Learning in action sports: A scoping review

Abstract

Action sports have increased in popularity, particularly over the past two decades. Research in the area has also proliferated, as multiple disciplinary perspectives and theoretical and conceptual frames have been applied to understanding and exploring a host of research questions concerning action sports culture, contexts and participants. However, despite this flurry of research activity, not much is known empirically about the learning of action sport participants, and few studies have focused specifically on learning in action sports. A scoping review was, therefore, conducted with the aim of synthesising the work that has been undertaken, and mapping future research agendas. Informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage framework, leading sports and education databases and Google Scholar were searched for empirical literature on learning in action sports published before July 2018. After the results were screened and relevant studies identified, data were extracted and analysed using a frequency and thematic analysis to form both a descriptive and thematic summary. A total of 78 empirical studies both from the peer-reviewed and grey literature were included in the scoping review. The frequency analysis concerned information on publication year, academic field, study design, study tools, sport and population. The thematic analysis led to the development of five main themes, addressing learning in social, physical, cultural, and cognitive/psychological contexts and via various forms of feedback. The majority of articles on learning in action sports were published from 2010 onward, suggesting a growing interest in the area. More theses/dissertations resulted in peer-reviewed publications; however, less than half of all reviewed journal articles were published in education/pedagogy journals. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks were rarely explicitly referenced and/or lacked clarity. There was consensus that learning in action sports is largely informal and self-regulated. With the increasing professionalisation of many action sports and their inclusion in international competition events and also in national curricula, an increase in more formalised learning is predicted. Finally, learning in action sports can be highly individualistic but only a few studies acknowledged this. A greater variety of research questions and methodologies, and more work across disciplinary boundaries will assist in the generation of new knowledge.

Keywords

Literature review adventure sport extreme sport lifestyle sport learning theories pedagogy

Introduction

Action sports such as surfing, skateboarding, snowboarding and BMX (re-)surfaced in the 1960s and 1970s as a counter-cultural, social movement. They had ‘different’ sets of rules and values compared to the more traditional and organised sports as well as a strong anti-establishment and do-it-yourself (DIY) culture (Eichberg, 1998). A significant upsurge in popularity of action sports was again observed after the first X-Games in 1995 (Beal and Wilson, 2004). The broadcasting of the X-Games on the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network resulted in an immediate growth in commercial and economic interests (for greater detail on the history see e.g. Rinehart, 2000; Rinehart and Sydnor, 2003; Wheaton, 2004; and the future trends of action sports see e.g. Breivik, 2010; Collins and Brymer, 2018; Hajkowicz et al., 2013; Wheaton, 2013; Wheaton and Thorpe, 2016).

With the ascendency, interest and popularity in these activities, many action sports have evolved and fragmented (Immonen et al., 2017; Kellett and Russell, 2009; Thorpe and Wheaton, 2013; Wheaton, 2004). Paralleling this evolution and fragmentation, a number of labels for these sporting endeavours came to exist, including (but not limited to) extreme, action, adventure, and lifestyle sports (see Collins and Brymer, 2018; Rinehart, 2000; Wheaton, 2004). Further, greater options for participation were created making these activities more accessible to participants of all ages and abilities (e.g. climbing gyms). The significance of these activities is also evident through the inclusion of action sports in national curricula (e.g. Australian Curriculum, 2018). Twenty years on, numerous action sports are now ‘mainstreamed’ with several (e.g. snowboarding, BMX, surfing, skateboarding, and climbing) included in the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Today, many action sports are no longer considered niche sports.

The continuous and rapid progression of action sports has caught the attention of many scholars. Research in the area has proliferated, as multiple disciplinary perspectives as well as theoretical and conceptual frames have been applied to understanding and exploring a host of research questions concerning action sports culture, contexts and participants. In a recently published special issue, the professionalisation of action sports was explored, discussing the process of institutionalisation of action sports (e.g. Ellmer and Rynne, 2018; Puddle et al., 2018), the growth and change in organisational structures as a result of their inclusion in the Summer and Winter Olympic programmes (e.g. Batuev and Robinson, 2018; Strittmatter et al., 2018), the changing experiences of action sport athletes in the face of commercial sponsors (Smits, 2018), and new and social media technologies (Evers, 2018).

While rich insight has been gleaned from the scholarship that has been undertaken on action sports, not much is known empirically about the learning of action sport participants, and few studies have focused specifically on learning in action sports. This is especially significant given that participation numbers in these sports are growing and action sports are increasingly offered in, or as an extension of, secondary physical education (e.g. Australian Curriculum, 2018). Here, we understand learning not only to be the acquisition and/or progression of physical skills, but also take into consideration the situatedness of activities within physical, socio-cultural and institutional contexts (Jones, 2011; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002). Included in these contexts are the physical environment (i.e. skateparks, slopes and gyms), the social environment (i.e. the interaction between sports participants and their coaches), the cultural environment (i.e. action sports and high-performance), and institutions (i.e. sport organisations, schools, and universities).

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this scoping review is to present an overview of relevant literature by investigating the extent of existing research, summarising the findings of relevant articles, and identifying potential gaps in this research area. We argue that this is necessary work that will facilitate the mapping of future research agendas on the topic, and potentially give rise to new theoretical and interdisciplinary knowledge about learning in action sports.

Methodology

We conducted a scoping study designed to examine the current literature on learning in action sports. Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature in that they allow researchers ‘to map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts; gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research’ (Daudt et al., 2013: 8). Scoping reviews are particularly useful in a research area that is either of a complex nature or has not yet been extensively reviewed (Mays et al., 2001). Responding to Armour and Chambers’ (2014) call to cross boundaries between education, sport and sport and exercise science, we decided that our scoping review would not be limited by disciplinary boundaries, but rather we would seek to access insights that had been gained on learning in action sports from both the social and the natural sciences. This added to the complexity of our task.

Scoping reviews are often compared (and also confused) with systematic reviews as they share many of the same processes (DiCenso et al., 2010). However, key differences exist between these two methodologies. The primary difference lies in the purpose and aim of the review. Scoping reviews are used to map the body of literature on a certain topic (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005), while systematic reviews are employed to address a specific research question by providing a summary of the best available research in the area (Pham et al., 2014). Scoping reviews allow researchers to address broad(er) research questions through the development of an overview of the large and diverse literature (including non-empirical pieces) whereas systematic reviews are framed around specific research questions and involve collation of exclusively empirical data (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). As such, in scoping reviews the quality of the included studies is not assessed by the authors as it is typically done in systematic reviews dealing with a generally smaller number of studies (Brien et al., 2010; Grant and Booth, 2009; Rumrill et al., 2010). This means study interventions and their effectiveness are discussed in systematic reviews. Because of the likelihood of wide-ranging study designs and methodologies found in scoping reviews, researchers are asked to provide insights into overall trends at more macro levels, rather than critical analysis of the evidence presented at the micro level of each study (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005).

The conduct of the current scoping review was informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) six-stage methodological framework: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for and identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting relevant studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results; and (6) consultation. These stages are addressed in the following sub-sections of this framework as it applied to this study more specifically.

