Front Cover
 Title Page
 Monday, 11 June
 Tuesday, 12 June
 Wednesday, 13 June
 Thursday, 14 June
 Friday, 15 June
 Monday, 18 June
 Case study in gender issues and...
 Suggestions on writing case...
 Friday, 22 June
 Teaching, learning and learning...
 The lecturette
 Tips on discussion and integrating...
 Co-training by James A. McCaffery...
 Co-trainers guide
 Questionnaire D'Evaluation
 List of reference materials presented...
 A: FSSP participants
 B: Designing effective farming...

Title: Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053821/00001
 Material Information
Title: Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa a farming systems support project workshop, activities, materials and evaluation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa U.S.A., June 11 to June 22, 1984
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Norem, Rosalie Huisinga
Abbott, Eric A
University of Iowa
Farming Systems Support Project
Conference: Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa, (1984
Publisher: the University
Place of Publication: Ames Iowa
Publication Date: 1984]
Subject: Agricultural systems -- Congresses -- Africa, West   ( lcsh )
Agricultural education -- Study and teaching -- Africa, West   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: "Report prepared by Rosalie H. Norem and Eric A. Abbott"--P. 1.
General Note: "Sponsored by the Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida"--P. 1.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053821
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: African Studies Collections in the Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001938055
oclc - 34138637
notis - AKB4189

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
    Monday, 11 June
        Page A 3
    Tuesday, 12 June
        Page A 4
    Wednesday, 13 June
        Page A 5
        Page A 6
    Thursday, 14 June
        Page A 7
        Page A 8
        Page A 9
    Friday, 15 June
        Page A 10
    Monday, 18 June
        Page A 11
        Page A 12
    Case study in gender issues and agricultural development: A west African perspective
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
        Page B 4
        Page B 5
        Page B 6
        Page B 7
        Page B 8
        Page B 9
        Page B 10
        Page B 11
        Page B 12
        Page B 13
        Page B 14
    Suggestions on writing case studies
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
        Page C 3
        Page C 4
        Page C 5
        Page C 6
        Page C 7
        Page C 8
        Page C 9
    Friday, 22 June
        Page C 10
        Page C 11
        Page C 12
        Page C 13
        Page C 14
        Page C 15
        Page C 16
        Page C 17
        Page C 18
    Teaching, learning and learning styles
        Page C 19
        Page C 20
        Page C 21
        Page C 22
        Page C 23
    The lecturette
        Page C 24
        Page C 25
    Tips on discussion and integrating field work into courses for international participants
        Page C 26
        Page C 27
    Co-training by James A. McCaffery and Wilma Gormley
        D 1
        D 2
        D 3
        D 4
    Co-trainers guide
        E 1
        E 2
        E 3
        E 4
        E 5
        E 6
        E 7
        E 8
    Questionnaire D'Evaluation
        F 0
        F 1
        F 2
        F 3
        F 4
        F 5
        F 6
        F 7
        F 8
        F 9
    List of reference materials presented or available at ISU FSSP workshop
        G 1
        G 2
        G 3
    A: FSSP participants
        H 1
        H 2
        H 3
        H 4
    B: Designing effective farming systems training for West Africa
        I 1
        I 2
        I 3
        I 4
        I 5
        I 6
Full Text
-, 7 th

Designing Effective Farming Systems
Training for West Africa-
A Farming Systems Support
Project Workshop


Materials and Evaluation

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa U.S.A.

June 11 to June 22, 1984

Designing Effective Farmiin Systers raining
For West Africa

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Held 11-22 June, 1984.

Sponsored by the Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida.

Report prepared by Rosalie H. Norem and Eric A. Abbott, Iowa State University,
Coordinators and Trainers.

The training for trainers workshop was the first workshop designed to prepare
trainers for doing training in farming systems. Past efforts have focused on the
development of individual expertise in aspects of farming systems but have not
addressed the need to train these experts in how to present farming systems
concepts and activities to others.

The workshop also was designed to focus specifically on the unique farming
systems situation in West Africa, including the Francophone-Anglophone
distinctions, cropping and livestock patterns and the agricultural research and
extension institutional structures. Because of the experimental nature of the
workshop, it was planned as an interactive training workshop, relying heavily on
the exchange of information by participants concerning existing programs,
training experiences and country needs.


The training for trainers workshop, "Designing Effective Farming Systems for West
Africa" was held at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 11-22 June, 1984. Rosalie
H. Norem, Associate Professor of Family Environment and Eric A. Abbott, Associate
Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, were co-coordinators and
trainers. Kathy Alison and Robert Werge, Office of International Cooperation and
Development (OICD) were consultants and trainers. Werge participated for the
first week and Alison for the two week period. The workshop was sponsored by the
Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP), University of Florida, Gainesville,

Guest presenters included Dr. Harold Crawford, Iowa State University, Ms. Louise
Fresco, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, and Dr. Mary Rojas,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In addition, all
participants were involved in the presentation of sessions planned by small
groups as part of the second week activities.

In order to provide the opportunity for workshop participants to share
experiences and information from FSR&D projects in their countries, several
luncheon and evening sessions were organized by the participants themselves.
These sessions provided an informal setting for the exchange of ideas and also
for important network building.


Participants were selected by the Farming Systems Support Project, University of
Florida, and invited to attend the workshop. Individuals were selected based on
interest or experience in farming systems and training and to provide the
opportunity for widening the training expertise base of the FSSP.

There were 25 participants, representing eight countries, involved in the
workshop. All participants have completed either an tLA./M.S. or Ph.D. or its
equivalent in their primary discipline and have had extensive international
experience. There was approximately equal representation from Agricultural
Economics, Agricultural Sciences, and the Social Sciences. Most participants
identified previous knowledge of farming systems research and development (FSR&D)

as a strength they brought to the workshop. Previous experience as trainers
varied among workshop participants from persons with extensive training
experience to persons with no experience as trainers. The majority of
participants had very little or no previous experience as trainers. A list of
persons attending the workshop is attached as Appendix A.

Goals and objectives

The overall plan of the workshop included focusing on various training concepts
and techniques during the first week of the workshop. The second week of the
workshop was planned to provide each participant with the experience of planning
and presenting a FSR&D training activity. The activity planned by the
participant was to be viewed in context of a macro-plan for an FSR&D training
workshop for a specified target group.

The initial workshop goals, objectives and tentative schedule were prepared
before communication with workshop participants, because of time constraints
after selection of those participants. A copy of the original goals, objectives
and schedule is attached to this report as Appendix B. Despite some changes in
the second week schedule, the initial plan for each participant to be involved in
designing, presenting and receiving feedback about a training activity for FSR&D
was followed.

Mmxday, 11 June

Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa

The workshop opened with a welcome to participants from Dr. J.T. Scott, director
of international agricultural programs at Iowa State University. Dr. Rosalie PL
Norem, co-coordinator of the workshop, then followed with a welcome on behalf of
the training team and an introduction of all participants.

1he first session of the afternoon, led by Norem, began consideration of the
purposes and objectives of the workshop. Since most participants came to the
workshop with extensive experience in farming systems, but not necessarily in
training for farming systems, the group was divided into small teams to discuss
the question, "How are farming systems and training similar?

Similarities found included:
1. Both involve sharing knowledge without imposing views on others;

2. Both begin by assessing needs;

3. Both are comprehensive, involving attitudes, knowledge and practice;

4. Both are a process rather than a discipline, and depend on the contextual
situation in which they are applied;

5. Both involve two-way communication, sharing experiences and insights;

6. Both involve complex systems analysis.

Day Two began with a continuation of the discussion on needs assessment and
setting objectives by Rosalie Norem. Views were solicited from participants on
what they wanted from the training, and then formal and informal methods of
carrying out a needs assessment in training were presented.

Group members expressed concern about just what definition of farming systems
would be used (whether it would be "the one my mother used in the field, or
FSR&D"), and whether sessions would have a specific country focus or not.

Four methods of needs assessment presented included:
1. Correspondence with participants prior to their arrival to find out what they
want and what they can contribute. (Problem: it is often impossible to get names
in advance)
2. Large group discussion, which allows many ideas to come forth in the presence
of all participants. (Problem: shy persons or those from certain cultures are
not likely to participate)
3. Small group discussion, which encourages all persons to put forth their
ideas. (Problem: although one gets ideas from everyone, groups may go in quite
different directions which makes synthesis difficult)
4. Questionnaire distributed to all participants. (Problem: everyone contributes,
but synthesis which comes from open discussion is lacking).
As a part of the session, participants were divided into small groups to design an
initial needs assessment for the first day of a two-week workshop on FSR methods.

The session was followed by a continuation of the work of the group to set
objectives for the workshop. Rosalie Norem led discussion on setting these
objectives, and then four small groups were created to suggest objectives.

The objectives presented by the four groups were:
1. a. To improve our understanding of training as a process involving planning,
organization, implementation and evaluation, and to improve our skills at each of
these levels;
b. Key concepts within this include the ideas of:
1. stages (planning, organization, implementation and evaluation;
2. training as a process;
c. It was the opinion of this group that the 'Process' can be adapted
to a variety of audiences and environments.

2. With a long term perspective, and after identifying target audiences, to
develop appropriate and effective training for those target audiences so they can
carry out farming systems activities in their countries or region.

3. To determine objectives, content and expected outcomes for different
audiences. This should include:
a. appropriate needs assessment
b. protocol and logistical requirements
c. integration with other programs and priorities (structural considerations)

4. a. Assessing training needs and developing objectives for a variety of FSR
target groups;
b. Organizing content, activities and logistics for FSR training.

Tuesday, 12 June

On Tuesday afternoon, Rob Werge and Kathy Alison of OIC) (Office of International
Cooperation and Development) led a presentation on considering learning styles in
FSR training. This involves balancing training teams on learning styles,
adapting one's training approach to the style of participants, and insuring that
training is appropriate to the cultural and administrative level of participants.

As a part of this session, each participant completed a Learning-style profile as
developed by McBer and Company, Boston. Reflective versus active, and concrete
versus abstract styles were discussed in terms of appropriate training. It was
suggested that the exercise was only one of many important learning style
differences that trainers might need to take into account for successful FSR
work. Many participants expressed interest in this particular learning style
exercise, as well as others relevant to farming systems.

In the closing session of Day Two, it was noted by Werge that a variety of useful
training approaches had been presented both by means of discussion and actual
group experience. These included use of small groups and small group reports,
gathering immediate feedback, the problem of time management versus desire to
continue group discussion, utilization of many different presenters, changing the
physical arrangement of workshop facilities to promote discussion and
involvement, methods of setting objectives and needs assessment, and the
consideration of the value in this workshop of training as a process.

Wednesday, 13 June

Werge opened the third day's training with a presentation on a Seven-Step Model
for Planning Training, as adapted from A Trainer's Guide to Androgogy (John
Ingallis, 1973, rev. edition). The presentation utilized the training approach of
'he Lecturette.

The seven steps include: 1. Preplanning (needs assessment from sponsors or others
who have done it before, logistical preparation, team building of coordinators,
use of linear responsibility charts, materials development and adaptation,
selection of trainees and trainers, design of evaluation, and general or overall
design framework)
2. Look at Needs in the Field at start of workshop (values and interests of
participants as you meet them, revise training approach to suit these needs,
readapt materials)
3. Climate Setting Look with participants at objectives, set proper climate
for training activities
4. Reformulating objectives Create small groups to discuss objectives and
perhaps revise them to suit the needs of the group
5. Micro-design A day-by-day, hour-by-hour discussion of elements to achieving
6. Implementation The actual training itself
7. Evaluation Taking evaluation on a day-by-day or hour-by-hour basis and
reformulating objectives as needed.

The next presentation, led by Norem, discussed different levels at which
objectives are set. Trainers tend to have objectives of three different types.
The first deals with the content of the training, the second with the process, or
how the training is to be carried out, and the third with the product or products
which are expected to emerge from the training. Often, trainers start with a

very abstract statement of purpose--such as to bring people together to improve
FSR training. Then more specific goals are written, which define specific
skills or areas of knowledge to be covered. Next, objectives are written for
day-by-day, or session-by-session training to indicate where these goals are to
be implemented. Last, specific activities within sessions which will accomplish
the objectives are identified.

Often, training objectives are expressed well by the statement, "At the end of
training, the participant will be able to do the following. .. The
statements of specific activities should also include methods of evaluation to
see how well the objectives were reached.

Setting objectives includes consideration of the sponsoring group or groups, the
trainers, and the participants, but it must also consider the institutional and
logistical support available at the training site. Are there factions in the
country, some of which support the training and others of which do not? If so,
this must be taken into consideration, because trainees will hear about it via
the rumor mill and be sensitive to it.

Following the presentation, participants were divided into groups of three to
design the first day's activities for a two-week farming systems training course
to be held in a French-speaking West African country. At total of 25
participants-some researchers and some extension agents-- are invited. The
training team has arrived on Friday, and training begins Monday. The only set
item on the agenda is a scheduled welcome by the assistant minister of
agriculture from 9 to 10 the first morning.

Wednesday afternoon began with a presentation by Harold Crawford of Iowa State on
"Logistics of Training." The presentation focused on three aspects of logistics:
planning, physical arrangements, and program. Underlying good training, in
Crawford's view, is the necessity to make sure the basic needs of participants
are satisfied. Maslow's hierarchy of needs stresses that basic needs such as
food, shelter and clothing (security) come first, and learning in a workshop is
likely to be minimal unless these needs are met. Next come concerns about
safety, then social acceptance, self-esteem, and finally self-actualization.

