector it means both. The physical safety in a preoccupation of novice OBC, we have made this point in the text {Page X, Line Y,  

Again, I’m concerned about the adaption of the measure affects its validity. Please acknowledge/ be explicit about the adaptions 

Please see our earlier responses

 We have not changed the tool, please see our earlier response . Please, also see responses to earlier question, regarding mixed approach and our edits to the methods section.

Why did you need deeper detail?  

Our experience with OBT, please see our additions P5, lines224-228  has indicated that we would require depth and detail to address the anticipated questions from the focus group.

What was in the vignettes?  

We have included one of the Vignettes in the paper as an illustration while also including greater detail in the narrative  Table 2, P7 L289 to P7, l290

What questions did you ask?   

Alongside the example of the vignette we have included the questions asked. Please see table 2

How many provided voice recordings as opposed to written text (and are these comparable?) 

This has been edited in the text to include. P6  line 279-285

 How did this improve response rate? 

It is difficult to say how this improved the response rates as we have not got a comparable study. However, the responses received through the voice recording were typically longer offering greater depth. The option was intended to support and include participants, and allowed them to choose their preference. Please see edits in the text

In general, I’m not in favour of a mixed method like this, I think you are mixing your ontological assumptions (i.e. when knowing about the use of CA in Outward Bound, are you a relativist or realist?) 

Please see our positional statement, page 2    line210 217; 224-234    our pragmatic stance leans towards considering what works best in a given situation, rather than adhering to a strict absolute truth like a realist might, or completely depending on context like a relativist. In essence we have prioritizes practical application, pragmatism, over rigid philosophical stances.

As a minimum, this section needs further detail and justification, especially as the majority of your results are from this data. 

Please see edits and responses throughout the methods section. 

Use of the term ‘reflexive’ (line 212). Please describe how are you being reflexive. Normally, among other things, this would include some kind of statement of philosophical assumptions, detail of methodological rigour, positionality statement and detailed account of the analysis process. The following papers would be useful here: 

o Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport,  exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597 

o Trainor, L. R., & Bundon, A. (2021). Developing the craft: Reflexive accounts of doing reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 13(5), 705-72 

 Please see our edits throughout the methods section.

Regarding positionality, I think you need to be explicit with your connection to OB. Why connect the  research to this specific organisation? Are you involved with them? If so, you need to be clear about  this and acknowledge your biases (i.e. be reflexive).  

 

 

Please include standard deviations for all items in table 2. Readers should be able to see the distribution of data. The total SDs indicate a large degree of variation. What would the data look like if you collapsed the groups? 

Please see our new table 3,

• I’m struggling to see logical connections between subthemes, themes and overarching themes. I think these need further refinement/ clarity. For example, how is ‘choosing the right approach at the right time’ in conflict with the organisational needs of outward bound?

We have edited the text in the discussion to better describe the connection between these themes and subthemes – please see our edits in RED and our response below

• I’m very confused by the connection between the themes/ sub themes presented in table 3 and the names of the themes presented as subtitles in the text. You seem to switch between theme and subtheme as subheadings. For example, you present ‘Choosing the right approach…’ (theme) as a  subheading in bold which makes me think we should have ‘Challenges of PJDM…’ as the next  subheading (in bold) as this would follow your format, instead we have a subtheme (‘Client needs  prioritised…’) but there is no mention of the second theme from the first overarching theme  (challenges of PJDM development situated…). The next subheading is then the final theme from the  (not yet introduced) second overarching theme. 

Agreed – For some reason our headings became confused, the subheading should have read ‘challenges of PJDM development situated in the workplace. This was an error and has been edited to reflect this.

Strongly recommend changes: 

• The extensive use of acronyms is bewildering and significantly detracts from the read. Please consider reducing these throughout

We have reduced the use of acronyms. But have retained those that ease flow through the piece. Please see edits throughout.

• Explain (or remove) what you mean by an ‘identifiable epistemological connection’ (line 137). What will your readers take from this? Is it needed?

Please see our expansion p4 lines 168-170

• Line 140. Is the MCTQ designed to evaluate cognitive apprenticeship? Or does it evaluate clinical teaching but is based on principles of CA? This is an important distinction.

We have clarified and edited accordingly.

What was the size/ scope of the data collected in phase 3 (Qualitative questionnaire) 

Addressed via changes cited above, please see our earlier responses.

• The aims of the focus group could be clearer. What is reflexive elaboration? Why was it important to reflect a typical development team?

We have edited the text to clarify this. P7 lines 316-319

• Why was a centre-by-centre analysis appropriate? Your aim suggests you are looking at OBT as a whole. 