Identifying the research question

The topic of learning in action sports has not yet been extensively reviewed, partially as it is complex in nature (e.g. Quennerstedt et al., 2014) and still emerging (e.g. Collins and Brymer, 2018; Ellmer and Rynne, 2018). Thus, the research question for this review was, ‘What is empirically known from the existing literature about learning in action sports?’

Identifying relevant studies

The introduction to this paper contextualises why multiple search terms were required for this review. The initial search strategy included the following umbrella terms as key search terms: [‘learn*’, OR ‘know*’] with the combination of [‘action sport*’, OR ‘adventure sport*’, OR ‘lifestyle sport*’, OR ‘extreme sport*’, OR ‘alternative sport*’].¹

With a growing body of literature in specific action sports, individual sports from both the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports (Booth and Thorpe, 2007) and Wikipedia site (Extreme Sport, n.d.) (n = 85) were also used as key terms in this search, for example [‘snowboard*’] AND [‘learn*, OR ‘know*’]. Initially, Google Scholar was searched for material published before January 2018. All articles identified with keywords in the title and/or abstract were reviewed. Potentially relevant articles were then sourced through the electronic databases ProQuest, EBSCOhost (SportDiscus) and ERIC, and accessed through The University of Queensland online library, when a full copy of the article was available.

At the start of the search, the main focus was placed on peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles. However, throughout the process of the search, interesting dissertations and theses, book chapters and conference papers (henceforth referred to as ‘grey literature’) turned up in searches. In one of the weekly progress meetings between the co-authors, the decision was made to include grey literature in the process. This approach is supported by Pham et al. (2014) who note the exclusion of grey literature as one of the most common limitations of scoping reviews. Because this decision was taken while the review was underway, the first author then repeated the search of keywords through the university library databases (i.e. ProQuest). This ultimately led to a point of saturation where no new work was found to be included in the corpus of literature that the research team would review.

Preliminary extraction of publications and charting of data

Once (potentially) relevant studies were identified, full text copies were downloaded to a secure file folder. Preliminary information for each of the identified (potentially) relevant studies (i.e. author, year, research question, framework, data analysis, and key findings) was recorded in an Excel table by the first author. The table and full text copies of (potentially) relevant studies were saved in a Google Drive folder that was shared with all authors.

Study selection

Final study extraction

Each of the authors individually copied the list of preliminary studies into a separate Excel sheet. They each then independently screened the full text copies for relevance using the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 1 and highlighted in their list which studies they believed should be included in this review. Several discussions then took place between the authors regarding conflicting inclusions and exclusions. For example, during the first discussion the authors agreed to include empirical work from all fields discussing learning in action sports, meaning that not only would studies from the social sciences and pedagogy be included for analysis, but also studies from sports science, philosophy and psychology. This decision was made to gain a broader and more complete perspective on the topic under review.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion

Exclusion

Empirical and peer-reviewed articles;
grey literature including dissertations/theses, book chapters, conference papers;
listed in at least one of the main indexing databases (SportDiscus, ERIC and ProQuest);
any level of participation (beginner to elite);
any age group or gender;
any form of action sport participant (athlete, coach, etc.);
not limited by geographical location or setting;
English language only

No access to full text;
opinion pieces, case reports, papers, book chapters with no empirical data;
articles published after June 2018;
sports not included in the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports or Wikipedia lists;
research discussing outdoor/adventure education

Excluded studies were highlighted in one colour (i.e. pink), and undecided in another (i.e. blue). Each author added comments to each of the highlighted studies to support their decision and this acted as a point for further discussion at the subsequent research meeting. Finally, the first and second author met to debate the decisions of all authors and a final list of 78 studies was agreed upon.

Several studies were discussed at length to ensure that the inclusion/exclusion criteria were being applied consistently. For example, some studies regarding outdoor/adventure education were excluded, as was a review of learning in the outdoors (Hawxwell et al., 2018), as these papers tended to define their focus quite broadly, and thus, their findings did not always pertain specifically to learning in action sports. There were also studies that emerged through the search where limited findings related to ‘learning’ were reported. For example, Muehlbauer et al.’s (2013) work on inline skating exercises and their effect on balance and strength performance in healthy children examined ‘action sport’ participants, but, ‘learning’ was not a focus. These studies were subsequently excluded from this review. On the other hand, while Wheaton and O’Loughlin’s (2017) title ‘Informal sport, institutionalisation, and sport policy: challenging the sportization of parkour in England’ was not retrieved through our initial searches and does not immediately suggest the topic of ‘learning’, the authors discussed this paper and they agreed that the pedagogical implications of the institutionalisation of parkour aligned with our focus and added value to this review. Thus, that particular study was included in this review.

Charting the data

The content of the 78 gathered empirical publications was extracted by the first author. This content included: author and year of publication; study aim; sport and participants recruited; study design; theoretical/conceptual framework; analysis; and key findings. The table of coded empirical studies is presented in the supplementary material that is available online. Further, the articles were assigned numeric values (1–78) as seen in other reviews (e.g. Sperka and Enright, 2017). These studies are referenced in text using numeric style.

Critical analysis

Due to the number of articles found and included in this study, the Findings section includes an initial descriptive overview, followed by a thematic overview of the studies and the findings. Further, following Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) guide, a frequency analysis was used to provide a numerical summary of the nature, extent and distributions of the reviewed studies. For this article, the following key variables were coded to describe the characteristics of the research on learning in action sports: publication year; academic field; study design; study tools; sports; and population. As recommended by Levac et al. (2010), and following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step model, the content was thematically analysed. While a thematic analysis is considered flexible, there will always be inconsistencies (Holloway and Todres, 2003). A level of thoughtfulness is required during the ‘back and forth’ between the text and applied meaning units to try to achieve consistency and coherency. We worked to achieve this ‘thoughtfulness’, in part, by having more than one author analysing the data (Levac et al., 2010). All three co-authors contributed to the analysis, compared their emergent findings, and discussed inconsistencies and tensions. These discussions ultimately became generative spaces in which to make sense of what we were reading and finding.

Consultation

Three expert researchers in the fields of action sports and exercise and sports pedagogy were invited to partake in our consultation phase, as recommended by Levac et al. (2010). Two experts acknowledged our invitation. Sharing our findings and the draft manuscript with these experts provided opportunities to identify if we had missed any significant work, and to ‘build on the evidence and offer a higher level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to the preliminary findings’ (Levac et al., 2010: 7).

Accordingly, we would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by Dr Rebecca Olive and Dr Eric Brymer. Their timely responses and constructive feedback resulted in the inclusion of additional empirical works and further clarification of the boundaries of the review. Moreover, the duration of the consultative process allowed us to expand the review period by another six months (to July 2018). The process of consultation also reinforced to us that given the variation and vagaries of most key terms involved in this review (especially ‘learning’) we should remain modest in our aims and avoid any claims of completeness. However, we do claim to have conducted a thorough review within the parameters outlined above. What follows is a descriptive account of the research findings, followed by the thematic summary.

Findings

Descriptive summary

Year of publication

Of the 78 included studies, 61 (78.2%) were peer-reviewed journal articles, 12 (15.4%) dissertations/theses, three (3.8%) book chapters and two (2.6%) conference papers. Considering the first variable, publication year, across this variety of publication types highlights a substantial increase in the amount of empirical work relating to learning in action sports. The first work completed on learning in action sports was in 1995. In 2010–2014, there was a noticeable upsurge, particularly in journal articles, as illustrated in Figure 1. The presentation of empirical data in book chapters is also on the rise, while the publication of theses and dissertations has been relatively constant since 1995.

