Senior IPM Scientific Officer
The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia
Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
The failure of the chemical control paradigm to resolve issues relating to resistance, resurgence, secondary pest outbreaks and hazards to health and the environment have resulted in a shift to an IPM paradigm. A further shift occurred at the implementation level.
A programme to help farmers understand science was launched in 1989. To achieve this, 30 field trainers learned to facilitate learning at a residential season-long Farmer Training Facility (FTF). FTF graduates appreciated that science has to be learned and not told by IPM practitioners.
Twenty to thirty farmers meet for weekly sessions of about six hours each during a rice season at a Farmer Field School (FFS). Learning to experiment often results in farmers knowing more about the ecosystem. They use this knowledge to analyse the ecosystem. To meet the challenges of maintaining quality education in science, it is necessary to develop Action Research Facility (ARF) and follow-up farmer studies. This enables farmers, researchers and extension workers to become research partners.
INTRODUCTION
For decades, the modus operandi in agricultural development, particularly in third world countries, has been a top-down “tell farmers what to do” approach. Researchers would develop new technology in the research station and this would be transferred to farmers. Often farmers had no say when development packets are thrust on them. This approach was so ubiquitous that a young scientist starting a career in plant protection in the early 1970s would hardly need to meet farmers/clients. The linear approach of extending technology was promoted internationally and developing infrastructures to support this extension approach was a priority in many developing economies. Roling & van der Fliert (1994) noted that extension became a “delivery mechanism” for science. Such an approach has not really benefited resource-poor farmers (Chambers et al., 1989). Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of rice cultivation in South and Southeast Asia. The evolution of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) implementation in rice provides a good setting to discuss the problems associated with a top-down process and the shift towards farmer education. In particular, a specific case concerning the development of the brown planthopper (BPH), Nilaparvata lugens Stål (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) as a serious pest of rice following intensification in rice cultivation is noteworthy (Kenmore et al., 1984; Ooi, 1986). Lessons learned from implementing IPM in rice and other crops in the region provided the impetus for the evolution of methods used to educate farmers about science. This is a challenging subject because a complex concept such as IPM has resulted in a wide array of definitions and approaches (Moore, 1996). As a result of this, Kogan (1998) pointed out that the term “IPM” is now a household word and being used by so many people.
Despite its wide acceptance, IPM remains a complex issue (Schmidt et al., 1997). Historically, IPM has its roots in entomology. Perkins (1982) pointed out that entomology is both science and technology. The technological aspect of entomology is the complex part that led to competing approaches toward pest control. Moore (1996) highlighted the various interpretations of IPM and warned of the dangers of being caught in semantics and wander away from the very basis upon which IPM was first developed. This is not surprising as IPM has evolved in the last fifty years from a technical mix of various components (Stern et al., 1959; Smith and Reynolds, 1966; Bottrell, 1979; Kenmore, 1987) to a farmer-led programme (Dilts and Pontius, 1999). Successful IPM has always followed an ecological approach (Kogan, 1998). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Programme for Implementation of IPM in rice in Asia provides a unique opportunity to examine an approach that focused on small-scale farmers understanding ecological science to achieve a more stable and sustained production of agricultural crops.
A PARADIGM SHIFT
Following the discovery of chemical insecticides in the late 1930s and early 1940s, spraying insecticides quickly became the dominant paradigm in pest control (van den Bosch, 1978). The chemical control paradigm quickly underwent a crisis because it could not successfully handle the problems of resistance, resurgence, secondary pest outbreaks, and environmental and health hazards (Perkins, 1982). Alternatives to the chemical paradigm developed. However, many of the early alternatives focused on developing better technology and very little on implementation. Hence, there were large investments in developing resistant plant varieties. For example, when there were large outbreaks of BPH, there was a rush to develop resistant varieties. Recognising that insecticides can cause BPH outbreaks, the strategy was to develop rice varieties that were not preferred by the BPH, and hence, reduce the pest problem. However, developing plant resistance to BPH did not result in reducing the use of insecticides as farmers were encouraged to spray for other insects. BPH resurgence persisted until widespread appreciation of natural enemies became the norm. Similarly, developing passive economic threshold levels (ETLs) did not help farmers understand field ecology. Hence, farmers were told by researchers and extension specialists to spray insecticides when they noticed 7 BPH/hill in their rice fields. In reality, the perceived message was about use of insecticides and many rice farmers sprayed their fields at the first sign of BPH. Thus, IPM based on the use of ETLs actually led to more insecticide sprays in rice fields, disrupting biological control, thereby causing more resurgence and secondary pest outbreaks. There were also attempts to improve sampling, such as using sequential sampling, but these did not go beyond research stations, even with “simplified” peg boards.
It follows that within the larger paradigm shift, there was another paradigm shift within IPM. This occurs at the level of implementation. Right up to 1980s, IPM implementation was a centrally-controlled activity where farmers were told what to plant when to plant, when to spray and what to spray, a “delivery mechanism” extension (Roling & van der Fliert, 1994). Initially, the FAO Inter-Country Programme adopted this approach at the time of inception in 1980. However, it became increasingly clear that an implementation programme where farmers were not involved directly leave much to misunderstanding, abuse and eventually led to further resurgence of BPH. While the objective was to reduce the amount of insecticides used in rice, the opposite very often occurred. Simple messages in the form of a “participatory” strategic extension campaign (Adhikarya, 1994) did not educate farmers to understand ecology and invariably led to greater dependence on chemical control. Ecological knowledge of BPH was known for a decade (Kenmore et al., 1984; Ooi, 1986) but had little impact on farmers for they did not have a chance to learn about it.
Recognising that extensive use of insecticides have led to food insecurity, the President of Indonesia signed Presidential Decree 3/86 (Wardhani, 1992). The decree banned 57 insecticides from rice fields and removed subsidy for pesticides. This cleared the rice environment of numerous disruptive insecticides to enable the development of IPM education for farmers (Dilts and Simon Hate, 1996). Matteson et al. (1994) pointed out that learning in a group using conventional teaching methods with field demonstrations and class experiments was reported earlier by Goodell et al. (1981). A focus on understanding rather than following instructions or adopting a package is basically still little understood then. Four methods to teach science to farmers emerged during IPM implementation in Indonesia from 1990. These methods did not develop all at the same time but evolved as the new implementation programme gained momentum and built on experiences gained.
FARMER TRAINING FACILITY (FTF) APPROACH
The Indonesian Presidential Decree of 3/86 was promulgated on the basis of a wealth of information that resurgence of BPH and other rice insect pests will occur following the widespread use of insecticides. Immediately following the decree, the concerned authorities embarked on a campaign, ordering farmers to avoid using restricted insecticides and to use only approved insecticides when BPH reached the ETL. It was clear to rice ecologists that the pest problem would remain as long as farmers did not understand the cause of outbreaks. With support of top policy makers, a decisive move was made to re-educate plant protection field officers on educating farmers. This trainin programme was held in what became known as a Farmer Training Facility (FTF). The philosophy adopted was based on the notion that “Trainers will teach in the way they were taught”. Much of the re-learning focused on learning from farmers and this understanding fostered respect for farmers.
