1 141.1131.
3.1.... 2.5 .i
(I; :1. s) f...

.1; 11.1.1.
. LU Ell 5. ‘1.
‘11 .AI;
.1: 3...... Ir; 5. 1
.1. .1..!b..tx. 976.

 

9.5.»). EA .. .
:5: in...» .

. (2.46.1391; 1-,.
fa a. a5...5..i..r;l.
‘13. n
5....

a)
‘Vlei c}:
3......3tint‘v

A~vk¥pntt¢1

L. 725...... .

ung!‘

Iv-"qnwn‘iu

7
. Lil-93 2‘.
geinétv...)

Vivi}? :1... 7...... fl
4.»! 2.... 2... $.17...
I

13.x}... (9| «(411
are: 1.11.2.3... .1)...

5:15.115!)th

V131

.51.... .. ! 2)....é 13......
.53! 5.57. it .1 .171

In. {1.11; : L.) I .r..
e .. L2?!» 70......

.yli.v\:li|. IVE...

.u- n4~~~~u

u-uuuu

.71)....IIX‘A It.
:{Fl1tflil all
. 13.3.2...

3...; leutgvu.
“r 3.2.7.... (59.? I}.-

E?‘ :2. ii?! .1.

.. 7. 5.2.0.}...
$12910... ..

1;..‘5
.. .llts 5.)?!) I}

.Fix)=tln¢llla.!vt ,.
r Iii-1.1.9.3: 22!... ..
.1

“unnum‘qn a r

; . .IE...F?5\!) <. . . . Il..3.vlv.(u x. .
5.. . X (1.2.3 . . . 5......

 

 

3
....r.3,::3...¥{. . r... it?! 53......
:1... £5}: (.01... v.

 

"cu..-“

...u:....) I
1; El. 3}.

fr 5... F ii.
iiiti... {It

2.0.3:!!!
iii-003.... :f?.)..§.{.tla’u
.C.....:.x..(eit?vulfi9.llllll
.1... ll.)€)l.(l.5ll.. .13)!

 

    
 
 

. . . ., viii.- ..r....u. . 5.. .uv.
..........,.......zw..0 «bag. .91.. an.
. I c . . H... 13:15.23- ($.35, .5. t .. {tittic 2?... (kn: Jr?
. . . . i... (.5; It i 5... .14.; .3 all: ..x\.r.L....... x . . .
7. . L. .1 0.....11 I) If: Yum—L Ill-{l E «II. 1:15; :1... vi... |. ’IAJI..\. . . . . .4.
.. . . ..-..a.r.......!.flz::. .12....113: 5.1.... z. .. . p .. i
1 . . . 1 2 . ..
.

 

" 0? 5/6 0 57W
\\lllll\l\\1l\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\llllll

3

      
      

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
The Training and Visit Agricultural Extension
System in the Tihama Plain Region of Yemen:

Perceptions of Contact Farmers and
Extension Workers

presented by

Tarek K. M. Agrabri

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

___jflLJQL_Jhgfiem Agricultural and
Extension Education

%,

Major professor

Date Jul 2 1990

MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunily anrilution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

M_ U Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

THE TRAINING AND VISIT AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
SYSTEM IN THE TIHAMA PLAIN REGION OF YEMEN:
PERCEPTIONS OF CONTACT FARMERS AND
EXTENSION WORKERS

By

Tarek K. M. Aghabri

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and
Extension Education

1990

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
THE TRAINING AND VISIT AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEM
IN THE TIHAMA PLAIN REGION OF YEMEN:
PERCEPTIONS OF CONTACT FARMERS AND
EXTENSION WORKERS
By

Tarek K. M. Aghbari

The main Objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the
Training and Visit System through the perceptions of contact farmers and extension
workers/personnel.

The descriptive method of research, using the survey research method
technique was utilized in this study. The survey instrument, consisting of 20
statements related to the training aspect of the T & V system, were prepared
following a review of literature and with the assistance of the doctoral committee.
The data obtained were processed through computer facilities in the Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Statistical
procedures used for analyzing data were mean distribution, analysis of variance (F-
value), and T-test. Significance was established a priori at .05. Post hoc reliability
tests using Cronbach’s alpha resulted in coefficients of .72 for the visit aspect and .65
for the training aspect ratings.

Information derived from the study revealed that contact farmers were
generally satisfied with the technical content of the extension program. The

technical content was perceived as informative, helpful, timely, relevant, and suitable

 

 

 

Tarek K. M. Aghbari

for their needs. Regarding the extension teaching methods utilized by extension
workers, contact farmers perceived them satisfactory in terms of clarity,
understanding and diversity. With respect to extension workers’ visits, almost all
respondents rated the items relatively lower pertaining to extension workers for
scheduled visits. Almost all of the contact farmers felt that they were performing
well as contact farmers. In general, contact farmers with higher educational levels
differed significantly in their perceptions with respect to some of the statements.

Extension workers were satisfied with the technical content of the training
sessions under the T & V System. Extension workers in the study areas, regardless
of age, educational attainment, and employment status, agreed that the subject
matter delivery by specialists was satisfactory in terms of communication, provision
of samples and/or materials for demonstrations, and applicability. Extension
workers were satisfied with their visits to contact farmers. In general, respondents
agreed that their visit schedules were set in advance to each visit command area,
they spent sufficient time with contact farmers during most of their visits, they
communicated contact farmers’ problems and concerns to subject-matter specialists,
and visited all of their contact farmers regularly every two weeks.

Statistically significant differences in contact farmers and extension workers’
perceptions were observed for the frequency of use of individual, group extension
methods and materials, and media, for the appropriate level of technology/subject-
matter transfer emphasized by the extension service, and for the overall performance
of the T & V System. There tended to be a weak linkage between the extension

service and the other related agricultural development institutions and agencies.

DEDICATION

To my parents, whose love, support, and constant prayer
helped me greatly in my achievement.

To my wife, "Um Hany" whose endless support, patience,
and prayer reflected in this project.

To our children, Hany, Osan, and Afnaan whose smiles
and childish looks gave me the strength to achieve my
goals.

And to the unity of land and people to the unified
Yemen.

iv

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praise and thanks be to Allah, Lord of the World for His providence and
divine direction throughout my life. To all those who have contributed to make the
study possible directly or indirectly, let me here express my thanks and gratitude.

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. Eddie A. Moore, my major advisor and doctoral committee
chairman, for his advice, guidance, encouragement, patience, and understanding in
completing this study with me. His professional direction and guidance throughout
my study here contributed greatly to the maturation of my academic and intellectual
skills. For this I am indebted. I am also deeply grateful to Drs. Donald Meaders
and Jack Elliot, for their valuable support, advice, and service on my doctoral
committee. I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Hussain Al-Kholi, the Head Of the
Agricultural Economics and Extension at the College of Agriculture in Sana’a
University of Yemen for his guidance, support, and encouragement.

I would also like to express my indebtedness to the College of Agriculture at
Sana’a University of Yemen for giving the Opportunity to me for further studies in
the USA. and to the Tihama Development Authority administration for helping to
collect the data and important information and in preparing this study.
Appreciation is extended to all TDA branch managers, extension workers, and

contact farmers who participated in this study and spent time responding to the

V

 

 

 

research questionnaires. Without their help and cooperation, this research might
not have been completed.

A special thanks to my brothers, friends, and colleagues at Michigan State
University and elsewhere for their friendship and support.

last, but not least, my deep appreciation and gratitude to all of the other
members of my family, brothers and sisters, brothers-in-laws, and my nephews for
their care, encouragement and assistance in so many ways, during the difficult times

throughout my entire academic journey.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

mg;

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................... 1

Background ........................................ 1

Agricultural Development .............................. 5

Government Agricultural Extension Programs in Yemen ......... 8

The Mission of Extension .......................... 9

The Extension Function ........................... 10

The Organization of Extension ...................... 11

Statement of the Problem .............................. 19

Objectives of the Study ................................. 21

Importance of the Study ............................... 23

Limitations of the Study ................................ 23

Definition of Terms .................................. 23

Assumptions of the Study ............................... 25

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................... 27

Introduction ........................................ 27

The Concept of Agricultural Extension ..................... 27

Visits of Extension Workers to Contact Farmers ............... 37

Fortnightly Training Sessions ............................. 39
Perceptions of Village Extension Workers About

the Visit Schedules and Training Sessions .................. 41
Perceptions of Contact Farmers About the Visits

of Extension Workers ................................. 42

Introduction of the T&V System in Yemen .................. 43

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 44

Research Population and Site ............................ 45

Research Hypotheses .................................. 45

Sample Selection ..................................... 48

The Research Instrument ............................... 50

Data Collection Procedures .............................. 53

Selection and Training of Enumerators ..................... 54

Treatment of Data .................................... 57

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT’D.

Page
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................. 59
Characteristics of the Sample ............................. 60
Contact Farmers ................................. 60
Extension Workers ............................... 62
Extension Officers, Subject-Matter Specialists
and Research Personnel .......................... 64
Perceptions of Contact Farmers of the
Training and Visit System .............................. 66
Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding
the Technical Content of the Visit Sessions ............ 67
Perceptions of Contact Farmers About
Teaching Methods Used .......................... 69
Perceptions Of Contact Farmers Regarding
the Quality of Extension Workers’ Visits .............. 71
Contact Farmers’ Perceptions Regarding their
Own Performance ............................... 73
Perceptions of Extension Workers ......................... 75
Perceptions of Extension Workers Regarding
the Technical Content of Training Sessions ............ 80
Perception Of Extension Workers Regarding
the Subject-Matter Delivery by the Specialists .......... 82
Perceptions of Extension Workers Regarding
their Visits to Contact Farmers ..................... 84
Adequacy of Resources Support to Facilitate
Extension Work ..................................... 86
Perceptions of Contact Farmers and Extension Workers
About the Use of Extension Teaching Methods .............. 95
Perceptions About Technology/Subject-Matter
Emphasized by the Extension Service ..................... 98

Perceptions of Contact Farmers and Extension

Workers Regarding the Overall Performance

of the T & V System ................................ 101
Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Officers

Subject Matter Specialists, and Research

Agency Personnel .................................... 105
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 113
Summary of the Study .................................. 113
Study Population and Sample ............................ 115
Summary of Hypotheses Tested .......................... 117
viii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT’D.

Egg

Summary of Findings .................................. 119

Characteristics of Respondents .......................... 119
Findings from the Analysis of Contact

Farmers’ and Extension Workers’ Perceptions

on Selected Aspects of the Training and

Visit System ........................................ 122
Perceptions of the Extension Workers Regarding

the Training Sessions of the T & V System ................ 123

Findings of the Comparison Of Contact Farmers and

Extension Workers Regarding the Extension

Methods Utilized .................................... 125
Findings of the Comparison of Contact Farmers and

Extension Workers Regarding Technology/Subject-

Matter Transfer Emphasized by the Extension

Service ........................................ 126
Findings of Comparison of Contact Farmers and

Extension Workers Regarding the Overall

Performance of the Training and Visit

System ........................................ 127
Conclusions ........................................ 125
Recommendations .................................... 132
Suggestions for Further Research ......................... 134

APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER ............................. 135
APPENDIX B: CONTACT FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE ........... 136
APPENDIX C: EXTENSION WORKER QUESTIONNAIRE ......... 144

APPENDIX D: AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICERS, SUBJECT -
MATTER SPECIALISTS, AND RESEARCH AGENCY

PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 151
APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRES IN ARABIC ................. 154
APPENDIX F: TABLES .................................... 175
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 192

 

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1
4.2
4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

LIST OF TABLES

Area and Production of Main Agricultural Crops in

Five Years, 1975/76 - 1979/80 ...................

Typical Fortnightly Training and Visit Timetable

for a Village Extension Worker ..................

Total Number of the Contact Farmers, Extension
Workers, and Extension Officers, Subject-Matter
Specialists and Research Personnel Considered for

this Study ..................................
Characteristic of Contact Farmers ................

Characteristics of the Extension Workers ...........

Characteristics of Subject-Matter Specialists,

Extension Officers and Research Personnel .........

Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions of
Contact Farmers on Selected Aspects of the

Training and Visit System ......................

Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions
of Contact Farmers Regarding Extension Teaching

Methods Used ..............................

Means and Standard Deviations for Perceptions
of Contact Farmers Regarding the Quality Of

Extension Workers’ Visit .......................

Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions
of Contact Farmers Regarding Their Performance

as Contact Farmers ...........................

Page

3

37

49

65

69

72

74

 

 

Table
4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

LIST OF TABLES, CONT’D.

Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions
of the Extension Workers Regarding the

Technical Content of the Training Sessions .........

Means and Standard Deviations for Perception
of Extension Workers Regarding Subject Matter

Delivery by the Specialists ......................

Means and Standard Deviations for Perceptions
of the Extension Workers Regarding their Visit

to the Contact Farmer ........................

Perceptions of Extension Workers Regarding
the Extent of Adequacy of Resources Support to

Facilitate Extension Work ......................

Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmer and
Extension Worker about Extension Methods

Utilized ...................................

Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmers
and Extension Workers about Technology/
Subject-Matter Emphasized by the

Extension Service ............................

Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmers
and Extension Workers about the performance of

the T & V System ............................

Results of Pearson Correlation Among Selected
Demographic Characteristics of Contact
Farmers and the Overall Performance of the

T & V System ..............................

Results of Pearson Correlation Between
Selected Demographic Characteristics of
Extension Workers and of Overall Performance

of T & V System ............................

83

85

100

102

104

105

 

 

 

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

LIST OF TABLES, CONT’D.

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Sample Regarding the Existence of an Extension

and Research Committee, at the Project Level .......

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Sample Regarding the Researchers and Extension
Workers’ Joint Visit to the Field with the

Farmer and the Number Of Times Per Year .........

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Sample Regarding the Formulation of Technical

Recommendations ............................

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Sample Regarding the Participation of Research
Representative(s) and Extension Worker(s)

in Field Demonstrations .......................

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the
Sample Regarding the Subject-Matter
Specialists’ Visits to the Research Stations,

the Percentage and Times ......................

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Researchers’ Visits to Farmers of the Study

Area with the Extension Worker .................

Frequency Distribution of Meetings Held with

other Institutions in the Project Area ..............

xii

cec-

oce-

Page

106

107

108

110

111

112

 

 

 

3.1
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10

4.11

LIST OF FIGURES

The Organizational Structure of the Ministry Of
Agriculture and Fisheries in Yemen Arab Republic .......

The Organizational Structure of the Tihama Agricultural
Extension Service ................................

Map of Yemen Showing the Research Site ..............

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Technical
Content Statements ...............................

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Extension Teaching
Methods Statements ..............................

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Quality of Extension
Workers’ Frequent Visits ...........................

Respondents’ Perceptions to the Contact Farmers’
Performance Statements ...........................

Level of Adequacy of Technical Supervision .............
Level of Adequacy of Working Relations ...............
Level of Adequacy Of Technical Information ............
Level Of Adequacy of Audio-Visual Supply ..............
Level of Adequacy of Transportation ..................
Level of Adequacy of Office Facilities .................

Level of Adequacy of Administration and
Supervisory Visits ................................

xiii

Bags:
13

46

76

78

88
89

91
92

93

94

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background

Agriculture is the most important production sector in the domestic economy
Of Yemen. In 1985-1986, agriculture contributed about 45 percent of the gross
domestic product (GDP), employed over 70 percent of the labor force, and
accounted for nearly 80 percent of the export earnings. Although the relative
importance of agriculture has been declining over time, it has been increasing in the
last five years. The share of agriculture in the GDP declined from 50 percent to 35
percent in 1980 due to the rapid expansion in industry, construction, transport,
government services, and trade (Central Planning Organization, 1985-86).

Crop production is heavily concentrated in food grains (i.e., sorghum, millet,
wheat and barley). Historically, 95 percent of all crop acreage was planted with
these cereals. In recent years, diversification of cropping practices has reduced this
to about 85 percent of all crop land (World Bank, 1979). Despite this predominance
of grain, the different ecological zones of the country permit the growing of a wide
range of crops. In the Highlands, temperate zone crops like potatoes, grapes and
deciduous fruits are grown successfully. Various legumes such as beans and pulses
are also extensively grown. In the sub-tropical climate and relatively ample rainfall
Of the Southern Uplands, sorghum, millet, maize, barley and wheat are principal

crops. A large variety of fruits and vegetables are also grown in this area. In the

 

 

Tihama Plain, with its tropical climate (warm winters, hot summers, high humidity
and scant rainfall), millet is the staple crop. With irrigation, the area is well adapted
to the growing of cotton, tobacco, and sesame. Melons, green and dry edible beans,
tomatoes, and onions are also grown in this area (World Bank, 1979).

Meaningful shifts in the diversity of crop production emerged during 1985-
86 as shown in Table 1.1, and some of these shifts were unfavorable. Food grain
output and cultivated areas continue to fluctuate as most of these crops are grown
under natural rain-fed conditions, and rainfall is erratic. Sharp declines have taken
place in cotton production over the past five seasons because of the more
advantageous prices of millet and maize. Other factors, especially fast rising labor
costs, have also contributed tO a drastic fall in seed cotton production from 27,000
tons in 1974-75 to 4,100 tons in 1985-86 (Central Planning Organization, 1985-86).

Foodstuffs comprised the second largest category of commodity imports; about
50 percent per year for 1980—85. This upsurge in import demand reflects rapidly
rising incomes, especially for the urban population; the full convertibility of Yemen
currency (Rail); the absence of import restrictions; increases in the population; and
rising prices internationally.

Changes in food consumption and production in Yemen have primarily been
the result of market forces rather than deliberate government policies. Fast rising
consumers’ incomes in urban areas have stimulated the import trade and created
new domestic markets for farmers. These changes have not only affected
agricultural production, but also the economic development of the country as a

whole. After centuries of subsistence farming utilizing traditional cultivation

 

 

$on 6.3mm iconic»; ~85:an .uosfiiwwuo meme—BE H.550 “850w

 

Q0 «.3 Q0 3.3 m6 «.3 m6 «.3 v.0 «.3 Wm he 258m
08 3.0 Q5 36 v.0 Qm Qv Qw to m6 ow Qv 0830p.
Qw Wm w.« Qm QV Qm QM :4 Qm MC 03 Q3 5:00
380 3:26.:
Qm 5. WM 5. QM S. QM ms QM E. m S. OObOU
M6 ca .. I i i -. I .- I -- -- $qu
mn we: -- : 9. «.3 54 «.3 «v Q3 ow Qw fiasco
E. 3.3 S. «.3 mm Q3 Er Q3 «5 Q3 we m.«3 385
much out .335
53 0.3 -- Q3 33 Wm. c3 Md ow Qw :1 QC 8859—
S« «.h« vw« v.8 3« Q8 c«« o.m« 3« «.«« m3 o« 333%? SOLD
vw D. 8 «h «K. 3. it or «w «b on on woe—Smog
mufifiomo> .mofinwfi
we no no «o no we we co 3 we «0 8 “we;
0». an wv am we 5 me 8 3. on mm v« 382
one 50 «No who >«w mwo mwm 3% 3o «wk. 35 83 BEE a. gnwuom
1850
v0.5 35‘ v0.5 32 poi 85‘ poem 35.. poi $5. v0.5 «PE 390

Ema

 

9:8 80.3 ”nouosvoem $3800: 804 50.2.0
8353 - onboH as"; BE 3 390 123—519‘ Ea: Lo nocosvocm was 85‘ “3.3 2an

 

 

.5w3 .m.a=am £0038? fiuemufim .aoeufieawuo mam—Ear.— fibeoo “Quezom

 

 

34 We Qv Wa n.n Q3 n6 3.3 We 3.3 «.m Qm 053%
We Q« We Q« n... w.« 5.m we 5.e we n.e He 08.33.
«.v e.m Qv e.m 5.n en We v.5 We v.5 Qn Wm 5.50
880 3:263
3...» v.3 flv «.3 «.v «.3 Qn 3.5 nn 5.5 e.n 5.5 octoo
x3 83 v.3 83 v.3 83 fie 33 fie :33 fie 33 mean—
n3 W3 W8 Q3 eAw Q3 5.35 5.3 Q5e 3.3 née W3 39:0
v3 3 «a W3 n.wm e.3 eiw Q3 edw Q3 5.8 W3 $63
805 out .833
n.wQ« Wm 563 m 5.93 w «.n3 «.«3 W93 W«H wnH W3 $880.3
n. «nv «« Wo5n 3 Ween 3 w.m«n enn $an Won v.33 v.3 858%? 580
new 5« «.3. m« an W«« Won Woe n.m5 Woe ed5 «5 8:53:
338035 Jon—=34
we we Yne we n. 5n me «.vn v.8 v.5e v.3 ede ee “an;
«.3. S. finv wn an Qvn Won n.en «.aw n.en «.nm en ONE:
3v ooe 33 one Q5e« Wae we« «owe Wowe owe mne 5me BEE a. gawuow
E800
e05 m2< v05 32 no.5 s2< worm a2< e03 8.3. e05 8.3. $90

 

92.5308

"3 93:.

 

 

techniques, farmers are now faced with new markets, labor shortages, high and fast
rising wages, fast growing urban demands, and new technology. These changes have
created a need for agricultural development in all areas of agriculture. This
development process requires a flexible response from farmers, agribusiness

managers, and government.

Agricultural Development

Formal development planning in Yemen is relatively recent. In 1973, for the
first time in history, a Three-Year Development Program was prepared. The Three-
Year Development Program represented a first attempt at pursuing the government’s
objectives in a coordinated manner. It included the government’s general objectives
of development together with a list of planned public sector projects. Broad
objectives were: (a) an annual growth rate of five percent in agriculture; (b) self-
sufficiency in cereals, vegetables and oil seeds; and (c) improvement of nutrition and
income of small farmers (World Bank, 1979). The share allocated to the agriculture
sector in the total program was only 14 percent of the budget, an amount not
commensurate with the demands put on agriculture.

The first Five-Year Development Plan (1977-1981), built on the experience
of the Three-Year Development Program, was an improvement. It included a
number of policy goals and a more elaborate investment program. The broad
objectives were to: (a) work toward self-sufficiency in food productions within
economic limits; (b) provide raw materials for agro-industries; (c) reduce the
widening trade deficit in agricultural commodities; (d) improve the quality of

agricultural products; (e) provide special support to small farmers; and (f) create

 

 

equitable and stable land tenure. The second Five-Year Development Plan (1981-
85) and the third Five-Year Development Plan (1985-89) placed emphasis on the
same policy and objectives in the agricultural sector (Central Planning Organization,
1977, 1986).

The priorities in developing the agricultural sector were to: (a) achieve
higher rates of growth; and (b) self-sufficiency in food production. Emphasis was
placed on the modern sector of agriculture by concentrating on irrigation schemes,
farm mechanization, and intensive livestock and poultry production. The traditional

sector received very little emphasis.

Agricultural production was expected to grow at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
and value added in agriculture was expected to grow at a 5.5 percent rate as
opposed to an 8.2 percent growth rate for the overall economy. The actual growth
rate of the agricultural sector over the three-year period from 1976 to 1979 was only
three percent (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1981). This slow rate of growth
was attributed to a number of interrelated factors, the most important being high
wages and scarce labor. Demand for labor in neighboring oil exporting countries
had caused a sharp increase in emigration from Yemen, and growing urban
economies drew labor from rural areas.

The inadequacy of the current development program is illustrated by the gap
between the growth rate of the agricultural sector and the growth rate of food
demand. Between 1969 and 1979, per capita consumption of cereals averaged 430

grams per day and varied between 355 and 533 grams (Food and Agriculture

 

 

Organization, 1981). The total cereal requirement for the country in 1990 has been
estimated to be 1,456,000 tons.l

Even if production were to increase by five percent per year, as provided for
in the development plan, imports of over 100,000 tons per year would still be
required in 1990 to maintain the present level of consumption. With no production
increase, imports would exceed 500,000 tons in 1990 (Food and Agriculture
Organization, 1981).

Because of the growing gap between imports and exports, Yemen’s trade
deficit exceeded $700 million in 1985-86. This amount represented a nine-fold
increase from 1971-72. Concern about the rapid drain of foreign currencies from the
country, and the possible failure of exchange rate fluctuations to slow that flow, have
led to a desire for greater domestic production. Current development plans do not
appear to be sufficient.

Observations indicate that if there is no tangible progress in agricultural
production, Yemen’s trade deficit will continue to increase, and the gap between
domestic production and consumption requirements will increase rapidly and sharply.
This situation requires that development objectives of the future be aimed toward
achieving higher rates of growth, gaining self-sufficiency in food production, and

reducing the trade deficit in agricultural commodities.

1The future cereal requirements for the country were calculated on the assumptions
that consumptions would stabilize at 450 grams per person per year and that population
growth would continue at 2.8 percent per year.

    

. .6: am: 31m 5mg...

"3". “3‘": in“. . Iz’l' I'T'l 9.. .' rlh-I'I" .

 

 

government Agricultural Extension Programs in Yemen

The government’s agricultural development programs are generally designed
to modernize the skills of farmers and provide them with institutional and technical
support. Emphasis is given to agricultural credit, research, and agricultural extension
which should: ( 1) help farmers improve resource utilization; (2) improve farmers’
socioeconomic conditions; and (3) ultimately increase agricultural production.

Extension service is relatively new to most rural people of Yemen. After the
1962 revolution the Ministry of Agriculture established, but the government
undertook few if any, extension education activities. Government outreach was
principally concentrated on providing farmers with technical services and supplies
rather than "extension education" per se. When the Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries was reorganized in the early 1970, the Extension Department was given
clear objectives, status, and recognition. Since that period, the Ministry, including the
Department of Extension, has grown in size and operation to cover most of the
regions of the country. The Ministry is now represented in 11 Agriculture Provinces
and by over 15 offices throughout the country.

Agricultural services and extension are also provided through other
agricultural development projects in different regions such as The Tihama
Development Authority (TDA) in the Eastern (coastal) District and The Southern
Upland Rural Development Project (SURDP) in the Southern region.

Agricultural extension began in the early 19705 with the execution of two
large multi-donor rural development projects in the coastal and upland regions. The

extension service component of the Southern Uplands Rural Development Project

 

 

 

(SURDP) and the Tihama Development Association (TDA) has made some progress

in reaching farmers with some extension services.

The Missien ef Extensien

Considering the short period of time since Yemen established agricultural
extension service and the lack of prior experience of both the extension
workers/ agents and the farmers, the extension mission has been partly and explicitly
identified. Generally speaking, however, the extension service seems to have adopted
an educational mission similar to that assumed by extension agencies in neighboring
countries (Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan). The General Director of Extension and
Agriculture Services described the mission of extension in Yemen in the following
(objectives) statement:

"To create whatever changes are needed in the perception of the

farmers to attain the following objectives:

1. The development of the agricultural sector and the contribution

to the development of rural society.

2. The introduction of recommended new agricultural crops to
provide the consumption needs and improve economic
conditions of the whole society.

3. The utilization of available economic resources.

4. To provide farmers with knowledge and skills through
demonstration, training, and helping them help themselves and
encourage them to adopt new agricultural innovations."

(Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries)

 

 

10

The Extensien Funetien

The mission of extension in Yemen as outlined previously seems compatible
with the basic philosophies of extension and its educational function. In practice,
however, the process is rather different. Program planning represents a serious
weakness in the Yemen Extension Service. Programs are geared mainly toward the
introduction of new varieties of crops and the provision of some services. The

procedure then goes as follows:
1. A new variety of crop is proven by the Ministry officials to be

applicable to the local conditions.

