Comparative Laboratory Study of 12 Devices for Agriculture Extension

Phase 1 Report of Devices for Agriculture Extension: A Comparative Landscape Study

Kentaro Toyama (D-Rev and UC Berkeley)

April 18, 2011

This report is available at http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html. Please direct

inquiries to kentaro_toyama(a)hotmail.com.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Agriculture Extension ................................................................................................................................ 3

Information and Communication Technologies for Development ........................................................... 5

Electronic Technologies in Extension ........................................................................................................ 8

Other Domains of Development ............................................................................................................. 10

Caveats .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Study of Devices .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Anticipated Users .................................................................................................................................... 12

Extension Scenarios ................................................................................................................................ 13

Choice of Devices .................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 17

Device Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Other Devices .............................................................................................................................................. 47

Report Contributors .................................................................................................................................... 48

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 49

References .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Executive Summary The commoditization of consumer audio-video electronics offers a tantalizingly low-cost channel for

disseminating information to under-educated, possibly illiterate, populations such as those living in

remote rural areas in developing countries. Examples include devices such as Dictaphones, mid-tier

mobile phones, and low-cost video camcorders. Agriculture extension is the focus of this study, but

analogous applications are seen for instructional scenarios in hygiene and healthcare, literacy

instruction, and microfinance.

We surveyed 12 available devices in terms of cost and features, through laboratory analysis that did not

involve investigations in the field (an ongoing follow-up study tests 4 devices in low-income farming

contexts). Devices were analyzed with respect to their cost, ruggedness, usability, ease of content

authoring, and other factors which are critical for large-scale usage.

This report overviews the conclusion from the study, preceded by several caveats regarding the use of

electronic technologies for agriculture extension. Among the caveats:

1) Agriculture extension is best thought of as a process of deep education, which requires not only

the thin dissemination of information and knowledge, but fundamental changes in behavior and

habit which are not readily transmitted outside of a strong institutional framework.

2) Technology is an ongoing cost, of which cost of hardware is a relatively small part. Costs of

maintenance, repair, upgrade, training, and so forth rapidly add up.

3) Automated processes are not necessarily cheaper or better in international development

contexts, as the human touch can provide important elements of trust and hand-holding that

technology alone cannot. Also, with low costs of labor, technology is not always cheaper.

4) There is no single “perfect” technology even for the purposes of agriculture extension. Different

scenarios call for markedly different features.

The study’s conclusions include the following:

a) With respect to electronic technology use, agriculture extension can be broadly classified into

several usage contexts, including one-to-one or small-group instruction, large-group

presentations, individual or household self-study situations, peer-to-peer content production,

and formal content production.

b) Small-group presentations require rugged, portable devices, but demand less in the way of

feature richness or ease of use, as the assumption is that an instructor or mentor figure is

present. Large-group presentations require high-volume, high-quality audio and/or large-screen

video. Self-study situations require what small-group presentations require, but additionally

must be very low-cost and have a simple user interface.

c) There is a very consistent tradeoff between device cost and features in the obvious way, with

higher cost devices providing richer features.

d) Among devices that make the optimal feature-cost tradeoffs are netbooks, smartphones, low-

cost video recorders, and low-cost audio recorders.

Background The study reported here occurs in the context of several streams of effort in international development:

Agriculture extension: Dissemination of expert agricultural knowledge and effective practices to

actual farmers. This study focuses on agriculture extension for financially poor, smallholder

farmers in the developing world.

Information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D): Interventions that

apply electronic technologies to various domains of international development, as well as

studies thereof.

Electronics in agriculture extension: Intersection of the above.

Below, we provide brief overviews of these areas with respect to their history and dominant current

practice.

Agriculture Extension Of the 1.1 billion people who now survive on less than a dollar a day, 800 million earn their primary

livelihood from small farms in developing countries. Information about up-to-date farming practices

typically does not reach smallholder farmers who live in remote rural areas, and the farmers themselves

have been deprived of a broad education that would allow them to find and absorb such information on

their own. Yet, the right information absorbed and applied correctly can double or triple income in many

of these households. Agriculture extension – the dissemination of expert agricultural knowledge and

practice – is, thus, at once among the major challenges in rural development and a great opportunity.

Classical extension encompasses a full supply chain of knowledge from research at agriculture

universities, training of extension officers (also at universities), educational broadcasts via radio and TV,

and direct training of farmers. In this study, we focus on “last mile” extension, which involves interaction

with the farmer who actually implements practices. Last mile extension is often cited as the greatest

challenge in extension (Feder et al., 2001).

Extension is a challenge even in developed countries with literate farmers, organized agricultural groups,

and well-developed communications infrastructure, so the problem is all the more greater in developing

countries where a number of systemic issues are commonplace:

Farmers lack self-efficacy, the sense that they can control outcomes through changes in their

own behavior.

Farmers are often poorly educated; many are illiterate or semi-literate.

Farmers have little disposable income or free time, and will not invest in expensive or time-

consuming forms of education.

Farmers do not generally self-organize, and are socially and geographically dispersed.

Formal programs for extension (e.g., government agriculture extension officers) are often

unavailable, under-funded, and/or ineffective.

Farmers receive conflicting or incorrect information from sources that may not have their

interests in mind (e.g., fertilizer/pesticide salesmen).

The modern roots of agriculture extension begin in the 1970s, when the World Bank backed a

methodology known as “training and visit” (T&V, or “classical extension”). In T&V, individual agriculture

extension officers, generally hired by the state, visit agrarian villages and evangelize more productive

farming practices on a one-to-one basis to farmers (Anderson et al., 2006). “Green Revolution”

technologies involving chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been the dominant content of messaging,

though extension can involve non-Green-Revolution techniques as well. In countries such as India,

agriculture extension was considered widely impactful, and although the merits of the Green

Revolution’s long-term net effects remain debated, it is credited with having turned India from a net

importer of food to a net exporter.

Classical extension remains the dominant form of extension, but funding has decreased over the

decades, partly due to uncertain ongoing impact and high costs (Antholt 1998). India’s extension force,

for example, has shrunk to 100,000 officers, which is small when considering the country’s 610,000

villages, with an average population of 1000 people. Impact is difficult to establish, due to confounding

factors such as soil erosion, subdivision of land plots, and introduction of new technologies and

techniques. Furthermore, with fewer resources, extension has become a more challenging activity. Too

many households are assigned to a single extension officer, and individual officers have difficulty

establishing rapport with their clients (Antholt 1998; Feder et al. 2001). China is among the rare

exceptions in having an effective extension force, with one million officers who are reputed to have near

command-and-control authority over what farmers do.

More recently, Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have risen as an alternative to T&V (Tripp et al. 2005). An FFS

is a semi-formal, weekly gathering in which a small group of farmers observe and evaluate possible

agricultural interventions on one individual’s farm. The FFS model is credited with spreading Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) practices in Asia by graduating more than four million farmers in 50 developing

countries (Van den Berg & Jiggins 2007). The success of the FFS extension model has encouraged

donors to put extension back on the development agenda, but impact at scale is still limited – over the

past 15 years, FFS programs in Asian countries have only covered one to five percent of all farm

households. Additionally, some economists argue that the model is not financially sustainable after

foreign aid is withdrawn (Feder et al. 2004; Longley 2006).

Apart from the dominant modes of extension, surveys reveal how farmers typically learn about

agricultural practices. A 2005 national sample survey in India, for example, revealed that the most

common way that farmers learned about new practices was through their neighbors, with ~17% citing it

as a form of learning. Product salespeople and the radio were each cited by 13% of farmers. Television

and newspaper followed with 9% and 7%, respectively, while extension officers were cited by only 6%.

Finally, although this document focuses on agriculture extension, it should be noted that extension

alone is rarely sufficient to transform farmer livelihoods. Almost always, there needs to be concomitant

attention paid to credit, fair markets, formation of cooperatives, and so on.

Agriculture Extension as Education

Though agriculture extension is generally considered a subfield of the agricultural sciences, it should be

emphasized that the core activity is fundamentally a kind education. (The word “extension” itself comes

from education programs offered by universities for non-students.) This cannot be emphasized enough

in the context of agriculture, where it is all too easy to believe that extension is simply a matter of

information or technology “dissemination,” as if the mere spreading of superficial information or

relevant technology is enough to change agricultural practices. At heart, most agricultural extension

requires not only new knowledge or technology, but also deeper behavioral changes among farmers.

And, such behavior change typically requires a multi-front effort at the individual and societal levels,

akin to the efforts against smoking or for seatbelt wearing in the United States.

As a consequence, theories of pedagogy can shed light in understanding and taxonomizing the activities

of extension, though these are rarely brought in by agriculture specialists. For example, it is illuminating

to consider extension in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy for educational goals. Bloom posited six levels of

educational goals for cognitive skills, from knowledge, to comprehension, application, analysis,

evaluation, and synthesis (Anderson & Sosniak 1994). For last-mile agriculture extension, it seems clear

that knowledge, comprehension, and application by the farmer are the critical goals. (Analysis,

evaluation, and synthesis are the strengths of universities and research labs.) Bloom’s taxonomy

highlights the fact that extension cannot end with the mere communication of information; for impact

to be felt, agriculture extension must ensure true comprehension, and ultimately, application of

knowledge. This point is essential as information and communication technologies are considered for

extension.

For the poorest, least educated farmers, extension must be recognized to have components of remedial

education. These farmers can benefit not only from straightforward transmission of individual

agricultural practices, but from an improvement in their self-efficacy and self-confidence. A lifetime of

experience that whims of weather, pests, and local markets have greater sway on their income than

anything they can do for themselves can lead to what psychologists call “learned helplessness.” Learned

helplessness extinguishes any propensity to try to improve one’s situation, thus erecting an internal

barrier to growth. Successful extension is able to turn this around by actively reaching out to farmers

and demonstrating in gradual steps that self-initiated changes in practice can result in positive outcomes.

Information and Communication Technologies for Development Over the past fifteen years, there has been increasing interest in applying the power of recent

technologies such as the PC, the mobile phone, and the Internet to international development. Dubbed

“information and communication technologies for development” (ICT4D), the interventionist side of the

field asks questions such as the following: Can PCs be meaningful used even in schools too poor to

maintain toilets? How can mobile phones be used to decrease market inefficiencies? What kinds of

devices are the effective for conveying agricultural concepts to farmers?

History and Trends1

Though precursors of ICT4D can be traced to the era of radio and television, the current strain of activity

can be traced to the commoditification of digital electronic technologies. Compared to development,

which as an international activity originated in the mid-1940s, the consumer digital electronics industry

has its roots in the 1970s, and it encompassed mainstream consumers only in the 1980s and 1990s. This

forty-year gap brings with it its own dynamic, as the young-but-successful technology industry brings a

certain bluster and brashness to a community sometimes criticized for its failures and inefficiencies.

As with many areas of development, ICT4D involves multiple sectors and multiple disciplines.

Government, universities, foundations and non-profits, and multilateral organizations have all been

active, and academics from disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, economics, political science,

design, and engineering have engaged. But, while these traits are common to international development

as a whole, in ICT4D, there is unique attention from the computing and communications industries.

These industries bring with them technical expertise in cutting-edge technology, but also often immense

financial resources and public visibility. They have thus rapidly become an audible voice in development.

For its part, the international development community has become increasingly interested in digital

technologies, with opinions ranging from a few who believe they are important for communication

among development agencies, to others who advocate them as panaceas for poverty. Historical swings

also occur as focus shifts from one technology to the next. As with many debates, a moderate view is

perhaps most justified. For example, the well-known Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) put forth

by the United Nation explicitly urges that we should “…ensure that the benefits of new technologies,

especially information and communication technologies […] are available to all” (United Nations, 2000),

but this directive is embedded in a sub-clause of one of its eight main targets, all of which are along

traditional non-technology development concerns – poverty and hunger, equality between genders,

baseline healthcare, primary education, and so forth. Implied is the thesis that technology is important,

but that it should be subservient to larger, more basic goals.

What constitutes “information and communication technologies” in ICT4D? A strictly literal

interpretation might allow everything from the printing press to talking drums, but recent usage focuses

“ICT” on modern electronic technologies, with PCs, mobile phones, and the Internet at the center. Of

particular relevance to this study is the historical arc of ICT4D technologies. A very rough timeline of this

activity is enumerated below. Dates should be taken as approximate and indicating intervals when

corresponding technologies peaked or dominated ICT4D activity (and not that the activity was absent

outside of the interval).