This FTF approach is a fully residential and season-long programme aimed at understanding how insecticides cause resurgence of the BPH. Essential to the FTF process is the selection of issues related to rice production. In 1989, the main issue was the worst pest of rice, the BPH, which threatened food security. With the help of resource persons from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and national research institutions, experiments were planned to help trainees carry out scientific studies to determine mortality factors that keep BPH and other rice herbivores in check. Trainees also carried out experiments to understand plant physiology and appreciate the concept of plant compensation. While the initial focus was on rice, knowledge was also built from other crops grown after rice (“palawija”). To unlearn the top-down delivery mechanism, it was necessary to pick up new skills in facilitating learning, group dynamics, inter-personal relationship, management and planning besides skills in carrying out field and classroom experiments. The Government of Indonesia invested time and money to develop a cadre of IPM trainers who are confident in working with farmers as their equals.
To achieve this mutual respect with farmers, IPM trainers had to grow a rice crop from nursery to harvesting. Graduates of FTF learned that farmers have been experimenting, possess values and learn better when given the opportunity to discover. Indeed, they developed principles that encouraged farmers to manage their own fields. Their knowledge from studies conducted during the FTF led them to appreciate that science has to be learned and not told by practitioners.
Usually, a FTF has up to 30 field officers. It is an in-service training programme and often officers are fairly senior in service. This form of in-service training is often very different from the ones these officers are used to. In all countries where this approach was initiated, there was initial rebellion within the ranks. Many arrived at the FTF unprepared. The dress code was similar to that of farmers and many were not prepared to walk barefoot in the mud, preparing fields for planting and actually do the planting. However, camaraderie developed and the group realised that they were learning new skills and developing greater confidence that have helped them in their work. Usually four or five groups of trainees were formed and members of each group worked together to carry out experiments, discussed field issues, worked with farmers and eventually developed their own programmes about learning field ecology and how to teach science to farmers. For example, carrying out an exclusion cage experiment in their study sites had allowed the trainers to better appreciate the natural mortality factors that were existing in the rice ecosystem (Ooi, 1996). This invariably led to more cage studies referred to as “insect zoos”. The purpose of “insect zoos” was to study the behaviour of an insect and to determine if it was a predator or a herbivore (Ooi et al., 1991). This study can be modified to determine the functional response of a predator to the number of prey consumed. Indeed, the training groups often came out with different results (Ooi, 1996) and this had encouraged critical discussions. In the end, what emerged was a cadre of trainers who have ownership of new-found knowledge concerning the concept of predation. This greatly strengthened their confidence about helping farmers understand predation and biological control in general.
The role of resource persons in FTF is one of helping trainers with the technical aspects of setting up experiments. In addition to providing knowledge, they help trainers to upgrade their skills in carrying out experiments. This process may be implemented outside an FTF. For example, a researcher may work with a team of trainers and helps them set up studies to determine predation of soybean aphids (van den Berg et al., 1997) or study the natural enemies of soybean pod-sucking bugs (van den Berg et al., 1995). An important feature of these studies is that these are conducted in farmers' fields together with farmers. Hence, the trainers will help train other trainers and farmers using similar methods.
To enhance an ecological understanding in the rice ecosystem, a researcher works with field trainers in fields operated by farmers. They develop the concept of “neutral insects” that help explain why general predators continue to be effective in the rice field when no pest species is apparent (Settle et al., 1996). The ecological research is necessary in the light of misinformation from certain quarters concerning the role of natural enemies, particularly general predators in the rice field.
The FTF approach underwent further evolution when it was taken out of Indonesia. In Bangladesh, China and the Philippines, various forms of the FTF approach were experimented and it was finally agreed that a full season residential training was necessary to achieve the expected quality of a “facilitator”. In Vietnam, the FTF approach assumed the name of Training-of-Trainers (TOT) and was modified to include simultaneous implementation of Farmer Field School (FFS). Each group in the FTF had to organise an FFS during the season. In fact, this modified version is the main one adopted today in Nepal, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Lao PDR. Building capability and capacity of national programmes to run FTF or TOT is an important aspect of IPM implementation. Only nationals who possess the local language, local know-how and working with local farmers are able to set up quality farmer education in their countries.
A FTF, besides teaching fundamentals of agro-ecology and non-formal education (NFE) processes, is a versatile tool used to bring trainers to work with farmers. In Indonesia, it facilitated the development of curriculum for IPM in field crops grown after rice (“palawija”). In 1994, the Vietnam National IPM Programme embarked on IPM in Vegetables. However, IPM trainers only had experience in rice and were not comfortable about setting up a TOT for vegetable IPM. It was decided that to upgrade skills in vegetable IPM, some experienced rice IPM trainers would be selected to learn more about cabbage, tomato and bean cultivation. A small FTF was set up near Hanoi and based at a station surrounded by vegetable farms. Trainers learned from farmers on cultivating the three crops. They also talked to researchers from the university and the national agriculture research organisations. Information provided were used to plan studies to be conducted in the fields owned by farmers. Trainers had to carry out the FTF for two seasons before they were sufficiently confident in organising a TOT for their colleagues. They planned the curriculum based on studies they have carried out. This approach to learning and obtaining knowledge proved useful in isolated sites such as Dalat, a highland vegetable growing area. It was assumed that the diamondback moth, a serious pest of cabbages, should be controlled by regular treatments with chemical insecticides. To test this assumption, trainers in Dalat organised a study with farmers. They compared sprayed (based on farmer practice) and not sprayed fields of cabbages. After a season, they realised that the population of the diamondback moth was really not serious and prophylactic sprays may not be necessary. This method of testing assumptions helped the trainers to plan IPM teaching curriculum for farmers. Weekly samplings were carried out using visual counts for the pests and using pitfall traps to trap spiders on the ground. The study showed that it was necessary to understand what was happening in the field before interventions were made. As noted in Figure 1, the chemical insecticides had adverse effects on spiders (based on pitfall trap catches). The population of the diamondback moth was similar in both situations.
A similar situation was observed in Nepal when the Plant Protection Division embarked on IPM with initial support from an FAO Technical Co-operation Programme. Field trainers were concerned that they did not understand rice field ecology and recent outbreaks of BPH in Chitwan (Terai) caused much anxiety. Supported by the FAO Intercountry Programme, some trainers were selected to initiate field studies at the village where BPH outbreaks were reported in 1996. It was necessary to build up a database on field ecology before a FTF could be set up. Five trainers were stationed in a district in Chitwan to work with farmers there. Farmers were thrilled to work with the trainers in their fields and despite some initial problems with field experimentation, the trainers learned that contrary to widespread beliefs, the BPH was not a problem in fields that were not sprayed (Figure 2). Predatory spiders and mirids appeared to have kept the BPH in check. Armed with knowledge acquired during the study, the trainers were able to work with IPM trainers from the Philippines to develop a TOT the following season. When we returned to the same village two years later, the farmers remembered what they have learned and what was most interesting was that they were carrying out experiments on their own to discover more natural enemies and selecting better rice varieties. No further outbreak of BPH was reported in the area.
