Www.3ieimpact.org Birte Snilstveit International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Farmer field schools: a systematic review Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Learning Outcomes By Terrence Willett. What are Learning Outcomes? n Assessment / Program Based n Outcome Based Assessment n Skills; Knowledge; Result.
Advertisements

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation TWO RECENT SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS FOR DEVELOPMENT Annette N. Brown, Deputy Director for AIES.
Groundwater Scenario Groundwater Scenario Major shifts in water management: Management of water resources – Individuals/Communities to State Harvest and.
Corry Bregendahl Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Ames, Iowa.
ADDA in Vietnam. ADDA Vietnam Projects The IPM Project ( ). The Organic project ( ) The Community Dev Project (2006 – 2014) The Legal.
Technology Transfer Through Farmer Field School in Indonesia Aunu Rauf 1, Nugroho Wienarto 2, BM Shepard 3, GR Carner 3, MD Hammig 3, EP Benson 3, G Schnabel.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT in PALESTINE. INTRODUCTION - Agriculture sector is considered one of the major productive sector in Palestine. - Scarcity of.
Howard White Theory Based Evaluation Impact Evaluation Howard White International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
Evidenced Based Practice; Systematic Reviews; Critiquing Research
Philip Davies Using Evidence for Policy and Practice Philip Davies International Initiative for Impact Evaluation [3ie] BCURE Evidence-Informed.
Farmer Water Schools (FWS). FWS conceptualization APFAMGS adopted FFS approach: Discovery and experiential learning process Farmers master concepts of.
Health Information Technology Costs and Benefits What does the current literature address? Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin, Ph.D. (presenting) Matthew Burke August.
The Impacts of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools on Inputs and Output: Evidence from Onion Farmers in the Philippines Santi Sanglestsawai,
Background Information : Projected prevalence of arthritis is expected to increase from 2.9 million to 6.5 million Canadians, a rise of 124% (Badley.
Program Evaluation Using qualitative & qualitative methods.
Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation Impact evaluation design for: PADYP Benin Jocelyne Delarue - AFD NONIE design clinic 1 Cairo April, Original.
Philip Davies How is a Policy Supposed to Work? – Theory of Change Analysis Philip Davies International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
Water and sanitation interventions for better child health: Evidence from a synthetic review Hugh Waddington Birte Snilstveit Howard White Lorna Fewtrell.
Results  81 papers were reviewed 55 papers psychoeducational interventions 19 papers educational interventions 14 papers multicomponent interventions.
24 August 2011 Dr JC Henning Technology based Quality Evaluation Instrument for Teaching and Learning: UNISA Library Services.
Joep van Mierlo, CEO VSF-Belgium Pastoral field schools and proximity learning a climate change perspective EU development Briefing February 22nd 2012.
DIIS ∙ SUA Collaboration Global Agro-Food Trade and Standards: Challenges for Africa SAFE Final Conference, 31 May – 1 June, 2010 Zanzibar Stefano Ponte,
Effect of a values-based prevention curriculum on HIV- positive couples from four regions in Ethiopia Presented at XIX IAC 2012 By Misgina Suba, MPH 25.
Development Hypothesis or Theory of Change M&E Capacity Strengthening Workshop, Maputo 19 and 20 September 2011 Arif Rashid, TOPS.
INVESTMENTS NEEDED TO SCALE- UP AGRO-ECOLOGY PRESENTED AT RIO+20 Wilfred Miga PELUM ASSOCIATION REGIONAL SECRETARIAT 15 th June 2012.
Monitoring & Evaluation Presentation for Technical Assistance Unit, National Treasury 19 August 2004 Fia van Rensburg.
Rapid Evidence Assessments and Evidence Gap Maps
Film training Media trainers Cocoa specialists External Cocoa Specilists Villagers Cycle repeated to make several videos STCP PARTICIPATORY COCOA VIDEO.
Integrating Knowledge Translation and Exchange into a grant Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD SON, January 14, 2013.
1 PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT Gilles Ceralli TR Methodology – HI Luxembourg 06/2008.
Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience Phnom Penh SKY evaluation meeting 4-5 October 2011.
Potential and Pitfalls of Experimental Impact Evaluation: Reflections on the design and implementation of an experimental Payments for Environmental Services.
Impact Evaluation for Real Time Decision Making Arianna Legovini Head, Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME) World Bank.
Background Information Audience Response Systems (ARS) are a technology used in classrooms that consist of an input device controlled by the learner, a.
Rosemary Vargas-Lundius Senior Research Coordinator Office of Strategy and Knowledge Management, IFAD CARITAS WORKING GROUP MEETING FOR ANTI-POVERTY CAMPAIGN.
Task NumberHarmonise, develop & implement capacity building Performance Indicators CB-07-01c Harmonise efforts by Tasks, in particular those related with.
Howard White What should be in a systematic review? Howard White, 3ie International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Campbell Colloquium.
Review Characteristics This review protocol was prospectively registered with BEME (see flow diagram). Total number of participants involved in the included.
Barriers & facilitators associated with initial and continued attendance at community-based interventions among families of overweight & obese children.
Knowledge Share Fair Cameroon IFAD-CBARDP NIGERIA By Bukar Tijani National Programme Coordinator KNOWLEDGE SHARING ON SUCCESSES AND LESSONS LEARNED.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Practices in Africa.
Hugh Waddington What works in WASH? Evidence from systematic reviews Hugh Waddington Geneva Evaluation Week 7 May 2015 International.
Systematic Review Krit Pongpirul, MD, MPH. Johns Hopkins University.
Funded by: European Commission (80%) with co-funding from GIZ FAO BBC Media Action Implemented by: BBC Media Action Eastern Community Radio Njala University.
A framework to improve evidence-informed decision-making in health service management Ph.D Candidate in Health Care Management Tabriz University of Medical.
King Saud University, College of Science Workshop: Programme accreditation and quality assurance Riyadh, June 13-14, 2009 III.1 The accreditation report:
Development of Gender Sensitive M&E: Tools and Strategies.
Cross-Country Workshop for Impact Evaluations in Agriculture and Community Driven Development Addis Ababa, April 13-16, Causal Inference Nandini.
Monitoring and evaluation 16 July 2009 Michael Samson UNICEF/ IDS Course on Social Protection.
© P. Vermeulen / Handicap International © W. Daniels pour Handicap International © B. Franck / Handicap International « Inclusive Education Towards a shared.
Contact: Patrick Phillips,
Monitoring and Evaluating Rural Advisory Services
Accounting 9706.
Module 2 Basic Concepts.
Medical Education Research A new Area
Interprofessional Online Learning for Primary Health Care:
SoilCare introduction
Systematic Review Summary: Human Trafficking
The impact of transition on health
Y W Liao1, S Shaman1, C S Chean1, S S Poon1, A Soltan1
Lifestyle factors in the development of diabetes among African immigrants in the UK: A systematic review Alloh T. Folashade Faculty of Health and Social.
Ross O. Love Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
IB Environmental Systems and Societies
Project Name: Country:
Internal Assessment (IA)
Genevieve Young-Southward1 Christopher Philo2 Sally-Ann Cooper3
Google Scholar: 8,554 publications Systematic search:
STRENGTHENING/IMPROVING THE CAPACITY OF
Seminar on the Evaluation of AUT STEM Programme
Presentation transcript:

Birte Snilstveit International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Farmer field schools: a systematic review Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit, Jorge Hombrados, Martina Vojtkova, Daniel Phillips and Howard White

Birte Snilstveit What are FFSs?

Birte Snilstveit Global reach of FFS

Birte Snilstveit Policy debate “....remarkable, widespread and lasting developmental impacts” (Van den Berg 2004) “....no significant impacts on the performance of graduates and their neighbours” (Feder et al. 2004)

Birte Snilstveit Results

Birte Snilstveit Abstract screening criteria: Developing country FFS Primary research Quantitative Impact Evaluation (IE) Fulltext inclusion criteria: FFS Primary research Quantitative IE Study design Title Screening criteria: Developing country FFS Primary research Abstract screening criteria: Developing country FFS Primary research Fulltext inclusion criteria: FFS Primary research Qualitative or descriptive studies Barriers/facilitators Methods reporting Title Screening criteria: Developing country FFS Primary research 1,112 abstracts screened 751 excluded 49 unavailable 314 full text screened 257 excluded 124 excl on methodology 128 excl on relevance 5 excl as duplicates 1453 abstracts screened 27,866 titles screened 369 full text screened 958 excluded 126 no access 231 excluded: 177 on relevance 58 on design 80 FFS impact evaluation studies (134 papers) QUANTITATIVE SYNTHESIS 80 FFS impact evaluation studies (134 papers) QUANTITATIVE SYNTHESIS Qualitative SynthesisEffectiveness Synthesis 20 qualitative studies (27 papers) QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS 20 qualitative studies (27 papers) QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS

Birte Snilstveit Basic program theory Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices FFS training provided to farmers: season long training using participatory, discovery-based learning approach; including agro- ecosystem analysis and use of experimental plots, delivery of curriculum which has been partially determined by farmers Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Integrated causal chain synthesis Knowledge acquisition: FFS participants acquire knowledge and skills, improved analytical decision-making

Birte Snilstveit Knowledge of ‘improved’ farming practices

Birte Snilstveit Barriers and facilitators of knowledge

Birte Snilstveit Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) FFS training provided to farmers: season long training using participatory, discovery-based learning approach; including agro- ecosystem analysis and use of experimental plots, delivery of curriculum which has been partially determined by farmers Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Knowledge acquisition: FFS participants acquire knowledge and skills, improved analytical decision-making Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment

Birte Snilstveit Pesticide demand reduced among participants (IPM/IPPM)

Birte Snilstveit Barriers and facilitators to adoption

Birte Snilstveit Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) FFS training provided to farmers: season long training using participatory, discovery-based learning approach; including agro- ecosystem analysis and use of experimental plots, delivery of curriculum which has been partially determined by farmers Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Knowledge acquisition: FFS participants acquire knowledge and skills, improved analytical decision-making Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment

Birte Snilstveit Yields improve among participants

Birte Snilstveit Net revenues (income less costs)

Birte Snilstveit Knowledge acquisition: FFS participants acquire knowledge and skills, improved analytical decision-making Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices Adoption: FFS participants adopt new technology and management practices FFS training provided to farmers: season long training using participatory, discovery-based learning approach; including agro- ecosystem analysis and use of experimental plots, delivery of curriculum which has been partially determined by farmers Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Training of facilitators: Season long training of facilitators Other inputs: Financial resources, inputs, physical set-up Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Diffusion of knowledge (to non-participants, communication or observation) Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Diffusion of practices (neighboring farmers adopt new technology and management practices) Final outcomes: Yield, input-output ratio, income, health, environment, empowerment Breakdown in causal chain

Birte Snilstveit Why no diffusion?

Birte Snilstveit Conclusions Evidence suggests FFS effective in improving farmer practices and agricultural outcomes among FFS-participants But practices and outcomes do not diffuse to neighbouring farmers Diffusion and sustainability may require regular training programmes, follow-up and backstopping SRs using program theory and broader range of evidence produce more useful conclusions

Birte Snilstveit Thank you!