1960-1990 (Analog electronics): Though not called “ICT4D,” most work that applied electronic

technology to development in this period focused on landline phones and broadcast

technologies such as radio and television.

1990-2000 (IT for non-profits): Early ICT4D was focused on the use of IT systems in non-profit

organizations and multilaterals. Most of this work concentrated on the introduction of PC-and 1 Some portions of this section have been adapted from an introduction to ICT4D that appeared in IEEE Computer

magazine (Toyama & Dias, 2008).

server-based systems into development organizations, paralleling similar developments in

corporations. This computerization of development organizations can be considered the “first

wave” of ICT4D.

1995-2005 (Telecenters): Renewed excitement in ICT4D came with the advent of the telecenter,

in which PC-based centers, operated either as small, local entreprises or community centers,

were expected to deliver development outcomes through access to PCs and the Internet.

2005-present (Mobile phones): With the dramatic penetration of mobile phones in the

developing world, the development community has become excited about using them for a

wide variety of applications. The telecommunications industry has fed this excitement in a

significant way, and the excitement continues as of this writing.

Several points emerge from this timeline. First, ICT4D efforts often echo the dominant trends in the

electronics industry in developed countries, with a slight lag. This is not surprising, and is likely due to

several factors. The electronics industry tends to move quickly from one generation of technology to the

next, as old technologies and data formats become outdated. For example, anyone hoping to use audio

technologies today will be all but restricted to digital technologies; it is increasingly difficult to find

cassette-tape technology, and all but impossible to purchase eight-track devices. The nature of mass-

market economics means that the most popular forms of electronics will also tend to be less expensive,

compared with less popular technologies with similar features. Those involved in development activity

will also only see the current set of technologies on the market, naturally limiting the range of creative

solutions.

Second, the trend in ICT4D, again following that of the larger electronics industry, is for devices to

become increasingly digital, increasingly affordable, increasingly portable, and increasingly feature-rich.

These trends have several consequences for development. Digitization has made content easier to

produce, store, query, and disseminate, particularly on platforms such as the Internet. This tendency has

brought with it the moot rhetoric of “democratization” that accompanies discourse about the Internet.

Affordability has put more devices in the hands of poor populations as never before. For instance,

secondhand mobile phones can be bought for US$5 or less in many markets, and in 2010, there were

more than 5 billion mobile phone accounts according to the ITU (ITU 2010), more than the total

population of the world over the age of 20. Affordability and portability together have contributed to

greater mobility of the technology. TV sets and film projectors were heavy and difficult to transport,

especially over unpaved roads; today, however, handheld video playback devices and pico projectors

make it trivial to bring high-end multimedia to even the remotest village. Finally, portability and feature-

richness have contributed to increasing personalization of technology. Some observers note the rich

personal expression that occurs on mobile phones, for example, even in spite of extensive device

sharing (Ling & Donner 2009), and this, in turn, contributes to a robust demand for some technologies

among even the poorest populations.

Third, ICT4D experiences phases and fashions, as others have noted for development overall (Easterly

2001). Initial excitement around a technological idea often leads to hyperbole about its potential. Donor

agencies establish task forces and new groups dedicated to the new technology. But, as interest grows,

reports of the technology’s limitations also start to come in, and the trend crests. Afterwards,

excitement tapers off, but diehard supporters as well as naïve newcomers keep the concept alive. This

cyclical process in development is amplified by the crests of must-have gadgets and troughs of

obsolescence in the technology industry.

Beneath the dominant trends in ICT4D noted above, there has also been less prominent, but ongoing

experimentation with a wide range of specialized devices. In the decades straddling the turn of the

millennium, a range of digital technologies became commoditized and experienced dramatic drops in

cost. Wireless chips, GPS capability, imaging and video technology, and so forth, are all now within a

price range that makes their use in local development projects feasible. Long-distance WiFi to remote

villages (Surana et al. 2008), monitoring based on digital cameras (Duflo 2006), and local video

production as a component of agriculture extension (Gandhi 2009) have all seen successes in the last

decade. Though these technologies are reaching asymptotic lower bounds in price, many have settled at

levels that present broad potential for further evolution of ICT4D. The study reported in this paper looks

at devices in this category that seem the most practical for the purposes of educating smallholder

farmers.

Electronic Technologies in Extension Spurred by reinvigorated interest in agriculture in the global development community, and in part by

recent ICT4D activity, stagnant issues in agriculture extension have returned to the fore. In particular,

there has been increasing experimentation in the use of electronic technologies specifically for

extension. Technology is hoped to help deliver knowledge customized either to the individual or a local

community, or to mitigate the costs of transport (e.g., of agriculture experts to rural villages and

households). Some examples are described below.

AAQUA (“Almost All Questions Answered”) is an Internet system designed at the Indian Institute of

Technology, Bombay. It allows anyone with access to the Internet to post agriculture-related questions

which are then answered by expert paid staff. A database of past questions and answers are also

retrievable through a straightforward search (Ramamritham et al. 2006). Typical farmers are assumed to

gain access to the Internet through rural telecenters, which are a kind of development-focused Internet

café described in the previous section. Although the system is versatile in permitting anyone with the

ability to access and use the Internet to ask questions of experts, the reality among smallholder farmers

is that most are neither aware of the service nor proficient in Internet use, and telecenters are

themselves vulnerable in their long-term viability. Finally, the very fact that farmers must come to

AAQUA, makes it less likely that this kind of system will directly have widespread impact.

Lifelines is a system run by One World South Asia, where farmers call in their agriculture-related

questions by phone, rather than on the Internet. Human operators answer these calls, log the questions,

and then determine whether the answer already exists in their database, or whether an expert must be

consulted. In the former case, the caller receives a notification by text-message that their question has a

response that can be heard at a particular number. In the latter case, the expert records the response,

which is then entered into the database, and again the caller receives a notification. Over time, the

database is expected to answer more and more of the questions, and the need for expert time is

decreased in the long run. The system seems to appeal most to somewhat wealthier farmers with

medium plots of land.

In contrast to models where farmers must pull for information, eSagu, a project headquartered at the

International Institute of Information Technology in Hyderabad, advocates a “query-less push-based”

model in which field coordinators surreptitiously take digital photos of crops and farm plots and send

them to a processing center manned by agriscientists to diagnose. Prescriptions are then printed out

and distributed or read out to farmers by the coordinators. Although initial trust in the system is a

hurdle, once farmers are satisfied that the advice is helpful, they are likely to become ongoing clients.

An advantage of eSagu is that the system actively reaches out to farmers, which is all but necessary to

reach the least capable farmers.

Grameen Technology Center’s AppLab project in Uganda provides agricultural information over SMS text

messages on mobile phones, mediated by Community Knowledge Workers (CKWs) who are an integral

part of the system. The CKWs are conceptual descendants of “Village Phone” operators that earlier ran

small enterprises as walking phone booths (they sold access to mobile phone services in villages). Now,

their goal is to find a meaningful role in their villages as information brokers. The CKWs are not formal

extension agents, but they fill some of the roles of an extension force, through active outreach to

farmers, and by active as human portals for agricultural information.

The four projects described so far perform extension in a one-to-one model, but it’s also possible to

address farmers en masse or in groups. Farm Radio International, a non-profit organization based in

Canada, supports a network of community-radio broadcasters for agriculture extension in Africa.

Community radio is often called “Africa’s Internet,” and it remains a constant feature of the

development landscape in Africa. The relative intimacy of community radio permits the inclusion of local

farmers in Farm Radio broadcasts, which builds the trust necessary for farmers to accept the

information broadcast (Amt 1986).

Digital Green runs a model in which groups of farmers watch and discuss videos with extension content

that has been produced in their local area (Gandhi et al. 2009). Video production occurs by following

extension officers or NGO staff as they perform one-to-one extension, and then video-recording actual

farmers as they learn and demonstrate agricultural practices. Videos are then shown to groups of

farmers, called together by local mediators hired to screen videos and provoke discussion among the

audience regarding the content of videos.

In all of these projects, the technology tends to play two roles consistently. First, the ICT in these

examples decreases the costs required to bring expert agricultural information to farmers in villages. In

AAQUA and eSagu, this is done via the Internet or dial-up (though the need for such infrastructure raises

the question of how it is maintained); in Farm Radio, community radio broadcasts fulfill this role; and in

Digital Green, digital content is carried by extension staff. In all cases, the need for expertise, in the form

of an agriculture extension officer, to travel is diminished.

Second, technology permits the customization of knowledge for the individual or the local community.

With AAQUA, eSagu, AppLab, and Lifelines, the questions and answers are uniquely tailored to specific

questions. Most of these systems take advantage of the redundancy in questions by maintaining a

database of questions and answers, and shrinking the need for expert attention. In projects like Farm

Radio and Digital Green, the information delivered is more coarsely customized at the community level,

but due to consistency in local geography, weather, and agricultural practices, it is nevertheless far more

appropriate than state broadcast programs. Commodity electronics thus permits small-scale targeted

broadcast, which is more effective than large-scale broadcast television and radio.

In these projects there appear to be two different paths to success. The first is to aim at wealthier,

better educated farmers, who tend to have more self-motivation and capacity to undertake new

practices. The second, which is necessary for less self-confident farmers, is to ensure that there is strong

organizational support for the extension effort, regardless of the technology.

Other Domains of Development As noted earlier, extension is ultimately a kind of education. As such, some of the lessons learned in

methods and tools for agriculture extension may also be applicable to other domains of development

with some modification. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this document, but applications in

formal education, hygiene and healthcare education, and vocational education could benefit from the

appropriate use of technologies, provided the right combination of target audience and organizational

support.

Caveats It’s worth issuing a number of caveats in interpreting the study described in this document.

First and foremost, the only reliable test of a technology is in the context in which it is expected to

perform. Just as it is impossible to predict whether a new technology product will do well in the

developed-world consumer market, so, too, is it difficult to gauge how a technology will do in for a

development scenario – the parameters for success are different, but the environment is at least as

complex. More accurate predictions could be made with more testing, with the technology embedded in

the expected scenario, over the long term, at the desired scale, and in the appropriate cultural context.

This means, however, that there is a limit to how much can be known short of trying things in the full

context. The descriptions made in this document are thus, at best, good-faith guesses based on the

authors’ experience with similar or related technologies and with on-the-ground international

development.

Among the greatest pitfalls is to overgeneralize analysis, particularly across populations. External validity

is never guaranteed. Although there are similarities among impoverished communities, especially when

compared to wealthier populations, a range of geographic and cultural differences may cause very

different reception to technology.

Second, technologies must be considered with regards to their ongoing, total cost of ownership (TCO),

not the hardware device cost. A common misperception with regards to information technology is that

it is a capital investment that once bought, does not require additional expenditures. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Hardware costs must be considered ongoing costs, as there is continuous need to

maintain, replace, repair, and upgrade them. Because hardware is tied to the nature of the technology

industry, rapid obsolescence remains a challenge. Then, as ongoing costs, hardware costs are typically a

mere fraction of the total costs of keeping them supported and integrated into an effective extension

effort.

Third, though developed-world intuitions suggest that technology is cheaper or better than human labor

for certain tasks, this intuition must be questioned consistently in developing-world applications. In

developing contexts, ICT use is often intermediated by people who, either formally or informally, serve

as operators of the technology. These people have or gain trusted relationships with the end

beneficiaries of the technology; that trust is not easily replaced by a purely technological system. In

addition, because labor costs can be very low the cost to involve such mediators may be lower than the

cost to fully automate a system with technology. Careful examination with regards to the need for

technology is necessary.

Fourth, there is no single technology that will serve every extension scenario. Current hype around

mobile phones recommends them as the device of choice due to their ubiquity. But, while phones are

useful for many purposes, they also have their drawbacks – their small screens make them

inappropriate for large-group gatherings or interaction with, say, spreadsheets; makes and models have

proliferated to the extent that a single software platform is increasingly out of reach; telecoms are

unrelenting in the commercial services they ply through them, etc. Similarly, radios and TVs are

affordable, but they don’t allow two-way communication. PCs are versatile, but often expensive to

maintain. And so on. Each device has its pros and cons, and these must be evaluated with respect to the

exact application. In particular, the desire to use a technology for the sake of it, or because of hype

around it, should be checked. A better approach is to focus on solving specific problems, and in some

cases, a natural solution may require technology.

