Overview of scoping review methodology

The scoping review methodology was chosen as it allowed the researchers to achieve three primary aims [39,40]. Firstly, the scoping review aims to map a broad and diverse body of literature on youth participation coach education and learning. Secondly, scoping reviews are designed to include a variety of literature, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research. Thirdly, scoping reviews allow for a descriptive overview of the current body of literature without critically appraising the literature. Thus, other types of reviews such as a systematic review were not deemed appropriate and did not align with the researchers’ aims. Unlike a systematic review, the scoping review methodology does not seek to synthesize evidence or aggregate findings, nor does this methodology aim to assess the quality of evidence of the included studies [41–43]. In other words, rather than critically analysing the evidence of included studies and presenting the results on a micro level, the purpose of a scoping review is to provide insights into overall trends at a more macro level, and this is done by collating, summarizing, and reporting of results [39,44]. The eventual outcome of a scoping review can allow a more thorough investigation of emerging evidence which subsequently, facilitate identifying and analysing research gaps. This strategy is appropriate to scope the broad and diverse youth participation coach education and learning literature [40]. The scoping review followed a five-stage process: (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) study selection, (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarising, and reporting the results [39]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [45] was used to guide the reporting of this review (refer to S1 File). The study protocol for this scoping review was registered in the Open Science Framework (registration link: https://osf.io/8t9us). Details regarding the steps taken for each stage are described in the following sections.

Identifying the research question

In line with scoping review recommendations [46], we used broad research questions combined with clear definitions of the concepts relevant to the study’s scope. An overarching research question guided the scoping review: What do we know about youth participation coaches’ perceptions of learning and experiences learning from various sources?

Identifying relevant studies

To ensure a comprehensive and interdisciplinary review, we searched six major electronic databases covering coaching, medicine, organizational science, pedagogy, psychology, and sociology to identify studies addressing sport from a range of theoretical perspectives. The databases included were: SPORTDiscus, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and Medline, using a search combination of relevant keywords: volunteer OR participation OR grassroots OR recreation* AND youth OR adolescen* OR teen* OR child* OR “elementary school students” OR “primary school students” AND coach* OR practitioner AND learn* OR education OR development AND sport. The literature search was conducted up to April 28, 2025.

Prior to screening, the research team discussed and provided an inclusion and exclusion criteria to guide the article screening process. The specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are illustrated in Table 1.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356171.t001

Study selection

After completing the initial electronic database search, all selected references (n = 3224) were imported to Covidence [47], a web-based systematic review software that facilitated the review process [48]. Duplicates were removed and the remaining records were screened according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The PRISMA flowchart (Fig 1) shows the number of records found and screened in each step of the scoping search described. Across the six databases, 3224 results were returned, of which 1337 were duplicate records. The research team screened the title and abstract of each of the remaining 1887 studies followed by the screening of 82 full-text studies, of which 11 studies were included for further analysis. Throughout the screening process, two reviewers separately screened each study for eligibility. In the event of any discrepancies in decisions (e.g., to include or exclude study) between the two reviewers at each stage of the screening, they were first resolved through discussion among the original reviewers. If the two original reviewers did not reach consensus, a third reviewer was consulted to make the final decision.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356171.g001

Charting the data

All sources identified as relevant for inclusion were listed on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. These articles were then read in full, and data were charted on the Excel spreadsheet by the first author with the following categories: author(s), year of publication, aim, study design, method of data collection, method of analysis, theoretical construct, learning source, learning mode, course / program type, course / program duration, course / program name, participants, and key findings (Table 2). The data charting spreadsheet was shared and discussed among the author team.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356171.t002

