Olympic coaches’ learning and experiences: A scoping review

Abstract

This review is to examine what is known, and what important areas remain unknown, in the empirical research on Olympic coaches related to how they learn their craft. Using Arksey and O’Malley's six-stage framework, a scoping review of the published literature was conducted. Key words (and their variations) that guided the searches included, Olympic, learning, and coaching. Twenty-four peer-reviewed empirical studies were included. A process of thematic analysis led to the formation of descriptive and thematic summaries. In addition, a frequency analysis highlighted information on study design, academic field, study tools, publication year, sport, and population. There was consensus across the studies that the learning of Olympic coaches occurs across time, learning communities are highly valued by Olympic coaches, the Olympic environment is crucial for learning, and the learning pathways of Olympic coaches are idiosyncratic in nature. An important gap perceived in the literature is the lack of studies examining athletes’ voices in coach learning and the potential role athletes play in shaping what, why, and how Olympic coaches learn. Furthermore, there is scant research that explicitly examines coaches’ learning prior to, during, and/or after Olympic Games. Therefore, not much is known empirically about the learning of Olympic coaches in these three time periods. Neither is there any examination of the impact of athletes’ influence on Olympic coaches’ learning. Future research is encouraged to embrace a myriad of research methodologies to include both coaches’ and athletes’ contributions to coach learning that, in turn, might enhance coach development and subsequent practice.

Keywords

Communication contextual awareness craft learning environment pedagogy

Introduction

Becoming a coach of an Olympic athlete is special, but how do coaches become successful in such a pursuit? More specifically, what are the learning journeys that coaches take on their way to achieving that exceptional accomplishment? The Olympic Games is a unique context and how coaches develop the requisite craft is of interest to many practitioners, especially coach developers who are entrusted with preparing future Olympic coaches. Unfortunately, while there is an increasing quorum of research that seeks to understand the learning of coaches generally, there seems to be somewhat limited empirical literature that provides insights into the specific learning journeys of Olympic coaches with respect to how they develop their craft, for exceptions see the work on Learning from Serial Winning coaches from Mallett and Lara-Bercial, 2023.¹ This absence makes it difficult to adequately inform policy and practice related to coach development for this rather unique group. To progress research on Olympic coaches’ learning and development, our aim in this study was to examine what is known, and what important areas remain unknown. This was performed by seeking out and examining any existing empirical research on Olympic coaches related to how they learn their craft. Put more simply, we wanted to establish what can be said with some confidence about the learning of Olympic coaches, and what insights remain elusive but potentially important?

Professionalisation of coaching

Coach learning is worthy of empirical examination because it is central to the professionalisation of the vocation. Indeed, a key criterion for a profession is an evidence base for developing professional (coaching) craft.^2,3 Indeed, local and global efforts to professionalise coaching, such as those championed by the International Council for Coaching Excellence, regularly seek to leverage such an evidence base in programmes of education and certification.³ In this paper, we conceptualise ‘learning as a process that shapes change. It leads to more sophisticated cognitive understandings and behavioural outcomes’.² ^(p22) Experience is the potential catalyst for this change, thereby enhancing one's potential for improved performance and subsequent learning. Unfortunately, little has been published about the learning of high-performance coaches, especially those coaching at the Olympic level.’ Although research has been published on high-performance coaches, only a select body of work is focussed on the learning of Olympic coaches, specifically using a pedagogical lens.

Many scholars have argued that the ongoing development of sports coaches is key to sustaining and improving the quality and professionalism of coaching.^4,5 This may occur through self-administered and self-directed learning tools, for example, resources on the internet, videos, and books⁵ or through some mode of formal, often structured, learning.⁶ However, it is important to note that even for those who have engaged in significant formalised learning through sport-specific accreditations and post-secondary education, the time spent learning from experience tends to dwarf time spent in all other learning settings.⁴ Indeed, learning in and through high performance coaching work (with elite coaches, potential Olympic coaches and Olympic coaches specifically) has been a topic of research for some time.^5,7,8 In undertaking coaching work, coaches are confronted with a myriad of opportunities to work through different problems and subsequent potential learning opportunities, depending on how challenged they are in conducting their coaching work.⁹