 

We have strengthened the rational for the centre by centre analysis throughout the piece

 Line 597 – what is an ‘epistemological gap’? What does this term mean to your readers? I think  this is an example of overly complicated language that could do with being simplified, explained or  removed. 

Please see our response earlier p4 lines 168-170

I think the structure of the discussion needs attention. For example, I can’t see much discussion of the quantitative data. Why are the higher scores high and the lower scores low? Presumably what you want is all scores to be high, how could OB work towards this? What are your suggestions? 

Results and discussion section for quantitative results have been combined as they are built on by the following qualitative results which offer depth. In addition, a worked example of how the Trust may proceed with a development of their Learning and Adventure Managers to work towards an intentional CA approach to developing their coaches is offered. We hope that this offers to tangible suggestions and prompts the reader to consider how a CA may be used to develop coaches in their own organisation

• Please consider use of the term ‘hyperdynamic’. In the context of some of the papers from the clinical world that you have cited, hyperdynamic probably means an environment where doctors are making slit second decisions in surgery which are the difference between a patient living and dying. In the context of this study, we are talking about taking novices canoeing/ rock climbing on a weeklong adventure trip. Should we really be describing this as ‘hyperdynamic’?

Thank you for your example, we would argue that is a high consequence decision. Hyper-dynamic IS used in this setting and has particular meaning, multiple interrelated factors,  some authors have described as wicked or messy. This has been edited for clarity. Page 4 line 189-190

Points for consideration:  

• Line 175 – do you mean ‘Mean experience’, or ‘Years qualified’?

We have edited to years qualified, p5 lines 244

• In general, I think the method could be more detailed and include further justification for decisions taken.

Please see our edits throughout the methods section

• Line 259 – Is it surprising that CA is applied differently across centres when they have no understanding or explicit use of it?

Agreed, this isn’t surprising. Please see our edits throughout to better reflect the aims and intentions of the research. Additionally, Coach Development is Trust wide so consistency is expected but clearly not achieved, the findings have highlighted that development is inconsistent, a valuable finding for OBT. please see our earlier response to edits made to the text to highlight the national ‘trust wide’ nature of development.

In the results, I think you have something more akin to a content analysis than a thematic analysis. The participant data (quotations) are generally short and lack any context. Maybe consider a ‘less is more’ approach 

We have edited the results section throughout, to outline our approach,  we have expanded and used  some longer quotes, adding further context to ensure that the point is clear. In reference to thematic analysis, we have edited the methods section, noted in our response earlier.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your responses. The authors have clearly thought about my comments and responded to them. I feel the paper is now stronger. 

Although I recommend publication in current form, I would also offer a couple of further thoughts. 

• There is a lot going on in this paper and I urge you to think about its coherence from the readers perspective. For example, epistemology is still not defined in any meaningful way. There is no definition/ explanation of what the philosophy of knowledge and knowing (epistemology) means in the context of the paper. I really do feel the paper would be more coherent without this aspect. 
• I'm still confused by table 2. This appears unedited. For example, how is ‘choosing the right approach at the right time’ in conflict with the organisational needs of outward bound? 
• I don't think the 'years since induction' aspect in table 3 adds anything. Certainly, if you are going to make inferences from this data, you should probably do some inferential testing. Less is more?? 

Author Response

Thank you for your additional comments;

 

• There is a lot going on in this paper and I urge you to think about its coherence from the readers perspective. For example, epistemology is still not defined in any meaningful way. There is no definition/ explanation of what the philosophy of knowledge and knowing (epistemology) means in the context of the paper. I really do feel the paper would be more coherent without this aspect. 

 

We agree there is a lot going on. We do cite sources that provide that explanation and exemplify our position. However, the misalignment between what the Trust does with its clients and its staff is a significant point in this piece and indicate the lack of an epistemological chain in that aspect of their practice. This chain has been identified by other authors in the past (see Grecics; Mees’s work). We have retained that part of the paper BUT have edited the word epistemology.

 

• I'm still confused by table 2. This appears unedited. For example, how is ‘choosing the right approach at the right time’ in conflict with the organisational needs of outward bound? 

 

We have edited the word individual to coach to provide clarity. The challenge is the pressure between the need to have staff deployed with groups and their developmental needs. These pressures drive the use of less optimal developmental approaches, specifically direct instruction and procedural approaches which contrast with being adaptable and flexible when using PJDM. This is clearly not evident in the text so please see our edits L 413-425

 

• I don't think the 'years since induction' aspect in table 3 adds anything. Certainly, if you are going to make inferences from this data, you should probably do some inferential testing. Less is more?"

 

This has been deleted