Posted July 1999
In discussing the potentials and constraints associated with the education and training of mid-career extension professionals, it is easier to identify the problems than to bring about needed changes. The leadership potential that lies within the pool of experienced extension field staff is largely untapped. Without a degree, in many countries these experienced men and women have had little opportunity to participate in the development of national extension policy and strategy. With a degree, extension professionals are eligible to follow career paths that can lead to management and policy-making positions. Perhaps the greatest potential of the mid-career degree programme is the leadership that these experienced men and women can bring to extension programme and planning in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The constraints are many, but the single most difficult problem to overcome in mid-career training is to get the university community to accept that academic credit should be granted for previously completed diploma level study and for successful work experience as an extension professional. If a minimum of two years credit can be given for a combination of diploma study and work experience, then the real issue is to build a bona-fide abbreviated (e.g. 18 month or two years) curriculum that will meet university graduation requirements and address the needs of mature students. With help from the Sasakawa Africa Association and Winrock International, this has been done at Cape Coast University in Ghana and is being done at Alemaya University of Agricultural in Ethiopia. The challenge, now, is to adapt the model for use in other countries.
There is also a more comprehensive concern. Agricultural and extension educators have the responsibility to get donors, technical assistance agencies and national planners to view the improvement of extension work and the pre-service (pre-employment) education of extension workers as integral parts of the same issue. Millions of dollars are being spent on extension projects that address extension policy, strategy and in-service training. Almost no attention is being paid to the pre-service education of field-level extension staff. In general terms, support for tertiary-level education in agriculture is at an all time low. There are signs that this may be changing, but for now higher education in agriculture in Africa is a victim of budget cuts and benign neglect on the part of most donor organizations and technical assistance agencies.
In a recent discussion, four extension issues were identified as being persistent concerns in much of Africa. They were not the only concerns, but they were major points. Extension organizations were said to be financially troubled and intellectually adrift. In many cases, they were thought to be out of touch with the farmer. It was also said that institutional options were vague and not well defined.
The question of how to strengthen extension organizations in ways that would lead to more efficient and sustainable agricultural production and rural development was not answered to any degree of satisfaction. Participatory extension, farmer field schools, decentralisation, privatisation, pluralism and the T & V system were all discussed as variations on the theme. The institutional options were not well articulated and the best ways to use limited resources (human and financial) were not clear. Extension policy and strategy is still, after all these years, subject to debate.
What was clear in the discussion was that pre-service (pre-employment) and in-service education will continue to play important roles in the revitalisation of extension in Africa. Traditionally, upward mobility for talented mid-career extension staff who have an intermediate level of education (diploma) has been limited by the need for a degree. Innovative approaches to earning a degree have been slow in coming and there has been resistance to the concept of applying work experience and diploma training toward the requirements for a B.Sc. degree. That resistance is being overcome through innovation and determination.
With financial support from the Sasakawa Africa Association and technical assistance from Winrock International Institution for Agricultural Development, the degree programme for mid-career extension professionals developed at Cape Coast University and the adaptation of that model in other institutions have opened the door for extension staff to move up through the ranks. Such programmes call for academic flexibility and a high level of cooperation between academia and the Ministry of Agriculture. It is a model that paves the way for leadership based on the combination of experience and a practical approach to a well-balanced curriculum. The leadership potential that lies within this pool of mid-career professionals is a largely untapped human resource that can strengthen extension work in the future. Programme leaders and policy makers with field experience should make a difference in the way extension work is done. The question before us is - How do we combine forces? What is the best way to build on these experiences and organizational comparative advantages in order to bring about improved and cost-effective extension work in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Before we can discuss the constraints and potentials of educational programmes for mid-career extension staff, we need to agree on the goals of such a programme. If the overall goal is to make extension work more efficient and effective, then at the very least, we must agree on what extension is supposed to do. Does your definition of extension work include farmer to farmer relationships? Is it an appropriate word for a system that promotes a collaborative relationship between farmers and the research community? Does it have the connotation of helping farmers to become good decision-makers? Is extension an accepted and well-understood term that should not be changed? Or does the word characterise a top-down concept that is no longer appropriate in the context of global knowledge and information systems that span the world? It can be argued that the word extension is still appropriate if we think carefully about who is extending what to whom. However, it is clear that information is no longer just "extended" to the farmer. If the focus is on men and women who are managers and decision makers - farmers who are in touch with each other and in partnership with the research community - then the concept of "extending" information to agricultural producers needs to be revisited and revised. Extension may be a word that we will continue to use for years to come, but surely an agreed upon working definition is needed as a starting point.
