The numbers appearing in parentheses are the session numbers as they appear in the Trainer Manual and in Appendix 1. The manual contains a total of 40 sessions but not all of these could be covered in the teaching practice sessions. Participants were therefore asked to make a selection.
|
The sessions chosen by the Nepal team were: | |
|
· Introduction, goals and expectations (1, 2) |
Sushila Sharma |
|
· Principles of design (4) |
Kayeswar M. Sulpya |
|
· Promotion and benefits (6) |
Luitel Sita Ram |
Introduction, goals and expectations
Sushila started well with a game (of her own devising) for introductions, where participants are divided into two groups arranged in two rows facing each other, but with a raised bed sheet preventing them from seeing each other. When the sheet dropped to the floor the first two participants in front competed to see who could yell out each other's name fastest. This continued until all members had competed. This was a good way of loosening up and getting to know each other's names in a fun way. She then moved onto a discussion of the background of the national training, using questions to try and get the participants to understand the goals and objectives of the national training.
Then she tried to brainstorm the problems which gave rise to the training. This resulted in a list of problems which hindered stove adoption from the point of view of the field workers.
Principles of design
Sulpya lectured about principles of design, using the whiteboard. He began by listing some aspects of traditional stoves - using some examples from the case study communities. He then lectured on various stove parts.
Towards the end of the session he talked about stove parts. He also talked about the combustion chamber and the concept of a heat sink.
During the subsequent discussion, Sulpya admitted that he lectured too much rather than allow the trainees to get involved. He recognised his need to adopt a more participatory style of training.
Promotion and Benefits
Luitel started by asking for two volunteers to sit back-to-back. He provided paper hats with the label of field worker and stove user written on them and asked the field worker to provide instructions to the field worker on how to arrange some physical objects that they both had in front of them. The user was not very successful in carrying out the instructions. Luitel used this exercise to show that simply giving instructions is an ineffective method of training. He stressed the need for the trainer to get more involved with the user, to show the user what to do, or for the trainer and the trainee to carry out the instructions together.
Luitel then put up a poster of a house. A volunteer was asked to layout paper furnishings where he wanted them. After this Luitel asked if anyone wanted to layout the furnishings differently. A woman volunteer got up and moved the WC and water pump closer to the front door. Thong, a Vietnamese participant and architect, got up and moved the window away from its position close to the roof and made other changes. After this exercise he asked one of the participants what they felt about the exercise. They responded that it showed that people had different preferences. This was used to explain that stove users also have different preferences and that stove designers must be aware of and respect these as far as possible.
Finally Luitel asked the participants to compare stove users needs with the benefits field workers often stressed when promoting ICS. He highlighted the fact that these could often be quite different and that there was a need for congruence if the stove adoption rate is to be improved.
|
The sessions chosen by the Bangladesh team were: | |
|
· Raw materials (5) |
Abu Zaher |
|
· Gender (8) |
Lulu Bilquis Banu |
|
· Field Exercise 1: Guidelines for Identifying Community Context (11) |
Nazmul Haque |
Raw/Materials
Using transparencies Zaher gave a lecture on how to choose appropriate stove materials. Again, it was felt that a more participatory form of communication would have been better.
Gender
Dr. Lulu began by introducing gender analysis and its relation to ICPs with transparencies. She also explained the difference between gender and sex. She asked participants to write down on cards one example of what men and women in their own culture exclusively wear and do. She taped the cards up on the back of a whiteboard and read them out. This was used to illustrate the fact that physical appearance was unrelated to the types of jobs assigned to men or women and that gender was culturally/socially defined.
Dr. Lulu then explained how information on gender roles helps ICS programmes to be successful and the necessity of involving men, women and children in any programme. She then received questions dealing with gender and maximizing participation, equity vs. equality, gender and men, etc.
Field Exercise 1: Guidelines for Identifying Community Context
Nazmul opened the session with a Bangladeshi greeting, asking everyone to shout back the appropriate response. This energised the participants. He then gave a short introduction to the need to assess community context and invited participants to ask questions throughout the session. Next he presented the objectives of the session as indicated below:
At the end of the session participants will be able to know the purposes of community context assessment.At the end of the session participants will be familiar with the tools and techniques of community context assessment.
