By Nigel Williams.
The aim here is to be thought-provoking and to encourage thinking around the what, why, how, when, where and possibly even who we are teaching. We tend not to look too much under the bonnet of why, what and how we teach navigation, it is often based on our own teaching and assessment experiences and we repeat the processes without consideration of underlying knowledge or research, something I have often been guilty of over the years.
There is some evidence, that on cross-country, ML-type navigation legs where there is a range of route options, starting at the destination point and planning backwards is a more successful and efficient approach. However, the idea can start with the novice simply picking out a catching feature if they overshoot the path junction and working back a few tick-off features to their current location.
About 25 years ago, a UK university (I think it was John Moores University in Liverpool) gathered together a group of novice navigators and a group of orienteers. Each was given the same piece of map with a start and destination point marked, but in between those points were half a dozen strips of sticky paper which hid the map detail of possible route options. They were asked to remove just one strip at a time in order to decide on a route to the destination point. They were given an open time frame to do this but then stopped when everyone had removed at least one strip.
It turned out that most of the experienced navigators had removed a strip from the destination end, whereas most of the novices had removed a strip at the start end.
Swedish orienteers are among the most successful navigators in the world and have carried out numerous research projects into teaching navigation skills. They teach a “Planning Backwards” process.
The aim here is to be thought-provoking and to encourage thinking around the what, why, how, when, where and possibly even who we are teaching. We tend not to look too much under the bonnet of why, what and how we teach navigation, it is often based on our own teaching and assessment experiences and we repeat the processes without consideration of underlying knowledge or research, something I have often been guilty of over the years.
There is some evidence, that on cross-country, ML-type navigation legs where there is a range of route options, starting at the destination point and planning backwards is a more successful and efficient approach. However, the idea can start with the novice simply picking out a catching feature if they overshoot the path junction and working back a few tick-off features to their current location.
About 25 years ago, a UK university (I think it was John Moores University in Liverpool) gathered together a group of novice navigators and a group of orienteers. Each was given the same piece of map with a start and destination point marked, but in between those points were half a dozen strips of sticky paper which hid the map detail of possible route options. They were asked to remove just one strip at a time in order to decide on a route to the destination point. They were given an open time frame to do this but then stopped when everyone had removed at least one strip.
It turned out that most of the experienced navigators had removed a strip from the destination end, whereas most of the novices had removed a strip at the start end.
Swedish orienteers are among the most successful navigators in the world and have carried out numerous research projects into teaching navigation skills. They teach a “Planning Backwards” process.
Multiple Ds
In the UK hill walking qualification world, we seem to have developed the idea of anywhere between 5 and 7 Ds on each navigation leg – destination, direction, distance, duration, detail, danger, can’t remember a 7th in fact, I struggle to remember 3 of almost anything these days. I suspect it may have come from the military, where there may be some logic for it. It may also favour male cognitive navigation processes more than female cognitive navigation processes. Regardless though, it is hard to see the relevance of lots of Ds to novice navigators at Bronze NNAS level, largely following tracks and making a decision at a junction.
Most of these Ds are not actually part of making a route plan. They come following the process of making a route plan and are really aimed at communicating information. Ticking off a list is often required by someone assessing navigation competence. We may teach this as just being a guide to help people process information, but we sometimes get locked into it as a rule-based process, or at least some candidates do.
There are three main reasons why people get a Mountain Leader deferral for navigation. Poor contour interpretation, a lack of a sound plan or strategy, an inability to relocate when misplaced. (I researched this over a number of years). The lack of a plan often results in one or both of the other two deferral reasons. It is often demonstrated when a candidate opts for a straight line bearing cross country directly to the destination instead of linking up several handrail features to an appropriate attack point.
Anxiety is sometimes defined as worrying about what might happen in the future and can be associated with risk aversion decisions. Stress is about what is happening now and can be associated with risk-taking decisions. I have occasionally witnessed this on ML assessments when a candidate awaiting their turn to lead is asked for their plan for the next leg in the knowledge that they are not being asked to lead it. They will often make sound route planning decisions, following handrails when possible and minimising the risk of an error. In contrast, the candidate chosen to lead the leg, having made sound route choices up to this point, now under stress, suddenly opts for the riskier straight-line cross-country option. Their process is under stress having missed the planning phase they start to run through the Ds. Destination – tick. Direction – take a bearing to it – tick, distance, measure it – tick etc and then set off in a straight line counting paces.
So here is my personal planning approach (of course, other options are available) as a mountaineering instructor and orienteering coach for over three decades (as well as having served in the military for 16 years). Destination, Strategy and Design. Just three things, shame “Strategy” doesn’t begin with a D, but that actually makes it stand out rather than getting misinterpreted.
Destination – Be clear about the location on the map and what this might look like on the ground. It may inform the strategy you need, such as the direction of approach.
Strategy – Look around the destination for the most obvious and helpful attack point and catching feature on the map; if you change either of those, if affects the other.
Design – Design the route to the attack point and the destination; this can encompass some of the other Ds. I think “Design” is a better word than “Detail” as it focuses on the shape of a route which links to strategy better than “Detail”.
If you work through this planning process you will probably do it once. If you go from the start, it may take several goes at designing a route as you reach a possible attack point option and then decide there might be a better alternative.
Lastly, if we plan backwards in our heads, we should be able to communicate to others the story of our leg from the start point (a reverse of our cognitive planning process). It is here that we might add in detail, distance, direction, duration etc., with a full understanding as to why this is our chosen route. In addition, we should have more reference points to help us relocate should we lose track of where we are. If changes to the route are required along the way, we will have informed underlying reasons for how and why we might change it.
Nigel Williams
June 2023