Participatory or top-down, centralised or decentralised, public or private, pluralistic or singular, through the farmer field school approach or not - extension activities play key roles in integrated pest management, agricultural production, processing, marketing and sustainable rural development. In the education and training of extension field staff, the challenge is to prepare young men and women who have the skills, knowledge and attitudes and behaviour that will help them think through the options of how to work with farmers (young and old, male and female), researchers and rural communities, in a creative and productive way.
The challenge is to develop locally-adapted functional models that are alternatives to simply extending advice to the farmer. In the following illustration, the extension model is depicted as a system that: a) is enhanced by modern technology and good communication skills; b) provides unbiased advice and c) stimulates and promotes communication among farmers while facilitating and supporting a two-way flow of information between farmers, researchers and other sources of information. This kind of a service has its own identity, but its raison d'être is to support the farmer.
Figure 1 places extension in a key role in an agricultural and rural knowledge and information system (ARKIS). It is a service that provides unbiased advice. But it also facilitates and promotes a two-way flow of information among farmers and between farmers, the research community and other sources of information (e.g. banks, markets, NGOs, etc.)
| Flow of information | ||
|---|---|---|
| Research and other information | Extension as a provider of advice and a system that facilitates a two-way flow of information among farmers and between farmers, research and other sources of information | Farmers |
| Flow of information |
Degree-level education for extension staff in Africa is still the exception rather than the rule. Extension staff with a degree often have never worked directly with farmers at the village level. There are exceptions, but for the most part, degree holders start their careers as middle-level managers. Nearly all front-line extension staff enter the workforce after having completed an intermediate-level equivalent of certificate or diploma-level training in agriculture (e.g. one, two or three years of study depending on the country).
If the content of the curriculum that is available at the intermediate level is examined closely, the resulting image is nearly always one of too little practical training and almost no preparation in the broad area of what is commonly described as "extension methods". The result is that many front-line extension staff do not have the competencies (skills, knowledge, attitude and resulting behaviour) they need to be effective in their work with farmers. A competency-based approach to extension education is indeed difficult to find in most of Africa. A few studies have been carried out to determine the competencies needed by front-line extension staff, but in almost no case have those findings been translated into the development of a competency-based extension curriculum that is in use. The situation is exacerbated by a high incidence of extension students who have no farm background or work experience. Urban students who receive theoretical training in agriculture usually don't make very effective extension workers.
Extension staff are generally involved in two types of education and training. Pre-service education or pre-employment education takes place in the formal setting of an institute, college or university prior to employment. In-service education is the term broadly used for non-degree training activities that take place while the participants are employed or "in-service".
In Africa, most pre-service education for extension field staff is at the non-degree (e.g. two-year certificate or three-year diploma) level. These training programmes should include a combination of practical training and theoretical study that provides the student with the basic skills they need to work with rural men and women at the field level. The content of the curriculum for the pre-service education of extension field staff and the amount of "extension methods" to be included in the total educational package is subject to debate. Later in this paper, there is a more detailed look at the concept of a "balanced curriculum". What is important at this point, is to accept the fact that there is a need for both extension methods and technical content in the pre-service curriculum. The pre-service curriculum for extension field staff should include extension methodology (with a period of internship in an extension office) along with the technical subjects associated with the production of food and fibre. Figure 2, illustrates the allocation of about one-fourth of the curriculum being devoted to the study of extension methods such as communication skills, organizing and maintaining groups, programme planning and evaluation, working with special audiences (e.g. male and female farmers, large and small-scale producers, youth) and about three-fourths of the time devoted to technical issues related to production of food and fibre, processing, marketing issues, etc.
| 20 to 25 percent of the curriculum concentrating on "extension methods" | 75 to 80 percent of the curriculum concentrating on "technical agriculture" - crops, soils, forestry, fisheries, animal science, etc. |
The curriculum should include courses of study that are directly related to preparing extension staff to work with farmers. Think about the curricula in your own institutions. How much time is devoted to the study of extension methodology? Is there a national extension strategy and is it included as a topic in the curriculum? When do students have the opportunity to discuss different extension approaches and how best to work with the men, women and youth who are often called "extension clientele"? Are extension staff and farmers called into the classroom to teach as community resources persons? When do students learn about communication methods? Where do you deal with the topic of organizing and working with groups of farmers and more effective work with rural women? Do your students have the opportunity to work as an intern in an extension office? For teachers, it's generally accepted that student teaching is a good idea. Why then don't more extension training programmes have a period of internship when students live in a village and learn more about being an agent of change?