Finally, it should be noted that despite frequent claims that “information is the bottleneck” to

agriculture extension, the reality is that a host of challenges make extension difficult. Many farmers do

not have basic education and achievement-oriented mindsets; trust must be established between

extension officers and farmers; knowledge must be translated from the jargon of agronomy labs to the

vernacular in the field; and, so on. Technologies are best seen as magnifiers of human or institutional

intent and capacity (Toyama 2010). As such, technology should be viewed as amplifiers of strong

institutions already accomplishing extension, and not as an effortless means to scale without good

institutions.

Study of Devices

Methodology 12 devices were surveyed for their appropriateness for agriculture extension in the developing world.

The objective was to gain a high-level understanding of the existing commodity electronics that are

available, and to do a comparative analysis of their costs, capabilities, complexity, and ultimately,

potential for developing-world agriculture extension.

The study presented here is analytical in nature, with no primary research in the field. Actual farmers

were not consulted specifically for this study, although the study does take into account the direct

experience of the authors and other researchers who have investigated the use of electronic devices for

agriculture extension. Several of the devices have, in fact, undergone preliminary trials for agriculture

extension in a handful of contexts. Where appropriate, those studies are referenced.

We note, however, that the ultimate test of any technology is in the field, and under conditions similar

to those of its expected application. Although this report provides an initial guide for understanding how

various multimedia technologies might play out in the field, we discourage its use as a definitive

statement on how individual technologies might work in reality. An ongoing follow-on study conducts

more in-depth studies with actual farmers, using three of the devices examined here.

Anticipated Users Agriculture extension involves a long chain of people, including agriculture scientists and extension

coordinators, but in this study, we focus on “last mile” interaction. Last mile interaction involves two

kinds of parties which are our primary concern: the farmer and “the trainer” (a generic term we will use

for people who interact directly with farmers). Both of these categories can be diverse, even when the

focus is on low-income, developing-country agriculture.

Farmers

There are approximately two billion farmers falling under the World Bank’s poverty line of less than

$2.25 income per day, and of these, 800 million are “dollar a day” farmers earning less than $1.15. Apart

from their financial poverty, these farmers have in common that they depend on small plots of land of

roughly 3 acres or less, with 1-acre plots being common and ½-acre plots not at all rare.

Statistical descriptions, however, can hide both commonalities and variations that exist among farmers.

Most will have had less than a secondary-school education, and illiteracy as well as the complete

absence of formal schooling is common. At the same time, there are communities in which the average

farmer has a solid secondary school education, with fluency and literacy in two or more languages. Low

levels of education can also be a cause of poor hygiene and healthcare, at least relative to the standards

of modern medicine.

Many low-income farmers also alternate agricultural activities with other work, especially if climate

constrains when productive farm work can be accomplished. Those living in or near forests will often

gather “forest goods” such as wood, mushrooms, honey, etc. Those living in countries with robust urban

economies may seasonally migrate to cities as daily wage workers. Temporary jobs may also come from

government programs hiring construction workers or road builders.

Perhaps most relevant to agriculture extension, marginal farmers often lack self-efficacy, or the

confidence in their ability to change their life or their farming practices for the better. A “learned

helplessness” can be the norm, where farmers appear uninterested in improving their own conditions.2

Thus, a range of characteristics beyond simply poverty or lack of knowledge contributes to farmers’

ability to absorb the benefits of extension. Last-mile extension must necessarily be sensitive to all of

these issues – some global, some local – if it is to be effective.

Trainers

For the purposes of this document, we will use the label “trainers” to indicate anyone who interacts

with farmers directly in extension. These may include government extension officers, NGO staff,

community workers, community volunteers, agriculture input salesmen, or farmers who take on

instructional or mentoring efforts. They may range from those who have university degrees in

agriculture to those who have minimal education (though programs which involve local community

workers will typically make efforts to identify people with a secondary education, or any case, more

education than the farmers they interact with). Usually, though not always (especially in the case of

private-sector salesmen), their incentives are aligned with an attempt to aid farmers.

We explicitly exclude from consideration those who are more than one degree of separation removed

from farmers, or who do not interact with farmers directly. Therefore, those who work primarily as

trainers of trainers, university professors, extension managers, TV program hosts, etc., are beyond the

scope of this study.

Exact numbers are difficult to compile, but worldwide, perhaps several million trainers work with

smallholder farmers. China alone has a state-run force of one million extension agents. India has

~100,000 government extension agents, and perhaps many more who work for state-level schemes or

NGOs. Many other South Asian countries have government extension systems. A few African countries,

such as Ghana, Uganda, and Ethiopia also have (or plan to instate) state-backed extension services,

although many are not fully functional.

Extension Scenarios It cannot be overemphasized, that for an activity as diverse and complex as agriculture extension, a

device can only be judged to be “appropriate” with respect to a particular scenario. Thus, a device that

may be effective for presenting content in farmer field schools may be ill-suited as a study aid for

individual farmers to use in their homes, and vice versa. And, a similar statement could be made for

channels by which devices are distributed. A device used by NGO staff to support discussion of

agricultural methods in training sessions may not be suitable as a publicly financed village bulletin board.

2 In some quarters, this is even interpreted as laziness, but any such judgment must also be seen in the context of

an environment in which factors such as weather, pests, seed merchants, middlemen, and regional commodity prices often have much more impact on a farmer’s income than anything he or she does.

Because technologies in isolation almost never contribute to meaningful development objectives,

evaluations of technologies must necessarily take place with specific application scenarios in mind.

Electronic devices could support agriculture extension in a variety of usage scenarios. We first describe

five ways to classify last-mile extension activities, and then identify what we believe to be the most

common modes of usage. The analysis of devices that follows will make frequent reference to these

scenarios.

Technology-mediated instruction can be classified along five different dimensions, as below. (These

categories can be applied to other instructional domains, but we discuss them here in the context of

agriculture extension.)

Push versus pull: In “push” models of extension, an agency external to farmers and their

communities intentionally push agriculture education onto farmers. In “pull” models, farmers

actively seek out education. Broadcast radio shows, or classing T&V extension can be thought of

as push models; telephone helplines, as well as Grameen Technology Centers’ Community

Knowledge Workers, can be thought of as primarily pull models, where farmers must actively

ask questions of a service, before the service is provided. Few models are exclusively one or the

other, since education requires active participation of both the instructor and the student.

Successful extension systems tend to start with a heavy push as a way to spread awareness and

trust in a service, but gradually switch to pull models as farmers recognize the value of

extension and increasingly see it out.

Individual versus group: Extension can take place one individual at a time, or it can seek to

educate farmers in groups. Individual extension can be highly customized to individual needs,

but it can be costly. Classical T&V is typically conducted on an individual basis. Group extension

allays cost issues, and it can additionally bring a number of social advantages to bear. Farmer

field schools are an example of group extension. Trust issues can be mitigated when an entire

community is involved; group peer pressure can accelerate technique adoption; and group

members can support one another in learning. Groups, naturally, can be of varying size.

Mediated versus direct: Instructional technology can be mediated during use, or directly

manipulated by the learner. Mediation requires a capable person to be present during

technology-based instructional sessions, and can therefore be costly (in terms of recruitment,

training, and ongoing cost), but it often has much greater impact than direct usage of

technology. Digital Green and Grameen Technology Center’s CKWs are both mediated models.

One World South Asia’s LifeLines, where individuals make phone calls into a service, is an

example of direct technology usage.

Synchronous versus asynchronous: Synchronous systems provides interaction and responses in

real time; asynchronous technology does not enforce real-time responses, and typically involves

latency between each instance of communication. Telephone helplines in which live operators

take calls are an example of a synchronous system, while aAQUA’s online bulletin board is an

asynchronous system. Automated SMS-based Q&A systems have the flavor of a synchronous

system, although long delays in SMS transmission would technically qualify as asynchronous

communication.

Consumption versus production: Some systems of extension may seek active participation of

farmers, through feedback or content production that ultimately impacts last-mile extension.

Because many electronic devices can capture content, in addition to playing it back, this opens

the door for devices to support content production activities, through recording of farmer

questions, comments, or activities. LifeLines, for example, captures farmer questions through a

helpline, and the questions (as well as the answers) are stored in a database for future use.

Digital Green produces video content that involves farmers as actors. Consumption and

production are not necessarily exclusive, in extension or with devices – both may occur in a

complete extension system, though rarely at the same time.

Common Scenarios

Below, the scenario categories are identified from the point of view of the content consumer, and not in

terms of the technology or perception of content suppliers. Again, extension scenarios that are outside

of the scope of this study – such as extension via broadcast radio or TV programs, or the training of

agriculture extension officers through tertiary education – are not included. Scenarios are listed in

approximate decreasing order of their frequency in worldwide extension activities, with the most

common forms at the top.

(1) One-to-One Interaction and Small-Group Presentation: Classical agriculture extension (also

called “training and visit” or T&V extension) typically involves a single agriculture expert

interacting on a one-to-one basis with farmers, and this remains the most common form of

extension. This kind of interaction involves a farmer and an acknowledged agriculture expert or

salesman. The intimacy of the relationship permits significant interaction with minimum social

pressure. Typically, any devices in this scenario would be managed and operated by the agent.

In some cases, a family, or a very small group of farmers (say, five or fewer) may be

involved. More than the group size, the key characteristics of this category are that (1) the group

members are sufficiently comfortable with each other that they feel little social pressure when

asking questions, etc., and (2) the extension agent can pay attention individually to group

members.

Challenges in this extension scenario which could be mitigated by technology include

the following: lack of trust; poor or incomplete knowledge on the part of the extension agent;

difficulty of explaining agricultural techniques through spoken dialogue only;

(2) Large-Group Presentation: More recent extension techniques, such as Farmer Field Schools,

have begun to incorporate larger-group interactions, with one or more agriculture experts

presenting to a larger audience of farmers (more than five, and typically more than ten).

Typically, any devices in this scenario would be managed and operated by the presenters.

The key traits of this kind of interaction are that (1) audience members are not

necessarily familiar with each other, and social pressures may keep individuals from interacting;

and (2) extension agents have less ability to interact with individuals on a personal basis. Group

size, however, can be an advantage, if, for example, peer pressure or the prospect of community

recognition can be applied in a positive direction.

Challenges which could be mitigated by technology include the following: reduced

ability to project clearly to a large audience; poor or incomplete knowledge on the part of the

extension agent; difficulty of explaining agricultural techniques through spoken dialogue only.

(3) Personal Study Aid: Instructional materials may be consumed in private by individual farmers or

their families. Though not uncommon for printed materials (e.g., brochures and pamphlets), this

kind of device usage is rare, possibly because of the relatively high cost of electronic devices

compared to paper, as well as the very real likelihood that materials end up unused and

gathering dust.

This kind of interaction allows private consumption of materials in the home, and

intimate one-to-one usage of the device. It is further assumed that devices will primarily be

owned (or rented), and operated by individuals and households, rather than by NGO staff or

extension agents. Devices may be shared between households – a frequent phenomenon with

electronic devices otherwise – but usage will tend to be by individuals or by very small groups.

Challenges which could be mitigated by technology include the following: delivery of up-

to-date content; limited formal education of potential users; difficulty of explaining agricultural

techniques through paper only.

(4) Content Production by Farmers: There are cases when farmers are themselves the source of

agriculture practices, and so incorporating their knowledge into the extension process can be

valuable. With respect to this study, this scenario imagines farmers proactively recording

practices they know of or which they have originated. This scenario is not expected to occur

with great frequency.3

(5) Content Production by Professional Staff: Most agriculture extension in universities and formal

institutions results in some kind of content being produced. The vast majority of this content is

highly technical and not of immediate value to smallholder farmers. However, many institutions

are aware of their target audience and increasingly produce print, audio, and video materials for

frontline farmers. We do not spend a lot of time with this scenario, as these institutions typically

have reasonable production capacity.

Note that a particular system of agriculture extension may involve combinations of these scenarios.

Choice of Devices We chose 12 devices for the initial study. The criteria for choosing these devices were as follows:

Potential for impact – Devices were considered only if they have some hope of being effective in agriculture extension.

3 There is a tendency to romanticize the notion of good agriculture practices originating from farmers themselves

in the developing world, but this is no more common than it is for the average family physician to identify new cures for cancer. The poorest farmers are often the least educated and the least capable even among their peers (the more capable farmers often migrate to the cities for higher-income livelihoods). Farmers can introduce superstitious practices at least as often as they identify scientifically sound practices. And, at least within local communities, a considerable amount of information dissemination already occurs through word of mouth. For all of these reasons, we do not strongly advocate an approach that glibly promotes farmer-sourced knowledge dissemination. Nevertheless, we include this scenario here, for organizations that are careful in their screening of such knowledge prior to dissemination.