He then introduced an exercise where a volunteer is asked to connect 9 dots (arranged in 3 parallel rows giving the shape of a square) on the whiteboard using 4 lines, without lifting the pen from the board. He also asked participants to try on their own piece of paper. No one could do it. He asked why no one could solve this problem and explained that most people failed because they tried to complete the exercise by staying inside the boundary of the square formed by the dots. The solution required that you go outside it. He used this to illustrate that to be successful a stove program must not confine itself to a narrow set of considerations but should think of the wider context too, which involves a consideration of the community context of the stove program.
He then formed small groups of participants and asked them to think about the required information to collect for a field exercise on community context. For this he used the community context transparencies as included in the trainer manual. After two minutes he wrote some of the results on the board, asking participants to clarify or be more specific when necessary.
Problems related to cooking
Resources of the community
Social beliefs
Health
Social problems
Economy
Use of time
Superstitions and beliefs
Culture
Institutions
Organizations
Education
He then presented a transparency dividing community context subjects into five areas: social, economic, political, institutional and environmental with some examples, as included in the community context profile handout contained in the training manual.
He then asked about the methodology of the community context field exercise. Participants suggested using observation or informal interview. Nazmul introduced the concept of rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA), including the objectives of each and some examples of tools. At this point time was up.
Figure
The Cambodia team chose the following sessions for their micro-teaching:
|
· Energizer (can be done in all sessions): |
Ly Chou Beang |
|
· Heat transfer and heat loss (14): |
Ly Chou Beang |
|
· Kitchen (15): |
Adhong Ramadhan |
|
· Stove parts (17): |
Chean Thayut |
|
· Combustion and heat transfer/stove modification (19): |
Yang Saing Koma |
Energizer
Beang began with an energizing exercise called 7-Up.
Heat Transfer and Heat Loss
Then he continued with the session on heat transfer and heat loss. His objectives, as presented on a transparency, were:
At the end of the session the participants will understand the three types of heat transfer and how these affect stove design.At the end of this session the participants will understand how heat transfer is optimized and how heat loss is minimized in stove design.
At the end of this session the participants will apply new knowledge to think critically about stove design.
These are the expected outputs defined by the trainer manual.
He opened by asking participants, "What is heat transfer?" He then presented the answer using a transparency. He progressed through the session building up on the participants knowledge (which he found out by questioning). He gave lots of examples and used a metal spoon to illustrate the conductivity of steel and then brainstormed about different materials. He then used the same questioning method to relate concepts of convection and radiation, always using visuals when he could.
Then he showed the transparencies for conduction, convection and radiation. Next he went on to explain mass and tried to explain how added mass with insulatory qualities can be used in stove design.
Kitchen
Adhong started by setting up a kitchen layout, using cards, chairs, and two model stoves. He asked for volunteers and asked other participants to serve as observers.
He then directed the first volunteer around the kitchen, giving her various tasks to perform. Afterwards he rearranged and improved the kitchen layout, and asked for another volunteer and went through the same procedure. From time to time he explained to the observers what was happening.
He then asked participants what information about the kitchen was necessary to design an ICP: This brainstorming resulted in the following:
Cooking activities
Stove location
Space in the kitchen
Construction materials used to build the kitchen
He then explained that kitchen improvement is a process which goes from observation, then analysis to planning and he explained some of the methods of kitchen observation.
Figure
Finally he wrapped up his session using some transparencies showing some issues of the kitchen as they related to the stove. The objectives of his session, as presented were:
To understand the importance of the kitchen for assessment and the consequences of not paying attention to the kitchen in an ICP.To be aware of the possibility of integrating ICP and kitchen improvement and of some of the benefits that this union will bring.
To help the participants internalise some issues related to kitchen improvement, ergonomics, working flow, kitchen layout and how this influences the workloads of cooks.