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics was conducted on the selected articles for study context (e.g., geographical location of study, sport type), participant characteristics (e.g., gender, coaches’ experience) and CEP characteristics (e.g., source of learning, mode of learning). The qualitative data within each article were analysed using Peters et al.’s [60] guidelines for scoping reviews and Braun and Clarke’s [61] approach to topic summaries. To categorise, map, and summarise the diverse results and insights from the studies, the analysis was informed by the researcher’s understanding of the key concepts in the coach education and learning literature. In synthesizing the content from the selected articles, the researcher (i.e., first author) followed a six-step process. First, the researcher familiarized himself with the eleven articles by reading and re-reading the contents of the articles while making notes on interesting findings. Next, preliminary codes (e.g., ‘access to coaching resources’) were written based on deductively identifying general statements that address the research questions of the review and are evident across sections of the articles. Third, related codes were clustered together, which led to the discovery of potential topics and subtopics. For example, the codes ‘access to coaching resources’ and ‘access to online platforms’ were clustered as ‘accessibility’. Fourth, preliminary topics and subtopics were reviewed by splitting, merging, or discarding irrelevant topics and this was subsequently incorporated into an overall topic summary. Fifth, in refining topics, clear definitions were provided to ensure the names given to the topics (e.g., ‘learning enablers’) were reflective of the relationships between topics (and subtopics). Finally, the results were written in a manner that adequately explains and summarises the analysed content. Both the extracted data from the eleven articles (i.e., in tabular form) and topic summary (i.e., in diagrammatic form with descriptive findings) were shared with the research team, where multiple rounds of discussion, critique and validation were conducted. In the following section, we present a descriptive summary and a detailed topic summary of the studies identified in this review.

Descriptive summary

To provide an overview of the youth participation coach education and learning literature, we analysed the contents of the eleven studies and descriptively mapped the results (Table 2).

Descriptive statistics were computed for some of these categories of contents (e.g., study context, participant characteristics) and this is illustrated in S1 Table.

Geographically, the eleven studies were conducted in Europe (six studies, 54.5%) or North America (five studies, 45.5%), with all conducted in western countries. Regarding the sport investigated, team sports were the most prevalent focus (nine studies, 81.8%), particularly football (seven studies, 63.3%). Most studies involved coaches working with both male and female participants (nine studies, 81.8%) and slightly over half specifically examined the views of volunteer coaches (six studies, 54.5%). Coaches with between 3–10 years of coaching experience were the most common participants (seven studies, 63.6%), although some research focused on novice coaches (one study, 9.1%) or included a mix of coaching experience levels (three studies, 27.3%). Prior coaching qualification were reported in seven studies: one exclusively investigated qualified coaches (9.1%); two examined non-qualified coaches (18.2%); and four included a mix of coaches with and without coaching qualifications (36.4%). In the remaining four studies (36.4%) prior coaching qualification were not reported at the time of participation.

Descriptive statistics were also computed for the eleven studies based on CEP characteristics (see S2 Table). Ten of the eleven studies (90.9%) reported coaches’ perspectives on different CEPs, each centred on specific goals or coaching principles (e.g., autonomy-supportive coaching, holistic youth coaching). The nine studies examining these CEPs employed a formal structure, delivered either fully online (two studies, 18.2%) or in a blended format (eight studies, 72.7%). Most of these CEPs were small-scale initiatives (eight studies, 72.7%). The duration of the CEPs varied, ranging from less than one week (five studies, 45.5%) to over twelve weeks (three studies, 27.3%), with two studies (18.2%) lasting between one and twelve weeks. The key content areas explored in these studies included autonomy-supportive coaching (five studies, 45.5%), coaching pedagogy (two studies, 18.2%), holistic youth coaching (two studies, 18.2%), and other coaching-related topics (one study, 9.1%).

The majority of studies employed mixed methods (seven studies, 63.6%) approaches, often aiming to integrate quantitative measures of coach behaviour to enrich and validate the qualitative findings (e.g., [50,54,57,58]). Seven studies adopted a longitudinal design (63.6%) while the remaining four studies (36.4%) used a cross-sectional design. Regarding research designs, a fair distribution of exploratory (five studies, 45.5%), explanatory (four studies, 36.4%), and descriptive (two studies, 18.2%) approaches were observed. In terms of theoretical frameworks, while two studies did not explicitly state a guiding theory [55,56], the remaining studies drew upon diverse perspectives (e.g., self-determination theory, occupational socialization theory) and in some cases, integrated multiple theoretical lenses (e.g., positive youth development and ecological theory [51]). Most of the analyses (four studies, 36.4%) focused on the content delivered within the CEP. Specifically, three studies grounded their analysis in motivational theories [49,50,53], and one study utilized positive youth development theory [51]. Other analytical frameworks employed included program effectiveness [52], critical pedagogy and collaborative action research [54], adult learning theories [59], and socialization theories [57,58].

