The second, in a series of three English-language Training Courses in Aquaculture, financed jointly by AGFUND and the Government of Hungary, was held from 3 August to 29 October 1987.
Eighteen participants from fourteen countries in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean attended this course on Freshwater Fish-Farm Management.
The course was divided between two countres in Hungary, the first 10 weeks being spent at the Fisheries Research Institute, Szarvas, and the last three weeks at the Warmwater Fish Hatchery, Százhalombatta. Instruction took the form of approximately 40% practical classes and 60% lectures. Most of the lecturers were Hungarian experts, with the addition of international consultants recruited by FAO to cover specialized topics when necessary. Field study tours to visit commercial fish-farms and related industries were also arranged.
The quality and success of the course was evaluated by the participants in confidential questionnaires. These revealed a high level of satisfaction with most aspects of the organization and teaching, though some improvements, concerning in particular the amount of practical classes and the level of participaninvolvement were suggested. The Second International Training Course in Aquaculture was thus a successful part of the series.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) identified three key factors limiting the success and expansion of aquaculture in developing countries, i.e., a shortage of fish feed, lack of knowledge about and availability of fish feeds, and a shortage of skilled fish-farm managers. To help address these problems, a series of three International Training Courses in Aquaculture were organized (Project GCP/INT/435/AGF). The courses were to be taught in English and each to be of three months duration.
For some years, FAO has assisted the development of Hungary as a centre of expertise in warmwater fish culture. The Government of Hungary readily agreed to host the International Training Courses, to help finance them and to make the necessary facilities and teachers available. Co-financing was generously provided by the Arab Gulf Programme for the United Nations Development Organizations (AGFUND) under a trust fund agreement signed on 18 March 1986. FAO took responsibility for implementation of the project in cooperation with the Hungarian Government.
This report reviews the implementation of the second of the three courses, held in Hungary from 3 August to 29 October 1987. The Course on Freshwater Fish Farm Management was designed to teach these biological technical and managerial skills necessary for achieving successful management of fish-farms. The main topics included fish-farm site selection, fish-farm design and construction, water quality management, pond stocking, fertilizing and feeding, health control, hatchery management, economics, planning and organization. The skills learned during that second course will be useful not only for present and potential fish-farm managers but also for extension workers.
Nominations were invited from 21 countries in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean in which FAO considered modern freshwater fish-farm management to be applicable. The 18 candidates selected for training came from 14 different countries: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. Names and addresses of the participants are given in Appendix 1.
With the exception of one, all participants were university graduates, in science or engineering, mostly in aquaculture and fisheries. Professional backgrounds varied widely. Three were highly experienced fish-farm managers, two held technical positions in fish-farming stations, one was responsible in aquaculture development planning, five were fisheries research and extension officers, two were engineers responsible for design and control of fisheries and aquaculture facilities, one was responsible for planning aquaculture research, one was an aquacultural engineer in a livestock farm, one was in charge of reservoir fisheries, two held administrative jobs. Age varied between mid-twenties and fifty years. Half of the group could speak English fluently, the other half showed some difficulties in expressing themselves. Yet those difficulties diminished with practice as the programme went along. Only one person had difficulties in understanding the lectures given in English. The knowledge gap among participants forced the lecturers to keep a delicate balance between the needs of the experienced fish-farmers and those who had a more limited exposure to fish-farm management issues. Yet the presence of the better experienced participants was a stimulating factor in group assignments and discussions.
The course was held at two centres in Hungary: from 3 August to 8 Ocotber at the Fish Culture Research Institute (HAKI) in Szarvas, and from 9 to 29 October, at the Warmwater Fish Hatchery (TEHAG) in Százhalombatta. In Szarvas, participants lived in a motel close to HAKI. In Százhalombatta, they stayed at TEHAG's own guesthouse next to the hatchery.
The National Project Manager, Mr Istvan Ozorai, handled administrative and financial matters from his office at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Budapest. The Course Director was Dr Lászlo Váradi from HAKI. Officer in charge of adminsitrative matters was Dr Agnes Kintzly in HAKI and Dr Andras Peteri in TEHAG. Representing FAO, the Course Co-Director and Coordinator was Mr Richard L'Heureux who was also responsible for formulating the syllabus of the course in collaboration with the staff of both host institutes.