Figure 1.

Year and types of publications.

Academic field

As noted above, of the 78 studies reviewed, 61 (78.2%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Although less than expected, the majority of articles were published in education journals (n = 21; 39.6%), 11 in both sport science and in cultural/sociology journals (18%) and seven in psychology journals (11.5%). The rest were published in journals related to a wide variety of fields, including health, humanities, media/technology, economics, tourism and politics.

Study design

The most prominent study design employed was a qualitative design in 58 studies (74.3%), followed by 11 (14.1%) quantitative, and nine (11.5%) mixed-method design. Ethnography was most prominent and was applied in almost half of the included studies (n = 35; 44.9%). Other approaches included phenomenology (n = 10; 14.7%) (of which three were interpretative phenomenological analyses), case studies (n = 6), intervention studies (n = 4), experimental (n = 3), action research (n = 1), and scenography (n = 1).

Study tools

Overall, interviews were the most utilised tool (n = 55; 70.5%), with seven (9.0%) studies making use of focus groups. Observations were used in 31 (39.7%) studies and frequently occurred in combination with interviews (ethnographic design), video recordings in 15 (19.2%), and document evidence in 11 (16.2%) studies. Surveys and questionnaires were each used in five (6.4%) studies. Over half (n = 42; 53.8%) of the studies made use of more than one data collection tool, 18 (23.1%) of a single tool, and in 17 (21.8%) studies the number of tools employed was unclear.

Sports

The scoping process included a search of 85 action sports. Research on learning in action sports, however, was conducted in only 15 different action sports (17.6%). The majority of studies focused on climbing (n = 15; 19.2%), followed by parkour/freerunning (n = 13; 16.7%), skateboarding (n = 12; 15.4%), surfing (n = 11; 14.1%), snow sports (n = 6; 7.7%), mountain biking (n = 4; 5.1%) and roller derby (n = 3; 3.8%). BMX, skydiving, and paddle sports were addressed in two studies. One study was conducted in each of the remaining five sports (mountaineering, adventure racing, motor sports, unicycling and scuba diving). Three studies included more than one action sport.

Population

Of the 78 studies reviewed, 28 (35.9%) studies examined participants of various skill levels, 13 (16.7%) studied those who were experienced, 11 (14.1%) examined beginners (i.e. no previous experience), eight (10.3%) included participants from an expert/elite background, and six (7.7%) examined ‘recreational’ participants. Seven (9.0%) studies did not specify the level of expertise.

The male dominance of action sports is reflected in the literature also with only seven (9.0%) studies exclusively examining female participants. Thirty-two (41.0%) studies examined both male and female participants, with the majority of articles including more male than female participants. Male participants were the exclusive focus of 19 (24.4%) studies, and 19 (24.4%) studies either did not specify the gender or were of a different study design.

Thematic summary

As presented below, the review of the data led us to identify five main themes relating to the focus on learning in action sports. Each theme is explained below in the order of frequency.

Learning – Social

This theme was constructed from 46 (59%) studies that investigated learning as being socially situated. This was reflected in four sub-themes: Community of Practice (CoP); Social Engagement; Coaches/Instructors; and Digital Technologies.

CoP

Despite being classified as individual sports, action sporting activities often take place in an interactive community [5, 9, 10]. Ten studies explicitly engaged Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of CoP in their studies [11, 19, 31, 38, 41, 42, 44, 53, 60, 74]. CoPs involve a group of individuals with shared interests and practices coming together to engage in a process of collective learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The CoP studies suggested that the more time spent in a CoP, the more knowledge gained about the activities, people, environment and culture.

Social Engagement

In Black’s (2005) [7] study, participants (skateboarders) spoke about preferring to train on their own when learning new tricks, but had greatest enjoyment when skating with others due to the social engagement. This was supported by other studies identifying the establishment of meaningful relationships as significant in learning [17, 18, 25, 28, 30, 43, 47, 49,55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 71, 76]. Often participants chose to train with others to support the development of physical and social skills [6, 20, 50]. Moreover, engagement with more knowledgeable peers (or coaches) was beneficial for development. For example, observation and peer-dialogue were found to contribute to the co-construction of knowledge in a number of studies [13, 15, 27, 30]. Overall, working together as a collective was thought to assist in achieving various learning outcomes [38].

Coaches/Instructors

With the professionalisation of action sports, instruction and coaching are becoming more prominent features of the literature. Seven studies addressed the role of coaches and instructors [3, 11, 13, 22, 25, 43, 46, 54, 74]. A number of studies found that action sports coaches and instructors continued to learn their skills predominantly through social engagements [11, 13, 22, 25, 43, 46, 74]. For example, in Magnussen’s (2010) [46] study, instructors reported a preference for practising new skills within their community before integrating them into practice (i.e. teaching students). Similarly, Wheaton and O’Loughlin (2017) [74] suggested an holistic model in which teachers also have the ability to learn and grow with the athletes/students (‘engaged pedagogy’).

Digital Technologies

Enright and Gard [16] discussed how learning for longboard skateboarders occurred ‘in networked, often informal, technology assisted contexts’ (Enright and Gard, 2016: 52). Numerous studies identified websites and social media such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook as being frequently used by action sports participants to acquire knowledge [13, 15, 16, 39, 73], or to share knowledge [34, 35, 73, 77]. Watching videos was a popular method to learn basic physical tricks [1, 15, 73]. Many action sports athletes filmed their own tricks as a method of reflecting on their own performances, but also shared these online with the wider community to garner feedback and critique from others [16, 31, 77]. However, not all participants found the feedback provided valuable [15] and preferred to make use of other knowledge sources, such as observing and talking to their peers.

Learning – Physical

There were thirty-two (41%) studies that investigated learning in relation to physical skills and/or the physical environment. These are reflected in the following two sub-themes: Skill Acquisition; and Physical Environment.

Skill Acquisition

Learning a new trick or manoeuvre was found to be best achieved by practising the skill on a regular basis [13, 15, 22, 27, 28, 29, 39, 56, 69, 72, 75]. Black (2005) [7] identified that skateboarders better improved their skills when practising alone as they showed greater commitment and self-discipline in mastering these skills. Willmott and Collins’ (2017) [75] retrospective study on skill progression in elite freeskiiers found that trick progression occurred intermittently as it depended on a number of variables (e.g. competition cycles, training facilities, equipment, and health). Other variables were also found to exist in the learning outcomes of action sports participants. For example, Smith’s (2002) [69] study with snowboarders examined if intermixing two versions of a complex task (i.e. left versus right turn) led to better retention of skill than blocked practice of the same task (i.e. right turn only). Better learning outcomes were achieved in the alternating practice group compared to the blocked practice group. Further, creating meta-stable regions of performance (i.e. in climbing gym) was found to create avenues to explore performance environments, thus facilitating a transfer of learning in new (i.e. outdoor) climbing locations [66]. Seifert et al. (2015) [67, 68] and Orth et al. (2016) [57, 58] demonstrated that previous experience and behaviour of rock climbers (versus non-climbers) had a positive effect on performance in novel climbing environments. The systematic review by Orth et al. (2016) [56] in rock climbing showed that practice related to task novelty relative to the participants’ ability resulted in improved coordination. Further, Künzell and Lukas (2011) [36] found that skateboarding lessons had a facilitative effect on learning how to snowboard. Similarly, De Ghetaldi (1998) [14] concluded that rock climbing classes were effective in both skill and knowledge progression. However, individualised programmes were recommended to assist in skill progression and to meet the needs of individuals [65], avoiding the generalisability effect [46]. Furthermore, it was found that enhanced practical knowledge could result in risk reduction [7, 35, 50]. For example, step-by-step skill progression, conditioning and stretch exercises were strategies employed by skateboarders [7] and parkour practitioners [35] to reduce the risk of injury.