Stove Parts
Thayut started by having the participants say their names while passing around a stove. Then the objectives were presented on a flip chart and read by one of the participants.
Understand the different technical parts of stoves. Be able to answer questions about various improved cookstove designs.
Using a flip chart containing a list of the parts of a stove and models of stoves he asked participants where each part was and what the function of that part was and its implications for stove design. He asked the participants to think about changes that could be made to each part of the stove, for example changes in the size of the combustion chamber. He also used transparencies showing stove parts.
At the end of the session, he began to ask some questions about stove parts, but ran out of time.
Combustion and Heat Transfer
Koma started by tying his session to the previous sessions, inviting participants to use their new knowledge to talk about stove design. His objectives were to enable participants:
To recall and list the main principles of stove design and concepts of combustion and heat transferTo apply the concepts of combustion and heat transfer to evaluate existing stove designs in their working areas
To make suggestions for modifications/improvements of existing stoves in their working areas
Figure
Koma also displayed a diagram of the steps of his session as shown below:
He formed groups of three participants to discuss the questions: "What is design?" "What have you ever designed (i.e. a building, a stove)? and "What did you need to consider before designing?"
One group discussed one participant's experience of designing a building. Considerations were for whom the building was being constructed, the budget of the project and construction techniques.
Another group talked about the design for a stove, identifying the following factors: tradition, cooking position and types of food. Another group identified cooking practices, types of fuel, types of pots, climate and household structure. Koma used this to illustrate that many factors must be taken into consideration. He then showed a transparency of the factors for stove design as included here.
Figure
He defined design as a functional and intended arrangement to achieve a purpose. A good design for one person might be bad for another. He stressed that any stove can be improved. He then tried to invite participants to summarize combustion and heat transfer and ran into a problem when he asked one participant to choose another participant to summarize the technical theory. Answers given were very general and participants were not ready to summarize these concepts.
He wrote "Combustion with Inputs and Outputs" on the whiteboard, asking participants to recall these and then asked which of the outputs was most important. Participants answered, "heat." This provided a transition into heat transfer theory. He asked how the heat could be transferred.
When it was apparent there was not enough time to evaluate stoves he opened up the session for questions. A participant asked how can you know when the design is good. The answer was that it depended on who the design was for. This turned into a good discussion on acceptability.
Myanmar
The sessions chosen by the Myanmar team were:
|
· Overview of Brick Stove Construction (20): |
: U Aung Kyaw Lwin |
|
· Stoves Types (18): |
: U Nay Myo Zaw |
|
· Assessment of Kitchen, Users and Traditional Stove (22): |
: Zaw Zaw Han |
Overview of Brick Stove Construction
Lwin wrote down some social information important for stove design. He made a presentation about the necessary materials for brick stove construction, the five steps of brick stove construction, advantages and disadvantages of brick stove construction, and various brick stove designs, taken from the trainee manual. The five steps of brick stove construction were:
Choose the stove locationLay the first layer of bricks and fix bricks together with the mud mixture. Cover with another layer of mud mixture.
Lay the second layer of bricks, adding mud mixture between the bricks; cover with a layer of mud mixture; continue until all the layers are complete; the top layer may be difficult because of the round pot holes - it will be necessary to break up the stones into pieces to make the circle.
Let the stove sit in the open air for 2-3 days until it is dry. Finish the stove by smoothing and adding a layer of cement and clay.
The objectives of the session were presented as:
To give participants an overview of different brick stoves to be constructed and understand the social context of the stove design.To familiarise the participants with the tools and techniques used during stove construction.
At the end, Lwin passed out index cards and asked participants to find one brick stove design from the trainee manual stove design pages appropriate for their working area.
Stove Types
Myo introduced his session and immediately shared information on a particular community context. He distributed handouts on the community context and divided the participants into four groups, and asked them to use their trainee manual to select an appropriate stove design for that area.
Groups hung their designs in front of the class and explained their choice, with time for comments from other groups. The presentations explained design choices such as grate, portability, space heating, accommodation for fuel drying. Discussions were lively and informative.