Concerning logistical needs about planning, Crawford indicated that the following
are important:
a. Stress advance planning: ideas for training workshops that come in a relaxed
situation will be more creative and global;
b. Assistance: iake contact in advance with administrators so all involved
persons understand what is to be done and when;
c. Publicity: arrange in advance for group pictures, media articles, letters to
sponsors and speakers thanking them, etc.;
d. Followup: Take suggestions, and then follow up and tell those who suggested
ideas what you did in response;
e. Involvement of Trainees: Make sure that language and cultural needs of
trainees can be met. If culture avoids high participation in group discussion,
find another technique;

When considering physical logistical needs, Crawford mentioned:

a. When selecting the site, make sure necessary resources needed for training
are available. This includes equipment, space, electricity, or whatever else is

well as housing and meals.

When considering program needs, Crawford advised:

a. Treat the program like a flight-pay special attention to the takeoff and
landing (opening and closing) The opening and closing should feature the best
speakers, since first impressions are vital to motivating group participation,
and last impressions are what participants take home with them.

b. During the middle of the program, keep primary natural tendencies such as
gregariousness, competition, pride, etc. in mind. Use humor when possible.
Build the sessions like building blocks from one day to the next.

c. Effective closings may be done by trainers, but often a summary by a
participant helps draw the group together.

The final session of Wednesday was spent discussing workshop objectives and

Thursday, 14 June

Louise Fresco, Research Fellow, Agricultural University de leeuwenborch,
Wageningen, and a participant in the workshop, presented an invited paper
contrasting Francophone and Anglophone approaches to farming systems. The paper,
entitled "Approaches to the Study of Farming and Cropping Systems," was prepared
specifically for the workshop.

The French approach to farming systems, which began in 1929 with citrus trees,
was pioneered by de Schlippe. It was strongly commodity-oriented in its field
program, and had few horizontal linkages. In 1974, efforts were begun to combine
services with the creation of GERDAT (which later became CIRAD---Centre
International de Reserche pour l'Agriculture et la Developpement). Under the
revised system, a department for agrarian systems is administratively located
over the old 8 commodity divisions.

The presentation used Senegal as a case example of how a French approach to
farming systems research had been implemented. Attempts to improve groundnut
production resulted in a research system which: Became aware of small farmers as
key producers, focused on development of relevant technology for small farmers,
included extensive interviews with households which produced groundnuts,
developed recommendations based on interviews an test plot results, evaluated
recommendations away from research stations, and involved experts from many areas
including extension, credit and cooperatives. Results have shown that radical
changes in groundnut practices have been achieved in 40% of the experimental
areas, with corresponding increases in production. Evaluations have shown the
cost of the research effort was high, that it took a long term perspective, and
that larger farmers benefitted most from the new practices introduced.

In contrast with the Anglophone system, the French system generally begins with a
technical innovation rather than with farmers' felt needs. It is assumed that
farmers cannot accurately perceive their needs, at least not in the perspective
of new innovations. While French farming systems approaches utilize
geographical and historical information extensively, Anglophone farming systems
tend to ignore them.

tend to ignore them.

A small group discussion focusing on the presentation followed.
Several other differences between the Francophone and Anglophone systems were
discussed. They include:

Anglophone Francophone
Manpower More with grad More expatriates
degrees in country

Unit of Analysis More micro-isolated More macro

Education system Semesters or quarters, Longer term,
easier to integrate harder to integrate

Ag research system Less centralized More centralized

Thursday Afteroon

Farming systems training often has unique communication problems because of the
many diverse audiences it involves. Ihis includes persons from other countries,
from findings agencies, and from such government organizations as agricultural
research, extension, marketing or commodity agencies, and family assistance
groups. To maximize their impact, farming systems trainers must address the
communication needs of persons at these various levels and allocate sufficient
time to meet those needs.

Some examples of the various audiences and communication needs faced by FSR
trainers include the following:

1. Funding Agecies

Level 1: Funding Agencies, international agencies, other donors

Most field training in farming systems also involves communication
responsibilities to sponsoring agencies. This may include proposals for the type
of training to be held, communication with the host country, and coordination
with the sponsoring agency. A lack of effective pre-communication can mean that
the team arrives at the training site without a clear idea of its objectives.
Lack of communication with other international agencies may mean that the team
cannot benefit from the knowledge of similar training efforts undertaken by other

Training often involves the responsibility for writing a final report on how the
training program went. Ideally, this would be a joint product of participants
and trainers. However, if adequate preparation is not made for this
communication responsibility, it means one or two persons on the training team
may put the report together without the benefit of comments from other team

Training at this level also may mean the production of training manuals, or the
collection of data relevant to the training. Often, this material would be quite
useful to other training teams conducting similar workshops, but is not collected
and synthesized so it can be passed along to future trainers.

Level 2: In-Country Institutions Associated with Training

The training team usually has some responsibilities for communicating with top
officials of host country institutions both before and after the training takes
place. Typically, this takes the form of a brief courtesy visit to the minister
of agriculture, extension, research, etc. Participants observed that these
formal meetings are often not very productive in terms of information exchanged.
Informal meetings, which occur outside the office, provide the basis for
discussing more important information. Often, sensitive questions about the
extent of government support for farming systems, the exact intent of the
trainers, the characteristics of those assembled for training, etc. are handled
during these informal sessions.

These visits may also assist ministry officials (or the minister himself) in
preparing welcoming remarks for the trainees which are relevant to their needs.
Sufficient time must be allocated in the capital to handle these communication

Level 3: Regional or District Officials

Althc'.,gh national agricultural research and extension offices normally
communicate with regional and district offices to prepare for training that will
occur in their areas, participants stressed that one should not assume that this
has occurred. The arrival of the training team in the region sometimes will be
the first word the regional office has received that training will occur. Thus,
one of the communication responsibilities of the team will be to inform regional
staff about what the training will be, and to give information on support that
will be necessary. Regional officials often play a crucial role in providing
transportation, equipment, and communication services. Some regular means of
communication should be established to these regional officials during the
training if they are to provide support.

Level 4: The training audience itself

Participants cautioned against being over-prepared or under-prepared with
training materials. Trainers may need to bring a certain amount of training
material with them, because often it is not possible to make copies,
transparencies, or other materials at the training site. However, the more
materials are prepared and brought in with the trainers, the greater the danger
that these materials will be used whether they are relevant to the particular
group of trainees or not. Trainers should prepare some core materials in
advance, or materials which they believe cannot be produced on site (production
capabilities should be ascertained in advance). However, it is good training
policy to plan on preparing some materials on site which respond directly to
needs of those being trained. This insures that materials are directly relevant,
and will have added benefits if participants themselves help create the
materials. Because many training sites lack materials, it was suggested that
each training team carry with it a "survival kit" of materials so that spur-of-
the-moment training materials can be constructed on site. The contents of such a
kit are listed below.

Commuiications Survival Kit Items

scissors or art knife
chalk dustlesss) of several colors
flip chart with marking pens of
several colors
alligator clips to hold up charts,
screen, etc.
a sheet, for use as screen, display, etc.
bottle of white-out
small stapler

small artist's brush
India ink
masking tape
set of stencils
transparencies and holders

Friday, 15 June

Developing Training Mterials

Thursday participants were asked to list training
common use at FSR training or other field training
out of 22 responding use lectures and lecturettes,
use blackboards. Many small media approaches were
those responding.

materials or techniques
sites. Responses showed
16 use small groups, and
used by fewer than half

Media in use at FSR Training Sites

Lectures, lecturettes, etc.
Small group process
Booklets, brochures
Case studies
Role play
Xerox machine (or other copier)
Slide projector
Flip charts
Mimeograph or ditto machine
Audio tape (cassette recorder)
35 mn. photography
Overhead projector

Bulletin Board Display
Flannel Board
Folk Media (story telling
puppets, drama)
16 mn. film
Video tape
Offset printing
Screen printing

An Iowa State team of small media experts Dan 3rinkmeier, Celia Shapland and
Cesar Martinez discussed ways in which small media can be used to enhance
training. Small media include most non-mass media materials such as chalkboards,
displays, silkscreen, transparencies, bulletin boards, and flip charts. Via a
lecturette, Brinkmeier discussed how to maximize training impact using various
available small media, and how to substitute other materials when ones you
normally use may not be available. For example, silkscreen printing is an
alternative to copy machines or other printing devices for small numbers of
copies. Emphasis was on ways in which small media could be used to increase
interaction and learning among participants, by having them participate in the
creation of materials. Brinkmeier demonstrated methods by which non-artists
could enhance their ability to communicate by focusing attention on certain key
points, and making symbols and letters large enough to be read easily by

participants. Following the lecturette, participants tried various small media
techniques, including flip charts, using saran wrap in place of transparencies,
and use of stencils in lettering.

In the afternoon, participants were divided into teams to develop small media
materials to show what the best way is to physically organize a group to
maximize its training effectiveness. Each group had the same problem, but was
assigned a different set of small media. Materials used included: bulletin
beard, transparencies, flip charts, stencils, and colored chalk.

Week Two
Miday, 18 June

Monday morning began with Rosalie Norem presenting a summary of the first week's
evaluation, the needs assessments and previous large and small group discussions
of workshop objectives. As part of the first week evaluation, participants had
been asked to identify from a list those aspects of the week which were most
helpful. All aspects listed were named by at least one respondent, but several
were identified by a number of respondents. Those elements frequently
identified as most helpful from the first week were the Anglo-Francophone
presentation, the learning styles inventory, the media work, planning models,
seeing a variety of teaching methods, working in small groups, experiencing how
it feels to be a participant, the resource persons, identifying the need to set
objectives and restate them each day, giving reign to people's creativity vs.
being a methodological purist, the idea that training can be fun, and the
perception of pluralism in FSR. Other comments included the need for a statement
of FSSP goals for participants, allowing adequate time for activities and a
clarification of workshop purposes ahead of time.

The needs assessment done with participants indicated a variation in past
training experience from very experienced to no experience. More participants
had little experience as trainers. Several specific needs were identified which
participants hoped would be addressed in the second week of the workshop. Those
included help in structuring group exercises, facilitating discussion, dealing
with conflict, improvising, using examples, brainstorming and redesigning, team
work, planning objectives and using them to evaluate, and building self-
confidence as a trainer.

Participants had also been asked to indicate types of training they might be
doing in the future. Responses included training for researchers in FSR,
management training, FSR orientation, soil conservation, project design
workshops, training in specific FSR skills, organizing different disciplines in
developing FSR, developing training modules, networking, extension training,
evaluation, FSR training on U. S. campuses, field days, team meetings, training
for agricultural and economic development, and training related to the
institutionalization and long term development of FSR.

The group discussed various points from the above material and second week
objectives were presented along with a revised second week schedule. The
objectives for week two were agreed upon as follows.

1. To give each participant a chance to function as a trainer and
get feedback.

2. To give each participant experience in working as part of a train-

ing team.

3. To give each participant an introduction to and practice in using
at least one training technique.

4. To use selected training techniques to address specific FSR train-
ing concerns.

5. To give each participant an experience in setting objectives for,
designing, implementing and evaluating a farming systems training
session as part of an overall workshop design.

The revised second week schedule was presented as follows:

18 June, 1984
Monday a.m.

Monday p.m.

Review of objectives and first week evaluation
Setting of second week objectives
Presentation of training team exercise
Forming training teams to work with selected training techniques
Training teams begin work (depending on time)

Training teams continue working, reviewing steps in the selected
training techniques and beginning to plan their training

19 June, 1984
Tuesday am. Presentation on gender roles in farming systems-

Tuesday p.m.

20 June, 1984
Wednesday a.m.

Wednesday p.m.

21 June, 1984
Thursday a.m.

Thursday p.m.

22 June, 1984
Friday a.m.

Friday p.m.

Dr. Mary Hill Rojas
Use of a slide-tape presentation
Use of a mini case study
Discussion of presentation
Discussion of training techniques used in presentation

Training teams continue working on training presentations

First training team presentation

No scheduled session

Second training team presentation

Third training team presentation

Fourth training team presentation

Review of the second week, the workshop and final evaluation

The second part of Monday morning was spent presenting the training team exercise
to be used as a structure for the rest of the week and in forming the training
teams from among the participants. Based on the summarized materials from week
one, four training teams were formed. Each team was to design a macro plan for
an FSR workshop, to identify one session within that macro plan and prepare a


Helen Henderson
January 1984


The following case study is based on an actual livestock project in

West Africa. The purpose of the case study is to show that careful

attention to gender in the design and implementation phases of a develop-

ment project is crucial to the project's success.

Part I is a description of the daily activities of the Bot village

women, their relation to livestock and the constraints they face. There

is also a description of the project as originally designed. The

descriptions should be read carefully by those doing the exercise. Part

i asks questions for small group discussion based on the project description.

Those doin5 the exercise also are asked to suggest ways in which the

project might better meet the needs of the women. Part III lists some

of the actual project improvements made in the project.

It is suggested that Part I be done in individual study and Part II

be done in small group discussion. After the small group study there

should be a final plenary session to discuss the small group results and

to consider Part III, the actual project modifications. It is recommended

that the slide-cassette module by Helen Henderson, "Gender Issues and

Agcicult:ral Developiment: A West African Perspective," be show befoLr

*This case study is a part of a training project, "Genaer Issues in Inter-
national Development Programs" which was developed under the sponsorship
of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development and funded
by the Agency for International Development. The views are those of the
authors and should not be attributed to the Agency for International Develop-

Page 2

the case study. The module and the case study can both be completed in one

hour and fifteen minutes: slide-cassette module 25 minutes; Part I Reading

15 minutes; Part II and Part III 20minutes; Plenary discussion 15 minutes.

