Before someone can adopt an innovation like fish farming, he/she should have some basic knowledge on what is involved: what the necessary requirements are, its benefits and the risks incidental to it. An important task of the extension service was thus to deliver this message to the farmers. The question was, which medium to use to get this message across.
| Description | Teaching aids which carry messages to people | |
| Purpose | Media can make the work of the extensionist easier and the range of people addressed can be widened. They are also a way of making it easier for the target group to absorb information. | |
| Extension aids must motivate the learners and present their message clearly and factually. They must also be attractive and make an impact on the public at large, so that messages are not just received by individuals but spread through the target group. | ||
| The purpose of the slide show was to attract a large audience and discuss general issues concerning fish farming. Accordingly, the initial contact was made with the target groups and problem situations discussed before the project started its actual work. It thus helped to create a mutual background of information. | ||
| The purpose of the pamphlets was to give more detailed information. They were a back-up of the slide show and farm visits. | ||
| Method | The choice of media to be used is determined by: | |
| - | the availability of extension aids; | |
| - | the analysis of the suitability of media for a particular subject matter and aims; | |
| - | the reception of the media by the target groups; | |
| - | the need of special requirements in respect of facilities and/or extension workers to be present when the media are used; | |
| - | whether the extension service has access to the special facilities and/or number of extension workers needed. | |
Since the pilot project did not want to create an artificially favourable situation by using fancy and expensive equipment which could not be maintained or operated once the donor agency withdraws, the choice of the media was restricted. Moreover, the time and staff to develop the extension aids was limited.
Taking these factors into consideration, the pilot project opted for slide shows and illustrated pamphlets to transfer the basic information on fish farming to the farmers. Since each extension aid had its special limitations, it was decided to combine these two media.
The slide show consisted of twelve colour slide photographs showing particular aspects of fish farming. The show was presented to village meetings using a portable, battery powered projector. Community members organized the use of a room in a local school, church or house and darkened the room by covering windows with grass. The moderator did not give a standard talk or explanation with each slide. Instead, he tried to provoke discussions through asking questions. The questions were as simple and direct as possible (e.g. what is this farmer doing in this picture? Why do you think he is doing it?). They were always open questions so that the viewers could not respond with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but were compelled to discuss, search and think. There were several reasons why this method of presenting the slide show was chosen:
sometimes people misinterpret the picture. This method would reveal when there are any misunderstandings and at the same time give an opportunity to correct them;
complementary information tailored to the specific situation of the target group could be given. Furthermore, if the contents relates closely to the knowledge and attitudes of the target group it facilitates their decision-making process;
the interaction with the target group gave the extensionist an opportunity to learn about the target groups' situation, possibilities, and constraints to uptake fish farming.
The slide show lasted about one hour, depending on the discussion. This seemed to be long enough to explain in short the main issues in fish farming. On the other hand, one hour did not seem to be too long to become a constraint for participation.
The objectives of the slide shows on fish farming were fourfold (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1989):
to give an image of the minimum requirements of fish farming. They are: land which holds water, sufficient water, labour, fingerlings (purchased initially from the Department of Fisheries, later supply obtained locally), local tools, compost for fertilizing and maize bran for feeding;
to give a realistic view of the possible yield of fish;
to motivate those people who have access to the necessary means for fish farming. The purpose of the slide show was not that people immediately take a final decision but rather to give them a realistic impression, at the same time emphasizing the possible advantages;
to give the persons present a clear picture of the support given by the pilot project, i.e. only technical advice and the transportation of fingerlings for the first stocking.
Through systematic evaluation supplemented with informal observations, the slide show was found to have the following advantages (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1989):
it reached a large audience (on average 40 adults);
it reached both literates and illiterates;
it could be held within the villages (use of battery powered projector), therefore the problems of distance and child care were minimized. Thus women were also given an opportunity to attend the slide show;
their use was flexible. One could dwell upon a slide as long as necessary. It was possible to go back to slides which were already shown;
they brought about discussion. The extension worker could become involved with the target group;
it was motivating. Many people said they were inspired “by their friends they saw on the slides. If they can manage, I can also manage”;
it was usually an attractive change in village life.
The message to be transferred to the target group was determined by the information obtained during the situation analysis (see Chapter 4). The slides thus had to depict the extension message.
In first instance the FAO filmstrips ‘la pisciculture rurale en images’ (rural fish farming in pictures) from Cote d'Ivoire were mounted on individual frames. Only ten slides were selected from 250 images, depicting each step in fish farming. When the pilot project started making its own slides, those from Cote d'Ivoire were gradually replaced by those made in Zambia.
The criteria for the selection of the slides from Cote d'Ivoire were:
the differences (e.g. in clothing) should not be too striking. It should not divert the attention of the fish farming message to be transmitted;
they should show locally available materials and tools.
It was important that the target group recognized their familiar environment and consequently perceived that fish farming was an activity within their reach.
The slides had to be arranged in a logical sequence of events in fish farming, i.e. first site selection followed by pond construction, fertilizing, stocking with fingerling, feeding of fish and then harvesting9.
As with any message sent to an audience, it was not certain how they were going to receive and interpret the message. For a written message, it is obvious that the receiver needs to be able to read in order to understand it. For pictures, the same holds true. First of all it is necessary to ‘read’ the picture correctly and secondly, interpret it properly. Both will be illustrated with an example (van der Mheen-Sluijer, 1989).
An artist was asked to make a drawing of a slide used in the show, displaying a man and a compost crib in the corner of his pond. Figure 2 shows the drawing he made.
Figure 2: Drawing of Compost Crib made by Artist
SOURCE: ALCOM NEWS, May 1989
The wooden poles were sketched in the corner next to the dikes, instead of in a circle away from the corner. This was done by somebody who professionally renders drawings. The erroneous decoding of the picture can lead to the misunderstanding of the message.
The second step is the interpretation of the picture. Villagers, who are used to leaving waste for pigs, related this practice to composting in a pond. It was therefore not surprising that some attendants of the slide show asked if their pigs should now also feed from the compost crib. Other viewers thought that the compost crib was a fence to prevent the animals from breaking the dike, like they put fences around their vegetable gardens to keep the animals out.
An inconvenience of a slide projector was that it magnified the pictures. Therefore, people had high expectations of the size of fish coming from a pond. Besides, it was found that many people who thought that the fish were reproducing fast and in large numbers, were expecting that even the young fish would have grown to that size in six months. Obviously, people with these expectations would be disappointed upon the harvest. To correct this misunderstanding, the projector was brought to the front when the slide displaying the yield of fish was shown. The moderator then put his hand on the hand depicted on the slide holding the dish with the fish. The projector was advanced until his hand and the hand on the slide had the same size. Thus the size of the fish also became real.
A brief study was made on the effectiveness of the slide show. Questions were asked on the minimum requirements for fish farming. One group of people was interviewed before the slide show. They formed the control population. Another group was interviewed after the show. In this way it was avoided that people from the two groups exchanged information and consequently influence each others answers. Comparing the answers of the two groups, gave an idea on the information obtained during the show (see Figure 3).
A checklist with all the possible correct answers was developed and scores were given for each question correctly answered. The rank sum test for two independent samples (Mann-Whitney test) was used to determine whether there was a significant difference in knowledge on fish farming before and after the slide show. The Chi-square test was used to verify whether there was a difference in knowledge between the illiterate and literate respondents.
Figure 3: Diagram of Study Design on Effectiveness Slide Show
The slide show made a significant (significance level 5%) contribution to the understanding of fish farming. The topics ‘feeding and fertilizing’ and the ‘culture period’ were always well understood. The ‘construction of the dike’ always scored low. Three points were emphasized for the construction of a dike: compacting, shaping of the dike and planting grass. Most of the people mentioned compacting, few the planting of grass and none the shaping of the dikes. Extra attention had to be given to this aspect during farm visits. The other topics gave varying results. The ‘soil type’, ‘amount of water’ and ‘procurement of fingerlings’ sometimes scored high, sometimes moderate. No explanation was found for this phenomenon. After the slide show, the majority of the attendants had the right anticipation on the support they were going to receive from the pilot project (technical advice and transportation of the first fingerlings).
In areas where fish farming had never been introduced before, the control population scored low. However, in areas where slide shows had been held before, though in other villages, more than half of the questions were correctly answered by the control group. This was an indication for the indirect effect of the slide show, i.e. the transmittal of information by attendants to those who did not come.
No significant difference was found in the knowledge of literates and illiterates. It was thus concluded that a slide show was an appropriate teaching aid for both groups.
The slide show was a one-time event, followed by regular individual farm visits. However, it was evident that sometimes secondary dissemination of information (farmer-to-farmer) distorted the message. Thus the use of pamphlets was introduced as something readily available to the farmer for reference.
Whereas the slide show transmitted general information about fish farming, the pamphlets conveyed specific information about fish farming techniques. The majority of the small farmer population was found to be literate in the local language. Therefore, the text was written in English as well as the local language. Drawings were used to attract attention and visualize the different steps of fish farming. Images were drawn by a local artist. Each drawing was accompanied by explanatory text which had been prepared by extensionists. The perception of images and comprehension of text was evaluated (see Chapter 6.2.3), and revisions were made to improve overall comprehension.
Each pamphlet discussed individual topics, ‘How to Construct Your Fish Pond’ (van der Mheen-Sluijer et al., 1991a), ‘How to Feed Your Fish’ (van der Mheen-Sluijer et al., 1991b) and ‘How to Take Care of Your Fish Pond’ (van der Mheen-Sluijer et al., 1991c).
The objectives of the pamphlets were to:
help people remember and internalize what has been said;
render explanation on fish farming more comprehensible.