(A)
(B)
Figure 1: Results of a field study by a team of Vietnamese IPM trainers in Dalat in 1995 to understand the impact of chemical insecticides on the diamondback moth (A) and on spiders (general predators) (B).
Figure 2: Weekly data from a field owned by Mr. Aryal collected by both farmers and trainers at Kharkhute, Kathar, Chitwan, Nepal.
FARMER FIELD SCHOOL (FFS) APPROACH
FFS is a season-long learning experience attended by 25 to 30 farmers (Dilts and Pontius, 1999). Trainers from FTF or TOT are equipped to facilitate learning in FFS in their duty stations. In the FFS, farmers learn about the agro-ecosystem. To do this, the rice field is the field laboratory where farmers learn ecology by means of regular observation and testing hypothesis.
The FFS is a participatory learning process (ter Weel and van der Wulp, 1999). The process emphasises taking decisions and actions based on an open discussion of ideas. Facilitators ensure that the process is not dominated by any individual. Every decision made in the FFS can be tested in the field. The FFS process also provides participants with an opportunity to examine human social dynamics. As a result, FFS participants not only learn about the cause-and-effect relationships that exist in the rice field (ecology), but they also acquire a greater understanding of human relationships (Dilts and Pontius, 1999). It is not an end in itself, but really the beginning of an educational adventure.
The FFS process was very well received by farmers when it was first introduced in Indonesia (Oka, 1997). Farmers welcomed the process where they are asked to think. For example, a common outcome when they walked into the field to pick up bugs or diseased plant parts was to ask “What is this?”. The good facilitators did not give direct answers and to the surprise of the farmers they were asked a question instead of receiving an answer. Facilitators asked “Where was it found?” Farmers were forced to recall where they found the specimen and initiated a conversation. Through a series of questions and answers, the farmers wanted to find out the nature of the specimen collected. In the case of a bug, the farmer was encouraged to find out the function of that bug using an “insect zoo”. Hence, a process of looking for answers was developed. This study helped to enhance the power of observation of the farmers. Examples of other questions asked were “How many legs are present? What is the shape and colour of the bug? Where is it found?”. This discovery process may be undermined by a “recipe” approach towards learning. In some FFS, the curriculum was formulated by trainers based on “Field Guides” with little reference to field situations. This led to poor attendance, as the FFS did not address the concerns of the farmers. Further information on implementation of FFS may be obtained from Matteson et al. (1994), Roling and van der Fliert (1994), Dilts and Simon Hate (1996), Schmidt et al. (1997), ter Weel and van der Wulp (1999) and Dilts and Pontius (1999).
Developing an ecological understanding helps participants to analyse the ecosystem weekly. Usually five groups of five participants each will carry out weekly field observations. They observe the growth of the crop, measure its development, check for level of water and record the weather. Based on “insect zoo” results, farmers would be able to separate the pests from the natural enemies. Having done that, they would draw what they have observed and present their findings. By this time, the group would have arrived at a decision about the condition of the field. This will be discussed with members of the other groups. The analytical processes employed in the FFS enhance farmers' capacities to examine the conditions where they live and work (Dilts and Pontius, 1999). Participants, having completed their FFS, are able to take decisions and act to improve on those conditions. Many graduates of FFS go on to become farmer trainers and have organised workshops to share knowledge from scientific studies.
Besides field observation, farmers work with IPM trainers to set up comparative studies to compare sprayed and unsprayed plots. As with all studies in FFS, these should be developed after farmers have shared their views about their practices. Trainers would treat their beliefs as hypothesis and request that these be tested. This method of testing hypothesis is popular, as many farmers did not recognise the hazards of using chemical insecticides. It encourages critical thinking. Some basic field experiments include exclusion cages, defoliation and removal of tillers. They provide answers to the more common questions raised by farmers. The purpose of a defoliation study is to test the hypothesis that plants have compensation mechanisms against defoliators (Figure 3). Hence, participants of an FFS in Piem Ro, Prey Veng Province, Cambodia were able to show that up to 75% defoliation of rice plants even at 60 days after transplanting did not cause much yield loss (Table 1). The results helped farmers to conclude that early season spray at the first sight of herbivores may not be necessary. It was not surprising that farmers who were just told not to spray in the first 40 days were motivated to attend the FFS (Huan et al., 1999) where they could learn about this and other concepts.
Figure 3: Farmers in a Farmer Field School in Vietnam setting up an experiment to test the effects of defoliation on yield of rice plants.
Table 1: Results of a defoliation study by farmers attending a Farmer Field School at Piem Ro, Prey Veng Province, 1996. Rice variety used was IR 66.
| Treatment | Yield kg/ha | ||
| %defoliation | At 15 DAT | At 30 DAT | At 60 DAT |
| 0 | 2513 ± 95 | 2488 ± 25 | 2475 ± 65 |
| 25 | 2488 ± 85 | 2475 ± 65 | 2500 ± 41 |
| 50 | 2450 ± 58 | 2643 ± 85 | 2450 ± 41 |
| 75 | 2425 ± 87 | 2425 ± 65 | 2438 ± 48 |
At an FFS, farmers are able to test whether insect pests would wipe out a no-spray plot. In more than 99% of the FFSs conducted in nine countries, the results have always been the same, no insecticides no pest outbreak. An examination of comparative studies in FFSs conducted in Cambodia in 1995 suggested that rice yields were either similar or better than in sprayed plots (Figure 4). Such positive re-enforcement from their studies have helped to develop confidence in farmers to carry out more studies. In all countries where FFS have been adopted as the preferred method to educate rice farmers, threats of outbreaks of BPH declined, and often, higher yields were achieved. Farmers were able to talk to regional and national policy makers about what they learned and this convinced policy makers to avoid policies that threaten the ecology of the rice field.
Figure 4: Mean rice yield compiled from comparative studies conducted in FFSs from five localities (four provinces) in Cambodia during the Dry Season 1995.
Despite the positive lessons learned from FFS implementation (Dilts and Pontius, 1999), there are also concerns that not all IPM trainers conduct FFS in a participatory manner. The quality of FFS implementation can be determined only by visiting on-going activities or discussion with FFS graduates. To facilitate this evaluation (often self-evaluation), Pontius (1999, pers. comm.) suggested a quality matrix which is summarised in Table 2. Recognising variations in quality of FFS implementation, steps were taken to reduce the gap between farmers who received a good education and those who continued to receive a top-down lecture. Management workshops for graduates of FTF every six months have helped to facilitate the process of ownership of IPM implementation. At the same time, efforts were made to encourage science education through Action Research Facility (ARF) and follow-up farmer studies.