It is possible, if necessary, however, to use only the case study without

the slide-cassette module


The village of Bot, population 504, has no school other than Koranic,

open'only to boys, and no dispensary. It has a weekly market. Government

agents visit the village with some regularity. Within the village, dis-

persed household settlement is based on patrilineal affiliation. Although

it was not uncommon for men to leave the village to find more lucrative

work, most of the women had not resided outside the village.

The people of Bot consider themselves to be primarily cattle-herders,

but they are becoming more sedentarized, farming their own fields, yet

keeping cattle as an important element in their economy. Bot women, however,

do little agricultural work.

The Bot are known for the independence of the women and the individualism

of the men. Just as a man's authority is based mainly on his personal char-

acteristics, the influence of a woman on the community is not easily related

to her position in the social structure, birth order or family prestige.

Within the loosely structured Bot extended families, few everyday activities

bring the larger group together, through individual visiting is common.

The Bot men own cattle. Over one third of the Bot women sampled reported

having received cattle as gifts, for example at Muslim taptism. None of th-

women said they had purchased cattle, though some expressed an interest in

doing so if they had sufficient funds. The women do not sell cattle often and,

when they do, major reasons are to buy jewelry prior to marriage, or to pay

for medical expenses. Before selling cattle, a woman must have the permission

Page 3

of the man in whose herd her cattle are kept and she must sell only through

a man, not directly. All of the Bot women interviewed who said they owned

cattle, kept their animals in their husbands's herds or those of male relatives.

They did not appear as well informed about modern veterinary practices as did

the men although they routinely fed calves and cared for sick animals.

Bot women's major interest in cattle lies in the milk which they routinely

sell from cows allocated to them by their husband. The milk is sold to

neighboring agricultural peoples with few cattle. Part of the Bot herd is

kept near the compound for milking purposes. Milk is used both for family

and personal needs. With milk by-products, women also make soap, butter and

yogurt. Proceeds from the sale of milk are used to buy jewelry, condiments,

cloth and millet. Jewelry is both an important status symbol to a married

woman and a form of easily moveable property in case of divorce.

Ptr women also own small ruminants, especially those women between the

ages of 40-50. They p'uchase these animals mainly by money gained from the

sale of milk. As with cattle, Bot women need their husband's permission to

sell small ruminants. Major items purchased by the sale of animals are

clothing, condiments and millet. All women regard small ruminants as an

invest ent. They emphasize that these animals are a hedge against famine

during the beginning of the rainy season.

Over half of the women interviewed say they own chickens, and the maj-

ority of the womc:n have purchased the animals themselves. Most women keep

poultry around the compound and sell it themselves, when they wish. Chickens

are considered good investments and easily affordable. Although chickens are

useful for women to own, most women do not eat chicken eggs, fearing consumption

would cause difficult childbirth.

Page 4

The Project

The overall goal of the project was to improve the quality of life for

people in the area by managing range resources and other feed supplies

through improved animal health and selection. Specific goals of the

project were 1) to organize local groups of livestock producers to

initiate changes in animal health, livestock production and range manage-

ment practices; 2) to secure quantitative baseline data for range and

livestock management practices from which to design program interventions;

3) to test a number of animal health, livestock production and range manage-

ment innovations; and 4) to train host country nationals for roles in future

livestock projects.

After the project had been underway for one year, the social scientist

on the development team decided that phase one would be more effective

and comprehensive if it also established baseline data on women's livestock

practices and built women's livestock needs into project training. A

female anthropologist was brought onto the team for a three month period,

and assigned to one of the six project sites. Her job was to survey

women's roles in livestock production, their problems with livestock, and

their livestock needs.

Village livestock committees, consisting entirely of men, had already

been established at each site before the end of the first year on the

project. At the site discussed in this module, village men representing

both livestock-holding and farming interests, periodically met to exchange

information with technical specialists from the project and the government

Page 5

livestock service.

A young man was already in the village serving as a livestock extension

agent for the project. The closest female extension agent was associated

with a garden project over 20 kilometers away.

There are very few female extension agents attached to the country's

livestock service; most female agents being associated with crop production

or health programs. Overall, male extension agents outnumber female agents

by 10 to 1..

When women were questioned concerning what they would like to see

develop from the livestock project, they gave a variety of opinions:

1. Women said that though government agents visited the village
from time to time, they did not talk to them, neither did the
project's livestock extension agent.

2. Women expressed concern that so many of their small ruminants
and their chickens die of disease. Women said they did not
know about possible preventive measures and were confused about
different modern remedies they had heard about.

3. Most women who had small ruminants said that their husbands
paid for the vaccine. Several, however, said they would pay
for the vaccine themselves. All said they would pay the required
amount for poultry vaccinations to keep their chickens from

4. The women said they would be interested in undertaking a poultry
project. Some women thought they would get a better share of
such a project if women were in charge.

5. Women pointed out that if there were going to be additional
animals, there would be a need for a well near to the village.

6. Women argued that if they were in better health they would
have more strength to develop livestock activities.

7. Many women expressed concern for their children's health and
asked why the project was planning to vaccinate small ruminants
and chickens when the village children had received no vacci-

Page 6


After reading the brief description of village women's economic

activities, access to resources, and expressed needs for village improve-

ments in Part I, take the role of project personnel and attempt to

design interventions that would meet some of the women's needs 'in relation

to the goals of the project. Before making your suggestions on the

chart below, discuss the following questions:

What limitations are inherent in the original project design?

What differences exist between women's and men's economic
activities and access to resources?

What are constraints to women's participation in the

What economic interests bring women together?

What infrastructure is needed to continue the project?

Listed below are the project's objectives. As a group, consider

activities for each objective that would meet the needs of the Bot women.

Page 7



Project Obiectives

Activities to Insure the
Inclusion of Women

1. Organize local groups of
livestock producers to initiate
changes in animal health, live-
stock production, and range

2. Establish quantitative
baseline data for range and
livestock management practices
from which to design program

3. Test a number of animal
health, livestock production
and range management

4. Train host country nationals
for roles in future livestock

When you have finished listing your suggested activities, turn to Part III

to see what the consultant anthropologist suggested.


1. Organize local groups of livestock producers to
initiate changes in animal health, livestock
production and range management.

2. Establish quantitative baseline data for
range and livestock management practices
from which to design program interventions.

3. Test a number of animal health, livestock
production and range management innovations.

A. 1. Encourage formation of village women's livestock
committees with representatives from different
patrilineal groupings.

2. Encourage middle-aged women and traditional and
innovative community leaders to participate in

3. Committee to work with project planners on types
of programs suggested by consultant and on other
programs women may initiate.

B. Increase contacts of government officials
(specifically project livestock agent) with women,
using committee as mechanism.

A. Conduct survey to get more detailed information
(comparable to that already collected from men)
on women's livestock holdings.

B. Gather more detailed.data on women's household
incomes as related to livestock holdings.

A. Caution to be exercised on any program emphasizing
calf nutrition at the expense of dairy production
for sale or exchange. Such a program will negatively
affect Bot women's income.



Page 8


Page 9

3. continued B. Any program advocating increased sale of cattle
imusi bh ullder( aken in conjuct ion with opening up
c'retldi opportunities for women to purchase cattle.
In general, profits from sale of male-owned cattle
may not reach women.

C. Experimental efforts to improve breeds of cattle
for dairy purposes.

1. If increased milk production, look into
cheese making, improved soap production.
2. Closely examine market outlets and consumer

D. Undertake more intensive information and demonstration
program on small ruminant disease. Program will be
conducted in various neighborhoods using male and
female livestock committees to create links between
government agencies and local peoples.

E. Nutritional education program will be part of all
vaccination programs.

F. Decentralized, low-cast chicken project to be developed
if sufficient local cooperation. Project will be co-
ordinated by female livestock committee, as interest

1. Female livestock committee to coordinate poultry
vaccination program.
2. Nutritional program to accompany poultry program.
3. If chickens or other items are to be purchased,
credit will be made available to the women's
4. Consumer market study to survey attitudes on
increased poultry and egg consumption and
marketing possibilities.

Page 10

4. Train host country nationals for roles
in future livestock projects.

A. Female extension personnel to be recruited and
trained to help local women handle own economic
affairs and thereafter to serve as resource

1. Stress importance of female livestock
personnel recruitment at national, district
and local levels.

2. Integrate women into already existing programs.
Seek assistance from already trained female
extension workers and femal government officials
in recruiting women as agents.

3. Female extension agents to further animal health
campaign, livestock production for consumption
and sale programs, and hygenic milking practices.

Page 11


Delgado, C.

Hammond, P.

Henderson, H.

Riesman, P.

Vengroff, R.

Livestock versus Foodgrain Production in Southeast
Upper Volta: A Resource Allocation Analysis. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Center for Research on Economic
Development, University of Michigan.

Yatenga. New York: The Free Press.

The Role of Women in Livestock Production: Some
Preliminary Findings. Contributed Chapter in Upper
Volta: Environmental Uncertainty and Livestock
Production, R. Vengroff: Lubbock, Texas: Inter-
national Center for the Study of Arid and Semi-Arid

Freedom in Fulani Social Life. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Upper Volta: Environmental Uncertainty and Livestock
Production. Lubbock, Texas: International Center
for the Study of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands.

1. An untrained interviewer, from a "Sondeo":

Mr. and Mrs. C. work together in growing vegetables.
Mr. C. feels his farming is going very well...
Financially I believe Mr. C. is doing very well, but
he could expand his farming... (Harris, Interview
with L.C. and wife, Lee Co.)

2. A male farmer being interviewed during a "Sondeo":

The peppers were marketed at the local farmer's market.J.
said, "I sold the peppers from my land. I also sell my
cattle." We later found that both he and his wife sold
the peppers and that both had title to the land.
(Rojas, Washington Co., Farm IV)

detailed micro plan for that session. The session was to be prepared and
presented to the workshop later in the week. Each training team was given a
different training methodology to work with. Three methodologies included case
study, role play, and small group work. A fourth group was formed based on an
expressed interest by several participants to work with a group focusing on the
institutionalization of FSR as a content area for training. They were to
identify appropriate training techniques for that content. Participants were
allowed to choose the training team they wanted to work with, based on their
interests and the skills they wanted to improve. Mary Rojas worked as a
consultant for the case study group, Kathy Alison for the role play group,
Rosalie Norem for using small groups in training, and Eric Abbott and Lorna
Butler for the group working with institutionalization of FSR.

The following instructions were presented to each team:


Each team will prepare a training session to present to the entire group. Team
members will select content relevant to the training technique to be used by
their team. These presentations will be videotaped, so that presenters can later
view their own training skills. Significant time periods will be set aside this
week for team work on the training presentations.

The presentation format will include the following elements:

1. Each team will place its presentation in the context of a 2-week FSR
workshop. Teams will construct a rough day by day schedule for the two weeks
showing where its training session would fit into the overall plan.

2. Elements of the team presentation to the rest of the group will include the
a. clear objectives for the training presentation;
b. explanation of elements of the training technique used in the
c. the presentation to the group of the training content;
d. a team evaluation of the presentation.

3. Following the team evaluation, there will an opportunity for general audience
feedback and processing.

Monday afternoon was spent with the training teams beginning to plan and prepare
their presentations. Each group started with a discussion of some of the steps
and guidelines for the specific methodology that group would be using for their
presentation. Summaries of those guidelines and/or handouts related to the
methods follow the appropriate sections below.

Tuesday, 18 June

Tuesday morning Dr. Mary Hill Rojas presented materials related to the issues of
gender role in farming systems. Her presentation included use of a slide-tape
module focusing on women in Africa, and the use of a mini-case study for small
group discussion. The case study was prepared by Helen Henderson as part of a
training project, 'Gender Issues in International Development Programs" which was
developed under the sponsorhsip of BIFAD. Handouts used for small group work

are included on the following pages.

After the presentation and small group work, there was a general discussion of
the slide-tape module and the case study. The group had several suggestions for
revising the slide-tape module to focus more directly on one geographic location
or concern, rather than trying to include many many countries and concerns.
'here was also discussion of whether or not it was productive to consider women's
issues as a separate topic in farming systems projects, since the focus of
farming systems is to regard the farming and household systems as a unit.

Tuesday afternoon was used for small groups to continue working on their training
team presentations.

Wednesday, 20 June
Case Study Training Tecnique

Wednesday morning was the first participants' training team presentation to the
workshop. The team was working with the case study training technique. The
technique was used as part of a two week workshop to train extenticn personnel in
the sondeo method. They used a mini case study within the larger case study to
illustrate phases of the diagnostic stage. The total group worked with a case
study focusing on a central province of Zambia, examining exogenous and
endogenous features of farming systems. Then small groups worked with a case
study focusing on the Murewa District in Zimbabwe. Each group was given a copy
of the following case study.

ase Study

Murewa District in Zimbabwe is an area that has agricultural potential and a
farming system similar to the Central Province in Zambia. The average farm
family consists of six children and two adults with a three-hectare farm. Two
hectares are typically planted in maize which is both a cash crop and a food
staple. One hectare is typically planted in a mix of ground nuts and secondary
crops such as pumpkins, cowpeas and sweet potatoes. The key problems in the area
are related to maize. Farmers were found to apply their fertilizer three weeks
later than recommended by extension for three reasons First, fertilizers were
expensive and the farmers could not get credit on time. Second, it was
recommended by extension that the fertilizer be applied during planting when
there is a labor shortage. Third, rainfall is variable and the farmers want to
assure that the crop will germinate before applying fertilizer so as to avoid the
risk of wasting valuable fertilizer.