Physical Environment

A number of scholars argued that participants are bodily situated and oriented in their physical (and social) environment [9], stressing the key role played by the built and natural environment in learning. Studies explored, for example, how knowledge is created through bodily movements in relation to the physical environment [9, 10, 29, 39, 53, 57, 58, 66, 67]. As such, participants were constructed as being in partnership with the space and the environment they engage with, similar to the relationship of a ballerina to her dance partner [21]. This dialogue was thought to contribute to the enhancement of current skills and the development of new skills.

Further, knowledge about the environment in which we perform our activities was found to be an important aspect of learning. For example, outdoor climbing sites and the surf and coastal landscapes provided opportunities to learn through physical (climbing/surfing) and social interactions in both Kulczycky’s (2004) [37] and Rynne’s (2016) [64] research. Further to this, Moreira and Peixoto (2014) [51] examined a tool evaluating aspects of the competitive surf-environment in order to replicate characteristics in training. Outcomes of their research in relation to the environment highlighted the importance of examining wave characteristics and coastal structures, as these allow surfers a quicker response regarding what manoeuvres to perform. By manipulating tasks and environmental properties, exploratory behaviour can be induced which, following Orth et al.’s (2018) [56] systematic review, scientists and coaches should interpret as a potential indicator of learning.

Learning – Cultural

Sixteen (23.5%) studies explicitly addressed learning in a cultural context, reflected in the following three sub-themes: enculturation, inequality, and identity.

Enculturation

Pérez Turpin et al. (2009) [59] stated that learning involves a process of ‘enculturation’, meaning that sports participants adopt the language (vocabulary), customs (values) and beliefs of the subculture. This form of ‘cultural knowledge’ [64] or ‘cultural understanding’ [41] is gained through social, cultural and subjective relationships [55]. Numerous studies discussed this process of ‘becoming’ a valued member of the community as key to learning [e.g. 11, 22, 38, 41, 42, 44, 53, 60, 75].

Inequality

In order to become a valued member of a ‘community’ [22, 26, 40, 54, 55, 59], it was found that participants need to negotiate power relations that determine their place in or even outside the subculture [26, 55. 60, 63]. For example, Langseth (2012) [26] discussed how different sets of rules and values exist between summer versus winter surfers, Olive (2016) [55] addressed ethical negotiations of cultural power relationships between female and male surfers, and Petrone (2008, 2010) [60] investigated how conflict (i.e. snaking and heckling) within a skateboarding community led to exclusion and therefore limited learning.

Identity

The formation of identities while becoming part of a community is a topic frequently discussed within the cultural context of learning [6, 22, 26, 31, 41, 42, 53, 59, 60, 63]. Being part of a subcultural community was found to facilitate participants’ development of skills, knowledge and physical and social understandings, that contribute to the formation of identities [41]. The creation of videos, for example, was discussed by both Jones (2011) [31] and Woermann (2012) [77] who stated that videos are an avenue for skateboarders and freeskiiers respectively to form and reflect on their own identities. The co-construction of knowledge with cultural peers was also found to contribute to a shared collective identity [22, 26, 61]. Bignold (2013) [6] and Rowlett (2015) [63] concluded that the process of enculturation led to increased self-confidence, self-esteem and self-identity; however, research by Pérez Turpin et al. (2009) [59] found that identity construction was not always positive, as some of their research participants engaged in drug and alcohol abuse. The participants themselves, however, viewed these engagements as being part of the practice and actually contributed to their enjoyment in the activity and their ability to perform tricks. Nonetheless, their non-conformity to identified subcultural rules and values, and their subsequent exclusion from the group, did not undermine the capacity of the individual to form a positive identity [26, 60].

Learning – Cognitive and Psychological

Nineteen (24.4%) studies discussed learning within the cognitive and psychological context. Skills were found to be developed through cognitive experiences such as observation (and subsequent imitation) [6, 18, 46, 53, 77]. However, Magnussen (2010) [46] concluded that imitation was an inferior learning strategy, particularly with respect to participants with greater levels of competence. More specifically, the greater the expertise of the individual, the less likely the participant chose imitation as a skill development strategy. Challenges of translating cognitive (i.e. verbal/visual) information into practice when learning from others were addressed by both Magnussen (2010) [46] and Bäckström (2014) [3]. That said, the cognitive training of skills, such as through imagery [75] or reflection [11, 29, 30, 45, 78] was found to result in significant improvements in performance.

From a psychosocial standpoint, benefits to learning were also observed. Prlenda and colleagues (2015) [62] examined the effect of fear and courage on learning novel tasks in kitesurfing. They hypothesised that, while their study did not show any significant results, more courageous participants were more likely to efficiently learn new tasks. Furthermore, the higher the level of fear, the less likely participants were able to acquire new skills [62]. Similarly, Evin et al. (2014) [19] stated the construction of mutual trust between rock climbing partners increased cooperation and therefore, positively affected the learning of collective tasks [see also 49]. Participation in surf-camps was found to increase self-esteem, self-worth and positive behaviour change for adolescents in Smith’s (2010) study [70]. Finally, learning and mastering new skills were identified as factors that influenced self-esteem, self-worth and positive behaviour [70], motivation and continued participation in an activity [14, 33, 43].

Learning – Feedback

Being provided feedback in order to learn and progress was a theme discussed in fifteen (22%) articles. Different forms of feedback were addressed in the studies and could be subdivided into the following three categories: Video; Peer; and Sensory.

Video

While many action sports participants observed and communicated with others in order to gain knowledge about their sporting activity (addressed above), they often made use of cameras to capture, replay and thus receive feedback on their own performances [14, 15, 30, 31, 77, 78].

Peer

Action sports are often individual sports and yet many participants chose to train in small groups in order to learn with and from their peers [15, 19, 31, 72]. Hollett (2017) [30] examined the symbiotic relationship of a videographer and skateboarder as they both progressed their skills through nurturing cycles including observation, reflection, communication and practice. As such, peer observers assisted in error detection and could provide feedback to the learner [15, 27, 32]. Kaplan-Reimer et al. (2011) [32] concluded that early error correction through verbal cues may have helped to increase skill acquisition in autistic children completing a rock climbing task. Similarly, climbing improvements were observed in McNamee and Steffen’s (2007) [48] intervention study following performance cues. In training programmes for roller derby, Scarpantonio (2016) [65] stated that both one-on-one and group instructions were equally beneficial. However, Magnussen (2010) [46] pointed out that generalisation issues may arise in the translation of instructor know-how to practitioner theory as learners may interpret the information differently based on their body shapes and sizes, or equipment used.

