EXT 505 – Capacity Development · Block 1, Unit 2, Topic 7 · M.Sc. Extension Education
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
Introduction
"Approach" in training and capacity development literature is used in more than one sense, and a full picture needs all of them. This topic covers three genuinely distinct dimensions, each traceable to real sources: (1) approaches based on underlying learning theory — Behaviourist, Cognitivist, Humanist; (2) approaches based on learner orientation — Andragogy vs. Pedagogy; and (3) approaches based on instructional delivery design — Traditional/Informative, Experiential/Participatory, Performance-based, which is what your syllabus names directly.
Learning Outcomes
- Distinguish Behaviourist, Cognitivist, and Humanist approaches to learning.
- Explain why Andragogy, not Pedagogy, underlies extension training.
- Explain the Traditional (Informative), Experiential (Participatory), and Performance-based delivery-design approaches with their defining features.
- Select an appropriate combination of approaches for a given capacity development situation.
Approaches Based on Learning Theory
The same primary source (Halim & Ali, in Swanson et al., Eds., 1997) notes: "the behaviourists, the cognitivists, and the humanists emphasize different aspects of the teaching-learning process in their approaches" (citing IRRI, 1990).
Behaviourist
Stresses external conditions (environment) producing observable, measurable changes in behaviour. Focus: action.
Cognitivist
Concerned with how the mind works — coding, categorising, and representing information in memory. Focus: knowledge.
Humanist
Emphasises affective aspects — emotions, attitudes — that influence learning. Focus: belief/attitude.
ЁЯМ╛ Why This Matters for Extension
The source is explicit: "effective training must be able to take care of all the theories of learning in order to change the action, belief, and knowledge components of a trainee simultaneously." A pest-management training that only conveys facts (Cognitivist) without addressing farmers' willingness to change (Humanist) or giving them practice performing the new behaviour (Behaviourist) is incomplete by this standard.
Andragogical vs Pedagogical Orientation
The same source notes plainly: "Andragogy (a theory of adult learning) is usually used rather than pedagogy (a theory of child learning) in extension training."
| Aspect | Pedagogy (Child Learning) | Andragogy (Adult Learning, Knowles) |
|---|---|---|
| Learner's self-concept | Dependent on teacher | Self-directed |
| Role of experience | Limited; teacher's experience matters most | Rich resource for learning; learner's own experience central |
| Readiness to learn | Driven by curriculum/age-grading | Driven by real-life task/problem relevance |
| Orientation to learning | Subject-centred | Problem-centred |
This is precisely why extension training favours farmer field schools, participatory discussion, and problem-centred sessions (all andragogical) over lecture-heavy, curriculum-driven formats better suited to children.
Approaches Based on Instructional Delivery Design
This is the layer your syllabus names directly. Rama, Etling, and Bowen (1993), cited in the same FAO reference text, identify exactly three approaches here. Your syllabus's four labels — Informative, Participatory, Experimental/Experiential, Performance-based — map onto them precisely: "Informative" corresponds to the Traditional approach, while "Participatory" describes the defining characteristic of the Experiential approach rather than being a fully separate fourth category in the original framework.
1. Traditional (Informative) Approach
The training staff designs the objectives, content, teaching techniques, assignments, lesson plans, motivation strategy, tests, and evaluation. The focus is on intervention by the training staff — a one-way, expert-to-learner model.
2. Experiential (Participatory) Approach
The trainer incorporates real experiences in which the learner becomes active and influences the training process. Unlike the academic, traditional model, this approach emphasises real or simulated situations the trainees will actually operate in. Critically: objectives and other elements of training are jointly determined by trainers and trainees — this is precisely the "participatory" characteristic your syllabus names separately. Trainers primarily serve as facilitators, catalysts, or resource persons rather than expert lecturers.
3. Performance-Based Approach
Goals are measured through attainment of a given level of proficiency, not passing grades. Emphasis is on acquiring specific, observable skills for a task. This traces to the Performance-Based Teacher Education (PBTE) model developed by Elam (1971), which is mostly task- or skill-centred and applies equally well to nonformal educational settings such as extension.
| Approach | Who Drives It | Success Measured By | Extension Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional / Informative | Trainer/training staff | Content covered, tests passed | A lecture on soil-nutrient chemistry |
| Experiential / Participatory | Jointly by trainer and trainee | Active engagement with real/simulated situations | Farmer field school where farmers co-design the season's learning focus |
| Performance-Based | Defined proficiency standard | Observable skill attainment, not grades | Certifying a farmer only once they correctly calibrate a sprayer unsupervised |
⚠️ Exam Note
If your examiner's question lists four named approaches (Informative, Participatory, Experiential, Performance-based) as your syllabus does, answer using all four labels as given — but understand conceptually that Informative = Traditional, and Participatory is the defining feature of the Experiential approach in the primary source. This topic gives you both the four labels and the precise underlying three-approach logic behind them.