The advantages of the illustrated pamphlets were considered to be:
no presence of an extensionist was required when pamphlets were used. This was of interest because few extension workers were available;
it did not require special preparations in respect of facilities;
it was attractive in rural areas where there was a shortage of reading material.
However, several difficulties were identified for the use of pamphlets:
there was no positive benefit of liveliness or active involvement of target group (no feed-back to extensionist);
the stimulating group situation did not materialize. Consequently, there was no mutual exchange and discovery of constraints and possibilities for fish farming in the area;
there was a chance of misunderstanding pictures and text.
An attempt was made to make the pamphlets as simple and clear as possible because they might even be distributed to people who had not been in contact with the extension service. These readers thus would not receive explanations from an extension worker. Consequently the pamphlets had to be self-evident. It should be possible to uptake fish farming on the basis of these pamphlets. This was not easy in cultures that had little experience of picture material. Therefore, trials were made and the pamphlet reworked to improve its contents. The following describes the lessons learned from producing pamphlets intended to back up fish farming extension.
The first version of the pamphlet consisted of seven pages discussing site selection, pond construction, fertilization of the water and construction of a compost crib. These topics were chosen because they were essential and discussion with farmers showed that they were not easily understood. Drawings and texts from the FAO “Better Farming Series” (FAO 1979, FAO 1981a and 1981b) were used. Monitoring of the impact revealed, however, that the message was not always understood. The graphics were based on conventional illustrative tools such as arrows, cross-sections, a work process shown in separate stages, and people were depicted in an abstract way. Farmers found these drawings confusing and it prevented them from understanding the messages. Appendix 2 shows how the ‘site selection’ topic was dealt with in the first version.
The second version of the pamphlet revised the abstract pictures and the text was elaborated. It contained 13 pages of text and 11 drawings. A page with text was subdivided into two columns, one column contained the English text and the other column the translation into the local language. Appendix 2 shows how the topic ‘site selection’ was dealt with in the second version.
Based on the results of a perception study on the second version of the pamphlet, a new set-up was suggested for the third version (see also Section 6.2.3). The extension messages had to be broken down into steps to facilitate learning. All the different steps in fish farming had to be shown on separate drawings. The explanatory text, a few lines only, had to be written right under the drawing. The pamphlet had to be subdivided into smaller ones, each one treating a separate subject. Moreover, one drawing of a pond had to be taken as a starting point and on all the other drawings it had to be clear that it was the same pond (i.e. same surroundings, inlet, overflow and compost crib should always be in the same position). Appendix 2 shows the final version of the site selection.
To make the basic message clear, a carefully planned series of drawings is needed. Therefore, the information to be conveyed was established with precision. Appendix 3 gives an example of the instructions given to the artist for the drawings.
The pamphlet was also tested for its perception by both literate and illiterate farmers of varying age. None of these interviewees had heard of fish farming before.
Two issues were tested during this perception study. Whether the drawings and message were understood by the interviewees, and if the things shown in the drawing corresponded to the available means of production of subsistence farmers. A checklist was made as a backing for the interviews. Additional notes were taken during these discussions, especially concerning reactions on the drawings. In case the interviewees misunderstood a drawing or text, its intention was explained to them and they were asked to give suggestions to change the drawing or text. Percentages of correct answers were calculated but the analysis of the pamphlet was mainly qualitative in nature.
Most of the topics were understood by the farmers, with some exceptions. Many respondents did not know that a pond should slope for easy drainage and harvesting of fish; rather they often explained that a pond should have a deeper end where the fish could hide and sleep and a shallow part where they can feed and play which was a correct observation of the natural behaviour of the bream. Another topic which raised problems was ‘feeding and fertilizing’. The difference between the two was not always understood and none of the respondents could recall the quantity nor the frequency with which to feed the fish or fertilize the pond.
The analysis of the pamphlet yielded the following general conclusions:
drawings using linear perspective were difficult to understand (e.g. Figure 4). The lines representing the dikes were perceived as cracks;
the details of the drawings must be accurate, i.e. it must be a true reflection of life regarding clothes, hairstyles, implements used, etc. A lady feeding fish was thought to be Zairian because of her hairstyle (Figure 4). This can impede fish farming because she was not considered ‘one of us’ and therefore her activities may be irrelevant. Plastic containers and compactors made of cement were depicted and because these were not available in the rural areas, it was an obstacle to the uptake of fish farming;
the drawings sometimes caused confusion because it gave too much information. For example, the compost crib had not yet been discussed in the text but it already appeared in the picture. It caused misunderstanding (several respondents thought it was a fish trap). The drawings should thus follow the same steps as the text;
in most cases text and drawings were not seen in relation with each other. To people who are not skilled in picture reading it might only occur later that a picture is trying to ‘say’ something. Also they may assume that the drawings are there to be looked at for pleasure, not so that they can learn something or decipher ‘messages’;
the pamphlet was too long and there was too much text. It did not encourage people to read it.
Figure 4: Drawing of a Woman Feeding Fish