Table 2. Quality matrix for learning IPM in Farmer Field Schools developed by John Pontius (1999, personal communication).
| Activity in FFS | Indicators of Quality | |
|---|---|---|
| What is this? Dialogue to focus attention on function not name | 1. | No direct answers given, leading questions asked |
| 2. | Function related questions asked | |
| 3. | Participants able to state or define functional relationships in the agroecosystem | |
| Agroecosystem Analysis Focus on developing good IPM habits Weekly observations Analysis Decision making | 1. | Process of observation includes the whole plant and surroundings |
| 2. | Observations written down | |
| 3. | Specimens collected | |
| 4. | Drawing summarized observations | |
| 5. | IPM trainers pose problems and ask questions appropriate to analysis of drawing | |
| 6. | Group discussion relating to field conditions and agroecosystem relationships | |
| 7. | Previous weeks' agroecosystem drawing used for comparison | |
| 8. | Participants active and working together in small groups | |
| 9. | Participants can identify differences between pests and natural enemies | |
| 10. | Decisions based on levels of insect populations | |
| Special topics Focus on particular aspects of IPM | 1. | All participants active and involved in the activity |
| 2. | Participants can state what they have learned because of the activity | |
| 3. | Group leader help participants examine the steps towards applying what they learned to real life | |
| Group Dynamics Focus on enhancing team work and problem solving skills | 1. | All participants actively involved in the activity |
| 2. | Trainers help participants identify key learning points based on the activity and ask questions that help participants learn from the experience | |
| 3. | Participants able to state what they have learned | |
| Ballot Box Evaluating process that is used as pre- and post-test to determine IPM field skills | 1. | Testing field based knowledge and skills |
| 2. | Latin names not used | |
| 3. | Group leader uses ballot box to reinforce learning, focus in on content not scores |
ACTION RESEARCH FACILITY (ARF) APPROACH
Five years after the introduction and adoption of FFS as the primary learning method by the Indonesian National IPM Programme, an approach to strengthen science and farmers was initiated. This approach was set up to encourage farmers facing chronic pest problems to find solutions to their problems. A site was set up in the village of Kalensari in the district of Indramayu, West Java. This site was chosen to address the problem of white stemborer outbreaks that occur annually following prolonged drought. Van der Goot (1925) studied this problem some sixty years ago and discovered that the white stemborer larvae diapause during prolonged drought from August to November. He recommended that farmers avoid planting rice until the larvae break diapause following onset of rain and swarms of the moths have disappeared. Although researchers knew of this information for sixty years, it was not utilised to help farmers solve their problem. On the contrary, farmers were “forced” to purchase large amounts of insecticides in an attempt to control the insect resulting in resurgence of BPH and poor control of the white stemborer. When farmers experimented and re-discovered the concept of diapause, their enthusiasm led them to plan and implement ways to avoid an outbreak of white stem borer (Warsiyah et al., 1999). These farmers were able to convince the district officer to stop forcing insecticides onto farmers. Instead, farmers organised themselves to avoid the peak periods by monitoring rainfall and flights of the moths (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Farmers belonging to an Action Research Facility at the village of Kalensari (Indramayu), checking for moths of the white stemborer at light traps prior to making decisions on time of planting.
A similar ARF was set up in the village of Sambon near Boyolali in Central Java. Farmers were able to manage tungro when they understood how the virus spreads. Information about this has been available for two decades but was not used in favour of chemical control developed by centralised decision-makers. Farmers realised the need to remove sources of inoculum prior to planting and organised blocks of about 10 ha where rice was planted synchronously. Within a season, the tungro problem was solved.
The success of tungro management have encouraged farmers in Sambon to study traditional indigenous knowledge. One such knowledge is the use of rotting meat to attract the rice ear bug. Farmers found the most attractive bait was chicken droppings but these attracted mostly males (Ooi, 1998). Nevertheless, they realised that it could be used to monitor the presence of the rice ear bug.
The ARF's role in helping farmers solve pest problems is now better appreciated by the national research community. The approach has all the qualities described by Waters-Bayer (1989) and Ashby and Sperling (1994). It provides a fresh perspective concerning the nature of agricultural research. This is true when researchers also understand that science has to be learned and not told by practitioners. It cannot be assumed that once scientific knowledge leaves the scientist's desk, it would reach farmers for their passive adoption. National researchers need to provide the opportunity for farmers to re-discover the science behind the recommendations, or better yet, develop science with farmers. The experience from ARF confirms that farmers are knowledgeable and innovative (Bentley, 1994) and shows the need for national agricultural research institutions, the extension services and farmer groups to work together as research partners (Waage, 1998).
FOLLOW-UP FARMER FIELD STUDIES (FFFS) APPROACH
More than 120 case studies of farmer research by FFS graduates in Indonesia were collected when IPM trainers encouraged farmers to continue experimenting. Many of these case studies showed how innovative farmers were. They formulated ideas and set about testing these ideas, and based on their own experiments, came up with conclusions that they could share with other farmers. Some of these studies were reported by Ooi et al. (1999). Also, many more farmer research is continuing to be reported by farmers. Similar developments were reported by Sperling et al., (1993) and Loevinsohn et al. (1994) from their work with Rwandan farmers. Unlike ARFs, there is no concerted effort in Follow-up Farmer Field Studies (FFFS) focusing on any single problem. Often, FFFSs are organised by Farmer Trainers and FFS graduates with minimal support from the national programme.
Besides discovering new knowledge, farmers often use FFFS approach to evaluate recommendations. For example, when the insecticide industry promotes a new kind of insecticide that claims to be friendly to natural enemies, farmers are encouraged to treat the suggestion as a hypothesis to be evaluated.
When outbreaks of BPH were reported in 1998 in North Sumatra, agricultural authorities were concerned that farmers were returning to regular field spraying. Investigations showed that outbreaks of the BPH occurred in fields owned by farmers who did not fully understand IPM. A campaign was launched by certain quarters of the agriculture department to promote use of endosulfan (banned from being used in rice in Indonesia) as a method to control the golden apple snail. Even though farmers knew about alternative methods to manage the snail, marketing and “persuasion” resulted in large-scale use of this insecticide. When the cause of BPH outbreaks was identified, FFS alumni members organised themselves to set up field studies they learned in the FFS and invited other farmers in their community to join in. As in the FFS, farmers realised the adverse effect of using toxic chemicals in the rice field. After a season, the use of endosulfan declined and there was no further outbreak of BPH. This case study exemplifies a way to approach field problems. Like in the ARF, it requires facilitators to work with farmers on problem analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A paradigm shift from an all-invasive and disruptive chemical control to IPM did not stop there. There is a further shift from a top-down to a more participatory approach in IPM implementation. To achieve this, it is necessary to help IPM trainers (and field workers) to unlearn the top-down habits and adapt to a new role as facilitators of farmer education. The new approach is to provide learning opportunities to farmers. Facilitators learn new skills in FTF and develop confidence in organising FFS where rice fields are the class laboratories. Good facilitators appreciate that science has to be learned and not told by IPM practitioners. Maintaining quality in science education is challenging and there is a need to encourage graduates of FFS to continue experimenting. This is achieved through ARF and FFFS. These approaches provide an opportunity for scientists, extension workers and farmers to work together to solve field problems. It requires a change in mindset to recognise that farmers are knowledgeable, innovative and are always experimenting. With all three groups working as research partners, good science will be perpetuated at the grass-root level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Russ Dilts, John Pontius and Andrew Bartlett for sharing their ideas about science and farmers. I am particularly grateful for the therapeutic interaction with farmer researchers including Pak Warsiyah. The support of my colleagues, especially IPM trainers in National IPM Programmes who share their enthusiasm of working with farmers, has been a source of inspiration. My thanks to Michael Loevinsohn for this opportunity to share our experience and last but not least, my gratitude to the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia for supporting my participation at the workshop on “Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management”.