Context matters: Olympic Games are unique contexts

Coaching in Olympic sports is distinctive primarily because of (i) the long (i.e., four-year) period between peak competitions, (ii) the multi-sport format, (iii) the scale of the global audience and (iv) the disparity of resources. The development of athletes in four-year Olympic cycles brings unique challenges (e.g., social, tactical, logistical) given the relatively short span of an athlete's career and the relatively long time between Olympic Games being held. This timing is quite unique in international sporting events and involvement in the Olympic Games presents as a potentially once in a lifetime achievement given the generally short career span of athletes (and high volatility of coaching).¹⁰ Accordingly, there are relatively limited opportunities for athletes and coaches to perform in that arena. Further, even for those who gain entry to the context, it is a tiny proportion who achieve the status and title of Olympic champion, going on to be venerated and idolised worldwide.¹ For many sports, winning an Olympic gold medal is the highest achievement possible. It can lead to ‘hero’ status locally and globally, bringing rewards and profile in ways that are not possible through other means. Likewise, well performing teams or athletes can mean that Olympic coaches set themselves up for further career opportunities. Nevertheless, coaches are required to deal with the uniqueness of the four-year cycle. For example, supporting athletes to achieve peak performances at both Olympic qualifying tournaments and the subsequent Olympic Games has been identified as a key challenge.^10–13 Similarly, coaches often see changes with their player rosters, which could see a different composition over such a long time and closer to the Olympic Games (i.e., the influence of different personal and professional opportunities or achievements). Furthermore, coaches of Olympic athletes are likely less resourced compared to coaches in professional franchises (e.g., English Premier League, Bundesliga, National Basketball Association, National Rugby League) in ways that might impact their learning and development.¹⁴ All the while, coaches (and athletes) are generally paid less and resourced more poorly compared to their professional sport cousins.

Underscoring the importance of context, Rynne and colleagues⁹ argued that high-performance coaching is work, and that sites in which this work is undertaken, might be considered as workplaces. If the workplace is the primary learning environment for coaches, then coach learning and development should not only be ‘fit for purpose’ but should seek to leverage the extensive time coaches spend undertaking their ‘work’. However, despite widespread acknowledgement that learning is central to coaches developing their craft, there seems to be limited empirical examination of how this vocational cohort learn to become Olympic coaches. Accordingly, this review study examines the established empirical foundations related to how coaches learn prior to, during, and after their engagement at the Olympic Games on their journey to becoming and being Olympic coaches.

Methodology

In examining the contemporary literature on Olympic coaches’ learning, we chose to conduct a scoping review. Scoping reviews offer a methodologically rigorous alternative to concept analysis, with their results potentially being more useful to inform practice.¹⁵ Daudt et al.¹⁶^(p2) state that scoping reviews help ‘to provide an opportunity to identify key concepts; gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research’. The primary difference between a scoping review and a systematic review lies in the aim and purpose of the review. A systematic review will produce a summary of the most accessible and aligned research,¹⁵ whereas a scoping review can be employed to chart the body of literature on a certain topic¹⁷ (i.e., the scoping review work of Ellmer, Rynne and Enright, 2019).¹⁸ This can provide more breadth in the inclusivity of literature in the context of Olympic Coaching as it is tacit, context-specific, and sometimes unpublished.

The scoping review employed in the present study embraced the six-stage methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley¹⁷ as this framework allows for a critical interdisciplinary consultative process that can connect the primary research question with the relevant published studies.¹⁵ In the first stage, we identified the research question and its rationale, then in stages two and three we focussed on searching for, identifying, and selecting relevant studies. We then charted the identified studies in stage four, and collated, summarised, and reported the results in stage five. Stage six concluded with consultation of a critical friend (third author), to provide a holistic perspective on the identified resources and to challenge the other authors’ selected criteria and conversations related to inclusions and exclusions.

Rather than presenting a critical analysis on a micro level, Arksey and O’Malley's¹⁷ framework allowed for macro level insights, which is important in this study because the conceptualisation of learning presents differently in different coaching contexts. Demonstrating this point, Cushion et al.¹⁹ elaborated on learning and the implications through the lens of different learning theories (coaching stage / life). Moreover, identifying gaps and ‘sifting’ the data to communicate a clear picture has been highlighted as an effective component in scoping reviews,²⁰ and as such, themes can be derived more organically via the subsequent thematic analysis.

However, a limitation of scoping reviews is that the focus is to provide breadth rather than depth of insights in a particular topic area. The focus on breadth in this scoping review positively relates to the identification of key concepts, research types, and available evidence, but this form of review does not allow for further synthesis of evidence to provide more in-depth analysis.

Search strategies

Various search terms related to coach learning environments were used in this scoping review. Initially, the approach focussed on the strategy to target key search terms, and later a combination of [‘learn*’ and/or coach*’, and/or ‘coaches’, and/or ‘Olympic*’, and/or Olympic Coach*and/or ‘Olympic Coaches’], with the combination of [‘high-performance*’, and/or ‘elite’, and/or ‘Olympic Games’, and/or ‘education*’, and/or ‘experience*’, and/or ‘Olympian*’]. The results produced a large quantity of literature specific to coach learning. However, as will be noted later, when screened further there were far fewer specifically related to how Olympic coaches develop their craft.