The farmers also managed, on average, to weed only once and tended to be late
when the weeds were tall. Extension had recommended an early weeding about three
weeks after planting and again six weeks after planting. Labor was found to be a
constraint with weeding. There was found to be a conflict between continuing to
plant or to go back and weed the first field planted. Weeding competed,
therefore, with having a larger area under planting.

Each group was asked to brainstorm possible solutions to the problems from
various disciplinary perspectives.

Handouts giving suggestions for writing case studies and for processing case
studies in training are also included on the following pages.


A case study is a narrative account of a series of events
or situations around a specific problem or problems.
There are a wide variety of problems that could be part
of a case study, relationship difficulties between
people, loss or lack of funds, unclear roles between
people who work together, bureaucratic system inadequacies,
etc. One way to organize your thoughts as you write your
narrative is, quite simply, beginning, middle, and end.
Below listed under each category are questions that
should be addressed or answered in that section of the

1. Beginning

--Where is the situation occurring and in
what context? (This sets up the framework
for the problems) the case study will be

--Who are the major characters and what is their
relationship to each other?

--What is the situation of these characters at
the beginning of the case, what issues do they
face, and what are their thoughts and feelings
about these issues?

2. Middle

--What problem situations) are developing?

--What events and factors are contributing to
the problemss?

--Where are the major characters and what are
they doing?

--Are there minor characters who are now entering
the picture? Who are they and what connection
do they have with the situationss?

--What is happening to the relationships between
the characters?

--What systemic problems are being addressed, and
how are they being developed?

2 -

3. End

--What is the status of the problems) now?

--What are the major/minor characters doing and
what are their thoughts and feelings?

--What has happened to the relationships between
the major characters?

--How can the ending occur in such a way as to
allow for differing interpretations?


There are two primary ways cases are analyzed by
participants -- individually as they read and study
the situation and in small groups where individuals
discuss and analyze as a team. Whether the analysis
is done by a group or an individual, the trainer's
role is to facilitate discussions where analyses,
viewpoints, opinions, etc. are compared and contrasted.

--Trainer would begin by asking a key question
directed toward the analytical task they had
been given. (Could be directed toward small
groups, if that was your analysis framework, or
individuals if you didn't use small groupings.)

--Trainer would then invite comment from others
on the ideas presented -- agreement, disagreement,
different perspectives, etc. You would need to
be careful to ask necessary second or follow-up
questions to be certain ideas are explored thoroughly.

--Trainer would then move to another group to
hear their response to the analysis task or, if
working with total group without subgroupings,
ask another key question to the whole group.

--Trainer would again invite responses to the
ideas presented, exploring different viewpoints
and opinions.

--Trainer should have in mind the intent or goals
of the case study and be prepared to ask questions
that will focus the discussion on the key issues
you feel are significant.

--Trainer should continue until all the groups
have reported their findings or conclusions
and others have responded. Or, if working without
groupings, until you have asked enough questions
to stimulate discussion that covers the key issues
in the case.

Thursday, 21 June
Role Play ITaining Technique

On Thursday morning the second participant team presented their training plan,
including a session using role play as a training technique. This group had the
overall goal of creating increased awareness among participants about the
existence of FSR, its philosophy and methodology. They identified four
objectives for the two week workshop they had planned.

1. To introduce participants to the conceptual apparatus of FSR.
2. To promote the formation of FSR teams in an interdisciplinary way.
3. To demonstrate the relationship between station research and FSR.
4. To discuss issues of institutionalizing FSR.

The role play session was a part of day 8 in the two week workshop, as indicated
in the macro plan on the following pages. The role play demonstration consisted
of a role play between a farmer/chief and a researcher. The situation was
presented as follows.


A farming systems agronomist engaged in on-farm trials has identified
recommendation domains and has selected farmers for the on-farm experiments. He
and his team comprised of extension officers had made a trip to some villages to
select interested farmers to collaborate in this task. He is now ready to test
the effectiveness of insecticide X in thrips control for increased oowpea yield
under farmers' conditions. He arrives at the village and negotiates with a
farmer as regards planning and execution of the field trial.

Two volunteers from among the trainees were chosen to play the roles of a farmer
and the agronomist. They were given a few minutes to read the following
information. Each person read only the information relating to his own role.

Role of farmer: The agronomist has arrived to finalize plans for the field
trials. After talking with your family you have some questions about the
experiments such as time, land use, rewards etc. that you would like answered
before the experiments are set out. You are no longer sure you want to
participate in the field trials.

Role of agonomist: You have arrived at the farmers field ready to finalize
plans for the field trials. As a result of a previous meeting this farmer has
agreed to participate in the insecticide trials and his/her participation is
important because of his/her status in the community.

'he rest of the trainees were asked to function as observers of the role play.
They were given the following tasks.

Observer tasks:
1. Observe how the researcher interacts with the farmer.
2. Watch the farmer's reaction to the behavior of the researcher.
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the researcher's approach?









After the role play was completed, the players were asked for their comments and
"deroled." Then the total group discussed the role play. Some of the
observations made were that the researcher was interacting based on his past
experiences with the farmer and that resulted in some difficulties in his
responding to the farmer's felt needs. The researcher was using a cash incentive
approach to convince the farmer and the farmer was not totally motivated by
economic incentives. Several conclusions were drawn. First that it was
important for the researcher to identify the farmer's priority concerns. Then
that it was important to develop rapport and trust to establish a mutuality of
interests. Finally that one had to view the process in this situation as one of
communication and negotiation.

Several observations were also made about the technique of role play. Role
playing creates a high level of participant interest and involvement. Here is a
need for advance preparation (albeit brief) of the players. Processing of a role
play takes good organization. In using a role play, it is important to consider
its applicability to different types of participant groups.

Nominal Group Proess/Panel Training Techniques

Thursday afternoon the third training team presented its workshop plan and
training session. This group had planned a workshop for middle and upper level
staff focusing on the development of strategies for the incorporation of FSR&D
into national agricultural programs. The plan was based on the assumptions that
the highest level administrators have previously recieved an FSR orientation and
have designated these participants to attend the workshop, that there is no
current FSR in the country, but that there is an FSR project planned for the

The training team used a nominal group process to have small groups evaluate the
current elements of institutional structure, traditions and norms, skills and
knowledge, resources and policies in terms of those components which were less
conducive to FSR&D and those which were more conducive to FSR&D. Each group
worked with a designated leader to complete the form which follows these pages.
The steps for using the nominal group process as follows.

Nominal Group Process

Objective To obtain a lot of ideas/information from several persons on a
problem/issue in a non-threatening way.


1. Participants are divided into small group of 5-7 members.

2. A facilitator is appointed or selected. The facilitator functions as a
neutral member of the group, who guides the group process, and usually also acts
as a recorder.

3. The task is stated/clarified, usually by the facilitator. Ihe time allocated
and the desired end result are usually specified.

4. Each participant spends several minutes in silence individually brainstorming
all the possible ideas he/she can generate and writes these ideas down.

Problem Areas in Institutionalizing FSR&D





-DECISION-MAKING (Centralized, Decentralized)
(Is unit linked organizationally to
similar units in other organizations
[Horizontal] or only to one organization

(Measured by internal and external funding
levels, contacts with IARCs, degree of
administrative independence, etc.)
(Time span of organizational existence)

(Domestic internal)
(Domestic external)
(Domestic Funding)
(External Government and IARCs)
(External Lending Institution)
(Strength of contacts)

(Within Institution)
(Across institutions)







5. The ideas are then shared in the group in a round-robin fashion (one response
per person each time) with the key terms recorded on a flip chart. No criticism
is allowed, but questions of clarification may be asked. Continue until all
ideas are posted on the flip chart.

6. After all ideas have been recorded, they are debated and/or evaluated. If
desired, a voting process may be used to rank order the ideas.

7. Group conclusions are presented at an assembly of all the participants.

The small groups assembled a list of concerns they would have about a broad range
of topics involving institutionalization of FSR&D in a country that currently did
not have it. Some of these are summarized on the next page. The list of
concerns included the physical location and relationships of one institution to
another, the skills, knowledge resources, and the belief and tradition systems of
the country.

Following the small group activity, each small group designated a person to help
integrate their small group findings with those of the other groups. These
persons met for 30 minutes to compare findings and prepare for a panel
presentation to the rest of the participants. At the panel presentation, the
findings of the individual groups were posted on flip charts, and the individual
panelists discussed the concerns of their groups as well as commonalities
observed between groups.

Discussion indicated that while the nominal group process had yielded a
tremendous amount of information, 30 minutes was not sufficient to convert it
into a synthesized whole which could provide the basis for a panel discussion.
Thus, the value of the panel discussion was not as great as it might have been.
Emphasis for the future was also placed on having a tight and common theme on
which the panelists could build. While some panelists referred to their own
country experiences, others attempted to discuss a "fictitious" country
represented by the small group findings.

Friday, 22 June

Before the final training team presented their workshop plan and session, they
requested that we consider adjourning the workshop at 12:30 p.m., thus extending
the morning session, without reconvening in the afternoon. This was supported by
the majority of the group because of final packing for departure, wanting some
last opportunity for informal interaction, etc. Therefore the decision was made
by the fourth training team to shorten their presentation slightly, and by the
workshop trainers to do the evaluation at the end of the morning session.

Smill Grjp Training Technique

The fourth training team had planned a six-day workshop for researchers. They
thought that since the training needed to be held during the cropping season, it
was unrealistic for researchers to attend a two-week workshop. The goals of the
workshop were to introduce FSR, present the sondeo method and then use that
method to prepare for a field trip to experimental plots. The session presented
by the training team was planned for the third afternoon of the six-day workshop.
The macro plan for the workshop follows this section.

To structure the small group exercise, the team presented a synthesis of
information generated from the sondeo which would have preceded the exercise in
the macro plan. Then each group was given a crop demonstration protocol and
asked to perform the following tasks.

Small Groap Tasks

1. Identify the assumptions about farmer's objectives and resources implicit in
the protocols.

2. From the information given in the sondeo, formulate hypotheses about the
appropriateness of the technology for the farming system.

3. Formulate a plan for the field visit which allows you to test the hypotheses

Examples of the crop demonstration protocols for groundnuts and millet are on the
following pages, along with a summary of the information from the hypothetical
sondeo exercise.

nWhen the small groups had completed their tasks, they reported back to the total
group and the results were discussed. The use of small groups in training was
also discussed. Some of the observations were that the more complex the task a
group was assigned, the more complete the instructions need to be. The above
task was quite complex, but was completed without extreme frustration because it
was carefully structured, group members were preassigned to make sure there was
at least one person in each group who could easily interpret the demonstration
protocol, and because training team members circulated among the small groups to
answer informational questions. It was pointed out that the purpose of the small
group exercise is important to consider in deciding on the amount of structure to
impose. If small groups are used early in a workshop to facilitate trainees
getting acquainted, for instance, less structure may be considered. The
trainer's level of tolerance for potential conflict and for ambiguity should also
be considered in deciding how much structure to impose on a small group
experience. A trainer with a low level of tolerance for such dynamics within a
group may work more effectively with a more structured activity. A balance
should be considered. Also, the more complex the task, the fewer group members
should be included in each small group. Usually groups of from 3 to 7 function
well. An odd number of group members seems to work better than an even number.

After discussing the morning's presentation, a general discussion was held to
evaluate the training for trainer's workshop and closing remarks were made.
Participants were asked to fill out written evaluations. Those evaluations were
tabulated later. A summary of the evaluations is presented below.


Eighteen completed final evaluations were received from workshop participants at
the end of the two week session. All of the participants completing evaluations
indicated that their overall satisfaction with the workshop was either "4" (n=12)
or '5" (n=6) on a scale from one to 5, with 1 being 'not at all satisfied" and 5
being "very satisfied". All respondents also indicated they would recommend the

Farming Systems in Xanadu: a synthesis of background material and results from
the sondeo role-play.

"Xanadu is a small West African state stretching from the
coast some several hundred kilometers inland, along the
southermost extremity of the Sahelian zone. Its semi-arid
tropical climate is classified as Sudano-Guinean. Through-
out the length of the country the River Xanadu (known in
colonial days as the Gilbert River, after the pioneer
discoverer E. Livingstone Gilbert) meanders gently. Saline
up to 200km inland during the dry season, the river, to-
gether with the preferences and traditions of the six major
ethnic groups that have settled its banks and hinderland,
gives rise to a fascinating diversity of farming systems. ..."

The Times Modern Atlas, 1964.
The village of Kiminij, where the field exercise will take place, is located
on the north bank of the river, some 300km inland. Although the long term
average rainfall is estimated to be about 850mm, over the last 15 years this
has delinced to 680mm. Distribution over the three month growing season is
erratic. Latest trends analysis suggests a growing risk of mid-season dry
spells. Sandy clay loams predominate on the very gently sloping plateau land
behind the scarps that follow the river. The plateau does, however, encounter
many hydromorphic depressions where rainfed rice is traditionally cultivated.