2. Extension workers are given orientation to the crop’s
requirements.
3. A publicity program is initiated through mass media or group

meetings with farmers.
4. The local extension workers select demonstration plots on
certain farms.
5. Farmers are invited to observe the demonstrations.
6. At the end of the demonstration the extension workers who are
involved in the demonstration prepare a descriptive report of
the demonstration process. (MOAF)
From the above description, one can conclude that the program’s process is
designed as a one-way, top-down direction. Instead of emerging from the actual
problems and needs of farmers, programs in fact are predetermined by higher

officials and implemented by local extension workers. Farmers are seldom, if ever,

 

 

 

11

consulted or included in the planning stage. They are expected to accept whatever

is offered regardless of their actual interests, needs, and aspirations.

The glrgenizatien ef Extensign
In 1978 the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in the City of Sana’a (the

capital of the country) was reorganized to include ten General Departments, each

one headed by a general manager (see Figure 1.1):

1. The General Department for Statistics and Planning.
2. The General Department for Agricultural Affairs.
3 The General Department for Plant Protection.
4. The General Department for Irrigation.
5. The General Department for Agricultural Extension and Training.
6. The General Department for Rural Development.
7. The General Department for Livestock.
8. The General Department for Fisheries.
9. The General Department for Marketing and Storage.
10. The General Department for Administrative and Financial Affairs.

Each of these departments is represented in the ministry’s offices at the
provincial and regional level. The government of Yemen sought assistance from
United Nations Development Program and Food and Agriculture Organization for
promoting agricultural development in Tihama through the development of effective
extension services (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1988).

The target area for project activities was a broad band that parallels the Red

Sea coast and is about 50 kilometers wide and 450 kilometers long. Assistance was

 

 

 

12

provided through a series of United Nations Development Program projects, i.e.,
YEM/77/003, ‘Agricultural Extension and Seed Introduction in Tihama Region’,
YEM/82/001, ‘Tihama Agriculture Extension Service’, and YEM/84/002, ‘Tihama
Integrated Agricultural Extension Services’.

As was stated in the Food and Agriculture Organization 1988 report, the
project objectives of project YEM/82/001 were a continuation of those of project
YEM/77/003; the main emphasis was on training, supervision, and the provision of
technical support for national extension personnel at all levels. The objectives of
project YEM/84/002 were divided to include:

Development Objectives. The project was designed to assist the government
in achieving development objectives in three broad areas by:

1. establishing an organized extension system within the Tihama region

in coordination with TDA;

2. training national staff in extension and agricultural production

methodology; and

3. transferring technology to farmers by demonstration, field visits and

production of extension material, as well as by the training of farmers
and rural women in the adoption of improved agricultural, livestock

and home management practices.

 

 

 

13

— I Minister I Statistic
and

Planning
Gen. Dept.

.—_—-———

Assistant Deputy
Minister

DeputY

 
 
     

_L_

 
  
  
     

   
   

      
  

 

Livestock Irrigation Agricultural' Plant
Gen. Dept. Gen. Dept. Affairs Protection
Gen. Dept. Gen. Dept.

     
      
  
  
 
   
     
     

 

 

_.__—————

Marketing
and
Storage
Gen. Dept.

      

Rural
Development
Gen. Dept.

-A9ricultural
Extension
and Training
Gen. Dent.

_—__————-———

   
     
   
 
  
 
 

 
  

Public Relation
Gen. Dept.

    

 
 
 
 
    

Finance and
Administrative
Affairs Gen. Dept.

 

   

0 Based on the last structural amendments (F0AF1 1573. Sana'a

Figure 1.1: The Organization Structure of . . .
. . . the M
Fisheries in Yemen Arab Republic lmstry Of Agriculture and

 

 

14

Immediate Objectives. The immediate objective included three areas:

1. Organizational establishment.
2. Manpower development.
3. System operation.

More specifically, the main objectives of the TDA regarding the
implementation of the T & V System to the three extension branches/districts are:
1. The adoption of T & V System of agricultural extension throughout

the TDA Extension Branches as a new extension approach.

2. Strengthening the relationship between research and extension

and the adoptive research activities.
3. Improving the training of agricultural extension agents / personnel
to increase their performance.
The Organization Structure of The Tihama Agricultural Extension Service is shown
in Figure 1.2.

The term "Training and Visit" is applied to the system of extension which has
been introduced under The Tihama Development Authority (TDA) in Yemen by
the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank, because of the stress
it places on the regular training of staff (agents) and programmed visits to farmers.
The training and visit (T & V) system of agricultural extension facilitates systematic

extension planning in all levels of farming localities.

 

 

 

15

out/cow :o_m:8xm Eezzsutw< mEEE. 2: go 832:5 Ecosaficmwco ”«.3 oeswi

        

     

 

«e._ceu u;..esUlfi neezev— 7...ch 4....cev -...c..u ntzeulw

no ace—Ii. pee—«.7... :n_:...-u ..o_.:.‘.u.. co_rc..—-

         

 

use—cu aye—ecu ¢;..:Lu nee—:eu e..cew
:o...:..”..— .....I:.._... .17.... ..e.’:...-. .32.... .

. l.. ..u . . .u.

Fll'luwl‘

__.:m.»xcm_>.ee:m

            
      

:o.a:u.

   

 

              

\llliilllli

.p_:: »u0m_>uu;=m

‘Illlllllll

5:5 >xOm—>.:._=m

 

                        

   

.13.... a... —..!.:<

c a .529 I 5.5:

:9. .en... 3...... 1:1m
c... .v310... ....e.=<
¢y_(c::v._ $5....

 

 

co. .2...—
co. .1.—

.c..: teem

   
   

...t.. l:—
30.1.10... _.r..e(
ov.(o..0ub L50:

  
   
  

  
  

:3. ...-.:....4e.. I...

  
  

<o_:...o.._ ._a.... : _.....:... ac...

e.>—_:Z:o:
5:20.}. 53:3...—
:e_c_<.~ c 5.....5...»

 

     

       

cc. 3.10... L05

        
        

LIL—31...»:
>¢.p..aen< :o.:n_:_
s...:....— < ..:..:u.-—

v1.4.7.5.

     

e.=._av_..o. ’21:»;
ee— ... 3:32.:u

.11....“

.5. .v 152839 :e. I. 2:53;...

sl::9.x< :2. :2. .._
....:.......

 

a:a....;:m

 

.uce_¢~.::n 3......)— e se....ezu

  

   

     

lilllillililll

h—ZD >n0n_>nun:w
u__uxu0<:5_ 415.032..“

      
      

I'll“

~=5 >ICv._>x._.—:w
Fluxuu<z<r J<:O—Uan::n

 

   

   

    

h :3— erh:__a:.:_

will"

~73 :0_h<zxoh:—

 

lll

Hmmm zo_p¢zxoaz_

             

_ :v:<xn 20—2;th J<xw2uu — _ =uz<¢n :C_.v.z....xa 2:5:sz

 

=uz<un 20—m2uhxu s..:_—:Om

 

 

    

     
            

cot—us: ecpv $5.“. sea—.3v_:¢=

xnaaedo.e.i cues, co.:c_v.oou mic—:5 $.05 2::
au.!oco: ~29: co.:s~oz 9:0

se.-.5... ecu uc—...a.. ce.::..o.._ .e!.c< .:. .132... enz)

 

3...: a1: co_:-_c~£u..x {:5 5.72:; glues-n...

    

Illlllllllillltlllilllllilu

v.2: urn—.3335» mun—L}: huh—53

Illllllillt . ll
u-z: ZO_—(U:.DZ:CU 5.9—5“

illilillll‘l. liltl .Ily

     
       

uuz<wm_mm< =Us<umwx

     

 

 

. I} ..~.||II\

mfg—>52». =O_m1ur~u
_<¢:~._:U—¢u< 5° burn—2:.

md>_~<du.~89
==< ViZ—bt—USZn.‘
~2.I..O._u>uo J<UO._
sz_:_.—_hnz— u;->x.m

zo_p<.pm_z_xo< at
_
.
.

Iiilnluililncl
llllll..lll+ =22ic5352u +1].xli|-
r.1.

wu—<h_< .—(:D~JDU.¢U< h: 20—»qu—a

‘litllitlll

       
  

  

uu_>xum :O_.mzu_.xu d<x:5.~=v_xo< (£525 .2..— uoh ux:<uuuz<0uo

   

 

 

16

The T & V system of agricultural extension is an attempt to reform and
improve upon the effectiveness of conventional agricultural extension and research,
particularly since the early 1970’s. largely under World Bank sponsorship, there has
been wide adoption to the training and visit (T & V) extension system including
management and close two-way linkage between farmer, extension worker, and
research. The T & V system has been adapted and implemented in some 40
countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, South America.

Hayward (1987) stated that the essence of T & V is its adherence to
fundamental management principles as they would apply to any geographically
scattered operations which aim to change the behavior of many technologically
isolated individuals using poorly educated staff. These fundamental principles
involve identifying the customer, preparing appropriate messages, focusing
exclusively on the advisory function at the field level, adopting a single line of
schedules, systematic training and continuous links with research.

Therefore, this system has overcome many of the major weaknesses which
commonly exist in most extension organizations in developing countries. The
strength of the T & V system lies in a comprehensive system of important tasks in
extension work.

Under the T & V system, schedules of work, duties, and responsibilities of
extension personnel are clearly specified and closely supervised at all levels (Benor
and Harrison, 1977).

Seepersad and Henderson (1984) listed essential characteristics of the T & V

system:

 

 

the

6.

17

The village extension workers (VEWs) are assigned purely educational
responsibilities.

The total number of farm families to be visited by each VEW is
clearly defined.

At each level in the extension organization, the span of control allows
close guidance and supervision of the level below.

Extension programs concentrate on the most important crops and
improving farming practices which have the greatest potential for
increasing yields, and which generally involve large cash inputs.
Specific recommendations for improving farming practices are carried
to selected contact farmers.

The contact farmers are visited every fortnight at a set date and time.

Yemen’s extension service is decentralized. Within the new strategy (the

national agricultural / rural development program) the services have been recognized
and are based on extension planning areas, rural and agricultural development
projects at different regions and provinces. At the Ministry of Agriculture level, the

Director of Agricultural Extension and Training General Department administrates

extension service. The country is divided into more than eight

agricultural/rural development divisions.

The policy of extension and training in Yemen is geared towards meeting the

needs and aspirations of the smallholders farmers who are the main producers of
basic foodcrops in the country. In order to meet this requirement, it is the

Agricultural Extension and Training General Department’s responsibility to plan and

 

 

 

18

develop a satisfactory and workable delivery system aimed at the generation and
continuation transfer of agricultural technology to the majority of smallholders
(Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1978).

It was in 1985 that the TDA official policy guide was produced by the TDA
officials, which directed that the training and visit approach of agricultural extension
should be introduced by all TDA branches. The guide further elaborated on the
systematic manner in which the entire chain of transfer of technology to the farmers
should be carried out. The systematic approach called for:

(a) each TDA branch divides into circles, each circle is managed by an
extension supervisory, i.e., the circle(s) supervisor must ensure that he
arranges for directing and supervising the extension worker at a number
of certain centers (4-5 centers), so that he is satisfied that the messages
have been delivered effectively.

(b) contact farmers are selected farmers at the extension centers levels.
In each extension center, farmers are invited through the leadership of
the contact farmers to attend the demonstration on predetermined date
and time during the month (two weeks). The dates and time must be
agreeable with contact farmers and their fellow representatives.

(c) the extension worker to visit contact farmers regularly once every
two weeks to train farmers at agreed demonstration site.

((1) the circle extension supervisor to practically review the technical
messages and the work plan with the extension workers once every two
weeks to ensure that everyone is prepared to his contact farmers with
necessary skills. This emphasizes that the training sessions must be
conducted by extension workers.

(e) subject matter specialists to continually review technical material
in their subject fields and to ensure that messages are made available
to circle supervisors before the day he conducts training of extension
workers. The SMS is also required to train extension workers once
every fortnight on predetermined data time.

This approach to extension, widely known as the "Training and Visit System,"

provided for orderliness in the work of the extension workers in ensuring that

 

 

 

19

everything being normal, he would be committed to training contact farmers at the
fixed place and time, or he would be at a training session at the extension center
according to his work plan. Participation of other farmers in the neighboring areas
and soliciting attendance 0 the field assistants is straightforward. Objective training
programs can be drawn up with the aim of ensuring that technical information and
skills are being transferred correctly from subject-matter specialists through the
extension circle supervisor and extension workers to contact farmers. Benor and
Baxter (1984) stated that:
The training and visit (T & V) system of agricultural extension aims at
building up a professional extension service that is capable of assisting
farmers in raising production and increasing incomes and of providing
appropriate support for agricultural development. Consideration
variation in the system exists within and between countries, reflecting
particular agriecological conditions, socioeconomic environment, and
administrative structures. To be successful, the training and visit system
must be adapted to fit local conditions. Certain features of the system,
however, cannot be changed significantly without adversely affecting its
operation. These features include professionalism, a single line of

command, concentration of effort, time bound work, field and farmer
orientation, regular and continuous training and close linkages with

research. (p. 8).

Statement of the Problem

Agricultural development has been an important component of Yemen’s
development plans. Governmental support for agricultural development started in
the early 19705 with the establishment of a number of agricultural/rural
development projects with substantial assistance from multilateral and bilateral aid
agencies. Fifteen agricultural/rural development projects are now operational,
covering eight out of 11 provinces or districts of Yemen (World Bank, 1979). The

Agricultural Extension Service has been a major component of all of these projects.

 

 

20

The government has realized that agricultural extension education could play
an important role in increasing agricultural production and farm income by
providing an effective and vital link between the agricultural research stations and
the farm community. Since agricultural extension service/activities first began in the
early 19705 with the establishment of the Tihama Development Authority (TDA)
and the Southern Uplands Rural Development Project (SURDP) in the coastal and
southern uplands respectively, different extension approaches and strategies have
been tried.

The Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank reports (Food and
Agriculture Organization, 1980-81) have indicated that the extension service in
Yemen has not been that effective over the past years. These reports have
emphasized that not only the lack of resources has been behind the fair
performance of extension service in the country, but also the inappropriate
developmental training programs and operations. These international organizations
(Food and Agriculture Organization and World Bank) suggested that the solution
for the extension problems depends partly on innovations in agricultural extension.

The Government of Yemen Arab Republic adopted the T & V System of
agricultural extension in the Tihama Plain region in 1984. The T & V System has
been operating in the Tihama region for the past 5-6 years through the assistance
of the United Nations Development Program and Food and Agriculture
Organization (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1988). Although few reports
have been written, usually by the donor agencies for funding purposes about the

general impact of such approaches, there has been little or no evaluation of the

 

 

21

impact or an assessment of the farrners’ and extension workers’ perceptions toward
the T & V System of agricultural extension as a delivery system in the Tihama Plain
in Yemen.

Problems and needs of farmers as well as extension workers serve as the basis
of extension educational programs. Agriculturalists in one region have had little
information on the successes, effectiveness, and problems facing the T & V System
operating in similar environments. Moreover, in the absence of such studies and
information, planners and policy makers continue to adopt strategies and approaches

which may not meet farmers’ and extension workers’ educational needs.

Objectives Qf the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the T & V

system through the perceptions of contact farmers and extension workers/personnel

as follows:

1. To determine the contact farmers’ satisfaction with the materials
(content) and extension information dissemination methods with a
particular focus on:

a. Technical content
b. Extension worker delivery
c. Technology transfer by extension workers

2. To assess the perceptions of contact farmers regarding the quality of
visits made by the extension workers.

3. To determine the extension workers’ satisfaction with the training

programs of the T & V System with a particular focus on:

 

 

22

a. Technical content.

b. Subject matter specialist delivery (mode of instruction, time,
etc.).

c. Technology transfer from extension workers to contact farmers.

d. Resources to facilitate the work of the extension worker.

To ascertain the extension teaching methods utilized by the extension
workers.

To examine the relationship between selected socio-economic
characteristics (such as age, marital status, gender, education, etc.) of
the extension workers and the contact farmers and their perceptions
toward the performance of the T & V System.

To study the nature of linkages established by the T & V System with
research and other supported services and institutions, such as the
College of Agriculture at Sana’a University, input supply, credit, and
marketing.

To formulate a set of recommendations based on the study’s findings
for policy makers (i.e., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries [MOAF],
TDA, and the College of Agriculture at Sana’a University) to be
considered in improving effectiveness of the T & V System as a means
of technology transfer in the Tihama Plain region and other regions

in Yemen.

 

 

 

23

Importance of the Study

The Tihama Development Authority (TDA) is a pilot agricultural

development project in Yemen. The project reflects the government’s strategies to

gradually develop the Tihama Valleys (seven main valleys). This kind of analysis is

essential and important for the existing agricultural extension service, and in

improving the extension service in the Tihama region and Yemen as well.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study are as follows:

1.

One of the main limitations of this study is the fact that the research
is limited to the extension workers and contact farmers in the Tihama
Plain region, which is only one of the 11 provinces in the country.
Another limitation is that the research population is not the only
appropriate one for such a study.

The instrument used in measuring the perception and views of the
study’s participants will not cover all possible areas of interest. Hence,
it is possible that significant perceptions exist in other areas than those
that will be covered in this study.

Findings and discussions generated by the study’s data are exclusive to
the identified population at a specific point in time.

Because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure and the cost

associated, the study will included some villages the TDA project area.

 

 

24

Definition 9f Terms

Agricultural Extension Officer: An officer who reviews and assists in the
organizational aspect of the Village Extension Worker and provides technical
support to him or her, in order to see that production recommendations are

effectively taught to farmers.

Agg'eultural Extensign Serviee: Refers to the General Directorate of

Extension and Agricultural Services at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in
Yemen and all its divisions throughout the country. It also includes the extension
services provided by other agencies and projects such as the Tihama Development
Authority project in the Tihama Plain region.

Agricultural Extension Wgrkers: Refers to individuals who are employed by
the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Tihama Development Authority
to work in the field of agricultural extension with farmers.

Contact Farmers: Refers to the selected small number of farmers whom the
extension workers visited on each fortnight.

Education: Farmers are divided into three categories depending upon their
level of education: (a) literate, those who can read and write; (b) semi-literate,
those who can read only; (c) illiterate, those who cannot read nor write.

In-Service Training: Refers to that form of training received by extension
workers during their employment or career by the Extension Service.

Linkage: Establishing a proper back—and-forth communication among

researchers, extension workers, and farmers. This includes continual feedback of

25

informational needs of the farmers to the researchers, at least in the applied
research levels.

Per eptigns: "Any act or process of knowing objectives, facts or truth,
whether by sense of experience or by thoughts -- awareness“ (Gove, 1976).

Size gf Family Members: Average size of family is five persons per family:

(a) high, above five; and (b) low, less than five.

b' M r iali MS: Refers to a specialist who provides
technical training and guidance to extension workers. The SMS has an important
role in the formulation of production recommendations, and is a focus of links
between extension and research.

Training: Organized learning experience received by extension workers
during their employment or career with the Extension Service.

Village Extension Worker: Is the only extension worker who teaches
production recommendations to farmers.

M: Another word for valley.

TDA: Tihama Development Authority.

Assumptions of the Study

The assumptions were as follows:
1. The existence of the Agricultural Extension Service in the Tihama
region would benefit the farmers’ socioeconomic conditions. In other

words, the availability of the service would positively affect their rural

life.

 

 

 

26

There exists in Yemen a need for competent and skilled agricultural
extension workers, and this need will be more important in the future.
The questionnaire used in this study/investigation will contain a list of
related statements performed by extension workers in Tihama Plain,
Yemen.

Respondents groups will answer all the questions frankly and correctly.

In other words, the data will be reliable.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 'IWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In r i n

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief background of the
conceptual framework of this study. The discussion here provides an overview of the
agricultural extension concepts which relate to the training of extension workers.
Discussion of the concepts and background information will cover the organizational
and operational pattern of the training and visit (T & V) system of agricultural
extension. In the final section of this chapter, an attempt is made to review some of
the previous studies related to the dynamics of T & V system of agricultural

extension in other countries.

The Concept pf Agricultural Extension

The term "cooperative agricultural extension" was adopted as a national policy
in the US as part of legislation in the form of the Federal Smith-Lever Act of 1914.
Later on, other countries have followed in organizing their extension system. Now,

after long years of experience supported by field research, extension education has

28

become one of the most recognized and respected professions; it is an important
influence in overall development of human kind.

Wharton (1963) pointed out that extension education is one of the major
avenues for formal developmental education of farmers. Mosher (1958) defined
extension education "the essence of... extension is that it is an out-of-school
educational process: I

1. Working with rural people along those lines of their current interest

and need which are closely related to gaining a livelihood, improving

the physical level of living, and fostering community welfare;

2. Utilizing particular teaching techniques;
3. Conducting with the aid of certain supporting activities; and
4. Carried on within a distinctive spirit of cooperative and natural

respect" (p. 92).
Leagon (1961), a prominent expert in the field of extension whose experience
extends to beyond the boundaries of the United States, provided this definition,
"Extension education is an applied science consisting of content derived from
research, accumulated field experiences and relevant principles drawn from the
behavioral science synthesized with useful technology into a body of philosophy,
principles, content and methods focused on the problems of out-of—school education
for adults and youth“ (p. 197).
The Food and Agricultural Organization (Food and Agriculture Organization)
of the United Nations provided a more explicit definition of the concepts in terms

suited for guiding the growth of extension systems in underdeveloped countries.

 

 

 

29

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (1982) agricultural extension
is :

An informal out-of-school educational service for training and

influencing farmers (and their families) to adopt improved practices in

crop and livestock production, management, conservation, and

marketing. Concern is not only with teaching and securing adoption of

a particular improved practice but with changing the outlook of the

farmer to the point where he will be receptive to, and on his own

initiative continuously seek, means of improving his farm business and

home. (p. 80)

Other definitions of the term include at least one of the following phrases:

"Learning by doing"

"Helping people to help themselves"

"Changing attitudes, knowledge, and skills"

"A two way channel of communication"

Therefore, agricultural extension is purely a process of nonformal education
that includes flexible educational instruments adoptable to different conditions.
Extension renders possible direct contact to the mass of farmers even in remote
areas. However, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the performance of
extension services in developing countries. Blaknesburg (1982) pointed out that
although external conditions of work differ considerably from region to region, a
fairly uniform weakness seems to exist: inadequate number of personnel, extra duties
delegated to the extension worker besides his advisory work, unsatisfactory
performance of extension agents due to the lack of knowledge of technical matters
and extension method, inadequate supervision of lower-level extension workers, poor

coordination of extension and farmers with agricultural research, and wrong target

group approach.

 

 

 

30

Sigman and Swanson (1984) investigated nine major areas/problems as related

to the extension personnel in developing countries. They found that technical and

extension training are ranked among the top of the problems.

Benor and Baxter (1984) indicated five points that should be accomplished by

the VEW in his contact farmers’ visits:

1.

He should discuss the field situation —- the condition of standing crops,
practices followed, pest and disease problems -- and farming activities
the farmer has done and intends to do in the coming weeks.

He should ascertain the extent to which recommendations have been
adopted, and find out whether problems have occurred in following
recommendations. Any problem raised by the farmer should be
answered in the field.

He should teach the contact farmer and his fellow farmers the specific
recommendations for the current fortnight that are relevant to crops
he grows, after having adjusted, if necessary, recommendations to fit
the resources of the individual farmer. He may use some simple visual
aids to explain recommended technology, but should also demonstrate
the operations required for the recommendations, such as plant
spacing, fertilizer application, or spraying.

He should attempt to convince all contact farmers -- and some other
farmers as well -- to adopt the recommendations on at least a small
part of their land. If practiced in a small area, risks are limited and
each small area acts as a demonstration plot. If the practice is useful
to farmers, it will be more widely adopted in subsequent seasons.

He should repeat the messages, summarizing the points of impact of
each recommendation, and where possible give other advice on
farming activities not covered by specific recommendations. He should
also remind the farmers of the day of his next visit. (p. 54).

The VEW is expected to meet the farmers in groups. Each group of farmers

has an identified farmer as the contact farmer. Explaining the role of contact

farmer in the program. Realizing the role of the farmer group is the basic step for

the extension worker’s success. Maunder (1972) wrote:

 

 

 

31

The attitude of individuals towards the change and the influence of this
attitude of the various groups in the social structure is perhaps the most
important element for consideration by extension workers. A
knowledge of the social structure of the community, the values of each

group class and methods of promoting group action are essential tools

of the successful extension worker (p. 122).

The objective of meeting farmers in groups is to make it possible to share
knowledge among themselves. In most cases, the VEW needs to know how to
transfer technical knowledge from the people who know to the people who need to
know.

The importance of social groups in pursuing adoption of innovations, was
explained by Lionberger and Gwin (1982) as follows:

Social groups are in a position to influence information, communication

and the adoption of new ideas and practices. First, they provide

channels of interpersonal communication through which information

from outside sources such as a farm adviser can readily flow: also, they

provide opportunities for farmers to talk matters over with those whom

they intimately know and trust. By this means they can get information

that they can’t otherwise get and which is needed for deciding whether

to accept or reject innovations. Also, fellow farmers with high

credibility are important sources of persuasion in the adoption of new
farm practices. (p. 75)

People tend to adopt new ideas when the peer group adopts them. After a
majority in any group have adopted, there are strong pressures for others to do so.
As stated by Lionberger and Gwin (1982), "social groups provide interpersonal
channels for information and resources that change agents can use on behalf of
farmers interested in learning new ideas and practices about farming" (p. 77).

During the VEW’s contact farmer visits under the T & V system, he should
meet the farmers in groups as much as possible. VEW’s visits should also aim at

the non-progressive farmers in the group. Benor and Baxter (1984) indicated that:

 

32

The VEW should ensure that other farmers join the discussions in

contact farmers’ fields and that he visits the fields of as many other

farmers as time permits. The contact farmers and other farmers he is

able to reach directly should be encouraged to discuss the VEWs’

recommendations with their neighbors and friends. (p. 16).

It is easier and more convenient to establish and keep up working contacts
with large and progressive farmers, but more consideration has to be given to the
small farmers. Blankenburg (1982) noted that, "Extension has often been blamed
for a wrong target group approach, i.e., for working mainly with progressive farmers
and not sufficiently with those who are mainly in need of assistance: the poor, the
small, the less educated farmers" (p. 8).

Group action of the farmers from the same locality is more effective in
dissemination of knowledge through farmer training. Describing the characteristics
of clientele audience, Cole (1981) stated that:

The lower the socio-economic status of a particular area, the higher the

proportion of people who want adult educational activities located

within their own neighborhood, because these people feel
uncomfortable when they go out of their own familiar surroundings.

This factor should be considered in selecting appropriate teaching

methods for these clientele. (p. 29)

The need for including women in the extension program has been noted by
Gills (1982), "The development of programs for women is a new frontier for
agricultural extension. As with most frontiers, it offers tremendous opportunities to
increase agricultural production and to improve the quality of life" (p. 13).

One objective of the VEW’s visits to contact farmers and other farmers is to

meet farmers frequently. The frequency of visits by extension workers to their

farmers’ groups directly influences the perceptions of extension workers’

 

 

33

effectiveness. Jallow (1981) in studying perceptions of clientele toward extension
workers in the United States, concluded:

Farmers who are members of their local cooperative extension service

committees, attend meetings regularly and are visited frequently by the

agricultural extension agent, are more positive in their perception of the
extension agencies and the extension agent than are farmers who are
non-members, attend few meetings and are seldom visited by the
agricultural extension agent. Hence, involvement in extension service

activities result in satisfied clientele. (p. 67)

Fortnightly farmer visits have made provision for the VEW to meet farmers’
groups more frequently and to convey a relevant message to the farmers. The
degree of acceptance of new ideas depends on the relevance of the message and its
timeliness. According to Mannento (1980), "Acceptance or rejection of a new idea
largely depends on how the information was relayed from its source to recipients.
Accuracy, clarity and timeliness of information are major aspects determining
adoption of new ideas" (p. 46).

