A Training of Trainers Course
for IPM Farmer Trainers

A Training of Trainers Course

for IPM Farmer Trainers

Tel:                  (6221) 7883-2604

Fax:                 (6221) 78832605

Email:              CommunityIPM@IBM.Net

Mail:                 PO Box 1380, Jakarta 12013

Web:              http://www.communityipm.org/

TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Activities                                                                   Time

Written Pre-test                                                           60 min.

Introduction and Learning Contract                           90 min.

Characteristics of the Ideal Trainer               90 min.

"What's this?" Special Topic                                     75 min.

Basic Ecosystem                                                      150 min.

Ecosystem Analysis                                      190 min.

Nursery bed                                                                 30  min.

Ballot Box Pre-test                                                      60 min.

Aquatic I                                                                       30 min.

Experiential Learning Cycle                           75 min.

Participant Feedback                                                 30 min.

Predators and Nursery bed Special Topic 180 min.

Root and Vascular System Special Topic 210 min.

Group Dynamics: Massage                          15 min.

Response to  Participant Feedback                         45 min.

Rat Population Development                                   180 min.

Insect Zoo                                                                     75 min.

Group Dynamics: Group Singing                              20 min.

Using the Quality Matrix                                              85 min.

Production analysis                                                     25 min.

Pest and Disease Prevention                                  165 min.

Group Dynamics:  Leading the Blind                        80 min.

Making an Insect Collection                         135 min.

Participant Feedback                                                 30 min.

Field School Preparatory Meetings                        105 min.

Aquatic Observation II                                               180 min.

Farmers as Organizers                                            120 min.

Science and Farmer                                       50 min.

Group Dynamics:  Broken T                           50 min.

Preparing for the Ballot Box                           55 min.

Insect Life Cycles II                                                      60 min.

Written Post-test and Ballot Box                              125 min.

DAY ONE

The Opening Ceremony (08.00 to 08.45)

Learning Contract

This session started with a discussion of what constitutes a “learning contract”. Next the trainer and participants reviewed the schedule of TOT which had already been handed out to participants.  Trainers and participants agreed on the timing of activities and the overall schedule of the TOT.  TOT activities  were explained by the trainer and questioned by the participants.  In the end there was a general agreement on the curriculum.  At this point the Field Leader 2, Wito, took over.

The Field Leader 2  led a discussion regarding the goals of the TOT.  Participants looked at the TOT as an opportunity to:

·        expand their agricultural knowledge;

·        learn more regarding pest control without using pesticides;

·        meet and make new friends;

·        expand the impact of IPM;

·        exchange experience;

·        increase all farmers’ incomes.

The next question put to the participants by the Field Leader 2 was how to achieve these goals? This question precipitated a discussion that resulted in participants and trainers jointly agree to TOT goals and to:

·        study hard

·        keep to the schedule

·        maintain order

·        work together

Ice Breaker:  Introductions

This was done outside the classroom. All participants and trainers stood in a large circle.  Every one had to present some information about them including name, address, marital status, hobby, and name of their Farmers Group and the address of their group. The session ended with participants yelling "Glory to IPM".           

Participant Leaders Election

To help insure that there were good communications between trainers and participants, the participants were asked to select two persons to represent them on the trainers committee.  Gunawan and Maadin were selected.

Determination of Participant Groups

Participants were deviled into five small discussion groups. These groups would be used throughout the TOT.

Group I:           Muslimah, Husnadinata, Samsul Arifin, Suryadi,                                       Nawawi.   Nawawi,Sritarjono.

Group II:          Uswatun, Gunawan, Moh.Zalil, Nursiman, Suwarno,                                             Murohman

Group III:         Muchlis, Zakaria,Muh. Hamaludin, Murtala , Muhari

Group IV:        Maahfud, Asmoro,Imam Ghozali, Masruji, Abdul                                      Junaedi

Group V:         Ridwan, Achmad, Zubairi, Marsidi, Maadin.

Written Pre-test

This written test was done to determine the participants’ knowledge of IPM issues. Their test consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions and 10 essay questions. Questions focused on the basic principles of IPM, training, pesticides, etc.

