5.0. FORMAL TRAINING PROGRAMMES :

As explained earlier regular meetings of the group provide the group members with opportunities to build upon their existing knowledge, skills and awareness. However, the project staff felt that the informal learning environment provided by the regular group meetings has a few limitations. These are listed below : 

1. The regular village meetings do not provide adequate opportunities to its members to share, reflect and learn from the experiences of members of other groups. It was felt that such inter-actions would be extremely useful for members of weaker groups.

2. As the poor women play a dual role of earning income for the family and running the  house, they find it difficult to attend meetings for more than two hours. However, reflection and discussions on some issues and themes demand more time from the members, which is not possible during regular meetings.

3. Learning is fostered in group meetings through the process of making decisions on issues which emerge. However, at times, the members tend to bring in their personal biases in the process of decision making. This may hamper the learning process.

It was felt that these shortcomings could be met effectively through formal training programmes if designed and implemented properly. 

The objectives and content of the first series of training programmes:

The first series of training programmes in the form of workshops was organised by the staff of H.D.Pura cluster in December 1987 with the objective of providing opportunities to the members of groups in the cluster to develop a better understanding of :

1. the role of groups, MYRADA, and themselves in the development process.

2.  the structural features which are necessary for a group to be socially functional.

3. the activities of groups involved in managing credit systems which are appropriate for management of credit. 

To meet these objectives nine one day workshops were organized in December 1987, in a centrally located village. Each workshop was attended by members of 2-3 groups; the workshop normally commenced at 10:00 am and got over around 6:30 pm. with breaks in between for lunch, tea and coffee. Over the period of around seven hours the following questions were raised in each workshop; (with a few variations between workshops). 

1. What is the need for groups? What role can the groups play in their development?

2. What are the goals of MYRADA? What is the role of MYRADA in the development of groups?

3. What should be the structural features of groups if they are to be socially functional? Specifically, what is the appropriate group size, composition and decision making styles? 

4. What should be the activities of a group managing credit? What rules and regulations facilitate effective management of these operations?

5. How can credit management groups work towards evolving appropriate systems for managing other resources?

 How were the objectives of the training programme and specific themes for reflection decided upon?  
The staff had informal discussions with members of the group in the areas in which they  felt inadequate. This was followed by a discussion among the cluster staff  members on the immediate training needs of the members. The outcome of discussions with the members and the staff's perceptions on the area on which the members required to reflect immediately formed the basis of discussions in the staff meeting. The objectives and themes for reflection emerged out of the above process. However, before starting each workshop a group discussion was initiated to finalise and clarify the objectives of the training programme and to list out the themes for reflection. The discussion was initiated by raising the following questions. "Why are we here? What shall we do today? What is the role of MYRADA staff in the training programme?"

What methodologies were adopted in the workshop :
The members were encouraged to share and analyse their collective perceptions and experiences through group discussions. Thus the stress was on experiential learning. To promote effective participation in these discussions the facilitator :

• raised provocative questions usually through telling stories or sharing real experiences, sometimes the facilitator deliberately provoked the members to speak by saying the wrong things.

• tried to be humourous whenever possible.

• used simple language.

• whenever the issue was not understood or the analysis was inadequate the facilitator clarified with the help of day to day examples from their personal lives.

• tried to draw out the non-participative members in the workshop by addressing questions to them, asking them to summarise the discussions etc.

• tried not to answer questions which were addressed to them by members (especially members of weaker groups) but rather asked other members (from stronger groups) to respond.

• encourage the members to summarise different view points on a theme so that a consensus could be reached.

• encourage the members to periodically summarise the discussions.

 It was felt that the above methodology, though fruitful could be improved upon by encouraging discussions in small groups role play simulation games etc. However, such a process requires a lot of time. It was felt by the members of groups and staff that the training programme should ideally be for two days and preferably not for more than three days at a stretch. The members of the group felt that it was not possible for them to leave their household work and come for more than 2 - 3 days. Further, they shared the view that they could not afford to miss their wages. It was therefore felt by the staff that the duration of future workshops on the same themes may be extended by one more day and the training methodology could be modified as suggested earlier. What was the size and composition of the participants in each programme for training?

As mentioned earlier members of 2-3 groups participated in each workshop. Though on an average there were around twenty members in each group; a few members could not attend the training programme because of personal problems including problems arising out of their husband's negative attitude towards the programme. The project staff and other members of the group spent time with the members of the family of such women before the training programme commenced; to explain to them about the purpose of the training programme and put them generally at ease. However, such efforts were not always successful.

On an average, between 40 and 45 members participated in each workshop. The participants in three workshops were only members of women's groups; while the other six workshops consisted of members of both men and women's groups. Each workshop consisted of members of groups at different stages of development.

Reflecting on the size and composition of participants in the workshops; the staff felt that :

a) the number of participants in each workshop was too large; a group size of around 25 persons would have given better opportunities to the participants to share, reflect on and learn from each others experience. b) the process of getting members from groups at different stages of development helped the members of weaker groups to learn from the experience of members of groups which were working effectively. It was felt that this system therefore needs to continue.

However, the opinion of the staff on whether women learn better in a group consisting of only women was divided. The women staff when asked this question said a definite "yea". They felt that women share and open up more if all participants are women. They also added that women learn differently from men. On the other had, the male staff felt thatthe composition did not matter and infact felt that the composition did not matter and infact felt that a mixed group of men and women helped the women to learn to assert themselves in the presence of men and gain confidence. Though the male staff agreed that the women learn differently from men, they felt that an effective trainer irrespective of gender could cope with different learning styles.

What are the differences between learning styles of men and women?
Reflecting on their experiences the staff felt that women learn by thinking and feeling their way through the discussions. The emotional dimension of their learning, unlike the man, takes a higher priority. Women like to go deeper into issues and take more responsibility for their learning when compared to men. Further, women like to share their personal experiences, recall similar incidents which have come across while discussing an issue. The men do so to a much lesser extent. Lastly, the women come to the meetings with more personal anxieties than the men. "Have my children had their food? Is our sheep looked after properly? Will I reach in time in the evening to cook for my family?" These were some of the anxieties which were experienced by the women. The trainers need to be sensitive to these anxieties and help them to share these and resolve these to the extent possible.

Considering that women learn differently from men, does the gender of the trainer make any difference in the learning of rural women ?

The staff's opinion on the issue differed. The women staff felt that women open out more with women trainers. It was also felt that women trainers are more sensitive to the feeling underlying what is being expressed by the rural women. Further, the women staff felt that some of the male trainers had not resolved gender issues in their own lives; and were not fully equipped to train rural women. The male staff on the other hand, felt that the gender of the trainers does not make any difference if the women have developed confidence in the trainers and if the trainer is sensitive to the problems and living systems of the rural women.

What is the impact of the training programme ? How is the evaluation being carried out ?
The participants' feedback on the usefulness of the workshop and suggestions for the future training programmes was sought through discussions in the groups at the end of each workshop when experiences were fresh in their minds. The participants consistently said that the workshop helped them develop a better understanding of the role of MYRADA and groups; their duties and responsibilities as members of groups and structural features and activities of socially functional groups.

The staff of MYRADA who are working with the groups closely feel that the training programmes has changed the attitude of the people towards MYRADA and groups. The members no longer identify the group as "MYRADA's group", but as their own. They are trying to raise the resources of the groups through savings and group income generating activities and meet their own credit needs and decreasingly look upon the groups as a means for getting loans from MYRADA.

The staff are in the process of identifying the changes in the structural features and rules and regulations of the groups as a result of the training programme. Observation of group meetings and records maintained by the group form the basis of this evaluation. Though this process is not yet complete, the results so far have been positive. A few groups of more than 40 members have decided to re-organise themselves into smaller groups. Most of the groups studied have started to change the representatives once in a month.

Most of the groups studied so far have changed their rules and regulations so that they promote savings and effective management of credit and simultaneously help to bring to the surface traditional, but appropriate values and behaviour pattern.

The staff are now (5 months after the training programme) entering into discussions with the members of the groups to assess what they have learnt from the workshop; what they liked and did not like about the workshop and their future training needs. These discussions also help the members to recapitulate on and consolidate their learnings from the workshop.