The course was designed to provide training in freshwater fish-farm management. Emphasis was put on management aspects of the polyculture system applied in Hungarian fish-farms which is based on the culture of common carp, silver carp, bighead carp, grass carp and European catfish. Most of the teaching was done by professional staff of HAKI and TEHAG. Contributions were also made by experts from Hungarian scientific and economic organizations.
Consultants were recruited internationally by FAO to give instruction in the culture of important fish species not routinely reared in Hungary. Dr M.C.M. Beveridge of the University of Stirling in Scotland, taught about tilapia culture and Mr J. Jansen, of the African Regional Aquaculture Centre (ARAC) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, lectured on the culture of African catfish. In addition, Dr V.R.P. Sinha, Director of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia (NACA) in Bangkok, Thailand, gave lectures on the culture of Indian major carps. The course Co-Director, Mr R. L'Heureux gave lectures on investment analysis and other economic aspects of fishculture.
Morning periods (08.30–13.00 h) were generally devoted to lectures, and afternoon periods (14.00–16.30 h) to demonstrations and practicals. Extensive use of audio-visual teaching material helped keep attention of the participants and illustrate lecturers' explanations. At different points in time, assignments were given to the participants. For that purpose, participants had been regrouped in four workgroups at the beginning of the course. Assignments made the participants test their skills and help the lecturers in assessing the level of understanding of their subject matters.
All subjects included in the Training Course Programme were covered with the following exceptions: at HAKI a professor who had been retained for the course was not available and the subjects of reservoir management and management of undrainable pond could not be covered as planned; at TEHAG the lecturer who had been chosen for the subject of farm management fell ill and the subject was also not covered as planned. In all cases, time thus made available was used to cover other subject matters of the course in a more extensive way.
Study tours were organized to State and cooperative fish farms, an aquaculture equipment producing company and higher learning institutions. There were also excursions to places of historic, cultural or simply touristic interest. Discussions were held within as well as outside of regular classes, which allowed the participants to exchange points of view and compare respective experiences. A day-by-day list of activities is given in Appendix 2.
Throughout the three-month course, participants have shown their high level of interest and motivation by regularly attending classes and practical sessions and actively participating. Their degree of understanding could be tested in an informal way throughout the course by question-and-answer sessions and through the evaluation of hand-outs given by the work groups. All the trainees were considered through this evaluation to have performed satisfactorily and to have understood the main themes of the course.
The training course was officially opened by Dr Istvan Doboczky, Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the Government of Hungary. At the closure of the first part of the course in Szarvas, there was an official reception presided by Mr T. Munka, Secretary General of the Hungarian National FAO Committee. Mr Munka also presided the official closing ceremony.
All teachers were invited to submit written texts on the subject covered by their lectures several months in advance of the course. Edited copies were given to the trainees on arrival in Hungary. Some written texts were also distributed during the course. Subsequently, the collected papers were bound together to produce an instructional handbook which will be of use in future courses. A list of lecture notes distributed is given in Appendix 3.
Background reading material was provided for each student in the form of relevant FAO publications. A list of the material thus distributed is given in Appendix 4.
Following the first part of the programme held at HAKI, the trainees were asked to fill in a confidential questionnaire designed to evaluate the perceived usefulness of the course so far and their degree of satisfaction with it. At the end of the course, a similar questionnaire tested the response to the second period of instruction, at TEHAG, and to the course as a whole.
The evaluation of both parts are presented separately, as Part 1 in HAKI lasted 10 weeks while Part 2 in TEHAG lasted three weeks, and thus do not have equal importance. Appendix 5 gives trainees' responses to both questionnaires.
Most trainees thought the number of participants to be appropriate. A clear majority also would have liked to have more time to be devoted to practical classes. Most found they had enough time for questions and discussions with teachers and all agreed that time to discuss between themselves was sufficient. Half of the class was satisfied with the time spent on organized recreational trips, six wanted more trips and three wanted more free time. All found instructional field trips to be useful and enjoyable. A clear majority was satisfied with the accommodation and only five were not satisfied with the food.