The electronic databases Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC were employed to source relevant articles. A University online library was used to access and review the relevant and potential articles. In casting a wide net, the International Olympic Library was also searched to specify and include the level of individual sports and team sport. For example, searches were conducted targeting the key words ‘Olympic context’, Summer Olympic*’, or ‘Winter Olympic*’ and ‘learn*’, or ‘know*’. In addition, Google Scholar was used as a checking mechanism to ensure no obvious pieces were missing across the search period. The overall search focused on articles between 2000 to 2022 as this period was considered to be sufficiently broad and fit within the broader constraints of an associated research project.

Initially, the focus was on searching empirical peer-reviewed published sources. However, in accordance with the broad intent and conventions of scoping reviews, relevant book chapters and conference papers were also included in the review given their general bases in empirical work (so called ‘grey-literature’). While the inclusion of grey literature has benefits, Lemmer et al.²¹ advised caution in bringing together conclusions from different types of studies. The position adopted in this review is that it is essential to have a range of source materials to present a complete picture of available literature in a particular field. The exclusion of grey literature, according to Pham and colleagues,²² is a common limitation of literature reviews, therefore we included such sources so as to provide a diverse and broad range of insights in ways that distinguish scoping reviews from other review types.²⁰

Mapping of data and exploratory extraction of publications started once potentially relevant studies were found. Copies of full texts from relevant studies were saved to a secure (encrypted) folder and accessible by the Authors only. Furthermore, full text copies and the associated tables created were saved in EndNote 20.1 and Excel respectively. Subsequently, all relevant information (e.g., author, year, abstract) was noted and securely stored. Ultimately, a point was reached whereby despite repeated searches, no additional works that could be included in the review were found.

Study selection

The list of preliminary studies was independently screened by the authors, who proceeded to discuss the relevance of specific manuscripts. Initially, there were studies in the search where the link to coach development, skill acquisition, or interventions were more dominant than the connections with coach learning, learning more broadly, or experience in Olympic sport contexts. Papers not primarily focused on coach learning or coach development in Olympic sport contexts were subsequently excluded. Based on these discussions, further exclusion and inclusion criteria were added (e.g., Winter Olympics and Special Olympics). The initial search resulted in 1934 sources. After removing duplicates and errors this resulted in 1754 papers. We examined the title and abstracts which led to 430 papers, followed by full text reviews which resulted in 32 papers. After peer-crosschecks we arrived at 24 papers to be included in this scoping review. The final inclusion and exclusion criteria list are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria were:

Peer-reviewed and empirical articles;

Grey literature including dissertations/theses, book chapters, conference papers;

Listed in at least one of the main indexing databases mentioned above;

Potential Olympic coaches (summer and winter);

Adults or adult learning in any gender;

Not limited by geographical location or setting;

English language only;

Youth (Olympics) and transitioned high-performance athletes.

Exclusion criteria were:

No access to full text;

Case reports, book chapters with no empirical data;

Sports not included in the Olympics from 2000–2020;

Article external to research topic;

Article focussed on research topic, but with sport scientific context;

Article focussed on contributing to coach development or learning, but not on a high-performance level or sport;

Article related to the search topic, but not providing all the information relevant to the research question.

Based on the above criteria, the selected empirical publications were then reviewed for basic extracted information including: year of publication and author; number of participants; type and category of sport (e.g., winter or summer); study design and aims; type of analysis, recommendations and limitation, and key findings. Publications were then assigned numeric values (1–24) and are referenced in this manuscript accordingly. Appendix 1 shows the final selection of the 24 publications.

Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) and methodological rigour

Braun and Clarke²³ refined their initial six-step model of thematic analysis from 2006, with the aims of better representing the iterative and messy nature of analysis and promoting thematically analysed content is authentic and makes sense to readers.²⁴ In this study, Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) was used with these aims in mind. Using the full text copies of all included studies, themes were generated so that they might be immediately recognisable to readers and then were further analyzed in relation to the overall research question. While primarily developed from results and discussion sections of the relevant sources, all elements of the papers were considered to be potential data with respect to the generation of themes. The themes are presented in this paper in order relative to the strength of the data and their centrality to the research question.

While a thematic analysis is considered flexible, there will always be inconsistencies.²⁵ Furthermore, Levac et al.²⁰ argued that a ‘level of thoughtfulness’ is needed to be consistent and coherent. To achieve this, in part, two authors independently analysed and discussed the data, to make sense of it. To promote methodological rigour, two critical friends (second and third authors) discussed inconsistencies and questioned derived findings with the first author. In the last phase, the three authors reviewed the analysis, then discussed and compared their findings, and where needed they revisited and/or elaborated and discussed commonalities or inconsistencies. Key themes were derived from these discussions, within the context of the research question for the scoping review.

