effectiveness of modular training at farmers - IPMS Information ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.2. Effectiveness of Modular Training in terms of Knowledge, Skill and AttitudeEffectiveness of modular training can be evaluated by taking various parameters. For thesepurposes, efforts of actors and their linkage intensity, the output (knowledge) and outcome(practice) of the training for trained farmers and performance of FTCs were taken asmeasurement indicators. To assess the effectiveness of modular training in improvingfarmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice of apiculture, dairy and sheep fattening practices,60 trained and 60 untrained farmers were used in the study. In this study, assessment inknowledge, attitude and practice in promoting those commodities was performed usingdescriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and statistical tests. The differencebetween trained and untrained farmers was compared by using independent sample t-test. Thefrequencies and percentages of respondents were ranged as low, medium and high categoriesin order to understand distributions of each group of farmers.Training is prerequisite to decrease the complexity of the technology. Moreover, field visit,tour and demonstration upgrade farmers’ knowledge and skill (Tesfaye, 2006). In the sameanalogy, Tesfaye (2009) indicated that, training is an approach used to disseminate knowledgeand skill to the farming community.4.2.1. KnowledgeA ‘Teacher-made-test’ was constructed and administered to look at the knowledge level offarmers with 10 questions having 25 obtainable scores for trained and untrained farmers onapiculture, dairy and fattening. Independent sample t-test was applied to compare the meandifference of trained and untrained farmers’ knowledge and results are presented below inTable 10. The answers of respondents were evaluated and categorized into low (0-8), medium(9-17) and high (18-25) based on the score ranges. This distribution shows the frequency,percentage and chi-square with 1% level significant (p=0.006) of trained and untrainedrespondents that explained in Appendix Table 1.48
Table 8: Knowledge test of sample householdsRespondents N Mean SD t- value p-valueTrained 60 17.38 3.11 2.952*** 0 .004Untrained 60 15.82 2.69Source: Own survey data (2010)***Significant at 1 % probability levelThe t-test shows that there was high significant (p< 0. 01) difference between mean scores oftrained and untrained farmers (probability p= 0.004). Knowledge test indicates that the trainedfarmers had better level of knowledge than untrained farmers. The data reported in Table 8,clearly indicated that there was high significant difference between mean scores of knowledgeof two groups of farmers with respect to modular training on selected practices. The trainedfarmers gained more knowledge as compared to untrained farmers. About 41.7% and 56.7%of the trained respondents had acquired medium to high level of knowledge respectively,while 70.0% and 30.0% of the untrained farmers had acquired medium to high level ofknowledge of the same practices (see Appendix Table 1).However, untrained farmers also know something about apiculture, dairy and fatteningpractices due to knowledge and information sharing, different extension activities conductedin the locality, informal discussion with trained farmers and from their life experience. Butfrom the result obtained, it could be seen that modular training kept the farmers moreknowledgeable in promoting those commodities, especially with reference to beekeeping anddairy. The results of the study are in line with the findings of Babur (2009), who reported thatknowledge of coffee management practices of members of Farmer Field School was higherthan the non members. Although the training content differs, these findings can agree withthe findings of Kefyalew (2006) and Tsion (2008) that trainings kept the trained farmers moreinformed and acquired knowledge.49
Page 1 and 2:
EFFECTIVENESS OF MODULAR TRAINING A
Page 3 and 4:
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIESHARAMAYA
Page 5 and 6:
STATEMENT OF AUTHORFirst of all, I
Page 7 and 8:
ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)RAAKSSGSWH
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTFirst and foremost le
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)2.5. E
Page 13 and 14: LIST OF TABLESTablepageTable 1. Est
Page 15 and 16: LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIXAppen
Page 17 and 18: 1. INTRODUCTION1.1. Background of t
Page 19 and 20: since 2004 in Ethiopia. Farmers wer
Page 21 and 22: undertaken. If institutions focused
Page 23 and 24: panel discussion, conference, exper
Page 25 and 26: 2. LITERATURE REVIEWIn this chapter
Page 27 and 28: Figure1. Four Stages of the TIER Mo
Page 29 and 30: Level 1: Reactions: At this level,
Page 31 and 32: In 1963, agricultural extension was
Page 33 and 34: stated objectives which involves co
Page 35 and 36: trainees’ farm cooperation and co
Page 37 and 38: Modular training was supposed to gi
Page 39 and 40: achievement of a corporation purpos
Page 41 and 42: e examined, defined and described b
Page 43 and 44: FTCs are expected to play active ro
Page 45 and 46: deficient in training skills, espec
Page 47 and 48: 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGYIn this chap
Page 49 and 50: Figure 4. Map of the study Area (Fo
Page 51 and 52: 3.2.2. Sample size and sampling pro
Page 53 and 54: 3.2.3. Types and sources of dataTo
Page 55 and 56: 3.2.5. Method of data analysisBased
Page 57 and 58: Table 4: Profiles of respondentsNo
Page 59 and 60: The data in the Table reveal that t
Page 61 and 62: 4.1.3.3. Delivery of modular traini
Page 63: also have not participated with ful
Page 67 and 68: 4.2.2. PracticePractice was operati
Page 69 and 70: The responses of farmers were categ
Page 71 and 72: system. Actors’ interactions can
Page 73 and 74: FTCs and this project supports only
Page 75 and 76: 4.3.5. Actor linkage matrixActor li
Page 77 and 78: According to actor linkage matrix;
Page 79 and 80: followed by projects, NGOs and rese
Page 81 and 82: may have access for information abo
Page 83 and 84: 4.5.3. Lessons learned from better
Page 85 and 86: SWOT AnalysisStrength, Weakness, Op
Page 87 and 88: Opportunities• Participatory plan
Page 89 and 90: Practice was assessed based on trai
Page 91 and 92: with communication media, articles,
Page 93 and 94: BoARD and SWHISA (Bureau of Agricul
Page 95 and 96: IPMS (Improving Productivity and Ma
Page 97 and 98: Taddesse Mulugeta, 2007. Rural wate
Page 99 and 100: Appendix Table 1. Category of train
Page 101 and 102: Appendix Table 5: Extent of linkage
Page 103 and 104: 3.2. What do you think about the ti
Page 105 and 106: 4.5 Practice (Indicate whether you
show all

effectiveness of modular training at farmers - IPMS Information ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?