It is essential that VEWs are provided up-to-date technological information
so as to properly guide the farmers. Coverdale (1974) contended that:

It is clear that the extension worker has a key role to play in any

country’s rural development program and, no matter what level we are

considering, it is vital that his training should be meaningful,
imaginative, broadly-based and with sufficient practical orientation to
enable him to fully communicate with the villager whom he is being

employed to help. (p. 25)

Training assists the extension agent to upgrade his knowledge, to identify
problems, to gain more knowledge on new research findings, and to develop his own
skills in decision-making and training. An educational need is a discrepancy or gap

between a person’s present level and the preferred level or required level of

capabilities for effective performance. Caffarella in "Identifying Client’s Needs,"

34

(1982) summarized that, "Identifying educational needs of potential participants is
an important component in designing educational programs. A needs assessment is
a systematic way of determining those educational needs" (p. 10).

Farmer visits provide the opportunity to identify the farmer’s needs and to
disseminate required information to the farmers through a reciprocal action of give
and take between VEW and farmers. A special feature of an effective extension
program should be frequent evaluation of the attitudes of its clientele. According
to Kantner (1982):

If extension wants to continue providing effective programs for its

clientele, and change with the times, it must know the attitudes of

clients about the information they receive, the effectiveness of agents

who deliver the information, the appropriateness of the methods used

and whether programs meet the need of clientele. (p. 8)

Changing the attitude and behavior of farmers is one of the most important
tasks of an extension agent, because it affects adoption of innovations. Mannento
(1980), in studying factors which hinder the adoption of innovations by farmers,
concluded that, . . promise of material satisfaction alone may not compel farmers
to adopt innovations. Culture traditions, group pressure, reaction of neighbors, self-
esteem and personal satisfaction are among the social factors which influence
individual farmers" (p. 43).

Regarding favorable effects of the extension agent’s attitude towards the
clientele, Ibrahim (1979) noted that, "The findings relative to the role of extension

service indicate that extension service personnel do help farmers to help themselves,

and that patience is essential in convincing farmers to adopt new technology" (p. 92).

 

 

ll

35

In extension the effectiveness of sharing information with clientele depends
mainly on the process of teaching. Cole, in "Selecting Extension Teaching Methods,"

(1981) stated that:

People learn in different ways -- some by reading, some by listening,
some by discussing, some by doing. Extension studies have shown that
the more teaching methods used, the higher the percentage of people
changing their practices. Thus using a variety of techniques will be the
most effective approach in seeking to bring about behavioral changes.

(p. 29).

The importance of visits to farmers justify making careful preparations and
whatever aids are appropriate. Bender, et al. (1971), writing about getting adults to
participate, commented, "Aids should be as the word denotes, aids to teaching. They
should add something to the situation. They should utilize to a great degree, either
singly or in composite, the sense of perception. In effect, aids should expedite the
teaching-learning process and make teaching and learning easier" (p. 102).

An extension service cannot function for long unless there is an effective
research program. The research activities should be conducted according to the
problems identified at the farmer level. VEW’s visits to farmers’ groups help to
identify farmers’ research needs. The need for applied research was stressed by
Blankenburg (1982) who stated:

If an extension project is to cover all agricultural areas with high

intensity, it needs messages for all crop and animal development tasks

which are of major interest for the respective group of farmers. . . .

Another essential point is that the establishment of closer links between

research, extension and farmers. A better orientation of research

toward the needs of practical agriculture cannot be achieved without

the assistance of extension, which has to bring research officers in
contact with farmers. (p. 13)

 

 

36

Under the T & V system, the well-trained extension worker must meet the
contact farmers and their fellow farmers frequently with great skills and competence,
recognizing that such groups are composed of a variety of individuals with various
characteristics in diverse social and cultural settings.

Seepersad and Henderson (1984) pointed out the criteria and standards for
evaluating the T & V system developed by Cernea and Tepping (1977) in the
monitoring and evaluation process. They also listed the related questions that are
included in the questionnaire(s) for monitoring and evaluation survey(s).
Researchers traditionally are not well informed and best equipped to transfer their
results into a form understandable to the farmers. Therefore, the role of extension
agencies is to translate the information into culturally usable recommendations,

adapted to the farmers’ level of understanding and resources.

The number of farm families per field-level extension worker is set at a
manageable level. A specific schedule of visits to farmers’ fields is rigidly
prescribed. Frequent in-service training of the field-level extension staff is an
integral part of the system and this training enhances their confidence and makes
them better able to communicate innovative practices with the farmers. Thus, the
T & V System helps to assure frequent contact of village extension workers and
farmers’ groups, to increase knowledge and understanding of farmers in order to
change their attitudes and opinions, and culminates in adoption of improved

practices that result in increased production.

37

Visits of Extension Workers to Contact Farmers

Regular scheduled visits to farmers’ fields by extension staff and regular
scheduled training of the VEWs are an important feature of the training and visit
system. Field visits are undertaken by all extension workers, including staff at
divisional and segment levels, but the focus of extension activities in the field are the
visits made by Village Extension Workers (VEWs) who contact each farmers’ group
once every fortnight. The VEW is being regularly trained to teach farmers improved
agricultural practices. On these visits, the worker aims to advise and teach farmers
and encourage them to adopt improved agricultural technology that is relevant to
their resources and skills. Benor et al. (1984) suggested a fortnightly table within
which the frequency of visits to farmers can be adapted to local situations as shown
in Table 2.1.

Accordingly, this model is planned assuming the farmers in the extension
agent’s area are subdivided into eight groups. The VEW visits each group at a pre-
fixed day and hour. He spends sufficient time with the group to discuss existing
problems and to disseminate relevant technical information to be relayed to farmers
during the next two weeks. In this way, he covers all farmers at a fortnightly
interval. Two days in the fortnightly period are spent on training agents and two
remaining days on extra activities. All extension services practicing T & V have
adopted this fortnightly schedule with some variations or adjustments. In Yemen,

it was decided to have four visit days per week in order to give the agents more time

 

 

 

38

Table 2.1. Typical Fortnightly Training and Visit Timetable for a Village
Extension Worker

First Week Second Week

MT W TheF S SuMT WTheFS Su

12 MTG34EXTH56TRA78EXTH
AEO VIS SMS VIS

Explanation:
1-8 = Visit to farmers’ groups

MTG/AEO = Meeting of Agricultural Extension Officer with his Village
Extension Workers.

EXT/VIS = Extra visits for checking from trials, holding field days, making up
visits missed because of holidays or illness, and so on, and for doing
reporting work.

TRA/SMS = Fortnightly training sessions (of ABC and VEW) conducted by
Subject Matter Specialists.

H = Holiday (official).

Source: World Bank, The Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System,
Washington, DC, 1984.

 

I-V

 

 

 

39

F0 ni htl Trainin i

To keep the extension staff up-to-date on the latest know-how with regard to
specific recommendations suited to changing farm conditions, there are fortnightly
training sessions for VEWs. Fortnightly training is the chief means of continuously
updating the professional skills of extension workers and of infusing them with
confidence to meet farmers. Systematic training is another basic concept embodied
in the T & V System of agricultural extension. The main idea behind the systematic
training is to develop adequate professional knowledge and skill in extension
workers about the specific farm recommendation to be made during the forthcoming
fortnight. Natesan (1983) stated that training in the T & V System is not entirely
a matter of training only to the extension staff. It was realized that, for the concept
of the system, there was a need to create an awareness and understanding of the
system not only in the minds of the extension staff but also among several others
groups--research personnel, administrators, university teachers, local officials, mass
media personnel, T & V administrators, service supporting extension, and
particularly the farmers.

The main objective of the VEWs scheduled visit is to meet the farmers in
groups in the field, to carry a relevant message for the next two weeks, and to
review the adoption of previous recommendations. The importance of fixed and
regular visits to farmers’ group by VEW under the T & V System was summarized
by Benor and Baxter (1984) who stated, "Visits are made, on the one hand, to advise
and teach farmers recommendations on relevant agricultural technology and to
encourage them to adopt these, and, on the other, to establish in extension and
research an awareness of actual farmer conditions and needs" (p. 50).

On a visit, a VEW should teach production recommendations to as many

farmers as possible, and certainly to all contact farmers, and attempt to convince

them to adopt the recommendations on at least a small part of their land. This

 

40

study is designed to determine the contact farmers’ and extension agents’ perceptions
regarding the training and visit components of the T & V System in rural Yemen.

The importance and useful role training extension workers has always been
recognized. Two major problems face the extension service in Yemen as well as in
many developing countries: the quantity and quality of its personnel or staff. The
quality of the extension agent represents a serious problem. Sigman and Swanson
(1984) indicated that pre- and in-service technical training are generally designed to
develop the practical skills, knowledge, and expertise needed to carry out improved
agricultural practices. Generally, the technical training focuses on one or more
major areas of agricultural extension. Hayward (1987) stated that the scarcest
extension resource is quality manpower; more extension projects fail for the lack of
skilled manpower than for any other reason.

In theory, one usually expects extension agents to go through three forms of
training: pre-service, induction, and in-service training. The in-service training is
important and the emphasis is on the technical subject matter with much concern for

N

communication skills or the subject of "extension education. Usually, the content
of these in-service training sessions should be based on a systematic needs

assessment of the extension agents.

Upon the implementation of the T & V System, a systematic program for
regular office and frequent visits for farmers should be introduced or established.
This system contributes to the total system, starting from the bottom subsystem at
the farmers’ groups level to the regional level at the top. A close and mutual

interrelationship exists in reaching the final situation where each farmer gains

 

 

41

knowledge, develops skills, carries out changes, and influences other farmers in their
effort to increase production and improve their socioeconomic conditions. Benor
and Harrison (1977) described the fixed, scheduled visits of the VEW to farmers,
under the T & V System, as follows, "VEW always visits a given group on the same
day of the week, so the group always knows when he should be with them. In each
visit he sees at least the contact farmers. All other farmers in the group are also
invited to meet the VEW on this day, and any of them participate in visits in fields

and in discussions" (p. 22).

Per e tions of Villa Extension Workers A o

the Visits Schedules and Training Session

Samarasinghe (1985) summarized the findings of his study on the effectiveness
of visits to farmers in Sri Lanka under the T & V System as follows:

VEWs realize the importance of group approach to achieve their goals and
they encourage farmers to develop group action among farmers.

VEWs strongly believe that frequent and scheduled visits to farmers’ groups
help them to identify farmers’ needs and field problems and to develop close
relationships between farmers and VEW.

VEWs with higher professional education consider themselves more
competent in communicating with farmers than others.

VEWs with fewer years working experience are more dissatisfied with their
technical competence and knowledge than are those with more experience.

Lack of mobility of VEWs is a problem which makes visits to farmers’ groups
more difficult. (p. 42)

 

 

DIM

 

42

Pereeptipps pf Cpntaet Farmers about
the Visit of Extension Wprkers

Mpachika (1989), in a study of the effectiveness of the T & V System as

perceived by contact farmers in Malawi, concluded that:

1.

Scheduled frequent visits by extension agents to farrners’ groups
enhance the opportunity to develop close relationships between
farmers and extension agents.

Farmers are not actively involved in deciding points to be stressed in
the extension program.

Farmers are somewhat dissatisfied with the extension agents use of
teaching aids, conducting of demonstrations, review of
recommendations, and the follow-up of information throughout the
entire production cycle.

Farmers appreciate the need for working in groups. They realize the
importance of promoting group action among themselves to achieve
their basic needs.

Farmers within upper age groups, those with farm size of less than
four acres, and those having long farming experience, express the need
to conduct group meetings in the field.

Most agricultural information received by farmers is through group

meetings, field units, demonstrations, radio programs, and home visits.

 

 

 

Ft

43

Intrgduetion pf the T Q V System in Yemen

The T & V System was introduced to Yemen in 1984 on a pilot scale in one
district of the Hodeidah Province and adopted at the southern valleys of Tihama.
Prior to the introduction of this system, the Agricultural Extension Department of
the Tihama Development Authority (TDA) was applied in conventional extension
approaches throughout the project’s area in the Tihama region for a number of
years. The Food and Agriculture Organization (1978) Report stated that five
counterparts, three supervisors, and 34 male extension agents received on-the-job
training in 1985-1986. In addition, seven counterparts and 52 extension workers and
area supervisors received on-the-job training through weekly field visits by the
project subject matter specialists to Rima/Zabid Wadis (Valleys) for technical
assistance and/or through training refresher courses, which were organized by the
project and attended by extension workers from projects under TDA.

In Yemen, with an average extension density of 1:500, every VEW has 25
farmers’ groups, each composed of one contact farmer and about 20 follower (other)
farmers. As visits are scheduled only eight days per fortnight, VEW has to meet

eight farmers’ groups on each visit day. In Yemen, Fridays are the official holiday

(TDA, 1984).

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The primary purpose of this study was to determine effectiveness of the
T & V system through the perceptions of contact farmers and extension workers as
a mean for improving conditions for farmers in the project area of the Tihama
Development Authority in Hodeidah Province of Yemen. The method and the
design employed in conducting this study are described in this chapter. This chapter
includes a description of the type of research, the target population and sample
selection, and the site of the study area. Also, the data collection instrument is
described in terms of its construction, validity, translation, and field testing as well
as the procedures and methods employed for data analysis.

This study followed a survey research methodology. It was based on a
structured interview and a questionnaire which were considered to be the most
appropriate for the purpose of this study. The survey method of research is an
established strategy that offers many advantages. According to Babbie (1983),
"Survey research is probably the best method available to the social scientist
interested in collecting origional data for describing a population too large to
observe directly. Surveys are excellent vehicles for measuring attitudes and

orientations in a large population" (p. 209).

 

 

 

45

Researeh Pppulation and Site
This study was conducted in the Tihama Development Authority (TDA) in

Hodeidah Province of Tihama Region in Yemen between October and December
1989. The Tihama region was selected for the study because the training and visit
(T & V) system of agricultural extension was first adopted in the TDA project area.
This project area was selected because it was the major agricultural area of Yemen
and it was also representative of the coastal plain region. Further, the Tihama
Development Authority, the pioneer agicultural development authority in Yemen,
had been in operation for several years. Also, the T & V System was also adopted
in the region four years prior to the study.

The main target groups for this study were: (a) contact farmers; (b)
agricultural extension workers; and (c) agricultural extension officers, subject-matter
specialists, and research personnel, who were working in the Tihama Development
Authority in Hodeidah Province, Tihama Region. The project was selected because
its approach was unique, its location was representative of the coastal plain region,
and it had been in operation for several years. Figure 3.1 shows the location of the

project area (TDA area) and the site of this study.

Research Hypotheses

After reviewing literature on perceptions of contact farmers and extension
workers on the adoption of the T & V System of agricultural extension, a decision
was made to state the research hypotheses. Several considerations led to this
decision. Most of the research work done in this area in East Asia and East Africa

is often concerned with a particular component of the T & V System. Such studies

 

l-.

 

 

46

5-P\

wl

Figure 3.1:

 

\ (

Map of Yemen Showing the Research Site.

 

 

u.

 

 

47

on the T & V System most often deal with the visit or training sessions and related

activities.

This study considered the two different components of the T & V System and

the related agricultural extension activities.

The following hypotheses were tested:

1.

Contact farmers differ in their perceptions according to their age class
regarding the selected aspects of visit sessions of the T & V System.
Contact farmers differ in their perceptions according to their
educational attainment regarding the selected aspects of the visit
sessions of the T & V System.

Extension workers differ in their perceptions according to their age
class regarding the selected aspects of the training sessions of the
T & V System.

Extension workers differ in their perceptions according to their
educational attainment regarding the selected aspects of the training
sessions of the T & V System.

Extension workers differ in their perceptions according to their
employment status regarding the selected aspects of the T & V System.
Contact farmers and extension workers differ in their perceptions
about the following aspects of the T & V System:

a. extension teaching methods used;

b. technology/subject-matter emphasized by the extension service;

and

 

 

48

c. overall performance of the T & V System.

7. There are relationships between the overall performance of the T & V
System and the contact farmers’ age, family size, farm size, income,
and frequency of extension contact.

8. There are relationships between the overall performance of the T & V
System and the extension workers’ age, experience in extension work,
experience in present job, number of promotions, number of job

transfers, and employment status.

Sample Selection

Selecting an ideal sample of any population is not an easy task (Borg and
Gall, 1979). Two major factors identified as important steps in sample selection are:
(1) the population’s representation by the selected sample, and (2) the sample size
(Borg and Gall, 1979, Scheafer, et a1, 1979).

To ensure that both of these criteria were met, the researcher utilized
different sampling techniques for different populations. A list of all the contact
farmers (CFs), extension workers (EWs), subject-matter specialists (SMSs), and
research personnel working in the Tihama Region of Yemen were collected from the
Tihama Development Authority Office. This list was used to locate the field staff.

A list of contact farmers was obtained from the TDA office which served as
the basis for preparing the sampling frame. In order to draw a representative
sample of contact farmers, the list of all contact farmers according to the agricultural
centers was prepared. The list was then reviewed with extension officers in each

agricultural center. It was noted that many contact farmers had been recently

 

 

49

selected by the extension workers and had very little experience to provide good
judgement on the operation of the T & V System in the region. Similarly, several
contact farmers were identified as "inactive". Based on these facts, contact farmers
who either had less than one cropping season experience as CFs or who were
"inactive" were deleted from the list and a final sampling frame was prepared. The
list was prepared for each agricultural center. A 50 percent sample was drawn from
each agricultural center in the southern, central, and northern districts of the TDA
region following a systematic sampling technique with a random start. Table 3.1
provides the distribution of contact farmer sample in the TDA region. Altogether
144 contact farmers, 45 percent of the total in the TDA region, were interviewed.
In the case of extension workers, subject-matter specialists, extension officers
and research personnel, data were collected from those whose were available in their
respective offices during the field data collection. From this population 59 (100
percent) of the extension workers and 34 (95 percent) of the agricultural extension
officers, SMS, and the research personnel working in the TDA region were contacted
and they completed the questionnaire designed for this study.
Table 3.1: Total Number of Contact Farmers, Extension Workers, and Extension

Officers, Subject-Matter Specialists and Research Personnel Considered
for this Study.

Region Contact Extension AEO, SMS, and
Farmers WQrkers Researehers
Southern district 48 24 12
Central district 56 18 12
Northern district 40 17 10

Total 144 59 34

 

 

 

50

Th Research Ins m n

The construction of the questionnaire was largely influenced by several
researchers who conducted similar studies, especially those of FAO (1989),
Mapachika (1989), Samarasinghe (1985) and Al-Shereeda (1984). Based on the
review of literature and experience of this researcher, three different instruments for
each different population considered for this study were prepared. These were then
presented to some fellow international graduate students in the Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University (MSU) who had
experience working under similar systems of agricultural extension in their respective
countries for comments and suggestions.

The instrument was revised and presented to the researcher’s doctoral
committee at MSU and the head of the Agricultural Economics and Extension
Department of Sana’a University in Yemen. Based on the comments received,
necessary revisions and corrections on the instruments were made.

The interview schedule for contact farmers, questionnaires for the extension
workers, and extension officers, SMSs, and researchers were developed before
leaving for Yemen. The instrument was first prepared in English and then translated
into the Arabic language. The Arabic version of the instrument was reviewed by an
interpreter at Sana’a University in Yemen, and assessed for appropriateness and
clarity.

About ten copies of each questionnaire were printed and made ready for the
field test. The researcher traveled to Hodeidah Province and administered the

instruments to a sample group of ten (10) contact farmers, six (6) extension workers,

 

 

 

51

and six (6) agricultural extension officers, subject-matter specialists, and research
personnel at the TDA project area. This field test sample was not part of the study’s
sample. The field test was conducted to determine if the questionnaire items were
yielding the kind of information needed. Post hoc reliability tests using Cronbacks '
alpha resulted in coefficients of .72 for the visit aspect ratings and .65 for the
training aspect and ratings. Some minor differences in the interpretations of the
meaning of items were reported in the questionnaires designed for extension
workers, SMSs, and research personnel. Based on the data from direct responses
to the instruments as well as written and verbal comments by the respondents, some
items were interpreted as intended.

The findings of the field test of the contact farmers instrument indicated that
many CF did not possess strong feelings on either end of the Likert type scale
sections of the instrument. Contact farmers either agreed, disagreed or had no
opinion on several statements. Considering these findings of the field test, scaling
of statements only in the contact farmer’s interview schedule were changed to a
three-point scale from a five-point Likert type scale.

The field test of the instruments established reasonable validity regarding the
construction of the question items. On the basis of the field test results, some minor
revisions in wording and in item arrangement were made to the instrument. Overall,
the results of the responses indicated that the questionnaire items were clear. The
average length of time it took to complete the questionnaire was 30 minutes for

extension workers, and 20 minutes for SMSs and research personnel. The interview

52

period for contact farmers was about 45 minutes. The questions were finally revised

and printed.

The research instruments consisted of two main parts. The first part of all

instruments was designed mainly to obtained demographic characteristics of

respondents. The second part of the instruments was devoted to identifying and

assessing the perceptions of the contact farmers, extension workers, extension

officers, SMSs, and research personnel on selected aspects of training and visit

components of the T & V System (see Appendix B, C, and D).

Statements in the extension workers questionnaire were weighted numerically

on the following scale (a five-point Likert type scale) on part two:

1
2
3
4
5

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly disagree

For the purposes of this study, the researcher divided the selected aspects of

the T & V system into two sub-groups, these sub-groups were as follows:

A.

In the Contact farmers interview schedule:

1.
2.
3.
4.

perceptions related to technical content of visit session;
perceptions related to extension teaching methods used;
perceptions related to visits of extension workers; and

perceptions related to the contact farmers’ performance.

In the extension workers questionnaire:

 

 

 

53

1. perceptions about technical content of the training sessions;
2. perceptions about the subject-matter delivery by specialists; and
3. perceptions about extension workers’ visits to contact farmers.

This division was based on the Training and Visit system’s two main
components: (a) the training of extension workers and visits of extension workers to
the farmers; and (b) the role played by the contact farmers and the extension

workers. Therefore, statements in each section of the instrument were different.

Data Collection Procedures

After securing approval from the United States Agency for International
Development, the College of Agriculture in Yemen, and Michigan State University,
the researcher traveled to Yemen in September 1989 to collect the data for this
study. Data for this study were collected between October and December, 1989.

Upon arriving in Yemen, the investigator discussed the purpose of the study
with the head of Agricultural Economics and Extension of Sana’a University. The
researcher traveled to Hodeidah and met with the president of the TDA and other
TDA personnel in Yemen. The purpose of these meetings were to secure their
assistance, discuss the purpose of the research and its objectives, as well as the
content of the questionnaires; and to explain the questionnaire; study the T & V
operations program; explain the research plan and the time frame; and discuss the
training of the enumerators.

The researcher went back to Sana’a and shared the information with the head
of Agricultural Economics and Extension Department for further discussion of the

research. The second step was the translation of the questionnaire by the

 

 

r-w

54

investigator and the head of the department and review by an interpreter at Sana’a
University in Yemen. The instruments were field tested and some modifications and
revisions were made based on the results of the field test.

About 190 copies of the contact farmer questionnaire, 85 copies of the
extension worker’s questionnaire, and 40 Arabic copies of the subject-matter
specialists and research personnel questionnaires were printed and made available
to start the research. The researcher traveled to Hodeidah to start collecting the

data in early October, 1989.

Seleetion and Training of Interviewers

In order to obtain information from the contact farmers, the researcher
selected four extension personnel in the three districts of the TDA project, and
personally trained them to serve as a interviewers. Selection criteria of the
interviewers were: (a) should be intermediate school graduate and above; (b) should
be residents in Tihama region; and (c) should speak the same language, share
similar culture and have a farming background.

As suggested by Dwyer (1976) and Spool (1978), three full days of training
for the interviewers were planned to cover the following activities:

A. General orientation regarding the nature of work/research

1. Objectives of the study.
2. Importance of the data.
3. Need for quality data.
B. Orientation to technique of interviewing/data processing:

1. How to build rapport with respondents.

 

 

DIV.

55

2. How to state questions.
3. How to record the responses on the interview schedule.
4. How to cross-check questions items, if any.
5. How to keep special notes.
C. Practicing data gathering among non-sample contact farmers.

Actual data collection was administered and closely supervised by the
researcher. The researcher accompanied the interviewers during the interview
sessions in the village. He carefully observed the customs of the region and with the
trained assistants began each interview with the customary salutations of respect.
The interview team (the investigator and his assistant) adhered to the following
procedures recommended by Wiersma (1969), Madga (1953), and Salltize, et. al.,
(1959) as cited by Shibah (1982) and Mpachike (1989).

1. The interview will be carried on a business like manner, friendly, but

avoiding excessive informality.

2. The questionnaire will be organized prior to each interview, and the
recording of data will be as inconspicuous as possible, so as not to
arouse suspicions.

3. Complete privacy will be granted to each interview, with the assurance
that all answers will be confidential and his name will not have been
used.

All questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letter. The cover letter

explained the purpose of the research, and its importance and urged the participants

to respond to all items as accurately and truthfully as possible. It also assured the

 

56

anonymity of respondents. Furthermore, the latter informed the respondents that

their participation was on a voluntary basis and that confidentiality of responses

would be maintained. The researcher, with the help of the interviewers, interviewed

144 contact farmers randomly selected from 22 agricultural centers in the TDA

region. To ensure internal reliability the researcher and his assistants observed the

following procedures in interviewing each farmer, as suggested by Shibah ( 1982) and

cited by Mpachika (1989):

1.

A uniform description of the purpose of the interview was explained
to each interviewee.

The scale of instrumentation was verbally explained.

The competencies (statements) were read to each interviewee, and
the responses were chosen by the respondent and recorded by the
interviewer/researcher on the questionnaire.

In order to emphasize equality, the investigator and his assistants
conducted each interview seated on the same ground next to the
farmers.

All the interviews were conducted on the farmers’ own property, in
order not only to record the answers, but also to observe conditions.
Each interview began with open conversation, which allowed the

farmer to express himself freely, with no restraint.

After this initial conversation, the farmer was told the purpose and value of the

study in a manner that indicated his responses were important and to remove any

suspicion that he might feel.

57

The researcher and his assistants were careful in maintaining the validity of
the interview by presenting the questions in exactly the same wording and in the
same order to all participants. Interview schedules were completed by 144 contact
farmers. From the proposed sample of CFs, the response rate was 100 percent.

The researcher personally distributed the extension workers’ survey forms in
the extension centers or in the headquarters during their regular meeting with their
supervisors. The researcher discussed all of the items in the survey forms and
answered almost all of the questions. Fifty-nine survey forms were completed and
returned to the researcher. All extension workers who were working in the region
completed the questions.

The third questionnaire was designed to identify and asses the perceptions of
the agricultural extension officers (AEOs), subject-matter specialists (SMSs), and
the research personnel regarding the nature of linkage established by the T & V
system with research and other supported services and institutions. The
questionnaire was distributed to all AEOs, SMSs, and researchers in the TDA
region. The researcher himself contacted each individual in this category of
respondents, explained the purpose of the study, and requested them to complete the
questionnaire. Altogether, 34 questionnaires were completed which was a 95 percent

response rate from this group of respondents.

Treatment of Data

Data obtained were processed and analyzed through the computer facilities

at Michigan State University using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS/PC+) program.