A frequency analysis of the reviewed studies was employed to give insights into how common certain aspects of studies were (e.g., academic field, year and type of publication). This analysis was deemed valuable so far as it permitted the coding of key research aspects related to coach learning such as those concerning study design or abstract and publication year.¹⁸ This process does not show necessarily what is important, rather it is more descriptive in nature. It is for this reason we employed the frequency analysis only in concert with a thematic analysis, namely, RTA informed by Braun and Clarke^23,24 and guided by Arksey and O’Malley's¹⁷ guide.

Results

The results below include an account of the descriptive findings, before moving to the thematically generated results, and finally leading to the discussion section. A conclusion then ties the work together by considering what is known, and what important areas remain unknown, with respect to the empirical research on how Olympic coaches learn their craft. The numbers in the result and discussion sections refer to the final selected literature (Appendix 1).

Descriptive summary

Academic field

A total of 24 studies were used for this research, we outlined the specific journals to provide insights into which field of research showed interest in Olympic coaches’ learning. The majority of articles (n = 17; 71%) appeared in learning-focused journals (e.g., 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24), two articles (8%) were found in pedagogy journals (e.g., 4, 6), and one in a sport psychology journal (4.25%; i.e., 19). Five were published solely in science journals (12.5%; e.g., 1, 3, 10, 18, 20, 21) and one was published in a journal related to health (4.25%; i.e., 1).

Year and type of publication

Out of the 24 articles, 21 articles (88%) were peer-reviewed journal articles, with the remainder of materials including one (4%) dissertation/thesis, and three (8%) book chapters. Importantly, in the context of this study, the years of publication highlighted an increase in empirical work relating to key topics of experience and coach learning. Published research within coach learning and experience with a link to high-performance, started from 2003. However, between 2012–2016 there was an increase in publications, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Year and types of publications.

Study design

Qualitative research designs accounted for 20 studies (83%), with a further two (8%) using mixed-method design, and two (8%) that were quantitative studies. In 50% (n = 12) of the included studies, an ethnographical approach was employed. Other approaches included action research (n = 2), experimental research (n = 2), intervention studies (n = 4), and case studies (n = 4).

Study tools

The most utilised tool (method) employed overall were interviews (n = 20; 83%), with one (2%) study making use of focus groups. A high number of studies (n =11; 46%), employed a combination of study methods with interviews (ethnographic design) and observations, and a further seven (29%) studies combined document evidence. Questionnaires and surveys comprised 13 (54%) studies each. Three quarters of studies (n = 18; 75%) employed multiple tools for data collection, and six studies (25%) used a single tool.

Sports

The 24 identified studies included cohorts across 29 Olympic summer sports and seven Olympic winter sports. Swimming (n = 3) and athletics each (n = 2) were found to be the dominant sports, followed by basketball (n = 1), football (soccer) (n = 1), and ice hockey (n = 1). However, in 38% of the articles, it was unclear what specific sports were researched (e.g., simply referred to as ‘Olympic sports’).

Population

The gender of coach learning participants was reported in some, but not all, cases with only 12 (50%) of studies specifying participant's gender. Where identified, participants were most likely to be male, with only four (16%) of the studies examining a mix of female and male participants.

Geographical representation

Analysis of the geographical regions where the research took place showed a mix of predominantly western-centric areas. Specifically, research was conducted in Australia 50%, United Kingdom 25%, Canada 12%, United States of America 10%, Brazil 1%, Italy, and 1%, Norway 1%.

Thematic summary

Four main themes were derived from the data pertaining to Olympic coaches’ learning, namely (i) Learning community, (ii) Learning environment, and (iii) Learning pathway. Below each theme is explained, and while frequency (noted by percentages or the number of studies related) is referred to, primarily the themes were actively generated by the authors through a deep iterative and interpretative process.

Learning communities: learning through social interaction

The concept of learning communities is positioned as an umbrella term for those studies that focused on social learning and / or learning from others. This theme encapsulated study findings such as learning through social interaction, self-initiated learning, and workplace learning. This theme was derived from 19 (79%) of the reviewed studies, showing a rich association between learning through social engagement and the specific learning environments. For example, as part of a multifaceted study by Lara-Bercial and Mallett¹⁵ on Olympic and professional coaches who had repeatedly achieved success at the highest level of sport, the authors found that considerable learning was fostered across their successful and extensive careers through their social networks [6].

The reviewed studies also highlighted that coach learning often takes place as part of an interactive community [7, 19, 21]. These studies focused specifically on learning communities, and the time a coach spends interacting in social learning spaces. Engagement with more knowledgeable peer coaches was also considered beneficial for coach learning [3, 5, 22]. Indeed, engaging in dialogue with peers and observing other coaches were two components found to enhance knowledge via critical thinking [8, 9, 23]. Overall, a high number of studies in this theme [3, 5, 17, 18, 24] showed that coaches learn their craft or optimise skills in social interactive environments. Furthermore, the use of the network within the communities was deemed very useful [22]. Two studies found that in preparation of Olympic education programmes and systems for the Games, Olympic communities fostered engagement between coaches [7, 24].

