Youth Expedition Leader: Mountain Leader or Coach?

Youth Expedition Leader: Mountain Leader or Coach?

Mountain leaders (MLs) are not assessed on their ability to coach but often require pedagogical skills, particularly.  Some National Governing Bodies (NGBs) have embraced coaching but the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) has not yet done so for mountaineering.  This article is offered to stimulate debate and will consider whether mountaineering should be coached or not, with particular reference to mountain leaders operating on youth expeditions.

 This article will focus on the mountain leader as a youth expedition leader but there are obvious parallels with many other roles such as Duke of Edinburgh Award training, outdoor education, and personal development.  All of these roles require coaching skills. 

The Coaching Requirement

Coaching covers many disciplines.  You only have to type ‘coach’ into an Internet search engine and you’ll see sports coaching, executive management, life coaching, and teenage behavioural issues listed amongst many others.  There are a diverse range of skills necessary for delivery of the coaching process but, surprisingly, few of the skills relate to physical or athletic performance.  Management of the programme and holistic development of the individual are the more prominent skills required and they are very similar to the skill set required of the youth expedition leader such as crisis management, threshold decision making, resource management, communication, interpersonal skills, empathy, and problem solving.  McMorris and Hale argue that ‘…coaches perceive their roles as being concerned with the individual’s welfare as well as their performance’ (2006, p.55) and this is supported by the results of recent research into transformational leadership on youth expeditions (McElligott, Arthur, Callow, and Hardy, 2012).

There is much evidence that the outdoor adventure leader is a coach.  It is a role which can encompass instructing, training, teaching, leading, facilitating, managing, mentoring, motivating, managing, and being a reflective practitioner.  Collins and Collins (2012) take this one stage further and present a very strong argument for the adventure sport coach to be classified separately to other sports coaches.  Their rationale is that coaching outdoor activities requires a high degree of technical performance in addition to the coaching, leadership, and developmental skill required.  Due to the complexity of these interrelated skills they describe the adventure sports coach as ‘…coach, captain and manager all while playing in the game’ (2012, p. 90). 

            Two major UK providers of youth expeditions are Outlook Expeditions and World Challenge.  Outlook Expeditions programmes are aimed at ‘…teaching the principles of leadership, teamwork, communication, problem solving, planning and organisation’ (Education and Personal Development, website, 2012) whereas World Challenge aim to ‘…teach life skills and expand minds outside the classroom’ (World Challenge, website, 2012).  Both companies require their expedition leaders to teach, and place considerable emphasis on the leader’s coaching or pedagogical skills.

When consulted, both Outlook Expeditions and World Challenge stated that they set Mountain Leader (Summer) as a base qualification to ensure the expedition leader has the hard skills for the trek phase, the group management skills for the remainder of the expedition, and to satisfy Duty of Care requirements of Local Education Authorities.   However, both companies also emphasised that they need their leaders to have coaching skills. 

Training however is a challenge with freelance staff.  Continued Professional Development is available through NGBs, relevant specialist associations, some companies employing freelance staff, and the Institute for Outdoor Learning.  However, attendance is voluntary and lack of development will not necessarily affect future employment. 

Neither Outlook Expeditions nor World Challenge would wish to see a coaching assessment incorporated into the mountain leader award, but would rather see coaching formalised, with training and assessment available alongside the technical awards.  Some staff consulted would advocate a similar system to the British Canoe Union (BCU) scheme introduced in 2007 for recreational and competition coaches, but this involved a radical restructuring of all the BCU awards and mountaineering may benefit from a more evolutionary approach as a number of organisations have considerable faith in the current technical awards. 

Mountain Leader Training UK is presently developing a coaching scheme for rock climbing.  There are no plans, however, to extend this to mountaineering as stakeholders are not demanding assessment of coaching skill for mountain leaders.  However, a 2008 study by the National Source Group (NSG, 2008), acting on behalf of the four UK mountaineering NGBs, formed the view that there were gaps between the current mountaineering awards and coaching being offered, and the priority recommendation was that a mountaineering coaching system should be developed.  To date there does not appear to be much progress on this priority issue! 

A Way Forward

In the study mentioned above, the National Source Group discussed five possible solutions to this shortfall in assessment.  The first option was to do nothing but this was rejected as there was a clear requirement for a coaching award and this would then align mountaineering with other sports.  The other options considered in detail were coach specific CPD courses, a parallel system to run alongside current mountain leader awards, a separate coaching system, or replacing the whole award structure with a separate coaching based award scheme.  The NSG recommended that these options were costed and offered relevant argument for and against each option. 

Going back to the role of an adventure sports coach, we’ve already acknowledged that the mountain leader has to be competent to manage his clients in challenging conditions.  By necessity, they must have a technical qualification so developing a coaching structure which operates separate to the mountain leader award is impractical.  Accordingly, a structure which operates in parallel with the current award scheme is considered a pragmatic way forward.  This structure should allow individuals to progress through increasingly demanding coaching awards, whilst simultaneously gaining experience and technical qualifications.

Conclusion

There is strong support amongst the youth expedition industry for expedition leaders to be assessed for their coaching skills and for coaching awards to run in parallel with the mountain leader award scheme.  The National Source Group set this as a priority in 2008 – I think it’s about time it was implemented.

References:

Collins, L. & Collins, D. (2012) ‘Conceptualizing the adventure-sports coach’, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 81-93.

Education and Personal Development (2012) Outlook [online] available from: http://www.outlookexpeditions.com/about/education-personal-development [accessed 16/4/12].

McElligott, S., Arthur, C.A., Callow, N. & Hardy, L. (2012) ‘The impact of transformational leadership behaviours on self-esteem in the youth expedition context’, to be presented at the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Conference, Hawaii, Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort & Spa,
Honolulu, Hawaii Jun 7-9.

McMorris, T. & Hale, T. (2006) Coaching Science: Theory into Practice, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

NSG (2008) National Source Group Report on Coaching in Mountaineering – A Possible Future for Coaching Awards [online], available from: http://www.mcofs.org.uk/assets/getactive/nsg%20report%20version%205%20sep08.pdf [accessed 23/4/12].

World Challenge (2012) World Challenge [online] available from: http://www.world-challenge.co.uk/ [accessed 16/4/12].

Coaching and Learning Styles

             In Chapter 4 of their book, McMorris and Hale (2006) explain the interaction between teaching styles and learning styles, and apply some realism to the theoretical structure.  By considering the coach-athlete interaction from an academic basis and relating Mosston’s (1986) teaching styles to the four learning styles (Kolb, 1984), they conclude that the most significant practical constraint is the personality of the coach.  They offer a number of real world examples where coaches have found it very difficult to deliver using one style alone, especially if they are more familiar with another coaching style.  In their conclusion, they question whether a coach can effectively adapt their individual coaching style to best suit the learning styles of the various athletes they may be working with. 

The limitation of considering both coaching and learning styles in distinct boxes is that it can be very difficult to identify whether a coach uses one particular style of the ten rather than another.  Most coaches use a range of styles so I prefer to use the term “continuum of coaching styles” ranging from Command style to Self Teaching.  This emphasises the range of styles and the best way then of categorising a coach is to identify which area of the continuum he or she is most comfortable working. 

           Looking from the athlete’s perspective, the same argument holds for learning styles which can span between the four distinct styles outlined by Kolb (1984).  Whilst an individual may appear to be an activist on most occasions, he/she may also display some traits of reflector, theorist, or pragmatist depending on the scenario and the type of challenge.

If we consider the interaction as a pair of continuums as shown below, the best fit between athlete and coach is where the two continuums cross.  However, variations in both coaching and learning style dictate that there will be a broader area is of interaction between athlete and coach. 

 
          What, then, is my coaching style and what could I do differently in the future to make me a better coach?  I think my coaching style is quite variable and depends on a range of factors; what I’m coaching, who I’m coaching it to, whether I’m coaching a team or an individual, and how long I’ve known the athlete(s).  At the basic level, particularly when introducing a new skill, I can move right down to the Command style but my most comfortable coaching style tends to be around the Inclusion and Divergent area.  I like people to think for themselves and to be integral to the decision making process.  I do, however, find it quite difficult to move right up to a Learner Initiated style as being almost totally “hands off” does not come easy.
          Having now undertaken this study, my development challenge is to move further into the cooperative or democratic as defined by Lyle (1999) style of coaching.  This should enable me to work better with Theorists, but could also have benefit when working with a large group who often cover the full range of learning styles, and often learn at different rates.  I also need to look more closely at my athletes at an early stage and analyse where they are on the learning styles continuum so I can maximise our interaction.

In sum, both coaching styles and learning styles need to be considered on a continuum and coaches need to be aware of how their athletes learn.  The coach with the widest area of employability will be the coach who can adapt his style across the broadest range of the coaching styles continuum.

References:

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Lyle, J.W.B. (1999) ‘The Coaching Process: An Overview’, in Cross, N. & Lyle, J. (eds.) (1999) The Coaching Process: principles and practice for sport, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McMorris, T. & Hale, T. (2006) Coaching Science: Theory into Practice, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (1986, 3^rd Edn) Teaching Physical Education, Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Coaching Process

The Coaching Process (no date given, website) concentrates, as do many other authors, on the sports coaching process. In sports coaching, individual athletes or teams of athletes form a relationship with their coach whose ultimate aim could range from participation through to optimised performance, but an enduring feature apart from at the lowest level is some element of competition. In the outdoor adventure environment, there are no competitions.

This short paper will seek to relate sports coaching principles within the coaching process to the role as a leader of youth expeditions. This role has a particular emphasis on mountaineering competences and “life skills” such as personal organisation, discipline, respect, and team development.


What type of coach am I and what do I aspire to? Figure 3.3 of The Coaching Process (no date given, website) breaks coaching down into four distinct categories or levels namely; Sports Teacher, Participation Coach, Performance Coach, and Representative Team/Group Coach. Whilst these categories appear distinct, there could be significant overlap between the groupings. As a rugby coach I have operated across all these levels at various times but suggest this is a very simplistic way to look at coaching and prefer to view the levels as a continuum. The terminology used is in this model is clearly sports orientated and outdoor adventure does not easily fit into this model. 


Whilst more performance orientated adventurous activities such as canoeing and rock climbing can draw some parallels with the categories above, leading youth expeditions does not. Typing “what is coaching about?” into Google Scholar gives an indication of the breadth of coaching. Topics range from sports to executive management, and from life coaching to teenage behavioural issues. People working in all of these areas consider themselves to be coaches so is the expedition leader a coach?

Looking at the coaching process, the diagram at Fig 3.4 of The Coaching Process (no date given, website) lists a diverse range of skills necessary for the successful delivery of the coaching process and there is much similarity with the skill set required of the expedition leader, supporting the argument that an expedition leader is a coach. This view is ratified by some expedition providers (Shortt, 2012) although Mountain Leader Training England does not assess coaching skills as they have not been asked for this by their stakeholders (Garside, 2012). Additionally, the factor limiting all coaching is not the skills of the coach in that particular discipline, but his ability to coordinate and manage the coaching process in its entirety. This is certainly true in the outdoor adventure environment as organisation of the programme can be a hugely time consuming process but it is crucial to eventual success.

Having established that I am a coach and that sports coaching levels do not match the outdoor adventure environment, it may be better to consider what type of coach I am from a philosophical perspective.

A coaching philosophy can range from a generic statement to a very detailed tactical level view of how the coach will interact with their participants. Whilst a philosophy may be established early on in a coach’s career, it benefits from being refined using a reflective process as the coach develops and learns from different scenarios. Although research by Eitzen and Pratt (1989) identified no gender difference in coaching philosophy, Kidman and Hanrahan (2011) recognise that different philosophies may be required depending on the standard and type of coaching involved. As my coaching encompasses a variety of situations, I prefer a fairly generic philosophy. My philosophy is geared towards empowering the participant (who could be an athlete, an expedition member, or a student) to proactively engage in the process and work under gradually reducing levels of supervision.

Having now got a better understanding of the coaching process, how will I use this knowledge to develop the skills in my participants? The key issue for me is to take what I can from the sports coaching process model and apply it where applicable to outdoor adventure. There may not be an element of competition but ultimately my aim is to improve consistent performance of hard skills, and develop the participants’ life skills. The key point which comes out of my reading is that the coach’s own management and organisational skills are as important in the overall process as his ability to deliver his craft. Perhaps this then is the primary area for focus. I need to constantly manage the process so that my participants can maximise their development; I need to create the environment for success. At the same time, I need to be constantly reviewing my philosophy and adapting it based on experience.

In sum, whilst the levels of coaching do not translate easily into coaching outdoor adventure, the process clearly indicates the coaching skills and all of these are required by the leader of youth expeditions. The critical success factor in any coaching relationship is management and organisation.

References:

Eitzen, D.S. & Pratt, S.R. (1989), ‘Gender Differences in Coaching Philosophy: The Case of Female Basketball Teams’, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol 60, No. 2, pp. 152-158.

Garside, J. (2012), Email from Mr J Garside, BMC/MLTE Training Officer, 31^st Jan.

Kidman, L. & Hanrahan, S.J. (2011), The Coaching Process: A Practical Guide to Becoming an Effective Sports Coach, (3^rd Edition), Abingdon: Routledge.

Shortt, N. (2012), Email from Mr N Shortt, Expedition Training and Development Manager, Outlook Expeditions, 30^th Jan.

The Coaching Process.  Applied Coaching [online] available from: http://moodle.chi.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=58608 [accessed: 1/2/12].