Abstract

Learning is an investment in capacity building that has and will continue to reap rewards for primary producers and government in terms of increased sustainable production, profitability, exports, jobs and sustainable rural communities. Primary production operates in a context of continual change and requires up to date, complex and varied skills of primary producers and land managers.

A recent national research project funded by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Australia confirmed that application of best practice from the theory of adult education in designing and developing learning programs in primary industry results in learning activities that provide information that is relevant to farmers’ needs, delivered in an entertaining way, and that draws on examples directly relevant to the participants. As a result, the training often exceeds the expectations of the participants.

The project produced a self-assessment checklist to identify ways of improving the development and delivery of training for extension practitioners and training providers. The key issues include continuous monitoring of client’s needs, and actively seeking opportunities to meet and work with industry organisations, other training providers and funding bodies.

There appear to be two drivers for the development of learning programs. One is problems or opportunities identified by people and organisations that could be termed ‘scanners’ and who tend not to be potential participants, the other is learning needs expressed by individuals or enterprises who want to participate in learning activities (participants). Scanners are typically industry organisations, government agencies and researchers, but may include providers and participants. Extension practitioners are well-placed to act as scanners.

It is very important that farmers and farmer organisations contribute to the development of new learning programs. Without industry input and support, extension practitioners and training providers cannot be expected to ensure they meet client needs. In other words, to develop effective learning programs, there must an industry learning community of producers, industry organisations, extension practitioners and training providers and other stakeholders such as supply chain enterprises, government and researchers.

Media summary

Effective learning programs are developed by combining the expertise of producers, industry organisations, extension practitioners, training providers and other stakeholders such as government and researchers in an industry learning community.

Keywords

Extension, training, adult learning, learning communities, industry organisations

Introduction

Learning is an investment in capacity building that has and will continue to reap rewards for primary producers and government in terms of increased sustainable production, profitability, exports, jobs and sustainable rural communities. Primary production operates in a context of continual change and requires up to date, complex and varied skills of primary producers and land managers.

It is widely accepted that learning contributes to the economic performance of farm businesses (Kilpatrick 1997) and nations (OECD 2001). An Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) project report prepared by Cullen (1998) examined links between the profile of education and training qualifications and national competitiveness in OECD countries. Australia ranks in the bottom third of OECD countries in terms of both qualifications profile and national competitiveness, suggesting that there is scope to improve skills, which can in turn be expected to improve competitiveness right across the economy.

Throughout the nation, the continuing education of adults is taking on a new importance. Developing new technical and personal skills, upgrading old ones, bringing about new attitudes and values are all essential ingredients in this change. (Burns 1995, p.xi)

Learning is an economic ‘tool’ that works through social means, as the quote from Burns suggests: new attitudes and values are essential ingredients. Learning can create new identities for individual learners, empowering them in a social as well as economic sense. The other side of the ‘learning coin’ is that those who are not actively participating in learning throughout their lives are missing out. They are at risk of not keeping pace with the demands of the new economy and joining the ranks of a new class of disadvantaged.

Lifelong learning matters because it is now a mechanism for exclusion and control. As well as empowering people, it also creates new and powerful inequities. (Field, 2000, p.x)

Learning, then, can improve outcomes for individuals, enterprises, rural communities, industries and the nation. It is vital, therefore, to understand how adults learn. This paper considers how individual adults learn, particularly how adults learn together, and the role of learning communities in facilitating learning. Learning is applied to the context of primary industry by considering the findings of a project that examined the development of those learning programs that are most effective in meeting client needs. The paper considers the role of extension partitioners in promoting effective learning.

How adults learn

It has long been established that learning assists people to receive, decode and understand information, and hence make better decisions (Thomas, Ladewig and McIntosh 1990, Welch 1970). Learning can also make people or enterprises aware of a greater range of possible new practices (Rogers 1995). Therefore, learning assists people and enterprises to make successful changes to their behaviour or practice (Kilpatrick, 2000).

Adults are assumed to be voluntary learners, autonomous, independent, and self-directed. In contrast to children, whom traditional educational theory holds are motivated by external rewards or punishment, adults are intrinsically motivated and their readiness to learn is associated with a particular problem or need, or a transition point in their lives (Kerka 2002). Pedagogy is the term used to describe methods to teach dependent-learner children, andragogy describes the teaching or facilitating of learning by independent, motivated adult learners (Knowles 1990). “The highest professional and moral principle for adult educators is to involve learners in identifying their needs" (Cervano and Wilson 1999, p. 29). Good practice andragogy holds that adults should also be involved in deciding how they go about meeting their learning needs. The dichotomy between pedagogy and andragogy as been criticised as overly simplistic. Adults do not automatically become self-directed upon achieving adulthood, or may be self-directed in some situations but not in others. As Field (2000) suggests, it is possible that lifelong learning can become coercive and mandatory. Children can be self-directed, independent learners.

Every adult learner is different. They come to a new learning experience with a unique set of past experiences, knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and aspirations. Theories of adult learning suggest these are rich resources to be drawn upon in learning (Kerka 2002), however existing knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and aspirations can also be barriers to learning from new experiences.

Teachers, trainers and facilitators of adult learning, including extension workers, must be aware of not only how adults learn, but also what motivates them to learn. Adults are motivated to learn in order to solve a problem or take advantage of an opportunity, or some event in their lives, such as the transition off the farm or a major drought. Adults need learning to be meaningful and relevant, relatively few adults learn for the sake of it, or for the love of learning. A study for the Australian National Training Authority (The Research Forum 2000) investigated attitudes toward structured or planned learning from courses and at work. It found that only about 21% of adults learn for the joy of it. As you can see from Figure 1, work is a powerful motivator for learning for the 31% of the adult population in the groups labelled ‘learn to earn’ and ‘I’m done with it’. This group primarily value learning in relation to jobs and qualifications. More than half of this group (17% of the total, ‘learn to earn’) say they are likely to learn in the next 12 months, the remainder of the group (14% of the total) have learnt new skills in the last 12 months, but report they are less likely to learn in the next 12 months ( ‘I’m done with it’ by The Research Forum).

