As a comparatively recent development, the adventure-sports coach struggles for a clear and distinct identity. The generic term ‘instructor’ no longer characterizes the role and function of this subgroup of outdoor professionals. Indeed, although the fields of adventure/outdoor education and leadership are comparatively well researched, the arrival of this ‘new kid on the block’ appears to challenge both the adventure-sports old guard and traditional views of sports coaching. In an attempt to offer clarity and stimulate debate, this paper attempts to conceptualize the adventure-sports coach in the context of the existing roles in the field and current motivations for activity in the outdoors. We identify issues that are specific to the adventure-sports coach while also recognizing those skills and competencies shared with other professionals, both in the adventure sports profession and traditional sports coaching fields. Based on this review, we offer a conceptual model which may be used to focus debate, stimulate research and, at a possible later stage, to underpin accreditation, training and professional development.

This study examined the integration of professional judgement and decision-making processes in adventure sports coaching. The study utilised a thematic analysis approach to investigate the decision-making practices of a sample of high-level adventure sports coaches over a series of sessions. Results revealed that, in order to make judgements and decisions in practice, expert coaches employ a range of practical and pedagogic management strategies to create and opportunistically use time for decision-making. These approaches include span of control and time management strategies to facilitate the decision-making process regarding risk management, venue selection, aims, objectives, session content, and differentiation of the coaching process. The implication for coaches, coach education, and accreditation is the recognition and training of the approaches that “create time” for the judgements in practice, namely “creating space to think”. The paper concludes by offering a template for a more expertise-focused progression in adventure sports coaching.

Background: Over the past 10 years, research has started to investigate the pedagogic practices of instructors and coaches working in adventure sports settings. Outdoor instructors face particular challenges regarding the impact the dynamic environment has on the coaching process and their students. This challenging combination of factors obliges the instructor to be agile in response. We propose that this adaptive expertise is characteristic of these factors and that adaptability may be a beneficial focus of outdoor instructor training and education. Purpose: The major aim was to identify if adaptive expertise is an attribute of outdoor instructors? And if so, what are its characteristics in this context? Research design and data collection: We applied a mixed methodology to a sample of outdoor instructors (n = 64). The instructors were asked to complete a quantitative adaptive expertise inventory. We then interviewed a selected sub-sample (n = 12). Participants and setting: Quantitative data was collected from outdoor instructors working in the UK (n = 64). The sample consisted of instructors qualified to work independently with groups in adventurous settings in a range of activities. Qualitative data was collected from a smaller sample (n = 12) via a series of thematically analysed semi-structured interviews. Findings: Results suggest that the participating outdoor instructors have high levels of adaptive expertise. A characteristic of that adaptive capacity is a combination of skills revolving around reflection, metacognition, and situational awareness. There were differences, however, between less and more experienced outdoor instructors in their adaptive capacity, with less experienced instructors being adaptive to a lesser extent. Conclusions: The implication is that further research is worthwhile to examine the development of instructors’ adaptive capacity. The training and education of outdoor instructors requires pedagogic approaches that facilitate and engender adaptability, flexibility and agility in neophyte instructors.

Adventure sport coaches practice in environments that are dynamic and high in risk, both perceived and actual. The inherent risks associated with these activities, individuals’ responses and the optimal exploitation of both combine to make the processes of risk management more complex and hazardous than the traditional sports where risk management is focused almost exclusively on minimization. Pivotal to this process is the adventure sports coaches’ ability to make effective judgments regarding levels of risk, potential benefits and possible consequences. The exact nature of this decision making process should form the basis of coaching practice and coach education in this complex and dynamic field. This positional paper examines decision making by the adventure sports coach in these complex, challenging environments and seeks to stimulate debate whilst offering a basis for future research into this topic.

This paper considers the personal epistemology of adventure sports coaches, the existence of the epistemological chain and its impact on professional judgment and decision-making. The epistemological chain’s role and operationalization in other fields is considered, offering clues to how it may manifest itself in the adventure sports coach context. High-level adventure sports coaches were interviewed and an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach was adopted for the interview transcripts. Based on these data, we suggest that the epistemological chain provides the criteria by which adventure sports coaches measure the success of their coaching practice in the field and, further, that this epistemological chain also underpins the professional judgment and decision-making process.

Previous research has emphasised the dynamic nature of coaching practice and the need to consider both individual performer needs and necessary contextual trade-offs in providing optimum solutions. In this regard, a Professional Judgment and Decision Making framework has been suggested to facilitate an optimum blend of actions against these complex and dynamic demands. Accordingly, we extend this work and address recent calls for greater focus on expertise-oriented assessments, by postulating on the aspirant/developing coach’s capacity for and development of metacognition (i.e., active control over cognitive processes) as a ‘tool’ within the reflective process. Specifically, we propose that metacognition enables essential active cognitive processing for deep learning and impactful application, together with construction and refinement of useable knowledge to inform coaching decisions. Metacognition, therefore, helps to contextualise knowledge provided in training, further optimising the experience, particularly before certification. Finally, we exemplify how metacognition can be developed in coaches through the use of cognitive apprenticeships and decision training tools; and evaluated via a series of observed coaching episodes, with reasoning articulated through pre and postsession interview. Despite challenging traditional competency-based approaches to coach education, we believe that a considered mixed approach represents a vital next step in further professionalising sports coaching.