The village of Kiminij is reached by a dirt track, sometimes becoming impas-
sible in the rainy season. The nearest market town is 15km away on the south
bank of the river, negotiable by means of a hand-pulled ferry. The village
has been settled by the Serahuli and Bassili tribes. Both ethnic groups grow
a wide range of crops--groundnuts, maize, millet, sorghum, and rainfed rice.
The Serahuli and Bassili both like to eat rice once a day if they can obtain
it. The Serahuli like to make their evening meal from sorghum, but because
of the effects of the drought on their long cycle local variety, have been
expanding their areas of maize and early millet. The bassili tend to prefer
millet, but have also been expanding their areas of maize as techniques for
preparing this cereal have been developed and because of the greater fertiliz-
er responsiveness of maize. Both groups grow groundnuts on a fairly large
scale, planted on adult family members private fields to earn cash. Rainfed
rice is entirely a woman's affair, although several compound heads are seek-
ing to obtain plots on a shortly to be opened irrigated perimeter by the
river to the south of the village.


The groundnut demonstration will contain two variables. One is comparison of
fertilizer and no fertilizer. The other is plant population. The size
of the demonstration shall be 2401m2. The groundnut demonstrations should
preferably be conducted in a groundnut growing area. The demonstration lay-
out is as follows:

Layout of Groundnut Demonstration


Recommended fertilizer rate
equivalent to 21 bags of SSP
incorporated to the soil
before planting.

High plant population.

50 cm between rows and 12 cm
between plants = 9600 plants
per plot and 166,666 plants
per hectare.

Plot 4

No Fertilizer.

High plant population.

50 cm between rows and 12 cm
between plants 9600
plants per plot and 166,666
per hectare.

Plot 1

Recommended fertilizer rate
to 2 bags of SSP per ha.
incorporated to the soil
before planting.

Low plant population.

60 cm between rows and 12 cm
between plants = 8000
plants per plot and 138,999
plants per hectare.

Plot 3

No Fertilizer.

Low plant population.

60 cm between rows and 12 cm
between plants = 8000
plants per plot and 138,888
plants per hectare.

Plot 2

Plot size

High Plant Population
Row spacing
No. of rows per plot
Plant spacing
Plants per plot
Low Plant Population
Row spacing
No. of rows per plot
Plant spacing
Plants per plot

: 24 x 24 5762 per plot

: 50 cm between rows
: 48 rows per plot
: 12 cm between plants
: 9600 plants per plot

: 60 cm between rows
: 40 rows per plot
: 12 cm

: 8000 plants per plot

Fertilizer rate per plot 3 and 4 Basal: 7.2kg SSP
For all plots apply dressing to decorticated seed at the rate of
1 Aldrext sachet/3kg.




The millet demonstrations will contain two variables. First is comparison
among three varieties and the second is urea management. The size of the
demonstration shall be 229m2. The millet demonstration should preferably be
conducted in a millet growing area or in a potential area for millet pro-
duction. The demonstration layout is as follows:

Lay-out of E. Millet Demonstration

Variety 1 Local

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per ha
applied before planting
and 2 bags of urea per
ha applied six weeks
after planting followed
by ridging.

Plot 9

Variety 1 Local

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per
ha applied before
planting and 2 bags
of urea per ha
applied 6 weeks
after planting.
No ridging.
Plot 6

Variety 1 Local
No fertilizer.

No ridging.
Plot 1

Variety 2 X Daru

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per ha
applied before planting
and 2 bags of urea per
ha applied six weeks
after planting followed
by ridging.

Plot 8

Variety 2 X Daru

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per
ha applied before
planting and 2 bags
of urea per ha
applied 6 weeks
after planting.
No ridging.
Plot 5

Variety 2 X Daru
No fertilizer.
No ridging.
Plot 2

Variety 3 X Kashum Nyang

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per ha
applied before planting
and 2 bags of urea per
ha applied six weeks
after planting followed
by ridging.

Plot 7

Variety 3 X Kashum

Recommended fertilizer
rate equivalent to 2
bags of 18-46-0 per
ha applied before
planting and 2 bags
of urea per ha
applied 6 weeks
after planting.
No ridging.
Plot 4

Variety 3 X Kashum
No fertilizer
No ridging.
Plot 3

Plot size : 216 m
Row spacing : 90 cm
No. of rows per plot : 20 rows
Plant spacing : 50 cm two plants per hill
Plants per plot : 480 thinto plants 444,444 per ha
Fertilizer rate for plots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
Basal : 2.16kg of 18-46-0
Top dressing : 2.16kg of 18-46-0









Macro plan for training for researchers workshop


I II -






course to other participants with backgrounds and interests similar to their own.
Seventeen of the respondents thought the workshop was "very relevant" to their
work, with one respondent indicating the issues and problems discussed were only
"moderately relevant", but that they would be more relevant as he or she became
more involved in doing training. A summary of evaluation responses to specific
aspects of the workshop is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Final Evaluation Summary

not at all
Training environment and support arrangements 1 2

housing accommodations

training facilities

support by training site personnel

written materials

of satisfaction
3 4 5

n=1 n=4 n=2 n=11

n=4 n=14


Level of helpfulness
not at all very
1 2 3 4 5
n=5 n=8 n=5

audio-visual learning activities or

n=1 n=2 n=7 n=9

Participants were asked to evaluate the overall organization and conduct of the
program, in terms of the types of activities and the allocation of time among
those activities. Lectures, large group discussions, small group work, sharing
of home country issues and individual consultation with trainers were among the
activities evaluated. A summary is presented below, using a five-point scale
with 1 being "not at all helpful" and 5 being "very helpful".

Table 3. Evaluation of activities

1 2


Large group discussions

Srall group work

Sharing of home country issues

Individual consultatio.in vith trainers n=2

Level of helpfulness
3 4
n=8 n=5










Respondents generally assessed the amount of time spent on the above activities
as 'about right", with some indication that more time could be spent on sharing

of home country issues and small group work, with less time on lectures and large
group discussion. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate their level of
satisfaction with the degree to which they were able to share their ideas and
experiences with the group. Seventeen respondents reported they were satisfied,
with one respondent indicating a lack of satisfaction with the degree he or she
was able to share ideas and experiences.

Participants were given the opportunity to evaluate trainers at the end of the
first week and at the close of the workshop. Final evaluations included
knowledge of subject matter, clarity of presentation, ability to relate subject
matter to developing-country situations and overall effectiveness. In the
evaluation of the trainers, most responses were "14" or '5" for all trainers. All
respondents evaluated all trainers as at least "satisfactory" (3) on over-all
effectiveness as ranked on a 1-5 scale indicating level of satisfaction. A
few respondents indicated trainers could have more specifically related subject
matter to developing-country situations.

Participants were asked to use the evaluation forms to make comments about
aspects of the workshop they would like to see expanded or shortened. The most
frequently made suggestion was to expand the application of training techniques
to FSR&D, with more focus on the application from the beginning of the workshop.
Other suggestions were to do a pre-workshop needs assessment of participants for
any future workshops, to include more theory about training methods, and to have
a followup workshop which would concentrate on developing materials for farming
systems training (building on the small group work the second week of the
workshop being discussed here).

Workshop participants also commented on the need to consider eventually
developing a trainer's handbook for FSR&D, the possibility of including more
focus in future trainers workshops on the needs for long-term training in FSR&D,
and the desirability of providing a three-ring binder in future trainer's
workshops, so participants could more easily organize the materials they

Sumary and Recommendations

The evaluations summarized above, comments made verbally by participants and
letters received from participants after the workshop all support the conclusion
that the experimental training for trainers in farming systems workshop was
successful. The efforts on the part of the FSSP staff in recruiting participants
resulted in a workshop group who brought invaluable experience, knowledge and
motivation to the training workshop. The contributions of the participants made
a successful workshop possible.

The two week timetable seemed to be about right for the material that was
covered. Using the first week to introduce training concepts and techniques,
with the second week for the application of those techniques seemed to be a
productive approach. Allowing for more pre-workshop needs assessment in the
future would permit spending less time at the beginning of the first week
learning to know about the expectations and needs of the participants. In
addition, we would recommend sending pre-workshop materials to participants
which would clearly state that training was a primary content area for the
workshop, and that FSR&D concerns would be used as a context for the application
of training content.

Another important factor in the success of this workshop was the opportunity for
participants to share information about in-country FSR&D programs and projects.
We would suggest a somewhat less heavily scheduled program for future similar
workshops to allow the integration of these opportunities for sharing information
without using most lunch and evening times. This is important because workshop
participants were already using non-scheduled hours to work on their small group
presentations for the last two days.

If future training for trainers in FSR&D workshops are planned, consideration
should be given to the site chosen for those workshops. The workshop being
discussed here was held in a facility which permitted relatively easy response to
the needs for materials and equipment as the needs occurred. This allowed for
considerable flexibility in the preparation of small group presentations. If a
similar workshop were held in a site which did not provide complete support
services, some modifications in planning would have to be made in advance.

We would not recommend major revisions in the content of the workshop, since most
aspects were rated very positively by most respondents. We would recommend some
restructuring of how the contents are organized, perhaps spending more time on
macro planning and allowing more time for individual feedback to participants on
their presentations. Longer lead time for pre-workshop needs assessment and
communication of workshop purposes to participants would facilitate this. Also,
the intent of building skills during the first week to then be applied to FSR&D
the second week, should be emphasized at the very beginning of future workshops.
This does not mean FSR&D concepts and concerns could not be integrated from the
beginning of the workshop.

Several materials which may be helpful to persons planning training are appended
to this document. They include the following.

1. Teaching, Learning and Learning Styles, A Short Theory Overview.
2. A Needs Assessment on Training.
3. The Lecturette.
4. Tips on Designing and Integrating Field Work into Courses for International
5. Co-Training Guide.
6. Several French and English language examples of evaluation forms.
7. A reference list of materials which participants at this workshop shared with
one another.


A Short Theory Overview...*

For most of us, the first associations we have to the word "learning"
are teacher, classroom, and textbook. These associations belie some im-
plicit assumptions that we tend to make about the nature of the learning
process. Our years in school have trained us to think that the primary
responsibility for learning lies with the teacher. His/her training and
experience make him/her the expert; we are more passive participants in
the learning process. As students, our job is to observe, read, and memo-
rize what the teacher assigns, and then to repeat "what we have learned"
in examinations. The teacher has the responsibility of evaluating our
performance and telling us what we should learn next. He/she sets require-
ments and objectives for learning since it is often assumed that the
student does not yet have the experience to know what is best for him/

The textbook symbolizes the assumption that learning is primarily
concerned with abstract ideas and concepts. Learning is the process of
acquiring and remembering ideas and concepts. The more concepts remembered,
the more you have learned. The relevance and application of these concepts
to your own job will come later. Concepts come before experience.

The classroom symbolizes the assumption that learning is a special
activity cut off from the real world and unrelated to one's life. Learn-
ing and doing are separate and antithetical activities. Many students at
graduation feel, "Now I am finished with learning, I can begin living."
The belief that learning occurs only in the classroom is so strong that
academic credentials are assigned great importance in hiring and promotion
decisions in spite of the fact that research has had little success in
establishing a relationship between performance in the classroom (grades)
and success later in life.

As a result of these assumptions, the concept of learning seldom seems
relevant to us in our daily lives and work. And yet a moment of deeper
reflection says that this cannot be so. In a world where the rate of
change is increasing rapidly every year, in a time when few people will
end their careers in the same jobs or even in the same occupations that
they started in, the ability to learn seems an important, if not the most
important, skill.

The concept of problem solving, on the other hand, evokes some asso-
ciations that are opposite to those of the concept of learning. We tend
to think of problem solving as an active, rather than a passive, process.
Although we have a word for someone who directs the learning process
(teacher), we have no similar word for the problem-solving process. The

*Excerpted from: Kolb, et al., Organizationat Piychology (2nd ed.).

responsibility for problem solving rests with the problem solver. He/she
must experiment, take risks, and come to grips with the problem. Usually
no external sources of evaluation are needed. He/she knows when the
problem is solved.

Although general principles can emerge from the solution to a spe-
cific problem, problems are usually specific rather than general, concrete
rather than abstract. Problem solving is not separate from the life of
the problem solver. The focus of the problem solving is on a specific
problem felt to be relevant to the problem solver; it is, in fact, his/her
involvement in the problem that makes it a problem.

A Model of the Learning/Problem-Solving Process

By combining these characteristics of learning and problem solving
and conceiving of them as a single process, we can come closer to under-
standing how it is that we generate frno our experience concepts, rules,
and principles to guide our behavior in new situations, and how we modify
these concepts in order to improve their effectiveness. This process is
both active and passive, concrete and abstract. It can be conceived of
as a four-stage cycle: (1) concrete experience is followed by (2) obser-
vation and reflection which leads to (3) the formation of abstract
concepts and generalizations which lead to (4) hypotheses to be tested in
future action which in turn leads to new experiences.

r experiences

Testing concepts in Observation and
new situations reflections

SFormation of abstract
concepts and generalizations

There are several observations to be made about this model of the
learning process. First, this learning cycle is continuously recurring in
living human beings. We continuously test our concepts in experience and
modify them as a result of our observation of the experience. In a very
important sense, all learning is re-learning and all education is

Second, the direction that learning takes is governed by one's felt
needs and goals. We seek experiences that are related to our goals, inter-
pret them in the light of our goals, and form concepts and test implications
of these concepts that are relevant to our felt needs and goals. The
implication of this fact is that the process of learning is erratic and
inefficient when objectives are not clear.

Third, since the learning process is directed by individual needs and
goals, learning styles become highly individual in both direction and
process. For example, a mathematician may come to place great emphasis on
abstract concepts, whereas a poet may value concrete experience more highly.
A manager may be primarily concerned with active application of concepts,
whereas a naturalist may develop observational skills. Each of us in a
more personal way develops a learning style that has some weak points and
strong points. We may jump into experience but fail to observe the lessons
to be derived from these experiences; we may form concepts but fail to test
their validity. In some areas, our objectives and needs may be clear
guides to learning; in others, we wander aimlessly.