Figure 1 Adults’ attitudes to learning

Source: Adapted from The Research Forum (2000) p. 12

Many people are not aware of their own learning except that which takes place in formal institutional contexts, yet around 80% of all learning that occurs in adult lives occurs through informal means and situations (Tough 1999). Tough estimates that on average, adults in all demographic groups spend 15 hours a week on average ‘doing’ informal learning. Brookfield (1986, p.150) notes that most adults’ learning occurs through participation in aspects of social life such as work, community or family, and does not occur primarily through formal education or courses. The point that most people are not aware of their own learning was driven home clearly for Sue when she piloted a questionnaire that asked farmers: ‘Think about when you want to make a change or solve a problem on your farm. How do you learn what to do?’ Several of the farmers said, but I don’t learn! The last part of question was changed to: ‘How do you find out about what to do? What information sources to you use?’. Everyone was able to give examples of people they would talk to, or places they would go.

Learning is situated within the culture, rules and history of the community in which it takes place. It is ‘situated cognition’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In the field of workplace learning, those such as Lave and Wenger (1991), Wenger (1998) and Billett (2001) argue for a theory of learning that is interdependent with the work environment, while Gee (1996) and Gee, Hull and Lankshear (1996) regard learning as social practice influenced by powerful socio-cultural, corporate and political forces. A constructivist view of learning (Vygotsky 1997) would hold that exploring others’ values and attitudes assists in changing one’s own values and attitudes. For those working in isolated situations, such as farmers, learning that takes place in groups plays an important role in modifying values by increasing their otherwise limited opportunities for interactive learning. The opportunity to alter values and attitudes in these ways increases the probability of a change to practice (Kilpatrick, 2000). The social embeddedness of the learning process is illustrated in the way small business operators, including farm business operators, learn. Work is rarely an isolated activity. It often takes place in teams, Sue has written about learning by farm management teams, for example. Even when the workplace is a one person operation, there are learning interactions with customers and suppliers. One of the most important features of small business learning is its reliance on social and business networks for information and learning (Gibb, J 1997). For example, learning how to use a new piece of equipment, or how to integrate with a customer’s new quality control system. Advice from management, financial and industry-related experts, as well as from family and other workers are considered important learning sources (Gibb, A 1997).

The idea that learning is socially situated and, in terms of job related learning, interdependent with the work environment leads logically to the idea of groups of people learning together. This is not to imply everyone should be learning the same thing at the same time. Rather, people’s work tasks are interdependent, and if practices or systems of working are to change to meet the global challenges mentioned at the start of this paper, then the various individuals that make up a workplace, an enterprise, a supply chain or an industry cannot ignore each other as they learn to adapt and change. The concept of learning communities allows us to move away from the idea of the individual learner to think about how people with a common or shared purpose might learn with and from each other, and draw on outside resources in their learning.

Learning communities

Consistent with the notion of learning as a socially situated activity, Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest a model of learning as social construction. Learners learn to function in a community by learning the shared language of the community and acquiring the community’s subjective viewpoint. Brown and Duguid (1991) talk of shared meanings for interpreting complex activities being formed and transformed through problem solving in workplace communities. Kasl and Marsick (1997) use the term group learning. They define the outcome of group learning as “when all members perceive themselves as having contributed to a group outcome, and all members of the group can individually describe what the group as a system knows” (p. 250).

The concept of learning communities is closely related to the concept of learning organisations. Lundvall (1992) proposes that change is a cumulative process that builds on existing knowledge and practices through interactive learning. Organisations which adapt and change as a result of interactive learning activities are learning organisations. Learning organisations are characterised by both intra-organisational learning and inter-organisational learning. Learning organisations occur because of “the vision of individuals, groups and organisational networks committed to and capable of continuous learning through information exchange, experimentation, dialogue, negotiation and consensus building” (Kochan and Useem 1992, p. 391).

Learning in groups, organisations, or communities, then, is about learning how the community behaves, what processes to follow, what attitudes and values to hold, language to speak and how to access the community’s knowledge. The following definition was derived from a review of the extensive literature on learning communities:

Learning communities are made up of people who share a common purpose. They collaborate to draw on individual strengths, respect a variety of perspectives, and actively promote learning opportunities. The outcomes are the creation of a synergistic, vibrant environment, enhanced potential for all members, and the creation of new knowledge. (Kilpatrick, Barrett and Jones 2003)

The notion of a learning community is highly relevant to primary industry. More than one member of the farm management team is involved in almost all learning-for-change processes (Kilpatrick et al., 1999), confirming that an understanding of how adults learn together is highly useful to extension practitioners. In agriculture, most management changes made by farm businesses draw on several learning sources. Experts and other farmers, and training activities are frequently used as learning sources for change. The many small producers who make up the industry have traditionally united through industry organisations such as growers associations and state farmer organisations, to lobby government and get better prices in the market; that is to bring about change and jointly own the responsibilities and rewards of their industry, or at least a part of it. We could extend the concept to learning industries and to supply chains as learning communities. The stakeholders in learning industries, supply chain learning communities and learning geographic communities, such as rural towns or learning regions, include a diverse range of organisations, associations and institutions as well as enterprises and individuals. A review of literature has identified enhancers and inhibitors of partnerships and collaborations around learning involving groups such as these. For learning to occur between the various partners that might make up a learning community, attention must be paid to the social pre-requisites for learning together that were identified above, including a shared language and shared values. Having effective opportunities and structures for interaction that are resourced with people skilled in working across the producer-industry-education/training/extension sectors cultural divide lies at the heart of successful partnerships around facilitating learning.

Factors that enhance the effectiveness of collaborative arrangements, and consequently the outcomes of planned and negotiated learning programs are:

• Opportunities and structures for interaction which facilitate two-way information flows, networking and collaboration. Formal structures of boards and committees tend to enhance the effectiveness of partnerships that are beyond the early, initiation stage.
• Brokers or intermediaries play a key role in forging a learning culture (Kearns and Papadopoulos 2000); industry or government bodies can facilitate interaction.
• Learning activities that are highly relevant to the partners.
• Human infrastructure that includes enabling leadership (leaders being not only people in positions of authority and power, collaborations work more effectively when others take responsibility for getting things done), and training brokers and/or local coordinators who facilitate the operation of ongoing relationships. Interpersonal, conflict resolution and team work skills are important.
• Some shared visions, values and trust among the partners in the collaboration; partnerships with a vision that allows a mix of meeting the needs of individuals, the community or industry and the region are the most successful.
• Networks that extend outside the community/industry/sector give access to advice, resources and specialist providers.
• Partnerships where industry is proactive in initiating and maintaining linkages and relationships tend to be the most successful (Kearns et al. 1996). (Kilpatrick, Fulton and Geard 2002, Appendix 1, p.20)