Participants found the standard of lecturing either satisfactory (11) or good (6) while one trainee said it was poor. Lectures given in English were not found difficult to understand but a significant number of participants thought that lessons given through an interpreter were not easy to understand. All found either quite or very useful to have a written text of lecture in advance. Most were satisfied with the amount of theory in the lectures except for seven who thought it to be excessive. The number of fish species was also judged to be appropriate except for three who would have liked it to be greater. Finally, all thought that these lectures would be either quite (4) or very (14) helpful in their jobs.
A strong majority (14) thought practical sessions to be well prepared. Most participants judged that they had enough opportunities to participate personnally in the practicals. Of the four who thought they had no sufficient opportunity to participate, two said it was because of a too large number of participants. The majority thought that they were able to perform the practical procedures themselves independently, and all but two thought those procedures would be quite or very useful in their job.
Almost all participants thought they knew something about fish culture before coming to the course. One thought he knew very little, another that he knew a lot. Three had not worked in fish culture before coming to the course. The amount of experience was quite variable: while three had more than 10 years experience, five had between six and ten years, two had between three and six years and five had less than three years experience. All trainees expect to work in fish culture after completing the course.
Most participants thought the number of trainees to be appropriate and the group is almost equally divided between those who think the division of time between lectures and practicals was appropriate and those who would have liked more practicals. Almost everybody thought there was enough time to ask questions and discuss with the teachers and all thought there was enough time for discussion among participants. Almost everybody thought the field trips to be useful and enjoyable.
On accommodation, opinions were somewhat split between the majority (11) who were satisfied and a significant minority (17) who were not. The level of satisfaction on food was higher with only four expressing dissatisfaction.
Almost all participants were satisfied with the standard of lecturing, 12 stating it was good and four satisfactory while one thought it to be poor. All but one found the lectures given in English easy to understand, although no lectures as such were given through an interpreter while in Százhalombatta, six mentioned those lectures to be difficult to understand Possibly those answers refer to the presentations made by Hungarian managers during field trips.
Everybody thought that having a written text of lecture was either quite or very useful. Fifteen stated that the amount of theoretical matter was about right. The majority was satisfied with the number of fish species covered but a significant minority (5) would have liked it to be larger. On the whole, all but one thought the lectures either quite or very useful in their job.
Most of the participants (15) thought the practical sessions were well prepared and only two judged that they had not sufficient opportunity to perform the tasks during practicals. Only one attributed the situation to a too large number of students. All but one felt able to perform the practical procedures independently, and all but one equally expected the practical procedures learnt at TEHAG to be either quite (8) or very (8) useful in their job.
The questionnaire filled at the end of Part 2 in TEHAG also asked the participants to answer questions and offer comments on the course as a whole. The results are summarized below.
All but one found round-table discussions useful, but the class was split between those who thought the number of those discussions to be about right (9) and those who wished there had been more (6). All but one answered that the two parts of the course merge well. Only five expressed the opinion that there was too much overlap in the material covered and most thought that splitting the courses between two centres was better while four felt it made no difference and two said it made the course worse.
Overall, everybody was happy with the course, five indicating they were well satisfied and 12 they were modestly satisfied.
The last part of the questionnaire asked the participants for specific comments on the course. The questions or requests were the following:
Please suggest topics which you consider were insufficiently covered in lectures and for practicals.
Please list topics which you considered received too much attention.
Please list the activities and/or information which you consider were the most useful to you.
Please give general comments. Comments about the training course as a whole would be greatly appreciated.
Please suggest how this type of training course could be improved in the future (organizational and training aspects).
Concerning the first question on topics considered insufficiently covered, about 40 topics were listed, some more or less overlapping with others. This results mainly from the answers of three or four who kept a list of all subjects mentioned in the programme which in their opinion were not covered as expected. On the contrary there were those for whom all subjects were insufficiently covered. Most participants mentioned between three and six subjects:
Subjects most frequently quoted were:
A lesser number of topics was quoted under this heading than under the one preceding. Moreover, a few even quoted topics which they had previously quoted as not having been sufficiently covered, thus indicating they had not clearly understood the question. Only one topic was mentioned more than once, that is design and construction of fish-farms, which is understandable since it was the subject of two weeks of lectures, demonstrations and practicals.
There is quite a diversity of topics mentioned as having been the most useful, participants proposing between one and 11 subjects. Yet, the most frequently quoted topic is fish propagation (11 mentions). Other subjects often quoted were:
As previously, a wide diversity of responses was offered as general comments which are in agreement with answers given in the multiple-choice section of the questionnaire. Some comments expressed appreciation of the course, others wished this course would be longer. The importance of practicals was again stressed. Some also mentioned there was too much overlap in lectures, resulting in useless repetitions. Some of the more experienced participants were annoyed with basic knowledge explanations with which they had long been familiar. Critical comments were also offered concerning the interpretation which should be done by a “technical person”. Some also wished that the course would be given in tropical countries, by lecturers with experience in tropical water fish-farming.
Suggested improvements are logical follow-ups of the preceding general comments. It was suggested that courses should be more specialized and given to participants with homogeneous background, by English-speaking lecturers with adequate experience. Other remarks were to the effect of improving the level of accommodation, mainly by providing single rooms.
By comparing participants' responses to both evaluation questionnaires, it is possible to identify a few matters for which answers given for Part 1 and Part 2 are significantly different. This comparison can be useful for future course planning.
For instance, participants were more satisfied with the number of practical classes given in Százhalombatta, where only 10 would have wished more practicals; while for Szarvas, participants wishing more practicals were 16. Concerning accommodation, 16 were satisfied in Szarvas, while the number of satisfied participants was 11 in Százhalombatta.
There was a significant difference also in the level of satisfaction concerning the standard of lecturing, six stating it was good in Szarvas and 12 giving the same rating in Százhalombatta. However, the proportions were reversed when participants were asked how useful those lectures would be in their job, 14 saying the lecture would be very useful in Szarvas, and eight giving the same rating in Száhalombatta.
The general impression delivered through those evaluations is that this second course was judged satisfactory by all participants even if many offered suggestions and critical comments in order to improve the programme.
Before drawing conclusions concerning those comments and suggestions, it must be remembered that the course itself was the broadest in scope of the three courses offered, the two others covering the more specific subjects of Fish Hatchery Management and Fish Feeding. Therefore it offered a wider array of topics. In addition, the background of participants varied widely, from one who had no exposure at all to fish-farming to another who had sixteen years experience as fish-farm manager. Some were working in administrative jobs while others had always worked in technical fields.
In such a context, it is practically impossible to design a course which would please everybody. Difficulties were also added by the fact that only about half of the class were really fluent in English. This was probably a problem even if all but one said they had no problems in understanding lectures given in English. This factor also reinforced the expressed need for more practicals.
Also, unexpected changes in the schedule of lectures and the treatment of course topics, in the early weeks of Part 1, caused some uneasiness among participants. Those changes were caused mainly by the fact that one professor could not be available as planned originally. The problems were later solved through communicating in advance to the participants any change in the course programme. This situation stresses out the importance participants attach to the course programme document which is somewhat the basis of their attendance.
Finally, a majority of participants both at HAKI (16) and TEHAG (10) expressed the need for more practicals, suggesting that a better balance between practicals and lectures would be an improvement.
However, those concluding remarks, which aim at improving an already very good course, must not hide the fact that all participants declared themselves to be either moderately or well satisfied with the course.
This, given the diversity of professional backgrounds and needs is quite a success. And by referring to the abundant information contained in the lecture notes, participants will be in a position to somewhat extend the training course throughout their career.
In order to satisfy the need for practicals and in a broader sense, participants' involvement, it is recommended to put more emphasis on assignments. For instance, participants could be responsible for handing regular assignments which would test their skills in solving problems. Assignments would be discussed in working groups but each individual would be expected to be able to present his solution in class. Assignments could be on a weekly basis or more frequent if found necessary. Assignments would be discussed and corrected in class. A programme of well-defined assignments should be ready at the start of the course. Required time for assignments discussion should be taken from lecture time.
In order to stimulate personal involvement at the very beginning of the course, participants should be expected to have gathered, before coming to Hungary, background information on fish-farming activities in their country, with emphasis on sources of feed and fertilizer, and be prepared to present their findings to the class.
It would be important to put more emphasis on following closely the course programme and when changes cannot be avoided to announce them in advance to participants. In addition, it should be required that, at the start of a lecture, the lecture briefly explains how he will cover the planned lecture content and justify any significant modification from what was initially planned.
Concerning the management of the course, it should be required that a bilingual person should be on duty at all times to face emergency situations as well as other important needs. At any time, participants should be able to know which bilingual person is on duty and how to contact this person.