Sensory

Bäckström (2014) [3] addressed the kinaesthetic experience in teaching skateboarding tricks, evidencing that perception lies within the entire body, including eyes, ears and surface of the skin. Ghosh et al. (2016) [21] examined the potential of using musical feedback to enhance skateboarding experiences and learning new skills. A feedback mechanism attached to the skateboard allowed for tricks to be detected and provide musical feedback. They concluded that audio-feedback increased satisfaction of skating and had the ability to support trick progression. Finally, audio-visual feedback was deemed beneficial in improving the gate start in elite BMX athletes in Zabala et al.’s (2009) study [78].

Discussion

Our review identified 78 sources published since 1995 and is the first review (to the best of our knowledge) to investigate what is empirically known about learning in action sports.

Results of our frequency analysis indicated a notable upsurge in academic work in the field of learning in action sports since 2010, suggesting a growing interest in the area. This corresponds with the increasing participation rates in action sports both nationally and globally (Gilchrist and Wheaton, 2011). Specifically, peer-reviewed articles have made up a significant portion of our review. We noticed that empirical work on action sports and learning has, in recent years, also found a foothold in book chapters. The number of theses and dissertations has remained constant since 1995, but increasingly (over the past ten years), these theses and dissertations resulted in peer-reviewed publications [i.e. 10, 15, 29, 54, 55, 60, 75]. This is an exciting observation, given that novel research is being published and shared with the broader academic population.

Interestingly, however, given the context of ‘learning’, less than half of peer-reviewed articles were published in education/pedagogy journals [e.g. 1, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 24, 27, 31, 37–42, 46, 48, 54, 61, 64, 65]. There is moderate interest in the topic among the natural science scholars as evidenced by the number of publications in sport science and medical journals [e.g. 36, 50, 51, 56, 59, 62, 67, 69, 78]. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, sociologists and cultural studies scholars, in particular, made strong and frequent contributions to the body of knowledge [e.g. 3, 26, 34, 35, 44, 55, 71, 73, 77]. Despite the breadth of research, we identified several gaps in the existing literature that must be addressed to advance our understanding of learning in action sports. What follows is a discussion of four areas that we believe warrant research attention.

Reviewing the literature corpus, we noted that theoretical and conceptual frameworks were rarely used or, at least, explicitly acknowledged. When the framing was explicit in an article, the article still often lacked a rationale and/or details on how the framing influenced the research design and/or analysis. The majority of research that did acknowledge a framework was grounded in constructivist (and less so cognitivist) theories. Particularly popular was Lave and Wenger’s (1991) framing of situated learning and the notion of CoP [e.g. 11, 22, 31, 38, 41, 42, 44, 53, 60, 74]. An article that attempted to push the boundaries of the traditional learning theories discussed the notion of ‘connectivism’ (Siemens, 2005) [16]. Here, the growing popularity of digital technologies as learning tools in action sports was considered. Action sports also need to be understood as practical and embodied (Evans et al., 2008; Quennerstedt et al., 2014). This was acknowledged by a relatively large body of literature, discussing the physical learning of (new) bodily movements [e.g. 7, 13, 15, 22, 27, 29, 39, 56, 69, 72, 75], often in relation to the physical [e.g. 9, 10, 23, 29, 39, 53] and/or social environment [e.g. 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 31, 38, 39, 41–44, 53, 60, 74]. However, we noted a significant disconnect between social and natural sciences in discussing the topic of learning in action sports. The majority of skill acquisition is examined within the natural sciences (i.e. sports science, biomechanics, etc.). A major constraint of this work is the limited discussion of research findings in relation to theories of learning. An exception to this is a framework that has been finding traction in the action sports literature over recent years; Ecological Dynamics theory [e.g. 57, 58, 66, 67] allows scholars to analyse athletes as complex adaptive systems. By combining key concepts from ecological psychology and nonlinear dynamical systems theory, performance and learning contexts in sport are better understood (Seifert and Davids, 2015). Several significant conclusions can be made from this: first, we recommend scholars be more explicit about their chosen framework while positioning their work within their field, and second, scholars work across boundaries from natural and social sciences to collectively share and advance knowledge within the field.

While many participants rely on social interaction to learn new skills and advance their practices, most action sports can still be considered individualised sports. However, not many articles highlighted the idiosyncrasy of learning, and differences in how individuals learn (Quennerstedt et al., 2014) within a given context. For example, numerous studies report that feedback posted on videos by the online community is a useful method to receive feedback on one’s performances [14, 15, 30, 31, 77, 78]. Yet, only one study discussed that this method was not beneficial to some athletes, and other methods of learning were indeed preferred [15]. First, this example highlights that, even if we acknowledge that relationships are important in educational processes and practices (Biesta, 2013), learning can be something that is highly individualistic. We cannot and should not construct ‘learners’ as a homogeneous group. Second, the outcome of this study [15] is at least partly a function of the authors’ research design, that consisted of an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Smith and Osborn, 2004). IPA is a research design that works to understand how a given person in a given context makes sense of a given phenomenon, in this case learning in action sports. Our review clearly lends support to the notion that the questions and the methods will always influence the data generated, and suggests that in order to generate new knowledge about learning in action sports, greater diversity in terms of the questions asked and theoretical tools and methods utilised might be advantageous.

Further, the majority of articles in this review focused on the sporting practices and how they ‘fit’ with the broader action sports culture. What was often absent, however, was the discussion of what does ‘not fit’ (Quennerstedt et al., 2014). For example, the topic of gender and power relations was discussed by only a select few [26, 55, 60, 63]. Significantly also, male dominance of action sports tracks through into the literature, where only seven studies exclusively researched female participants [4, 5, 15, 32, 55, 63, 65]. Interestingly, only four [4, 5, 55, 63] studies adopted a feminist standpoint, of which only two [55, 63] critiqued the gender (in)equality and the subsequent effect on learning within the action sport culture. Similarly, the influence of power relations (i.e. conflict) leading to exclusion and subsequent limitation of learning was addressed by only two studies [26, 60]. Like Quennerstedt et al.’s (2014) methodological reflections on learning in sport and exercise contexts, we recommend that future research ensures power relations and inequalities within and beyond the particular learning site are made visible.

Finally, we note that there is consensus that learning in action sport is largely informal and self-directed. Notions of participant-driven and cooperative learning can be seen in some physical education contexts [19]. Within the sports context, however, and the increasing professionalisation and institutionalisation, more athletes have access to professional coaches, training facilities, technology and support staff (e.g. Ellmer and Rynne, 2016, 2018). With these changing structures, we anticipate that the learning of athletes within the high-performance context is likely to become more formalised also. However, with only a small amount of research conducted on elite action sport athletes [15, 45, 50, 54, 75, 78] and/or their coaches [11, 13, 24, 46, 54], a number of questions remain unanswered. Some scholars have attempted to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of skill progression in the high-performance realm [15, 45, 75, 78] and/or how coach/athlete relationships are negotiated given the strong anti-authoritarian and DIY roots of action sports [54]. Also evolving is the body of literature on action sports coaches and their learning [11, 13, 24, 54]. There remains, however, much scope for further empirical work on the topic.