Topic summary

Figs 2 and 3 present an overview of the qualitative topics and their respective subtopics identified through the analysis of the eleven included studies. In summary, the analysis revealed four topics: (a) learning enablers; (b) learning challenges; (c) outcomes; (d) factors influencing change in coaches’ practice. These summary topics will be explicated in turn.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Organisational map of the topics and subtopics (Learning enablers and Learning challenges) based on the qualitative analysis of the included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356171.g002

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Organisational map of the topics and subtopics (Coach learning outcomes and Factors influencing change in coaches’ practice) based on the qualitative analysis of the included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356171.g003

Learning enablers

Accessibility (three studies, 27.3%) emerged as a key enabler of learning, characterised by increased access to either quality coaching resources or online learning platforms [51,54,56]. Remote learning was noted to enhance “time efficiency” [56 p. 74] in learning facilitating access to coaching resources at no cost. Furthermore, some coaches revisited these resources to reinforce their understanding of coaching topics [54] and integrate them into their coaching practice [51,56]. For example, Strachan et al. [51] found that learning was facilitated when coaches utilised the Project SCORE! Website and supplemented this with their own resources to implement the various themes and lessons in their coaching.

Five studies (45.5%) emphasised the positive impact of an effective coach developer on learning. For instance, coach developers were skilful in promoting dialogue between other coaches with differing viewpoints, stimulating thinking on alternative ideas, providing coaching feedback, raising coaches’ awareness, and “sense making” [54 p. 73] on topics relevant to youth participation coaching (e.g., holistic youth coaching). For example, during a reflective conversation with her coach developer, one coach was prompted to challenge her existing assumptions about coaching:

“Thinking back, I just feel coaching stuff that I had seen others do and kind of thought why do I need to do anything different. And I don’t know if I do, and I am not saying what I have been doing is wrong but I find myself asking more about why I am doing these things now.” [54]

Coaches also highlighted several desirable attributes including knowledge of both the sport coached and pedagogical principles [58], as well as a willingness to support and learn alongside them [54,59]. The following quotes illustrate the value of coach developers when they function as co-learners and supportive partners in the learning process:

“I felt supported because [facilitator] was very involved and passionate about facilitating our communities of practice discussions and maintaining open lines of communication” [59]

“Taking an interest in what I am doing and offering advice, I think. It’s being invested in. I talk with other coaches but not in a way where I feel I am being helped with my coaching” [54]

Coaches emphasised the importance of ‘continuing and complementary education’ [55] to support the development of their coaching knowledge. This aligns with findings in seven studies (63.6%) where coaches highlighted the importance of contextually relevant content. Depending on their existing knowledge, certain topics were perceived as ‘new’ (e.g., coaching pedagogy [57,58]) or ‘familiar’ (e.g., autonomy-supportive coaching [50,53]). Furthermore, coaches valued content that was ‘easy to apply’ [52] often with ‘minimal preparation required’ [51] for integration into their practice.

Flexibility in learning was also identified as a key learning enabler by coaches (four studies, 36.4%). This encompassed having choice in learning topics and the ability to learn at their own pace. For example, one coach said, “I really enjoyed the freedom to go and search and learn about things that I wanted to learn about without being told I had to learn certain things” [54]. This flexibility was beneficial for coaches engaging with CEP featuring self-paced components [51,56] and when offered varied ‘call time options’ for online discussions [59].

Coaches valued learning approaches that incorporated reflection (five studies, 45.5%) and social learning activities (seven studies, 63.6%). Reflection was facilitated through various methods, including peer discussion (e.g., [53]) and reflective conversations with mentors [54]. Coaches reported that learning alongside fellow coaches enhanced their understanding, knowledge, or awareness of discussed topics. This may be fostered through collaborative work (e.g., [52]) or sharing at conferences and forums [55]. These discussions provided opportunities to gain perspectives from coaches with similar experiences [56] as well as diverse perspectives from coaches in different sports [59]. Furthermore, coaches noted knowledge sharing was promoted in an environment that is supportive [57,59] and interactive [53].

Learning challenges

A significant learning challenge identified by coaches was the brevity of courses (five studies, 45.5%). Specifically, within youth grassroots football, over half of the coaches surveyed advocated for extending the under 12 and under 10 certification courses, citing insufficient preparation for their coaching roles [55]. This concern was echoed by other coaches who noted a “lack of time invested in how to actually teach” [58 p. 18], and the need for follow-up sessions to consolidate learning as the initial lectures “tend to slip” [53 p. 126].

