When taking a learner into a new environment for the first time, there is often so much information for them to take in. New Sights, new sounds, new smells, new sensations. We often underestimate how much information there is being fed into people that have rarely or never experienced the outdoors before. Nevertheless, we then usually will front load an outdoor activity session with a wealth of information, about how the activity runs, how things work and most importantly, vital safety instructions. Cognitive load theory would suggest that this is a complex task for a learner’s working memory. Having to process the vast wealth of sensory information that they are being exposed to is a difficult task for anyone’s working memory. This becomes particularly important when we consider that the information, we would like them to retain and use, relates to their safety.

So, the question remains: how can we use a knowledge of cognitive load theory to enhance instructional delivery?

Firstly, let’s consider the capacity of short-term memory, suggested to be 7+/- 2 items (Sweller, 1988). This means for practitioners; we need to consider what is ultimately essential to the session we are running. Can we cut down the information that we provide to learners in a session to what is only necessary for them to progress to the next stage of that activity? Is there any opportunity to chunk information into reduced sections? How many pieces of new information are being given to the learner, and is there something that can be removed? This approach may sound reductionist, but through considering when and how much information is presented can increase retention over a longer period.

How information is presented can also have a great impact on its retention. If auditory and visual sensory input are processed separately, how can we use this to improve learners’ retention of instructions during a didactic part of a session. Through using more than one mode of communication, instructors can decrease the extraneous load on working memory, and therefore increasing the capacity of the working memory (Sweller, 1988). However, this use of guided instruction has its limits. As learners begin to construct schemas, and develop their skills in practice, what they have retained in their working memory will be transferred to their long-term memory, which is encoded semantically (Sweller, 1988), therefore making it important to connect this new learning to existing knowledge.

Therefore, as a learner’s knowledge increases, it is important to develop opportunities for un-guided problem solving. Consider, in a pioneering session a demonstration of a clove hitch is completed in silence, with learners watching in silence too. Consider in an archery session, learners watch as an instructor loads a bow with an arrow and takes a shot in silence. Through doing this the instructor can guide a learners focus to the mechanical aspects of the task. Interestingly, from here the learner can formulate and ask questions about the task and consider how they may achieve it themselves. This way of visually encoding information removes the auditory information needing to be processed by the brain and therefore can reduce cognitive load, allowing the learner to formulate questions based on their own existing knowledge. This method is not new, Gattegno (1963) first proposed the idea of silent instruction and it has since been supported highlighting the discovery element of the practice.

Crucial to this practice is the ability for the practitioner to be adaptive to the needs of the group they are working with and identify individual needs within the learners. For example, practitioners need to recognise when learners are not taking in the important information that is being presented to them and to move fluidly with the learners, being prepared to scaffold difficult tasks and progressively increasing the demands placed on the learners (Sherrington, 2019). Central to this ability is a diffractive mindset.  In physics, reflection is a process where light, or sound waves are reflected off an obstacle, and is concerned with forming an objective representation of phenomenon. Whereas diffraction involves the spreading of waves when they encounter a barrier or opening. A more diffractive practice would be one that encourages the practitioner to move with the obstacles and openings that they may encounter in their practice. Given the wide range of changes, obstacles and opportunities that exist within outdoor education, this model could encourage practitioners to consider how they can develop their practice. In becoming a diffractive practitioner, Hill suggests three components of diffractive practice: becoming with the world, displacing and diffracting the selves who teach, and embracing difference, interference, and spaces-in-between (2017).

Becoming with the world involves a recognition that realities are a result of human and non-human entities interacting with one another, and that power emerges as a result of interactions between entities (Hill, 2017). In outdoor education, the environment and physicality of resources is central to effective practice. Considering how learners are interacting with the spaces around them, can lead to an enhanced understanding of the process of learning that emerges because of this interaction.

Displacing and diffracting those who teach can be achieved through nomadic identity. This idea of a nomadic identity for educators suggests that the practitioner can commit to multiple identities throughout the course of their practice. This may be a shift from teacher to learner in that knowledge can be co-constructed through their interactions. In outdoor education, taking a step back and embracing the opportunity for learners to safely take the lead, can lead to an enriching co-creation of knowledge. In this way the ‘diffractive practitioner can be viewed as a displaced subject, occupying a variety of professional selves, travelling on a divergent path and setting up encampments along the way’ (Hill, 2017, p. 11). This is something that can only be achieved through the flexibility of our identities as practitioners.  

Reflective practice considers theory and practice, in a manner that extends, enhances, and disrupts practice through theory (Brookfield, 1995). Diffractive practice produces new phenomena and new possibilities for practice through embracing multiplicity, difference, and divergence (Hill, 2017). Through developing diffractive practice, practitioners can move with the potential interference of demands on cognitive load and embrace the difference of groups and individual learners. Therefore, recognising that not all strategies will be as effective for all groups and individuals.

References

Brookfield, S., 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco:: Jossey-Bass.

Gattegno, C., 1963. The silent Way. 1st ed. New York: Educational Solutions Worldwide Inc..

Hill, C., 2017. More-than-reflective practice: Becoming a diffractive practitioner. Teacher Learning and Professional Development, pp. 1-17.

Sherrington, T., 2019. Rosenshines principles in action. 1st ed. Woodbridge, Suffolk: John Catt.

Sweller, J., 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, Issue 12, pp. 257-285.