REFERENCES
Adhikarya, R. 1994. Strategic Extension Campaign. A participatory-oriented method of agricultural extension. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. 211 pp.
Ashby, J.A. and Sperling, J. 1994. Institutionalising participatory, client-driven research and technology development in agriculture. Network Paper No. 49. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension), London. Overseas Development Institute. 21 pp.
Bentley, J.W. 1994. Facts, Fantasies, and Failures of Farmer Participatory Research. Agriculture and Human Values 11, 140–150.
Bentley, J. and Andrews, K. 1996. Through the roadblocks: IPM and Central American Smallholders. Gatekeeper Series No. 56. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 18 pp.
Bottrell, D.G. 1979. Integrated Pest Management Council of Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 120 pp.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp L.A. (Eds.), 1989. Farmer First, Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. 218 pp.
Dilts, R. and Pontius, J. 1999. IPM and Farmer-led Development: Lessons from Indonesia. In: Integrated Pest Management in Asia and the Pacific (in press). Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.
Dilts, D. and Simon Hate. 1996. IPM Farmer Field Schools: Changing paradigms and scaling up. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 59b, 1–4.
Goodell, G.E., Litsinger, J.A. and Kenmore, P.E. 1981. Evaluating integrated pest management technology through interdisciplinary research at the farmer level. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Future Trends of Integrated Pest Management Bellagio, 30 May - 4 June, 1980. IOBC Special Issue/Centre for Overseas Pest Research London, UK. 72–75.
Huan, N.H., Mai, V., Escalada, M.M. and Heong, K.L. 1999. Changes in rice farmers' pest management in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Protection 18, 557–563.
Kenmore, P.E. 1987. IPM means the best mix. Rice IPM Newsletter 1,1.
Kenmore, P.E., Carino, F.O., Perez, C.A., Dyck, V.A. and Gutierrez, A.P. 1984. Population regulation of the rice brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) within rice fields in the Philippines. Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics 1, 19–37.
Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. Annual Review of Entomology 43, 243–270.
Loevinsohn, M.E., Mugarura, J. and Nkusi, A. 1994. Cooperation and innovation by farmer groups. Scale in the development of Rwandan Valley Farming Systems. Agricultural Systems 44, 141–155.
Matteson, P.C., Gallagher, K.D. and Kenmore, P.E. 1994. Extension of Integrated Pest Management for Planthoppers in Asian Irrigated Rice: Empowering the User. In: Denno, R.F. & Perfect, T.J. (Eds) Ecology and Management of Planthoppers. Chapman and Hall, London. 656–685
Moore, M. 1996. Redefining Integrated Pest Management - Farmer empowerment and pesticide use reduction in the context of sustainable agriculture. In: B. Dinham (Ed.) Growing Food Security: Challenging the link between pesticides and access to food. The Pesticide Trust/PAN, London. 79–86
Oka, I.N. 1997. Integrated Crop Pest Management with farmer participation in Indonesia. In: A. Krishna, Uphoff, N., Esman, M.J. (Eds.) Reasons for Hope Instructive Experiences in Rural Development. Kumarian Press, Connecticut pp. 184–199.
Ooi, P.A.C. 1986. Insecticides disrupt natural control of Nilaparvata lugens in Sekinchan, Malaysia. In: Hussein, M.Y., Ibrahim, A.G. (Eds.) Biological control in the Tropics. Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang. 109–120.
Ooi, P.A.C. 1996. Experiences in educating rice farmers to understand biological control. Entomophaga 41, 375–385.
Ooi, P.A.C. 1998. Beyond the Farmer Field School: IPM and empowerment in Indonesia. Gatekeeper Series No. 78. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 13 pp.
Ooi, P.A.C., Shepard, B.M. and Kenmore, P.E. 1991. “Panduan Menunjukkan Kawalan Biologi kepada Penanam-penanam padi” -Manual on showing biological control to rice farmers. Risalah Pertanian Bilangan 9G, Jabatan Pertanian, Semenanjung Malaysia. 50 pp. (in Bahasa Malaysia)
Ooi, P.A.C. and van den Berg, H. Arief Lukman Hakim, Hartjahjo Ariawan, Widyastama Cahyana, 1999. Farmer Field Research. (mimeo) The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1999. 84pp.
Perkins, J.H. 1982. Insects, Experts, and the Insecticide Crisis. The quest for new pest management strategies. Plenum Press, New York. 304 pp.
Roling, N. and van der Fliert, E. 1994. Transforming extension for sustainable agriculture: the case of intergrated pest management in rice in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values 11, 96–108.
Schmidt, P., Stiefel, J. and Hürlimann, M. 1997. Extension of Complex Issues. Success Factors in Integrated Pest Management. Publication of Swiss Center for Agricultural Extension, Lindau, Switzerland. 100 pp.
Settle, W.H. Hartjahyo Ariawan, Endah Tri Astuti, Cahyana Widyastama, Arief Lukman Hakim, Dadan Hindayana, Alifah Sri Lestari, Pajarningsih, 1996. Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77(7), 1975–1988.
Smith, R.F. and Reynolds, H.T. 1966. Principles, definitions and scope of Integrated Pest Control. In: Proceedings of the FAO Symposium on Integrated Pest Control, FAO, Rome. 11–17.
Sperling, L., Loevinsohn, M.E. and Ntabomvura, B. 1993. Rethinking the farmers' role in plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selectiion in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29, 509–519.
Stern, V.M., Smith, R.F., van den Bosch, R. and Hagen, K.S. 1959. The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid. The Integrated Control concept. Hilgardia 29, 81–101.
ter Weel, P. and van der Wulp, H. 1999. Participatory Integrated Pest Management. Policy and Best Practice Document No. 3. Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Development Cooperation, The Hague. 67 pp.
van den Berg, H., Bagus, A., Hassan, K., Muhammad, A. and Zega, S. 1995. Predation and parasitism on eggs of two pod-sucking bugs, Nezara viridula and Piezodorus hybneri, in soybean. International Journal of pest Management 41, 134–142.
van den Berg, H., Ankasah, D., Muhammad, A., Rusli, R., Widayanto, H.A., Wirasto, H.B. and Yully, I. 1997. Evaluating the role of predation in population fluctuations of the soybean aphid Aphis glycines in farmers' fields in Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 971–984.
van den Bosch, R. 1978. The Pesticide Conspiracy. University of California Press, Berkeley. Reprint 1989. 226 pp.
van der Goot, P. 1925. Levenswijze en bestrijding van den witten rjisboorder op java. Meded. Inst. Plantenz. Buitenzorg 66 (in Dutch but reported in a translation of L.G.E. Kalshoven's “The Pests of Crops in Indonesia”, P.T. Ichtiar Baru-van Hoeve, Jakarta, 1981).
Waage, J. 1998. The future development of IPM. Entomologia Sinica 5(5), 237–271.
Wardhani, M.A. 1992. Developments in IPM: the Indonesian case. In: Ooi, et al. (Eds.) Integrated Pest Management in the Asia-Pacific Region. CAB International, Kuala Lumpur pp. 27–35.
Warsiyah, Sobarih, Wahyudin, Yusuf, H., Arif Lukman Hakim, Sukara, Madamin, Mufid A. Busyairi, Warum and Sumarjo. 1999. Membangun Pengetahuan Emansipatoris. Kasus Riset Aksi Petani di Indramayu. Studi Kehidupan dan Gerakan Pengendalian Hama Penggerek Batang Padi Putih. Lakpesdam NU, Jakarta. 191 pp. (in Indonesian)
Waters-Bayer, A. 1989. Participatory technology development in ecologically-oriented agriculture: some approaches and tools. Network Paper 7. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network. Overseas Development Institute, London. 63 pp.
Director, Thai Education Foundation,
28 Piboonwattana 7, Rama VI Road,
Bankgok 10400, Thailand
ABSTRACT
Currently, many countries spend a sizable portion of the national budget to retrain their extension workers on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training activities for farmers. These efforts are in response to the national policy, attempts to reduce pesticide use and to consumer demand for residues-free produce. For Thailand, a leading exporter of agricultural produce, the situation is particularly challenging. This is because the international trade agreement demands minimal chemical residues in produce while at the same time farmers are applying large amount of chemicals in their production process. The adverse impact has already occurred with the cancellation of orders of certain fruits from Thailand to Europe and Japan.
In efforts to meet this important challenge, there is an urgent need to reform the educational process of those who are or will be involved in the agricultural field. In particular, graduates who will become part of the extension systems, or working for private sectors, must posses the necessary knowledge and skills to minimize the use of chemical inputs in agricultural production. To do so, they especially need to understand the practical functioning of the ecology of plant-pest-natural enemy ecosystem. Unfortunately, most universities and colleges are weak in this area and continue to use the conventional curricula and teaching methodologies or assessment systems that largely promote memorizing of information and theories. Consequently, the students cannot respond in an innovative way to deal with the field problems that they encounter.
Efforts to reform the educational programmes have often faced obstacles. Currently, the Thai Education Foundation is working with various educational agencies to institutionalize the field-based IPM courses that involve a wide range of students. They include primary school students, young and older adults in Non-Formal Education programmes, and students in agriculture colleges.
INTRODUCTION
Many countries, including Thailand, are spending significant amount of the national budget to retrain extension workers and farmers in effort to reduce the adverse impacts of pesticides and to avoid rejection of food export due to pesticide contamination. To meet this important challenge, there is an urgent need to reform the educational process. Unfortunately, most universities and colleges using conventional curricula and teaching methodologies or assessment systems cannot respond in an innovative way to deal effectively in overcoming the problems encountered.
Efforts to reform the educational programmes have often faced obstacles. Currently, the Thai Education Foundation is working with various educational agencies to institutionalize the field-based IPM courses. This involves a wide range of students that include primary school students, young and older adults in Non-Formal Education (NFE) programmes, and students in agriculture colleges. The many aspects relating to these programme activities, including the educational philosophies and methodologies, are discussed in this paper.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL AND COLLEGE CURRICULA
Until today, the characteristics of most traditional curricula used in schools and colleges are rather rigid, top down and formal. The following features are readily recognizable:
TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
In recent years, there appears to be changes in the approach to teaching in some of the more innovative schools and colleges. However, most of the learning institutions are yet to recognize the need to move away from the traditional approach. The trends in development for those that have made changes and improvements have included the following:
UNDERSTANDING CURRICULUM AND
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
An important step towards improving the training approach and methodologies is a good understanding and development of the right training curricula designs. There is also a crucial need for quality instructional leadership. To realize this, it is necessary to comprehend the many educational aspects spanning from developmental behaviours to different theories of learning and how these theories apply to educational leaders. Broadly, the various aspects include multiple intelligence, curriculum integration, constructivism, service-learning, learning organizations, and others. More detailed considerations of these are given below.
Constructivism
Constructivist theory is a general framework for instruction based upon the study of cognition and has roots in philosophy, psychology, sociology and education. Much of the theory is linked to child development research. Constructivism encompasses a number of cognitive and other theories of learning where the learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses and makes decisions. This is done through relying largely on a cognitive structure.
The constructivism's central idea is that human learning is constructed and that learners build new knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning. This view of learning sharply contrasts with one in which learning is the passive transmission of information from one individual to another, a view in which reception, not construction, is the key.
Progressive Education
John Dewey was one of the founders of progressive education. It embraced industrial training, agricultural and social education, and educational theorists' new instructional techniques. The “progressives” insisted that education is a continuous reconstruction of living experience, with the child being the centre of concern. John Dewey maintained that schools should reflect the society. In education, he opposed the traditional method of learning by memory under the authority of teachers. He believed education should be concerned with manual skills, the interests of the students, current problems, as well as, the mind. He stated that education must include a student's physical and moral well-being, in addition to his/her intellectual development.
Theory of Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget (1896–1980), a Swiss biologist and psychologist, began to study human development in the 1920s. His research had one unique goal … how does knowledge grow? His answer is that the growth of knowledge is a progressive construction of logically embedded structures. These structures supersede one another by a process of inclusion where lower and less powerful logical means expand into higher and more powerful ones until adulthood. Piaget stressed the holistic approach. A person integrates new information into existing files, or “schema” (hierarchical categories), through many channels, such as, reading, listening, exploring and experiencing his/her environment.
The following illustrates Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development and the Hierarchy for Instruction:
| Knowledge | Facts |
| Ideas | |
| Concepts | |
| Reflective, Thinking | Interpretation of Data |
| Application of facts & principles | |
| Logical reasoning | |
| Values & attitudes | |
| Sensitivities & feelings | |
| Skills |
Transformative Learning
In the last decade, Jack Mezirow has developed the “Transformative Learning Theory,” the roots of which are in Constructivism. The theory focuses on critical reflection and has a background based on the work of John Dewey who in the first half of the century had identified reflective thinking as a goal of education. Mezirow stated that the “Transformation Learning Theory” grows out of the cognitive revolution in psychology and psychotherapy. It was instigated by scores of studies which found that it is not so much what happens to people but how they interpret and explain what happens to them, and that this determines their actions, their hopes, their contentment and emotional well-being, and their performance."
Multiple Intelligence
Multiple Intelligence is based on the theory that each person has a unique cognitive profile. It was Howard Gardner's 1983 book, “Frames of Mind”, that provided the theoretical framework. According to Gardner, intelligence can be broken down into the following forms: Vernal/Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Visual/Spatial, Body/Kinesthetic, Music/Rhythmic, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal.