Furthermore, the lack of follow-up after attending CEP was a recurring concern, particularly in shorter courses (less than a day) [52,53,57,58]. Some coaches, suggested that follow-up could involve “more course sessions to allow for a more in-depth exploration of the topics” [52] or practical learning sessions at their respective clubs:

At the workshop, we had some thoughts regarding what we wanted to carry out in a training session… but it’s difficult, not difficult, rather a barrier to doing this, when you are all alone. So I think that, if the club had organized this, not to meet every week, but maybe once a month, for instance, discussing topics related to the modules released, meet and talk, to exert this mild pressure to carry out the plans… [52]

“The club could have facilitated a meeting once or twice a month for sharing experiences and keeping focus” [53]

Conversely, coaches also identified length or pacing issues as a learning challenge [52,59]. To address this, Swartz et al. [59] reduced the CEP timeline from 26 weeks to 14 weeks in the second phase of their action research, aiming to mitigate coach fatigue. A further challenge experienced by coaches was the mismatch between learning content and their specific coaching context [51,55]. For example, one coach suggested that the holistic youth coaching lesson package contained “abstract concepts” (p. 113) that needed to be adapted for younger age groups [51], implying a need for more practical and age-appropriate examples.

Coach learning outcomes

Following participation in coach education and learning activities, coaches reported a range of positive outcomes. Notably, improved attitudes, awareness and confidence were frequently mentioned (eight studies, 72.7%) alongside an influence on coaches’ behaviours and adoption of new pedagogies (eight studies, 72.7%). As one youth grassroots football coach expressed, this education prompted a shift in their perspective on coaching:

“First, what I remember (from the workshop), is to give freedom to the players, rather than always telling them what to do, especially the freedom of expressing themselves, letting them talk, and ask questions. I used to do this before as well, but it is important to get reminded in order to motivate each child to sustain their motivation for football” [50]

Another outcome reported by coaches was that the CEP influenced their coaching behaviour(s) and pedagogical approach(es). Most of these studies reported positive changes in coaches’ practices that were largely in line with the CEP’s aims (e.g., autonomy-supportive strategies, athlete-centred coaching). The following quotes illustrate this:

“I have used many of the strategies in coaching Gen Z to include more opportunities for them to make decisions.” [59]

“After a game, I ask what they think went well, what went poorly and also if they have any idea of how we can work on this… and then they come with some suggestions” [50]

Moreover, to further examine the impact of CEP on coaching behaviours, four studies [49,54,57,58] employed mixed-method, longitudinal designs (e.g., pre- and post-CEP) to validate qualitative (e.g., interviews) with quantitative (e.g., systematic observations) findings. These studies yielded mixed results. For example, Barnes and Curtner-Smith [58] found that only one of the two coaches in their case study demonstrated significant changes in their pedagogical approach (i.e., shift from direct to indirect teaching styles). Similarly, changes in coaching behaviours (e.g., questioning, feedback) and pedagogies varied among the three coaches investigated in Cope et al.’s [54] study.

Coaches from five studies (45.5%) reported gaining knowledge and skills during their CEP experiences, including content knowledge, managerial and planning skills [58], communication skills [49,50,56], and an understanding of how to influence athlete motivation [53]. Furthermore, coaches in three studies (27.3%) observed positive impacts on athletes’ outcomes, such as increased enjoyment [51] and greater interest in practice’ sessions [49]. The subtopic of feeling supported was highlighted by coaches in three studies (27.3%). This support stemmed from having a supportive network of fellow coaches [57] and they desired “feeling connected to a larger community of coaches” [59 p. 14]. Finally (i.e., reflection or reflexivity subtopic), one study explicitly noted that CEPs helped coaches develop their ability to critically reflect on their coaching practice [54].

Factors influencing change in coaches’ practice

Participant coaches across the included studies identified several factors influencing changes in their coaching practice following coach learning experiences. Analysis revealed a range of coaches’ attributes (i.e., knowledge and experience, beliefs, coaching philosophy, desire to learn) that influenced the extent to which they applied new coaching principles and ideas learned at coach education and learning experiences. The findings from five studies (45.5%) indicate that coaches’ existing coaching knowledge and experiences influenced how readily they adopted coaching principles learned through both formal or informal learning opportunities. For example, Barrero et al. [55] found significant differences in the application of coaching principles among youth grassroots football coaches based on their prior sport coaching education and perceived readiness to coach, as revealed by a survey of 153 coaches. Prior experience was associated with the adoption of autonomy-supportive coaching behaviours [49] and the integration of new lesson ideas with existing knowledge (and resources) [51].