The Learning-Style Inventory* was designed as an aid for helping you
identify your own learning style. The four learning modes concrete
experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation represent the four stages of the learning process. The
inventory is designed to assess the relative importance of each of these
stages to you so that you can get some indication of which learning modes
you tend to emphasize. No individual mode is better or worse than any

* For more information about the Learning-Style Inventory, see David A. Kolb,
Otaganizational Paychotogy: A Book od Readings,/2nd ed.


1) Have you been a trainer in a short course/workshop?
yes no
If yes, how many times in the past 3 years?

What were the topics/skills covered?

Where did the course/workshop take place?

What was the length of the course/workshop?

When did the course/workshop take place?

For you as a trainer, what were the most successful elements
in the course/workshop?

What were the least successful elements?

2) Based upon your assessment of your own abilities, what are
your main strengths as a trainer in farming systems research

3) What are your main weaknesses as a trainer which you would
like to improve?


4) What type of training do you see yourself planning and
presenting in the future?


This is a form of the lecture technique that opens conversation between the trainer
and the participants.
When is it a useful training technique?
It is a useful choice when: (a) you need to present information or ideas and (b) the infor-
mation or experience in the group can support what you are talking about.
How does it work?
During the presentation of the lecturette, the trainer needs to maintain effective con-
tact with participants and to break up the lecture with activities that will give points
added meaning. The following methods can aid in keeping participants involved during
the presentation.
Soliciting examples. Instead of giving examples, the trainer can ask participants to
offer their own. The request to "give me an example in your experience that illus-
trates this point" can provoke both task-relevant thinking and productive sharing.
Interviews. Participants sit in pairs and are instructed to interview each other at
selected points when the lecturette is interrupted. A good practice is to encourage
interviewers to avoid "yes-no" and "why" questions and to experiment with "what"
and "how" ones.
Right-left comparisons. At appropriate points during the lecturette, the trainer stops
talking and instructs participants to compare their reactions with the persons on
their right and on their left. Similarities and differences are reported to the total
Checking understanding. The trainer stops from time to time and asks the simple
question "What do you hear me saying?" Distortions, misinterpretations and omis-
sions can be dealt with before continuing.
Interviewing the trainer. Participants can ask as reporters at a news conference and
pose questions on the points just raised in the lecturette.
"Right now I. .. "At appropriate points in the presentation, the trainer solicits state-
ments from the participants. These statements begin with the phrase "Right now
I..." Variations include "Right now I'm thinking... ", "Right now I'm feeling...",
and "Right now I'm imagining...".
It is important to underline that using these techniques in excess can work against
learning. The significant considerations are to keep participants actively involved with
the content and to make certain that they also hear the major points or ideas of your pe-

What are the advantages of doing lecturette?
Involvement. In general, it is important to design any training or consulting activity
in such a way as to avoid putting participants in a passive posture because commit-
ment only results from a sense of ownership through meaningful involvement.

* Relevance. It is difficult to anticipate what will be significant to each member of a
group. When participants are engaged in activities linked to the ideas presented,
they make the content immediately credible for themselves.
* Increasing information. Using experiential techniques in conjunction with lecture
capitalizes on the experience that exists within the group.
* Tuo-wav communication. The trainer models effective communications when the
content is clear, and two-way discussion are much more likely to meet this criterion
than one-way talking. 6
* Checking understanding. It is important for the trainer to determine the accuracy of
the communication and to clear up any misconceptions. Experiential exchanges
help to identify misunderstandings.
* Maintaining rapport. Presenting ideas can create a sense of distance between the
trainer and the group. The group may come to depend on the trainer to explain
everything, rather than to look within itself for ideas.
* Excitement. Participants are more likely to listen to ideas that they experience in a
lively manner.


The International Training Division believes that field work is an integral part
of any short course offered through OICD/USDA.

There are several overall objectives for this field work

1. To provide participants with the opportunity to observe and experience
some practical examples of various topics covered in a course.

2. To help participants relate this practical experience to theories and ideas
introduced in the course.

3. To stimulate participants to consider adapting parts of the observed
situation, if applicable, to back-home situations.

Because of these stated objectives, the fieldwork should be designed for
integration into the overall course objectives, thus making it much more than an
opportunity to travel to various locations. Sponsors of the training, as
well as trainers, should take an active role in the planning and execution of
the fieldwork to insure that what is observed is pertinent to the course as a
whole. It should also be as appropriate as possible to back-home situations.

In some courses, effective fieldwork also means assessing the participant's
expectations about what situations would be most appropriate for them to observe
and study. And finally, fieldwork that works demands that trainers and
participants process and discuss the experience to determine what has been
learned and what can be used in other situations.

In other words, effective fieldwork depends on the work done before and after
the actual experience, as well as the time in the field. Needs assessments,
planning and goal setting are required ahead of time; and processing,
discussions and possible applications are necessary both during and after the

Several steps are involved in planning for effective fieldwork.

1. Design of the experience to meet specific objectives related to overall
course objectives and needs of the participants.

2. Selection of most appropriate fieldwork site based on stated objectives.

3. Logistics--housing, transportation, perdiem rates, special dietary
restrictions, etc.

4. Selection of individuals to accompany participants during the fieldwork. It
is extremely useful to have the trainer accompany the participants during
the fieldwork, to help the group process what they are observing and
studying. This helps meet the objectives of both the course and the
work in the field.


"Feedback" is a way of helping another person understand the
impact of his behavior on others. It is a communication to
a person (or a group) which gives that person information about
how he affects others. As in a guided missile system,
feedback helps an individual keep his behavior "on target" and
thus better achieve his goals.

Some criteria for useful feedback:

1. It is descriptive rather than evaluative. By describing
one's own reaction, it leaves the individual free to use it
or to use it as he sees fit. By avoiding evaluative language,
it reduces the need for the individual to respond defensively.

2. It is specific rather than general. To be told that one
is talkative will probably not be as useful as to be told
that "just now when we were deciding the issue, you talked
so much I stopped listening."

3. It takes into account the needs of both the receiver and
giver of feedback. Feedback can be destructive when it
serves only our own needs and fails to consider the needs
of the person on the receiving end.

4. It is directed toward behavior which the receiver can
do something about. Frustration is only increased when a
person is reminded of some shortcoming over which he has
no control.

5. It is solicited rather than imposed. Feedback is most
useful when the receiver himself has formulated the kind
of question which those observing him can answer.

6. It is well-timed. In general, feedback is most useful
at the earliest opportunity after the given behavior (depending,
of course, on the person's readiness to hear it, support
available from others, etc.).

7. It is checked to insure clear communication. One way of
doing this is to have the receiver try to rephrase the
feedback he has received to see if it corresponds to what the
sender had in mind.

8. Both the giver and the receiver check with others in
the group as to accuracy of the feedback. Is this one
person's impression or an impression shared by others?


James A. McCaffery
Wilma Gormley

Co-training immeasurably adds to the effectiveness of training workshops and
seminars. In fact, if a workshop is based on principles of adult education
(e.g. active learning, highly participative knowledge and experience shared
among all etc.) and utilizes experiential training methodology, co-training
is almost a must. In this paper, co-training will be defined, its advantages
and disadvantages pointed out, and a guide included that co-trainers could
use to help make their work together more productive.

We might add that this paper differs from Pfeiffer and Jones article on co-
facilitating* in the following way: They concentrated on co-facilitating in
personal growth groups, and we are focusing on co-training workshops -- either
public or private -- which are tightly designed and structured in advance and
are aimed at achieving goals based on particular target population (e.g., a
first-line supervisory development program for the Bank of Wisconsin). We
did, however, adapt several items from their co-facilitators inventory in de-
signing the co-trainers guide, and for that, we are indebted to them.

Co-Training What is it?

Co-training is where two (could be more, but not usually) trainers work together
to design and conduct a training session; however, it is much more involved
than taking turns. It is two trainers who are merging their skills, expertise
and experience to design, plan, and conduct a training session or program
jointly, allowing the synergistic effect to contribute to a better product
than either would have done alone.

The two trainers work collaboratively to design the training session, combining
the thoughts of both to determine what they want this session to accomplish
and what would be the best methods to use. Once the design is prepared, the
trainers then plan who takes the lead for delivering which parts of the session.
One trainer takes lead responsibility for conducting a part of the session and
the other serves as the co-trainer. Co-training as we are describing it does
not imply any particular status or skill-level difference between the two train-
ers. There may be skill level differences and that ought to be considered in
determining which trainer does what; however, co-facilitation is not meant to
set up a senior/junior trainer scheme.

* Pfeiffer, J. William and John E. Jones, "Co-facilitating", The 1975 Annual
Handbook for Group Facilitators, P. 219-229

PO. Box 523 0 Rlexcndno, Virginia 22313 0 (703) 823-9036

Taking lead responsibility means that one trainer has responsibility for initia-
ting all or most steps of the training design, assigning a role where appropriate
to the other trainer, making certain that the training room is in order before
the session, organizing hand-outs and other training materials and aids, moni-
toring time against the design, and so forth. This does not mean that the co-
trainer does not do any of these or does not help; it simply means that one
trainer takes lead responsibility for seeing that those responsibilities are all
carried out by the team. Typically, lead responsibility would shift from train-
er to trainer during the course of a workshop. This is a good way to establish
with the group the co-equal status of the two trainers.

While one trainer carries lead responsibility, the co-trainer supports the lead
trainer in many of the following ways: He or she assists the lead trainer with
responsibilities delineated above and, during the session, the co-trainer ob-
serves the process closely to gauge how well the learning goals are being met,
adds relevant points to augment discussion, steps in to clarify points, monitors
small group tasks and assists where appropriate with the groups, helps respond
to participant needs or requests, asks probing questions that the lead trainer
might overlook because he/she is managing the whole session, helps the lead
trainer become "unstuck", helps to allow a participant to enter the discussions,

Many of these trainer interventions that we point out as co-trainer tasks can
and are done by the lead trainer also -- however, leading a training session
where one is concentrating on many different things at once while up in front
of the group means that one occasionally misses an opportune point or a probing
question that might yield fertile results or a shy participant who has been try-
ing to enter the discussion for a few minutes and needs a nudge from the trainer.
A co-trainer is in a perfect position to make these interventions, because he
or she is looking at the session from a different vantage point and is freed
from the lead trainer responsibility.

When two trainers work well together, the interchange of roles and the timing
and pacing of their interventions happens in a way that is fluid and almost
unnoticed by participants.


This two-member training effort has many advantages in addition to those implied
in the description of co-training spelled out above: 1) it increases ratio of
trainer to trainee, which is imperative in experiential training since, unlike
more traditional training, the format relies on trainers facilitating and work-
ing closely with individuals and small groups to manage the learning, 2) allows
for sharing the work and reduces burn-out and fatigue, 3) provides variety for
participants since it is easier to get bored working with only one trainer, 4)
provides a quicker way to improve a training session in that both trainers are
analyzing, evaluating and thinking of ways to do it better next time, 5) allows
trainers to debrief sessions together and even let off steam caused by design
problems or troublesome participants, and 6) in general provides a synergistic
team approach to providing a very complicated product--experiential training


Pace Two

designed to change participant behavior and enhance skills.


Some of the disadvantages of co-training are as follows: 1) it generally takes
more time to plan and debrief sessions with two trainers than it does with one,
2) it can cause confusion if the trainers have significantly different perspec-
tives on the subject at hand, especially if the trainers do not acknowledge
their differences, 3) the trainers may have different rhythms around pacing and
timing of interventions, and this can cause tension on the training team as well
as a "jerkiness" during training sessions 4) co-training can result in too many
trainer interventions, wherein the two trainers find themselves competing for
upfront time or adding points to each others interventor's in too many instances
5) co-trainers may have similar strengths and weaknesses, which means they may
both wish to do or avoid doing certain training tasks and they may both miss the
same thing during a training session and 6) the pressure to use staff meeting
time to move ahead with the design and make design alterations in order to reach
the workshop goals may make it difficult for the trainers to give each other
feedback and maintain a qualitative working relationship (i.e., "I'd like to
tell J how this made me feel, but we don't really have time now, and we are
both tired, and we have to adjust the case study...").

Most of the above disadvantages are indicative of a team that is not working well
together. Many of these disadvantages can be "fixed if the trainers take time
to define their working relationship around important training points, and if
they allot time to maintain the relationships. Of course, it is true that some
trainers simply should not work together. Given that this is not the case, we
believe that the attached Co-Trainer's Guide can prove useful as a way of pro-
viding some structure that a team would find useful in building and maintaining
an effective co-training relationship.


Paae Three


BUILDING A FRAMEWORK: This section is intended to be done by trainers who may
know each other well but who have not worked together recently (within 3 months)
or by trainers who have not worked together before at all. It is meant to be
used during an initial planning meeting. Procedurely, we recommend that you take
some time individually to reflect on the issues presented and write down your
responses. When finished, you can share your reflections with your co-trainer(s),
and use it as a way to structure a discussion. The more specific you are, the
more helpful it will be during your discussion.

1. Describe 3 or 4 assumptions about adult education that you think help guide
your training.





In discussing these, provide some specific examples of actions you have taken as
a trainer which you see as congruent with these assumptions. Also, you may want
to share any incongruences between assumptions and action that you are working on.