Musical Intelligence: This is the capacity to think in music and the ability to hear patterns, recognize them, remember them, and perhaps manipulate them. People who have a strong musical intelligence do not just remember music easily; they cannot get it out of their minds. Though musical intelligence may not seem as obvious a form of intellect as is mathematical or logical ability, our ability to perform and comprehend musically (from a neurological point of view) appears to work independently from other forms of intelligence.
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence: Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body (hand, fingers, arms, etc) to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of production. The most evident examples are people in athletics or the performing arts, particularly dance or acting. They have a sense of how their bodies act and react in demanding situations.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence: This intelligence is our ability to mentally process logical problems and equations. Logical-mathematical intelligence often does not require verbal articulation, for we can churn a complex problem in our head, only to articulate it out loud once the problem has been solved. Traditionally, logical-mathematical intelligence was considered the “raw intellect” on which Western culture has placed a high premium.
Linguistic Intelligence: Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, one's native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what is in one's mind and to understand other people. Poets really specialize in linguistic intelligence, but any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer, or a person for whom language is an important stock in trade, highlights linguistic intelligence.
Spatial Intelligence: Spatial Intelligence refers to the ability to comprehend shapes and images in three dimensions. Examples include the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world. Spatial intelligence can be used in the arts or in the sciences. If one is spatially intelligent and oriented towards the arts, one is more likely to become a painter or a sculptor or an architect than, say, a musician or a writer. Similarly, certain sciences, like anatomy or topology, emphasize spatial intelligence.
Interpersonal Intelligence: Interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to understand other people. It is an ability we all need, but is at a premium if one is a teacher, clinician, salesperson, or a politician. Anybody who deals with other people has to be skilled in the interpersonal sphere. According to Gardner, interpersonal intelligence is seen in how we “notice distinction among others; in particular, contrasts in their moods, temperaments, motivations and intentions.”
Intrapersonal Intelligence: Intrapersonal intelligence refers to having an understanding of yourself, of knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid, and which things to gravitate toward. A strong intrapersonal intelligence can lead to self-esteem, self-enhancement, and strength of character that can be used to solve internal problems. We are drawn to people who have a good understanding of themselves because these people tend not to screw up and know what they can do.
Curriculum Development
Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi describe curriculum development as core procedures rather than theoretical guidelines. It is a logical process that begins with clear goals of value preferences. When formalized, these value preferences are referred to as educational philosophies or learning theories. Through analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation, curriculum developers set goals, plan experiences, select contents, and assess outcomes of school programmes.
Curriculum Integration
Curriculum integration is a methodology that links the contents and skills from various disciplines. There are various models of integration that seek to achieve an acceptable degree of interdisciplinary learning. Generally, these models use the language and methodology from more than one discipline and focus on unifying themes, issues, problems, concepts, and experiences. These models help the learner make connections among the individual disciplines.
Service-Learning
Service-learning is the process of integrating volunteer community service combined with active guided reflection into the curriculum to enhance and enrich student learning of course material. It is a method through which citizenship, academic subjects, skills, and values are taught.
THEORIES OF LEARNING AND RELATED ASPECTS
Theories on How People Learn
Constructivism: This is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that we all construct our own understanding of the world we live in through reflection on our experiences. We use the “rules” and “mental models” we generate in this process to make sense of experience. Learning is the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences.
Behaviourism: This is a theory of animal and human learning that focuses only on objectively observable behaviours. It discounts mental activities. Learning is defined as nothing more than the acquisition of new behaviour.
Piaget's Developmental Theory: Jean Piaget developed an influential model of child development and learning based on the idea that the developing child constructs increasingly sophisticated cognitive structures, moving from a few inborn reflexes (such as crying and sucking) to highly complex mental activities. A cognitive structure is a person's internal mental “map”, a scheme or network of concepts for understanding and responding to physical experiences within his or her environment.
Neuroscience: This is the study of the human nervous system, the brain, and the biological basis of consciousness, perception, memory and learning.
Brain-Based Learning: An understanding of learning based on the structure and function of the brain. Learning occurs if the brain is not prohibited from fulfilling its normal processes.
Learning Styles: This is an approach to learning which emphasizes the fact that individuals perceive and process information in very different kinds of ways. It implies that the degree to which individuals learn has much to do with whether the learning experience is geared to their style of learning and whether they are or are not “smart”. In fact, the question is not, “Are you smart?” but rather “How are you smart?”
Multiple Intelligences: This is a theory of human intelligence developed by the psychologist, Howard Gardner, who suggested that there are at least seven distinct ways that different people have of “knowing” and “understanding” the world. Each of these is a distinct “intelligence” or a set of skills that allows the individual to find and resolve genuine problems facing him or her.
Right Brain/Left Brain Thinking: This theory deals with the structure and working of the brain. It suggests that different sides of the brain control different “modes” of thinking and that we all have a preference for one or the other of these modes.
Communities of Practice: It is an approach to understand problems of learning and sees learning as an act of membership in a “community of practice”. It seeks to understand both the structure of those communities and how learning happens in those communities.
Control Theory: William Glasser proposed this theory of motivation, suggesting that behaviour is never caused by response to outside stimuli, but instead, by what we want most at the time, probably one of our basic needs (such as survival, love, power, and freedom).
Types of Curriculum and Needs
Outcome-Based Education (OBE): A method for focusing and organizing all school programmes and instructional efforts around clearly defined outcomes that we want all students to demonstrate when they leave school.
Core Curriculum: A core body of skills, knowledge and abilities that will be taught and mastered by all students.
Whole Language: A philosophy/set of beliefs about curriculum (language, arts and broader or general curriculum) based on recent theory and research on how children acquire oral and written language.
Character Education: The effort to develop “good character” in students through the practice and teaching of moral values and decision-making.
Multi-Culturalism: A curriculum approach based on the belief that varying cultural dynamics are a fourth force (along with psychodynamic, behavioural and humanistic forces) which explains human behaviour. The ability to recognize one's own and others' cultural lenses. It is therefore essential to all other learning and must be taught along with communication and thinking skills as prerequisites to other learning.
Tech-Prep: The most traditional and frequently used definition is “a four-year programme (grades 11–14) that leads to an associate degree or two-year certificate in a specific career field.” It is carried out under articulation agreements and includes a common core of required mathematics, science communicates and technologies that are integrated, applied and sequenced.
Paideia: An “essentialist” curriculum proposed in 1982 by Mortimer Adler and The Paideia Group. The curriculum is proposed for everyone and is a 12-year course in general and humanistic learning to serve as a foundation for future learning.
How Should Learning Be Designed? (Instruction)
Mastery Learning: The theory of mastery learning is based on the simple belief that all children can learn when provided with conditions that are appropriate for their learning. The instructional strategies associated with mastery learning are designed to put that belief into practice in the classroom.
Cooperative Learning: A set of instructional techniques that require positive interdependence between learners for learning to take place.