The subtopic of coach beliefs encompasses their perspectives on specific coaching approaches (e.g., indirect teaching styles, holistic youth coaching strategies) and their perception of the validity of coaching knowledge. For example, Barnes and Curtner-Smith [57,58] noted that a coach’s eventual application of learned pedagogy may be contingent by their individual beliefs (e.g., prioritising athlete skill development). Furthermore, beliefs were identified as key in determining whether newly learned coaching ideas are accepted without critical evaluation, particularly among less experienced coaches [54]. This is exemplified in the following interview excerpt:

“There were a few coaches who had commented on a discussion I posted last week. I had a look on their profiles and they seemed experienced and knew what they were talking about so I took on board what they said and used some of the ideas this week.” [54]

Four studies (36.4%) emphasised the importance of a coach’s philosophy in determining the effectiveness of interventions like the CEP. Larsen et al. [50] found that a shared understanding of the CEP principles was crucial for coaches to consistently implement the intended coaching strategies shared in the course. Swartz et al.’s [59] study also highlights the role of perceived organisational support, attributing coaches’ desire to learn to a perceived lack of support. The subtopic of athlete expectations or readiness was evident in the findings from five studies (45.5%). For example, coaches varied their coaching approach (e.g., direct teaching styles) based on their athletes’ prior experience [58] or perceived skill level [57]. Similarly, Langdon et al.’s [49] research revealed that coaches faced challenges in implementing autonomy-supportive strategies with youth athletes, which included efforts to maintain engagement, “waiting for the athletes to answer questions” (p. 9), and “avoid controlling language” (p. 9) even when faced with disobedience.

Stakeholder support was a key factor influencing coaches’ implementation of learned coaching ideas and strategies. This encompasses several subtopics: leadership (four studies, 36.4%), parents (four studies, 36.4%) and coaching team (two studies, 18.2%). Søvik et al.’s [52] study indicated that a “lack of encouragement from club leadership” (p. 168) and challenges in achieving shared understanding with their co-coaches hindered the application of CEP coaching principles. Furthermore, coaches reported that parents’ expectations, such preparing child-athlete for high school try-outs [57] or focusing on results [52], significantly influenced their decision to implement learned coaching principles. Situational factors also influenced the application of coaching principles (four studies, 36.4%). Coaches adjusted their coaching approach (e.g., autonomy-supportive strategies, direct or indirect teaching styles) based on whether they were in league games or non-game settings [49] or ‘practice or games’ situation [57]. Finally, the time required for effective implementation was noted in three studies (27.3%). This included the time required in strategy planning [52] or time to implement holistic youth coaching sessions [51].

Study characteristics and participant profile

The scoping review has summarised and identified some characteristics of the youth participation coach education and learning literature. Based on geographical location, there is an underrepresentation of studies examining coaches outside of western countries and individual sports. This finding aligns with Lyle and Crespo’s [65] notion that “knowledge diffusion via the academic community is largely dominated by Euro-North American academics” (p. 369). Further, the results may also partly be attributed to the inclusion criteria of the review (i.e., articles in English), which suggests that non-English speaking coaches may have been excluded or underrepresented in the research. In terms of sport type investigated, there is little known in the literature that explains the lack of research of youth participation coach education and learning of coaches practicing in individual sports. The prevalence of football-focused studies (six) aligns with findings from coach education program reviews, which identify football as the most researched sport [66]. This likely reflects football's widespread popularity globally – in terms of viewership, participation, and support – potentially influencing resource allocation towards its development, including coach education [67].

Results also demonstrate a moderately larger representation of coaches who are volunteers (six studies) with some coaching experience (3–10 years on average). Additionally, the review highlighted several studies that did not indicate coaches’ status (four studies) and clearly differentiate coaches’ prior coaching qualifications (eight studies). While volunteer coaching is common in youth participation sport in some countries (e.g., Australia [33]; United Kingdom [68]) and regions (e.g., European Union [32]), it should not be taken for granted that the learning needs or motivations of coaches of other statuses (i.e., part-time, full-time) are similar. Considering the influence of coaches’ background (e.g., coaching status, experience, education) on their learning and practice [25,69,70], there appears to be limited understanding of how coaching knowledge and experience may shape youth participation coaches’ learning experiences. Moreover, scholars argue that the view of coach learning should extend beyond previous assumptions of just knowledge transfer and through interaction with various sources [12,13], learning situations and contexts [16,27]. Indeed, in the current era of globalisation and the drive to actualise how coaching knowledge can be effectively created and disseminated globally, it is crucial that research must consider “significant cultural differences” [65 p. 357] across countries, as well as sporting systems to advance our understanding of coach learning. This lack of clarity hinders our ability to determine how these coaches learn and subsequently, how best to support their preparation for their unique roles [26,28,29]. Indeed, Nelson et al.’s [71] study of community coaches with varied employment statuses (i.e., full-time, part-time, volunteer) found that part-time or volunteer coaches used specific management techniques to cope with fatigue from their primary employment.