2. Describe 3 different training interventions (either your's or someone else's)
that you thought were particularly effective, and why. Be as specific as




3. Describe 2 or 3 areas of your training you feel most confident about.




4. Describe 2 or 3 areas of your training you feel least confident about, and
identify any specific support or feedback you would find helpful from your


e gaP Two




5. I expect the following things to happen in the workshops that we will
be co-training.






e gaP Three


Paqe Four

6. Please complete the following sentences:

(a) Some things I do particularly well in a co-training situation are...

(b) Some problems I have had with co-training situations in the past are


(c) The best thing that could happen in the upcoming workshop is...

(d) The worst thing that could happen in the upcoming workshop is...


1. Be explicit in sharing how you like to go about designing a workshop--
or learning about and integrating a design if you are delivering a pre-
designed workshop.

2. Come to agreement about how you will work together on the design phase of
this particular workshop. Include who will take lead responsibility for
internalizing or designing particular pieces of the workshop.

3. Discuss and share any knowledge or expectations you have about the par-
ticipant group.-

4. Decide lead trainer/co-trainer roles for the first day or two of the train-
ing workshop.

5. Identify any specific items around which you would like feedback from your
co-trainer during the first day or two of the workshop.

6. Decide where the co-trainer will be when the lead trainer is up-front.

7. Agree on ways you can intervene around issues of time.

8. Decide how you will handle the following as a team...
(a) over-talkative participants


e gaP F i ve


(b) late-comers

(c) times when one trainer misses an instruction or makes a design error.

(d) silent participant

(e) "housekeeping" problems

(f) co-trainer interventions (i.e., when lead trainer is up front and
co-trainers intervenes)

(g) design problems that crop up during a session

(h) disagreements between trainers in front of group

(i) the ways in which you will get some time alone during the workshop

9. Determine daily staff meeting times.


e gaP S i x

DAILY DEBRIEFING SESSIONS (at least once a day)

1. On a ten point scale, how well do you think our design goals were met today?
Why/Why not?

2. What's helping carry out the design?

3. What's hindering design implementation?

4. What changes do we have to make in the design for tomorrow based on progress

5. Who is going to play what role tomorrow?

6. What did I do today that was effective?

7. What did I do today that was ineffective?

8. Provide feedback to each other around those items you agreed to help in
prior meetings.

9. How are we working together as co-trainers? Anything we need to improve or

10. Anything else you would like feedback on during tomorrow's sessions?


gaP e Seven



1. Conduct a final daily debriefing session.

2. Discuss the degree to which you thought the goals were achieved.

3. Identify and summarize any overall training design problems you saw
during the workshop.

4. Share any overall feedback you have for each other. (You may wish to re-
view #4 in the first section in doing this, to help serve as a reminder
of what you wanted to work on before the session began).

5. Share how you thought you worked as a co-training team during the workshop.
Add into this discussion anything you would continue doing the same the
next time you work together. What would you do differently.

6. Discuss some of your significant personal and professional learning that
came out of this workshop.

7. Share any suggestions you have for each other about future professional


e gaP E i ght



Cette evaluation a pour objet de nous fournir des
renseignements qui nous permettent de perfectionner
ce course a 1'intention de participants futurs. Vos
reactions objectives a ce questionnaire nous aideront
a atteindre ce but. Veuillez 6crire vos commentaires
aussi elairement que possible.

(Priere de ne pas mettre votre nom sur ce questionnaire)


Les donnees personnelles que vous nous fournissez ont deux utilities. Certaines
des reponses nous sont necessaires pour nos dossiers sur les sources de finance-
ment. D'autres nous aident rdunir des informations que nous pourrons employer
en vue d'ameliorer l'efficacite"du course en adaptant les presentations a la
formation ainsi qu'a I'experience des participants. (Si vous n'avez pas envie
de fournir de donnees personnelles, veuillez commencer par la section B.)

(1) Combien d'annees d'experience professionnelle avez-vous approximative- I

ment? annges.

(2) Quelle est votre profession ou metier?
(3) Veuillez indiquer le niveau d'instruction le plus eleve que vous ayez
Certificat d'etudes( ) Baccalaureat( ) Mattrise ou licence( ) Doctorat( )
(4) Veuillez indiquer votre pays natal:
** *******************


(1) Veuillez indiquer votre satisfaction avec les arrangements (Entourer d'un
cercle un des nume'ros):
Pas du tout Ad6quats Trhs bons

Les sales de classes 1 2 3 4 5

Le logement 1 2 3 4 5
Entretien administratif
pendant les classes 1 2 3 4 5
Entretien administratif par
le Spdcialiste du Programme 1 2 3 4 5
(2) Si vous estimez que quelques-uns des arrangements n'6taient pas satis-
faisants, veuillez suggerer comment ils pourraient 9tre am6liores.


Veuillez choisir a quel degre vous place votre professeur principal dans
les situations suivantes sur une echelle de 1 a 5 (Ecrivez les noms des

(1) Professeur #1


Connaissance du sujet
Efficacite de la presentation
Capacity de stimuler la
Organisation et clarte
Efficacite dans son ensemble




(2) Professeur #2

Connaissance du sujet
Efficacite de la presentation
Caiacite de stimuler la
Organisation et clarte
Efficacite dans son ensemble




* *** *** **~~~t* tt** *****
















Ci-dessous sont les objectlfs pour ce course. Veutllez encercler le numero
qui Indlque a quel degree vous croyez que ces objectifs ont dte atteints.

en Partie

Compl etement

Quel sort experience vous aurait

aide a accomplir vos objectifs?

1 2 3 4 5

Qual sorte d'experience vous aurait aide a accomplir vos objectifs?

1 2 3 4 5

Quel sort d'experience vous aurait aide a accomplir vos objectifs?

1 2 3 4 5

Que sort dex ce vous aurait aid a acc r vos objects?

4 5

Quel sorte d'experlence vous aurait aide a accomplir vos objectlfs?

1 2 3 4 5

Quel sorts d'exprlience vous aurait aide a accomplir vos objectifs?
e a acopl vo ibctis






Veuillez enumerer les activities du course par ordre chronologique. Cliter
leur utilite'en tracant un cercle autour d'un chiffre sur l'echelle.



Un peu

















(1) Que pensez-vous du temps qui a ete consacre
(Marquer pour chaque sujet)

Discussions en group
Le travail en petits groups
Discussion des questions de pays
Experiences sur le terrain
Consultations individuelles avec
les instructeurs

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )

( )

aux activities suivantes?

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )

( )

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )

( )

(2) Lesquelles parmi les activities suivantes ont
(Encercler un numrro)
Conferences 1
Discussions en group 1
Le travail en oetits arouDes 1

Discussion des questions de pays
Experiences sur le terrain
Consultations individuelles avec
les instructeurs

facility votre
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3

4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

(3) Pensez-vous que:
Le programme journalier a ete generalement:
Les periods de repos et les pauses:
La duree du course:
(4) Le niveau des exposes a ete: Trop Simple(

Trop Court
( )
( )
( )
) Juste(

Juste Trop Long
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
) Trop Complexe(

(5) Avez-vous Ate satisfait avec l'ordre dans lesquel les activities ont ete"
presentees? OUI( ) NON( )
Sinon, quels elements auriez-vous changes?






(1) Encercler un chiffre de 1 5
logistiques pour votre voyage

afin d'indiquer la quality
d'etudes principal .
Ade'quat Adequat

des arrangements

Renseignements preparatoires
Le transport
L'aide donnee par les employees
dedit et de l'universite
La sensibility du personnel sur
le terrain aux besoins des
La coordination dans son
(2) Quels sont les facteurs qui ont
experiences) sur le terrain?

4. 5

contribute au success de vote (vos)

(3) Quels sont les facteurs qui ont nuit au success de votre (vos) experiences)
sur le terrain?

(4) Dans quelle measure 1' (les) experiences) sur le terrain a-t-elle (ont-elles)
contribue"a la realisation de vos objectifs pour le course?

Pas Utile

Un Peu Utile

Tres Utile

(Encercler un numero) 1 2 3
************* *** ****** *** *
(1) Les materiaux ecrits employes dans ce course ont ete:

Non Utiles

Assez Utiles

(2) Les activities ou les materiaux d'instruction audio-visuels
ce course ont ete:

Non Utiles

Assez Utiles

Tres Utiles
employes dans
Tres Utiles

(3) Avec vous des suggestions afaire pour ameliorer l'usage des materiaux
ecrits ou audio-visuels?






(1) Dans quelle measure avez-vous pu communiquer vos idees et vos experiences
au group?

Pas du tout

Un peu


(Encercler un numero)

******* ** ** *** ~* *


(1) Quelles sont les sessions dans le course actuel qui a votre avis devraient
etre prolongees ou elargies?

(2) Quelles sont les sessions du present course qui a votre avis devraient
etre racourcies?

(3) Quels sont les sujets qui votre avis devraient Rtre ajoutes au course?

(4) Quels sont les sujets qui a votre avis devraient etre omis au course?

(5) De toutes les choses que vous avez apprises ou vecues pendant le stage,
lesquelles vous serviront-elles le plus professionellement dans votre

(6) Quel importance ont les sujets traits eues pour votre travail?




(Encercler un numero)



(7) Les problimes et questions discutes en classes ont 4te:
Non pertinents
a mon travail
(Encercler un numero) 1 2 3

a mon travail


***+*~**** **** ******** *~* ** f*****

(1) Indiquez votre satisfaction general avec ce course:
Faible Satisfaisant
(Encercler un numero) 1 2 3



(2) Veuillez cocher une des deux declarations suivantes:
( ) Je conseillerais ce course a d'autres participants ayant une
formation et des interets semblables aux miens.
( ) Je ne conseillerais pas ce course a d'autres participants ayant une
formation et des intrefts semblables aux miens.
(3) Outre les remarques que vous avez exprimees, avez-vous d'autres suggestions
que nous pourrions employer dans l'avenir?




Ce questionnaire s'inscrit dans le cadre d'un systime d'6valuation qui nous pourvoit
d'informations que nous pouvons employer en vue de renforcer l'efficacite du course.
Du fait que nous attachons beaucoup d'importance aux commentaires des participants,
nous vous prions de bien reflechir et d'apporter des commentaires specifiques quant
aux raisons pour lesquelles une activity a ete utile ou pas aussi utile qu'elle
aurait pu l'etre.

I. Veuillez enumerer les
utility en tragant un

activities du course
cercle autour d'un

par ordre chronologique.
chiffre sur l'echelle.
Un peu

Coter leur











m o
-T 4-
m ,

m m










------~-~---'--~I "--

List of Heference materials Presented or Available at ISU FSSP Workshop

These documents are currently on file at Iowa State University with Rosalie H.
NJorem. Complete citations were not available for many items, and many were not

Atherton, Joan, "Readings in Farming Systems Research and Development,"
Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, 2d Edition, June 1983, pp. 42-43.

Bartlett, C.D.S and Akorhe,J.A., "Inter-Disciplinary Co-Operation to Identify
Innovations for Small Farmers The Role of the Economist," pp. 1-13.

Bawden, Richard J. et al "Systems Thinking and practices in the Education of
Agriculturalists," School of Agriculture, Hawkesbury Agricultural College,
Richmond, Australia, Sept. 1983, pp. 1-19.

Belshaw, D.G.R. and Malcolm Hall, "The Analysis and Use of Agricultural
Experimental Data in Tropical Africa," East African Journal of Rural Devlopment,
5 Jan. 2, 1972, pp. 39-71.

Benor, Daniel, and James Q. Harrison, "Agricultural Extension: The Training and
Visit System," May 1977.

Bradfield, Stillman, Appropriate Methodology for Appropriate Technology,
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis., 1981.

CIMMYT Economics Staff, "Assessing Farmers' Needs in Designing Agricultural
Technology," International Agricultural Development Service, August, 1982, pp.

Collinson, M.P., "The Formulation of Data Requirements for Farmer Surveys,"
CIMYT: Eastern African Economics Prograrms, pp 1-18.

Crone, Catherine D. and Hunter, Carman St. John, From the Field: Tested
Participatory Activities for Trainers, New York, Boyd Printing Company, Inc.,

Dillon, John L. and Jock R. Anderson, "Concept and Practice of Farming Systems
Research," University of New England, pp. 1-48.

Franzel, Steve, "Small Farmer Risk Management," CIMrYT Workshop, pp. 1-8.

Gormley, Wilma J. and McCaffery, James A. "Design Components of an
Experiential Training Session," 1982, pp 1-2.

Harrington, L., "Economic Analysis of 2(4) Factorial Agronomic Experiments," pp.

Harrington, L. W. and R. Tripp, "Recommendation Domains: A Framework for On-Farm
Research," April 1984, pp. 1-27.

Harrington, L.W. "Simple Statistics for Manual Analysis of Farm Survey Data,"
pp. 1-15.

Hart, Robert D. Crop/Livestock Interactions as Crop Production Determinants

Winrock International, Morrilton, Ark., May, 1984.

Hildebrand, Peter E., Summary of the Sondeo Methodology Used by ICTA, Instituto
de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas, Guatemala, C.A., June 1979.

Hildebrand, Peter E. ,"Farming systems and Related Courses for Spring Semester,"
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Nov. 23,
1983, pp. 1-12.

Horton, Douglas, Analyse du Budget parties Pour Les Essais Sur Potmmes De Terre
Eh QCamps d'Agriculteurs, Centre International De La Pomme, Dept des Sciences
Social, Lima, Peru, 1960.

Ingalls, John D. A Trainers Guide to Andragogy (revised edition) Data
Education, Inc., Waltham, Mass., Jan. 1972.