With the continued professionalisation of action sports and their inclusion in the Olympic programme, we believe research within the high-performance sector is warranted, exploring high performance athletes and/or coaches and their learning. Investigating further the coach/athlete relationship within this sector is also of interest. In addition, as many action sports become increasingly mainstreamed, they will feature more prominently in national physical education curricula. This will mean a new and potentially generative focus on appropriate action sport pedagogies and assessments. It is an opportune time, therefore, for more focused and sustained empirical attention on learning in action sports.

Limitations

There are limitations to this review. Scoping reviews aim to be comprehensive, but it is possible that this review omitted key studies, given that the work included needed to be empirical, written in English, and published before July 2018. We also do recognise that there are resources about learning within action sports communities that are not ‘scholarly’ works, but may also have a contribution to make to our line of inquiry. In addition, acknowledging feedback from the consulted experts, our selected search terms have potentially limited the inclusion of relevant articles. Given that scholarly disciplines often make use of discipline specific terms regarding ‘learning’ (i.e. socio-cultural scholars refer to ‘cultural learning’, ‘enculturation’, ‘becoming’, ‘embodiment’, and sport scientists to ‘skill acquisition’, ‘motor learning’, ‘practice’, etc.), more literature could have been sourced and thus included in our review had we diversified our search terms. However, this would have resulted in a corpus of literature that we could never have done justice to in a single review. Focusing on a single scholarly discipline (e.g. cultural studies, motor learning, or education) would most certainly elicit different results. Finally, scoping studies are not designed to assess the quality of research designs or determine the weight of evidence provided by the studies (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). We merely present insight into the extent of the research activity, major conclusions and research gaps.

Conclusion

Seventy-eight empirical sources on learning in action sports were included in this scoping review. The review process revealed a significant upward trajectory of publications on the topic in the last decade, suggesting growing interest in the field. While substantive work has certainly already been undertaken across a variety of disciplines, what was evident from our review is that there is great potential for interdisciplinary research to challenge and extend what is known about learning in action sports. Moreover, a wider range of methodologies and research designs could be considered as well as novel learning sites (i.e. high-performance context and physical education units) to advance understandings of what, how and why action sports athletes learn. Given what we have signalled in terms of increased participation in, and professionalisation of, action sports, and their more frequent inclusion in physical education curricula internationally, we envisage that empirical work on the topic will continue to grow. We hope that this review is a useful platform for those who choose to pursue this new and necessary work on learning in action sports.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, Coded_empirical_studies_Supplemental_Material_Learning_in_Action_Sports_A_Scoping_Review - Learning in action sports: A scoping review

Supplemental Material, Coded_empirical_studies_Supplemental_Material_Learning_in_Action_Sports_A_Scoping_Review for Learning in action sports: A scoping review by Eva Ellmer, Steven Rynne and Eimear Enright in European Physical Education Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank those who provided thoughtful and rigorous feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript, and our consultants Dr Rebecca Olive and Dr Eric Brymer.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Adi

Aditya

Citrawati

(2010) Learn street skateboarding through 3D simulations of angle rotation. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 9: 217–234.

Aggerholm

Højbjerre Larsen

(2017) Parkour as acrobatics: An existential phenomenological study of movement in parkour. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 9(1): 69–86.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Armour

Chambers

(2014) ‘Sport and exercise pedagogy’. The case for a new integrative sub-discipline in the field of Sport and Exercise Sciences/Kinesiology/Human Movement Sciences. Sport, Education and Society 19(7): 855–868.

Australian Curriculum (2018) Demonstration and written reflection: Indoor climbing. Available at: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/work-samples/samples/demonstration-and-written-reflection-indoor-climbing-below/ (accessed 28 June 2018).

Bäckström

(2014) Knowing and teaching kinaesthetic experience in skateboarding: An example of sensory emplacement. Sport, Education and Society 19(6): 752–772.

Batuev

Robinson

(2018) Organizational evolution and the Olympic Games: The case of sport climbing. Sport in Society 1–17. Epub ahead of print 27 February 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1440998.

Beal

Wilson

(2004) ‘Chicks dig scars’: Commercialisation and the transformations of skate boarders’ identities. In: Wheaton

(ed.) Understanding Lifestyle Sports: Consumption, Identity and Difference. London: Routledge, pp.31–54.

Bicknell

(2010) Feeling them ride: Corporeal exchange in cross-country mountain bike racing. About Performance 10: 81–91.

10.

Bicknell

(2016) Technology, equipment and the mountain biker’s taskscape. In: Thorpe

Olive

(eds) Women in Action Sport Cultures: Identity, Politics and Experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.237–258.

11.

Biesta

(2013) Interrupting the politics of learning. Power and Education 5(1): 4–15.

12.

Bignold

(2013) Developing school students’ identity and engagement through lifestyle sports: a case study of unicycling. Sport, Education and Society 18(2): 184–199.

13.

Black

KJL

(2005) Are risk and injury integral to the experience of skateboarding? ProQuest Dissertations and Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, USA.

14.

Booth

Thorpe

(eds) (2007) Berkshire Encyclopedia of Extreme Sports. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.

15.

Boyce

Bischak

(2010) Learning by doing, knowledge spillovers, and technological and organizational change in high-altitude mountaineering. Journal of Sports Economics 11(5): 496–532.

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

17.

Breivik

(2010) Trends in adventure sports in a post-modern society. Sport in Society 13(2): 260–273.

18.

Brien

Lorenzetti

Lewis

, et al. (2010) Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science 5(2): 2.

19.

Clegg

(2011) An existential phenomenological examination of parkour and freerunning. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, San Jose State University.

20.

Clegg

Butryn

(2012) An existential phenomenological examination of parkour and freerunning. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 4(3): 320–340.

21.

Collins

Brymer

(2018) Understanding nature sports: A participant centred perspective and its implications for the design and facilitating of learning and performance. Annals of Leisure Research. Epub ahead of print 23 September 2018. DOI: 10.1080/11745398.2018.1525302.

22.

Collins

Grecic

(2015) The epistemological chain in high-level adventure sports coaches. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 15(3): 224–238.

23.

Cordier

Dietrich

Pailhous

(1996) Harmonic analysis of a complex motor behavior. Human Movement Science 15(6): 789–807.

24.

Correia

MCEE

Bertram

(2018) The surfing coaching: Sources of knowledge acquisition. International Sport Coaching Journal 5(1): 14–23.

25.

Côté

Turgeon

(2005) Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Medical Teacher 27(1): 71–75.

26.

Daudt

Van Mossel

Scott

(2013) Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13: 48.

27.

De Ghetaldi

(1998) The effect of self-modeling on climber self-efficacy, motivation, actual and perceived rock climbing skills, and knowledge in beginning rock climbers. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, University of Northern Colorado.

28.

DiCenso

Martin-Misener

Bryant-Lukosius

, et al. (2010) Advanced practice nursing in Canada: Overview of a decision support synthesis. Nursing Leadership (Toronto, Ontario) 23: 15–34.

29.

Eichberg

(1998) Body Cultures: Essays on Sport, Space and Identity. London: Routledge.

30.

Ellmer

Rynne

(2016) Learning in action and adventure sports. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 7(2): 107–119.

31.

Ellmer

Rynne

(2018) Professionalisation of action sports in Australia. Sport in Society 1–16. Epub ahead of print 13 March 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1440700.