Absence of, or insufficient quantity or quality of, the factors listed above reduce the effectiveness of outcomes from collaborative partnerships. Several additional factors work against effective collaboration:

• A tension between competition (a feature of much current Australian policy) and collaboration reduces the effectiveness of learning programs, especially where ‘fly in fly out’ trainers win competitive training tenders and fail to take account of special local needs.
• Insufficient continuity of programs or local personnel wastes resources in trying to keep up with changes and diminishes enthusiasm. The importance of continuity of staff and programs in all sectors in rural communities is noted by Geddes (1998) in Europe and CRLRA (2000) in Australia. Programs should change and evolve incrementally, not chop and change about. They should build on the physical and human infrastructure already present in communities (including networks and skills), and take account of the history of the community when setting future directions.
• Cultural barriers including lack of understanding by all partners of each others’ cultures, for example, the cultural differences between education institutions and industry.
• Lack of understanding or clarity of the purpose of the partnership and roles and responsibilities of all in the partnership.
• Small size of some communities means there are insufficient groups and individuals with time and skills to plan and negotiate to meet learning needs. (Kilpatrick, Fulton and Geard 2002, Appendix 1 p.21)

The outcomes of effective collaborations can be summarised as: savings from shared resources, increased and better informed demand from clients (individuals, enterprises, industries and communities), identified, accessible training pathways, better community/industry response to change and enhanced social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Providers and facilitators of learning programs can, and we argue should, be partners in collaborations that facilitate learning communities and learning for learning industries. They must be aware of the interconnectedness of enterprises, supply chains and other stakeholder organisations. Primary industry leaders, such as the one quoted below, are aware of the benefits of a learning community approach in the industry:

There should be far more co-operation and cohesion in the way that we approach learning, education and training... co-operation between education institutions, but also far more co-operation between the education institution and their clients... We need to develop a plan on the industry as a whole, and this involves all the farming organisations and the service providers and the government training institutions, education institutions, ... as to how we are going to equip our industry with the knowledge and skills that they need to compete far more effectively. (Participant in the Future Training Directions in Australian Agriculture survey (Kilpatrick, 1996b) cited in Fulton and Weatherley 2000)

Facilitating learning in primary industry

Primary industry is a mature industry. The conventional wisdom in the fields continuing education and learning for work (vocational education and training) is that it is new and emerging industries, ones that are ‘high tech’ ‘knowledge-based’ and rely on IT&AT (information technology and advanced technology) that are the industries most involved in learning. However, agriculture has a long and proud tradition of continuing education, or learning for work. Sue’s PhD thesis was about the link between education and training and farm profitability. When she was first started her research she was both surprised and delighted to find that many of the early, foundational studies from the discipline of economics ‘proving’ the link between education and training and productivity used agriculture for their data, for example, Griliches’s (1957) paper in Econometrica that explored the economics of learning and technological change and Welch’s (1970) paper in the Journal of Political Economy about the impact of education on productivity. Primary industry continues to be vitally concerned with learning. For example, the industry in Australia lobbied government for assistance to improve access to management and marketing training in the mid 1990s, resulting in the highly successful FarmBis program (see Roy Morgan Research 2002).

For many years, extension practitioners have been facilitating much of the learning in primary industry. We know that most farm management teams consult multiple learning sources, both in learning for specific changes to practice change and for day-to-day, on-going learning. Training or learning in groups is rarely used as the only learning source in learning for change, rather it is commonly combined with learning from other farmers or experts (including extension practitioners) on a one-on-one basis, and/or with learning from media, observation and experience (Kilpatrick et al 1999). Extension practitioners facilitate structured group learning and are a source of one-on-one learning for producers.

Extension practitioners are at the coalface of learning in the industry. They are uniquely placed to be a channel between the vast and complex mountain of information and ways of working that may be useful and the primary producers who could make use of them. The field of adult learning has much to contribute to assist extension practitioners in this task. Further, extension practitioners, educational institutions, training providers and other learning facilitators (providers) have a key role in determining both the content and the format of structured learning. Primary producers’ access to learning opportunities is determined largely by what is readily available in the marketplace. Primary producers are not necessarily well informed about alternatives, nor do they necessarily have the ability to select or negotiate learning activities that best matches their needs. Primary producers deserve to choose from the best possible range of learning and training products, a range that draws on all relevant available knowledge and research.

For this range of training products, or learning programs, to be available, providers, including extension, must be well informed about relevant scientific, social, economic and environmental knowledge and research. Carney (1998) cites many examples where government research and extension are isolated from clients, resulting in potentially useful research sitting on the shelf, and areas where new knowledge is desperately needed going unresearched. The lack of relevance of research and research findings to tackling industry issues being identified as a significant barrier to effective extension (Rose 1996). For the best range of training products to be available, extension practitioners and other providers must be aware of producer and industry needs. Representative organisations and government have, or are in a position to establish, relationships with both producers and providers. They are in a position to act to improve information flows between producers and providers.

Importance of relevant content

The 2000 and 2001 Annual Follow-Up Surveys of FarmBis Participants undertaken by Roy Morgan Research (Roy Morgan Research 2002) found that content was the most important factor influencing farmer participation in learning activities. Several researchers have found that if information or training is not seen as relevant and applicable by farmers they are unlikely to access or use it (Keen and Stocklmayer 1999, Kilpatrick et al. 1999). The need for learning activities to be perceived as relevant is not restricted to primary industry, Beer et al. (1996) report a similar finding in organisational management literature that shows change is resisted if lower level managers cannot see a connection to their business goals. This is not surprising, in the light of our earlier discussion of adult learning, which noted that adults are motivated to learn in order to solve a problem or take advantage of an opportunity.

The next section discusses a project we worked on recently, ‘Providing client-focussed education and training’, that investigated how providers of learning programs, such as extension practitioners, can ensure that the learning programs they design and the learning experiences they provide are relevant to the context of continual change in which primary industry operates.