Portability – All of the devices are relatively small, portable devices that can be easily carried by a single person. They range in size from items that can be carried easily in a pants pocket, to items which are the size of a large book.

Affordability – Cost is one of the key constraints, but since different implementation models can admit different costs for technology, we looked at a range of costs. Devices range from $10 to $500 retail cost (corresponding to bill-of-material costs from $0.50 to $200), with most devices in the $20-80 range.

Multimedia functionality – All devices will permit some kind of audio and/or visual display that goes beyond text, in anticipation of users with low literacy.

Functional diversity – As a set, the 12 devices were selected to span a wide variety of costs, form factors, and functionality. For similar categories of devices, we chose a single exemplar within that category.

Recency: Devices are relatively recent either in their invention or in their commoditification.

Notably, radios and television sets were not included, because their usage and impact in

extension is well understood.

Conclusions We summarize the conclusions from this study before providing details of each device.

Scenario-Device Match

Different scenarios require different feature sets.

Small-group presentations assume that an instructor figure is present. Thus, feature requirements are

low, as the instructor can be relied upon to fill gaps in knowledge of usability. Video/imagery alone or

audio alone are often useful as instructional aids, and video (with audio) is a useful point of departure

for discussion. Small-group scenarios also often assume that the instructor will carry the device with

them from location to location, so the device must be portable, rugged, and battery powered for best

effect. Among the devices surveyed, those best suited for small-group presentation include…

Custom voice recorder

Voice recorder with hand crank

Portable A/V player

Mobile smartphone

Netbook

Large-group presentations have similar requirements as for small-group presentations, but the

dimensions of the audio and video must be greater. Whereas a small screen, such as on a mobile phone

might suffice for small-group presentations, large groups require a full display, at least as large as a

traditional television set (e.g., 17” diagonal), and audio volume and quality are critical needs. Power and

portability may be less of a problem in some circumstances, depending on whether the device is stored

in a secure place. None of the devices surveyed is particularly good for large-group presentations, due to

issues of display size or audio volume. The Saber device is perhaps the one exception, as it has

considerable audio volume.

Self-study scenarios demand additional features beyond small-group presentations: they need to be

very low cost, as replacement costs for breakage can add up. In addition, the user interface for the

device must be exceedingly simple, so that people can manipulate the device on their own. In this

regard, feature richness may be a disadvantage as rich features often mean more challenging UIs.

Among the devices surveyed, self-study scenarios are best served by…

Audio greeting card

Audio-enhanced book

Educational toy (Power Touch and Whiz Kid – however both would require signficant

cooperation with the manufacturers to create relevant content)

Feature-Cost Tradeoffs

Plotting functionality versus cost on a graph, we find, not surprisingly, that there is a clear feature-cost

tradeoff, and that greater functionality comes at greater cost. (Note that the cost axis is on a log scale,

and that the feature axis is cardinal, not ordinal.) Less immediately obvious is that there are a few

devices that pop out as delivering more functionality for cost. These include: the netbook, the mobile

smartphone, the compact video camcorder, the portable A/V player, and the custom voice recorder.

For the three devices used in the follow-up study, we will choose as follows: Between the netbook and

the mobile smartphone, which comparable in their feature-cost tradeoff, we select the mobile

smartphone, due to currently high interest in mobile-phone applications. Both the portable A/V player

and the custom voice recorder appear interesting in that they are the two lowest-cost alternatives.

Figure 1. Functionality versus cost of the 12 devices surveyed, plotted on a log scale with respect to cost. Two points to note: (1) There is a clear feature-cost tradeoff, as greater functionality comes at a greater cost. (2) Those devices that tend towards the top-left are those that have relatively high value for cost.

Device Survey

[1] Device: Digital Voice Recorder (Dictaphone)

Model: Olympus Digital Voice Recorder VN-5200PC

Overview:

“Dictaphone” with audio recording and playback

Internal microphone and speakers, with option for external microphone and speakers

Upload/download to PC via USB port

Low-to-moderate UI with LCD display (no backlighting)

35.5 hours of audio

30+ hours playback on one pair of AAA batteries

$60 retail; ~$30 bill of materials

Optimal for one-to-one interactions and small-group presentations

Description: The Olympus Digital Voice Recorder’s (DVR) primary function is to permit casual, mono-

aural recording and playback of audio, and for these tasks, it is exceptionally well-designed.

Recordings are best made with the device held next to the sound source, as the in-built microphone has

no special accommodations for directionality, noise cancelation, or high fidelity. Speech at a distance of

ten feet can be captured under conditions of low noise (e.g., presentations indoors, or loud speech

outdoors). Playback volume is moderate without external speakers and best suited for intimate playback

for one person or for a small group.

Jacks for an external microphone and speakers or earphones, however, significantly extend the potential

of the Olympus DVR as both higher-fidelity recording device as well as a large-group playback device. Of

course, these capabilities would require additional hardware microphones or speakers, but they make

the device more versatile.

The UI is extremely simple, with one-touch recording and playback. Recordings can be organized into a

two-tier hierarchy of folders and audio files which are also easy to navigate. A small, but effective LCD

display allows users to navigate folders and audio files by number, as well as to monitor parameters

such as battery life, length of audio file, microphone quality, etc. The display is easy to read in lit

conditions, even with bright sunlight, but it lacks backlighting and will be difficult to read in the dark.

The build is moderately rugged, with hard, light, plastic construction. The electronics are all solid state,

suggesting that it will endure any movement apart from a hard drop. Drop tests from up to 60 inches

onto carpeted floor did not harm the device. The device is not designed to be dustproof or waterproof,

and dust or water in the audio jacks, microphone, or speakers could pose problems.

The device uses two AAA batteries for power, permitting over 35 hours of playback time, which is

excellent. The use of rechargeable batteries will reduce long-term costs for batteries and minimize

waste.

The Olympus DVR is typical of off-the-shelf “Dictaphone” devices in terms of its cost, functionality,

portability, and performance. Functionally, it is similar to Literacy Bridge’s “Talking Book” and Global

Recording’s “Saber” devices, both audio-recording devices that are a part of this study. It differs from

the latter devices, however, in a number of ways. The Olympus DVR is extremely portable, fitting easily

in an adult hand or in a pocket, whereas both the Talking Book and Saber devices are quite a bit bulkier.

Conversely, the Olympus DVR may be less rugged (both of the other devices are designed for

ruggedness) and because of its smaller buttons, slightly more difficult to operate for users not

comfortable with electronic devices (the buttons are comparable to those for a low-end mobile phone).

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Olympus DVR seems best suited for one-to-one or small-group

interaction as a playback device. Trainers could use it to playback audio, possibly in conjunction with an

illustrated brochure, to present content to individuals and small groups. Its extreme portability makes it

easy for trainers to carry it with them, and long battery life permits at least several days of usage

without new batteries or recharging. Content can be easily generated and swapped by USB interface to

a PC.

With external speakers the device could also serve well in playing back audio to larger groups.

It seems less suited as a personal study aid, however, due to issues of cost and potential to be used as a

personal entertainment device. The user interface is simple enough to be learned by children and adults

with minimal formal education (e.g., 8 or more years; ability to read numbers), but it may present

challenges for extremely poorly educated adults. (Note: Studies undertaken by Literacy Bridge on their

Talking Book devices suggest that this kind of usage may be feasible under good supervision, however.)

The device also seems suitable for audio content production, particularly, if the device can be held right

up to the speaker or sound source. If not, an external microphone will be needed for good audio quality.

Future versions: We expect that future Dictaphone products will not change dramatically in terms of

their functionality or form factor, because the market for digital Dictaphones is mature, having tracked

the analog-digital revolution from miniature cassette-based devices to current digital products. In the

absence of a large new market, they will likely hold steady at similar retail prices, with minor

quantitative improvements (e.g., greater capacity or better audio fidelity), and sideways transitions to

new interfaces and formats. Interfaces may change as PC and mobile-phone interfaces evolve.

The core bill of materials also seems difficult to reduce: The greatest possibility would seem to be in

reducing the cost per byte of memory, but mass-market trends in memory tend to maintain a lower

bound on cost while increasing capacity as a way to handle manufacturing overhead and to maintain

profit margins.

Retail prices, however, are currently double or triple the bill of materials, and there is room for low-cost

manufacturers to enter with enough new demand. If this occurs, costs may sink to very close to the

BOM price of ~$30.

Product website: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1389

[2] Device: Custom Voice Recorder

Model: Literacy Bridge “Talking Book”

Overview:

Ruggedized “Dictaphone” with audio recording and playback

Internal microphone and speakers, with option for external microphone and speakers

Upload/download to PC via USB ports

No display

35.5 hours of audio

10-15 hours playback on one pair of D batteries

$35 bill of materials (projected <$10)

Optimal for one-to-one interactions and small-group presentations

Description: Literacy Bridge’s “Talking Book” device is a Dictaphone variant that is specifically designed

for use in international development contexts. Its primary function is to permit casual, mono-aural

recording and playback of audio, and it is further constructed for ruggedness and easy assembly.

Recordings are best made with the device held next to the sound source, as the in-built microphone has

no special accommodations for directionality, noise cancelation, or high fidelity. Speech at a distance of

ten feet can be captured under conditions of low noise (e.g., presentations indoors, or loud speech

outdoors). Playback volume is high, even without external speakers though nevertheless best suited for

intimate playback for one person or for a small group.

Jacks for an external microphone and speakers or earphones significantly extend the potential of the

Talking Book as both a higher-fidelity recording device and a large-group playback device. Of course,

these capabilities would require additional hardware microphones or speakers, but they make the

device more versatile.

The UI has been iteratively tested with users in rural Ghana, and it is designed to be simple. A total of 10

buttons provide a means for navigating recordings, which can be organized into a two-tier hierarchy of

folders and audio files which are also easy to navigate. The lack of a display means that the navigation

occurs entirely by audio. Users move back and forth between audio clips, and as they do so, the device

announces the clip title. Though this UI is cumbersome for someone used to visual UIs, it is effective as a

purely audio UI.

The device has a rugged build, with hard, plastic construction, and an accompanying rubber strap that

adds protection. The electronics are all solid state, suggesting that it will endure any movement apart

from a hard drop. Drop tests from up to 60 inches onto carpeted floor did not harm the device. The

device is likely to withstand some dust and water, and it has survived environments with considerable

dust, although it will not survive long-term immersion in water. Dust or water in the audio jacks,

microphone, or speakers could pose additional problems.

The device uses two D batteries for power, permitting over 12 hours of playback time. D batteries were

chosen because of their larger capacity and their ready availability, even in developing-country contexts.

The Literacy Bridge “Talking Book” is a development-focused variation of off-the-shelf Dictaphone

devices, such as the Olympus DVR reviewed earlier. It differs from commercially available Dictaphones in

its size (the Talking Book is bulkier), cost (cheaper), display (no visual display), and ruggedness (more

rugged). It is perhaps the most similar to Global Recording’s “Saber” device, but with the following

differences: the Talking Book’s UI does not require that the user is familiar with the content structure;

the Talking Book uses D batteries, while the Saber is powered by a hand crank; the Talking Book is less

expensive, at $35, while the Saber is $85 retail.

Augmented use:

As with all of the audio-only devices, the Talking Book may be very useful in conjunction with printed

illustrations. In fact, as the organization’s name reveals, Literacy Bridge’s initial conception for the

device was to use it as an aid to teach literacy.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Talking Book seems best suited for one-to-one or small-group

interaction as a playback device. Trainers could use it to playback audio, possibly in conjunction with an

illustrated brochure, to present content to individuals and small groups. Its portability makes it easy for

trainers to carry it with them, and long battery life permits at least several days of usage without new

batteries or recharging. Content can be easily generated and swapped by USB interface to a PC.

The Talking Book also seems suited as a personal study aid. Studies undertaken by Literacy Bridge in

rural Ghana suggest that this kind of usage is feasible particularly under good supervision and training.

The user interface is simple enough to be learned by children and adults with no formal education,

though user studies reveal that younger adults seem more likely to use it than older adults. The device’s

projected cost (below $10) makes it conceivable that individual households will purchase a device for

themselves, using them not only for development activity, but also as an entertainment device.

With external speakers the device could also serve well in playing back audio to larger groups.