Iowa State University, "Title XII Matching Formula Strengthening Grant: Fifth
Annual Progress Report," Iowa State University, 10/82-9/83, pp. 1-55.

lyamabo, D.E., "Report on the On-Farm Research Training Workshop," Jan., 1984,
pp. 1-74.

Johnston, David T., Limiting Factor Economic Evaluation of Cropping Systems,
CATIE (Centro Agronomica Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza), Turrialba,
Costa Rica, 1978.

Jones, David B., "CIMMYT Research Directors' Workshop," Ford Foundation Work on
FSR, April 19, 1983, pp. 1-5.

Kean, S.A., "Linkages Between the Extension Branch and the Adaptive Research
Planning Team," July 12, 1982, pp. 1-7.

Kirkby, Roger, Patricio Gallegos and Tully Cornick, "On-Farm Research Methods: A
Comparative Approach Experiences of the Quimiag-Penipe Project, Ecuador,"
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Sept.

Kolb et al, teachingg Leaning and Learning Styles: A Short Theory Overview."
Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, 2nd Ed.

Lightfoot, Clive, 'On-Farm Experiments in Farming Systems Research," Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, pp. 1-12.

Male, Diane Kayono, "Adaptive Sampling in East Africa," April, 1977, pp. 1-11.

lcCaffrey, James M. and Wilma Gormley, "Co-Training," pp. 1-8.

Mumba, Nicholas Enesi, Handbook for Agricultural Field Workers: Teaching
Methods, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development, Lusaka, Zambia, 1983.

Mumba, Nicholas Enesi, Handbook for Agricultural Field Workers: Guidelines for
Teaching General Agronomy, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development,
Lusaka, Zambia, 1983.

Mumba, Nicholas Enesi, 'Guidelines for Teaching Agricuture Extension for Small

Scale Farming Families," Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development, Lusaka,
Zambia, 1983.

Norem, Rosalie H. and Christine W. Brown, "Family Health Status Indicators,"
Dept. of Family Environment, Iowa State University,Ames, Iowa, Oct. 14, 1983.

Partenheimer, E.J., "Economic Analysis of Biological Research," pp. 1-7.

Pinchinat, Antonio i., 'Strategie Pour Developper Des Etudes Sur Le, Terrain Dans
Les Agrosystemes De Production Pour le Tropique Americain," Institut
Interamericain Des Sciences Agricoles De L'oea, April 1976, pp. 1-10.

Posner, J.L., S. Sail and M. Kamuanga, "Agronomic research in the Base-Casamance
Province of Senegal-The Farming Systems Approach," July 1983, pp. 1-8.

Raymond, C., G. Mcnnier, G. Pocthier and R. Tourte, "Application of Research
Results to the Formulation of Farm Models: Irat's method of Work in Senegal,"
CNRA/Bambey (Senegal), pp 960-968.

Rhoades, Robert E., 'Ihe Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey," March 1982,
pp. 1-40.

Rhoades, Robert E., "Some Notes on the Art of Informal Interviewing," CIMMYT
Workshop, March 1980, 1-10.

Rojas, Mary Hill, "The Invisibility of Women in Income Generation," pp. 1-9.

Rojas, Mary hill, "Case Study in Income Generation for Women," Feb. 1984, pp. 1-

Simmonds, J.W., "Ihe State of the Art of Farming Systems Research: World Bank:
Agricultural Synposium," Edinburgh School of Agriculture, 1984, pp. 1-11.

Spring, Anita, "Modification of Slide-tape Modules," May 1984, pp. 1-10.

Tourte, R., "Definitions and Extraits," pp. 1-5.

Training & Communications Department, Potato Production Course, Lima, Peru,
International Potato Center (CIP), November 1982.

Vordzorgbe, S.D., "Farming Systems Research and Its Application in West Africa,"
1984, p. 1-34.

Walker, T.S., "A Package Versus a Gradient Approach in the Development and
Delivery of Technology in Dryland Agriculture," Project for Dryland Agriculture,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, February 1981, p. 1-16.

Waugh, Robert K., "A Compendium of Notes on Farm Oriented Research and
Extension," Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
May 1983, Pre-1 to Gloss-3.

"3rd International Course for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture
(ICRA)," Wageningen, The Netherlands, Course information and application.
"lhoughtfkil Interviewing," Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, 2nd
ed., p. 161-185.

Appendix A


Emmanuel Acquah
Research Associate
Virginia State Universityi
P.O. Box W
Petersburg, Virginia 23803

Kofi Akwabi-Ameyah
Research Assistant/evaluation consultant
P.O. Box 13334
Gainsville, FL 32604

Kathu Alison
Communications & Media Production
Course Development & Overseas Project
International Trng Div.
RM 4106 Auditor's Building
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20260

Jau Artis
Dept. of Sociology
201 Berkey Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1111

Duncan Bouchton
c/o British High Commission, Banjul
48 Atlantic Road
P.O. Box 507
Fa iar
West Africa

Ntamulyango Baharanyi
Research Assistant
Dept. of Agricultural Econoiics
500 Agri. Sci. Center, South
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40546

Mesfin Bezuneh
Research Assistant
Dept. of Agricultural Economicq
College of Agri. and Life Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Michael Boatenr
Center for Rural Development
Wilco/X, ,ldd. "B"
Tuskegee Institute
Tuskedee, Alabama 36008

Lorna Butler
Extension anthropoloi st/professor
Department of Rural Sociology
Washington State University
Western Washington Re'i':rch t and Exte;r;; ion Center
Fionee:r Way
Puuallup, Washington 98371

John Caldwell
1160 Animial Scienc e Build ng
.'irginia Polytechnic Institute and St:te University
Blacksburg, Virgin;a 24061

Pascal Fotzo
Agricultural Economrist
West Africa Rice Development ;;.soc:ation
01 B.P. 2551
Boual'e 01
IVORY COAST, West Africa

Steve Franzei
Development Alternatives, Inc.
624 Ninth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Louise Fresco
Research Fellow
Agricultural University, Waginingen
Leeuwenborch room 364 Hollandsewed
The Netherlands

Martha Gaudreau
Assistant Professor
Soil Science
Program leader, Farming Systems Pro jCct
University of Minnesotc
227 Soil Science
1529 Gortner Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Elon Gilbert
Associate Research Scientist
CRED, Lorch Hall
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Robert Hudgens.,
Agronomist and F'Provinc; 3 1 coor nstor of
adaptive research plannirg t,.;e m (.ARF'T)
Central Province
Ministry of Agriculture and W ter Development
P. 0. Bos 80908, Kobwue, Zab~l:,
(There are currentlyy five FSR (ARPT) teams in 5
provinces of Zambia. The ARPT program in the
central province is funded by USAID.

Ja'es C.Jones
Associate Director of Farmiing Sy tems Support
fro ject
University of Florida
IFAS International Frograms
3028 McCartu Hall
Gainsville, FL 32611

John Lichte
Independent Consuitant
Upper Volta & Mali e:periencie
RR2 2623 Hppy Valley R..
Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Della McMillan
Assistant Director
Africar Studies
Assistant professor anthropclogg
University of Florida
470 Grinter Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Luyaku Nsimpasi
Research Assistant
Department of Ag. Economics
500 Aari. Sci. Center, South
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40546

Susan Poats
Associate Director FSSP
IFAS International Programs
University of Florida
108 NW 26 St.
Gainesville, FL 32611

Donald L.Price
Assistant Research Associate (Rural
P.O. Box W
Bureau of Economic Resear'ch Development
Virginia State Univ. Petersburg, VA 23803

Marui H::. Ro ija
Office of Women in Wor i .'evelt, pier
10 6 0 -1;,I)u 2l Sc Lnce) c uil PL din0
,!rginia 'olytechni~c I~r :tut:: :.d St. Un v.
Mlackbur.q Virgin;: 2.00

Mandi v.abo Rukuni
Deprp.r ;i;m.-nt cf Land f'anac3 m n c .
Unlver-itc of Zi ld bwe
P.O. Bot MP' 107
Mount P peasant
H.r.are, ZIM!?ABWE, fr! a

Tnum i;s G. S ringnor:,
Senior 'c i: nt ific 0 1Oi .:
Dep r iment of A i r "c:tur i,
SAPU Agricultural St :t ,.c
Cape St. Mry
Ban iv'., THE GA BI fA, Wc( .t A rir !;:

Feth Yordzorgbe
Cr'ps R :,s:,arch In t i tutu ,
P.O. 8ox- 52
sam iale, GHANA, West Afi'- ,:

Rob Werge
Sra ing r dministra t.or
Rm. 41-6 Auditor's Bldg.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250

Charles: Yamoah
Reser-ch Fellow
IITA Farming Syst: s Proglr .',
PMFI 5320
Ibaden Nigeria


Eric Abbott
Associate professor
Journalism & Mans Commuriii. c cl't ion
Iow- State University
Press Building
Ames, IA 50010

Rosalie Nor:m
Associate professor
Family Environment
50 LeBaror
Iowa State Universitu
Ames, IA 50010

Appendix B

Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa

Workshop for trainers in farming systems, Farming System Support Project

11 June 22 June, 1984
Iowa State University

The purposes of this workshop are to provide an opportunity for trainers
in farming systems to assess the training needs related to farming systems
and to apply learning principles and training methods to meeting the needs
of farming systems programs and projects.


During the workshop, participants/trainers will have the opportunity:

1. to consider the critical elements in planning and implementing
effective training programs and projects

2. to relate effective training approaches and techniques to the unique
needs of farming systems

3. to build awareness of the implications for training resulting from the
traditional educational philosophies and educational systems in
Francophone and Anglophone West Africa

4. to examine the policy issues involved in the design and implementation
of farming systems training.


At the close of the workshop,participants/trainers will have improved
skills related to:

1. identifying the qualities of an effective trainer

2. applying training principles for a variety of target groups

3. assessing farming systems training needs for a variety of target

4. building a cooperative and effective farming systems training team

5. logistical planning of training programs and projects

6. developing objectives for farming systems training

7. organizing content and activities in farming systems training

8. communicating the need for an interdisciplinary model in farming
systems work

9. translating information into training

10. choosing and preparing appropriate training media for specific
groups and settings

11. designing and implementing appropriate evaluation for farming systems

Designing Effective Farming Systems Training for West Africa

Workshop for trainers in farming systems, Farming System Support Project

11 June 22 June, 1984
Iowa State University

Tentative Schedule

Monday, 11 June

12:00- 1:30

1:30- 2:00

2:00- 2:30





Registration--training resource center open


Opening and welcome

Overview of workshop and discussion of purposes and

Introduction of participants/trainers


Training and farming systems--assessment and integration

Free time for discussion--training resource center open

Tuesday, 12 June
8:30- 9:15 Training needs in farming systems
Identification oftraining audiences
Relating content to training audience needs and

9:15-10:00 Group discussion on needs assessment and training issues
unique to farming systems

10:00-10:30 Break

10:30-11:45 A team approach to farming systems training

11:45- 1:00 Lunch

1:00- 1:45 Communicating an interdisciplinary model in training

1:45- 2:30 Building a training repertoire

2:30- 3:00 Break

3:00- 3:45 Small group exercise in planning training with a team
3:45- 5:00 Small group presentations and discussion





V. yJ



11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:00







I.~ Jvui



of West African Anglophone/Francophone
traditions on training needs in West Africa

Thursday, 14 June



11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

3:00- 4:30


Friday, 15 June



11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

3:00- 4:30

Translating information into training




Small group


information into training (continued)

planning for training presentations*

Using a case study approach in farming systems training

Informal social (details to be furnished)

Choosing media alternatives for farming systems training


Designing training media


Small group planning for training presentations*


Small group presentations and feedback

*Small groups will be planning training presentations to be made in the
second week of the workshop.

ndeW sd a 13 June

Handling the logistics of training
Coordinating training content and available time


Developing training objectives


Free time for participant interaction and feedback
Training resource center open

Reassessment of workshop goals and objectives




Saturday, 16 June Optional field trip to Living History Farms

Monday, 18 June




11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

3:00- 4:30

Tuesday, 19 June
8:30- 9:15




11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

3:00- 4:30

Wednesday, 20



11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

Policy issues in farming systems training


Small group exercise on responding to policy issues in
farming systems training



Small group process in training


Time for discussion and small group work
Training resource center open

Planning field experiences for farming systems training

Small group exercise in planning field experiences


Small group presentations and discussion


The role of extension in farming systems training/
audience and trainers


Participant presentation on issues in farming systems

Designing and implementing evaluation of farming systems


Time for discussion and small group work
Training resource center open


The interaction of farming systems research and farming
systems training


Wednesday, 20 June (continued)
3:00- 4:30 Training as technical assistance/transfer technology in
farming systems

Thursday, 21 June
8:30-10:00 Participant presentation on issues in farming systems

10:00-10:30 Break

10:30-11:15 Discussion of plans for training presentations


11:45- 1:00

1:00- 2:30

2:30- 3:00

3:00- 4:30

Small group work


Small group presentation and evaluation**


Small group presentation and evaluation**


Friday, 22 June



12:00- 1:30

1:30- 2:00

2:00- 2:45

Closing dinner

Small group presentation and evaluation**


Small group presentation and evaluation**


Discussion of small group presentations

Workshop evaluation and feedback

**During these presentations, participants from two OICD workshops on
campus will be present. These participants are from developing countries,
many from Africa, and will be able to give valuable trainee feedback about
the presentations.

Note: Several times have been allocated for presentations by participants
on issues related to farming systems training. Arrangements for the
presentations will be finalized when participants are confirmed.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs