Effectiveness of Modular Training at Farmers’ Training Center: Evidence from Fogera District, South Gondar Zone, Ethiopia

Veiw figure View Table

The slack periods of production system in Fogera are around October and February. Length and styles of the trainings were done in line with the interest of majority of the farmers. Here the most challenging issues were training methods and the proportions of methodology of the training. The syllabus has been designed to be 80% practical and 20% theory (Adebaby et al., 2007). Training sessions were conducted for different durations as short as 30 days to 90 days. For instance, Alember was conducted training from April to June, Woji was conducted for one month of training in February, Woreta. Zuria was delivered from April to May and Shina was trained in April. Most of the trainings were delivered two days per week and for 2 to 4 hrs daily. This training duration was designed by development agents and Office of Agriculture and Rural Development of the district considering cropping seasons and other technical and agro- ecological situations.

Table 2. Training delivery dimensions

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

Based on the data gathered from interview schedules, 91.7 % respondents explained that the training content was relevant in terms of the training contents towards farming communities; whereas 8.3 % respondents explained that the training content was not relevant, but it doesn’t mean that only training contents can achieve the stated objectives for successful training results. Duration, proportion, seasons, techniques and styles of the training were very important methodological aspects that could affect the effectiveness of modular training.

Poor time management, more lecture types of training, low participatory method of training, poorly organized delivery of the training without lesson plan were the major limitations of the program. Trainees also were not participated in full commitment and interest; rather they were recruited as if some benefit or incentive is being paid by the trainers. Alember and Woji centers used somehow practical trainings such as framed, transitional and traditional beehives to compare and contrast traditional with modern techniques of practice and its application in terms of production and productivity. They had been taking practical training on bee splitting, transferring, wax making, honey harvesting techniques and some other important tasks to increase the productivity of honey. The remaining two PAs (Woreta Zuria and Shina) were selected and trained on dairy and sheep fattening practices.

There was no follow up, feedback and continuous assessment at the time of training. Moreover, researcher’s observation also indicated that there was difficulty in getting organized, disaggregated, reliable, timely and accurate data on related issues of modular training due to many reasons such as turnover of development agents, low level of data compiling techniques, low management skills, lack of stationeries and lack of commitment at all levels.

3.1. Knowledge

A ‘Teacher-made-test’ was administered on apiculture, dairy and fattening and independent sample t-test was applied to compare the mean difference of trained and untrained farmers to look at their knowledge gaps.

Table 3. Knowledge test of sample households

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

The t-test showed that there was high significant (p< 0. 01) difference between mean scores of trained and untrained farmers (probability p= 0.004). Knowledge test indicates that the trained farmers had better level of knowledge than untrained farmers.

From the result obtained, it could be justified as, modular training kept the farmers more knowledgeable in promoting those commodities, especially with reference to beekeeping and dairy. The result of the study was in line with the findings of Babur (2009), who reported that knowledge of coffee management practices of members of Farmer Field School was higher than the non members. Although the training content is different, these findings agreed with the findings of Kefyalew (2006) and Tsion (2008) that trainings kept the trained farmers more informed and acquired knowledge.

Case Study

Fiseha Binega (Trained farmer) in Alember, Fogera district

This case study was focused on the knowledge gained from modular training in beekeeping practices. The effectiveness of modular training in promoting apiculture practices was best illustrated by one of trained farmer who lives in Alember peasant association, Fogera district. Fiseha Binega was a beekeeper aged 35 years and married who stated about the effectiveness of modular training in beehives management and other related beekeeping practices.

He said, “Five years back, I was selected as one of the training participants in beehive management in the village. Beekeeping is challenging, but it is an interesting enterprise because it needs serious follow-up, skill of management and experience. I have actively participated in farmers’ training through group discussion; practical demonstration and group exercise because more than 15 beehives are belonging to me. Through group learning with the help of the facilitator (Amare Genetu), I have already acquired knowledge about the bee splitting, honey harvesting systems, transitional beehives making, dearth period management, housing, transferring of bees, wax making, and other bee-enemies management practices. In this aspect, traditional bee hives were not able to give honey more than 5 kg per hive per year. Currently, honey production has been raised to 25 kg per improved hive per year. This change would never have happened, if I would not have participated in modular training. I have performed practically what I have learned in the Farmers’ Training Center.”

He explained further as “Now-a-days, I use improved traditional, transitional and framed beehives. In the near future, I want to increase the number of beehives with proper management practices. As you see, in addition to appropriate management, there is a big natural forest “Alemsaga” in close proximity to my home that gives additional potential for honey production. In general, this is the outcome of training from which knowledge and better practices were acquired.”

3.2. Practice

Practice test was administered on trained and untrained farmers for apiculture, dairy and fattening. The mean difference of practices of trained and untrained farmers was analyzed using independent sample t-test and results were presented below in Table 5.

Table 4. Practice difference of sample households

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

The mean scores of practices of trained respondents were significantly higher than that of untrained respondents. This may be due to the fact that trained farmers might have acquired farming practices of beekeeping, dairy and fattening with ‘learning by doing’ and the trainings offered by farmer training centers have been improved the level of application of the scientific recommendations. Trained farmers had frequent contacts with facilitators during the training periods that result in to higher knowledge in promoting diverse commodities practices in their locality. Babur (2009) also stated that the management practices of coffee by farmer field school member farmers were significantly higher than those of non-FFS member farmers.

3.3. Attitude

Based on the Likert scale measurement, the mean scores of trained and untrained farmers’ attitude were analyzed using independent sample t-test.