Providing client-focussed education and training

This project confirmed that the application of good practice principles from the field of adult learning improves the quality of learning in primary industry and, most importantly, can lead to superior outcomes in terms of changes to practice and ability to take advantage of opportunities. ‘Providing client-focussed education and training’, was funded by the FarmBis section of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia. The aim of the project was to identify effective processes for ensuring that the content of learning activities for Australian primary producers is relevant to the changing needs of clients, and evolves so as to always incorporate the best available knowledge and science.

We define clients as primary producers/land managers and their representative organisations. Government can be considered a client when it is purchasing training. Clients can be categorised as individual clients, enterprises (individual businesses), industry (representative organisations) and government. In summary, for our project providing client-focussed education and training meant making accessible facilitated structured learning activities that are informed by the needs of primary producers/land managers, their representative organisations and/or government.

The findings of our project are relevant to extension practitioners on two levels. They define good practice in (1) what happens before any training or extension activity is even advertised, and (2) what happens once what we will call a learning program is designed, that is during the life of the program as various groups of participants pass through the program.

Education and training providers who use a process that implies they are successful in meeting industry or client needs consult with a wide range of stakeholders in negotiating the learning objectives and content of learning programs. That is these education and training providers are part of a learning community. A partnership model where providers collaborate with the target group and others such as industry organisations and government agencies, is most likely to be effective.

Criteria to assess the process that providers, in partnership with other stakeholders, go through to plan and develop training were developed from a review of the literature and refined at a stakeholder workshop. Workshop participants included representatives from industry, extension practitioners, training providers and government. Five criteria of good practice for the process of planning and developing learning programs were developed. These criteria were used as the basis for the development of the survey instrument administered by telephone to 141 providers of agricultural education and training in Australia listed on FarmBis databases. The survey elicited information about the extent to which the providers had adhered to the good practice criteria in developing and delivering a learning program nominated by the provider. Four case studies of good practice in client focussed training were selected from the top ranked 37 learning programs from the survey and written up. The project concluded with a second workshop to validate the findings regarding good practice in planning and developing learning programs, and to capture the actions that providers and other stakeholders could take in the light of the findings.

The critical issue for being successful in delivering client focused education and training is whether or not the learning program is addressing client needs, regardless of who first identifies these needs. Examples of provider, industry and a combination of both initially identifying needs were evident in the top ranked learning programs from the survey. The good practice criteria unpack the process that underpins the identification of learning needs in primary industry and the process of developing a learning program to address needs.

The five good practice criteria are:

1. Understand client needs and motivations to participate in learning activities

2. Clearly define objectives, measure and follow up on outcomes

3. Efficient use of resources that ensures good value training for participants

4. Recognition of current skills and clear and accessible pathways to learning activities

5. Mechanisms for ensuring appropriate delivery of training

A number of sub criteria were identified under each of the criteria. The complete set appears below in Table 1. In this paper we concentrate on the seven sub-criteria that emerged from our survey of education and training providers, the workshops and four case studies of good practice in providing client-focussed education and training, as being associated with good practice performance generally. These are listed later in the paper, following a discussion of the characteristics of the programs and providers that are most likely to be successful in meeting industry and client needs.

Table 1 Checklist of good practice criteria for developing learning activities

1. Understand client needs and motivations to participate

• Understand the needs and motivations of all sub-groups of clients, including those who do not usually participate
• Process in place for identifying needs of all sub-groups of clients
• Process for monitoring changes in needs
• Involve potential participants in identifying needs and planning training
• Wide networks of providers, industry organisations, government agencies, ‘technical’ expertise, researchers and/or community organisations, according to context
• Mechanism to ensure provider/trainer/facilitator understands and acts on changing client needs and motivations

2. Clearly define objectives, measure and follow up on outcomes

a) Shared goals or vision for the clients, especially re outcomes from training

b) All understand culture of other partners: there is a common language and trust

c) Clearly defined and understood objectives

d) Monitor short, medium and long term training outcomes for relevance to client

e) Process in place for monitoring whether all sub-groups access training, including those who do not usually participate

f) Act on results of monitoring strategies, feedback into planning

3. Efficient use of resources that ensures good value training for participants

a) Check that the appropriate players are involved in the partnership

b) Have vehicles/structures to operationalise the partnership

c) Share resources (physical, financial and human)

d) Partners have complementary resources

e) Partners have sufficient time and resources available to make a useful contribution to collaboration

f) Partnership has wide range of choice of resources (e.g. providers)

4. Recognition of current skills and clear and accessible pathways to learning activities

a) Process for identifying needs of participants and recognition of current competence in place

b) Needs of participants matched to training

c) Information about training and pathways to further training clear and readily available to all sub-groups of clients

d) Accreditation and/or other recognition of training activities as appropriate

e) Networks of providers that refer clients to most appropriate training

f) Accessible pathways and next steps in training

g) Promote a culture of continuous learning for partners and providers as well as participants

5. Mechanisms for ensuring appropriate delivery of training

a) Check provider/trainer/facilitator skills and qualifications meet a predetermined standard

b) Monitor performance against predetermined standard

c) Procedures for action when quality falls below predetermined standard

d) Mechanism for trainer/facilitator professional development

Source: Kilpatrick, Fulton and Geard (2002)

Table 1 roughly follows a chronological process that starts with understanding the client and industry contexts, before specific learning needs are identified (1. Understand client needs and motivations to participate in learning activities). The benefits that flow from being part of a learning community are recognised in this step as good practice requires wide networks of providers, industry organisations, government agencies, ‘technical’ expertise, researchers and/or community organisations, according to context (1e). Table 1 moves through a process of designing a learning program to meet the identified needs, using a collaborative partnership approach that recognises the social nature of adult learning for work, discussed earlier in this paper. The partners work together to create something akin to new knowledge in the form of a learning program that is matched to their context and needs. The sub criteria in 2 and 3 (Clearly define objectives, measure and follow up on outcomes and Efficient use of resources that ensures good value training for participants) describe good practice in the design and development stage. Once the program is developed, it is further customised to the needs and contexts of individual participants at the delivery stage to ensure if fits with each participant’s learning pathway. That is, it follows from previous learning programs and the skills and knowledge, or unique set of experiences, that each participant brings to learning, and there is a logical step from the learning program that encourages each participant to continue their learning journey (4. Recognition of current skills and clear and accessible pathways to learning activities). Finally, when the program is delivered, there are mechanisms to ensure quality of delivery, and that the provider and partners are involved in looping back in cycle of continuous learning and improvement (4 g Promote a culture of continuous learning for partners and providers as well as participants and 5 Mechanisms for ensuring appropriate delivery of training).