In examining some of the constraints related to educational programmes for extension field staff, one of the major concerns is always that the curriculum is too full. The principal of nearly every training institute will tell you that there is no room for the study of extension methods. You will hear that all of the time is taken up with the study of more important subjects like crop and livestock production and soil science. It is a matter of balance and combining subjects so that there is time for learning how to work with people.
Extension work is not all communication, but if you can't communicate, you won't be a very effective extension worker. Rogers and Taylor (1999) stress the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in the development of curriculum. If we listen to farmers, employers, students and teachers, it is very clear that extension methods should be a part of the curriculum. If 20-25 percent of the curriculum is devoted to extension methods, there is still ample time to concentrate on technical agriculture, etc. Tradition can be a major constraint when it comes time for curriculum review and revision. It takes dedication, hard work and often some outside influence to bring about curriculum change in most academic institutions.
In many cases, endless rounds of in-service training are offered to make up for what should have been learned at the pre-service or pre-employment level of education. Every project and nearly every Ministry of Agriculture offers in-service training in the hope that extension staff will somehow learn to be more effective based on brief periods of instruction offered by the Ministry's training unit.
The point is that "extension methods" should be an integral part of the pre-service curriculum for the education of extension field staff. Too often there is the argument that there is no space in the curriculum for extension methodology. Nonsense! Priorities need to be set, curricula need to be revised, courses combined and provisions made for a balance that includes both extension methodology and technical subject matter in the pre-service curriculum.
In-service education should be an organized programme that provides extension field staff with opportunities for learning about new ideas, advancements in technology and best practices. It should be a time to bring staff members up-to-date and to introduce new extension concepts, environmental and conservation issues, improved production patterns, modern cultural and pest management practices and market options. The potential of good in-service training is far reaching if it is well planned as a supplement to pre-service education that has correctly done its job. The problem in many places is that in-service education is being used to make up for what should have been learned at the pre-service level. In so doing, the available time to learn about new things is reduced and the value of in-service training is diminished. A prime example is when precious in-service training time is used to learn about extension methods that should have been included in pre-service curricula.
In-service training, as implemented in many donor-funded projects, has become a mechanism that is being used to treat the symptoms instead of the problem. Nearly every donor-funded project with an extension component has in-service training as a major activity. Extension field staff are subjected to weeks of in-service training. The emphasis is often on extension methodology and in making up for what extension workers should have learned as a part of their pre-service education. In so doing, we are only dealing with the surface blemish and not the root problem.
For forty years, critics have been saying that extension field staff are not well trained. They then proceed to offer in-service training to correct the identified deficiencies. In-service training can never get at the root of the problem. The problem lies within the curriculum and the teaching/learning approaches in the institutions where extension field staff get their pre-service or pre-employment education. Extension projects almost never address the formal training programmes that are offered in the institutions where extension workers receive their pre-service education. It is difficult to identify a single donor funded extension project that has included the review and revision of pre-service curricula as a part of a comprehensive approach to improving field-level extension work in Africa.
In analysing why there is so little emphasis on education in agriculture, there are three or four major factors that emerge. In most donor and technical assistance organizations, the post of "agricultural education officer" does not exist. To cite specific examples, in both UNESCO and ILO, the persons who held the title of agricultural education officer have retired within the past ten years. The post descriptions were changed as new people were hired. In USAID, there may be someone with the title of agricultural education officer, but I cannot identify the post. In the World Bank, such a post does not exist. If it did, where would it be placed - under agriculture, rural development or education? Projects are approved for financial support and technical assistance without consideration being given to the formal agricultural education needs in a given country. It is not by intent, but by a form of oversight brought on by a lack of expertise and review processes that have not examined the problems from an agricultural education point of view.