 

 

 

 

58

Descriptive statistics were computed for most variables. Overall means and
standard deviations were determined for each statement. Pertaining to perceptions
about the T & V System, analysis of variance (F- value) was utilized to determine
the magnitude of differences among the respondents’ perceptions of statements
regarding the selected aspects of the T & V system using Scheffe’ test at .05 to
locate differences. T-test was also used to measure the magnitude of differences of
the contact farmers and extension workers regarding the level of perceived
appropriateness of technology/subject-matter provided by the T & V system. The
frequency of extension method utilized, the appropriateness of adopted
technology/subject-matter, and the overall performance of the T & V system.
Finally, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was determined to assess
the relationship of selected socio-economic characteristics (i.e., age, education, and
employment status) with each statement to assess overall performance of the T &

V system.

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The first section of this chapter describes the respondents who participated
in the study in terms of their demographic characteristics, i.e., gender, age,
educational attainment, type of training, marital status, family size, number of wives,
length of service, employment status, knowledge of extension workers, and
knowledge about assignment of extension worker.

The second section reports the findings regarding contact farmers’ perceptions
concerning the quality of visit sessions under the T & V System. The third section
presents the findings about extension workers’ perceptions concerning the training
sessions organized by agricultural extension officers and subject-matter specialists
(SMS), and the extent of adequacy of resource support to facilitate extension work.
The fourth section compares the perceptions of contact farmers and extension
workers concerning extension method utilized.

The fifth section reports the findings regarding the comparisons of contact
farmers and extension workers’ perceptions concerning technology/subject-matter
emphasized by the extension services. The sixth section reports the findings on the
relationships between respondents’ perceptions of the overall performance of the T
& V System and certain demographic variables.

Finally, the seventh section discusses the perceptions of agricultural extension

officers (AEOs), subject-matter specialists (SMSs) and research agency personnel

 

 

60

regarding the linkage issues established by the T & V System between and among

different institutions of agricultural development in the region.

Characteristics of the Sample
EMF—arm

A total of 144 contact farmers (CFs) were interviewed for this study. All
respondents were male. Nearly 100 percent (99.3 percent) of them were married
and 6.3 percent of those who reported being married indicated having two wives
(Table 4.1).

The age of the CFs ranged from 16 to 85 years with a mean of 44 years and
a standard deviation of 12 years. About three-fifths (59 percent) of the respondents
indicated their age between 31-50 years. The relatively higher age range of the
respondents indicates that farmers in the TDA region enter into farming early in
their life and they remain active in farming until they get very old. The findings also
indicated that a majority of them (62.5 percent) were illiterate, about one-third (31.3
percent) of the respondents indicated that they could read and write and only a few

(3.4 percent) indicated having an elementary level education (Table 4.1).

 

 

61

Table 4.1: Characteristics of Contact Farmers

Characteristics Contact Farmers
Number Pereent

Gender:

Male 144 100.0

Female 0 0.0
Marital Status:

Married 143 99.3

Single 1 .7
Age (years):

30 or less 22 15.3

31 to 40 51 35.4

41 to 50 34 23.6

51 or over 37 25.7
Educational Attainment:

None 90 62.5

Read and Write 45 31.3

Elementary 5 3.4

Secondary or Higher 4 2.8
Family Size:

6 or less 55 38.2

7 to 12 66 45.8

13 to 18 14 9.7

19 and above 8 5.6
Number of Wives:

One 133 92.4

Two 2 1.4

Three or more 1 .7
Length of Service as a Contact Farmer (Months):

3 or less 28 19.4

6 to 12 months 86 59.7

13 to 18 months 26 18.1

19 months and above 4 2.8
Knowledge about Assignment of Extension Worker:

Yes 143 99.3

No 1 .7
Knowledge of Extension Worker’s Name and Agency:

Yes 139 95.9

No 3 2.1

No response 3 2.1
Whether Contact Farmers Could Recognize Extension Worker:

Yes 5 3.4

No 139 96.6
Contact with TDA Extension Worker in the past year:

Yes 132 91.0

No 8 5.5

No response 4 3.9

 

 

 

62

On the average, contact farmers had less than one year (i.e., 10 months) of
experience. Almost all (99.3 percent) respondents indicated knowledge about the
assignment of an extension worker in their villages. Findings also indicated that
more than nine-tenths (95.9 percent) of contact farmers knew the extension workers
by name and the agency to which he belonged. Ninety-one percent indicated having

contact with the extension worker during the past year.

ExtensiQn WQrkers

Data presented in Table 4.2 show the characteristics of the extension workers.
A total of 59 extension workers completed the questionnaire designed for this
population. They were all male and about three-fourths (74.6 percent) were
married. The age of the extension workers ranged from 20 to 40 years, with a mean
of 28.8 years and a standard deviation of five years. Findings also indicated that a
great majority of the respondents (72.9 percent) were young adults, i.e. 30 years old
or less. About one-fourth (25.4 percent) were 31-40 years old.

A majority of the extension workers had a secondary school or higher level
of education and about one-third (33.9 percent) indicated having an intermediate
level (4-7 years of schooling) of education. Only a few (6.8 percent) had an
elementary level education.

Formal education may provide only a partial picture about the educational
background of the extension workers; therefore, an attempt was made to gather
information about other pre-service and /or in-service training of extension workers.
Findings indicated that about one-half (45.8 percent) had participated in more than

one type of training program.

 

63

The findings also indicated that almost four-fifths (81.4 percent) of the
extension workers had attended pre-service training and 68.1 percent indicated that
they had received in-service training. Of the respondents, 84.8 percent indicated that
they had participated in on-the-job training, and 52.6 percent of the respondents
received training abroad.

The work experience or the length of service of the extension worker ranged
from 6-15 years with a mean of 8.7 years and a standard deviation of 4.5 years. The
experience of extension workers in their current jobs in the TDA region ranged from
6-24 months with a mean of 18 months and a standard deviation of 6 months.
About half (50.9 percent) of the extension workers indicated working in the TDA
region for more than 20 months and only a few (6.8 percent) indicated less than ten
months of experience in this region.

About half (49.1 percent) of the respondents indicated that they had not
received any promotion in their job; whereas, almost another half (45.8 percent)
received promotion at least once and a few (5.1 percent) more than three times.

Transfer of extension personnel is a frequent phenomena in many countries.
Field staff are transferred for various reasons and such transfers may have some
impact on the employee’s perception about his own job and performance. In general,
the promotion of an employee in the extension organization may require him to
move from one place to another. The findings of this study showed that more than
three-fourths (75.1 percent) were transferred in their job three or more than three
times, and about one-fourth (23.7 percent) indicated that they had not been

transferred. When asked about their employment status, an overwhelming majority

 

64

(84.7 percent) indicated that they were permanently employed. Almost nine-tenths
(89.8 percent) were Yemeni nationals and the rest were foreigners working on a
contractual basis.

fitepsign foicers, Subjeet-Matter Speeialists
and Research Persgnnel

Data presented in Table 4.3 show the demographic characteristics of the
agricultural extension officers, subject-matter specialists, and the research agency
personnel who responded to this study. Altogether, 34 persons from this group
responded to this study.

Of the respondents, more than two-thirds (73.5 percent) reported that they
were permanently employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. An equal number (73.5
percent) indicated an experience of 1-4 years. More than four fifths (83.3 percent)
employed had a BS. degree in agriculture and the majority had received special
training related to their job. Over nine-tenths (94.1 percent) of the respondents
were Yemen National and only a few (5.9 percent) were foreigners working on a

temporary or contractual basis.

 

 

65

Table 4.2: Characteristics of the Extension Workers (N=59)

hrctri ics Fr en Pr nt

Age:

30 or less 43 72.9

31 to 40 15 25.4

41 and more 1 1.7
Gender:

Male 59 100.0

Female 0 0.0
Marital Status

Married 44 74.6

Single 15 25.4
Educational Attainment:

Primary/Elementary 4 6.8

Intermediate 20 33.9

Secondary and Others 35 59.3
Length of Experience in Years:

3 or less 7 11.9

4 to 6 20 33.9

7 to 10 5 8.5

11 to 14 21 35.7

15 and more 6 10.2
Type of Training:

Pre-service 48 81.4

In-service 57 68.1

On-the-job 50 84.8

Training abroad 31 52.6
Experience in Current Job (months):

9 or less 4 6.8

10 to 19 25 42.4

20 or more 30 50.9
Number of Promotions Received:

None 29 49.1

3 or less 27 45.8

4 and more 3 5.1
Numbers of Times Transferred:

None 14 23.7

3 or less 30 50.8

4 to 6 12 20.2

7 and more 2 5.1
Employment Status:

Permanent 50 84.7

Temporary 4 6.8

Contract 5 8.5
Yemen Nationality:

Yes 53 89.8

No 6 10.2

 

 

v- --.

66

Table 4.3: Characteristics of Subject-Matter Specialists, Extension Officers and
Research Personnel (N =34)

Characteristics Frequency of Mention
Number Pereent
Experience in Years
1 to 4 years 25 73.5
5 to 10 years 6 17.6
11 to 15 years 3 8.8
Employment Status:
Permanent 25 73.5
Temporary 4 11.8
Contract 4 11.8
Others 1 2.9
Highest Education Attainment:
Less than High School 2 5.9
High school 4 11.8
BS. degree and above 28 83.3
Received Special Training
Related to Your Present Job:
Yes 23 67.6
No 11 32.4
Yemen National:
Yes 32 94.1
No 2 5.9

Perceptions of Contact Farmers of the
Trainin and Vi it s em

Training and Visit sessions were the two main components of the T & V
System. This section focuses on the perceptions of contact farmers about visit
sessions made by the extension workers. Contact farmers were the selected farmers
whom the village extension worker visited on each fortnight. They also met with
other farmers who were willing and interested in attending his / her visits and seeking
his/her advice. These farmers were exposed to improved agricultural technology

that was relevant to their resources and skills. Generally speaking, each contact

 

 

67

farmer provided a piece of his land for demonstration purposes. Moreover, each
contact farmer was responsible for contacting and helping certain farm families in
his area to improve agricultural technology. These farmers were expected to serve
as pioneers, leaders, facilitators, learners, educators, and risk takers. They were also
assigned purely educational responsibilities. Therefore, for the purpose of this study,
it was important to assess and identify their perceptions about the visit component

of the T & V System, especially on the following aspects:

1. The technical content of the visit sessions.
2. The extension worker delivery methods;
3 Proposed technology transfer by extension workers; and

4. Their performance as contact farmers.

Contact farmers were asked to indicate the extent to which they
agreed/disagreed with selected statements. The responses were coded on a three-
point scale, i.e., 1 = Disagree, 2 = undecided, and 3 = Agree. Means and standard
deviations for statements related to the above aspects were computed for contact

farmers.

Perceptions of Contaet Farmers Regarding
the Teehnical Content of the Visit Sessions

The overall mean rating for statements relating to technical content of the
visit sessions ranged from a high of 2.9 to a low of 1.48. Overall, contact farmers
rated the statement, "Extension worker usually shares information on new technology
with farmers of this area“ very high with an overall mean of 2.9. The lowest score

was recorded on the statement, "Extension worker usually discusses new technology

 

 

68

which are suitable only to large farmers," (mean = 1.48). The lowest score on the
negatively stated statement suggests that the T & V System serves equally to all
farmers irrespective of their farm size. Further, findings are indicative to the fact
that the technical content emphasized by the system are supported by local
availability of inputs (Table 4.4).

The analysis of variance showed significant differences of opinion among
farmers of different educational attainment on the statements: "Extension worker
usually shares information on new technology for farmers of this area" (overall mean
2.9), "Information/technologies shared by extension workers are very useful to me"
(mean, 2.9), "Extension workers always attempt to help us find solutions to our farm
problem" (mean 2.8), and "Extension worker shares information in time according
to cropping season" (overall mean 2.8). Contact farmers with high school or higher
level of education rated these statements lower (i.e., 2.33, 1.68, 1.33, and 1.67
respectively) (See Appendix F, Table 1). The F-values for these statements was
found 3.16, 14.38, 28.06, and 7.39, respectively and the difference was noted at p =
<.05 level for all the above statements. Although the lower values of the standard
deviations indicate that the respondents were uniform in their perceptions, the F-
values were statistically significant and the differences tend to have practical
implications. The analysis of variance showed no significant differences on contact

farmers’ perceptions based on the age class (Appendix F, Table 1).

 

69

Table 4.4: Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions of Contact Farmers
on Selected Aspects of the Training and Visit System.

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

Extension worker usually shares

information on new technology

for farmers of this area. 2.9 1 .34

Information/technologies shared
by extension workers are very

useful to me. 2.9 2 .38

Extension workers always attempt
to help us find solutions to
our farm problems. 2.8 3 .38

Extension worker’s recommendation

of new technology usually requires

inputs that are simply not

available in our area. 1.8 5 .85

Extension worker shares

information in time according to

cropping season. 2.8 4 .47
Extension worker usually discusses

new technologies which are suitable
only to large farmers. 1.5 6 .71

Mean was computed for each statement by assigning a scores of 3, 2, 1
for agree, undecided (or neutral), and disagree, respectively.
Scores were reversed for negative statements.

Perceptions of Contact Farmers about
Teaching Methods Used

Table 4.5 presents the perceptions of contact farmers regarding the extension
teaching methods followed by extension workers in the Tihama region. The overall
mean ratings of the contact farmers’ perceptions on each of the six statements

indicated that contact farmers felt positive about the kinds of teaching methods used

 

 

70

indicated that contact farmers felt positive about the kinds of teaching methods used
by the extension workers. As shown in Table 4.5, means for the six statements

ranged from 1.8 to 2.9. Respondents gave the highest rating to the statements,

"I

"Extension worker in my village is easy to understand, ”The extension worker helps

me understand how to follow improved farm practices," and rated the lowest to the
statement, "The extension worker brings enough bulletins and / or printed material".
A majority of contact farmers tended to possess a positive perception on other

related statements.

Table 4.5: Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions of Contact Partners
Regarding Extension Teaching Methods Used.

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

Extension worker in my village

is easy to understand. 2.9 1 .37

The extension worker usually
visits at my home but he has no
time to visit my actual farm. 2.6 3 .71

The extension worker usually comes
with some samples or materials
for demonstration. 2.1 5 .89

The extension worker helps me
understand how to follow

improved farm practices. 2.9 2 .45
The extension worker brings enough
bulletins/printed materials. 1.8 7 .81

The bulletins/materials provided
are helpful to understand new
farming practices. 2.0 6 .76

I usually have a hard time
following what the extension
worker talks about. 2.6 4 .78

M6311 was computed for each statement 5y aSSIgmng a score OT 3, 2, and I for agree,

undecided (neutral), and disagree, respectively.

 

71

Although there was generally a positive rating on the use of extension
teaching methods, it is worth mentioning that a considerable number of contact
farmers either disagreed or responded neutral on the effective use of samples,
demonstration materials, and printed matters in the region. Table 1 Appendix F
shows that contact farmers differ significantly as to their age and educational level
in their perceptions about the use of extension teaching methods. A significant
difference was noted on the statement, "Extension worker in my village is easy to
understand," (mean of 2.92), (F-value 2.77 and 8.31, p < .05 respectively) by age class
and education. In other words, contact farmers between 31-40 years of age who had
high school or higher level of education rated the statement significantly lower than
others. Another significant difference noted among contact farmers with high school
or higher level of education was regarding the statement "Extension worker helps me
understand how to follow improved farm practices," (mean=2.9), (F—value = 7.81,

p <.05) (see Appendix F, Table 1).

Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding the
Quality of Extension Workers’ Visits

One of the major managerial objectives emphasized by the T & V System is
that the extension workers (EWs) have to carry out regularly scheduled fortnightly
visits to each contact farmer and his followers. The researcher attempted to identify
the quality of the visits of the extension worker to draw information on whether the
visits were regular, relevant, problem-solving oriented, and timely. Contact farmers
were asked to report their perceptions to seven statements concerning the extension

workers’ frequency of visits practiced under the T & V System in Tihama region.

 

a...

72

Means and standard deviations for each of the statements were computed on a

three-point scale and the findings are presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Means and Standard Deviations for Perceptions of Contact Farmers
Regarding the Quality of Extension Workers’ Visit

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

Extension worker visits me
regularly once every two weeks. 2.2 4 .96

I know in advance when and at
what time the extension agent

is going to visit me. 1.9 5 .91

I am usually very busy when the
extension worker visits me. 1.8 6 .84

Extension worker has sufficient

time to spend with me during most
of his visits. 2.7 1 .67

It is very difficult to contact
the extension worker during time
other than the scheduled visits. 1.6 7 .73
I communicate the problems and
concerns of my fellow farmers to
the extension worker. 2.7 2 .65
I discuss the solutions with my
fellow farmers during the
extension worker’s visit. 2.6 3 .64
Mean was computed for each statement by assigning 3, 2, and 1 for agree,
undecided(neutral), and disagree, respectively.
The mean rating for the perceptions on the statements concerning the quality

ranged from 1.6 to 2.7. Respondents indicated a higher score to the statement

"Extension worker has sufficient time to spend with me during most of his visits,"

 

73

(overall mean = 2.72, rank =1) followed by the statement "Extension worker encour-
ages me to communicate the problems and concerns of my fellow farmers" (mean =
2.67, rank =2). The lower mean score was computed for the statement "It is difficult
to contact the extension worker during times other than the scheduled visits," (mean
= 1.64, rank =7). A mean score of less than 2 on three statements clearly indicated
a less than satisfactory perceptions regarding the quality of the visit sessions.

Analysis of variance (Appendix F, Table 1) shows that contact farmers did not
differ significantly according to age class on their perceptions regarding the
statements pertaining to the quality of the extension worker’s visit. However, more
educated contact farmers differed significantly from less educated respondents at the
.05 level on the statement "Extension worker visits me regularly once in every two
weeks (mean = 1.0 and 1.33, respectively; F—value = 4.93, p <.05) (Appendix F,
Table 1).

Qantact Farmers’ Perceptions Regarding their Own Performance

Respondents were also requested to rate their perceptions as to how well they
understood and performed their role as a contact farmer. Using the same three-
point scale, the mean and standard deviations were computed for all eight statements
related to the contact farmers’ perceptions of their own role. F-value results for
differences in perception of respondents regarding all of the statements were
computed. Table 4.7 shows the mean ratings and the standard deviations for contact
farmers’ perceptions for the eight statements. The mean ratings of these responses
ranged from 2.43 to 2.97. The high mean score on all statements is an indication

that contact farmer knew their expected roles and felt that they were performing

 

74

these roles at the satisfactorily level. The higher scores on statements such as "If
I have any problem/concerns about my own farming, I usually visit my local exten-
sion workers," (mean = 2.97, rank = 1), and "I will continue to serve as ‘contact
farmer’ of this community because it is beneficial to me as well as my villagers,"
(mean = 2.9, rank = 2) were again a clear indication that most of the contact
farmers were open to learn and have a highly positive feelings about their roles.
Table 4.7: Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions of Contact Farmers
Regarding Their Performance as Contact Farmers
Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

I know that I am the "contact farmer"
in this community and I know what I

am expected to do. 2.6 4 .70
I know what I supposed to do as a

contact farmer. 2.6 5 .71
I helped my neighboring farmers even

before I became a "contact farmer". 2.8 3 .58

My neighboring farmers usually come

to see me if they have any problems

or if they need any suggestions

regarding improved farming practices. 2.6 6 .61

If I have any problems or concerns
about my own farming, I usually
visit my local extension workers. 2.9 1 .18

As compared to last year, more of

my neig boring farmers came to see

me this year to ask about their farm

related problems/concerns. 2.5 7 .76

As com ared to last year, my neigh-
boring armers asked me questions
more frequently this year. 2.4 8 .79

I will continue to serve as a "Contact

Farmer" of this communi because it

is beneficial to me as wel as

my villagers. 2.9 2 .35

Mean was computed for each statement 5y assrgmng 3, 2, and I 101' agree,

undecided(neutral), and disagree, respectively.

 

 

75

Respondents were less in agreement with the statement "As compared to last
year, my neighboring farmers asked me more frequent questions this year," (mean=
2.43, rank = 7). A low standard deviations also indicate that the respondents were
uniform in their perceptions. However, respondents with higher level of education
differed from others in terms of their perceptions regarding the statements, "If I
have any problems or concerns about my own farming, I usually visit my local
extension workers" (mean of 2.97), and "I will continue to serve as a "contact farmer"
of this community because it is beneficial to me as well as my villagers," (mean of
2.89; F-value = 3.47 and 8.48 respectively, p = <.05) (Appendix F, Table 1).
Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 show the percentages given to each of the statements

of the selected aspects of the visit sessions by respondents surveyed.

Pereeptions pf Extension Workers

Systematic training is another basic concept embodied in the T & V System
of agricultural extension. The main idea behind the systematic (fortnight) training
is to develop adequate professional knowledge and skill in extension workers about
the specific technology/recommendation to be made during forthcoming fortnight
visits to the farmers. Extension workers in principle, are trained by the agricultural
extension officer, subject-matter specialists, and the research personnel in their
respective areas of specialization. Each extension worker is responsible for
teaching/communicating to a group of contact farmers and their followers in the
villages under him. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, it was important to
identify and determine their perceptions on the training session with respect to the

following aspects:

 

76

Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding the Visit Sessions

1 00 Agree

Undecided

80 Degree

60

Percentage

40

20

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
Technical content statements

Figure 4.1: Respondents’ Perceptions of the Technical Content Statements.

 

 

 

 

77

Undecided
Disagree

I Agree

Z

Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding the Visut Sessions

11 1213

10

Extension teaching methods statements

w

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Extension Teaching Methods

Statements.

Figure 4.2:

 

omawcmonod

 

 

 

 

78

I Agree
Undecided
Disagree

Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding the Visit Sessions

omaacooamm

7/////////z

. C. r //z/.r//gynavflyuuwWVMVVMfl/rlfiwm .

 

18 1.9 20

17

16
Quality of extension workers' frequent visits statements

14

ty of Extension Workers’

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Quali

Frequent Visits.

Figure 4.3:

 

 

 

79

I Agree
Undecided
Disagree

Perceptions of Contact Farmers Regarding the Visit Sessions

I/////////fl// xvi/2%

H1???
,.,.,1,/_//¢/v7//,_/M/m m

.Zufiaf,,fl._.z,e¢¢_..,././ M7. 2 vlwnfll/fi/é

 

omficooamd

2452627%

212223

Contact farmers performance statements

Respondents’ Perceptions to the Contact Farmers’ Performance

Statements.

Figure 4.4:

 

 

 

80

1. The technical content of the training sessions.

2. The sub-matter delivery by specialists.

3. The extension worker’s visit to contact farmers.

4. Proposed technology transfer by the extension worker.

The research findings related to these statements are presented in this section
of this chapter. All extension workers in the region were requested to rate their
perceptions concerning the systematic training sessions with respect to the aspects
mentioned above on a five point Likert type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =
Strongly Agree). Means and standard deviations for all statements of this section
were computed and the analysis was based on these aggregate mean ratings of the
extension workers’ perceptions on each statement.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether or
not there exists a significant difference in respondents’ perceptions regarding the
selected aspects of the T & V System as to some selected demographic variables like

age class, educational attainment, employment status, etc (see Appendix F, Table 2).

Perception of Extension Workers Regarding the
Technical Content of the Training Systems

Table 4.8 shows the means and standard deviations for the six technical
content statements for all respondents (N = 59). Findings indicated that the means
for the technical content statements of the training session ranged from 3.15 to 4.27.
The strongest agreement was with the statement, "These training opportunities are

really necessary to update my communication skills" (means 4.3, rank = 3), and

 

 

81

"Fortnightly training sessions are very helpful to update my knowledge and skills

required to solve farmers problems" (mean = 4.24, rank = 1).

Table 4.8: Means and Standard Deviations for Perceptions of the Extension
Workers Regarding the Technical Content of the Training Sessions

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

Fortnightly training sessions

are very helpful to update my

knowledge and skills required
to solve armers problems. 4.2 1 .76

Fortnightly training session

provide us opportuni to

discuss about farmers problems

and concerns. 4.2 2 .94

Content of fortnightly training
sessions is usually more
theoretical than practical. 3.1 6 .83

The training sessions have
improved my technical knowledge
as well as communication skills. 4.1 4 .84

Training sessions provide relevant

technical information in time

according to the production cycle. 4.1 5 .89
These training opportunities are

really necessary to update my
communication skills. 4.2 3 1.3

Mean was computed for each statements 5y aSSIgning a score of 5, 4, 3, 2, and l for
Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecrded, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, respectively.

A higher value on the statement, "Content of fortnightly training sessions is
usually more theoretical than practical" (mean = 3.15, rank = 6), suggests the need

for improvement in order to make the training sessions more practical.

 

 

82

The F-values for the differences in perceptions among the extension workers
according to age class, education, employment status, and training are given in
Appendix F, Table 2. Findings showed that extension workers differ statistically by
age class, education, and employment status in their perceptions regarding the
statement: "Content of fortnightly training sessions is usually more theoretical than
practical" (F = 4.41, 4.16, and 3.57 respectively, p <.05).

Extension workers between ages 31-40 years and those with less education
perceived the training sessions less beneficial in updating their technical knowledge
and skills. Similarly, extension workers working under contractual arrangements
perceived the training sessions less beneficial than permanent and / or temporarily job
holders. To put it simply, the content of the training sessions tended to be less
meaningful for younger extension workers with lower levels of education and for
employees under contractual employment arrangements. This could be due to the
fact that the content of the training sessions might have been too technical for young

but less educated workers and for foreign nationals.

Perception of Extension Workers Regarding the
Subject-Matter Delivepy by the Specialists

Table 4.9 shows the means and standard deviations for the six subject-matter
delivery related statements. The means for the six statements ranged from 2.54 to
4.02. Respondents gave the highest rating to the statement, "The subject-matter
specialist helps us understand how to follow improved farm practices" (mean 4.02,
rank = 1). Respondent gave a low rating to the statement, "I usually have a hard

time following what subject-matter specialist talks about" (mean = 2.54, rank = 6).

 

 

83

The F-values were insignificant in all subject-matter delivery by the specialist
indicating that there were no practical differences between the extension workers
with respect to their selected demographic characteristics and their perceptions of
each of these statements. The lower standard deviation value indicated that the

respondents were uniform in their perceptions.

Table 4.9: Means and Standard Deviations For Perception of Extension Workers
Regarding Subject Matter Delivery by the Specialists

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

The subject-matter specialist has

very good communication skills. 3.6 3 .9

The fortnightly training sessions
are held regularly. 2.9 5 1.1

The subject-matter specialist
usually comes with some samples
or materials for demonstration. 3.5 4 1.2

The Subject-Matter specialist
helps us understand how to follow
improved farm practices. 4.0 1 1.0

We are given enough farm

bulletins/printed materials

which are helpful to understand

new farming practices. 3.8 2 1.1

I usually have a hard time
following what the subject-matter
specialist talks about. 2.5 6 1.0

Mean was computed for each statements by assigning a score of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 for
Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, respectively.

 

84

Perceptions of Extension Werkers Regarding
their Visits tQ Qantaet Farmers

Extension workers were requested to give their perceptions on the regular
field visit to contact farmers with respect to the time, contact, communication,
number, and interests of the contact farmers. Table 4.10 shows the percentage
distribution, overall mean, and standard deviation of scores pertaining to the
statement listed under this aspect. The overall mean ratings for statements relating
to visit to contact farmers ranged from a low of 2.7 to a high of 4.3. The highest
agreement was with the statement, "I visit all my contact farmers regularly once
every two weeks," followed by "I know in advanced when and at what time I am
going to visit contact farmers in my command area" (mean = 4.3 and 4.2
respectively). Extension workers also strongly agreed that they usually spend
sufficient time with their contact farmers during the fortnightly visit (mean = 3.9).