Myo wrapped up the session by stressing that community context is a critical consideration for stove design. His objective was:
At the end of the session participants will understand why technical and social information is important for modifying or choosing a stove design for a target area.
Assessment of Kitchen, User and Traditional Stove
Han started by giving the opportunity for participants to relax.
He asked participants to recall field exercise 1 and the tools used. He asked if the information was general or specific. Moving on, he asked a participant what sort of information needed to be gathered from cooks in the field. He stressed that establishing a social link with the community would be the first step. He passed out various handouts from the manual and asked participants to look at each one and provide commentary on whether anything needed to be added. Then he divided participants into four groups and asked them to discuss one of the designs. Some commented on the need to enlarge the kitchen to improve the indoor climate. The objective of the session was:
To provide a clearer idea of the purpose of Stove Selection Step 2:
Assessing Kitchen, User and Traditional Stove.
The Vietnamese team conducted the teaching practice session differently from the other teams because they covered only one subject: stove dissemination (session 25). However, since the subject is quite wide in scope they did it in three steps as follows:
Stove Dissemination
All three of the Vietnam training team members opened up the session singing a song with only two words "Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh." This helped to energise both the Vietnamese group and the participants.
They introduced stove dissemination using a beautiful poster. The objectives (presented by Vu) were: By the end of the session participants will be able to:
Understand the full range of considerations that need to be taken into account in this step of the stove selection processRecognize the benefits of an improved cookstove as perceived by potential users Recognize that technology dissemination patterns already exist in every community
Understand how three of these pre-existing technology dissemination patterns can be used to successfully disseminate an improved stove.
Part 1
Vu divided participants into pairs and asked them to share experiences by answering the questions: "What is your experience in disseminating ICS?" and "What were the problems faced?" After their presentations Vu handed it over to Hong to wrap-up this part of the session.
Part 2
Hong started by wrapping up Vu's session, with the use of a transparency. She summarized that their experiences included: stove demonstration, training of workers and women, information dissemination with leaflets and posters, providing knowledge and technology to people and the establishing of women's savings groups. Some other issues raised were the stove's acceptability and meeting users needs and habits. Problems shared were: difficulty in changing people's habits, materials not easy to find, inability of the target groups to pay, limitation of budget and need to train field workers.
Hong organized a role play, as included in the trainer manual on dissemination and tried to analyze it with help from the participants. She concluded with factors related to stove dissemination. From here she tried to discuss steps in stove dissemination by brainstorming with participants and using pre-prepared cards which could be taped to a poster in different arrangements. The cards included:
Introduction to the community
Monitoring and evaluation
Communication
Stove demonstration
Baseline survey
Micro-enterprise development (women's savings groups)
Stove modification
Stove maintenance
Sustaining use
Network development
Leader development
Part 3
Thong focused on dissemination strategy. Small groups were created and they were asked to write on index cards the strategies they had used. No sharing of the results was done. Three strategies were introduced with some requirements for each, such as:
User based disseminationUsers are trained in stove building and already have or are provided with necessary equipment.
Materials should be locally available.
Users do not need any financial resources if they collect their own materials.
Local mason based dissemination
Local masons have stove building skills and equipment.
The raw materials can be collected or bought locally.
Users need financial resources to pay for the skills of the local mason and possibly for the stove materials.
Market based dissemination
Stove building skills and equipment are centralized, perhaps located at some distance from the target community.
Raw materials are often located near to the production center, but can be transported there from other areas.
Users need financial resources to pay for the final product at the local market.
Thong then used transparencies to review the three dissemination strategies.
He then closed the session, asking for questions. One question referred to introducing specific skills in the community when no local masons exist.
Subsidies
The session chose by the Indonesian participant, Husni, was Subsidies (session 26). Since there was only one Indonesian participant, he carried out the teaching himself with some help from one of the volunteer organizers.
Husni started by referring to the outputs from stove selection stage 1 and 2 and Vietnam's session on dissemination.