Structured learning programs are part of a continuous cycle of improvement. There must be ongoing monitoring of needs and evaluation of the effectiveness of training outcomes. Action on the results of monitoring and evaluation is crucial. Sub-criteria 1c, 1d, 1f, 2d, 2e, 2f, 4c, 4f, 4g, 5b, 5c form a checklist for continuous improvement.

Programs and providers that are successful in meeting industry and client needs

Analysis of the survey responses drew on literature and the input of stakeholders at the project workshop and allocated one of three ratings on each of the sub-criteria to the provider and their nominated learning program: best, good or poor practice. The survey findings showed that public and private providers of all sizes and running all types of programs consistently appear in the top rank group in relation to good practice for each of the five criteria. When scores on all criteria are considered together, inspection of those with the highest scores summed across all the sub-criteria reveals that large and small private and public providers with a wide variety of training programs are represented at the very top of the ranked list. Thus it is possible for providers to use best practice methods in developing learning programs regardless of the type of program they develop and the characteristics of the provider.

However, the majority of providers that scored best on the composite index have characteristics that are associated with large providers; they offer more than five programs, are likely to operate in more than one state and are not totally reliant on FarmBis funding. There is some suggestion that they are more likely to be public providers. The literature review found that networks that extend outside the community/ sector and give access to advice, resources and specialist providers enhance collaborations and the programs that result. Large providers are more likely to have access to more extensive networks because they operate in a number of locations and have a larger staff, each with their own network. Large providers may also bring more human infrastructure to collaborations around learning (another enhancer); they may be more likely to have people to allocate to assist in the day-to-day functioning of partnerships and collaborations in developing learning programs.

We stress that attention to all of the criteria and sub-criteria is important for good practice in developing and delivering learning programs. However, some sub-criteria stood out as being associated with the providers and learning programs that were ranked in the top group of 37 (of 141) by the survey. Providers of these programs were more likely than the other providers surveyed to be ranked as using best practice on seven of the sub-criteria. The second project stakeholder workshop and the case studies confirmed the importance of these sub-criteria. The seven sub-criteria that appear to be associated with good practice performance generally are:

• Process for monitoring changing needs (1c),
• Involve potential participants in identifying needs and planning training (1d),
• Wide networks of providers, industry organisations, government agencies, technical expertise, researchers and/or community organisations, according to context (1e),
• Act on results of monitoring strategies, feedback into planning (2f),
• Share resources - physical, financial and human (3c),
• Information about training and pathways to further training clear and readily available to all sub-groups of clients (4c), and
• Check provider/trainer/facilitator skills and qualifications meet a predetermined standard (5a).

Examples of how the four selected case studies addressed these sub-criteria are described in the next section, in order to illustrate how these seven sub-criteria can be applied in practice. First, brief outlines of the four case studies are provided. The case studies are described in detail in Appendix 4 of the project report (Kilpatrick, Fulton and Geard 2002).

Grazing for Profit

The course (Resource Consulting Services) focuses on general business management, financial management, production management, human capital management and natural resource management. Resource Consulting Services identified the need for the Grazing for Profit course after observing the success of a similar program overseas. The course was modified to “Australianise” the material. Introductory sessions were used to identify general producer interest in the course, and enrolments indicated client commitment. The delivery uses adult learning principles, combining presentations with facilitated group sessions to ensure active participation by producers. The approach uses practical examples and case studies, encouraging the development of a business plan as part of the six-day course.

Recognition of Prior Learning.

The Queensland Rural Industry Training Advisory Council identified the need for the Recognition of Prior Learning program. This Council holds the contract for the regional coordination network for FarmBis. The latter group worked very closely with industry, training providers and with individual producers to develop the objectives, content and format of the course. A group of registered training organisations in the horticulture/agriculture area were brought together to consider how Recognition of Prior Learning might work, what outcomes were needed and what quality assurance systems were needed to ensure all training providers would assess skills consistently. Over 500 producers were consulted. The target client group is experienced farmers who are seeking to identify their current skills and future training needs, and to obtain qualifications in recognition of their current skills. Most of the topics covered come under rural business management. A flexible delivery system is used to address individual client’s needs. Each farmer works individually with the training provider to determine what competencies they believe they have. The farmer then gathers the evidence to demonstrate competency, and this is discussed and checked with the training provider.

Responsible Rural Safety Management.

The need for the safety course was identified by Queensland’s AgForce Training, whose mission is to address members’ needs in on-going learning and skills development so members have viable, sustainable businesses. AgForce sought out trainers with whom they could partner to develop and implement a course that met members’ needs. Some courses were already in existence, however course attendance was low, and AgForce members were providing feedback that the two-day courses were too long, too expensive, and would be better if condensed into a one-day course. After some months of unsuccessful negotiations with a number of potential partnering organisations, AgForce felt the best approach would be to develop its own course by identifying an individual safety-training expert to work with. Responsible Rural Safety Management covers all aspects of occupational health and safety and risk management in relation to rural properties. It is run as a one-day group workshop.

Challenge 2020.

The need for Challenge 2020 was identified by PIRSA Rural Solutions of South Australia based on experience and feedback from participants in previous programs. This showed that producers wanted training in a range of areas, and they wanted to determine what those areas would be. The topics of the packages were identified through needs analysis with farmer groups, key outcomes from research organisations, and from packaging up existing training courses being offered by consultants. Challenge 2020 is offered as a suite of about 70 single issue half day ‘in the paddock’ workshops on business management issues available to grain grower groups across South Australia. PIRSA Rural Solutions has developed the workshops and these are delivered by a range of providers. The target group for this program is existing groups, or groups formed especially for this purpose. Growers determine their choice of courses and can tailor the workshop to their requirements. This group may also choose the presenter for each workshop.

In the next section, these case studies are used to illustrate the seven sub-criteria particularly associated with good practice in developing and delivering client-focussed learning programs.

Examples of good practice in providing client-focussed learning programs

Process for monitoring changing needs (1c)

Industry identified a learning need in two of the case studies (Recognition of Prior Learning and Responsible Rural Safety Management), and the provider identified a learning need in the Grazing for Profit and Challenge 2020 case studies. Providers with close links to industry organisations are able to monitor changing needs by keeping in contact with the industry organisations. AgForce Training, the training arm of the industry organisation AgForce, is in direct contact with its clients. Grazing for Profit works closely with participants and FarmBis, so the training providers are able to continuously improve their course content. Past participants, many of whom engage in further training with Resource Consulting Services, also provide feedback on the usefulness of the course in meeting their changing needs.