Finally, the device also seems suitable for audio content production, particularly, if the device can be

held right up to the speaker or sound source. If not, an external microphone will be needed for good

audio quality.

Future versions: Literacy Bridge anticipates new versions with a small LCD display, as well as further

reductions in cost. This will make the Talking Book even more functionally similar to Dictaphones, but at

a much lower cost.

Product website: http://www.literacybridge.org/talking-book/

[3] Device: Voice Recorder with Hand Crank

Model: Global Recordings “Saber”

Overview:

Ruggedized hand-crank “Dictaphone” with audio recording and playback

Internal microphone and speakers

Upload/download to PC via USB ports

No display

$85 retail; $30 bill of materials

Optimal for one-to-one interactions and small-group presentations

Description: Global Recording’s “Saber” device is a Dictaphone variant that is specifically designed for

use in remote contexts. Its primary function is to permit casual, mono-aural recording and playback of

audio, and it is further constructed for ruggedness and self-sufficiency. A hand crank provides power.

Recordings are best made with the device held next to the sound source, as the in-built microphone has

no special accommodations for directionality, noise cancelation, or high fidelity. Speech at a distance of

ten feet can be captured under conditions of low noise (e.g., presentations indoors, or loud speech

outdoors). The speaker is loud, and built to play to a fairly large room, although at maximum volume

there is some loss of fidelity.

Jacks for an external microphone and speakers or earphones significantly extend the potential of the

Talking Book as both a higher-fidelity recording device and a large-group playback device. Of course,

these capabilities would require additional hardware microphones or speakers, but they make the

device more versatile.

The UI consists of a power button with indicator light, volume up and down buttons, file forward and

reverse buttons, and folder forward and reverse buttons. The seven control buttons permit navigation,

recording, and playback of audio content. The UI is cumbersome for someone used to visual UIs, and

without recordings with carefully arranged audio titles, navigation may be difficult. File management

itself is handled on a PC via a utility located in the device’s on-board 1GB internal memory. Folders and

files are uploaded to the internal memory via a USB cable, or via the external SD memory card (2GB

maximum).

Rugged construction includes a heavy-duty gray plastic case with hard rubber corners and sealed

components. The electronics are all solid state, suggesting that it will endure any movement apart from

a hard drop. Drop tests from up to 60 inches onto carpeted floor did not harm the device. The device is

designed to withstand considerable dust and water, but it is neither fully dustproof nor waterproof. Dust

or water in the audio jacks, microphone, or speakers could pose problems.

The device is powered by a hand crank and an internal battery. 190 cranks in one minute yielded 3

minutes 43 seconds of power, 3:30 minutes of playback time (~15-second power-up and memory load

function. 190 cranks created moderate arm fatigue).

The Saber is a variation of off-the-shelf Dictaphone devices, such as the Olympus DVR reviewed earlier,

but designed specifically with religious evangelism in remote areas in mind. It differs from commercially

available Dictaphones in its size (the Saber is bulkier), display (no visual display), and ruggedness (more

rugged). It is most similar to Literacy Bridge’s “Talking Book” device, but with the following differences:

the Saber requires explicit construction of audio titles for navigation; the Saber uses a hand crank for

power, instead of D batteries; the Saber retails at $85, roughly the cost of off-the-shelf Dictaphones,

compared with the Talking Book’s $35.

Interestingly, the Saber was designed with Christian evangelical activity in mind, and many of its design

choices reflect this usage. The folder structure assumes recordings organized in a two-tier hierarchy of

books and chapters. Its physical construction is adapted to missionary activity in remote areas. In spite

of this (or perhaps because of it), the device seems well-suited for use in international development

contexts.

Augmented use: Global Recordings makes a variety of accessories available for purchase, each of which

further enhance the Saber’s functionality. These include recharging cables that would allow the Saber to

be recharged from grid power, car batteries, solar exposure, or 4 D batteries; USB cables and hubs that

permit multiple Sabers to have their audio replaced simultaneously; a lock pack to prevent alteration of

audio content; and a maintenance pack that permits repair of the device.

As with all of the audio-only devices, the Saber may be very useful in conjunction with printed

illustrations.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Saber seems best suited for small-group or large-group

interaction as a playback device, and there are established use cases that suggest it is well-designed for

such use. Its loud volume is sufficient even for moderately sized groups outdoors. Trainers could use it

to playback audio, possibly in conjunction with an illustrated brochure or text, to present content to

groups of various sizes. Its portability makes it easy for trainers to carry it with them, and the hand crank

permits ongoing usage without the need for recharging or new batteries.

The Saber could also be suited as a personal study aid. (Studies undertaken by Literacy Bridge in rural

Ghana suggest that this kind of usage is feasible particularly under good supervision and training.)

However, the device’s high cost is likely to be prohibitive for low-income farmers to own.

Finally, the device also seems suitable for audio content production, particularly, if the device can be

held right up to the speaker or sound source. If not, an external microphone will be needed for good

audio quality.

Future versions: The Saber appears to be a stable product with no indication of newer versions.

Product website: http://globalrecordings.net/topic/saber

[4] Device: Portable Audio-Video Player

Model: SanDisk “Sansa Fuze” MP3 Player, 4GB

Overview:

Digital audio-video player and audio recording device

Internal microphone, jack for external headphone or speakers; no internal speakers

Internal, rechargeable battery; 20 hours of audio or 4 hours of video between charges

4GB memory, for 12 hours of video or 3000 minutes of audio

1.9” color display

FM radio

Proprietary jack to USB, for downloading/uploading media to PC; micro SD memory expansion

slot

$70 retail; $36 bill of materials

Optimal for use in one-to-one instruction

Description: SanDisk’s “Sansa Fuze” Audio-Video Player is a multi-feature portable media consumption

device. It is typical of the latest personal media players, which follow in the tradition begun by Sony’s

Walkman and now emulate the functions of Apple’s iPod. As a media player, it is as well-designed and

versatile as any currently on the market: It features the ability to playback audio and video, to play FM

radio, to display digital photographs, and to record audio through an internal microphone.

Consistent with a philosophy of a personal media player, there is no internal speaker. Audio output

requires external headphones or speakers.

The display is small, but bright. The video is visibly pixellated, and small details in video may not be easy

to see. Brightness and contrast are superb, however, and the display is good for any indoor viewing or

use in shade.

The UI mimics that of the Apple iPod, with a rotating wheel and several buttons. The UI is moderately

complex, though intuitive for anyone with experience with similar electronics.

A proprietary cable permits connection to a PC’s USB ports, for downloading and uploading content, and

there is a Micro SD slot for expanding memory. There are no other external interfaces.

The AV player’s build is light and rugged, with no internal movable parts (there are buttons and wheels

for the UI, however). It is extremely portable and can comfortably and unobtrusively fit in a palm or

pocket. Drop tests from 48 and 60 inches onto carpeted floor showed no damage, though the device will

likely suffer from a drop to a hard floor (e.g., possible cracks in display; damage to electronics).

An internal battery is rechargeable through USB interfaces. Access to a PC or a separate USB charging

cable is required, as well as reliable, if not continuous, access to power. On full charge, the device can

playback 20 hours of audio or 4 hours of video reliably.

As noted, the Sansa Fuze mimics the iPod in look, feel, and functionality. Several competitors exist on

the market, all with similar features and in a similar price range. These devices differ considerably from

the Cisco “Flip” video recorder in their intent to serve as media consumption devices, rather than video

recorders. They are also different from feature-rich phones in their lack of telephony functions.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The SanDisk Sansa Fuze seems best suited for one-to-one or small-

group interaction as an instructional aid. Its cost range, portability, and battery characteristics make it

ideal for a trainer to use either at a fixed site (e.g., petty shop) or to carry from house to house or farm

to farm as a tool for individualized extension. Similar use (though, using a mobile phone) has been field

tested in a scenario in which maternal healthcare advice was relayed to pregnant mothers. Video

content played on a portable device appears to provide an effective conversation starter and point of

reference; this kind of use is particularly useful for trainers with unacknowledged status or weak

leadership skills.

Together with external speakers, the AV player could work as an audio player in large-group

presentations. There would be minimal value in the video-playing capabilities of the device in such

scenarios due to the tiny display, however.

The device seems less suitable as a personal study aid, due to its moderately high cost (even BOM) and

because of its likely appropriation for entertainment purposes.

Although the device is capable of recording audio, it lacks a port for an external microphone, and in any

case is overkill for recording audio.

As a side note, the AV player’s ability to play FM radio may have special value in rural contexts where

broadcast radio remains a popular source of news and entertainment.

Future versions: We expect that future media player products will not change dramatically in terms of

their functionality or form factor, although the obvious media addition to these devices would be the

capacity to receive and display broadcast television signals. Otherwise, these devices are upper-

bounded by the combination of cost and feature set of mobile phones which are increasingly feature

rich. In fact, most feature phones are now capable of the same set of AV playback features as the Sansa

Fuze, which suggests that the comparative value of these devices is in the cost reduction of not including

telephony features. We thus expect that similar devices will remain on the market at a cost range that is

10-30% lower than mid-range feature phones.

There is some room for additional reductions in cost, because of the gap in the retail price and the BOM.

However, manufacturers and distributors are unlikely to close this gap by reducing retail prices unless

there is a significant new market opportunity.

Product website: http://www.sandisk.com/products/sansa-music-and-video-players/sandisk-sansa-fuze

[5] Device: Audio Greeting Card

Model: Sima TPC-1 “Talking Greeting Card”

Overview:

Recordable audio greeting card

Internal microphone and speakers

Internal, non-exchangeable battery, allowing between 500-1000 playbacks

15-seconds of audio

$10 retail; $0.50 bill of materials

Possible use in one-to-one instruction and as a personal study aid

Description: The Sima Audio Greeting Card is an affordable electronic greeting card, designed to allow

consumers to record and play back customized audio messages. The card consists of a folded greeting

card, with the front sheet made of thin, moderately stiff, unmarked, white cardboard, and the back

sheet built out of ¼-inch posterboard, also white and unmarked (except for the company logo on the

back). Embedded in the posterboard are the audio electronics, consisting of microphone, speaker, two

buttons, and a switch.

The device permits 15 seconds of low-quality audio recording and playback. Recording and playback are

both simple to accomplish, with one button assigned to each function. A separate switch allows

disabling of the recording function, effectively “locking in” recorded audio. There are no interfaces to

external microphones or speakers.

There is no electronic display, but the card has 3 surfaces (4, counting the back) on which illustrations

can be printed or pasted.

The audio greeting card is very rugged due to its lightness and will withstand just about anything that a

sheet of cardboard will withstand. Drop tests from 60 inches in height only caused minor squashing of a

corner of the card, but no damage to the audio electronics. Dust should pose minimal problems. Water

or fire will cause damage as expected.

The greeting card is powered by a single lithium battery, which cannot be replaced. The manufacturer

claims that between 500-1000 re-recordings and re-plays of 15-second audio is possible.

The Sima Audio Greeting Card is a unique device with few competitors on the market. For agriculture

extension applications, however, it suggests variations that may be useful. Ten greeting cards glued

together could form a reasonable audio book (such as the Speaking Books “Books of Hope”), though at

some number of pages, a construction more like the Books of Hope will make more sense from a cost

perspective, as hardware such as the microphone and speaker can be reused for different pages.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The audio greeting card might be suitable as a base for one-to-one

instruction as well as as a personal study aid. The device’s greatest virtue is its extremely low bill of

materials (retail cost, however, is $10). At $0.50, it is the lowest-cost item in our study by an order of

magnitude and could conceivably serve as a mass-distributed informational brochure. Its limited

functionality and relatively poor audio quality, however, may constrain its use otherwise.

Because audio volume is limited and there is no option for external speakers, the device is not suited for

large-group presentations.

The audio greeting card is not at all suitable for audio content production, due to low audio recording

quality and no direct way to transfer audio to another device.

Future versions: Future versions are unlikely to exhibit significantly different functionality, since the

niche market that the device targets is likely to seek lower cost rather than new features. Recording

capacity or quality, however, may improve with time, though it seems unlikely that the already low BOM

can be reduced further.

The dramatic difference between the BOM and the retail price suggests that a license for agriculture

extension and other international development scenarios could be negotiated with the manufacturer.

