Ebooks

Development of Toolkit for Participatory Curriculum Development majorly builds on experiences of participation and is becoming recognized more widely as a critical element in the success of agricultural education. In the process of participatory curriculum development. we followed participatory approaches like Focus Group Discussions and Field level Workshops involving extension teachers, UG & PG students, field extension workers and farmers. The main steps of the PCD approach adopted here have high practical utility for the design of formal course contents for the Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses in Agricultural Extension.

Participatory curriculum development (PCD) in extension education is an emerging approach to help and improve the quality of education in farm universities. The main steps of the PCD approach adopted here have high practical utility for the design of formal course contents for the Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses in Agricultural Extension. A great deal of thinking is required while deciding on how much participation will be required from which stakeholders, at what level(s).

To explain the main concepts and elements of a participatory curriculum development process To present practical skills and knowledge leading to the effective design of teaching and learning To build confidence of the learners in applying new methods and approaches to teaching and field extension work. To demonstrate application of participatory approach in development of Extension curriculum This Toolkit emphasizes an active learning approach, based on the process of experience, reflection and action. The key principle is that people do not learn simply by passive listening. They need to be involved from beginning of the training and designing of the program.

“Curriculum” is seen often as a critical issue during discussions on quality of agricultural education, being considered variously as content, as product and as process. It is easy to make the assumption that a common understanding of curriculum, but in practice this is far from the case, with a host of definitions, approaches and ideological standpoints. Even though a dialogue on curriculum theory is well established, there is still a strong tendency in practice to understand curriculum as a list of content, often developed in considerable detail, that students should be taught.

Curriculum reorientation is necessary, when any one in use is no longer responsive to the needs, interests and unable to meet the demands of the farming community to which it is intended to serve. In any case a number of factors, such as those listed below, must be taken into consideration while reorientation: There should be an analytical assessment of the existing agricultural extension curriculum in order to justify any proposed reorientation. Learning needs of the farm university graduates and farmers should be reviewed from the point of view of both individual learner requirements and national development needs.

As stated before, a careful assessment of the existing curriculum is essential before any modification is undertaken and must take into account the country’s education policy, political, economic, demographic, cultural, social and technological environment. Problems of farmers to be solved, needs to be satisfied, and priorities to be identified and addressed and then only the recommendations made for action.

• Content approach We can identify several different ‘traditional’ approaches to curriculum development. The most common approach until recently is the ‘content’ approach. This is where the curriculum is basically a list of knowledge – things that the agricultural graduating learners need to know. Usually this list is made by a curriculum development committee or group of experts identified at the national level.

Real benefits are obtained when we use a participatory approach to curriculum development and reorientation. Primarily, the course contents we provide and the learning will become more effective. If students participate actively in the learning process, then they are more likely to learn and teaching is more likely to be effective. They will have more ownership in the teaching, because their needs will have been identified and hopefully they will also be involved in deciding how their needs can be met. This will increase their motivation, which will help them to learn more effectively.

In the present system of curriculum changes, participation of all the stakeholders are not actively involved in developing curriculum over the years.

While developing the toolkit for Participatory Curriculum Development participatory approaches like Focus Group Discussions and Field Level Workshops were adopted. The goal is to provide demand-driven services and to do so, extension professionals need to respond for farmers’ requests rather than deliver predetermined packaged solutions. It is also time to enable the farmers to empower and make their voices heard. Equally important is to make the service providers accountable to the farmers, which is possible when the farmers pay for the services they receive.

The motive behind conducting the workshop on Capacity Need Assessment and Development is that the existing Extension Advisory Services (EAS) needs new capacities to respond effectively to the emerging challenges in agricultural development.

To address the present day problems in agriculture and horticultural sectors and also to equip the graduating and postgraduate agricultural students, the ICAR has been continuously striving to bring necessary reforms for quality enhancement in agricultural education. The Council has appointed National Core Group and BSMA Committee for revision and restructuring of Post graduate and Doctoral syllabi in consultation with all the stakeholders to meet the challenges and harness opportunities in various disciplines of agriculture and allied sciences. It has been felt that a paradigm shift is necessary in academic regulations to comply with various provisions of National Education Policy-2020. The syllabus of Masters’ and Doctoral programs was restructured and new courses were introduced.

The results of Focus Group Discussions and Field Level Workshops (Tables presented at the end of toolkit) conducted with different stakeholders mentioned in the methodology revealed that, communication skills, soft skills, leadership development skills, personal and professional development skills followed by entrepreneurship development skills are more important and needed to perform job effectively at field level extension work (Table 1).

Participatory curriculum reorientation awareness-raising workshop for key stakeholders: In the present study focus group discussion and workshops were conducted to know the effectiveness of present curriculum of extension education with different stakeholders (Students UG, PG and Ph.D, Extension teachers, Field extension workers and farmers). Data were collected by using schedules regarding the important contents of present curriculum and most important for extension workers in the present situation to be included in curriculum

Identify main reasons and purpose of curriculum development and key areas needed by stakeholders for curriculum change. This can be done by adopting participatory methods like Focus group discussion/ field level workshops. Carry out stakeholder analysis and identify specific potential areas suggested by stakeholders to be included in the curriculum for better performance at the f ield level and their likely role in the process. In order to encourage greater stakeholder involvement invite stakeholders such as staff and students from various farm universities, field extension workers and farmers.

The concept of capacity development is defined in various ways. Broadly, it is defined as a process by which skills, and knowledge are built, utilized, retained and nurtured with a view to provide an entity responding to a development challenge. Two components that are vital in any plausible definition of the concept are human skills (the ability to perform a task) and institutions (effectiveness and efficiency of organizations, systems, processes and procedures).

Chambers, R. (2002). Participatory workshops: a sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas & activities, Earthscan, Londres. Vui, Dang Kim, Thuan, Dinh Duc, Cai, Hoang Huu and Taylor, P. A Case Study of Participatory Forestry Curriculum Development and Revision in Vietnam, Rome: FAO. (in press). FAO. (1997). Issues and opportunities for agricultural education and training in the 1990s and beyond. Rome: FAO. FAO. (1993). Trainer’s Guide: Concepts, principles and methods of training, with special reference to agricultural development. Vol. 1. Rome: FAO.