We can say with some confidence that learning communities are essential through the nature of social-dynamic learning for Olympic coaches. Showing a rich association with learning through social interaction, it seems that this can only be accomplished if coaches are able to be in the learning community [i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 19, 24].

Learning environment: valued experiences as foundations for coach learning

Learning through valued, personal experiences is highlighted in this theme and provides an anchor for the impact on Olympic coach learning. While related to the above theme on learning communities, this theme is distinct in its focus on learning from personal experiences in specific contexts. Four studies [6, 9, 10, 12] examined experiences related to various aspects of coaching (e.g., role of the coach) that can have a direct or indirect effect on coach learning. Two studies described that valued learning experiences (e.g., personal coaching experiences) contributed to personal development and fostered a more holistic approach to coach learning (e.g., performance and wellbeing). Further emphasising the relationship between these first two themes, it appears that the opportunity to learn from and through valued learning experiences contributed to the learning environment, while the learning environment provided the opportunity to do so. For example, coaches in Rynne and Mallett's³ paper revealed that the coaches in their study were presented with a variety of opportunities to learn, with the most valued sources being ‘learning on the job’, ‘discussions with others’ and ‘experience as athletes’ [4]. Furthermore, two studies offered seminal perspectives on valued learning experiences, asserting that these take shape near the boundary of chaos [1, 2]. These authors made use of Billett's²⁶ theorising in understanding aspects of the individuals’ agency (e.g., passion for the sport, drive to be the best) and were also found to be critical to the learning in the workplace.

Of relevance to this theme, previous athlete experience was seen to be beneficial to shaping learning [4, 5, 6, 8]. Coaches reported that the deep, nuanced, and personally relevant understandings they developed as athletes themselves, allowed them to better appreciate the requirements of their current athletes, including demands and needs specific to the Olympic Games. Callary et al.²⁷ described alternative learning approaches and the extent to which efforts to support learning need to be individualised to tailor the needs of coaches who have previous (athletic) experiences [12]. The experience these coaches bring as an athlete can be viewed as a potential benefit for their learning as a coach. It must be acknowledged, however, that being an athlete in the sport they are currently coaching can also be a hindrance in some ways, for example, the reviewed materials also highlighted issues with unquestioning maintenance of the cultural status quo, and preset belief systems about how to coach that are limiting [5, 7].

Learning pathways: nonlinear and contextual learning pathways

Connecting closely with the first two themes, the theme of the learning pathway captures the temporal nature of learning and helps situate opportunities presented by exposure to an Olympic learning environment and engagement with various learning communities. Trudel, Paquette and Lewis²⁸ found that coaches’ learning journeys are idiosyncratic and iterative, while most coaches share the characteristic of having rich experiences as athletes [17]. The subsequent suggestion is that uniqueness of the coaches’ learning environment perhaps requires a different, tailored, coach's pathway. Authors of various studies [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 23, 24] suggested the need for a flexible pathway, accelerated, non-linear, and being experimental in nature. For example, Cushion and colleagues²⁹ advocated for coach education that encourages negotiation of knowledge, contextual awareness, and intellectual agency. Coach education in the learning pathway was also supported by a few authors but with the complementary caution to personalise to meet the needs of the coaches, while keeping them challenged. The requirement for coach input into their own learning pathways matches with reports that they are self-directed learners, intrinsically driven to develop their craft [2, 3, 7, 23]. This insight connects with both the learning community and the learning environment themes.

Out of the studies that focussed on specific coaching demands in learning pathway, 19 (24.4%) were published in journals with cognitive and/or psychological approaches. Cognitive experiences using coach development tools (e.g., observation and self-reflection) reportedly enhanced coaching skills [3, 5, 9, 11, 13]. The authors of these studies also elaborated on behavioural changes in coaching approaches during their pathway, where two studies indirectly made the connection with pedagogical and psychological experiences [4, 8]. One example focused on identifying and leveraging an individual's strengths to enhance performance and overall effectiveness.

Sixteen (66.7%) of the studies that focussed on learning pathways were published in journals with a cultural context, including data associated with nonformal, informal, formal learning. In 12 studies [e.g., 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22], learning experiences were reported to be beneficial if they were obtained in an informal environment. The perceived value of learning in and through doing coaching work was highlighted to be more beneficial than formal learning in two studies [1, 2]. Furthermore, authors of four studies discussed that nonformal or informal learning would be preferred areas of focus and/or attention in a predominantly formal or structured coach learning landscape [12, 14, 15, 16]. The subsequent suggestion is that providing such additional affordances would result in an elevated learning environment generally or enhanced learning communities specifically throughout their learning pathways.