Product website: http://www.simaproducts.com/products/product_detail.php?product_id=632

[6] Device: Interactive Educational Toy (Stylus-Based)

Model: VTech “Whiz Kid” Learning System

Overview:

Interactive educational toy

Plastic frame designed to hold individual sheets of illustrated content

Stylus for interacting with the toy by touching points on an illustrated page

Internal speakers, and jack for external speakers or headphones

4 AA batteries

USB port for connection to a PC (PC connection permits downloading of new content, as well as

use of the slate and stylus as a mouse for the PC)

$25 retail; $15 bill of materials

Optimal as a personal study aid or one-to-one instructional device, but requires cooperation

of manufacturer

Description: The VTech Whiz Kid Learning System is an educational toy that permits users to interact by

touching points on an illustrated page with a stylus and hearing audio responses appropriate for the

touched points. With very simple UI and audio playback capabilities, the device is extremely well-suited

as an instructional device, particularly for users who are not fluent readers.

An onboard processor allows complex, state-aware interactivity and games. The device consists of the

following: (1) a plastic slate with a flippable frame that holds a single sheet of illustrated content; (2) a

special stylus for interacting with the illustrated content; (3) processor and other electronics; (4)

speakers for audio playback; (5) a number of buttons for controlling power on/off, volume, downloading

of additional material; and (6) USB interface, audio jack for external speakers, two jacks for styluses, and

a port for hardware content cartridges. (Minor additional features include a handle for portability, a

small drawer for holding cartridges, a rack in the back for holding illustrated sheets, and a holder for the

stylus.)

The Whiz Kid is designed to allow pre-programmed interactive experiences for young children. As such,

the focus is on audio playback and interactivity via the slate and stylus. The user interface is extremely

intuitive, and requires little more than touching points on the page to elicit audio cues that prompt the

user for further interaction or content that supplements the illustrations. Pre-programmed content

consists of an illustrated sheet (8½” x 11” letter-sized), audio content, and interaction design, the latter

two of which can be downloaded through the USB interface or attached as a ROM-based hardware

cartridge. Audio quality is low, although speech and music are easily identifiable.

Customized recording of content is not intended by the manufacturer, but because of the device’s

capacity to download content from the PC, it is possible to “hack” the digital content and to force the

device to respond with customized interactivity and audio content; since illustrated sheets to fit the

frame can be easily designed, as well, it is technically possible to hijack the device to handle content

appropriate for agriculture extension. More about this point will be described below.

As a children’s toy, the plastic construction is moderately rugged. Drops from a height of 36 inches and

60 inches onto carpet can be survived, although damage to the exterior plastic casing as well as the

electronics can occur. Though not necessarily designed for dust, the device is likely to be able to handle

a reasonable amount of it. The device will malfunction if immersed in water, but it is likely to withstand

minor amount of water spilled on it (e.g., a few minutes of rain, etc.).

The Whiz Kid is powered by 4 AA batteries.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Whiz Kid seems exceptionally well-suited as a personal study aid,

possibly shared among several farmers or families. Every aspect of the device’s design – from its

usability, ruggedness, portability, battery-based power, reasonably low cost – is appropriate for intimate

household use.

It could also be used as an instructional tool in one-to-one or small-group interactions.

The Whiz Kid does not seem well-suited for large-group presentations. The option for external speakers

would allow for loud audio, but the because the display is constrained to a static 8½”x11” sheet, only

the audio would be worthwhile, and if only audio is being used, then other devices make more sense.

It would make little sense to use the Whiz Kid as a tool for capturing local content. It is not designed as a

recording device.

Comparisons: The Whiz Kid is one of three devices by three toy companies that permit very similar

forms of interaction, and it appears to be the only one remaining in production. Leap Frog’s “LeapPad”

product and Fisher-Price’s “Power Touch” are the other two.

Future versions: Interactive slate toys like the Whiz Kid have been on the market for 15-20 years, and

they have not changed significantly during that time. So, even incremental changes seem unlikely in the

near future. If anything, the market for these toys is evolving into completely different types of toys, and

we expect dramatically different form factors to appear.4 This is in partial response to the increasing

penetration of the PC in developed-country households. Toy companies are feeling pressures in two

ways: first, the use of PCs by children in households is increasing, so PCs and laptops are themselves

becoming direct competitors to educational toys that might be seen as decimated versions of

computers; and second, toys must meaningfully interact with PCs to remain relevant. Unfortunately,

both pressures are only pushing toy companies away from products that could be relevant for

development applications, since rugged, inexpensive alternatives to PCs are exactly what would be

helpful. The Leap Frog and Fisher-Price appear to have stopped production of their respective devices.

As a result of these forces, we do not foresee dramatic reduction in the retail cost of these devices. In

addition, because BOM costs are also quite low, it seems unlikely that there is further room for

reduction, even with a greatly expanded market.

4 One such example is Leap Frog’s “Tag” product – an electronic pen which compresses much of the functionality

of slate-based toys into a fat pen form factor.

Product website: http://www.vtechwhizkid.com

[7] Device: Interactive Educational Toy (Touch-Based)

Model: Fisher-Price “Power Touch”

Overview:

Interactive educational toy

Plastic frame designed to hold a paper book and electronic cartridge

Touch-based interaction

Internal speakers

4 AA batteries

$40 retail; $20 bill of materials

Optimal as a personal study aid or one-to-one instructional device, but requires cooperation

of manufacturer

Description: The Fisher-Price “Power Touch” is an educational toy that permits users to interact by

touching points on an illustrated page with their fingers and hearing audio responses appropriate for the

touched points. With exceptionally designed UI and audio playback capabilities, the device is extremely

well-suited as an instructional device, particularly for users who are not fluently literate.

An onboard processor allows complex, state-aware interactivity and games. The device consists of the

following: (1) a hard-plastic encasing that opens like a folder to accommodate book-cartridge pairs

designed for the device; (2) processor and other electronics; (3) speakers for audio playback; and (4) a

number of buttons for controlling power on/off, volume.

The Power Touch is designed to allow pre-programmed interactive experiences for young children. As

such, the focus is on audio playback and interactivity via the device. The user interface is exceptionally

intuitive, and requires little more than touching points on the page to elicit audio cues that prompt the

user for further interaction or content that supplements the illustrations. Pre-programmed content

consists of books (approximately 6” x 8”), audio content, and interaction design, the latter two of which

are burned into a ROM hardware cartridge. Audio quality is moderate, although speech and music are

easily identifiable.

Customized recording of content is not intended by the manufacturer, and it is not readily possible to

insert specific content, without going through a process that is owned by Fisher Price. Thus, any serious

attempt to use the Power Touch for agriculture extension would require a business relationship with the

company. (Such a trial has been conducted with a Power Touch competitor *LeapFrog’s Leap Pad+, to

provide health and hygiene information to Afghani women.)

As a children’s toy, the plastic construction is moderately rugged. Drops from a height of 36 inches and

60 inches onto carpet can be survived, although damage to the exterior plastic casing as well as the

electronics can occur. Though not necessarily designed for dust, the device is likely to be able to handle

a reasonable amount of it. The device will malfunction if immersed in water, but it is likely to withstand

minor amount of water spilled on it (e.g., a few minutes of rain, etc.).

The Power Touch is powered by 4 AA batteries.

Augmented use: No obvious augmented use.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Power Touch could function well as a personal study aid,

possibly shared among several farmers or families. Every aspect of the device’s design – from its

usability, ruggedness, portability, battery-based power, reasonably low cost – is appropriate for intimate

household use.

It could also be used as an instructional tool in one-to-one or small-group interactions.

The Power Touch is not well-suited for large-group interactions. Given the restrictions of visual displays

from a 6”x8” book, only the audio would be worthwhile, and if only audio is being used, then other

devices make more sense.

There is no capacity for the Power Touch to be used as a recording device.

Comparisons: The Power Touch is one of three devices by three toy companies that permit very similar

forms of interaction, and it appears to be the only one remaining in production. Leap Frog’s “LeapPad”

product and VTech’s “Whiz Kid” are the other two. The Whiz Kid is reviewed elsewhere in this report.

Future versions: The Power Touch have been on the market for some 15-20 years, and it has not

changed significantly during that time. So, even incremental changes seem unlikely in the near future.

Furthermore, the developed-world toy market appears to be moving away from these devices, in

response to the increasing penetration of the PC in developed-country households. Toy companies are

feeling pressures in two ways: first, the use of PCs by children in households is increasing, so PCs and

laptops are themselves becoming direct competitors to educational toys that might be seen as

decimated versions of computers; and second, toys must meaningfully interact with PCs to remain

relevant. Unfortunately, both pressures are only pushing toy companies away from products that could

be relevant for development applications, since rugged, inexpensive alternatives to PCs are exactly what

would be helpful. Fisher-Price appears to have stopped production of the Power Touch, and they are

disappearing from toy-store shelves.

As a result of these forces, we do not foresee dramatic reduction in the retail cost of the Power Touch

and similar devices. In addition, because BOM costs are also quite low, it seems unlikely that there is

further room for reduction, even with a greatly expanded market.

Product website: http://www.fisher-price.com/us/powertouch

[8] Device: Audio-Enhanced Book

Model: Speaking Books “Books of Hope”

Overview:

Book with button-activated audio recordings

Internal speakers

Internal, exchangeable Lithium battery

10 minutes of audio

$25 in bulk orders of 5000; $0.50 bill of materials

Optimal use as a personal study aid, possible use in one-to-one and small group instruction

Description: Speaking Books’s “Books of Hope” are books with an attached panel of buttons which

activate audio recordings that correspond to the books’ pages. The technology was conceived by a non-

profit organization involved with HIV/AIDS education, and has continued to be designed and distributed

with international development in mind.

The UI is exceedingly simple and well-suited to audiences with little formal education. The overall design

looks like that of an illustrated children’s book, but on the right-hand side is a vertical panel of buttons,

each of which correspond to a page in the book and which activate audio narration.

Content is built-in to each unit, so customization of content is not possible on a per-unit basis. However,

the organizations’s model is that it will design and publish/manufacture customized books (tailored to

desired content) for orders of over 5000 units.

The simplicity of the design contributes significantly to its ruggedness. Drop tests from 48 inches and 60

inches onto carpet showed no significant damage, except for minor squashing of the book’s corners. The

audio electronics remained operational.

Power is provided through a replaceable lithium battery, although in many developing-world contexts,

these batteries are likely to be hard to come by. However, even if the batteries run out, the paper book

itself is still of value to literate readers.

Though similar technologies exist, there is no direct competitor to the “Books of Hope,” because no

other organization is willing to publish such books tailored to the specific needs of international

development.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The “Books of Hope” seem particularly well-suited as personal study

aids for individuals or households, or to be shared among households. Indeed, the devices were

designed with such use in mind.

The devices do not seem suited to large-group presentations. The illustrations are book-sized, and

therefore small for large groups, and the audio quality and volume are limited.

The devices are not designed for recording, so there is no scope for use in capturing new content with

them.

Future versions:

Given the low cost of the bill of materials for these books, it is likely that cost reductions to below $5

range, and even in the $2-3 range are possible.

Product website: http://www.booksofhope.com/

[9] Device: Compact Video Camcorder

Model: Cisco UltraHD “Flip” Video Camcorder U2120W

Overview:

Ultra-portable video camcorder

Internal microphone and speakers

Rechargeable 2x AA batteries, 2.5 hours battery life

$200 retail; $110 bill of materials

Not ideal for any extension scenario, but okay for capturing content, and could be used in

one-to-one instruction

Description: Cisco’s “Flip” Video Camcorder is a low-cost, ultra-lightweight video camcorder. At 6

ounces and the size of a cellphone, the device is superbly designed for casual capture of video. A 2-inch

color display also doubles as the viewfinder and permits easy previewing of video.

The device has been designed for extreme usability. Its packaging materials come with only a single

sheet instructing new owners to plug the device into a PC and follow the instructions. The controls are

intuitive for anyone familiar with video recording devices or digital cameras. Some training is likely

required for use by people less familiar with consumer electronics.

Video quality is good, particularly given the size of the device, but it does not compete with full-featured

consumer video camcorders. Video resolution is ultra high-definition, 1280x720 pixels.

Unfortunately, current models of the Flip camcorder do not have jacks for audio input, which would

have made the model excellent for capturing content outdoors or in environments with background

noise.

The device is quite rugged, especially for a video camcorder. It has few moving parts externally or

internally. The optics of any video camera, however, are sensitive to physical shocks, and the display is

also vulnerable to cracking. Though not designed to be waterproof or dustproof, the device’s

construction will handle a little rain or dust. The most vulnerable points are the hardware interfaces.