Involve clients in planning (1d)

All of the four case study programs involved clients in planning. In some cases this was prior to the initiation of the program (Responsible Rural Safety Management and Recognition of Prior Learning), in other cases it was during the design of the project (Challenge 2020). Each Challenge 2020 workshop had a team overseeing its development that included potential participants, consultants and deliverers. Grazing for Profit involved participant clients during the initial stages of the delivery of the program. All four involved clients in the pre-testing and evaluation of the initial program, for example workshops were tested in the field with growers before being certified by Challenge 2020.

The Recognition of Prior Learning case study was the most extensive in its consultations. The need for this program was identified through a survey of individual producers by the industry training board. This was followed up with negotiations with FarmBis to obtain funding, and then with individual providers, regional FarmBis coordinators and experts to develop the content and process for the program. On-going evaluation of the program allowed continuous improvement to ensure client’s needs.

While the development of the Challenge 2020 and the Grazing for Profit courses is initiated by the deliverers, they each have a process for involving the client in program design. Challenge 2020 appoints a small group of industry representatives to ‘steer’ the development of new courses, and both use pre-testing and on-going feedback to revise and improve their programs.

Wide networks (1e)

Each of the high ranking learning programs from the survey demonstrated wide networks, with a range of partners, particularly the participant target group, industry organisations, government agencies, technical experts and other providers. The nature and extent of consultation with these networks varied with each provider. Good communication mechanisms and shared goals assisted the development and maintenance of the networks. Key success factors for AgForce’s Responsible Rural Safety Management were open lines of communication among the development partners, their diverse expertise and their common goals.

It was evident from the case studies that all of the providers had strong relationships and linkages with their clients, their funders and the relevant industry organisations. Where these relationships and linkages were strongest the partners were most keen to continue to work together in the future – whether this be with the partners who developed the program, or the provider and their client partners.

Act on result of monitoring strategies (2f)

The four case studies used both formal and informal strategies for monitoring, and emphasised the importance of acting on the feedback. Grazing for Profit participants are formally asked for feedback between six to eight times during the course, by reporting on “What went well” and “What could be better”. This participant feedback, plus that obtained through the FarmBis evaluation forms, and from past participants, is combined with self-evaluation by the deliverers. The course team sits down once a year to identify what changes are needed to improve the course. The outcomes of the evaluation process are used to further develop both the course and the skills of the deliverers.

Share resources (3c)

In developing and delivering their training programs, all of the four case study providers worked in partnership with other groups. Grazing for Profit worked directly with its target group, while other programs also worked with the relevant government agencies and the industry body to develop and deliver training. In the case of the Recognition of Prior Learning program, the providers worked with other providers to agree on prices and standards for assessment. Challenge 2020 received funding from one of the industry stakeholder organisations, Grains Research and Development Corporation.

Information on pathways (4c)

All of the programs provided information on pathways to further training. Grazing for Profit is part of a range of products offered by Resource Consulting Services, aiming to assist people through the process of change (see Figure 1). This course does not include recognition of prior learning, but its follow-on courses do. Participants are provided with links to future training opportunities.

Figure 1 RCS training products throughout the process of change

Source: Resource Consulting Services, reproduced in Kilpatrick, Fulton and Geard (2002)

The Recognition of Prior Learning and Responsible Rural Safety Management programs assessed skills and offered further training, provided information on other courses, provided contacts to other providers/resources and mapped pathways to formal training. In the case of the Recognition of Prior Learning program, the process of training needs analysis provides a benchmark for the start of a life-long learning process, and the providers encourage participants to follow this path. As the provider explains,

For a lot of these people there was no opportunity for them to gain a qualification without completing a full course. There are a lot of people in the industry that have learned a lot over 20 or so years, so wanted to get them to have a benchmark of where they have started, and everything they do from there on takes them to another level or some other training.

Trainer standards (5a)

Both educational and content qualifications were a minimum requirement of trainers or facilitators in the case study programs, with the exception of Grazing for Profit. While Grazing for Profit requires trainers to have formal content qualifications, it does not require qualifications in facilitation. The program does have its own mechanisms for ensuring its trainers are well prepared, as they explain:

We develop the people delivering the course – we ensure people are capable. They have first hand knowledge of what they are delivering, have a commitment to it, believe in it, plus have the technical skills and facilitation skills. One of our characteristics is that we actually have great people delivering our courses.

When we discussed Table 1 we noted that good practice in the development and delivery of learning programs is a cyclical process, and the examples in this section of the seven key sib-criteria for good practice, illustrate the feedback loops employed in the four case studies to ensure a cycle of continuous improvement and learning. But what if you are not yet in a learning community that benefits from a cycle of continuous improvement and learning? How do you start? In order to answer this question, we examined our survey and case studies for information about the initiation of the learning program development process.

Drivers for the development of learning programs

There appear to be two drivers for the development of learning programs. One is problems or opportunities identified by people and organisations that could be termed ‘scanners’ and who tend not to be potential participants, the other is learning needs expressed by individuals or enterprises who want to participate in learning activities (participants).

Scanners are typically industry organisations, government agencies and researchers, but may include providers and participants. Scanners identify learning needs that are not yet being expressed by potential participants, with the occasional exception of leading primary producers. Natural resource management is an example, where government has identified a problem that could be addressed by training. The Challenge 2020 case study shows how researchers with expertise in the grains industry identify a learning need, and by working with Challenge 2020, transformed this into a practical workshop that addressed client needs. In the case of the Recognition of Prior Learning, the scanner was the FarmBis coordinator, asking questions and then gathering data about clients’ interest in participating in such a program. Scanners work with providers to develop learning programs to meet the identified need. Given our definition of clients as primary producers/land managers, their representative organisations and government when it is purchasing training, scanners can be clients for the new programs. Participants are also clients, however the focus is on the need identified by the industry, and/or government and/or researcher; the programs have an industry-government client focus.