Based on the methodology of the reviewed studies, most (nine) studies explicitly stated the researchers’ philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks used to interpret findings. This aligns with recommendations for more representative research designs that incorporate theoretical perspectives (e.g., social learning theory, adult learning theory) which can offer more nuanced explanations of how youth participation coaches learn [2,72]. Based on research method, qualitative approaches were predominantly adopted, which corroborates with findings from a systematic review of coach education programs [73]. While there were deep insights gathered (i.e., mixed or qualitative approaches) and some research that were better aimed at contributing to practice (e.g., action research [59]), it is also apparent that research gaps exist. Specifically, the lack of breadth of findings due to small sample sizes, the lack of quantitative focus, as well as the absence of other possible research paradigms to explain coach learning (e.g., [74], limits our understanding in this area of study.

Design of youth participation coach education programs

Analysis informed by CEP design, highlights a need for future research focused on how informal learning sources influence the knowledge and practice of youth participation coaches. While formal learning has received considerable attention in coach learning research [21,38,75], less is understood about the role of informal learning. Furthermore, research indicates that CEPs typically contribute a relatively small portion to coaches’ acquisition of knowledge and skills [2,14,15]. In retrospect, the debate over the superiority of formal versus informal coach education is largely unproductive [11]. Therefore, future research should focus on understanding coaches’ preferences for ‘ongoing and complementary education’ [55] and how both formal and informal learning contribute to their overall development.

While literature suggests that customized learning within smaller CEPs has the potential to positively impact coaches [38,76], the effectiveness of these programs remains largely unexplored. Conversely, research on large-scale CEPs has often focused on limitations in delivery and evidence-based content, leading to concerns about their impact on coaching practice [21,77]. Despite these criticisms, large-scale CEPs remain an important part of coaches’ professional development as they offer coach accreditation upon successful completion [78]. From a practical perspective, this accreditation provides sport organisations or clubs with assurance of coaches’ competency [78]. However, research examining the influence of large-scale CEP participation on individuals remains limited; only two studies have examined this specific aspect (two coaches and one coach respectively) [57,58]. Hence, future research should prioritise understanding the experiences and perspectives of coaches participating in large-scale CEPs to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their potential to support coaching practice [30,77].

The findings from this review determined that coaches commonly desired CEP content to be practically and contextually relevant to their practice. Based on the analysis, contextually relevant content (seven studies) was deemed as a learning enabler. In contrast, content mismatch to coaches’ context (two studies) was considered a learning challenge. These findings illustrate the argument that the learning content delivered at CEPs, should match the specific coaching context [25,79] as well as being easily applicable to their practice. Hence, to better prepare youth participation coaches for their unique coaching roles [26], literature suggests CEPs should provide relevant content (e.g., creating a motivational climate for young athletes [80], holistic coaching principles [63], and game-based coaching approaches [81]) as well as develop specific competencies (e.g., session planning, organisation and management, and working with parents and/or sport administrators [3]). Considering the learning needs of youth participation coaches can be highly varied based on their specific coaching context, it does appear that the literature is unable to provide sufficient explanation of how coaches’ needs may be met [37,82].

The attributes of effective coach developers tend to align with established principles in coach education that span across diverse coaching contexts [21,75,83]. Practically, as this review has highlighted, this has an ongoing positive effect on learning due to the significant influence coach developers have on their coaches’ development. For example, they affect active learning environments that encourage maximum participation and engagement [84], and they encourage developing coaches to critically inquire into coaching challenges [85] such as working with athletes of diverse playing abilities or coaching under resource constraints (e.g., limited equipment or facilities). Overall, substantial evidence indicates that the qualities of effective coach developers are fundamental to impactful learning outcomes.

All CEPs included within this research utilised online platforms. Based on the perspectives of coaches, they welcome the flexibility to learn at their own pace and additional time to dive deeper into the content covered beyond the duration of the CEP [56]. Moreover, remote access to learning resources provided coaches with readily available reference materials to support their practice (Strachan et al., 2016). This finding aligns with coach learning research, that advocates online platforms as a medium to promote social learning [14], self-paced learning [79], and sharing of online resources [15]. While there is substantial evidence of coaches’ receptivity towards online and hybrid modes of learning, there is little evidence of the use of specific digital tools (e.g., online discussion boards) combined with learning strategies (e.g., reflection, providing feedback) that effectively contributes to coaches’ learning [19,38].

The duration of CEPs significantly influences coaches’ learning. Coaches in shorter programs (i.e., less than a week) often want more time to deepen their understanding of coaching principles [49,52]. Additionally, they emphasised the need for post-CEP reflection activities to reinforce learned information [57,58]. In contrast, longer programs have been described as too drawn out [59] and the learning pace could be improved through more timely follow-up activities [52]. Research consistently highlights that learning requires sufficient time and dedicated space for coaches to process content delivered at CEPs [16,77]. Indeed, a study on learner-centred strategies in a grassroots football coaching course identified that limited learning time restricted opportunities for coaches to explore their own coaching practice and learning needs [86]. Hence, understanding how to optimise learning time for youth participation sports coaches is essential for their ongoing development.

Effectively supporting youth participation coaches in learning

The review highlights the recurring theme of ‘support’ needed for youth participation coaches to learn and thrive in their practice. From the analysis of the eleven studies, it appears there are a range of factors that may support (or thwart) youth participation coaches in their learning and to apply their knowledge in practice. In their learning process, there is some indication that coaches’ desire for support may be facilitated by coach developers [54] and their community of coaches [57]. Evidence suggests that collaborative, group-based learning activities can enhance coaches’ confidence when these activities are well-facilitated [52]. From a social learning perspective, the value of peer relationships in this process is evident: coaches benefit not only from sharing similar experiences and challenges [56] but also from exposure to diverse perspectives from coaches in other sports [59]. Additionally, a non-competitive and supportive environment appears vital for engagement, with coaches highlighting the importance of enjoyable, collegial interactions [52,59]. These findings align with the broader social learning theory [87,88], which emphasises the role of collaboration and shared experience in professional development.

Youth participation coaches frequently report feeling unsupported in their professional development, particularly when there is no follow-up after participating in a CEP [53] or when long-term learning pathways are absent [36]. Their ability to apply new and existing knowledge is influenced by multiple stakeholders, including club leadership, parents, co-coaches, and athletes [52,58]. Moreover, coaches must navigate complex dynamics with stakeholders, entrenched cultural norms [53], specific coaching scenarios [49], and their own personal beliefs [58]. These factors collectively shape the extent to which learned coaching principles are implemented in practice. Alongside these factors, the literature indicates that sports clubs and organizations running youth sport programs often operate on tight budgets. This limits opportunities for developing their youth coaches [63] and makes it challenging to meet the diverse needs of a coaching workforce given resource constraints [22]. While scholars advocate for domain-specific approaches to coach education [1,7], there is a notable lack of research exploring the day-to-day realities of youth participation coaching. This gap highlights the need for empirical studies that examine how these coaches navigate their unique challenges, including limited resources, diverse work environments, and competing stakeholder expectations.

Evidencing the impact of coaches’ learning and practice

The scoping review revealed that measuring impact on youth participation coach learning and practice is essential to develop a better understanding of how coaches may be supported through coach education. In developing this understanding, the studies adopted a mix of research approaches to explore, explain or describe changes in coaches’ behaviours or practices resulting from their learning experiences. Additionally, coaches reported a range of outcomes (e.g., athlete outcomes, knowledge and skills) while they shared a range of factors (e.g., athlete expectations and readiness, coaches’ attributes) that would influence their implementation of learned coaching strategies and ideas. While three studies [49–51] reported improvements in athlete behaviours — such as increased enjoyment [51] — they offered limited insight into how coaches applied their learning to achieve these results. Furthermore, literature identifies a range of desirable athlete outcomes (e.g., competence, confidence, connection, character), that coaching can foster [7]. Given that a coach’s primary role, regardless of context, is to facilitate athlete learning, further research into this aspect would significantly contribute to the youth participation coach education and learning literature.

Scholars in all the reviewed studies agree that CEP should aim at shifting coaches’ existing assumptions about coaching. To effectively achieve this, research suggests designing CEPs with coaches at the centre of learning [16,83]. Additionally, it should be acknowledged that coaches have pre-existing orientations to learning shaped by their past experiences and contexts [82,89]. Coaches approach any learning experience with a preconceived set of values and beliefs formed through their socialisation. This means they actively decide whether to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ new coaching knowledge presented during CEPs [25]. As Barnes and Curtner-Smith’s [57] study demonstrates, even with similar coach education, coaches can have different outcomes based on their prior socialization. Similarly, Cope et al. [54] found that novice coaches may uncritically accept coaching principles from more experienced coaches. Therefore, future research should focus on gaining deeper insights into how coaches’ dispositions influence learning.

In summary, effective coach learning is a complex phenomenon influenced by a range of contextual factors (e.g., stakeholder support, coaches’ role). The literature has emphasised considering subtle differences between countries, sports, coaches’ background (knowledge, experience, accreditation) and the lack of representative approaches in coach learning research. These findings suggest several practical implications for stakeholders involved in coach development. Specifically, sport organisations and governing bodies should allocate financial resources and time to enable coaches to pursue professional development opportunities independently [22]. CEPs should move away from didactic, ‘top-down’ content delivery and instead foster critical reflection on personal practice [82,85]. Furthermore, coach education curricula should be designed to reflect the diverse contexts in which coaches operate [37]. Despite these suggestions, the limited evidence available in youth participation coach education and learning literature hinders our understanding of how these coaches learn and can be best supported. Given the limited number of studies, research designs and coaching contexts investigated, the findings of this review offer only a preview of these factors. Consequently, more research is required to examine learning in relation to the coaches’ role within specific contexts.

Limitations

While this scoping review provides valuable insights into youth participation coach education and learning, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the scope was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English, after 2010, meaning relevant non-English or earlier studies were excluded [42]. Secondly, despite employing a variety of search terms such as ‘volunteer’, ‘grassroots’, ‘participation’, ‘recreation’, the exclusion of ‘community’ may have inadvertently narrowed the scope. This decision aimed to avoid an overwhelming number of results beyond the field of sport coaching. However, it does highlight a potential challenge in capturing the full range of contexts where participation coaches operate. Consistent with scoping review methodology, this study focused on presenting insights according to research activity, major findings, and research gaps [39] rather than assessing the quality or methodological robustness of the included studies. The current scoping review does not include a systematic appraisal of the methodological rigour of the included studies. While this approach allows for a broad overview of the literature, it inherently limits our ability to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies and synthesise findings with a high degree of certainty. Consequently, the conclusions drawn from this review should be interpreted with caution regarding robustness and generalisability. Finally, the review acknowledges that a wider range of research paradigms beyond those operating within Western contexts and team sports may offer alternative perspectives on coach learning, further limiting the generalisability of our findings to non-western environments or individual sports [74].

Implications for future research

To further advance our understanding of youth participation coach education and learning, future research should address several key gaps. Firstly, studies should prioritise inclusivity by involving coach participants from under-represented contexts such as non-western countries. Research in these contexts will significantly advance coach learning by acknowledging the unique sporting system and coach education structures influenced by the prevailing culture within the country [65]. Secondly, addressing the methodological limitations of existing studies is crucial. Future studies should utilise larger, more representative samples to enhance the generalisability of findings. Specifically, comparative analysis across coaches in different countries, sports and with varying backgrounds (knowledge, experience, accreditation) would contribute to broader insights into the field. Finally, future investigations should explore how coach learning translates to specific athletes’ outcomes (e.g., competence, confidence, connection, character [7]). Providing such insight will enhance our understanding of how youth participation coaches play an educative role in developing their athletes holistically using developmentally appropriate coaching strategies.

The findings from the review also prompt researchers to consider studies that examine specific CEP design features that support youth participation coaches’ practice. Given the transforming digital landscape, this includes investigating the effectiveness of various learning modes (online, hybrid) and specific digital tools (e.g., online discussion boards) on coach learning. Another important area for research is determining the optimal duration of CEPs to facilitate learning, particularly addressing the time constraints often faced by youth participation coaches [33]. Furthermore, deeper investigations are needed into the requisite knowledge and skills for coaches in their roles. The review highlighted a limited understanding of key competencies such as autonomy-supportive strategies and holistic youth coaching practices [26]. Therefore, exploring alternative CEP formats [54] that provide insights into how coaches learn would be a valuable contribution to the field. This research will inform the development of comprehensive, contextually relevant CEP that support coaches’ overall development. It will also assist coach development bodies in optimising specific CEP offerings to ensure cost-effectiveness without compromising quality.