Discussion

In what follows, we seek to address three key areas of relevance in this review. First, we discuss the foundations of the scholarship, with an eye to the value of theoretical pluralism. We then move what we consider to be an area of fundamental importance in this review – how Olympic coaches learn. Finally, we drawn attention to an area that is underrepresented in current research - the role of athletes in the learning of coaches.

The potential value of theoretical pluralism

The frequency analysis results showed an increase in the number of publications since 2012. We also reported that peer-reviewed articles made up the bulk of our review, with additional empirical work on coach learning and learning in high-performance context being presented in book chapters in recent years [3, 6, 11]. This trend of an increasing number of empirically focused work suggests that the intersection between coaching, learning, and the Olympic Games is an area of growing interest for researchers globally.

Interestingly, more than two thirds of the articles were published in sports coaching (pedagogy or sport psychology related) journals. Surprisingly, only a few socio-cultural scholars authored the 24 papers, whereas psycho-pedagogical scholars and pedagogues dominated. This raises some potential concerns. For example, it has been highlighted that learning contexts in sport are better understood when combining key concepts and theories.³⁰ So, while the suggestion has been that we shift how learning in sports is viewed, moving away from isolated approaches to one that integrates multiple perspectives, there is a risk that particular paradigmatic views may dominate. Having said that, there were some useful examples of theoretical pluralism in the reviewed studies. For example, one study looked at coach learning concepts related to personalities, practices, coach developmental pathways, coach and athlete perspectives [7], while others examined workplace learning [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], experiential learning [7, 9, 10, 11] and values based or educational theories [15, 17, 18] with some theoretical eclecticism.

The suggested benefit of theoretical pluralism is that it can help in better understanding coach learning from a holistic approach. Theoretical pluralism can be achieved by creating productive relations between theories while retaining coherence, rigour, and paradigmatic awareness. However, it does not imply uncritical eclecticism within individual studies. Rather, it can be achieved through strategically bounded theory use within singular research designs, reflexive engagement with alternative. This is important because even in this review, the varied contributions of the individual and the context to learning over time were highlighted (i.e., the environment, communities and pathways). We support calls to use a greater diversity in relation to the frameworks (theoretical tools) used, the methodologies employed, and the questions asked. Moreover, previous recommendations from published works (e.g., fostering flexibility of the coaching staff and administrators and incorporating new and innovative research) in coach learning [10, 13, 16, 20], present opportunities, and in some cases necessitate the adoption of a variety of theoretical positions.

How Olympic coaches learn

Surprisingly little empirical evidence is available about coach learning prior to, during and post the Olympics. Complicating the situation further, is that in the absence of informed understandings of coach learning and performance related to the Olympic Games, athlete performance and medal tallies are often linked to how coaches have performed. Despite the generally narrow conceptualisation of the coach's influence on performance, the relatively small number of studies that have actually examined relevant coaching contexts have shown the importance of more humanistic behaviours [5].¹¹ Furthermore, Bowes and Jones³¹^(p235) offered a seminal perspective on valued learning experiences, asserting that these unfold ‘near or on the edge of chaos’. Rather than perpetuating inaccurate views of coaching as a linear, rational process, this characterisation better frames the learning that occurs in the complex, messy and socially situated workplaces of Olympic coaches. Indeed, the specific contributions of the workplace to the learning of Olympic coaches were also noted in two studies by Rynne, Mallett and Tinning,^9,10 where they reported that a range of factors such as the working climate and the physical environment had an impact on coach learning [1, 2].

The Olympics is generally perceived as the pinnacle context, encompassing the highest levels of sporting prestige and performance. Our suggestion in this current review is that this is a potentially generative focal point around which various notions meet. For example, Figure 2 is provided as illustration of how the three major themes from our study might interact in relation to the Olympic context. The learning environment depicted in the figure represents coaching within the Olympic context, characterised by a diverse array of interconnected learning communities (e.g., support staff and domain-specific specialists). Although the figure appears static, it is inherently dynamic in nature. The illustrated learning pathway, presented as a linear upward trajectory, symbolises the coach's learning progression within this environment. However, this progression should not be interpreted as strictly linear; rather, it may fluctuate, curve, or oscillate in response to the coach's experiences and the ways in which they engage with and derive meaning from those experiences throughout the Olympic journey. With the Games providing a specific learning environment along a much longer learning pathway that involves myriad opportunities to deploy learning from existing learning communities and / or to generate new communities. Further, we support the calls in the reviewed studies for future research that considers coach learning and the perceived impact during an Olympics [14, 15, 18]. However, what we can already say with some confidence is that enhanced learning opportunities become available within the learning pathway, once an individual is appointed as an Olympic coach. Such opportunities enable access to unique learning environments and previously inaccessible learning communities.

Figure 2.

Olympic coach learning.