The Flip camcorder recharges through its USB input, and thus requires regular access to a PC, laptop, or

USB charger.

The Flip video line currently occupies a unique niche in the video camcorder market, and there is no

comparable device in this study. Mobile feature phones offer video recording and preview functionality

in a similar form factor, but mobile-phone video quality remains exceptionally poor.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Flip camcorder is exceptionally suited for casual video recording,

but many of the compromises made in its design put it in an awkward middle for agriculture extension

scenarios.

Among the core extension scenarios considered, the Flip video camcorder is likely best suited for

capturing content, and especially as part of an organized video-production workflow. Any organization

able to sustain such activity, however, is likely to be able to afford a full-featured video camcorder

instead of the Flip video, and the former is recommended for a number of reasons including better

video quality, greater zoom range, external microphone jack, and open video format standards.

The Flip camcorder might be workable as a platform for one-to-one instruction. The capacity to playback

video is its greatest strength here, but small screen size, short battery life, and possible difficulty in

converting video files to the Flip format all suggest that its use in such scenarios will be limited.

The device is too small for use in large-group presentations of material.

One possibility for Flip video devices is for extension officers or others who interact with farmers to

video record comments made by farmers, to bring back to organizational headquarters, where the

recorded content might serve as a way to provide direct farmer feedback. This, however, is an untested

methodology, and it’s not known whether organizations will find it an effective means of gaining input

from farmers. Extension officers’ own summaries may be more than adequate.

Future versions: The product examined here is the second generation of Flip devices, and Cisco has

already made several improvements on its predecessor, including an upgrade to UltraHD resolution, and

the use of rechargeable AA batteries. Perhaps most sought in a future version is a jack for an external

microphone, which would dramatically enhance the device’s value in capturing video content.

Although features are likely to be added to the Flip line, cost reductions are not anticipated. The product

occupies a unique niche; it is already among the lowest priced on the retail market for equivalent video

quality; and it’s current retail price is not quite double the estimated BOM. For all of these reasons, it’s

difficult to imagine Cisco lowering prices.

Product website: http://www.theflip.com/en-us/Products/ultra.aspx

[10] Device: Button-Based Communication Aid

Model: Saltillo ChatBox CB-1

Overview:

Button-based communication aid for people with speaking impairments

Internal microphone and speakers

Internal, rechargeable, non-exchangeable battery

$500 retail; $200 bill of materials

Optimal for direct interaction with farmers; cost could be lowered for a large market

Description: The Saltillo ChatBox is a communication aid for people with speech disabilities. The unit has

16 large buttons, each of which initiates the playback of customizable audio. The buttons can be visually

annotated by inserting an overlay sheet of printed illustrations, which themselves can be arbitrary. The

device is decidedly not designed for international development purposes, but it has unique features

which suggest interesting directions.

The ChatBox comes with both internal microphone and speakers, though microphone and speaker

quality and volume/sensitivity are mediocre. A webcam just above the display is built in for video

teleconferencing. The display itself is back-lit LED, with 1024x600 native resolution.

The UI is trivially easy to use; in fact, the device is optimized for obvious and immediate use as an audio

playback device in which the recordings are naturally associated with 16 illustrations. The buttons are

large (1.5” x 1.5”) and occupy most of the front face of the device.

The ChatBox has jacks for external microphone and speakers, as well as three USB ports offer the

potential for expanding its capabilities.

The construction is sturdy, and built out of hard plastic, but it is designed for indoor use, and would

require treatment similar to that for any home electronic appliance. Drop tests were not conducted,

since the device is not expected to survive falls from 48 inches. The device is neither waterproof nor

dustproof, but it should operate fine under indoor conditions physiologically safe for people.

Trade reviews consistently praise the Asus EEE line of netbooks for its long-lasting battery life. Tests

show that from full charge, the EEE PC comfortably play video for 6-7 hours without recharging (less

strenuous processor use would result in longer battery life).

In comparison with other netbooks at similar cost, the Asus EEE PC has a well-rounded set of features

that also make it a good choice where PC functionality is needed in extension. Among the most practical

is its superior battery life, which makes it particularly good for use in situations where a whole work day

of usage without power can be alternated with periods of being plugged in for charging.

Augmented use:

With loud external speakers (~$15), the EEE PC immediately becomes a reasonable video playback

device. Using the netbook’s display, the 10” screen size limits viewing to an audience of at most 20

people, with likely 5-10 being the most who could simultaneously watch comfortably. Of course,

through their video ports, netbooks could be attached to monitors or projectors, which would make

them usable in large-group settings. Add an external DVD player (~$100) and the EEE PC also becomes

an effective DVD player.

Use of an external microphone could make any netbook a viable audio recorder, and the addition of a

webcam could make it a video recorder, but using a device as large and fragile as a netbook for

recording can present usability issues.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The versatility of the EEE PC permits it to fulfill all of the required

functions in each of the scenarios, but the use of a netbook for any one scenario seems overkill. Cost

and fragility issues of netbooks make them difficult to recommend for use in any one of the primary

extension scenarios. On the other hand, netbooks (and laptops, to a certain degree) could serve as

digital assistants for those agriculture extension officers who perform a variety of tasks during their

work day. For example, an extension officer who interacts with individual farmers during the morning,

collects text and photo data during the day, and perhaps teaches a group class in the afternoon may find

that a netbook is an ideal device that assists in all of these activities effectively.

Future versions: The ChatBox is built for a niche, developed-country market, and it seems unlikely that

there will be dramatic changes in the design or the cost without new market pressures. However, it

seems straightforward to design a device with a similar feature set for much less cost (perhaps $50).

Product website: http://www.saltillo.com/products/index.php?product=33&product_id=4

[11] Device: Mobile Feature Phone

Model: Motorola Droid

Overview:

High-end mobile “smart phone”

Internal microphone and speakers, with option for external microphone and speakers

Upload/download to PC via USB port

Color graphic display with backlighting

Internal battery with charging option

$500 retail; ~$150 bill of materials

Optimal for one-to-one interactions; versatile use in many extension scenarios; very expensive,

unless device is used for multiple purposes.

Description: The Motorola Droid is a “smart phone” – a class of high-end mobile phones – that

effectively combine the functions of a personal computer with those of mobile telephony. Reviews of

this device are plenty (e.g., http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/324707/review/droid.html), so

this analysis will focus on features most relevant to agriculture extension.

Recordings are best made with the device held next to the sound source, as the in-built microphone has

no special accommodations for directionality, noise cancelation, or high fidelity. As is typical with

mobile-phone microphones and speakers, sound quality is not great, and audio capture quality can be

outright miserable. Playback volume is moderate without external speakers and is best suited for

intimate playback for one person or for a small, indoor group.

A jack for an external speakers or earphones significantly extend the potential of the Droid as a large-

group playback device. However, there is no explicit jack for microphone (typical for smartphones),

though Bluetooth headsets could be used as an external microphone.

The display is impressive with high 480x854 resolution (double that of, for example, Apple’s iPhone).

This leads to impressive video quality, assuming that the underlying video is of high resolution. The

display contrast can be adjusted, although at its brightest, viewing under direct sunlight is difficult.

The UI is complex, as is the case with many smartphones. The default UI presents a grid of icons (similar

to an iPhone), each of which can be activated by touch. Each application, however, requires minimum

familiarity with PC-like interfaces to operate. The phone additionally features a slide-out QWERTY

keyboard, in addition to a touch screen, which can be useful for data entry and text commincation

(though, reviews of the Droid note that its keyboard is hard to use).

Recordings can be made with a recording application. Recordings can be saved as audio files, which

themselves can be organized into nested hierarchies. All of these UIs require minimum familiarity with

PC-like interfaces.

The Droid’s build is moderately rugged, with hard, light, plastic construction. The electronics are all solid

state, suggesting that it will endure vibrations short of a hard drop. Drop tests from up to 48 inches onto

carpeted floor did not harm the device. The device is not designed to be dustproof or waterproof, but

reasonable indoor use. Dust or water in the audio jacks, microphone, or speakers could pose problems,

and the device is vulnerable to dust getting into the slide-out mechanism for the keyboard.

The Droid uses replaceable, rechargeable batteries for power, permitting perhaps 5-6 hours of

multimedia playback time (this was not fully tested).

The Droid is typical of smart phones in terms of its cost, functionality, portability, and performance.

Functionally, it is similar to Apple’s iPhone, phones with Microsoft’s Mobile OS, Nokia’s high-end mobile

phones. This also means that the phones are perhaps more than required for the kind of extension

activities considered in this document. Although online reviews of these phones make much of the

different functionality, usability, and programmability of these devices, in the context of developing-

country agriculture extension, these differences are minor.

Augmented use:

Among smart phones, the Motorola Droid is distinguished for its open-source operating system (based

on Google’s Android 2.0 OS, itself based on Linux), which permits both inspection of its computer code,

as well as at-will modification of the code – these capabilities grant additional flexibility to computer

programmers. However, the merits of open-source code are often overemphasized, particularly for

development scenarios. Even with proprietary operating systems, such as the Symbian, iPhone, or

Microsoft platforms, access to critical functionality is available to programmers through what are known

as APIs [application platform interfaces], and computer programmers can still create an infinite array of

useful applications, as the iPhone demonstrates. The critical issue with software applications on any

platform is that software development must keep up with shifts in the platform, as companies

continually push out new hardware and software. This is a challenge that plagues all platforms.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The Motorola Droid seems best suited for one-to-one or small-group

interaction as a multimedia playback device. Trainers could use it to playback audio or video, to present

content to individuals and small groups. Its extreme portability makes it easy for trainers to carry it with

them, and reasonable battery life could permit at least a day of usage without recharging. Content can

be easily generated and swapped via interface to a PC.

With external speakers the device could also serve well in playing back audio to larger groups, but its

small display size constrains the use of video for large groups.

It seems less suited as a personal study aid, however, due to issues of cost and potential to be used as a

personal entertainment device. In addition, the user interface may present challenges for extremely

poorly educated adults.

The device also seems suitable for content production. Video quality is not high, but usable in a pinch,

possibly adequate for “talking head” testimonials. Photograph quality is not as good as what standalone

cameras deliver, but it could also be used for record keeping or image data. Audio content could be

recorded, if the device is held right up to the speaker or sound source. If not, an external microphone

will be needed for decent audio quality.

Future versions: We expect that future smartphone products will not change dramatically in terms of

their functionality or form factor, because the market for smartphones is converging to that of a PC, and

functional limits are already being met.

Although there is some possibility that intensive price competition will lower the cost of these devices at

retail, but there are business pressures which also keep prices high (these phones are high-margin

products for their manufacturers). So far, there are no signs that prices will lower significantly.

The core bill of materials also seems difficult to reduce: Though quantitative measures such as byte-per-

dollar will likely continue to decrease, mass-market trends tend to maintain a lower bound on cost while

increasing capacity as a way to handle manufacturing overhead and to maintain profit margins.

Product website: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-

Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-DROID-US-EN

[12] Device: Netbook

Model: Asus “EEE PC” 1005ha

Overview:

“Netbook” small laptop

Internal microphone and speakers

Internal, rechargeable, non-exchangeable battery

$380 retail; $180 bill of materials

Overkill for direct interaction with farmers, but versatile for a range of extension activities

Description: The Asus “EEE PC” 1005ha netbook is among the best devices in its class. The device is a

full-featured laptop (though, without a built-in DVD/CD player), and thus among the most versatile

electronic devices included in this survey. Reviews of such devices are plenty (e.g.,

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/asus-eee-pc-1005ha/4505-3121_7-33698049.html), so this analysis

will focus on features most relevant to agriculture extension.

The EEE PC comes with both internal microphone and speakers (rare for netbooks, most of which only

provide headphone/microphone jacks), though microphone and speaker quality and volume/sensitivity

are mediocre. A webcam just above the display is built in for video teleconferencing. The display itself is

back-lit LED, with 1024x600 native resolution.

The Asus netbooks ship with Windows XP software, and there is little about the UI that deviates from

the standard Windows experience. For extension purposes, anyone who uses any netbook would

require familiarity with standard PC interfaces. The 10” keyboard is smaller than standard PC or laptop

keyboards, but it is large for a netbook, and not uncomfortable even for extended use. A touchpad is

built in for mouse functionality.

The EEE PC has jacks for external microphone and speakers, as well as three USB ports offer the

potential for expanding its capabilities. External DVD drives (~$100 retail), for example, would turn the

device into a DVD player.