A second factor is the lack of communication, cooperation and collaboration between education and agriculture ministries and similar units in government, donor organizations and technical assistance agencies. Better education is an identifiable need and agriculture is recognised as important, but the combination of tertiary-level education in agriculture seems not to have a visible home or advocate. The recognised responsibilities of separate Ministries and Departments of Agriculture, Education and Research and the difficulties they often have in working together complicate the work to be done in agricultural education.
A third factor is the lack of project proposals that identify the need to strengthen colleges and faculties of agriculture. Twenty to thirty years ago there was an emphasis, perhaps an over emphasis in Africa, on the need to increase the number of tertiary-level institutions where agriculture was a major subject. The emphasis was on expansion. Bricks and mortar projects were supported to the point where there may have been an over production of agriculturally trained persons. That was 20 to 30 years ago. What is needed now is an emphasis on quality of education and the production of a limited number of students who can meet the employment needs of both the public and private sector.
A fourth factor is the lack of needs assessment. Country by country, there should be assessments of the need for trained agricultural persons and companion studies that focus on the capacity of educational institutions to meet the identified needs. A recent study in Tanzania (Gooday, 1998) shows that there are training institutions operating at ten percent of their capacity. Without the opportunity for employment, students find no reason to enrol in courses that do not prepare them for the job market. It is a problem that is now beginning to be recognised after a prolonged period of neglect. Donors are beginning to think about re-examining whether it pays to invest in tertiary-level education in agriculture and studies are being initiated to determine the level of return on such an investment.
Today in Africa, tertiary-level education in agriculture is at a crossroads. Financial constraints are severe and the demand for higher quality education has never been greater. There is a need for greater educational relevance and better-trained graduates. There is an obligation to enrol more women and to produce students who are prepared to go on to positions of leadership. Some progress is being made. FAO directories of educational institutions where agriculture is taught as a major subject show that, in the past ten years, the enrolment of women in intermediate and higher level agricultural education in Africa has increased from 14 percent to 25 percent of total student body. However, many problems remain. Tertiary-level diplomates and graduates are no longer being automatically hired by governments and employers in the private sector are demanding higher standards and better-educated students.
There is greater access to tertiary-level (intermediate and higher level) education and new courses are being offered in some countries. However, the quality of those offerings is not reflected in quantitative reporting and problems remain. In many institutions, curricula change has not kept pace with the times and the quality of teaching leaves much to be desired. Faculty members are getting older and good replacements are hard to find. In terms of quality, graduate study in the Region is at a near low point. The result is a decline in the number of well-qualified young professors who have been educated in their home countries. Instead of building quality in the Region, institutions in the industrialised nations are being subsidised to educate Africa's intellectually elite. It's good for the North, but it further exacerbates the brain drain and brings into question the relevancy of the post-graduate degrees being offered. Investment in higher education in the region and the development of North/South university partnerships is one way to address the problem. Without increased incentives, the quality of education will continue to decline.
UNESCO's 1995 World Education Report shows that enrolment in higher education (third-level) varies greatly in Africa. In the Francophone countries, they range from enrolments of 986 per 100,000 inhabitants in Morocco to 50 per 100,000 in Rwanda. In the Anglophone countries, the range is from 21 per 100,000 inhabitants in Tanzania to 1636 per 100,000 in Egypt. Enrolment rates for women have made progress in the last 10 years, but they still average from 10 to 20 percent lower than for men. Not surprisingly, there is a clear correlation between economic development and the number of students enrolled in higher education. There are a number of countries where low levels of education are accompanied by per capita annual incomes of below US$500. This includes much of Sub-Saharan Africa.
A major purpose of tertiary-level education in agriculture is to prepare, in the best possible manner, individuals for the world of work. Students must be able to integrate knowledge from other fields into their own speciality. They should place a high value on the continuing search for breadth of knowledge in their own field and the sector in general and they should be creative and open to new ideas. Perhaps most importantly, they must be able to deal constructively with the technological, cultural and social changes that will challenge them throughout their careers. As Rogers and Taylor (1999) point out, to meet this objective, curriculum development must be participatory in nature. It requires careful and thoughtful analysis and input from a variety of stakeholders (e.g. faculty members, students, potential employers, etc.).
A primary goal of the curriculum is to serve as a guide for instructors and students as they move together through the teaching/learning process and the acquisition of knowledge. Students should be capable of making critical judgements and solving problems in a logical and rational manner, developing excellent listening skills, and being able to communicate their thoughts and aspirations in a clear and forceful manner either verbally or in writing (Maxwell and Lindley, 1999).