The potential value of athlete voice

Finally, we suggest that a notable gap in the current scholarship is a thorough examination of the connections between coach learning and athletes’ perspective on coach learning. There is tremendous merit in listening to the voices of athletes, who are the primary beneficiaries of coaches developing their craft (and those most negatively impacted if they do not). The lack of Olympic athlete participants in the studies (i.e., more than 60% of studies did not include athlete data) shows further opportunities to analyse the athletes’ view on coach learning. For example, while the topic of how learning ‘fits’ with the high-performance sport culture and sport practices was a focus of a majority of the articles reviewed [2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15, 18], what was often absent was evidence of the impact on athletes and how valuable peer-coaches and athlete-coach relationships can be in relation to Olympic coach learning and development. Although coaches might think they are shifting in their coaching behaviours (and its subsequent impact on athlete outcomes) it seems appropriate to access athletes’ perspectives. A multitude of tools can be employed to connect the impact of coaching, and coach learning, with athletes’ performances [8, 9, 23].

Furthermore, Larkin, Barkell, and O’Connor³² ^(pp3–4) explicitly stated, ‘The coaching environment is the primary teaching and learning medium for the development of athlete skills’ [21]. This environment encompasses practice structure, coach behaviours, and coach-athlete interactions. It is in this context that generative insights could be offered through the inclusion of athlete voices in coach learning research. For example, scholars might ask whether coach learning is linked to athlete's need for betterment (e.g., psychological, physical, tactical development). Similarly, others have already questioned whether the broader empowerment of the athlete towards achieving goals is as a direct result of coach learning.^33,34 While the notion of the coach-athlete interactions in the coaching environment is a positive trend, further understanding of how these interactions inform coach learning would need to be researched.

Limitations

Scoping reviews aim to be extensive in nature and are often used to explore a new or emerging area of research or to identify areas where further research is needed. They can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature, clarifying concepts, and mapping the scope of a research area, but there are limitations to this form of review. A key limitation of this study relates to the end date for inclusion of studies (i.e., published prior May 2022). While this date was required for practical reasons related to the obligations of the lead researcher, given the increasing number of publications observed over time, it is likely that there is an important quorum of literature that has been published in the intervening period.

Similarly, the stipulation of English language only may have impacted the quality of findings in positive and negative ways. For example, we conducted the thematic analysis in a ‘deliberate’ way, to avoid confusion and mismatches in concept and practice.²⁴ It is evident that pedagogues and learning psychologists have strong interest in the coach development space. Restricting the review to English language only may have helped avoid clashes with different interpretations of coach learning, learning and experience. Indeed, there appeared to be fairly strong agreement about key topics areas. However, this may be because the search parameters of our scoping review prioritised Western society and dominant notions of learning. This is reflected in the number of commentary papers with expert authors in similar social, economic, and learning environments. However, different fields still have nuanced and somewhat different views about even foundational notions such as learning. This is potentially valuable because, as stated previously, a greater range and variety of tools, methodologies and questions might be beneficial to explore new possibilities to produce new knowledge. Perhaps collaboration in culturally diverse or interdisciplinary research contexts might produce different ideas around conceptualisation of learning, coach learning and experiences.

Given the nature of learning from Olympic coaches, it would be great to learn over time. In the examined studies, it was not always attempted or explicit how the temporal learning played out. Further, the discussion of time in the temporality of research for this scoping review and contemporary peer-reviewed articles.

Conclusions

A growing interest in coach learning has been evident since 2012, reflected in the increasing volume of research in this area. This scoping review synthesised 24 empirical studies focused specifically on coach learning within Olympic sports, generating three interrelated themes: learning community, learning environment, and learning pathways. Importantly, these themes highlight that Olympic coach learning is not merely shaped by a different workplace setting, but by a qualitatively distinct configuration of learning conditions. The Olympic learning community is characterised by dense, high-stakes, and interdisciplinary interactions among coaches, athletes, and specialist staff, often intensified by temporal constraints and performance pressures. The learning environment extends beyond physical or organisational settings to encompass the unique socio-cultural and political dynamics of the Olympic Games, including heightened scrutiny, national expectations, and compressed preparation timelines. Correspondingly, learning pathways are non-linear and episodic, shaped by critical incidents before, during, and after the Games, rather than gradual, predictable development. Together, these elements suggest that Olympic coach learning is distinguished by its intensity, complexity, and temporally bound nature, rather than solely by its location. Future research should build on this by employing diverse methodologies and incorporating athlete perspectives to further unpack these distinctive learning processes and their implications for coach development and support.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Our sincere thanks go to those who provided critical feedback in our conversations. We hope that this review will contribute to continuous development and enhancement of learning in coach learning. We also would like to thank the Queensland Academy of Sport in laying the foundation for this research.

ORCID iDs

Hans Björn Galjaardt

Steven B Rynne

Clifford J Mallett

Ethical considerations

There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Funding

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

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

All data will be made available at request to the corresponding author.