Ruggedness of the device is as would be expected for any netbook or laptop. Drop tests were not

conducted, since this class of device is not expected to survive falls from 48 inches. Nevertheless,

compared with other netbooks, the EEE PC is relatively sturdy: The netbook itself is heavier (3 lbs.) and

thicker (1.4 inches at the thick end) than others in its class; its hard-plastic enclosure suggests sturdy

construction, and the display/lid is attached to the base with two thick hinges, though it will not endure

rough handling while the lid is open. The EEE PC, however, has a standard harddrive, as opposed to a

solid-state drive, which makes it slightly more vulnerable to physical shocks. Again, as with other

netbooks, the device is neither waterproof nor dustproof, but it should operate fine under indoor

conditions physiologically safe for people.

Trade reviews consistently praise the Asus EEE line of netbooks for its long-lasting battery life. Tests

show that from full charge, the EEE PC comfortably play video for 6-7 hours without recharging (less

strenuous processor use would result in longer battery life).

In comparison with other netbooks at similar cost, the Asus EEE PC has a well-rounded set of features

that also make it a good choice where PC functionality is needed in extension. Among the most practical

is its superior battery life, which makes it particularly good for use in situations where a whole work day

of usage without power can be alternated with periods of being plugged in for charging.

Augmented use:

With loud external speakers (~$15), the EEE PC immediately becomes a reasonable video playback

device. Using the netbook’s display, the 10” screen size limits viewing to an audience of at most 20

people, with likely 5-10 being the most who could simultaneously watch comfortably. Of course,

through their video ports, netbooks could be attached to monitors or projectors, which would make

them usable in large-group settings. Add an external DVD player (~$100) and the EEE PC also becomes

an effective DVD player.

Use of an external microphone could make any netbook a viable audio recorder, and the addition of a

webcam could make it a video recorder, but using a device as large and fragile as a netbook for

recording can present usability issues.

Suitability for extension scenarios: The versatility of the EEE PC permits it to fulfill all of the required

functions in each of the scenarios, but the use of a netbook for any one scenario seems overkill. Cost

and fragility issues of netbooks make them difficult to recommend for use in any one of the primary

extension scenarios. On the other hand, netbooks (and laptops, to a certain degree) could serve as

digital assistants for those agriculture extension officers who perform a variety of tasks during their

work day. For example, an extension officer who interacts with individual farmers during the morning,

collects text and photo data during the day, and perhaps teaches a group class in the afternoon may find

that a netbook is an ideal device that assists in all of these activities effectively.

Future versions: The personal computer market is continuously evolving, and we expect future devices

to continue to add capabilities and to evolve new interfaces. In the netbook category, however, the

most obvious trends are for the devices to continue to add to their processing power and other

quantitative features.

The asymptotic lower bound on the cost of netbooks deserves consideration. $100 laptops, for example,

have been repeatedly announced, but none seem to have actually hit the target price, or to have

survived as viable businesses. The most prominent such project, the “One Laptop Per Child”, announced

a $100 PC in 2004, but the organization has been unable to reduce the raw hardware price below $188.

Our own estimates suggest that a device with the capabilities and form factor of a netbook would be

nearly impossible to build under $150, without significant technological breakthroughs in at least two of

the costlier components of PCs (e.g., display, power, batteries, RAM), none of which are on the horizon.

Meanwhile, the international netbook market seems content to keep devices at the $350+ range, retail,

with most netbooks costing closer to $500. Given the estimated cost of the bill of materials (~$180), this

is likely the lowest cost at which a viable business can be operated.

For all of the reasons above, we do not anticipate a significant (more than 20%) drop in the retail cost of

commercially available netbooks for the foreseeable future.

Product website: http://usa.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=BtksJTDENqfsnuyf

Other Devices Other devices may have value in agriculture extension, although we did not review them in-depth in our

survey. Among them…

Pico projectors are small hand-held projectors, which are becoming cheaper and brighter each

year. Many come with rechargeable batteries, onboard memory, and capacity to playback video

in limited formats, all of which make them effective for larger-group presentations. Their major

weakness is their very low projection brightness (between 5-30 lumens). Projections of a 21”

television-sized image on a white background are virtually impossible to see in daylight, and

even in dark rooms or after sunset, the image is much dimmer than active displays. Cost ranges

from $150-500.

Low-end mobile phones continue to be used throughout the developing world, with second-

hand phones available for no more than several dollars. They excel on battery life, ease of use,

and ease of maintenance. Their weakness is limited functionality. The most effective use of such

phones is for voice calls, still the “killer app” of all mobile phones in the developing world. Voice

transcends issues of literacy and user interface. Less common, though useful in some contexts is

the communication of very small amounts of textual information via SMS.

Analog radio and television continue to be relevant even a digital world. Community radio, for

example, is often called “Africa’s Internet.” These technologies are superb for broadcasting

information across a wide geography. Because they have existed with consistent protocols for

many years, they have established markets even in rural areas, and their supply chains are well-

greased. Battery-powered radios are available for a few dollars, and television sets can be

acquired new for $50 in most urban areas. Though overtaken in number by mobile phones, their

use remains critical for information dissemination. Many people in very remote rural areas often

relate to other technologies in terms of radios or TVs.

Portable speakers are not a content-playback device in themselves, but they are useful in

providing louder audio for a range of devices. Retailing in the range of $5-20 they can provide a

useful supplement to a device which has rich feature but poor volume. Greater audio volume

necessarily means greater device cost (for speaker and audio electronics) and greater demands

for power.

Acknowledgements This study was made possible by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. We would

particularly like to thank Srikant Vasan, Roy Steiner, and Melissa Ho for their encouragement and

support throughout the project.

Report Contributors Kentaro Toyama, PhD, is a researcher at UC Berkeley’s School of Information. He was founding assistant

director of Microsoft Research India, in Bangalore, where he built and led the “Technology for Emerging

Markets” group (http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem), which continues to conduct scientific

research to identify applications of electronic and computing technology for socio-economic

development. In 2006, Toyama co-founded the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Information and

Communication Technology and Development, which is the premier research conference on ICT4D. Prior

to his time in India, Toyama was at Microsoft Research in Redmond, where he did research in

multimedia and computer vision and worked to transfer new technology to Microsoft product groups.

In 2002, he taught mathematics at Ashesi University, a private liberal arts college in Ghana. Toyama

graduated from Harvard with a bachelors degree in physics and from Yale with a PhD in computer

science.

Paul Polak, MD, American entrepreneur and philanthropist, was named by Scientific American magazine

as one of the Scientific American 50- the noted magazine's second annual list recognizing outstanding

acts of leadership in technology from 2003. Polak is named policy leader in agriculture because of his

work with rural farmers in developing nations worldwide in 2003. The founder and ex-president/CEO of

the non-profit organization, International Development Enterprises (IDE), Polak has worked for decades

to help the world escape the devastating effects of poverty through facilitating income generation.

Polak works from the base knowledge that lack of water, particularly clean water, is the cornerstone of

poverty. IDE has pioneered the development and rural mass marketing of affordable technologies

through the small enterprise private sector in developing countries, and was recently awarded a $27

million grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Matthew York is the founder/CEO of Videomaker magazine and the non-profit organization One Media

Player per Teacher (OMPT). Videomaker’s mission is to empower people to make video through a

variety of publications. OMPT, York’s most recent venture, seeks to help non-profit organizations

catering to the developing world make better use of consumer electronics. Towards this end, OMPT

evaluates technologies, consults on technology-related issues, and holds workshops for non-profits.

OMPT’s advice has impacted a number of organizations including Digital Green and D-Rev.

Additional acknowledgements: Krista Donaldson, S. Raghu Menon, Gerry Chu, Sambit Satpathy.

Glossary Below are definitions of rare terms or terms used in a specific way in this document.

Trainer: Someone who plays a role as an instructor or advisor in agriculture extension. The

person may be an extension officer, NGO staff, agrivet dealer, salesperson, or anyone else who

interacts directly with farmers and is a source of agriculture knowledge.

BOM: “bill of materials”, or the estimated cost of components and manufacturing. This value

provides a lower bound on the potential cost of the device in its current form, and with current

manufacturing technology. Most consumer electronics, however, will retail at 2-5 times the

BOM, to account for marketing, distribution, customer support, profit, and so on.

Smallholder agriculture: Smallholder farmers, or small land holding farmers, are the dominant

population in developing-world agriculture. Most such farmers farm less than 5 acres of land,

with half- to one-acre plots being very common.

ICT: The common abbreviation for “information and communication technology.” ICTs typically

include personal computers, mobile phones, and the Internet, but they can also include a wider

range of devices such as all those surveyed here, as well as other wireless technologies, radio,

TV, etc. It’s safe to think of ICTs as consumer electronic technologies.

References Agriculture Extension. (2007) Article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_extension.

Amt, W. “DCFRN: a radio network for farmers,” Development Communications Report, 52: 11-10, 1986.

Anderson, J., G. Feder, S. Ganguly. (2006) “The rise and fall of training and visit extension: an Asian mini-

drama with an African epilogue,” Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 3928, The World Bank.

Antholt, C. H. (1998) “Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-first Century,” In C. K. Eicher and J. M. Staatz

(eds.), International Agricultural Development, Third edition, Baltimore, MD., The John Hopkins

University Press: 354-369.

Duflo, E., and R. Hanna, (2006), “Monitoring Works: Getting Teachers to Come to School,” NBER

Working Paper 11880.

Easterly, William. (2001), The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in

the Tropics, MIT Press.

Engelhard, R. (2003) “ICTs - transforming agricultural extension?” Proceedings of CTA's Observatory on

ICTs, Leiden.

Feder, G., A. Willett, and W. Zijp. (2001) “Agricultural Extension: Generic Challenges and the Ingredients

for Solutions,” In S. Wolf and D. Zilberman (eds.), Knowledge Generation and Technical Change:

Institutional Innovation in Agriculture. Boston, Mass, Kluwer.

Feder, Gershon, R. Murgai and J. B. Quizon. (2004) “Sending Farmers Back to School: The Impact of

Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia, Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(1):45-62.

Fraser, C., and Restrepo-Estrada. (1997) “Communication for Rural Development in Mexico,” The Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Gandhi, R., R. Veeraraghavan, K. Toyama. (2009) Digital Green: Participatory Video for Agriculture

Extension. Information Technologies and International Development.

ITU. (2010) ITU estimates 2 billion people online by end 2010. ITU Press Release.

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/39.aspx

Jones, G.E. and Garforth, C. (1997) The history, development, and future of agricultural extension in

Swanson, B. “Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual (3rd Edition)” FAO.

Kuriyan, R., and K. Toyama. (2006) Review of Research on Rural PC Kiosks.

http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem/kiosks/Kiosks%20Research.doc

Ling, Rich and Jonathan Donner (2009) Mobile Communication. Wiley.

Longley, C., D. Spencer and S. Wiggins. (2006) “Assessment of Farmer Field Schools in Sierra Leone,

Operation Feed The Nation,” London/Freetown: ODI and DS and A.

Ramamritham, K., A. Bahuman, S. Duttagupta, C. Bahuman, S. Balasundaram. (2006) “Innovative ICT

Tools for Information Provision in Agricultural Extension”, in Proc. Int’l Conf. on Information and

Communication Technologies and Development.

Reddy, P.K., R. Ankaiah (2005) A Framework of Information Technology based Agriculture Information

Dissemination System to Improve Crop Productivity, Current Science, vol 88, Num 12, pp. 1905-1913.

Surana, S., R. Patra, S. Nedevschi, E. Brewer. (2008) Depolying a rural wireless telemedicine system:

experiences in sustainability. IEEE Computer, pp. 48-56, June, 2008.

Toyama, K., and Dias, M.B. (2008). Information and Communication Technologies for Development. IEEE

Computer, 41(6), 22-25.

Toyama, K. (2010) Can Technology End Poverty? Boston Review. Nov/Dec 2010.

Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne and V. H. Piyadasa. (2005) “What should we expect from farmer field schools? A

Sri Lanka case study,” World Development, 33(10): 1705-1720.

United Nations. United Nation Millennium Declaration. (2000) Resolution adopted by the General

Assembly, 55/2. Sept. 18, 2000. http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

Van den Berg, H., J. Jiggins. (2007) “Investing in Farmers – The Impacts of Farmers Field Schools in

Relation to Integrated Pest Management,” World Development, 35(4): 663-686.