Table 5. Attitude difference of sample respondents

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

The mean score of attitude of trained farmers was significant at 1% (p<0.01) of improvement due to the training in Farmers’ Training Center on agricultural practices, especially with reference to the beekeeping, dairy and fattening of small ruminants. This showed that trained farmers had more favorable attitude towards those market- oriented commodities as compared to untrained farmers. This was in line with the findings of Kefyalew (2006), Tsion (2008) and Babur (2009), who stated that training by formal and informal institutions such as community skill training centers, research centers, farmer field schools, and exposing ones to scientific information help individuals to think rationally and logically in all aspects of the life.

3.4. Actor Linkage Map

Keys of linkage strength

Strong linkage

Medium linkage

Weak linkage

Key actors were categorized in to public, private sectors and NGOs. Thus, a total of 12 actors were identified involved in modular training at Farmer Training Center in study area. Actor linkage map was created by placing the Farmer Training Centre (FTC) at the center and connecting other actors based on their contribution to the system. Prime movers were internal and external actors who took decisions that were most important to the system. These prime movers in the diagram were also called “drivers of the change”. The map showed intensities of each actor’s linkage. Hence, farmers, Development agents (DAs), Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (WoARD), cooperatives, Amhara Credit and Saving Institutions (ACSI) and Improving Productivity Market Success (IPMS) project were identified as primary actors. Administrators, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DoARD), Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) were identified in a medium category, and Agricultural, Technical, Vocational, Education and Training (ATVETs) and primary schools were classified as tertiary level actors.

DAs, WoARD, farmers, cooperatives, and ACSI had strong linkage with FTCs. The probable reason for strong and two way linkages might be those institutions were exist in the locality so that information sharing and daily communication was possible. IPMS project had strong but unidirectional linkage with FTCs and this project supports only four FTCs in the Woreda. Actors such as DoARD, BoARD and MoARD had medium and unidirectional linkages. These actors had their own roles for FTCs, but they didn’t get direct services and benefits from FTCs whereas “Administration” had medium and mutual linkages and obtained services from FTCs. Two actors (schools and Woreta ATVET College) were identified as weak actors and have unidirectional linkage and their roles were insignificant based on its relationship.

3.5. Actor Linkage Matrix

Actor linkage matrix format was more useful than actor linkage map. The advantage of using this format was not only for clarification of existence and type of linkage but also it tells the frequency and intensity of contact among actors themselves. Thus a total of 13 actors had been identified with respondents and key informants who have been involved in training process and establishment of FTCs. From the Table below, ‘Nil’ indicates there was no institutional linkage between actors. In addition to the prescience of linkages between institutions, their strength (1. Indicates strong linkage 2. Describes medium linkage 3. Shows weak linkage) was also explained using numbers.

Linkage matrix described with various activities such as training, material provision, module preparation and distribution, funding, input and credit supply, technical advice, communication, information sharing, management, supervision, apprenticeship programs and other similar activities.

Figure 1. Actor linkage map Source: Own qualitative data (2010)

Download as

View current figure in a new window

Figures index

Veiw figure View Figure

View next figure

Figure 2. Knowledge flow among actors Source: Own presentation

Download as

View current figure in a new window

Figures index

Veiw figure View Figure

View previous figure

Table 6. Linkage matrix of development actors

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

3.6. Knowledge and Information Sharing

Frequency of contact and sources of information on Figure 2, farmers were the center of knowledge flow diagram. Information and knowledge sharing were involved in trainings. Information that accessed by farmers was from trainings, advice, technical support, experience share, market prices, inputs and consultancy services.

The primary sources of knowledge and information sharing were Extension Agents, market dealers, neighbors, FTCs and WoARD. Farmers had accessed in daily, weekly or monthly basis for information from different actors for their own purposes. The probable reason might be those actors living with farmers had more close contact than other development partners.

ACSI, administrators, and cooperatives were secondary sources of information for farmers that had less frequency of contact with farmers followed by projects, NGOs and research institutions. It indicates that the possibility of getting knowledge by farmers from NGOs and projects was very low. Hence, this explanation has the same opinion with the findings of Deribe (2007) who stated as “neighbors, DAs, relatives and religious organizations were the major and most important sources of information for farmers.”

3.7. Positive Deviance

Two FTCs (Alember and Woji) were established with participation of farmers. Even though, the training was conducted in Shina and Woreta Zuria, FTCs were not constructed based on the requirements of the design of FTCs.

Table 7. Farmers’ participation in functioning of FTCs

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

Activities involved in establishment of FTCs were construction, committee mobilization, and other related actions. Participation was in terms of labor, fencing, land preparation, material provision and awareness creation. Most of activities were achieved through passive participation that means people had participated in by being told what was going to happen announced by administrators or development agents. Nevertheless, in this regard, participation of trained farmers was better than untrained farmers. The possible reason might be trained farmers had close relation to development agents and administrators, or might have access for information about the roles of FTCs due to most of trained farmers were involved in different committee activities that made them more committed towards the roles FTCs.

Conducting training, motivation, provision of local sitting materials, selection of trainees, knowledge and information flow, deliver extension services, socialization (arbitration, discussions, appointments, and the like), storage services for farm implements, served as office for development agents, trial and demonstration of improved practices and other related activities. Knowing positive deviant FTCs helped to take further actions and corrective measures in both sides of its strength and weakness.

Box 1. Alember Farmer Training Center

Download as

Veiw figure View Table