Ideal Trainer

Participants were divided into five small groups.  Each group was asked to brainstorm the characteristics of the ideal trainer and to draw that ideal trainer. Each group then presented their pictures and discussed the characteristics of an ideal trainer.  In summary the trainers stated that the ideal trainer:

·        goes into the rice field with the participants

·        is patient and honest

·        has a broad perspective

·        is polite, active, and attentive

·        displays a high level of discipline

·        respects others opinions

·        is highly motivated, flexible, tactful, and understanding

“What is this?”

The trainer first explained why the “what is this?” activity was created, the goal of the activity, and how to establish a dialogue.  All participants then practiced the activity.  Using materials in the classroom such as paper, pens, erasers, etc. each group practiced using the "what's this?" learning dialogue.  The trainer of this session explained that it was hoped that each participant would play both roles of questioner and trainer.

At the end of the session, the trainer asked participants about how the felt using this dialogic process. Participants said that they enjoyed process.  They found it satisfying to be able to help others discover what they needed to know.

DAY TWO 

Basic Ecosystem

The trainer explained the goal and the process that would be used in the special topic, “the basic rice ecosystem”.  Participants were divided into five groups. Each group had to choose a person to act as a Farmer IPM Trainer who was to train the others in the group. The participants who were acting as trainers used the Fieldguide for this special topic to help them conduct their practice session. The participants, acting as trainers, explained the objectives of this special topic and the steps that would be followed to achieve those objectives. After that, the groups went down to the field to make field observations of  plants, pests, natural enemies, weeds, and other elements of the ecosystem. When they finished with their observations they made pictures of what had been observed in field.  Following this the groups discussed the relationships that could be found in the rice field ecosystem.  Some groups only saw the relationships among a few elements such as the plant and pest.  Other groups discussed the energy flows found in the ecosystem. One of the groups discussed questions found in the guidelines:  What if a pesticide killed all insects and spiders?  What would happen?  What would happen if plants became resistant to pests and there were no pests in the field? What happens if there are high levels of fertilization during the dry season? What would happen if there were low rates of  fertilizer applications during rainy season?  Why is it important to have healthy plants? What preserve natural enemies? Why do we need to observe rice-fields weekly?

By the end of the session the participants came together again and the trainer summarized the elements in the rice ecosystem and then described their relationships. This session ended with an evaluation the participants who had facilitated the activity.  The “Itemized Response Analysis” was used for the evaluation.  The following is an example of how this analysis was done.

What was good                                 What needs               How to make the

about the trainer’s                             improvement?          Improvement?

Made good                            -Sometimes did not              -Focus more on activity

explanations                          aim at the material                objectives.

                                                and objectives.

                                                The background was            Ask for questions.

                                                unclear.                                  

Ecosystem Analysis

Participants were divided into five small groups. Each group appointed one of  its members to be the trainer. Participants who had been chosen as trainers described the background, objectives, and procedures of the agro-ecosystem analysis. There was variation among the “trainers” as they conducted their sessions.  Some trainers gave brief explanations and then went to the field to make their ecosystem observations.   Others spent too much time on the  objectives and procedures.  In general the groups looked like groups in an IPM Field School.

In one group there was a long discussion concerning the concept of "balance" among the populations of pests and natural enemies.  What  was the meaning of a system in balance?  What conditions could be said to be in "balance"? These questions confused the participants.  Some of them knew all about natural enemies, but they were not able to relate the natural enemies to the pests in terms of predation rates. The discussion on the method to be used to describe pest damage levels also took a long time.  The participants relied on general estimates.  The leader of the session,Supadi, wanted participants to use a simple basic scale.  At last they agreed to use a scale of one to four to describe damage levels.  In the end participants thought it easier to use a scale of one to ten.  Some comments that came out regarding “trainers” as a result of the Itemized Response Analysis:

What was good                     What needs               How to make the

about the trainer’s                 improvement?          improvement?

Language was                       Way of explaining.     More practice in training,

clear and simple.                                                       Better understanding of