Appendix 1

References

Mallett

Lara-Bercial

Learning from serial winning coaches: caring determination. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2023 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003427292 .

Rynne

Mallett

. Coaches’ learning and sustainability in high performance sport. Reflect Pract 2014; 15: 12–26.

Taylor

Garratt

. The professionalisation of sports coaching: relations of power, resistance and compliance. Sport Educ Soc 2010; 15: 121–139.

Lara-Bercial

North

Petrovic

, et al. The international sport coaching framework. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, in association with the International Council for Coaching Excellence, 2017.

Mallett

Trudel

Lyle

, et al. Formal vs informal coach education. Int J Sports Sci Coaching 2009; 4: 325–334.

Milistetd

Salles

WDN

Backes

, et al. Learner-centered teaching in a university-based coach education: first attempts through action research inquiry. Int J Sports Sci Coaching 2019; 14: 294–309.

Wright

Cropanzano

Bonett

. The moderating role of employee positive well-being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. J Occup Health Psychol 2007; 12: 93–104.

Rynne

Mallett

Tinning

. Workplace learning of high performance sports coaches. Sport Educ Soc 2010; 15: 315–330.

Rynne

Mallett

Tinning

. High performance sport coaching: institutes of sport as sites for learning. Int J Sports Sci Coaching 2006; 1: 223–234.

10.

Mallett

Rynne

Billett

. Valued learning experiences of early career and experienced high-performance coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2016; 21: 89–104.

11.

Barker-Ruchti

Schubring

. Moving into and out of high-performance sport: Olympic athletes’ transitions. Sport Educ Soc 2016; 21: 1–18.

12.

Mallett

Lara-Bercial

. Serial winning coaches: people, vision, and environment. In: Schinke

McGannon

Smith

(eds) Routledge international handbook of sport psychology. Routledge, 2016, pp.390–404.

13.

Bosquet

Bretonneau

Pla

, et al. Peaking for the Olympic Games: an integrated approach developed with the French national swimming team for Paris 2024. J Strength Cond Res 2024; 38: 1981–1986.

14.

Lara-Bercial

Mallett

. The practices and developmental pathways of professional and Olympic serial winning coaches. Int Sport Coaching J 2016; 3: 221–239.

15.

Munn

Peters

MDJ

Stern

, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 43.

16.

Daudt

van Mossel

Scott

. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 48.

17.

Arksey

O’Malley

. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19–32.

18.

Ellmer

Rynne

Enright

. Learning in action sports: a scoping review. Eur Phy Educ Rev 2019; 26: 263–283.. (Original work published 2020).

19.

Cushion

Armour

Jones

. Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest 2003; 55: 215–230.

20.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69.

21.

Lemmer

Grellier

Stevens

. Systematic review of nonrandom and qualitative research literature: exploring and uncovering an evidence base for health visiting and decision making. Qual Health Res 1999; 9: 315–328.

22.

Pham

M T

Rajić

Greig

J D

, et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 2014; 5: 371–385.

23.

Braun

Clarke

. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper

Camic

Long

Panter

Rindskopf

Sher

(eds) APA Handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: research designs. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association, 2012, pp.57–71. doi:10.1037/13620-004.

24.

Braun

Clarke

. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2019; 11: 589–597.

25.

Morris

Boruff

Gore

. Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc 2016; 104: 346–354.

26.

Billett

. Constituting the workplace curriculum. J Curriculum Stud 2006; 38: 31–48.

27.

Callary

Culver

Werthner

, et al. An overview of seven national high performance coach education programs. Int Sport Coaching J 2014; 1: 152–164.

28.

Trudel

Paquette

Lewis

. The process of ‘becoming’ a certified high-performance coach: a tailored learning journey for one high-performance athlete. Int Sport Coaching J 2022; 9: 133–142.

29.

Cushion

Stodter

Clarke

. ‘It’s an experiential thing’: the discursive construction of learning in high-performance coach education. Sport Educ Soc 2021; 26: 1–18.

30.

Davids

Araujo

Seifert

, et al. Expert performance in sport: an ecological dynamics perspective. In: Farrow

Baker

MacMahon

(eds) Handbook of sport expertise. London: Routledge, 2015, pp.273–303.

31.

Bowes

Jones

. Working at the edge of chaos: understanding coaching as a complex, interpersonal system. Sport Psychol 2006; 20: 235–245.

32.

Larkin

Barkell

O’Connor

. The practice environment: how coaches may promote athlete learning. Front Sports Act Living 2022; 4: 957086.

33.

Cassidy

Potrac

Jones

. Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2008. doi:10.4324/9780203892923

34.

Lyle

Mallett

Trudel

, et al. Formal vs informal coach education: a response to commentaries. Int J Sports Sci Coaching 2011; 4: 359–364.