Accelerated Learning: A comprehensive approach to changes in school that started in 1986 at Stanford University. The main objective is to create schooling success for all students by closing the achievement gap between at-risk and the mainstream students. The strategy is to make radical change in individual school by redesigning and integrating curricular, instructional and organizational practices, so that they provide enrichment and not just remediation for at-risk students. It is assumed that at-risk students have “learning gaps” in areas valued by schools and mainstream economic and social institutions, and that remedial approaches have failed to close the gaps because they neither build on students' strengths nor tap into the resources of teachers, parents and the community.
Thematic Instruction: The organization of curriculum around macro “themes” that integrate basic disciplines such as reading, mathematics and science with a broad subject such as communities, rain forests, river basins, use of energy, etc.
Whole-Brain Teaching: An instructional approach derived from neurolinguistic descriptions of the functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain.
Service Learning: This is aimed at combining community service with out-of-classroom learning. Schools are looking to implement service learning along the entire continuum of K-12.
Cognitive Coaching: A method of instruction based on the understanding that metacognition (being aware of thinking processes) fosters independence in learning by providing personal insights into one's own thinking. It builds confidence to problem solving and encourages self-efficacy and pride.
School-To-Work: The focus of school-to-work programmes is to provide ways for students in schools to successfully obtain either paid employment with a business or be self-employed. Many studies have shown that graduates of high schools not bound for colleges are neither prepared for nor connected to opportunities for employment.
Instructional Technology: The use of technology (computer, compact disc, interactive media, modem, satellite, teleconferencing, etc.) to support learning.
Youth Apprenticeship: A learning system where students become prepared for work by combining classroom instruction with pay on the job training. Students learn theories in the classroom and learn applications in a work setting to obtain a set of well-defined occupational competencies.
How Do We Know If Learning Has Occurred? (Assessment)
Authentic Assessment: An assessment method growing from the conviction that outcomes that matter are too complex to be measured effectively by testing isolated components. Rather, these testing techniques aim to provide proxies of the real problem-solving situations in which students demonstrate global application of relevant component skills and knowledge.
Classroom Assessment Techniques: The use of a variety of feedback and discussion techniques in the classroom to assess the quality of the learning process. Also referred to as “Classroom Research” or “Action Research.”
Portfolio Assessment: The purpose of portfolio assessment is to provide a “body of student work” that can be used to appraise student performance over time.
Behavioural Approach: Human behaviour is learned, thus, all behaviours can be unlearned and new behaviours learned in its place. Behaviourism is concerned primarily with the observable and measurable aspects of human behaviour. Behaviourists assume that only things that are real (or at least worth studying) are the things we can see and observe. We cannot see the mind, the idea, or the unconscious, but we can see how people act, react and behave. From behaviours, we may be able to make inferences about the minds and the brain, but they are not the primary focus of the investigation. What people do, not what they think or feel, is the object of the study.
Cognitive Approach: Cognition refers to mental activities, including thinking, remembering, learning and using language. When we apply a cognitive approach to learning and teaching, we focus on the understanding of information and concepts. If we are able to understand the connections between break-down information of concepts and rebuild them with logical connections, then our retention of material and understanding will increase. Researchers who contributed significantly to the development of cognitive psychology include Jerome Bruner, who developed a learning theory based upon categorization, and David Ausubel, who attempted to explain meaningful verbal learning as a phenomenon of consciousness rather than of behaviour.
Humanistic Approach: Humanistic psychology is a psychological perspective that emphasizes the study of the whole person. Humanistic psychologists believe that an individual's behavior is connected to his inner feelings and self-image. Unlike the behaviourists, humanists believe that humans are not solely the products of their environment. They study human meanings, understanding, and experiences involved in growing, teaching, and learning. They emphasize characteristics that are shared by all human beings, such as, love, grief, caring, and self-worth.
ISSUES CONFRONTING CURRICULUM CHANGES
IN EDUCATION/INSTITUTIONS
Currently, there are a number of issues confronting curriculum changes in educational institutions. These range from lack of appreciation for improvements to the need of strong leadership quality. More specifically, the critical issues include the following:
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
There is growing concern that something must be done to make significant improvements to the existing curriculum and the education process. Various suggestions have been put forth. The main consensus on what needs to be done have included the following:
As pointed out earlier, some organizations have recognized the need to make the necessary changes and have begun to initiate and undertake the required programme activities towards achieving such an objective. One example is the current IPM programme of the Thai Education Foundation. It has a distinct curriculum framework (see below) quite unlike that usually found in traditional agricultural training in colleges and the universities.
Weekly Training of Teachers Curriculum Framework
| Week | Topics/activities |
|---|---|
| 1 | • Purpose, objectives, training plan |
| • Training curriculum | |
| • Group process | |
| • Introduction to ecosystem | |
| • Seeds and seeds preparation | |
| • What's this activity? (Learning methods) | |
| • Observation skills | |
| 2 | • Plant morphology: Seedling stage |
| • Living soil and management | |
| • Weeds | |
| • Group process | |
| • Sampling | |
| • Learning methods | |
| • Learning sessions design | |
| • Learning assessment | |
| 3 | • Plant morphology: budding |
| • Nutrition of plants | |
| • Insect classification | |
| • Living water and management | |
| • Weed management and weed collection | |
| • Facilitation skills (posing questions) | |
| • Agroecosystem analysis (AESA) | |
| 4 | • Plant morphology: vegetative stage |
| • Insect pests | |
| • Fertilizers | |
| • Soils | |
| • Animal pests | |
| • Diseases | |
| • Learning session designs | |
| • Facilitation skills (active participation) | |
| • Learning cycle | |
| 5 | • Plant physiology and morphology: flowering stage |
| • Natural enemies | |
| • Diseases | |
| • AESA | |
| • Learning session designs | |
| • Facilitation skills | |
| • Living soil/Living water (continued) | |
| 6 | • Plant morphology: milky stage |
| • Agrochemicals | |
| • Natural enemies (predators) | |
| • Learning session designs | |
| • Curriculum development | |
| • Learning assessment | |
| 7 | • Summary of plant morphology |
| • Summary of ecosystems survey and analysis | |
| • Summary of studies | |
| • Summary of learning programmes | |
| • Plan for next term | |
| • Exhibition day |
Weekly Training Calendar & Topics
| Time | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM | Field activities | ||||
| Rice Morphology + Special Topic | AESA * | Studies & Experiments | Learning Process & Methodology | Curriculum Work | |
| PM | Report findings ↓ | ||||
| Group Process & Training Skills | Special Topics | Experiments | Training Skills | Weekly Summary & Planning | |
* AESA = Agroecosystem Analysis
To date, the Thai Education Foundation has already devoted much efforts in carrying out a number of diverse programmes, as indicated below:
The approach and methodologies used in the programmes have proven to be both motivational and highly effective. Trainee participants have greatly increased their learning, become empowered with the knowledge gained, and have developed the needed confidence to undertake effectively the tasks expected of them. In the future, it is expected that such programme activities will be expanded further so that more colleges and universities can be involved and many more students will have the opportunity to be exposed to the programmes.