Putting the Three Dimensions Together
These three dimensions are not competing options — they answer different questions and combine in a single, well-designed programme. This connects directly to Topic 6's dilemmas — none of these approaches is universally "correct."
| Dimension | Question It Answers | Typical Choice in Extension |
|---|---|---|
| Learning Theory | Which aspect of the learner am I addressing — action, knowledge, or belief? | All three, deliberately combined (per Halim & Ali's explicit recommendation) |
| Learner Orientation | Am I teaching an adult with relevant experience, or a novice with none? | Andragogical — extension trainees are adults with real farming experience |
| Delivery Design | How will the session actually be structured and driven? | Usually blended: brief Traditional framing → Experiential practice → Performance-based check |
Choose Traditional/Informative When...
Content is factual, audience is large, time is limited, and consistency across many learners matters most.
Choose Experiential/Participatory When...
Local context varies, ownership and long-term application matter, and learners bring relevant experience to draw on.
Choose Performance-Based When...
The objective is a specific, observable skill (psychomotor domain, Practical 5) and safety or precision genuinely requires demonstrated proficiency.
Indian Institutional Context
ЁЯЗоЁЯЗ│ Approaches in Practice
KVK lecture-based orientation sessions typically use the Traditional/Informative approach; Farmer Field Schools and PRA-based village planning (Practical 1) are built entirely on the Experiential/Participatory approach; certification programmes (e.g., a pesticide-application license requiring demonstrated safe technique) apply the Performance-Based approach.
Beyond Agriculture
ЁЯФД Transferable Framework
A driving school's classroom road-rules session is Traditional/Informative; a hospital's simulation-based emergency-response training is Experiential/Participatory; a pilot's flight certification, requiring demonstrated proficiency rather than a passing exam score alone, is Performance-Based.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Click any question to reveal the answer.
Yes — Halim & Ali's source explicitly recommends this: effective training should address all three (Behaviourist/action, Cognitivist/knowledge, Humanist/belief) together rather than choosing just one, since a farmer might know a fact (Cognitivist), still resist changing (Humanist gap), or know and want to change but not have practised the action yet (Behaviourist gap).
Because extension's primary audience — adult farmers — already has real production experience the training can and should draw on, unlike Pedagogy's assumption of a learner with little relevant prior knowledge. Ignoring farmers' existing experience (treating them pedagogically) tends to produce resistance and disengagement.
Yes, and most well-designed programmes do — e.g., a brief traditional/informative lecture on principles, followed by experiential/participatory field practice, concluding with a performance-based skill check before certification.
They're closely aligned in spirit — both focus on demonstrated capability rather than mere content exposure. The performance-based approach shapes how training itself is designed (proficiency-focused from the start); Kirkpatrick's Level 2 is how that resulting learning is subsequently measured (Practical 9).
Closely related in principle — both emphasise learning through real experience over abstract instruction — though Rama, Etling & Bowen's (1993) training-approach framework and Kolb's experiential learning cycle (concrete experience → reflection → conceptualisation → active experimentation) come from separate literatures. Both point to the same practical conclusion: active, experience-based engagement improves retention and transfer over passive instruction.
References (click to expand)
Primary Source
- Halim, A., & Ali, M. M. Training and professional development. In B. E. Swanson, R. P. Bentz, & A. J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1997. (Source for the learning-theory approaches, the andragogy/pedagogy distinction, and the Rama, Etling & Bowen delivery-design approaches below.)
- Rama, B. R., Etling, A. W. W., & Bowen, B. E. (1993). Training of farmers and extension personnel. In R. K. Samanta (Ed.), Extension Strategy for Agricultural Development in 21st Century. Mittal Publications, New Delhi.
- International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). (1990). Farmer-Participatory Rice Research: A Compendium. IRRI, Manila. (Source for the Behaviourist/Cognitivist/Humanist learning-theory classification.)
Andragogy
- Knowles, M. S. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (Rev. ed.). Cambridge Adult Education.
- Knowles, M. S. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd ed.). Gulf Publishing.
Performance-Based Model
- Elam, S. (1971). Performance Based Teacher Education: What Is the State of the Art. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Related
- Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.