Further, students should be able to appreciate the past, value lasting traditions, accept the responsibilities of an educated member of a free society, respect the values of fellow human beings and broaden their knowledge about people who are different from themselves. Of course, they must have a basic understanding of the principles and concepts of mathematics and the natural sciences.
Figure 3 illustrates a balance of subject matter areas that could be considered as the overall curricula at the university level is discussed and developed. Curricula at the intermediate level may be, by necessity, a bit more technical in nature, but a balance is still necessary if students are to graduate with an understanding of the broad principles of agricultural production and rural development (i.e. the role of women in the agricultural sector, the ramifications of rapid population growth, the effect of HIV/AIDS on the agricultural sector, etc.) (Maxwell and Lindley, 1999).
| Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 | Arts and humanities (10%) Social and behavioural sciences (15%) Natural sciences and mathematics (25%) Courses pertaining to a selected professional option (50%) |
The critical issue is a balanced approach. There is the question of what is missing from the curriculum and which courses could be combined or eliminated. Department Heads will fight to maintain as many courses as possible in Group Four - that is understood. Similarly, nearly every staff member would support including everything possible in Group Three, as that represents the scientific base for the practical application of knowledge and techniques integral to Group Two and Group Four courses. The further we delve into the issue of balance, the more complicated it becomes.
At the university level, what is the appropriate ratio of Group One courses as compared to the basic and applied sciences? It is suggested that at least 10 percent of the total course content should fall in Group One. In some institutions, that may mean adding two or three more courses here. What kinds of courses? Possibly technical writing, some history, maybe a bit of art, music or drama, perhaps some religion or philosophy. These courses should probably be interspersed in the third and fourth years to provide some variety when most of the learning is about technical subjects.
In Group Two, a minimum of 15 percent and not over 25 percent of the total time should be taken up by these courses. Skills to be acquired from these courses are very important to the future of the students and they should not be downgraded. Courses in basic leadership development skills, interpersonal communication, principles and techniques of working with women and youth to develop effective leadership in the rural sector are important.
The natural sciences and mathematics courses (Group Three) ought to constitute a minimum of 25 percent of the course content. Group Four courses should makeup at least 40 percent, but no more than half of the content of the total programme.
The obvious question is how do you fit one, two or three additional courses into an already crowded curriculum? The answer is that you cut and/or combine.
What is to be cut out and who will teach the new courses? The suggestion would be not to cut, but to combine in several areas and reduce the total number of course offerings. In animal science, an example might be to combine some course offerings: a) range management and pasture science, b) animal nutrition and advanced animal nutrition, c) animal breeding and advanced animal breeding. These are just examples of finding space in a busy curriculum. Remember at the intermediate and first-degree level, the goal should be to produce broad-based generalists who are problem solvers, not specialised experts.
Teaching-assignment problems can be addressed by small teams of two or three teaching staff who can rotate the responsibility for the introductory courses. Teaching staff should select one of their own to teach a leadership development course. There are four or five courses at the most. Details can be worked out within the teaching staff and members of other Faculties to meet this need.
An undergraduate degree should be a broad-based foundation upon which to build a professional career. In some cases, consideration may be given to working out a common syllabus with a nearby diploma institution so that some beginning courses in a given subject could be shared and team-taught. In the case of mid-career or mature-entry students, who have experience and training at the diploma level, credit should be given for courses taken and work experience. Regarding the balance of theory vs. practice, the goal here is about a 50/50 balance. Good practicals for a degree program are going to be different than good practicals for a diploma programme. Some may be the same, but most are going to be quite different.
In this discussion, a major assumption is that the syllabus will be followed, the hours will be put in, and that quality control will be exerted both in the classroom and in the laboratories and fieldwork.
Teaching staff should work in small, inter-disciplinary groups. Areas of specialisation are not unconnected - the arms and legs are still attached to the body - there are many ways to meet the goals of curriculum revision and development. Curriculum development is a continuous process and the principles outlined above have been very useful over the years. It is important to remember that potential employers should play a role in the process. Curriculum development should be a participatory exercise that involves all of the stakeholders, including teachers, community members, employers (government and the private sector) and students.
 
|