Respondents were much less in agreement with the statement, "Many contact
farmers cannot be contacted and many of them are not interested about improved
farming," (mean = 2.75). With regard to the latter statement, the analysis of
variance shows that extension workers of 31-40 years of age rated this statement low
(mean of 2.7) and differed significantly from others. Extension workers with only
elementary education differed from others in terms of their perceptions to the
statements, "I visit all my ‘contact farmers’ regularly once in every two weeks" (mean
of 2.25) (f—value = 5.87, p <.05) (see Appendix F, Table 2). With regard to the
statement, "contact farmers are usually very busy when I visit them" (overall mean
of 4.1), extension workers working under contract basis rated it significantly lower

than others (F-value = 3.28, p < .05). It could be attributed to the fact that extension

85

workers on working under a contract basis are usually foreign nationals and their

motivation for hard work might be different from those of the Yemeni workers.

Table 4.10: Means and Standard Deviations For Perceptions of the Extension
Workers Regarding their Visit to the Contact Farmer.

Statements Mean Rank S.D.
(N = 144)

I visit all my "contact farmers"

regularly once in every two weeks. 4.3 1 .75

I know in advance when and at what
time I am going to visit contact
farmers in my command area. 4.2 2 .80

Contact farmers are usually very
busy when I visit them. 4.1 3 .85

I usually spend sufficient time
with my contact farmers during
most of my visits. 3.9 4 1.10

It is very difficult to contact the
contact farmer during the time
other than the scheduled visits. 3.6 5 1.10

I frequently communicate the

problems and the concerns of

my contact farmers to the

subject-matter specialists. 3.3 6 1.20

I have too many contact farmers to
visit them every fortnight. 3.1 7 1.20

Many contact farmers can not be
contacted and many of them are not
interested about improved farming. 2.7 8 .85

Mean was computed for each statements 5y assrgmng a score of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 for
Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, respectively.

 

 

86

A e ua f R sour r F cilita Ext nsi n W rk

A wide variety of support resources like technical support, linkages with
related agencies, availability of technical materials, audio-visual equipment and
materials, transportation, and office supplies etc. are to facilitate effective extension
work. These resources are usually available in many agricultural extension programs.
One of the objectives of this study was to determine the perceptions of extension
workers regarding the extent of adequacy and use of such resources in the extension
centers in the study area. It has been recognized that adequate resource support and
supervision of lower-level extension workers are two areas which are related to the
satisfactory performance of extension workers. One of the major principles of the
T & V System is that it skillfully combines human resources and resources support.

The extension workers were requested to rate the extent of resource support
adequacy to facilitate their tasks. The degree of adequacy was rated on a scale
ranging from non-existent to very adequate. Means and standard deviations for all
items of this part were computed. The findings are shown in Table 4.11. Based on
the mean values, all respondents ranked the items, "Technical supervision/
backstopping of extension work by SMSs" and linkage between extension and
research as moderately adequate resource support (mean score was 3.3 for both
items). Table 4.11 shows that the least adequate resource support perceived by the
extension workers was "Frequency of administrative and/or supervisory visits and

support" (mean = 1.6).

 

 

87

Table 4.11: Perceptions of Extension Workers Regarding the Extent of Adequacy
of Resources Support to Facilitate Extension Work.

Mean (X)
Statements N= 9 D
Technical supervision/back-stopping of
extension work by subject-matter specialist 3.3 1.4
Working relation between ag. research
station and extension service-linkage
with research 3.3 1.4
Supply of technical information materials 2.9 1.4
Supply of audio-visual materials 2.7 1.4
Transportation/mobility support 2.6 1.6
Provision of office facilities and supplies 2.3 1.7

Frequency of administrative and/
or supervisory visits and support 1.6 1.6

Ratlng Scale: A scale ranging from Non-Exrstmg to Very Adequate (0 to 55 was

used to compute the mean.

The mean scores for the statements, "Supply of technical information",
"transportation mobility support," "Working relation between agricultural research
station and extension service-linkage with research," "Provision of office facilities and
supplies," were found to be 2.9, 2.6, 3.3, and 2.3 respectively. The relatively small
standard deviation values indicated that the respondents were uniform in their
perceptions regarding the degree of adequacy of the resource support to facilitate
extension services. The mean score of less than 3 on a majority of the statements
reflected a feeling of inadequacy of support resources to carry out extension work
effectively in the TDA region. Figures 4.5-4.11 show the percentages given to each
of the seven statements by the respondents surveyed to each level of adequacy and

resources support in the extension system.

 

88

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support
11 . 89%

Statement A

 

Scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

figure 4.5: Level of Adequacy of Technical Supervision.

 

 

 

89

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support

   

31. 06%

scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

Figure 4.6: Level of Adequacy of Working Relations.

 

 

 

90

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support

12.11% 8'65%

 

32.76%

Sacle ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

Figure 4.7: Level of Adequacy of Technical Information.

 

 

 

91

Level of Adequacyof Resource Support
5.19%

12 . 11%

          
 

%

1/ M

A" "

29 . 30%
Scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

Figure 4.8: Level of Adequacy of Audio-Visual Supply.

 

 

 

 

92

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support
11. 89%

Q [1?”

. .. ’2
’ mote?

a- ;

 

Scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

Figure 4.9: Level of Adequacy of Transportation.

 

 

 

 

93

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support
10 .20%

     

16.90%

22.00% ///4 ,

Scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 -5)

Figure 4.10: Level of Adequacy of Office Facilities.

 

 

94

Level of Adequacy of Resource Support

6.80%

Statement G

 

Scale ranging from non-existant to very adequate (levels 0 - 5)

Figure 4.11: Level of Adequacy of Administration and Supervisory Visits.

 

 

95

Perceptions of Contact Farmers and Extension Workers About
the Use of Extension Teaching Methods

A variety of educational extension methods are usually utilized by the contact
farmers and extension workers to receive and convey information and messages. A
variety of extension teaching methods were available for use by the extension
educator. Although the effectiveness of a particular teaching method primarily
depends on the context in which it is used, using a variety of methods or
combination of methods is believed to be better than using any single method. The
study sought to ascertain the extension teaching methods utilized by the extension
workers.

Contact farmers and extension workers were requested to indicate the
frequency of use of each method in their respective villages. Means and standard
deviations for 14 extension teaching methods were grouped under three major
categories: (a) individual methods; (b) group methods; and (c) use of special
materials and media. For each extension teaching method, a mean score was
computed for contact farmers and extension workers.

A t-test for the differences between means was used to determine whether
contact farmers differed from extension workers on their perceptions on the extent
of use of each method. Farm visits and field demonstration were the most
frequently used methods as indicated by the contact farmers and extension workers.
Field days and group meetings were also indicated as frequently utilized teaching
methods by the extension workers.

As shown in Table 4.12, under individual methods of extension teaching, the

farm visit and office call were perceived as the most frequently used method by both

 

96

the extension workers and contact farmers with mean scores of 2.44 and 2.81,
respectively. While the office call, with mean score of 1.70 and 1.88, was viewed by
contact farmers and extension workers as the second most important method of the
individual methods. A t-value of 3.41 (p <.05) indicated a significant difference
between the contact farmers and extension workers on their perceptions regarding
the extent of use of the farm visit method. No significant difference on perception
was noted in the extent of use of other individual methods.

Under the group methods, contact farmers and extension workers perceived
the field demonstration as the most frequently utilized extension educational method
(means of 2.38 and 2.47, respectively). There was a significant difference in the
perceptions of contact farmers and extension workers regarding the group meeting
extension method (t-value = 2.78, p < .05). In addition, extension workers perceived
the field days under the group methods as more frequently used than contact farmers
(Table 4.12).

Contact farmers viewed tours/trips under the group method as the'least
frequently utilized method with a mean score of 1.42. It was followed by farmer
classes (mean = 1.72) and field days (mean = 1.99). No other significant differences
in perception were recorded between the contact farmers and the extension workers

with respect to the use of group extension teaching methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

Table 4.12: Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmer and Extension Worker
about Extension Methods Utilized.

Extension Methods Contact Extension t-value 2-Tail
Farmer (X) Worker (X) Prob.
(n=144) (N=59)
Individual Methods:
- Farm Visit 2.44 2.81 -3.41' .001
- Office Call 1.70 1.88 -1.70 .090
- Letter/Notes 1.16 1.22 - .76 .450
Group Methods:
- Farmers Classes 1.72 1.39 1.94 .055
- Field Demonstration 2.38 2.47 - .86 .390
- Field Days 1.99 2.22 1.96 .052
- Group Meetings 1.96 2.28 -2.78' .006
- Tours/Trips 1.42 1.62 -1.71 .089
Adoption of Materials and Media:
- Life Specimens 1.61 1.63 - .23 .821
- Samples 1.61 1.63 - .14 .886
- Leaflets 1.21 1.51 -3.15° .002
- Bulletins 1.26 1.88 -7.18' .000
- Poster/Charts 1.29 1.59 -3.39' .001
- Filmstrips 1.26 1.45 -1.80 .075
- Slides 1.20 1.49 -2.86° .005

 

Significant at 0.05 level
Rating Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, and 3 = Always

Table 4.12 also shows the mean scores of the respondents’ perceptions
regarding the adoption of materials and media. It was surprising to note that both
groups of respondents rated the item quite low against all of the seven items listed
(all received a mean rating below 2.0). The mean score rating for the extent of use
of the teaching aids perceived by contact farmers and the extension workers ranged

from 1.20 to 1.61 and 1.45 to 1.88 respectively. Both groups of respondents

 

 

PH

98

perceived these supportive teaching aids as being "less frequently used" in their
areas.

There were statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the
respondents at the .05 level for the use of leaflets, bulletins, posters/charts and
slides. T-values were recorded as -3.15, -7.18, -3.39, and -2.86, respectively. It
should be noted here that on all items pertaining to the extent of use of extension
teaching methods, except for farmer classes, extension workers rated each method
as more frequently used than by contact farmers. This could be reflected by the fact
that the mean score for each method was higher for extension worker than that for
the contact farmers (Table 4.12). The significant difference between farmers and
extension workers in many items under the use of materials and media may provide
several practical implications. Either, extension workers are not utilizing these
materials/media with the contact farmers or the contact farmers are revealing the

reality. Figures show the distribution of responses according to the adequacy of each

statement.

P rce tions A Te hnolo ub'e t-M tter

Emphasized by the Extensiun Servree

Reasons for the emphasis on technology/subject-matter transfer in the T &
V System are obvious. The adoption of recommended technology and information
for increased farm productivity is a major objective of the T & V System.

Contact farmers (CFs) and extension workers (EWs) were requested to
estimate the appropriate level of each improved technology/subject-matter

introduced by the extension program on a three-point scale, ranging from 1 = not

 

 

 

99

appropriate to 3 = highly appropriate. Means and standard deviations for each
improved technology/subject-matter area were computed for both respondents’
groups. An attempt was made to determine whether significant differences existed
in the respondents’ perceptions, regarding the improved technology/subject-matter
emphasized by the extension service. Table 16 presents the means and observed t-
values and corresponding significance levels for the 25 items of the improved
technology/subject-matter as perceived by contact farmers and extension workers.
The results of the analysis indicated that a significant difference existed
between the respondents’ perceptions on several subject-matter areas. The data in
Table 4.13 reveals that the hybrid maize variety "Tihama 1" was perceived as more
appropriate by extension workers than the contact farmers for the TDA region.
There was also a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents
regarding the appropriateness of the improved sorghum variety "Daber".
Extension workers perceived that the "Debar" variety of improved sorghum
was more appropriate to the area; whereas, the contact farmers perceived it as less
appropriate. The data on Table 16 also revealed that there were eight other
significant mean differences between the contact farmers and extension workers as
follows:
Approved Fruit Varieties:

Banana (t-value = - 4.98, p = 00)

Limes (t-value = - 3.79, p = 00)
Papayas (t-value = - 3.60, p = 00)
Mango (t-value = -2.68, p = .00)
Guavas (t-value = -2.63, p = .009)

Dates (t-value = -2.57, p = .007)

 

100

Table 4.13: Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmers and Extension Workers
about Technology/Subject-Matter Emphasized by the Extension Service

Extension Methods Contact Extension t-value 2-Tail
Farmer (X) Worker (X) Prob.
n = 144 N = 9
Hybrid maize-Tihama 1 1.880 2.186 -2.30' .022
Hybrid maize-Tihama 2 1.656 1.727 - .54 .587
Improved Sorghum Varieties

Dabher 1.336 1.607 -2.61 .010

Cabon 1.393 1.964 -4.80’ .000

Insecticides 2.467 2.456 .12 .902

Fungicides 2.395 2.321 .83 .406
Fruit Varieties

Banana 1.977 2.597 -4.98' .000

Limes 1.805 2.228 -3.79' .000

Papaya 1.906 2.346 -3.60 .000

Mango 1.847 2.182 -2.68' .008

Guava 1.648 1.982 -2.63' .009

Dates 1.634 1.964 -2.57° .007

Watermelon 2.341 2.509 -1.39 .165

Honeymelon 2.226 2.368 -1.15 .253

Tomatoes 2.518 2.679 -1.64 .102

PVC 2.577 2.535 .49 .625
Land Leveling Equipment 2.573 2.644 - .88 .380
Plowing & Plowing

Equipment 2.527 2.500 .34 .736
Ditch Digging Equipment 2.532 2.444 1.03 .305
Cotton:

Alala SJ2 1.397 1.961 -4.91' .000

Akala 310 1.832 2.151 -2.41° .017
Barely:

Tihama- 1 2.229 2.623 -2.58' .011
Fertilizers 2.440 2.492 - .62 .537
Institutional Credit 1.613 2.070 -4.14' .000
Institutional Market

Services 1.774 2.000 -2.06' .041

 

Significant at 0.05 level.
Rating Scale: 1 = Not Appropriate, 2 = Appropriate, 3 = Highly Appropriate.

 

101

Approved Cotton Varieties:

Akala SJ2 (t-value
Akala 310 (t-value

-4.91, p
-2.41, p

.00)
.017)

Improved Barely Variety:

Tihama-1 (t-value = -2.58, p = .011)

Institutional Credit Services: (t-value = 4.14, p = .000)

Institutional Marketing Services (t-value = -2.06, p = .41)

It should be noted that in all the above cases, the mean scores based on the
perceptions of extension workers were generally greater than the mean scores of the
contact farmers. In other words, extension workers perceived the above improved
technology/subject-matter more appropriate for the area than the contact farmers.

No statistically significant differences were observed at .05 level for any other

improve technology/subject-matter emphasized by the extension service.

Pereeptions of Contact Farmers and Extension Wurkers
Regarding the Overall Perfgrmanee Qf T & V System

Contact farmers and extension workers were asked to rate their perceptions
on the overall performance of the T & V System in Tihama region of Yemen
considering the following factors: (a) usefulness of extension content; (b) delivery
methods by extension agents; (c) adoption of new practices by farmers; and ((1)
Overall satisfaction of farmers with extension services. For the expected
performance, a four-point type scale ranging from 1 = poor to 4 = excellent was
used and means and standard deviations were computed to determine whether or
not there existed statistically significant differences between the mean scores in

respondents’ perceptions. T-tests were computed for each factor.

 

 

102

Table 4.14: Comparison of Perceptions of Contact Farmers and Extension Workers
about the performance of the T & V System.

Extension Methods Contact Extension t-value 2-Tail
Farmer (X) Worker (X) Prob.
(n=144) (N=52)
Usefulness of Extension
Content 3.13 3.22 -.86 .392
(.78) .62
Delivery Methods by
Extension Agents 3.11 2.98 1.27 .205
(.63) (.71)
Adoption of New Practices
by Farmers 2.39 2.45 -.53 .595
(.81) (.77) -.53
Satisfaction of Farmers
with Extension Service 2.87 2.64 2.05’ .042
(.76) (.64)

‘ Significant at 0.05 level
Rating Scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Very Good, 4 = Excellent.
Values in parenthesis are the standard deviations.

Table 4.14 shows the means, standard deviations, and the observed t-value
and its corresponding significance level for the four performance factors. As shown
in Table 17 there was a statistically significant difference at .05 level in the
perceptions of the contact farmers and extension workers regarding the general
satisfaction of farmers with extension service (t-value = 2.05, P <.05). For this
factor, the mean for extension workers was significantly less than the mean for the

contact farmers (2.64 and 2.87, respectively), but the difference in mean value for

this factor was .23, which may denote its non-significance in practical application.

 

103

However, a statistically significant difference indicated that the extension worker felt
better about the general satisfaction of the farmers with extension service.

There were no statistically significant differences between the perceptions of
the contact farmers and extension workers regarding the first three factors of
performance. The standard deviations denote that contact farmers and extension
workers were equally uniform in responding to the first three factors. However, the
usefulness of content of the T & V System was ranked first by the contact farmers
and extension workers (means 3.13 and 3.22, respectively), it was perceived as useful
or very good in extension educational programs of the T & V System. In the other
two factors of performance (delivery methods by extension agents and adoption of
new practice by farmers), the mean score for the first was 3.11 and for the latter
were 2.98, 2.39, and 2.45 for the contact farmers and extension workers respectively.

To examine the relationships between selected demographic variables of
contact farmers and extension workers and their perceptions toward the performance
of the T & V System, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used.
Selected variables concerning the characteristics of the contact farmers (i.e., age,
family size, farm size, irrigated farm size, income, and length of service as CFs) were
used to examine if any association existed between these variables and the

respondent’s perception on four major factors under overall performance.

 

104

Table 4.15: Results of Pearson Correlation Among Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Contact Farmers and the Overall Performance of the

T & V System
Characteristics Content Methods Adoption Satisfaction
of T & V Used of New with Extension
S stem Practic rvi e

Age .1138 .1798 -.0883 .1198
Family Size .0947 .0270 -.0287 .0180
Farm Size -.0377 -.0536 -.0450 -.0818
Irrigated Farm

Size -.0750 -.1656 -.0880 -.0316
Income -.0346 -.1127 -.0258 -.0217
Frequency of

Extension Contact .1494 .1170 .1932 .3099'

‘Significant at .05, N=144.

Table 4.15 shows the results on the correlation coefficient. The findings
showed that only the length of service as a contact farmer had a statistically
significant association on the general satisfaction of farmers with the extension
service. The positive values of the correlation coefficient indicated that contact
farmers’ satisfaction with the extension services increases as their experience working
as the contact farmer increases. Although some trend of correlations were observed
between other variables, the values were not statistically significant.

In the case of the extension workers, an attempt was made to find out
whether there existed an association between selected demographic characteristics
and the perception of overall performance of the T & V System. No significant

associations were observed between the variables.

 

105

Table 4.16: Results of Pearson Correlation Between Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Extension Workers and of Overall Performance of

T & V System.
Characteristics Content Methods Adoption Satisfaction
of T & V Used of New with Extension
System Praetices Serviee

Age -.04 -.02 -.05 -.00
Experience in

Extension Work -.00 -.14 -.01 -.06
Experience in

Present Job .09 -.27 .19 .29
Number of Promotions -.25 -.04 .08 .01
Number of Job

Transfers -.01 .16 -.02 -.02
Employment Status .01 -.01 .13 .21

'Significant at .05, N=59.

Perception of Agricultural Extensien Cfficersl
Subject-Matter Specialists, and
Researeh Ageney Personnel

In addition to good supervision and coordination, strengthening of the linkage
between research and other support services and institutions is an important
principle in the T & V System. Agricultural extension officers (AEOs), subject-
matter specialists, (SMSs) and research agency personnel (RAPs) were requested to
give their perceptions/views regarding some issues related to the nature of
coordination and linkages established and/ or developed by the T & V System with

research and other supported services (i.e., credit, marketing). For this purpose, a

 

 

-_~‘

106

set of open-ended as well as closed questions were designed to collect information
necessary to obtain the views and opinions of a group of SMSs, AEOs and RAPs.
Table 4.17 shows the distribution of respondents’ perceptions regarding the
existence of "joint extension and research committee at the project level". The data
show that the majority of respondents indicated that there was an extension and
research council/committee and about one-fourth of them (23.5 percent) reported
negatively on the same statement. When asked about the frequency of meetings
of these committees, almost one-half (44.1 percent) did not respond to the question
and about one-fourth (26.5 percent) indicated two meetings a year.
Table 4.17: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample Regarding the

Existence of an Extension and Research Committee, at the Project
Level (N = 34)

ZifiEstiEnthem Freguena %

At the project level, is there a joint

extension and research council/committee?

Yes 26 76.5
No 8 23.5

Number of times research
council/committee meeting per year

Once 3 8.8
Twice 9 26.5
Three or more times 7 20.6
No response 15 44.1

Findings also indicated that the research council /committee at the project level

meets about twice a year to discuss the research-extension issues. Almost half of the

respondents (44.1 percent) gave no response regarding the frequency of these

 

107

meetings. It could be attributed to the fact that many extension officers and subject-
matter specialists were working at the field level and were unaware of the meetings.
Similarly research personnel who are not the member of such committees might not
know the frequency of these meetings.

Table 4.18 shows the responses of the respondents concerning their views
regarding the questions, "Do researchers and extension workers go to the field
together with farmers to identify and analyze farmers problems/ technical problems?,"
and the number of times this is done per year. About three-fifths (61.8 percent) of
the respondents indicated negatively on the above question and the rest (38.2
percent) indicated that researchers and extension workers go to the field with
farmers. Of those who reported visiting farmers’ fields with extension workers, the
majority indicated that such visits were made one-three times a year.

Table 4.18: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample Regarding the

Researchers and Extension Workers’ Joint Visit to the Field with the
Farmer and the Number of Times Per Year (n = 34).

uestion Item Fre uen 0

Do researcher and extension workers
go to the field together with farmers
to identify and analyze farmers’

problems/technical problems?
Yes 13 38.2

No 21 61.8

If yes, number of times is this
done per year?

1-3 times 6 46.2
4 times or more 3 23.1
No response 4 30.7

 

 

108

Table 4.19 shows the distribution of the respondents’ perceptions regarding
whether the researchers / research representatives join with extension SMS/ extension
workers in deciding and formulating technical recommendations for farmers. The
majority (64.7 percent) of the respondents reported negatively to this statement.
Table 4.19: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample Regarding the

Formulation of Technical Recommendations (n = 34)
ti n I m Fr u It
Do researchers/research representatives
join with extension SMS/extension

workers in deciding and formulating

technical recommendations for farmers?

Yes 12 35.3
No 22 64.7

Table 4.20 shows the distribution of the responses on whether both
researchers/research representatives and extension workers participate in field
demonstrations as a part of their regular tasks. The data indicated that about one-
half (44.1 percent) of the respondents participated in the joint field demonstrations
but a majority of them (52.9 percent) reported that they did not participate. About
three-fifths of the respondents (58.8 percent) also indicated that they did not
participate in field trials jointly organized by research and extension services in the

TDA region.

 

109

Table 4.20: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample Regarding the
Participation of Research Representative(s) and Extension Worker(s)
in Field Demonstrations (N = 34).

i n Item Fr en
Do or did both researchers/research
representatives and extension

workers participate in:

Field Demonstrations

Yes 15 44.1

No 18 52.9

No response 1 2.9
Field Trials

Yes 14 41.2

No 20 58.8
If yes, is this participation on:

Regular 2 5.9

Ad hoc basis 13 38.2

No response 19 55.9

A majority of the respondents reporting these forms of participation indicated
that their participation was more on an ad-hoc basis, while 5.9 percent of them
reported participating on a regular basis.

Table 4.21 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents’
perceptions regarding the question "Do SMSs of the project area visit the research
stations/centers?" About three-fourths (73.5 percent) of the respondents indicated
positively. When asked about what percentage of the SMSs make such visits,
responses varied from 1 to 21 percent or more. In a further follow-up question of
how many times do SMSs visit the research centers, 38.2 percent of the respondents

indicated 3 or less, while 17.6 percent of them reported 4 and more times a year.

 

110

Table 4.21: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample Regarding the
Subject-Matter Specialists’ Visits to the Research Stations, the
Percentage and Times (n=34)

es ion Item Fre u n 0

Do SMSs of the project area

visit the research stations/centers?
Yes 25 73.5
No 9 26.5

If yes, above, what percentage
of the SMSs do this?

1-10 % 6 17.6
11-20 % 3 8.8
21 % and more 7 20.6
Missing 18 53.9

And how many times/year do

SMSs visit research stations/

centers?
3 or less 13 38.2
4 and more 6 17.6
No response 15 44.1

Table 4.22 shows the frequency and percentage of the respondents’
perceptions regarding researchers’ visits to the farmers of the study area with
extension workers. Data show that more than one-third (35.3 percent) of the
respondents indicated "yes" (i.e., researchers visited the farmers of the study area
with the extension workers). Of the respondents who said yes, only about one-sixth
(17.9 percent) indicated that such visits were practiced up to three times a year,
while 2.9 percent of them indicated that these visits were practiced four or more
times a year. About half of the respondents who indicated visiting farmers with

extension workers did not report the frequency of such visits.

 

111

Table 4.22: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Researchers’ Visits to
Farmers of the Study Area with the Extension Worker (N=34)

inlem Fr uen

Do researchers visit the farmers
of the study area with the
extension workers?

Yes 12 35.3
No 23 64.7

If yes, how many times per year
is this practiced?

3 or less times 6 17.6
4 and more times 1 2.9
No response 17 79.4

Table 4.23 shows the frequency and percentage of linkage meetings held with
related agencies and institutions. The majority of the respondents (70.6 percent)
reported that the extension services held meetings with the Cooperative and
Agricultural Credit (CACB). The number of such meetings between extension
service and the CACB reported ranged from one to 15 per year.

Regarding the number of meetings held with Sana’a University, the majority
of the respondents (70.6 percent) indicated no working linkages through regular
meetings were established in the TDA project area. However, 23.6 percent of the
respondents reported the number of meetings held with Sana’a University were

between 1-2, per year.

 

112

Table 4.23: Frequency Distribution of Meetings Held with other Institutions in the
Project Area. (N =34)

u tion Item Fr uen 0

Does the extension service in
the project area hold meetings

with:
CACB:
1 to 15 times 24 70.6
16 or more times 10 29.3
Sana’a University:
No meetings held 24 70.6
Once 4 11.8
Twice 4 11.8
Three times 1 2.9
Yemen Agriculture Marketing
Company:
No meetings held 31 91.2
Few meetings held 3 9.8
Local Development Associations
and Cooperatives
No meetings held 32 94.1
One meeting 2 5.9

The linkages through regular meetings with the Yemen Agriculture Marketing
Company and the extension service was also found to be almost non-existent. The
majority of respondents (91.2 percent) stated that there were no meetings held
between the two organizations in the project area. Similarly, an overwhelming
response (94.1 percent) was noted indicating that there were no meetings with the

local development associations and cooperatives.

 

CHAPTER V
SUMlVIARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to review the objectives of the study and the
research methodology, summarize the major findings, present conclusions, and

make recommendations.

umma f the tud

This study determined the perceptions of contact farmers and extension
workers regarding the effectiveness of the Training and Visit System (T & V) of
agricultural extension as a mean for improving conditions of farmers in the
Tihama region in Yemen. The research was designed to study and explain the
extent to which the training and visit sessions (the two main components of the T
& V System) were practiced in the TDA in extension educational programs in
Yemen as perceived by contact farmers and extension workers/personnel. The
study also investigated the perceptions of agricultural extension officers, subject-
matter specialists, and research agency personnel regarding the extent to which
the T & V System of agricultural extension was able to establish a linkage
between the extension program and other agricultural institutions in the project

area. Specifically, the study was designed to determine the following objectives:

 

 

 

114

To determine the contact farmers’ satisfaction with the materials
(content) and extension information dissemination methods with a

particular focus on:

a. technical content;
b. extension worker delivery; and
c. propose technology transfer by extension workers.

To assess the perceptions of contact farmers regarding the quality of
visits made by the extension workers.
To determine the extension workers’ satisfaction with the training

programs of the T & V System with a particular focus on:

a. technical content;

b. subject-matter specialist delivery (mode of instruction, time,
etc.);

c. extension worker’s visits to contact farmers; and

d. resources to facilitate the work of the extension worker.