Expressed participant needs drive the development of other programs. Providers become aware of the need for a new or substantially revised program, for example as a result of feedback from an existing program, because of legislative change (for example, the GST) or from delivering a similar program in other industries or contexts (for example computer training). Brokers (such as industry organisations who work to connect providers and participants) and ‘champions’ of training help participants identify and articulate their learning needs. Providers may consult with industry organisations, government agencies or other experts, but the programs are participant client focussed. Extension practitioners are well-placed to act as brokers and as champions of training, and to act as scanners because of they generally have networks that include researchers, government agencies and /or industry organisations, as well as being in contact with producers who are potential participants.

Figure 2 illustrates the typical process of development and delivery of learning programs to meet needs identified by the two drivers. The needs identified by scanners are termed ‘unexpressed (participant) needs’, and are generally related to problems or opportunities not yet perceived by participants. Given our knowledge of the motivators of adult learning, providers and/or the scanners must convince potential participants that the problem or opportunity is relevant to them before the target group will participate in these industry-government client focus programs. Participants can be expected to be more easily motivated to participate in participant client focussed programs, where the relevance of the learning to a problem or opportunity is likely to be already apparent.

Figure 2 New program development model

There is a cyclic aspect to program development. A need originally identified by scanners typically eventually becomes an established program that may be modified by providers from time to time, but essentially cycles through participants and providers with little or no input from other stakeholders such as industry organisations. This was the case for Grazing for Profit, Challenge 2020, Recognition of Prior Learning, and Responsible Rural Safety. Providers who are able to be continuously scanning participant feedback are well placed to direct participants to other training opportunities (for example Recognition of Prior Learning), or to identify new training opportunities (for example Challenge 2020 and Grazing for Profit). If the providers do not have a scanning role themselves, regular contact with scanners reduces the risk of isolation from new ideas with education and training implications.

What are the implications of the project findings, including the whole of the good practice checklist, for extension practitioners? Our Providing client-focussed education and training report came up with a number of recommendations that are highly relevant to extension practice. These are explained in the next section.

How can extension apply good practice in adult learning?

The report’s recommendations about developing programs are addressed to all stakeholders in the primary industry learning community. For extension practitioners, a key message is that they should ensure that they are part of a learning community. The recommendations are summarised here under two headings: Develop learning programs which meet the demands of industry and maximise the capabilities of the provider, and Maximise opportunities for providers and client groups to learn together for continuous improvement in the delivery and uptake of learning opportunities.

Develop learning programs which meet demands of industry and maximise capabilities of the provider

Industry organisations and government agencies, the employers of many extension practitioners, are significant players in determining the training that is provided. They, as well as the target participant group, should have input into the learning activities that are offered to ensure that they are relevant to identified needs. Providers should ensure they participate in formal consultation processes with industry organisations, enterprises at various stages of the supply chain, regional groups and government agencies, and work to ensure that their long-term strategies include learning.

Learning products that are developed need to be flexible, modified to incorporate the clients’ context, and use examples drawn from the clients’ experience. This will ensure that learning experience is really relevant.

Providers should use the good practice criteria in Table 1 as a checklist. They should pay particular attention to the seven sub-criteria discussed in detail in this paper. All providers, especially those who are accredited, should pay particular attention to criterion 1 (Understand client needs and motivations to participate), which is not well covered by accreditation quality assurance procedures. Providers should take on the role of ‘scanners’ as per the model illustrated in Figure 2, scanning for new opportunities and problems that could be addressed by training.

Maximise opportunities for providers and client groups to learn together for continuous improvement in delivery and uptake of learning opportunities

All stakeholders (participants, providers, industry organisations, government agencies, researchers, funders and regional groups) should adopt a learning communities approach that builds and maintains relationships. The learning communities should have scanning strategies (Figure 2) that identify new opportunities and problems that could be addressed by training. Extension practitioners can play the role of scanner. Learning communities must have communication strategies that ensure relevant stakeholders are made aware of new opportunities and problems. For example, industry organisations should be scouring their networks for future training needs. They, or other brokers in the learning community, must have channels to providers who can partner in the development of new training programs.

Industry organisations should actively seek out appropriate providers and funders and communicate the needs of those they represent. Providers should seek other providers to craft a wide choice of pathways to further learning for their clients and be proactive in developing their own skills and expertise in providing client focused learning. Networking opportunities for providers, industry organisations and other stakeholders are the responsibility of all stakeholders. For example, industry organisations should invite providers and funders to their planning days. Funders should consider best practice criteria in providing client-focused education and training when allocating funding.

An asset based approach to skills and training can contribute to a learning culture by valuing the skills and knowledge of clients/ the target groups. This builds self-confidence and engenders a learning culture that improves participation. Recognition of current competence is consistent with an asset based approach. All stakeholder groups should promote the value of training from their own perspective at every opportunity.

Structured learning programs are part of a continuous cycle of improvement. There must be ongoing monitoring of needs and evaluation of the effectiveness of training outcomes. Action on the results of monitoring and evaluation is crucial.

Conclusion

Learning assists people and enterprises to make successful changes to their behaviour or practice in two ways. First, learning assists people to access and understand information, and hence make better decisions. Second, learning can make people aware of a greater range of possible new practices or behaviours. Thus learning is the key process whereby individuals, enterprises, industries, regions and nations can survive and thrive in the constantly changing world in which we live and work.

Adults are assumed to be voluntary learners, autonomous, independent, and self-directed. Adults are motivated to learn in order to solve a problem or take advantage of an opportunity, or by some event in their lives. Learning must be relevant to the learner. Every adult learner is different. Those facilitating learning must be aware that they come to a new learning experience with a unique set of past experiences, knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and aspirations.

Learning is situated within the culture, rules and history of the community in which it takes place. It is a social practice, and values and attitudes can be barriers or promoters of learning. The concept of learning communities allows us to move away from the idea of the individual learner to think about how people with a common or shared purpose might learn with and from each other, and draw on outside resources in their learning.

Extension practitioners should be members of learning communities in primary industry. They have a key role to play in facilitating learning. Depending on their context, extension practitioners may be providers or facilitators of learning programs, or be a partner/collaborator in developing learning programs. Because extension practitioners are familiar with the language and culture of both primary producers and researchers and other industry stakeholders, they are well placed to broker learning by matching learning needs to provision. They are also in an excellent position to scan the horizon for upcoming learning needs that are not yet apparent to those who will benefit from that learning.