32.

Enright

Gard

(2016) Media, digital technology and learning in sport: A critical response to Hodkinson, Biesta and James. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21(1): 40–54.

33.

Evans

Rich

Davies

, et al. (2008) Education, Disordered Eating and Obesity Discourse: Fat Fabrications. London: Routledge.

34.

Evers

(2004) Men who surf [Paper in: Action, Healy, Chris and Muecke, Stephen (eds).]. Cultural Studies Review 10(1): 27.

35.

Evers

(2006) How to surf. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 30(3): 229–243.

36.

Evers

(2018) The gendered emotional labor of male professional ‘freesurfers’ digital media work. Sport in Society. 1–16. Epub ahead of print 19 March 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1441009.

37.

Evin

Sève

Saury

(2014) Construction of trust judgments within cooperative dyads. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19(2): 221–238.

38.

Wikipedia (n.d.) Extreme sport. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_sport (accessed 9 February 2018).

39.

Fernández-Río

Suarez

(2016) Feasibility and students’ preliminary views on parkour in a group of primary school children. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21(3): 281–294.

40.

Ghosh

Shah

Navarro

, et al. (2016) MusiSkate: enhancing the skateboarding experience through musical feedback. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, Florence, Italy, 6–9 September 2016. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp.753–759.

41.

Gilchrist

Wheaton

(2011) Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth engagement: Examining the emergence of parkour. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 3(1): 109–131.

42.

Golding

(2011) Not just petrol heads: Men’s learning in the community through participation in motor sports. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults 2(2): 165–180.

43.

Grant

Booth

(2009) A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26(2): 91–108.

44.

Gravestock

(2016) Parkour as a pas de deux: Learning to dance with and within unstable spaces. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 7(1): 44–61.

45.

Gray

Collins

(2016) The adventure sports coach: All show and no substance? Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 16(2): 160–171.

46.

Greenberg

(2017) How parkour coaches learn to coach: An exploration of parkour coach learning and development. PhD Thesis, Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa.

47.

Haines

Smith

Baxter

(2010) Participation in the risk-taking occupation of skateboarding. Journal of Occupational Science 17(4): 239–245.

48.

Hajkowicz

Cook

Wilhelmseder

, et al. (2013) The Future of Australian Sport: Megatrends Shaping the Sports Sector Over Coming Decades. Belconnen, ACT: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Available at: http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00017554-source.pdf (accessed 2 February 2017).

49.

Hawxwell

O’Shaughnessy

Russell

, et al. (2018) ‘Do you need a kayak to learn outside?’: A literature review into learning outside the classroom. Education 3–13: 1–11. Epub ahead of print 28 February 2018. DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2018.1444074.

50.

Hennings

Wallhead

Byra

(2010) A didactic analysis of student content learning during the reciprocal style of teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29(3): 227–244.

51.

Hoffmannová

Šebek

Allison

, et al. (2016) The struggle for individuality: Investigating a long-term pursuit of a lifestyle sport activity. Acta Gymnica 46(2): 97–104.

52.

Højbjerre Larsen

(2016) What can the parkour craftsmen tell us about bodily expertise and skilled movement?. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 10(3): 295–309.

53.

Hollett

(2017) Symbiotic learning partnerships in youth action sports: Vibing, rhythm, and analytic cycles. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. Epub ahead of print 1 November 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1354856517735840.

54.

Holloway

Todres

(2003) The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research 3(3): 345–357.

55.

Immonen

Brymer

Orth

, et al. (2017) Understanding action and adventure sports participation – An ecological dynamics perspective. Sports Medicine – Open 3(1). Epub ahead of print 26 April 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-017-0084-1.

56.

Jones

(2011) Sport and re/creation: What skateboarders can teach us about learning. Sport, Education and Society 16(5): 593–611.

57.

Kaplan-Reimer

Sidener

Reeve

, et al. (2011) Using stimulus control procedures to teach indoor rock climbing to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions 26(1): 1–22.

58.

Kellett

Russell

(2009) A comparison between mainstream and action sport industries in Australia: A case study of the skateboarding cluster. Sport Management Review 12(2): 66–78.

59.

Kerr

Mackenzie

(2014) Confidence frames and the mastery of new challenges in the motivation of an expert skydiver. The Sport Psychologist 28(3): 221–232.

60.

Kidder

(2012) Parkour, the affective appropriation of urban space, and the real/virtual dialectic. City & Community 11(3): 229–253.

61.

Kidder

(2013) Parkour: Adventure, risk, and safety in the urban environment. Qualitative Sociology 36(3): 231–250.

62.

Kirk

MacPhail

(2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker–Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 177–192.

63.

Kulczycki

(2014) Place meanings and rock climbing in outdoor settings. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7–8: 8–15.

64.

Künzell

Lukas

(2011) Facilitation effects of a preparatory skateboard training on the learning of snowboarding. Kinesiology 43(1): 56–63.

65.

Lagache

(1995) Diving into communities of learning: Existential perspectives on communities of practice and zones of proximal development. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

66.

Lamb

(2011) Tracing the path of power through the fluidity of freedom: The art of parkour in challenging the relationship of architecture and the body and rethinking the discursive limits of the city. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, Bowling Green State University.

67.

Langseth

(2012) Liquid ice surfers – The construction of surfer identities in Norway. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 12(1): 3–23.

68.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

69.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

(2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5(1): 69.

70.

Light

(2006) Situated learning in an Australian surf club. Sport, Education and Society 11(2): 155–172.

71.

Light

Nash

(2006) Learning and identity in overlapping communities of practice: Surf club, school and sports clubs. The Australian Educational Researcher 33(1): 75–94.

72.

Lorimer

Holland-Smith

(2012) Why coach? A case study of the prominent influences on a top-level UK outdoor adventure coach. The Sport Psychologist 26(4): 571–583.

73.

Munter

(2014) The spatial production of learning opportunities in skateboard parks. Mind, Culture, and Activity 21(3): 238–258.

74.

McCormack

(2017) Inclusion and identity in the mountain biking community: Can subcultural identity and inclusivity coexist? Sociology of Sport Journal 34(4): 344–353.

75.

McNamee

Steffen

(2007) The effect of performance cues on beginning indoor rock climbing performance. Physical Educator 64(1): 2–10.

76.

MacNeill

(2007) Processes contributing to optimal preparation and performance of Winter Olympic athletes: the athletes’ story. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, University of British Columbia.

77.

Magnussen

(2010) Try this! Imitation and copying in the outdoor learning world of sea kayaking. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education 14(2): 42–49.

78.

Mays

Roberts

Popay

(2001) Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop

Allen

Clarke

, et al. (eds) Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. London: Routledge, pp.188–219.

79.

Mencarini

Leonardi

De Angeli

, et al. (2016) Design opportunities for wearable devices in learning to climb. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971509.

80.

Mohamed

Favrod

Philippe

, et al. (2015) The situated management of safety during risky sport: Learning from skydivers’ courses of experience. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 14(2): 340–346.

81.

Moreira

Peixoto

(2014) Qualitative task analysis to enhance sports characterization: A surfing case study. Journal of Human Kinetics 42(1): 245–257.

82.

Muehlbauer

Kuehnen

Granacher

(2013) Inline skating for balance and strength promotion in children during physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills 117(3): 665–681.

83.

Nelson

(2005) The effects of external and internal focus of attention on the performance and learning of turning on a mountain bike. ProQuest Dissertations and Master’s Thesis, California State University.

84.

O’Grady

(2012) Tracing the city – Parkour training, play and the practice of collaborative learning. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 3(2): 145–162.

85.

Ojala

Thorpe

(2015) The role of the coach in action sports: Using a problem-based learning approach. International Sport Coaching Journal 2(1): 64–71.

86.

Olive

(2016) Going surfing/doing research: Learning how to negotiate cultural politics from women who surf. Continuum 30(2): 171–182.

87.

Orth

Davids

Seifert

(2016) Coordination in climbing: Effect of skill, practice and constraints manipulation. Sports Medicine 46(2): 255–268.

88.

Orth

Davids

Seifert

(2018a) Constraints representing a meta-stable régime facilitate exploration during practice and transfer of learning in a complex multi-articular task. Human Movement Science 57: 291–302.

89.

Orth

Davids

Chow

, et al. (2018b) Behavioural repertoire influences the rate and nature of learning in climbing: Implications for individualised learning design in preparation for extreme sports participation. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1664–1078.

90.

Pérez Turpin

Cortell-Tormo

Suárez Llorca

, et al. (2009) Situated learning of kitesurfing in university teaching. International Quarterly of Sport Science 4: 14–20.

91.

Petrone

(2008) Shreddin’it up: Re-thinking ‘youth’ through the logics of learning and literacy in a skateboarding community. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University.

92.

Petrone

(2010) ‘You have to get hit a couple of times’: The role of conflict in learning how to ‘be’ a skateboarder. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(1): 119–127.

93.

Pham

Rajić

Greig

, et al. (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods 5(4): 371–385.

94.

Prlenda

Cigrovski

Božić

, et al. (2015) Relationship between fear and courage with the level of acquired knowledge in kiteboarding. Sport Science 8(Supplement 2): 65–68.

95.

Puddle

Wheaton

Thorpe

(2018) The glocalization of parkour: a New Zealand/Aotearoa case study. Sport in Society 1–18. Epub ahead of print 6 March 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1441010.

96.

Quennerstedt

Öhman

Armour

(2014) Sport and exercise pedagogy and questions about learning. Sport, Education and Society 19(7): 885–898.

97.

Rinehart

(2000) Emerging arriving sports: Alternatives to formal sports. In: Coakley

Dunning

(eds) Handbook of Sports Studies. London: SAGE, pp.501–520.

98.

Rinehart

Sydnor

(eds) (2003) To the Extreme: Alternative Sports, Inside and Out. Albany: State University of New York Press.

99.

Rowlett

(2015) Skating for strength: The experiences of skating in women’s flat track roller derby. ProQuest Dissertation and Master’s Thesis, Clemson University.

100.

Rumrill

Fitzgerald

Merchant

(2010) Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work 35(3): 399–404.

101.

Rynne

(2016) Exploring the pedagogical possibilities of Indigenous sport-for-development programmes using a socio-personal approach. Sport, Education and Society 21(4): 605–622.

102.

Scarpantonio

(2016) Implementation of individualized instruction supporting skill development in a women’s roller derby training program: An action research study. PhD Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, USA.

103.

Seifert

Davids

(2015) Ecological dynamics: a theoretical framework for understanding sport performance, physical education and physical activity. In: Bourgine

Collet

Parrend

(eds) First Complex Systems Digital Campus World E-Conference 2015. Cham: Springer pp.29–40.

104.

Seifert

Boulanger

Orth

, et al. (2015) Environmental design shapes perceptual-motor exploration, learning, and transfer in climbing. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1819.

105.

Seifert

Orth

Mantel

, et al. (2018) Affordance realization in climbing: Learning and transfer. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 820.

106.

Seifert

Wattebled

L’hermette

, et al. (2013) Skill transfer, affordances and dexterity in different climbing environments. Human Movement Science 32(6): 1339–1352.

107.

Siemens

(2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1): 3–10.

108.

Smith

Sparkes

(2013) Qualitative Research Methods in Sport, Exercise and Health: From Process to Product. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

109.

Smith

Osborn

(2004) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Breakwell

(ed.) Doing Social Psychology Research. Leicester; Malden, UK: The British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp.229–254.

110.

Smith

(2002) Applying contextual interference to snowboarding skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills 95(3): 999–1005.

111.

Smith

(2010) Exploratory study of participants’ perceptions of the benefits of surf camps. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

112.

Smits

(2018) Young Dutch commercially sponsored kite surfers: free as a bird? Sport in Society 1–17. Epub ahead of print 23 February 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1440703.

113.

Snyder

(2012) The city and the subculture career: Professional street skateboarding in LA. Ethnography 13(3): 306–329.

114.

Sperka

Enright

(2017) The outsourcing of health and physical education: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 349–371.

115.

Stewart

Traitor

Hanson

(2014) I’d tap that!: Providing real time feedback on roller derby skills. In: CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 26 April–1 may 2014. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp.2221–2226.

116.

Strittmatter

Kilvinger

Bodemar

, et al. (2018) Dual governance structures in action sports: institutionalization processes of professional snowboarding revisited. Sport in Society 1–19. Epub ahead of print 26 February 2018. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2018.1440696.

117.

Thorpe

Wheaton

(2013) Dissecting action sports studies: Past, present, and beyond. In: Andrews

Carrington

(eds) A Companion to Sport. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp.341–358.

118.

Thorpe

Ahmad

(2015) Youth, action sports and political agency in the Middle East: Lessons from a grassroots parkour group in Gaza. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50(6): 678–704.

119.

Tuckett

(2005) Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience. Contemporary Nurse 19(1–2): 75–87.

120.

Wheaton

(2004) Understanding Lifestyle Sport: Consumption, Identity and Difference. London: Routledge.

121.

Wheaton

(2013) The Cultural Politics of Lifestyle Sports. London: Routledge.

122.

Wheaton

O’Loughlin

(2017) Informal sport, institutionalisation, and sport policy: Challenging the sportization of parkour in England. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 9(1): 71–88.

123.

Wheaton

Thorpe

(2016) Youth perceptions of the Olympic Games: Attitudes towards action sports at the YOG and Olympic Games. Report for The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Studies Centre and funded by The IOC Advanced Research Programme Grant, June 2016. Available from: https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/165853/youth-perceptions-of-the-olympic-games-attitudes-towards-action-sports-at-the-yog-and-olympic-games (accessed 13 March 2018).

124.

Willmott

Collins

(2017) A retrospective analysis of trick progression in elite freeskiing and snowboarding. International Sport Coaching Journal 4(1): 1–12.

125.

Wilson

(2007) Team learning in action: An analysis of the sensemaking behaviors in adventure racing teams as they perform in fatiguing and uncertain contexts. ProQuest Dissertations and Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University.

126.

Woermann

(2012) On the slope is on the screen: Prosumption, social media practices, and scopic systems in the freeskiing subculture. American Behavioral Scientist 56(4): 618–640.

127.

Zabala

Sánchez-Muñoz

Mateo

(2009) Effects of the administration of feedback on performance of the BMX cycling gate start. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 8(3): 393–400.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB