Coaching in the youth participation sport domain prioritises athlete health, well-being and holistic development. The literature uses a range of overlapping terms—youth participation coach, recreational, grassroots, and community coaches—to describe practitioners who aim to promote mass participation and positive early sporting experiences. These coaches typically operate in low-intensity, enjoyment-focused environments centred on basic skill development and social interaction.
Youth participation coaches are expected to design developmentally appropriate sessions that foster fundamental movement skills and broader outcomes such as competence, confidence, connection and character. The developmental framework described by Côté and Abernethy divides youth sport into sampling (ages 6–12), specialising (13–15) and investment (16+) years; during the sampling years, recreational participation is emphasised and coaches’ pedagogical approaches must align with these phases. Delivering effective, developmentally appropriate coaching therefore requires specialised coaching knowledge and competence.
Despite clarity about what coaches should achieve, empirical understanding of how youth participation coaches acquire, consolidate and enact that knowledge remains limited. Coaches learn from a continuum of formal and informal sources; the perceived value of these sources can depend on how well they align with coaches’ needs and the delivery mode.
The authors conducted a scoping review informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework (2005). Leading sport and education databases were searched for empirical literature published between January 2010 and April 2025 that addressed coach education and learning in youth participation sport. Following screening, eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were descriptively mapped. The mapped studies were further analysed using quantitative and qualitative approaches to identify themes and patterns within the literature.
Descriptive quantitative mapping of the eleven included articles revealed several patterns. Most studies examined the effectiveness of coach education programs (CEPs) focused on autonomy-supportive coaching, particularly within team sports. The bulk of the research was conducted in Western countries. These findings indicate an empirical emphasis on formal program evaluation, and a narrower topical concentration (autonomy-supportive approaches) and setting (team-based, Western contexts).
Qualitative analysis of the included articles identified four core topics:
Learning enablers: Social learning mechanisms (mentoring, peer discussion, learning communities) and learning modes that align with coaches’ practical needs were reported as facilitators. Informal, practice-embedded learning was often valued because it matched coaches’ day-to-day concerns.
Learning challenges: Barriers included time and cost constraints—particularly salient because many youth participation coaches are part-time or volunteer—and perceptions that CEPs sometimes fail to address the complexities of coaches’ real-world contexts.
Coach learning outcomes: Studies reported gains in knowledge and sometimes in coaching behaviour, especially where programs targeted autonomy-supportive practices. Outcomes were, however, variably reported across studies.
Factors influencing impact on practice: The transfer of learning into coaching practice depended on alignment of content with coaches’ contexts, delivery mode, and opportunities for continued support and reflection. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a shift toward online and hybrid delivery, improving accessibility for some coaches but raising questions about the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced approaches.
The review summarises how coaches draw on both formal and informal learning sources. Informal, social learning (discussion with peers, mentoring) is often preferred because it connects directly to practice. Less experienced coaches, however, may value formal learning for foundational knowledge. Delivery mode appears important: online and hybrid models—whose adoption increased during the COVID-19 pandemic—improved accessibility, but empirical evidence validating technology-enhanced learning in coach education remains limited. Prior reviews and included studies called for further empirical work to establish the effectiveness of these delivery modes.
The specific demands of youth participation coaching—planning developmentally appropriate sessions, promoting holistic outcomes and ensuring youth protection—mean CEPs need to be tailored to these roles. Yet attendance is constrained by coaches’ part-time or voluntary status and the perceived costs (time, money), and some coaches report CEPs do not sufficiently reflect the “complex coaching context” in which they operate.
Based on the mapped evidence, the authors propose several directions for future research and program development:
Prioritise studies that measure the impact of learning on coaches’ actual practice and on athlete outcomes, not just immediate knowledge gains.
Conduct research in non-Western contexts and across a wider range of sport types (beyond team sports) to broaden external validity.
Use larger and more diverse samples of coaches, including volunteers and part-time practitioners, to capture variation in learning needs and constraints.
Examine learning in relation to coaches’ specific roles and contexts to ensure CEP content aligns with real-world coaching complexity.
Further evaluate technology-enhanced and hybrid delivery models to determine what formats most effectively support transfer of learning.
The scoping review mapped a small set of empirical articles (eleven) and therefore reflects current but limited evidence. Patterns observed—such as emphasis on CEPs for autonomy-supportive coaching and Western, team-sport settings—point to concentration in the literature rather than comprehensive coverage. The review underscores the value coaches place on informal and social learning but also highlights the continued need for empirically grounded CEPs that account for logistic constraints and contextual complexity of youth participation coaching.
Overall, the review identified clear gaps and actionable recommendations for researchers and practitioner-educators seeking to better prepare and support youth participation coaches in delivering developmentally appropriate, holistic sport experiences for young athletes.