Evidence from the Providing client-focussed education and training project points out the benefits of a collaborative partnership model for designing and delivering learning programs. Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders in negotiating the learning objectives and content of training programs is required at the development stage. There must be attention to adult learning theory during the design and delivery stages. Learning programs must be flexible so as to fit participants’ learning pathways. The partnership model, or learning community, is facilitated by all partners having a good understanding of each other’s culture and sharing common goals. Key activities for a learning community include continuous monitoring of clients’ needs, and actively seeking opportunities to meet and work with the potential learning program participants, industry organisations, other learning providers and funding bodies.

It is very important that farmers and farmer organisations contribute to the development of new learning programs. Without industry input and support, extension practitioners and training providers cannot be expected to ensure they meet client needs. In other words, to develop effective learning programs, there must an industry learning community of producers, industry organisations, extension practitioners and training providers and other stakeholders such as supply chain enterprises, government and researchers.

The case studies demonstrate the benefits that can arise from joint approaches to learning, and a range of ways in which a client focused approach to education and training can be achieved. These benefits can be summarised as leading to a more innovative and competitive rural sector. A rural industry that is a learning community characterised by on-going collective learning through collaborations and partnerships of providers, producers, extension practitioners and other government and industry bodies should be the aim of all stakeholders.

References

Beer, MR Eisenstat, et al. (1996). Developing an organisation capable of strategy implementation and reformulation: a preliminary test. In Beer, MR Eisenstat, et al., Eds. Organisational learning and competitive advantage, (Sage, London), 165-184.

Billett, SR (2001). Learning in the Workplace: Strategies for effective practice, (Allen and Unwin, Sydney).

Brookfield, S (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Brown, J S and Duguid, P (2000). The Social Life of Information, (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts).

Burns, R (1995). The Adult Learner at Work: A comprehensive guide to the context, psychology and methods of learning for the workplace, (Business & Professional Publishing, Sydney).

Cervero, RM and Wilson, AL (1999). Beyond learner-centered practice: adult education, power, and society, Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 13 (2) 27-38.

CRLRA (2000). Managing Change through VET: The role of vocational education and training in regional Australia, (Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania, Launceston).

Cullen, RB (1998). Benchmarking Australian qualification profiles report; no. 2, (Australian National Training Authority, Brisbane).

Field, J (2000). Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order, (Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent UK).

Fulton, A and Weatherley, J (2000). Stakeholder Perspectives on the Coordination of Adult Education and Training in the Tasmanian Dairy Industry: A report for the Dairy Research and Development Corporation, (Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, Hobart).

Geddes, M (1998). Local Partnership: A successful strategy for social cohesion? (European Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, Ireland).

Gee, J (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in discourses, (Francis Taylor, New York).

Gee, J, Hull, G, and Lankshear, C (1996). The New Work Order: Behind the Language for the New Capitalism, (Allen and Unwin, Sydney).

Gibb, A (1997). Small firms’ training and competitiveness: Building upon small business as a learning organisation, International Small Business Journal, 15 (3) 13-29.

Gibb, J (1997). VET and Small Business, Review of Research, (NCVER, Adelaide).

Griliches, Z (1957). Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25, 501-522.

Kasl, E and Marsick, V (1997). Epistemology of groups as learning systems: a research-based analysis, Proceedings of the 27th Annual SCUTREA Conference, Birkbeck College, University of London.

Kearns, PM Murphy and Villiers, G (1996). Industry Education Partnership: Innovation and learning, the report. (Australian National Training Authority, Melbourne).

Kearns, P and G Papadopoulos (2000). Building a learning and training culture: The experience of five OECD countries, (Leabrook, South Australia, NCVER).

Keen, M and Stocklmayer, S (1999). Communicating Research: An overview of communication efforts of rural industry research funding bodies, (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra).

Kerka, S (2002). Teaching Adults: Is it different? Myths and realities No. 21, ERIC/ACVE. Available http://ericacve.org/docgen.asp?tbl=mr&ID=111 Accessed 15 October 2003.

Kilpatrick, S (1997). Education and training: Impacts on profitability in agriculture, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 5(2) 11-36.

Kilpatrick, S (2000). Education and training: impacts on farm management practice, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 7, 2, 105-116.

Kilpatrick, S, Barrett, M and Jones, T (forthcoming 2003). Defining learning communities, Educational Research, Risks and Dilemmas, New Zealand Australian Association for Education Research Conference, Auckland, 29 November-3^rd December.

Kilpatrick, S, Fulton, A and Geard, L (2002). Providing Client-focused Education and Training. Report for FarmBis, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia, (Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania, Launceston). www.affa.gov.au/content/publications.cfm?Category=Agriculture%20Advancing%20Australia%20%28AAA%29&ObjectID=CC6BB298-F98C-4565-8046278CC5EEA01D

Kilpatrick, S, Johns, S Murray-Prior, R and Hart, D (1999). Managing Farming: How farmers learn, (RIRDC, Canberra).

Knowles, M (1990). The Adult Learner: A neglected species, (Gulf Pub. Co., Houston).

Kochan, T and Useem, M (1992). Transforming Organizations. (Oxford University Press, New York).

Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. (Cambridge University Press, New York).

Lundvall, B (1992). National Systems of Innovation, (Pinter Publishers, London).

OECD (2001). Cities and Regions in the New Learning Economy: Education and skills, (OECD, Paris).

Reeve, IJ and Black, AW (1998). Improving farmers' management practices - through learning and group participation, (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra).

Rogers, E (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition, (The Free Press, New York).

Roy Morgan Research (2002). Survey of FarmBis Participants Who had Undertaken a Learning Activity in 200/2001. Final Report. Prepared for Farm Business Management Section, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Canberra, (Roy Morgan Research, Sydney).

The Research Forum (2000). National Marketing Strategy for Skills and Lifelong Learning, General Community Research Report, (Australian National Training Authority, Brisbane).

Thomas, J, Ladewig, H and McIntosh, W (1990). The adoption of integrated pest management among Texas cotton growers, Rural Sociology, 55 (3) 395-410.

Tough, A (1999). Reflections on the study of adult learning. 3^rd New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL) Conference, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Available: www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/toughtalk.htm

Vygotsky, L (1997). Educational Psychology, translated by Robert Silverman, (St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Fla.).

Welch, F (1970). Education in production, Journal of Political Economy, 78, 37-59.

Wenger, E (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).