He then used a set of transparencies to introduce the issue of subsidies. Then he identified the two sides of the debate as presented in the trainer manual, reading the two sides of the debate aloud.
At this point he divided the participants into four groups and handed out cards containing questions about the issue of subsidies.
Husni started by identifying where in the stove selection process his session came and the purpose of his session. He referred to a number of previous training sessions to make links to the material he was presenting, such as the field visit.
No debate was set up, although there was a natural place for it after the two sides were read aloud and one participant started to give her personal opinion on the issue of subsidies.
Indicators
There was also only one participant from Bhutan. The session selected was Indicators (session 33).
Jigmela started by sharing a little about Bhutan and his stove project there. He shared a number of indicators related to stove use, maintenance, efficiency, improved kitchen environment, stove durability, community members participation, etc. telling stories about how he uses these indicators in Bhutan.
At the end of the session a participant asked what the definition of "indicator" was.
The team from India consisted of two women trainers. The sessions chose were:
|
· Trouble shooting (36): |
: Indu Gupta |
|
· Monitoring and evaluation (40) |
: Sadhana Gautam |
Trouble Shooting
Indu began by passing out the cards from the trainer manual where problems of a stove were written. She asked each participant to write down three appropriate actions for the problem they received. She put up a transparency with the problems listed and then read off some examples of actions to rectify these problems.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Sadhana started with the objectives of her session:
To compare the wood consumption of traditional and improved stoves.
To understand the impact of the use of improved stoves on fuel consumption.
To understand the impact of the use of improved stoves on fuel savings.
To demonstrate the fuel savings potential of a new stove in the household.
To understand, illustrate and correct aspects of stove performance.
She then used a role play illustrating two methods of m&e, the first more effective than the second (the second used an imaginary ARECOP m&e staff member!)
Sadhana plays a part in the role play used for the m&e session.
She questioned a participant about the first objective who explained that the objectives should be more in line with user needs. Then she asked more questions, a little unclear, about the objectives listed above. After noting that this seemed to produce some confusion, she switched to a flip chart page with the following information:
|
Monitoring and Evaluation Technical side: to know the performance of the stove in terms of fuel saving, time saving, cooking performance, etc. WBT Social side: more or less smoke? cleaner kitchen environment better health, less time cleaning pots and pans, less soot on walls and ceiling fuel savings? Yes or no |
General Feedback
All teams from the eight countries doing the teaching practice sessions showed good team work and team enthusiasm in conducting the sessions. Very good teamwork in terms of division of tasks and mutual support was shown by most of the teams, especially those from Vietnam and Cambodia. The Cambodia team, which will be one of the first teams to organize a national training workshop, particularly impressed with its team work, training content and the different participatory training methods used.
One critical aspect which was revealed right from the first teaching practice session was the importance of formulating a teaching plan. This consists of determining the training GOAL based on training needs and then determining session OBJECTIVES showing how the goal will be achieved. Then in order to conduct effective training sessions, the trainer needs to identify the STEPS TO BE TAKEN, decide the METHODS TO BE USED and select the MOST SUITABLE VISUAL AIDS taking into account the AVAILABLE TIME. Then the team will more or less have a training schedule.
Participants were also reminded that lectures or theory based presentations will be less effective than using participatory methods. Fortunately, 80% of the participants used participatory methods and adopted some games and visual aids to suit their own country context.
The teaching practice sessions were considered an important part of the TOT and despite the language problems of some participants, most of them did extremely well. In general some of the things that the participants should remember to do when teaching are:
|
· Use teaching aids |
· Avoid lecturing or theory based presenting with white board |
|
· Make presentations with transparencies/flip chart |
· Avoid interfering too much in small group discussions |
|
· Project friendly behavior and appearance |
· Encourage more active participation |
|
· Ask questions to the participants and present results for all to see |
· Clarify objective of the topic to be covered and make sure the purpose of the session is clear |
|
· Speak clearly and make sure all participants hear clearly |
· Make adequate preparation before presentation |
|
· Start with review of previous sessions |
· Invite questions from participants |