To ascertain the extension teaching methods utilized by the
extension workers. (Propose technology transfer from extension
workers to contact farmers.)

To assess the perceptions of extension workers and the contact
farmers about the appropriateness of new technologies proposed in
the area.

To examine the relationship between selected socioeconomic

characteristics (such as age, material status, gender, education, etc.)

 

115

of the extension workers and the contact farmers and their
perceptions toward the performance of the T & V System.

7. To study the nature of linkages established by the T & V System
with research and other supported services and institutions, such as
the College of Agriculture at Sana’a University, input supply, credit

and marketing.

P 1 i n n m 1

The target population of this study was comprised of contact farmers,
extension workers/personnel and agricultural extension officers, subject-matter
specialists, and research agency personnel in the Tihama Development Authority’s
project area in Hodeidah province in the coastal region of Yemen. The Tihama
region was selected for the study because the Training and Visit (T & V) System
of agricultural extension was first adopted in the TDA project area. This project
area was selected because it was the major agricultural area of Yemen and it was
also representative of the coastal plain region. Further, the Tihama Development
Authority, the pioneer agricultural development authority in Yemen, had been in
operation for several years and the T & V System had also been adopted in this
region for five years.

The descriptive method of research using the questionnaire technique, was
utilized in this study. The survey form instruments used were an interview
schedule designed for contact farmers and a questionnaire for extension
workers/personnel. A third questionnaire was designed to collect data from the

agricultural extension officers, subject-matter specialists, and the research agency

 

116

personnel. This last instrument consisted of a set of 15 open-ended and closed
questions grouped into two parts. The first part consisted of a set of questions
designed to collect demographic data, and the second part consisted of eight
question items designed to secure information about the nature of linkages
established by the T & V System with other agricultural
institutions/organizations.

The contact farmers’ interview schedule consisted of two main parts: (a)
demographic information; and (b) perceptions of contact farmers on selected
aspects of the T & V System of agricultural extension. In the second part, the

survey instrument was designed to collect information on seven major variables,

namely:
1. technical content of the visit sessions;
2. extension teaching methods used;
3. visit of extension worker to the contact farmer;
4. performance of contact farmers;
5. frequency of use of extension methods;
6. appropriateness of subject-matter/technology provided; and

7. the overall performance of the T & V System.

Variables 1-4 listed above mainly related to the visit component of the T
& V System. There were 28 related statement under these variables.

The extension worker’s questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part

was designed to gather demographic information about the respondents and their

 

117

perceptions about selected aspects of the T & V System. It was also designed to
collect information on eight major variables as follows:
1. technical center of training sessions;
subject-matter delivery by specialists;
extension workers’ frequency of visit to contact farmers;

subject-matter/technology emphasized by the extension service;

2.
3
4
5. the adequacy of resource support;
6 the frequency of use of extension methods;

7 appropriateness of subject-matter/technology provided; and
8

the overall performance of the T & V System.

The first three variables consisted of 20 statement items related to each
variable. Simple descriptive statistics were computed and utilized in addressing
most of the research objectives. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
used at the .05 significance level to determine whether or not there existed
significant differences in contact farmers’ and extension workers’ perceptions
regarding each variable/statement between and among different levels of some
demographic variables. A t-test was used to determine whether or not there
existed significant mean differences in contact farmers’ and extension workers’
perceptions regarding selected variables. Research hypotheses were tested the .05

level of significant.

Summag of the Hypotheses Tested

Two hypotheses related to the perceptions of contact farmers according to

their age class and educational attainment regarding the selected aspects of the

 

118

visit sessions of the T&V System were tested by employing the one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) with the level of significance set at .05. Similarly, three
hypotheses related to the perceptions of extension workers according to their age
class, educational attainment, and employment status regarding the selected
aspects of the training sessions of the T&V System were tested employing the
ANOVA analysis with the level of significance set at .05.

The sixth hypothesis related to the perceptions of the contact farmers and
extension workers regarding the related extension activities/aspects of the T&V
System (i.e., extension teaching methods, technology/subject-matter emphasized
by the extension service, and overall performance of the T&V System) was
tested by employing the t-test procedure with the level of significance set at .05.
The results of hypotheses are as follows:

1. The difference in perceptions of contact farmers according to their
age class was found to be statistically significant only with respect to
the extension teaching methods of the selected aspects of the visit
sessions of the T&V System.

2. The differences in perceptions of contact farmers according to their
educational attainment were found to be statistically significant with
respect to all aspects of the visit sessions of the T&V System
included in this study.

3. The differences in perceptions of extension workers according to
their age class, educational attainment, and employment status

were found to be statistically significant with respect to the technical

 

119

content and extension workers’ visits to contact farmers of the
training sessions of the T&V System.

The differences in perceptions of the contact farmers and extension
workers were found to be statistically significant regarding the
extension teaching methods used, technology/subject-matter
emphasized by the extension service, and overall performance of

the T&V System.

The statistical package for social science (SPCC-PC+) that was available

for IBM computers was used in the computation and analysis of this research.

Summa f Findin s

gzharacteristics of Respondents
A total of 237 respondents participated in this study. Of the 237

respondents, 144 (60.75 percent) were contact farmers; 34 were agricultural

extension officers, subject-matter specialists, and research agency personnel; and

59 were extension workers.

A. Contact farmers.

1.

Of the 144 contact farmers, 99 percent of them were married and
6.3 percent of the married respondents had two wives.

Almost two-thirds of the respondents were illiterate and about one-
third could only read and write (literate).

Of the total 144 contact farmers, 22 (15.3 percent) were 30 years

old or less, 51 (35.4 percent) were between 31-40 years old, 34 (23.6

 

120

percent) were between 41-50 years old, and 37 (25.7 percent) were
51 years old and over.

Over 40 percent of the respondents had a family size between 7-
12, and 38.5 percent of them had a family size of 6 or less.

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents had six months or more of
experience as a contact farmer. Over 90 percent of the respondents
knew the extension worker assigned to their areas/villages and his

name and agency and had contacted him last year.

Extension Workers

1.
2.

Of the 59 respondents, 74.6 percent were married.

The majority of the respondents in the study (72.9 percent) were
young adults of 30 years old or less. The next largest age group was
between 31-40 years old (25.4 percent).

In terms of education; 59.3 percent of the respondents had earned
secondary school and other degrees, while 33.4 percent of them had
completed an intermediate school.

Almost half (45.8 percent) of the respondents had participated in all
types of training programs (i.e., pre-service, on-the-job, in-service,
and study abroad training). About one-fourth (25.4 percent) of
them had participated in the first three types of training.

One-third of the respondents had 11-14 years of experience as
extension workers, while 35.9 percent of the respondents had 4-6

years of extension experience.

 

 

121

Of the total 59 extension workers, four (6.8 percent) had nine
months or less, 25 (42.4 percent) had between 10-19 months of
experience, and 30 (or 50.9 percent) had 20 months and more
experience in their current jobs.

About half (50.8 percent) of the respondents had not received any
promotion. Nearly 50 percent had transferred in their jobs three
times or less.

Of the respondents, 84.7 percent were permanently employed, and

89.8 percent were Yemen Nationals.

C. Agricultural extension officers, subject-matter specialists, and research

agency personnel.

1.

Almost three-fourths of the respondents had 1-4 years of experience
in their current jobs and 17 percent had between 5-10 years of
experience.

Of the respondents, 71.4 percent were permanently employed and
11.4 percent were temporary employed by their respective agencies.
Of the total 34 respondents (i.e., AEOs, SMSs, and RAPs), two (5.7
percent) had less than a high school degree, four (11.4 percent) had
a high school diploma, 27 (77.4 percent) had a BS. degree in
agriculture and only one (2.9 percent) had a masters degree in

agriculture.

 

122

4. The majority of the respondents at the supervisory level had
received special training related to their job/field. Over 90 percent

were Yemen nationals.

Findings from the Analysis of gggntagt
Earmgrs’ and Extension Workers’ Pgrgeptigns Qn

lteAsetsothrainin nVii m

The findings indicated that contact farmers were generally satisfied with
the technical content of the extension program. The content was perceived as
informative, helpful, timely, relevant, and suitable for their needs. Of all the six
technical content statements, two were perceived by contact farmers as
satisfactorily provided, while other statements were perceived with less
satisfactory response. There were some variations in the perceptions of more
educated farmers regarding the availability of the recommended inputs in their
area, and on the extension workers’ continuous help to find solution to farming
problems.

Regarding the extension teaching methods, contact farmers in the study
area perceived the extension teaching methods utilized by extension workers as
satisfactory teaching methods in terms of clarity, understanding, and diversity.
There was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of contact farmers
with higher educational level regarding the easy understanding of the extension
workers’ presentations and the sufficiency of the printed materials.

With respect to the visit of extension workers to contact farmers, almost all
respondents rated the items relatively lower pertaining to extension workers’ visit.

Respondents with an intermediate educational level expressed significantly lower

 

 

 

123

response on the statement, "Extension worker visits me regularly once every two
weeks". A relatively low score on the statement "I know in advance when and at
what time the extension agent is going to visit me," indicated that many farmers

did not know in advance when and at what time the extension worker was going
to visit them.

Almost all of the contact farmers felt that they were performing well as
contact farmers. Respondents with high school and higher educational levels
expressed significantly less agreement regarding the statements, "If I have any
problems or concerns about my own farming, I usually visit my local extension
workers," and "I will continue to serve as a ‘contact farmer’ for this community,

because it is beneficial to me as well as my villagers."

Perceptions of the Extension Workers
Regarding the Training Sessions
of the T 52 V System

In general, all extension workers indicated much greater agreement (highly
positive responses) concerning the technical content statements of the training
sessions. All extension workers expressed relatively strong agreement that
training opportunities were effective to update their communication skills and
knowledge required to solve farmers’ problems. Respondents within the ages of
31-40, who had an elementary education level, and who were on contractual
employment status expressed significantly less agreement that the training
opportunities were really necessary to update their communication skills.
Extension workers gave relatively low ratings to the fortnightly training content

sessions as usually more theoretical than practical.

 

124

Extension workers in the TDA project area, regardless of age, educational
attainment, and employment status, agreed that the subject-matter delivery by
specialists was satisfactory in terms of communication, provision of samples
and/or materials for demonstration, and applicability.

A relatively low agreement (or response) was indicated by respondents
concerning the statement, "I usually have a hard time following what subject-
matter specialist talks about".

Extension workers gave highly positive responses concerning their visits to
contact farmers. In general, respondents agreed that their visit schedules were set
in advance to each command area, they spent sufficient time with the contact
farmers during most of their visits, communicated contact farmers’ problems and
concerns to subject-matter specialists and visited all their contact farmers
regularly once in every two weeks. Respondents generally disagreed with the
statement, "Many contact farmers cannot be contacted and many of them are not
interested about improved farming."

Respondents with an elementary educational level agreed significantly less
with the statements, "I usually spend sufficient time with my contact farmers
during most of my visit," and "I visit all my ‘contact farmers’ regularly once in
every two weeks." Extension workers within the 31-40 years age group expressed
significantly less agreement that many contact farmers cannot be contacted and
many of them are not interested about improved farming.

Respondents on a contractual employment status expressed significantly

less agreement that contact farmers are usually very busy when they visited them.

 

125

This study included seven resource statements concerning the satisfactory
performance of extension workers. This was done in an attempt to determine the
extent of adequacy of resource support to facilitate extension work. It was found
that of the seven resource statements, four statements: technical supervision/
backstopping of extension work by subject-matter specialist, frequency of
administration and supervisory visits and support, supply of technical information
materials, and transportation/ mobility support were orderly ranked by the
respondents above the overall mean, as adequate resource supports. A relatively
low response was indicated by respondents concerning the adequacy of other
resources support to facilitate extension work (i.e., supply of audio-visual

materials and provision for office supplies, etc).

Findings of the Comparison
of Contact Farmers and Extension

Workers’ Perceptions Regarding
the Extension Methods utilized

1. There were significant differences in the frequency of use for the
respondents’ groups held for the individual, group methods, and materials
and media. Extension workers perceived farm visits under the individual
method as the most frequently used method.

2. Of the individual extension methods, all study respondents groups
considered the farm visits method as most frequently used.

3. When comparing the respondents’ perceptions on the frequency of use of

the group extension method, both respondent groups reported highly

 

126

positive response concerning the field demonstration method of the group
extension methods.

When considering the frequency of use and adoption of the materials and
media teaching aids, there were significant differences noted between the
contact farmers and extension workers on four out of seven teaching aids
which were leaflets, bulletins, posters/charts, and slides. Extension
workers perceived media aids as more frequently used; whereas, the
contact farmers perceived them as less appropriate.

In general, extension worker expressed more frequent use of all types of

extension teaching methods than the contact farmers.

Findings of Comparison of Contact
Farmers and Extension Workers

Regarding Technology[Subject-Matter

Tr nsf r Em h ize b th Ext nsi 11 Service

1.

There were significant differences in perceptions of contact farmers and
extension workers on 13 out of 25 technology/subject-matter items.

When considering the grain crops, both respondent groups were
significantly different in their perceptions to the hybrid maize Tihama 1,
and Improved sorghum Cebon. Extension workers perceived that the
"Daber" variety of sorghum was more appropriate to the area; whereas, the
contact farmers perceived it as less appropriate.

There were significant differences in perceptions of contact farmers and
extension workers on the appropriateness of all fruits crops (i.e., banana,

limes, papayas, mango, etc.). Extension workers perceived that banana,

 

 

 

127

limes, papayas, mango, guavas, and dates fruit varieties were more
appropriate to the area; whereas, contact farmers perceived them as less
appropriate.

There were significant differences between both respondent groups on the
two cotton variables (i.e., Akala SJ2 and Akala 310).

When considering the appropriateness of supportive institutional services,
significant differences were noted in the respondents’ perceptions regarding
the credit and marketing institutional services. Extension workers
perceived that the credit and marking institutional services as more
appropriate to the area; whereas, the contact farmers perceived them as
less appropriate.

In general, extension worker expressed more positive feelings regarding the

level of appropriateness of technology/ subject-matter areas addressed by the

T&V system than the contact farmers.

Findings of Comparison

of Contact Farmers and Extension

Workers Regarding the Overall

Performance of the Training and Visit System

1.

There were significant differences in the contact farmers’ and extension
workers’ perceptions on one out of four overall performance factors listed
in this study. In terms of general satisfaction, contact farmers expressed a
relatively higher response than the extension workers.

When comparing the rating of four factors of the overall performance,

there was only one significant difference in the perceptions of contact

 

128

farmers and extension workers. The significant difference was reported in
both respondent groups’ perceptions regarding the general satisfaction of
farmers with extension service.

Length of service as a contact farmer had a statistically significant
relationship to the general satisfaction of contact farmers with extension
service. No other statistically significant relationships were noted.
Statistically, no relationships were noted between the selected demographic
variables of the extension worker and the four factors of performance of

the T & V System.

onclusions

Technical content of the visit sessions were useful, relevant, and problem-

solving oriented.

Contact farmers were somewhat dissatisfied with the extension worker’s
recommendations of new technology which requires inputs that are simple
and not available in their areas.

Contact farmers were somewhat dissatisfied with the extension worker’s
use of extension teaching methods and the lack of supportive teaching aids
(i.e., samples and printed materials).

Extension workers spent sufficient time with contact farmers during most

of their visits and contact farmers can contact the extension workers during

times other than the scheduled visits.

 

10.

11.

12.

129

Frequent visits by extension workers to contact farmers enhanced the
opportunity to develop close relationships between farmers and extension
agents.

Frequent visits by extension workers to contact farmers were not regularly
scheduled. Contact farmers were not visited regularly on a fortnightly
basis and they did not know in advance when and at what time the
extension worker was going to visit them.

Contact farmers and their fellow farmers were somewhat less actively
involved in deciding which crops to select and/or plant in their
demonstration fields.

Contact farmers were involved in discussing and communicating the
problems and concerns of their fellow farmers during the extension
workers’ visits.

Contact farmers were positive concerning their performance as contact
farmers. They reported that they knew what was expected of them.

In general, contact farmers were satisfied with their roles and were willing
to continue to serve as "contact farmers."

Extension workers were satisfied with the technical content of the training
sessions under the T & V System in the Tihama region.

Extension workers expressed relatively strong agreement that training
opportunities were effective to update their communication skills and

knowledge required to help solve the farmers’ problems.

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

130

Extension workers between 30—40 years of age, those who had an
elementary level of education, and those employed on a contractual basis
expressed less satisfaction regarding the training opportunities to update
their communication skills.

Extension workers were pleased with the effectiveness and timeliness of
technical information brought to the contact farmers and their fellow

farmers.

Extension workers were somewhat dissatisfied with some of the contact
farmers’ participation and performance in field activities.

Extension workers with an elementary level of education did not cover all
contact farmers and also indicated spending less time with them.
Extension workers of 31-40 years of age perceived that many contact
farmers could not be contacted and many of them were not interested in
improved farming.

Extension workers were satisfied with the extent of adequacy of resource
support of technical supervisory, backstopping of extension work by
subject-matter specialist, frequency of administrative and supervisory visits
and support, supply of technical information and materials, and
transportation/mobility support to facilitate extension work.

Extension workers were generally less satisfied with the adequacy of
resource support regarding the working relationship between the

agricultural research station and the extension service, the supply of audio-

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

131

visual materials, and the provisions for office supplies to facilitate
extension work.

Most agricultural information received by contact farmers was through
farm visits followed by field demonstration methods.

Leaflets, bulletins, posters/charts, and slide shows were frequently used
teaching aids.

Contact farmers and extension workers differed in their perceptions
regarding the extent of use of various teaching methods and the adoption
of materials and media.

Contact farmers and extension workers differed in their perceptions
regarding the level of appropriateness of technology/subject-matter being
emphasized by the T & V System. Extension workers felt that the subject-
matter proposed by the extension service was more appropriate to other
farmers in the area than the contact farmers.

Contact farmers expressed more satisfaction with the extension service
than with the extension workers. The length of service as a contact farmer
tended to be positively associated with the general satisfaction of the
performance of the extension service.

There tended to be a weak linkage between the extension service and the

other related agricultural development institutions and agencies.

 

 

 

132

W

This study was designed to determine the perceptions of contact farmers

and extension workers/personnel concerning the effectiveness of the T & V

System as a means for improved conditions for farmers. Analysis of the

responses of all respondents revealed several suggestions which might strengthen

the effectiveness of the T & V System in terms of visits to contact farmers and

the training of extension workers. Following is a list of recommendations drawn

from this study:

1.

Contact farmers and extension workers should be involved in determining
technical content to be stressed in the extension program. Involving
extension workers, contact farmers, and their fellow farmers in extension
programming will identify relevant technical content based on local
problems and opportunities, and also invite participation in implementing
the extension program.

Newly selected contact farmers should receive further training about the
extension program objectives, their role, and participation to improve their
practical skills and performance.

Involve extension workers in determining the content and format of regular
training sessions given to them by the subject-matter specialists. Use of a
variety of extension teaching methods and materials should also be
emphasized in these training sessions.

A high school level of education, preferably in agriculture, should be

considered as a minimum entry-level qualification for the extension

 

 

 

10.

133

worker. The technical training at the high school level tended to be
positively related with their performance as an extension worker. Regular
in-service training opportunities should be continued.

Both the extension workers and contact farmers should be trained and
encouraged to use a variety of extension teaching methods and materials.
Maintain regular fortnightly visits to contact farmers by the extension
worker through proper supervisory visits.

Adequate transport facilities and office supplies should be provided for the
extension workers in order to facilitate their work.

There is a need to establish and strengthen the linkages between
agricultural research and extension service. AEOs, SMSs, and researchers
should be encouraged to have a regular dialogue and joint visits to the
farmers field.

Linkages of extension services with other related institutions and agencies
should also be strengthened. Representatives of these agencies should
hold frequent meetings to plan and implement relevant programs based on
the needs of the farmers of the TDA region.

The College of Agriculture at Sana’a University of Yemen should
effectively contribute to the operation of the T & V System of agricultural
extension in the Tihama region in particular, and to the improvement of

the extension program in general in Yemen.

 

134

Soggestioos for Foflher Researeh

This study was conducted within the boundaries of the Tihama Coastal
Plain Region of Yemen and the results may not be generalizable to other
parts/regions of the country. Thus, similar research could be conducted in other
regions so that a national policy on agricultural extension could be derived.
Identification of extension workers’ training needs to improve their technical
competence and the training needs of the farmers could also help in formulating
the long-term extension strategy for the region. Finally, this study was not
designed to answer all questions related to the T & V System of agricultural
extension in the TDA region. This could, however, serve as the basis for further

studies in the subject.

 

 

   

  
  

    
   

  
     

U5 ..
m Exknfinn '...'. ..
“I“ a;air:.'r.- _ . .

{gi- . 1‘QIFU‘1inc-Iam:‘:cq ffl fl

fi'hvmxrr

APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER

 

 

 

 

135

This study is being conducted by Tarek K. M. Agbari, a Ph.D. candidate in
Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, U.S.A. He is conducting research on "perceptions of contact farmers
and extension workers/personnel regarding the training and visit (T & V) system
of agricultural extension in the Hodeidah Province, Yemen".

Information obtained from this study will be helpful in improving extension
programs for farmers and extension workers in the future.

Your participation in completing this interview schedule/questionnaire is
strictly voluntary. You may decide not to participate at all, or not to answer
certain questions without any penalty. This survey will take about 30-45 minutes
to complete. Your name is not required in this study. All responses and
information will be kept strictly confidential.

Instmetions:

The following is a list of questions and statements related to you and your
perceptions on selected aspects of the training and visit components of the
Training and Visit system, which are relevant to the objectives of this study.
Please listen (or read) very carefully and tell me your honest perceptions about
the extent of "agreement" or "disagreement" to each statement by using the
following scale:

SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree N = Neutral
D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

Please let me know whenever you need explanation about any of the
statement items.

Tarek K M. Aghabri
Ph.D. Candidate.
Michigan State University

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

CONTACT FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE l

 

 

 

136

Interview Schedule for Contact Farmers

Respondent Number:

Name of Interviewer:

Date of Interview:

Place of Interview:

Time interview began: Time interview completed:

PART A: Background Information

1.
2.

Name of District: Village:
Respondents’ sex: male female
Respondent’s age? years

What is your educational attainment? (please check)
Do not know how to read and write

Literate but no formal schooling

Elementary education (1-6 years of schooling)
Intermediate education (7-9 years of schooling)
High school (10-12 years of schooling)

College education and above

What is your marital status? (please check)
_Single _Married

If married , how many wives do you have?
What is your family size? (please mention the number
of family members who are
living with and are dependent
on your income fully or partly)

 

(a) How many acres of farm land do you own? Acres
(b) How many acres is irrigated? acres
(c) Do you rent out some of your farm? _yes no

if yes, how many acres did you rent out this year? _acres
(d) Do you rent in some farm from others? _yes no

if yes, how many acres did you rent in this year? acres

 

10.

11.

137

Mention your annual family income from different sources as of 1988.

Sources of Income Amoont in Rial
Farming

Business

Service

Labor

Property (e.g. house renting)
Capital investment

Others (specify)
Total

How long have you been working as a "Contact Farmer"?
years.

Do you know if there is any extension worker assigned in your village to
help you in your farming?

 

yes no
If yes, do you know his7her name and the agency he/she belongs?
Name TDA
1.
2.
If you don’t know his/her name, could you recognize him/her by face?
yes no
Do you have any contact with such extension workers during the past one
year?
a. TDA extension worker yes no
b. Others yes no

If the answer to Question 11 is M2, go to section V on page 5.

 

 

138

PART B: PERCEPTIONS OF CONTACT FARMERS ON SELECTED
ASPECTS OF TRAINING AND VISIT EXTENSION

Circle the response which "best" indicates the extent to which respondent
AQREES or DISAQREES with the following statements using following scale.

DISAGREE (1)),
NEUTRAL (N), AND
AGREE (A).

I. Perceptions Related to Technical Content of Visit Session

1. Extension worker usually shares information on D N A
new technology with farmers of this area.

2. Information/technologies shared by extension D N A
workers are very useful to me.

3. Extension workers always attempt to help us D N A
find solutions to our farm problems.

4. Extension workers’ recommendation of new D N A
technology usually requires inputs that are
simply not available in our area.

5. Extension worker shares information in time D N A
according to cropping season.

6. Extension worker usually discusses new D N A

technology which are suitable only to large
farmers.

II. Perceptions Related to Extension Teaching Methods Used

7. The extension worker in my village is easy to D N A
understand.
8. The extension worker usually visits at my home, D N A

but he has not time to visit my actual farm.

9. The extension worker usually comes with some D N A
samples or materials for demonstration.

 

 

139

10. The extension worker helps me understand how
to follow improved farm practices.

11. The extension worker brings enough
bulletins/printed materials.

12. The bulletins/materials provided are helpful to
understand new farming practices.

13. I usually have a hard time following what the
extension worker talks about.
III.Perceptions Related to Visit of Extension Worker

14. Extension worker visits me regularly once every
two weeks.

15. I know in advance when and at what time the
extension agent is going to visit me.

16. I am usually very busy when the extension
worker visits me.

17. Extension worker has sufficient time to spend
with me during most of his visits.

18. It is very difficult to contact the extension
worker during times other than the scheduled
visits.

19. I communicate the problems and fellow farmers
to the extension worker.

20. I discuss the solutions with my fellow farmers
during the extension worker’s visit.

IV. Perceptions Related to Their Performance as Contact Farmers

21.1 know that I am the "contact farmer" in this
community and I know what I am expected to

do.

D

N

 

 

 

140

22. I know what I am supposed to do as a contact
farmer.

23.1 helped my neighboring farmers even before I
became a "contact farmer".

24. My neighboring farmers usually come to see
me if they have any problems or if they need
any suggestions regarding improved farming
practices.

25. If I have any problems or concerns about my
own farming, I usually visit my local extension
workers.

26. As compared to last year, more of my
neighboring farmers came to see me this year
to ask about their farm related
problems/ concerns.

27. As compared to last year, my neighboring
farmers asked me more frequent questions this

year.

28. I will continue to serve as a "contact farmer" of
this community because it is beneficial to me as
well as my villagers.

 

 

 

141

V. How often do you receive information or help on farming problems from
following methods?

Exteosion Methods Freouengg of use
Always Sometimes Never

1. Individual methods

farm visits
office calls
letters/notes

2. group methods

farmers classes
field demonstrations
field days

group meetings
tours/field trips
group projects

3. Adoption of following materials and media

live specimens

samples

leaflets

bulletins

pictorial / illustrated
materials: poster,charts

filmstrips

slides

4. List below three methods you use more frequently:

a.
b.
c.

Following are some areas of subject matter/ information/ technology which was
emphasized by the extension services. Please, estimate the extent of
appropriateness of following technology/ information to you.

Soojeet-matter Area

Hybrid maize variety
Tihama-1
Tihama-2

Improved sorghum
Daber
Cebon

Improved millet
New insecticides
New fungicides

New fruit varieties
Banana
Limes
Papayas
Mango
Guavas
Dates

New vegetable seeds
Watermelon
Honeymelon
Tomatoes

New irrigation
techniques

New farm equipment
Land leveling
equipment
Land plowing
equipment
Ditch digging
equipment

New variety of
barley

142

v1 fA r riatn

highly
appropriate

IIHH

HI

|
l
l

rEx n fA tion

appropriate

|ll||l

not
appropriate

 

 

143

New cotton varieties
Akala-SJ2
Akala-310

Institutional Credit
services

|
I
l

Institutional marketing
services
VI. Perception Of Performance of T & V System

In general, how would you rate the overall performance of T & V system in this
area considering the following factors?

Excellent Good Fag Poor

 

Usefulness of extension content

Delivery methods by extension

agents

c. Adoption of new practices by
farmers

d. General satisfaction of farmers

with extension service

9‘!”

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

EXTENSION WORKER QUESTIONNAIRE E

 

 

 

 

144

EXTENSION WORKER QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondent Number:
Part A: Background Information

1. Respondent’s age? years.
2. Respondents’ sex? _ male _ female
3. What is your marital status?
Single
Married
at is your highest educational attainment? (please check)
__ Elementary school
_ Intermediate school
gricultural secondary school
B. Sc. Agriculture degree
other (please specify)

SH

5. What types of training in extension have you received? (check as many as they
apply to you)

Pre-service training

On-the-job training

In-service training through refresher courses

Training abroad

6. How long have you been working as an extension worker?
years months

 

7. How long have you been working on your present job?
years months

8. How many times did you receive promotion in your job?
times

9. How many times were you transferred in your job?
times

10. What is your employment status? (check one)
permanent or tenurial track
temporary

contract

11. Are you a Yemenese national? yes no

 

 

145

12. Are you a resident of Tihama region or Hodeidah province?
yes _no

Part B: Perceptions of Extension Workers on Certain Aspects
of the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension

Circle the response which "best" indicates the extent to which respondent
AGREES or DISAQREES with the following statements

STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD),
DISAGREE (D),

NEUTRAL (N),

AGREE (A) AND

STRONGLY AGREE (SA)

I. Perceptions about Technical Content of the Training Sessions

1. Fortnightly training sessions are very helpful to SDD N A
update my knowledge and the skills required to
solve farmers problems.

2. Fortnightly training sessions provide us an SDD N A
opportunity to discuss farmers’ problems and
concerns.

3. Content of fortnightly training sessions is usually SDD N A
more theoretical than practical.

4. The training sessions have improved my technical SDD N A
knowledge as well as my communication skills.

5. Training sessions provide relevant technical SDD N A
information in time according to the production
cycle.

6. These training opportunities are really necessary to SDD N A
update my communication skills.

II. Perceptions about Subject Matter Delivery by Specialists

7. The subject-matter specialist has very good SDD N A

communication skills.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

 

 

 

146

8. The fortnightly training sessions are held regularly.

9. The subject-matter specialist usually comes with
some samples or materials for demonstration.

10. The subject-matter specialist helps us understand
how to follow improved farm practices.

11. We are given enough farm bulletins/printed
materials which are helpful to understand new
farming practices.

12. I usually have a hard time following what the
subject-matter specialist talks about.

III.Perceptions about Extension Workers’ Visit to Contact Farmers

13. I visit all of my "contact farmers" regularly once
every two weeks.

14. I know in advance when and at what time I am

going to visit contact farmers in my command area.

15. Contact farmers are usually very busy when I visit
them.

16.1 usually spend sufficient time with my contact
farmers during most of my visits.

17. It is very difficult to contact the contact farmer
during times other than the scheduled visits.

18. I frequently communicate the problems and the
concerns of my contact farmers to the subject-
matter specialists.

19. I have too many contact farmers to visit them
every fortnight.

20. Many contact farmers cannot be contacted and
many of them are not interested about improved
farming.

SDD
SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SDD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

 

 

 

147

Perceptions of Extension Workers about the Extent of Adequacy of Resource

Support to Facilitate Extension Work

(Encircle the number that describes the degree of adequacy)

Technical supervision/backstopping of extension work
by subject-matter specialist.

Working relation between ag. research station and
extension service-linkage with research

Supply of technical information materials
Supply of audio-visual materials
Transportation/mobility support
Provision of office facilities and supplies

Frequency of administrative and/supervisory visits and
support

N_il

0

NNN

Very
adequate

345
345
345
345
345
345
345

 

'.p

 

Subject-matter Area

Hybrid maize variety
Tihama-1
Tihama-2

Improved sorghum
Daber
Cebon

Improved millet
New insecticides
New fungicides

New fruit varieties
Banana
Limes
Papayas
Mango
Guavas
Dates

New vegetable seeds
Watermelon
Honeymelon
Tomatoes

New irrigation
techniques

New farm equipment
Land leveling
equipment
Land plowing
equipment
Ditch digging
equipment

New variety of
barley

148

vel of A ro riatene s and

highly
appropriate

Ill
lll
IN

I
l
l

r Extent of Ado tion

appropriate not

appropriate

 

 

 

149

New cotton varieties
Akala—SJ2
Akala-310

I I

II
II

Institutional Credit
services

Institutional marketing
services

How often do you receive information or help on farming problems from the
following methods?

Extension Methods Frequeney of ttse

Always Sometimes Never
1. Individual methods
farm visits
office calls
letters/notes

2. Group methods
farmers classes

field demonstrations
field days

group meetings
tours/field trips
group projects

3. Adoption of following materials and media

live specimens

samples

leaflets

bulletins

pictorial/illustrated
materials: poster, charts

filmstrips

slides

IIIIII
IIIIII

4. List below three methods you use more frequently:

a.
b.
c.

 

 

150

Following are some areas of subject matter/information/technology which were
emphasized by the extension services. Please, estimate the extent of appropriateness
of the following technology/information to you.

In general, how would you rate the overall performance of T & V system in this area
considering the following factors?

Mellgm 529d Bail EM

a. Usefulness of extension content_ _ _ _
b. Delivery methods by extension

agents _ _ _ _
c. Adoption of new practices by

farmers _ _ _ _
d. General satisfaction of farmers

with extension service

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

 

APPENDIX D

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICERS, SUBJECT -MATTER
SPECIALISTS, AND RESEARCH AGENCY PERSONNEL
QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

151

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICERS, SUBJECT -MAT'I'ER
SPECIALISTS, AND RESEARCH AGENCY PERSONNEL

1. What is your job title?

2. How many years have you been working in your current position?
years months.

 

3. What is your employment status?
_ permanent or tenurial track
_ temporary
_ contract
__ other (please specify)

4. What is your highest educational attainment?
_ Less than high school
_ High school
_ BS. degree
_ Masters degree
_ Ph.D.

5. Have you received any special training(s) related to your present job?
yes no
If yes, could you specify: a.

 

 

.0

6. Are you a Yemenese national? yes no.

Please indicate the patterns of linkages between research, extension and other
services in this project area during the past 3-4 years by answering the following
questions.

7. At the project level, is there a joint extension and research
council/committee? yes no

 

If there is, what is the frequency of meeting per year?

 

8. Do researchers and extension workers go to the field together with farmers to
identify and analyze farmers’ problems/technical problems?
yes no

 

If yes, how often is this done per year?

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

152

Do researchers/research representatives join with extension SMS/extension
workers in deciding and formulating technical recommendations for farmers?

yes no

How does research/do researchers influence the formulation of extension
recommendations for farmers?

Do or did both researchers/research representatives and extension workers
participate in:

a) field demonstrations? yes no

b) field trials? yes no

 

 

 

If yes, is this participation on a regular or ad hoc basis?
regular basis ad hoc basis

Do the subject matter specialists of the project area visit the research
stations/centers ? yes no

If yes, about what percentage of the SMS do this? %

How many times per year do they visit research stations/ centers?
times per year.

Do researchers visit the farmers of the study area with the extension workers?
yes no

 

 

If yes, how many times a year is this practiced? times

Does the extension service in the project area hold meetings with (check those
which apply):
_ Cooperative and Agricultural Credit Bank
Sanaa University, Faculty of Agriculture
_ Yemen Agricultural Marketing Company
: Local Development Associations and Cooperatives
_ Others (please specify)

How many times per year are these meetings held?
times per year.

 

15.

153

In what ways do you think Sanaa University, Faculty of Agriculture can be
more instrumental in complementing /supplementing the overall goals of this
project? Please list your opinion below.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRES IN ARABIC

 

 

 

 

154

 

QbflgwjafiIrLLLJth
M JESS)“. .36‘JJh3U-ui‘d

“.13-31 a,» Mix rvi.

dwilw‘fiubLal'el's—d‘.
fut—AI '.( GIRIPJ
ofi‘ilgbflsu -, @EfiiVJJLz-II
1A_.7.L._‘I : WIHI
: flip...”

—: wa‘abP—‘flI
— - “Iris-1'3“? {DU
uh’iIxy .4)
QLLANLQJ. {3U

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____ (ca/9:23).) ijLAI
nu _ Jig-em,
_____ _5 ' I
____-__.__ _fip? ,‘
M QJCALLy-Jéwamgu _s.
T. Jay-.8 .a tie;b)i\)qb)\wg;usne.£ U.» .51.) .1}. 1.33;» - o
—’ I5” . .
(Lair) wj M_\Ij\‘—QJ:_3IJ .. Lav-IL) Auto/,3} 3.1: 4 HQBB

 

 

 

156

Q. «.41»: <we?»«e‘wsiwquugd.-tu.umisense;
: i __ (is. __
S MmIMJIwaL-JMQALJJI.iyyjuaiLE-JQ. -1
‘5 __ (u; __ kJuLLPI3)\JIJ.XSACLAIo$L)IAL)AI_f
3’ -— t”: — @Léxfiefificd‘fifbfl‘A—ifihv

( )PJJIHéIQSI-‘i LT)PJJI$—Ad4.g‘;’;\ tab/‘5‘.
VII-’2'“ ’ 'Jiké'vlufib fiJX-IIVLEJQL 31.153?ij 4; -. QL-‘fil ”}-”.=3I

.'gp)\;~‘.4.3g§<.5\6,.~éu§ls;b\.,bh fig:

()7 )1” £329“

I

, _. QDJbeQHIQI s,},gb;.ttsi:,m _l
I: II I__I MAL» unqwgrjfiufier—I‘

_ Lag'&i(v\yfi\)b},flle¢m -I
I: LI I.::I f.”\s_,.-;sp,qL)S\A;-vmt5.

macaiznaseguémpi _r

b$¥$fi¢4$ LP,“ .2351.» _‘2.

Qb-ybnsbliyx g-bJ-SIAL—vél -o

I:I I:I I:I - guyswxwy’m,

A8», afiugleiualagu -1

‘3 CI CI -m.aw§\a\a~‘n:3\;»ficbfi\
:Wlwbbféléjijrgl 4L3}:

ALJJIAEVQMWI _v

C] D I: .gb‘jt

 

 

 

 

157

9‘2’ .32” NW9

.3- 0315— .3__9)3JJ)SIA.;,4§\ _
.Jdabjus91wa3wéué;.~fil

I::I I: D «JOAN

- wfl.-2»LJ|2-q‘)wlfi‘ J

I: E CI {pagbwfisgmtmfiphw
asswegawvm»: -1-

E D D J®Ihbjiguicl§I
2» -‘-'3.u._;‘)i\ I ‘ .. .11

III a I: "" ’ “if...

.fi-SIWALuJ'fiIQbJ‘LAIJQfJI _.\Y
D U CI WV\O}SIWWLALUL5~UQJR

I:I I I l j @bbbégw33k4?‘ _vt’
‘d'bJ'SI—L—AJAIW
.WWW. -— a... 22

(4:135 GJsfd’bleLJAI __\2.

CI E D "" "Tawny?
Q3JK§I93 " —,I».>2»_C9)LI _\o

[:I D CI .JLTIALJJIGJJL.»
um'\.,,‘i,.:.zsuo,§\ -11

[CI I:I U .qbélaLJajtcg»):

”LAKE; wwlgfilus§632u _w

E] E I:I " ammo»...

 

 

 

 

158
92’ 2’)» 3M"

gypsum“... 5H,- _m
I:I I__I [j Wfliaypjlxrflnggqby

{LIAIanJdgL‘Q-wyryl _.\’I
I:I I: I: .gbjubfnéwg

éwgcbfifi‘dshiww .t
I: I: I: .qb}1$filéb3»fit

: JLA'iglcfjl,» PEUMQUyI—a» :FLJ-I’Lt
__ wqoéibgbb-ng—Qfl -n
_ €1,542 3.3.1.1;qu _‘l‘f
I:I I_I I:I V .JCA'JI,

awcwwwfi'm... {mm .W
I: I: I: -JL‘ATI‘QI'JAyfiL-jdé
Q’HWJ‘P‘Qk—Bak—é’k _ts.

Ejl:jt:1‘ “fffditfirfr

ohhlglffakglgfi LMVJ, _ro
mam ”flwfl:
sngsuxmwmthLJD _n
. a- \-'.\- .
mmmflfifiwgi

35.6.31. thwtwaw _rv

I]: :I V' lIéj—QQAfiIQ‘JI)“

 

 

 

 

 

159

5.6.1.“) JWIGWWk‘JI—d _VA

.Qajfitaaiuséimcns,

watvfie-‘L;|_’Jb/LLJ 3’5)‘ Cab-flak fi,»«‘0~>_)>“¢\»;:’L.PI-7
:‘QUAI‘Q fligil dirk.“

ZWfiiwbgb >54“

d9LJ/QJMQ3)
.. thép1 _rt

’QLLJFIJ‘JEQ
‘....C" __ able;
:2}. ML...

. ‘sgatzjnsfii _r.

64%»
59.31331 0)::-
JEJI rut
QALJIQI‘IEA
‘.Ltlia-i-aif/ by»

J”

v2? 53L;
2:2
.3 Lb ;' I
(V9? LL); (JD-5
QDW);MO
3.113).: (“I-‘3‘
‘ ‘99-” L‘Ji"

 

 

 

160

EL»)? §§Q\w>inI.z)zj\v—‘LLMJSWW 3U P’IjgbI _YI

_U

...?

W.)L:U$IC)\#.X>S\ g...) giloux-Sb 6J$IQLA1§IJQbJuI U”? Jib .I‘T'

\ZJLBA—dehIAJJ—Jfikét Lbjlwbégfi
(3.2.“ 6.x» "11.» Mr‘LAItSH Irv-NI yy/ baby

0,... .1 2 lmv
I
I

 

 

medmpum 'ipfl at»
__ __ _ \ ”Us
__ __ __ |__ _ _ V 'z'v-Lg

Mi‘W}\ELLS\UU~oI
._ _ —_ H)

_ 0H,,
_ __ wfitaflimlw
—— Eg‘a‘gf.
_. _ HJLUI aha-3‘
oAsJ;vQ\):0L-¢\
— __ ____ arr)! /)J\
_. __ _ ’3’!) c «JITL
_ __ __ y(¢u‘,w
. . - 6.».Lpul))~a.>-ét.¢l
_ __ _ __ _ _ (finwfl
_ _ _‘_ _ __ (Lem
wfiupd)u
—— — _a— — — 4326/2.“
I ‘Vw»(v\-¢$J_>.»le
__ _. _I _ __ _ ,3,_;J\;J\
__ __ __.I____ _ _ 6‘5;AJ‘6—”';.JT
I M‘6w\

 

 

 

161

(“My ,u (a 96,} v6 'Wv
. 4 “, '.....pojpé
wegfibafiumx

. .. 3 3‘ "3 ...‘$\

— — __ __ _ _ --,;_..s~-ww.s‘
— —— —— — __ gram-3mm)
6))‘éL-Ji‘QDLQ-“JJJAA‘ Mdaflwwubja :LaaL-A

61313.6 (rhulgi‘ 9L.) baQ‘K-LX—v 3‘ :fiJ/Myhm’i
:‘wJU‘Lr‘jfi‘gG-L-fib

I

__ _ _ __ “9‘59 \cpfi\gwy)q¢u,xxh‘_t
-— — — — qwmfswwwcw—u
.BAA—LhubJQCfi-LJLA\H -4;-

: : : : unlang me 5
__ _ _ . __ 66041.4 ¢J)§\>\“Ji‘

ML... 3
__ _ WEA‘ A‘VLJJ

 

162

wqfiwfi

 

-. .JLtLuij 1}- ‘tv U
-. 5.49.35.131:

 

 

163 Iinb . l.

' III-IIIIII
_III_IIIIII

  
 
       

“4.3.6."? veep-N
0"" «b5! Jag/9,7,5

(~:¥.‘—‘-—"'&‘,;a>cy:l All 99,:
()Ar') [~IQI A“! .61/1"
fig; _ Lg... _ng)xd)5_uua»¢u A”

"36/“ ——- 9w: *3 éfi‘élré-kjbk —°
. g). Q “.35-5‘ij ”1“"'¢é|o‘,..5\>-(.s _1

Q. @f‘o)\~_’/LJ4'DJ_’D\A _V

’1 .. .2 I
2%

(949-) «15:6
_g‘ ..

O"), ley J‘Xfl V3,

‘3 \A> 3&L».»,).L.S\Q\—lz 1.32 —\

L}:L‘..»da3 “ngfi-v) «LA—93035
._ __ __ __ _WJ‘IA\

.muAMJJ\.33A-,S\.L_L?L.J_
—— -_ _. __ .Jy-Jfi‘QDLQD‘JgKLL»

w}; Luggxflowgsga; 6,5 _x’

--— — — —- -‘C~¢Lflo€o~}5‘

 

W‘.§J\JPVJJJ~»S‘QU7M (L
__ .‘GJL’L': :3“ 9.2L»;

QLpLQAmQWLQj _o

-w—‘L-A‘ .13}‘._3 ‘vo'M\._»‘> W‘
__ ._-_ (trim 3.52.23 L»);

bJjflomQ)J\q\.~b-M
__ __ _ ‘JwflggJvaQ

t?) C; Le'» Q/yyfl‘égw ,4? £13an 1913‘

(@LQJ\L)\JLM (’61; -4| ILLD\Q‘QJ _V

«Asa—L9

mfldxwggmomnw —A
-— -— ——- —- T0551“.

0;... ‘Mbugyfi‘ ab‘fli J
- 53.903163 3‘ :mf...“

ng‘ggg Qwim-.. _
.‘M‘ (A); mot;

@L’bv3LJ\‘v.Llu:_)\ )Qméy _H
W‘MmL mg»; slut...

“Lufi‘xé

\‘LubkthENJa-w 63\I——L>_\ _W

.5313.» A394)»; $94.49.» (Lil;-

£3.33ng any x
MPJWH‘Lf’.

JJJLAQ’) L5_\ L3) Uv-LAu-LDJLL 3“-

«can» 3.3.1331.ng

J [defy (3'5qu LIA DLE- _\o
$19.13) La m'uq-QSJQ...

0593B? Li; -33L..U.a3\ _n
~9JLJVAL3AJX’L’JL—éli‘

{‘3} JUL? .\.».-.,..Aj\g,.‘v¢\ _w
Lpzflmabww ALA-43‘
W14“ $3353

JLLLb‘gélLZJ-JM vi.“ his _\A
.fljk'i‘ngaafijLw ‘CJJ

Jmfiwyofwakggmég _
~ WH‘WPEJP)

 

 

 

166
-\/ ‘
,.-\ '2 \>> ,. ' .
xvi/V) w wt 7"”;
;(
ng¢yQLJLLQM .R‘.

D ;__J L__J [j E ,wabfilkyw
’/’ - . '/ ; . - ”
WAQJ‘J‘ARJWVOL’MVyfi‘é‘x’oé’e‘tw :La’b
:(;_¥\/)‘)L://JIJ\C-JUJP
. -- . / v r—
:ijgwpgflm/wpmm ayfism _m

Mfih‘u 2;»,ch}...,. ‘5» tiff/Aw

 

;;/ kw” ,- WW2“ 9.»; 3p?

1! qu,u$\§m\ow\
._ __ —' __ ..__. __ Q MW
_ . _ __ ' ._.. __ _ M\@}\3J)5\L:L~o\
__ __ _ ‘ _ _ _ 2;:
__ __ __ __ __ __ H pus

‘ UbfiCwJWZLArJf
_. __ __ __ _ _ fly/Ja—J‘EJ‘A—J)
_...._ ‘_ _ _ ewe—M

l 0.34;?65‘yuw)
___.__. __ i_ _ _ aglzrc'a’va/\
_ __ _ _ ._ __ 055(6M‘2L’

‘ 833Ag-Qbflb-JJ—‘p
__ _ _ |__ _ __ rp‘J\ (W‘
__ __ __ ‘_ _ _ 2‘2»

( ' I

“'..Jo-‘kSJ k3

 

 

 

/

‘mIDgaArCmeCJ‘m
— —' *— — — — flit-3‘1):
_ _ __ __ __ __ __ 4,0 \ aJ\
-— — — — __ _ 435;»\~_LaJT

om‘mbéesaéw\
—-— -— —— _ _ _ w 3%, U__.\ gm
- — — — -— _ ~<\- Jib/s
— - —— — — ~ W ._' .. ‘ av.»

. , ‘ fl / ‘
(V{o/%\)d)‘),\)‘¢_w \rJ/d,» befi‘a2é2‘cfibfi" J?
- ($?W‘a£/2Méfl‘é’/‘afl yy‘fi-b) ~ orb/552’?

¢>m1i|dg¢d‘¢5;$‘\
° ‘ ‘“ < | ,4; .Wm gummy

Whfibkfii qugdgxgts up
° 1 Y ‘ ‘ 2.0 Lng’ixagyoauA‘m»)

a 1 r < \ 3,, .i; _M_"3\Q\»,x,.5\}>.93

 

 

168

‘:\_\\‘J\ .;'\))\ / )J‘ ' 5AM) ‘J VJHCJ’ QM‘JJ CJJ‘ \Cj)’ [J 2.1—“AB

3‘»)! A29,

— (“J/“.1 k-J‘J’ejvxb-bavafl

\‘W’yppf 2L9 1439/

‘L/z'o ‘.9 ’I‘.’ gap/I’

 

QJQLZW2\®) ',_§)\d,’\/JJ;);)\ ,(W
wwuwfiway
_.... — (JyfiAir-‘d ri"
_ __ 59H) (54...;
___.. __. 39.1.3.9
— .- ’..J A.)

__ __ 034M

169

)\//
ch/tJ—‘éfi‘; £6 L/JV’»‘(WJ‘2’J‘(‘"“J:JW AV
4) zy‘o/L/UQJOJanyeJ/yfp \g’
- . _-a:J\;J‘J Jy-JL

._ . /

 

L_é"2}‘.>\i»f3‘ 692,34“. _f

— : — wdswfwyv u
_ .awo waww ,

_ _ (Lj‘qu-Jbflwj‘w L5 _ 5
— (JDJ'i‘VI-AJJ wad-3‘3

.2); 51:; mugs ‘53;

 

 

 

 

Lu-Lugbrsl aU’aJd‘oin

 

 

 

 

 

171

 

(QJ‘e-woyné .\

A

.r__ .g. _ 94L)!&y§gdi¢bu_<

’—

gfly‘wgfib _Y
- 56:44, -
494-") “1w

.JJ [4“

(W«‘J‘g‘oL-MJ’I

S‘dwaP/L, -1

a

e.)L’AV/.‘g3‘
. é.)|.‘J\W)|
.szléba
Mb «Av;
'/)"/) 5")
_u __ (a _. qqgww’gWC/vy/Jgkégyop _o
{W'av‘f’ '6')“ fw‘d‘v‘)‘,

-f

-9

-~e

-»_ .g_?~.;;‘¢;«a;,p .1

&/9‘&b)bt2fiv/J";Uy‘qt ((JLuMHg‘J/“thH Mu)
U‘qkay'dav.ut.uwgr_ gflx (Jig), OSHJF‘A’d

- buy‘JJL'laJJ‘mIJHo-A/ /4’.J aJLDdJH (‘I/J‘df/o“ _v

. I —i
Q!- LWIV‘ (9%)») ‘2‘ row.» {u}

 

r'J/

 

0,41) ”fi/w‘d‘l‘fy‘J‘M‘L. 'Qw)‘) )QJQUIQTD"); _A
. __ ,1.) _(g Q thfl'w‘J’l‘d/udx

-';‘/ ¢QJUygjgayfrréKDI

 

 

 

 

172

42354WLP‘JP)‘/%fl‘éw‘:bvi"fl(¢éa° A
___.u _(p 9¢,ya;_ma\=¢p\a.v;

940/9” kahuayp‘knngyw/9992J _

da)HMJ//‘Jk)‘;(wu‘)uUJJWJJJ
__ _u __ (u .LL'uw‘J,» _f
_ .u _(y 3.5319,pd|_9

9. Wow/ugh; cr—L-«du ~ 9‘50ng r (v at")!
(c/Lf)/~c".«//J —— (L;

 

 

7. —— 53?,w1‘G—J'JJ‘IaB/bl
93/." ‘f/o )iAy‘JxH—uwp’d. «JL ag‘223/

 

9y ’.. 9 axe/71:42» (9‘)») (I ('9 ab’b)

-&ef-J\azb.'/J‘,yu\/AM *5/84 _xs.
ICJL’J'J a1 [U b/vchit-iié)

éer’ng :_;o,,:.-J JAM»
beJJW‘dzLfl‘eJ/ed/
«ix/‘aW‘MrJA-I“ “H‘dv’
Jfi—Vé'y‘éfifi‘pgfid/
; WL’V, “y‘dd/
flab/C‘W) J)‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q #3133 J3)?»

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

TABLES

 

 

 

175

APPENDIX TABLE 1

ANOVA Results for the Differences in Perceptions of antact

Farm rs A eclass and Ed i n R din h ele d
Aspects Qf [he Tr§;n_m_' ' g §§§§ion§
Ageglass

Statement

a. The Technical Content

1.

Extension worker usually shares
information on new technology
with farmers of this area.

Inform ation / technologies shared
by extension workers are very
useful to me.

Extension workers always attempt
to help us find solutions to our
farm problems.

Extension workers’ recommenda-
tions of new technology usually
require inputes that are simply
not available in our area.

Extenwion worker shares
information in time according to
cropping season

Extension worker usually
discusses new technology which
are suitable only to large farmers.

b. Extension Teaching

7.

10.

Extension worker in my village is
easy to understand.

The extension worker usually
visits my home, but he has not
time to visit my actual farm.

The extension worker usually
helps me understand how to
follow improved farm practices.

The extension worker helps me
understand how to follow
improved farm practices

 

31-40 41-50 51&

30 or
less

(n=22) (n=51) (n=34) (n=37) Val.

2.9

2.9

2.8

1.6

2.8

1.7

3.0

2.7

1.7

2.7

2.8

2.8

2.8

1.9

2.8

1.4

2.8

2.6

2.1

2.9

2.9

3.0

2.9

1.6

2.8

1.4

2.9

2.7

2.1

2.9

above

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.9

2.8

1.5

3.0

2.5

2.1

2.9

F.

0.9

2.1

0.7

1.4

0.2

0.8

2.8.

0.6

1.3

1.9

P-

Val.

0.5

0.1

0.7

0.3

0.9

0.9

0.1

0.6

0.3

0.1

 

 

176

APPENDIX TABLE 1, CONT’D.

 

Ageclass
30 or 31-40 41-50 51 &
Statement less above F- P-
(n=22) (n=51) (n=34) (n=37) Val. Val.
11. The extensron worker brings 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 0.4 0.7
enough bulletins/printed materials.
12. The bulletins/materials provided 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 0.9 0.4
are helpful to understand new
farming practices.
13. I usually have a hard time 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.5 1.3 0.3
following what the extension
worker talks about.
c. Visit of Extension Worker
14. Extension worker visits me 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.1
regularly once every two weeks.
15. I know in advance when and at 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.8
what time the extension agent is
going to visit me.
16. I am usually very busy when the 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.4
extension worker visits me.
17. Extension worker has sufficient 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7 0.4 0.7
time to spend with me during most
of his visits.
18. It is very difficult to contact the 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.7
extension worker during times
other than the scheduled visits.
19. I communicate the problems and 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 0.4 0.8
concerns of my fellow farmers to
the extension worker.
20. I discuss the solutions with my 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 0.5 0.9
fellow farmers during the
extension worker’s visit.
d. The nt c F rmer’s P rformance
21. I know that I am the "contact 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 0.4 0.8

farmer" in this community and I
know what I am expected to do.

 

 

 

177

APPENDIX TABLE 1, CONT’D.

Statement

22. I know what I am sup to do

23.

27.

as a contact farmer.

I helped my neighboring farmers
even before I became a "contact
farmer".

My neighboring farmers usually
come to see me if they have any
problems or if they need any
suggestions regarding improved
farming practices.

. If I have any problems or concerns

about my own farming, I usually
visit my local extension workers.

As compared to last year, more of
my neighboring farmers came to
see me this year to ask about their
farm related problems/concerns.

As compared to last year, my
neighborning farmers asked me
more frequent questions this year.

I will continue to serve as a
”contact farmer" of this community
because it is beneficial to me as
well as my villagers.

'ANOVA is significant at .05

Rating Scale: l-Disagree, 2-Undecided (neutral), 3-Agree

Ageclass

 

31-40 41-50 51&

300r

less

(n=22) (n=51) (n=34) (n=37) Val.

2.8

2.5

2.4

2.9

2.4

2.2

2.9

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.9

2.5

2.5

2.9

2.7

2.8

2.5

2.9

2.4

2.4

2.9

above F-
2.5 0.7
2.7 1.3
2.6 2.2
2.9 0.1
2.5 0.1
2.5 0.9
2.9 0.1

p-
Val.

0.5

0.3

0.1

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.9

  

‘-(l

  

 
 

- J I' I ll- .5
‘.‘I it." .15 t’l‘r." ---v (”swat {1‘

-g -. - . . _ ...-_-_.—.,.._......‘

   

 

178

APPENDIX TABLE 1, CONT'D.

Statement

a. The Technical Content

1.

Extension worker usually shares
information on new technology
with farmers of this area.

Information/technologies shared
by extension workers are very
useful to me.

Extension workers always attempt
to help us find solutions to our
farm problems.

Extension workers’ recommenda-
tions of new technology usually
require inputes that are simply
not available in our area.

Extenwion worker shares
information in time according to
cropping season

Extension worker usually
discusses new technology which
are suitable only to large farmers.

b. Extension Teaching

7.

10.

Extension worker in my village is
easy to understand.

The extension worker usually
visits my home, but he has not
time to visit my actual farm.

The extension worker usually
helps me understand how to
follow improved farm practices.

The extension worker helps me
understand how to follow
improved farm practices

Edugtign

R&W+ Intcr- Sec.
Elem. Med.

(n=89) (n=45) (n=5) (n=3) Val.

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.8

2.8

1.5

2.9

2.6

2.1

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.0

1.8

2.9

1.5

2.8

2.7

2.2

2.9

3.0

3.0

3.0

1.4

2.8

1.8

3.0

3.0

1.0

2.4

above

2.3

1.7

1.3

2.3

1.7

1.3

2.0

2.7

2.0

2.0

I-IS&

F-

3.2

14.4

28.1

0.8

t

7.4'

0.4

8.3.

0.9

2.2

7.8

P-

Val.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.0

 

 

179

 

APPENDIX TABLE 1, CONTD.
Edwina
R&W+ Inter- Sec. HS&
Statement Elem. Med. above F- P-
(n=89) (n=45) (n=5) (n=3) Val. Val.
11. The extension worker Ermgs 1.7 1.9 1.6 2.0 0.5 0.7

enough bulletins/printed materials.

12. The bulletins/materials provided 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.9 0.5
are helpful to understand new
farming practices.

13. I usually have a hard time 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 0.4 0.8
following what the extension
worker talks about.

c. Visit ef Extension Werker
14. Extension worker visits me 2.1 2.4 1.0 1.3 4.9' 0.0

regularly once every two weeks.

15. I know in advance when and at 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.6
what time the extension agent is
going to visit me.

16. I am usually very busy when the 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.7 0.4 0.3
extension worker visits me.

17. Extension worker has sufficient 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.0 1.2 0.3
time to spend with me during most
of his visits.

18. It is very difficult to contact the 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.5

extension worker during times
other than the scheduled visits.

19. I communicate the problems and 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.3
concerns of my fellow farmers to
the extension worker.

20. I discuss the solutions with my 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.5 0.2
fellow farmers during the
extension worker’s visit.

d. The gentgct Fmer’e Performggce
21. I know that I am the "contact 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.0 1.4 0.2

farmer" in this community and I
know what I am expected to do.

 

 

180

APPENDIX TABLE 1, CON'I’D.
Education
R&W+ Inter- Sec. HS&
Statement Elem. Med. above F- P-
(n=89) (n=45) (n=5) (n=3) Val. Val.
22. I 50w what I am supposed to do 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.5 0.1
as a contact farmer.
23. I helped my neighboring farmers 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 0.6 0.6
even before I became a "contact
farmer".
24. My neighboring farmers usually 2.6 2.7 2.6 .27 0.2 0.9

come to see me if they have any
problems or if they need any
suggestions regarding improved
farming practices.

25. If I have any problems or concerns 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.5. 0.0
about my own farming, I usually
visit my local extension workers.

26. As compared to last year, more of 2.5 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.6 0.2
my neighboring farmers came to
see me this year to ask about their
farm related problems/concerns.

27. As compared to last year, my 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.7 2.3 0.1
neighborning farmers asked me
more frequent questions this year.

28. I will continue to serve as a 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.0 8.5 0.0
"contact farmer" of this community
because it is beneficial to me as
well as my villagers.

'ANOVA is significant at .05
Rating Scale: l-Disagree, 2-Undecided (neutral), 3-Agree

 

 

 

181

APPENDIX TABLE 2

ANOVA Results for the Differences in Perceptions of Extension Workers

by Ageelgssl Educatien, ggd Employment Status Regarding the

Seleeted Aspects 9f the Training §e§siens

Statement

 

a. The Teehmcal Content

1.

Fortnightly training sessions are
very helpful to update my
knowledge and skills required to
solve farmers’ problems.

Fortnightly training sessions
provide us with an opportunity to
discuss farmers’ problems and
concerns.

Content of fortnightly training

sessions is usually more
theoretical than practical.

The training sessions have
improved my technical knowledge
as well as my communication
skills.

Training sessions provide relevant
technical information in time
according to the production cycle.

These training opportunities are
really necessary to update my
communication skills.

b. The Subject-Matter Delivery

7.

10.

The subject-matter specialist has
very good communication skills.

The fortnightly training sessions
are held regularly.

The subject-matter specialist
usually comes with some samples
or materials for demonstration.

The subject-matter specialist
helps us understand how to
follow improved farm practices.

 

30 or
less

Ageclgge

31-40 41-50

 

F-

(n=22) (n=51) (n=34) Val.

4.1

4.2

3.4

4.1

4.2

4.2

3.7

2.9

3.4

3.9

4.5

4.2

2.3

4.3

4.1

4.4

3.6

2.7

3.5

4.3

5.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

1.0

0.0

4.4

0.2

0.1

0.8

0.1

1.9

0.8

0.9

p-
Val.

0.4

0.9

0.0

0.8

0.9

0.5

0.9

0.1

0.5

0.4

182

APPENDIX TABLE 2, CONT’D.

 

 

Ageclass
30 or 31-40 41-50
Statement less F- P-

(n=22) (n=51) (n=34) Val. Val.

11. We are given enough farm 3.6 4.1 4.0 0.7 0.5
bulletins/ printed materials which
are helpful to understand new

farming practices.

12. I usually have a hard time 2.6 2.4 2.0 0.3 0.7
following what the subject-matter
specialist talks about.

c. The Egensien Worker§’ Vi§it t9 ggentact Farmer;
13. I visit all of my "contact farmers" 3.8 4.2 4.0 0.6 0.6

regularly once every two weeks.

14. I know in advance when and at 4.2 4.6 4.0 1.5 0.2
what time I am going to visit the
contact farmers in my command
area.

15. Contact farmers are usually very 3.1 3.1 4.0 0.3 0.7
busy when I visit them.

16. I usually spend sufficient time with 4.2 4.1 4.0 0.1 0.9
my contact farmers during most of
my visits.

17. It is very difficult to contact the 3.1 3.9 4.0 2.8 0.1
contact farmer during times other
than the scheduled visits.

18. I frequently communicate the 4.0 4.4 4.0 1.1 0.3
problems and the concerns of my
contact farmers to the subject-
matter specialists.

19. I have too many contact farmers 3.5 4.0 4.0 0.9 0.4
to visit them every fortnight.

21). Many contact farmers cannot be 2.9 2.27 4.0 4.7' 0.0
contacted and many of them are
not interested about improved
farming.

 

'ANOVA significant at .05
Rating Scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Undecided, 4-Agree, and 5-Strongly Agree

APPENDIX TABLE 2, CONT’D.

Statement

a.ThThni ntn

1.

Fortnightly training sessions are
very helpful to update my

knowledge and skills required to
solve farmers’ problems.

Fortnightly training sessions
provide us with an opportunity to
discuss farmers’ problems and
concerns.

Content of fortnightly training
sessions is usually more
theoretical than practical.

The training sessions have
improved my technical knowledge
as well as my communication
skills.

Training sessions provide relevant
technical information in time
according to the production cycle.

These training opportunities are
really necessary to update my
communication skills.

b. The Subieet-Matter Deliveg

7.

8.

9.

10.

The subject-matter specialist has
very good communication skills.

The fortnightly training sessions
are held regularly.

The subject-matter specialist
usually comes with some samples
or materials for demonstration.

The subject-matter specialist
helps us understand how to
follow improved farm practices.

183

Schl

Med.

Education
Elem. Inter-

 

SecAg

F-

(n=4) (n=20) (n=35) Val.

3.7

3.7

2.0

3.7

3.7

4.0

3.5

2.3

3.5

3.7

4.4

4.4

2.7

4.3

4.4

4.5

3.6

2.8

3.4

4.0

4.3

4.2

3.5

4.1

4.1

4.2

3.7

3.0

3.5

4.1

0.6

0.9

4.2-

0.7

1.3

0.9

0.3

0.8

0.1

0.2

1).
Val.

0.6

0.4

0.0

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.9

0.9

 

 

184

APPENDIX TABLE 2, CONT’D.

 

Education
Elem. Inter- SecAg
Statement Schl Med. F— P-

(n=4) (n=20) (n=35) Val. Val.

11. We are given enough farm 3.3 4.1 3.6 1.0 0.4
bulletins/printed materials which
are helpful to understand new
farming practices.

12. I usually have a hard time 3.3 2.4 2.6 1.2 0.3
following what the subject-matter
specialist talks about.

c. The Extension Workers’ Visit te Contact Farmers
13. I visit all of my "contact farmers" 2.3 4.2 4.0 5.9

regularly once every two weeks.

0.0

14. I know in advance when and at 4.3 4.2 4.3 0.1 0.9
what time I am going to visit the
contact farmers in my command
area.

15. Contact farmers are usually very 3.5 2.8 3.2 0.7 0.5
busy when I visit them.

16. I usually spend sufficient time with 3.5 4.4 4.2 2.1 0.1
my contact farmers during most of
my visits.

17. It is very difficult to contact the 2.7 3.4 3.3 0.4 0.6

contact farmer during times other
than the scheduled visits.

18. I frequently communicate the 3.7 4.1 4.2 0.4 0.6
problems and the concerns of my
contact farmers to the subject-
matter specialists.

19. I have too many contact farmers 4.3 3.8 3.5 0.9 0.4
to visit them every fortnight.

20. Many contact farmers cannot be 3.3 2.5 2.8 1.8 0.2
contacted and many of them are
not interested about improved
farming.

'ANOVA significant at .05
Rating Scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Undecided, 4-Agree, and S-Strongly Agree

 

 

APPENDIX TABLE 2, CON'I‘D.

Statement

a. The Teehnig Content

1.

Fortnightly training sessions are
very helpful to update my
knowledge and skills required to

solve farmers’ problems.

Fortnightly training sessions
provide us with an opportunity to
discuss farmers’ problems and
concerns.

Content of fortnightly training
sessions is usually more
theoretical than practical.

The training sessions have
improved my technical knowledge
as well as my communication
skills.

Training sessions provide relevant
technical information in time
according to the production cycle.
These training opportunities are

really necessary to update my
communication skills.

b. The Subject-Matter Deliveg

7.

10.

The subject-matter specialist has
very good communication skills.

The fortnightly training sessions
are held regularly.

The subject-matter specialist
usually comes with some samples
or materials for demonstration.

The subject-matter specialist
helps us understand how to
follow improved farm practices.

185

_Emploment Stetus_

Perma- Tempo- Con-

nent

rary

tract

F-

(n=50)(n=4) (n=5) Val.

4.3

4.2

3.2

4.2

4.1

4.3

3.6

2.9

3.4

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.3

4.0

4.0

3.7

4.3

3.5

3.7

3.7

3.8

4.2

2.0

4.4

4.4

4.6

3.6

2.6

3.8

3.8

0.8

0.1

3.8.

0.3

0.3

1.4

0.9

0.7

0.3

0.3

p-
Val.

0.5

0.9

0.0

0.8

0.8

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.8

 

 

186

APPENDIX TABLE 2, CONT’D.

_Emploment Status_
Perma- Tempo- Con-

Statement nent rary tract F- P-
(n = 50) (n = 4) (n = 5) Val. Val.
11. We are given enough farm 3.9 4.0 4.2 0.5 0.6

bulletins/printed materials which
are helpful to understand new
farming practices.

12. I usually have a hard time 2.6 3.3 1.6 3.0 0.0
following what the subject-matter
specialist talks about.

c. The Extension Werkere’ Visit te gentact Farmers
13. I visit all of my "contact farmers" 3.9 4.5 3.6 0.7 0.5

regularly once every two weeks.

14. I know in advance when and at 2.4 4.0 5.0 2.3 0.1
what time I am going to visit the
contact farmers in my command
area.

15. Contact farmers are usually very 3.1 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.0
busy when I visit them.

16. I usually spend sufficient time with 4.1 4.3 5.0 2.7 0.1
my contact farmers during most of
my visits.

17. It is very difficult to contact the 3.3 3.7 3.6 0.4 0.7

contact farmer during times other
than the scheduled visits.

18. I frequently communicate the 4.2 3.7 4.0 0.5 0.6
problems and the concerns of my
contact farmers to the subject-
matter specialists.

19. I have too many contact farmers 3.6 3.7 4.2 0.6 0.6
to visit them every fortnight.

20. Many contact farmers cannot be 2.8 3.0 2.4 0.6 0.6
contacted and many of them are
not interested about improved
farming.

'ANOVA significant at .05
Rating Scale: 1-Strougly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Undecided, 4—Agree, and 5-Strongly Agree

187

Perception of Technical Content of Visit Sessions by contact Farmers with
Different Educational Attainment #.1

ONEUAY--Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 1.0627 .3542 3.1631 .026
Within Groups 139 15.5667 .1120
Total 142 16.6294

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

G G G G
Mean Group 4 1 2 3 G 1: Read & Hrite &
Elem. School
2.3333 Grp 4 G 2: Intermed. School
2.9000 Grp 1 * G 3: Secondary School
2.9333 Grp 2 * G 4: High Sch. & Above

3.0000 Grp 3

Perception of Technical Content of Visit by Educational Attainment #.2

ONEHAY
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 4.8849 1.6283 14.3755 .0000
Uithin Groups 139 15.7444 .1133
Total 142 20.6294

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level
Group

Mean Group 4 1 2 3
1.6667 Grp 4

2.9000 Grp 1 *
2.9778 Grp 2 *
3.0000 Grp 3 *

Perception of technical content of visit #.3 by educational attainment

ONEUAY
Analysis of Variance
Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Group 3 7.912 2.637 28.06 .000
Uithin Groups 139 13.0667 .0940
Total 142 20.9790

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

188

Group
Mean Group 4 1 2 3
1.3333 Grp 4
2.8667 Grp 1 *
3.0000 Grp 2 *
3.0000 Grp 3 '

Perception of technical content of visit #.5 by educational attainment

ONEHAY
Analysis of Variance
Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 4.3910 1.4637 7.3952 .0001
within Groups 139 27.5111 .1979
Total 142 31.9021

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

Group
Mean Group 4 1 3 2
1.6667 Grp 4
2.8000 Grp 1 *
2.8000 Grp 3 *
2.9111 Grp 2 *

Perception of extension teaching methods #.7 by educational attainment

ONEUAY
Analysis of Variance
Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 2.9041 .9680 8.3068 .000
Hithin Groups 138 16.0818 .1165
Total 141 18.9859

(') Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

Group
Mean Group 4 2 1 3
2.0000 Grp 4
2.8636 Grp 2 *
2.9667 Grp 1 *
3.0000 Grp 3 '

Perception of extension teaching methods #.10 by educational attainment

ONEHAY
Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 3.7308 1.2436 7.8052 .0001
within Groups 138 21.9875 .1593
Total 141 25.7183

(') Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

 

 

 

189

Group
Mean Group 4 3 1 2
2.0000 Grp 4
2.4000 Grp 3
2.8876 Grp 1 '
2.9556 Grp 2 * '

Perception of visit of extension worker #.14 by educational attainment

ONEUAY Analysis of Variance

Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 12.4388 4.1463 4.9258 .0028
Uithin Groups 138 116.1598 .8417
Total 141 128.5986

(') Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

Group
Mean Group 3 4 1 2
1.0000 Grp 3
1.3333 Grp 4
2.1348 Grp 1
2.4444 Grp 2 *

Perception of C. F. performance #.25 by educational attainment

ONEUAY
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 .3363 .1121 3.4711 .0179
within Groups 139 4.4889 .0323
Total 142 4.8252

(') Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level
Group

Mean Group 4 1 2 3
2.6667 Grp 4

2.9556 Grp 1

3.0000 Grp 2 *
3.0000 Grp 3

Perception of C.F. performance #.28 by educational attainment

ONEUAY
Analysis of Variance

Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 2.7879 .9293 8.4831 .0000
Hithin Groups 133 14.598 .1095
Total 136 17.3577

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

 

 

190

Gmw
Mean Group 4 2 1 3
2 0000 Grp 4
2mm mp2 *
2 9419 Grp 1 '
3 0000 Grp 3 '
---------- 0NEUAY----------

Perception of technical content a. 3 by enployment status

Analysis of Variance

Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 11.4971 5.7486 3.5717 .0347
Within Groups 56 90.1300 1.6095
Total 58 101.6271

(*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

Group
Mean Group 3 1 2
2.0000 Grp 3
3.1800 Grp 1
4.2500 Grp 2 *

Perception of technical content 0. 3 by Ageclass of extension agents

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 13.8287 6.9143 4.4101 .0166
within Groups 56 87.7984 1.5678
Total 58 101.6271

(‘) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

Group
Mean Group 2 1 3
2.3333 Grp 2
3.4186 Grp 1 ‘

4.0000 Grp 3

Perception about ext. worker visit 0. 20 by Ageclass of extension agents

Analysis of Variance

Sun of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 2 6.0183 3.0092 4.7041 .0131
Uithin Groups 54 34.5431 .6397
Total 56 40.5614

(') Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY '

 

 

 

192

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Shereeda, Jassim M. "The Effect of the Agricultural Extension Service on
Farmers’ Behavior and Attitude Towards the Recommendations on
Production of Cotton and Maize in Wadi Zabid Project, Yemen Arab
Republic." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, 1984.

Amba, Aruk E. "Training Needs of Agricultural Extension Workers in the Cross
River State of Nigeria." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1986.

Ary, D. , L. C. Jacobs and A. Razarieh. Introdectien to Research Edpeation.
Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1979.

Awe, Samuel A. "The Analysis of the Training Needs for Intermediate Agricultural
Extension Agents in Ondo State of Nigeria." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1979.

Axinn, G. H. Guide to Approaches to Agricultural Extension. Rome: Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (in press), 1988.

Babbie. E. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publisity
Company. 1983.

Bennett, Claude F. Evaluating Joint Effects of Agricultural Extension Programs.
Washington, DC: USDA, 1981.

Benor, D., Harrison, J. 0., and Baxter, Michael. Agricultural Extension: The
Training and Visit System. World Bank, Washington, DC, 1984.

Blankenburg, Peter V. "The Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension:

A Review of First Experience." Quarterly Journal of International
Agrieulture, Vol. 21, No. 1, January-March, 198226-25.

Borg, W. R. and M. D. Gall. Edueatienel Research: An Introduction (4th ed.).
New York: Longman Inc. 1983.

Caffarella, Rosemary S. "Identify Client’s Needs," Journal of Extension, Vol. XX
(July-August):5-11, 1982.

Campbell, D. D. A l E u aion Fil f and Pr ci r i sf r
Development. The Center for Continuing Education. Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada, 1977.

 

 

193
Central Planning Organization (CPO). Annual Repofl 1986187. Sana’a, Yemen.

Central Planning Organization (CPO). Statistieal Yearbooks, 1985/86. Sana’a,
Yemen.

Central Planning Organization (CPO). "Summary of the First Five-Year Plan of the
YAR (original in Arabic)" Beirut, Lebanon: Economic Commission for
Western Asia, November, 1977.

Cernea, M. M. and Tepping, B. J. "A System for Monitoring and Evaluating
Agricultural Extension Projects." World Bank, Staff Working Paper No. 272,
Washington, DC, 1977.

Cole, Jacquelyn M. "Selecting Extension Teaching Methods," Journal Qf Extension,
Vol. XIX (September-October)227-32, 1981.

Coverdale, G.M. Planning Education in Relation to Rural Development, UNESCO:
International Institute for Educational Planning, 1974.

Dillman, D. A. Mail 11 Tl h n we ' Th Total Desi n Metho . New
York, John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

Evaluation of Agriculture Extension Programs and Its Relation with Agricultural
Extension Research in the Arab World. "The First Report." The Arab
League Organization/The Arabian Organization for Agricultural
Development. Khartoum, Sudan, pp. 122-156, 1978 (October).

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). "Review of Rural
Development Strategy and Policies, Yemen Republic." Rome, 1981 (April).

Gills, Jere L. "Is Agricultural Extension for Women?" Journal of Extension, Vol.
XX (March-April):10—l3, 1982.

Glass, G. V. and Hopkins, K D. Satistical Methods in Education and Psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Glass, G. V. and M. D. Gall. atis i l M h in Edu i n and Ps h 1 (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall. 1983.

Harbison, Frederick H. "Human Resources Perspective on Development."

Hayward, J. A. "Priorities for Extension." Address presented to the Association for
International Agricultural Education, Washington, DC, 1987 (April 24).

Henry S. Dwyer, Th Intervi w rin D vi in Edu i 11, TM Report 56
(Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1976), for a discussion of
interviewing and a list of common-sense rules.

 

 

194
Hill, F.F., Mosher, A.T. Organization for Agrieultural Development. Monograph

prepared for United Nations Conference on "The Application of Science and
Technology for Benefit of the Less Developed Area," February, 1963.

Ibrahim, Andrew K.K. "The Tanzanian Agricultural Extension Service as Perceived
by Trainers, Employers, Extension Officers and Clientele," Master’s Thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, 1981.

Integrated Agricultural Extension Services and Seed Introduction in the Tihama
Region. Yemen, Project Findings and Recommendations, FAO, UNDP,
Rome, 1988.

Jallow, Saba M. "Percpetions of Farmers and Ranchers Concerning Effectiveness
of the Cooperative Extension Service Towards Promoting Agricultural
Development," Master’s Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, 1981.

Kantner, David L. "How Agents and Clients View Programs," Jeumal pf Extensipn,
Vol. XX (May-June):4—9, 1982

Knowles, Malcolm S. "Professional Education for Adult Educators." Jeurnal of
t;entinuing Edueatign and Training, 1(1), 5-1, 1971 (May).

Leagan, Paul J. "Extension Teaching Methods: Extension Education in Community
Development." Directorate of Extension, Ministry of Food and Agriculture,
Government of India, New Delhi, p. 197, 1961.

Leagan, Paul J. "Competencies Needs by Extension Workers." Report of the
Conference on Extension Training, Cornell University, 1957 (April).

Lionberger, HF. and Paul H. Gwin. Communieation Strategies: A Guide for
Agricultural Change Agents, The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.,

Danville, 1982.

Mark D. Spool, "Training Programs for Observers of Behavior: A Review,"
Personnel Psychelogy 31 (1978):853-88.

Mellor, J. W. The Rule ef Agrigtlture in Eeenemie Development. New York, 1966.

Mannento, Joos Elizazi. "Major Problems Which Hinder the Adoption of
Agricultural Innovations by Farmers as Perceived by State Extension Directors
and County Agents Associations Presidents," Master’s Thesis, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, 1980.

Maunder, H.A. Agtigltural Extension: A Reference Manual, Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, 1972.

 

195

Mpachika, Ephraim D. "Effectiveness of the Training and Visit System as Perceived
by Contact Farmers in Ngabu Agricultural Development Division in Malawi."
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, 1989.

Natesan, S. "Training and Visit System: Experience in Sri Lanka." In M.M. Cernea

et al. (ed.) Agricultural Exteusien by T&V: The Asian Euperience. A World
Bank and UNDP Symposium. Washington, DC, 1984.

Samarasinghe, S.H.M.G. "Effectiveness of Visits to Farmers’ Groups under the
Training and Visit System of Extension in Sri Lanka as Perceived by Village
Extension Workers." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, 1985.

Scheaffer, Richard, Mendenhall, W., and Ott, Lyman. Elementag Survey Sampling.
3rd Edition. Duxbury Press, Boston, 1986.

Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall and L. Ott. Elementag Survey gampling (3rd ed.).
Boston: Duxburh Press. 1986.

Seepersad, J., and Henderson, T.H. Agrigltural Extension; A Referenee Manual.
FAQ, Rome, 1984.

Sigman, Vickie A., and Swanson, Burton E. "Problems Facing National Agricultural
Extension in Developing Countries." Interpaks Series No. 3, May, 1984.

Shibah, M. Analysis of the agricultural Competencies needed by the farmers in Al-
Hassa Oasis in Saudia Arabia. Dessertation. The Ohio State University.
1982.

Swanson, BE, and J.B. Claar. "The History and Development of Agricultural

Extension." In B.E. Swanson (ed.) Agricultural Extension: A Referenee
Manual (Second Edition), Rome, FAO, 1984.

Tihama Development Authority (TDA). "Educational and Economic Effect of
Cotton and Maize Demonstration." Extension Researeh Bulletin, No. 7,
Y.A.R., 1978 (April).

Tihama Development Authority (TDA). "Report on the Result of Demonstrations
for the Improvement of Field Crops and Vegetables in the Fall Season,

1979/.80 on Wadi Rema’a Project." Agrigulture Extensipn and Training
Develepment, Y.A.R., 1980.

Tihama Development Authority (TDA). "Tihama Development Project I:
Completion Report." TDA, Y.A.R., 1980 (July).

 

196

Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. "Education and Agricultural Growth: The Educational
Implication of the Requirements for Agricultural Progress." Second Annual
Conference of Agricultural Economics Society of Thailand, February, 1963.

World Bank Country Study. Yemen Arab Republie: Develepment ef a Traditienal
Eeenpmy. Washington, DC, 1979 (January).

ilflifétfllx'ttn Tim-1:11.: :13 ::i}-"-'.;1:_'_:_'*3 _---..'I'g._'__.'.-.1".J'_t Jr"?

 

 

 

 

ll

1

i

ll

‘1
35

l

l

l

LIBRQRIES

\

.1

l

l

i

ll

1
i

ll

1

1

ill

1

1
930059

ll

NICHIGQN STQTE UNIV

, l. l: . .n...x..

is. t

:..t L. 7.5.. I.

......_..
...... ....?........

i! . . ..

...\.. .....
....:!..

 

.f...: