Digital Green GANDHI, VEERARAGHAVAN, TOYAMA ... Ramprasad [email protected] GREEN Foundation P.O. Box No. 7651 No. 30, ‘Surya’ 4th Main, 19th Cross BTM II Stage N.S. Palya,

1

Rikin [email protected] Research India196/36 2nd MainSadashivnagar, Bangalore560 080India�91 80 6658 6000

Rajesh [email protected] of California,BerkeleyUSA

Kentaro [email protected] Research India196/36 2nd MainSadashivnagar, Bangalore560 080India�91 80 6658 6000

Vanaja [email protected] FoundationP.O. Box No. 7651No. 30, ‘Surya’4th Main, 19th CrossBTM II StageN.S. Palya, Near SMC KalyanaMantapaBangalore 560 076India�91 80 26784509

Digital Green GANDHI, VEERARAGHAVAN, TOYAMA, RAMPRASAD

Research Article

Digital Green:Participatory Video and MediatedInstruction for AgriculturalExtensionAbstract

Digital Green is a research project that seeks to disseminate targeted agricul-tural information to small and marginal farmers in India using digital video.The unique components of Digital Green are: (1) a participatory process forcontent production; (2) a locally generated digital video database; (3) a hu-man-mediated instruction model for dissemination and training; and (4) regi-mented sequencing to initiate new communities. Unlike some systems that ex-pect information or communication technology alone to deliver usefulknowledge to marginal farmers, Digital Green works with existing, people-based extension systems and aims to amplify their effectiveness. While videoprovides a point of focus, it is people and social dynamics that ultimately makeDigital Green work. Local social networks are tapped to connect farmers withexperts, the thrill of appearing “on TV” motivates farmers, and homophily isexploited to minimize the distance between teacher and learner. In a 13-month trial involving 16 villages (eight control and eight experimental villagesbalanced for parameters such as size and mix of crops) and a total of 1,470households, Digital Green increased the adoption of certain agriculture prac-tices seven-fold over a classic Training and Visit-based (T&V) extension ap-proach. On a cost-per-adoption basis, Digital Green was shown to be 10 timesmore effective per dollar spent than a classical extension system. Investmentsincluded performance-based honoraria for local facilitators, a shared TV andDVD player in each village, and one digital camcorder and PC shared acrossthe project area. The results are preliminary, but promising.

I. IntroductionIndia, like most other developing nations, is still primarily an agriculturalcountry. More than 60% of the population relies on agriculture as ameans of livelihood. Though a generational vocation, farmers havedifªculty sustaining a living for their families due to social, economic, andenvironmental change [1]. The National Sample Survey Organization’s2005 Situation Assessment Survey of Indian Farmers studied the sourcesof new technologies and farming practices that farmers accessed in thepreceding year [2] and showed that increasing debt and declining returnshave led some to make desperate choices that include selling their landbelow market rates and sometimes even taking their own lives. One ofthe major problems lies in poor knowledge about farming itself. Farmerstend to ªnd refuge in their own intuition and the hearsay of fellow villag-ers, which can result in a downward spiral of poor decision-making [3].

© 2009 USC Annenberg School for Communication. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

license. All rights not granted thereunder to the public are reserved to the publisher and may not be exercised without its express written permission.

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009, 1–15

There are at least two dominant modes of ad-dressing this gap in knowledge. Television and radiobroadcast programs are commonly used to dissemi-nate agricultural information across large geogra-phies, but the information can be too general forpractical use. The other alternative is agriculture ex-tension in which trained extension agents attemptto impart farming practices and techniques to farm-ers through individual interaction.

Robert Evenson describes agriculture extensionefforts as following an awareness-knowledge-adoption-productivity (AKAP) sequence [4]. Guidinga farmer through this progression to inculcate a par-ticular technique is the aim of extension services.Agriculture extension in developing countries spansa history from the services provided to export-oriented crop estates during the colonial era toproductivity-focused strategies, such as the WorldBank’s US$3 billion Training and Visit (T&V) system[5] that promoted Asia’s Green Revolution in the1970s. Today, extension remains the focus of manygovernment programs; India, for example, has thesecond largest number of extension workers—morethan 100,000—in the world.

The scale of actual impact, however, is con-founded by logistical and resource challenges thatinclude the sheer number of households assigned toa single extension ofªcer, as well as the difªcultythat individual ofªcers have in establishing rapportwith their potential clients [6] [7]. Extension ofªcerstend to restrict their contacts to the richer, larger-scale farmers in each village, as they are typically themost willing to experiment with new inputs. Exten-sion systems aim to use these farmers as models,but the ªeld staff is rarely able to showcase the pro-gression of these farmers to wider audiences due tosocial and resource limitations.

A variation of the individual-based approach isthe acclaimed Farmer Field Schools (FFS) model [8]that enables farmers to improve their decision-making capacities through weekly “informalschools” in which a small group of farmers observesand evaluates possible agricultural interventions onone individual’s farm. The FFS model is claimed tohave spread the adoption of integrated pest man-agement practices in Asia by graduating more thanfour million farmers in 50 developing countries [9].The evidence suggests that the social value of theinformal schools contributes greatly to the success

of this model, although there are lingering questionsabout its ªscal viability [10].

It is in this context that we present Digital Green(DG), a technology-supported means of agricultureextension. Inspired by a project called DigitalStudyHall that seeks to improve primary school edu-cation in rural India [11], we use video as a basis fordisseminating agricultural practices. The compo-nents of Digital Green are: (1) a participatory processfor content production; (2) a locally generated digi-tal video database; (3) a human-mediated instruc-tion model for dissemination and training; and (4)regimented sequencing to initiate new communities.Each of these components is discussed in detail inSection IV.

The use of video for agriculture extension is byno means new, and DG was inspired by a numberof different projects. These can be broadly catego-rized as IT for agricultural development, video in ag-riculture extension, and mediated instruction foreffective training with video (related work is dis-cussed in a later section). DG weaves together thebest of these three strands of work into a novel sys-tem that maximizes the impact of agriculture exten-sion workers. Among its unique strengths, the DGsystem uses cost-realistic technologies, like TVs andDVD players, to build the capacities of farmers sothey will be able to better manage their agriculturaloperations. The video-based content improves thediffusion of better farming practices and reduces theexpert support required for each farmer. The videosare also localized to a region and feature the partici-pation of familiar farmers as opposed to experts inidealized conditions.

The more critical aspects of the DG system arehow video is used, and how it capitalizes on naturalsocial dynamics to amplify a single extensionworker’s ability to evangelize agricultural practices.Village-level mediators facilitate the showing ofthese videos to ensure that farmers personally con-nect with the content on a regular, accessible basis.

We discuss the methodology we used to arrive atthe overall Digital Green system in the following sec-tion. Later sections present our ªndings and resultsfrom a preliminary, controlled experiment.

II. MethodologyThe work presented in this paper occurred in twostages that follow the methodological traditions of,

2 Information Technologies and International Development

DIGITAL GREEN

respectively, contextual design and randomized con-trol trials.

In the ªrst stage, a human-centered and contex-tual design approach [12] was used for the prelimi-nary research and design of what would evolve to

become Digital Green. Through a combination ofethnographic investigation of existing agriculture ex-tension practices, together with the prototyping ofboth technology and its use in a village context, wegradually acquired both a better understanding ofthe problems of classical agriculture extension andof the challenges to using video as a medium in ru-ral areas.

The ªrst author spent more than 200 days in theªeld within a span of one year working with GREENFoundation, a non-governmental organization(NGO) headquartered in Bangalore, India. GREENFoundation works in 100 rural villages in Karnatakaand encourages low-external input sustainable agri-culture practices, and the establishment of commu-nity seed banks to preserve the genetic diversity ofindigenous crop species. For the purposes of thework presented in this article, it is important to notethat GREEN Foundation’s methods are based on theclassical Training and Visit approach to agricultureextension in which the NGO’s extension agentstravel to villages and visit individual farmers to dis-seminate knowledge. During the ªrst phase, we ob-served agents performing their regular extensionduties and recorded their interactions with farmers.In addition, we experimented with producing vari-ous types of video content and also tested alterna-tive approaches to screening and mediating thedistribution of the videos, based on initial guess-work, trial-and-error, and feedback from extensionstaff and farmers. Table 1 brieºy summarizes theseexperiments.

In the second stage, we ªxed a particular versionof the Digital Green extension model (described inSection IV) and conducted a 13-month balancedcontrolled study [13] in 16 villages to compare farm-ers’ ªeld adoptions of new practices between twoforms of agricultural extension: (1) the classical ex-tension methodology in which the NGO’s extensionagents performed periodic ªeld visits and training;and (2) the regular production and dissemination ofDigital Green videos mediated by locally hired villagefacilitators. Section V describes the methodologyand results of the second-stage experiment.

III. Stage 1: Early ExperimentationBetween September and March 2007, we spentmost of the time observing, learning, and proto-typing different techniques for applying video to ex-

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 3

GANDHI, VEERARAGHAVAN, TOYAMA, RAMPRASAD

Table 1. Preliminary Design Experiments.

“Experiment” “Receptiveness”

Video Producer

low-skill facilitator �

medium-skill facilitator �

expert-skill facilitator �/�

no facilitator �

no farmer �

Video Themes

innovations �

demonstrations �

testimonials �

concepts �

mistakes �

new farmers �

showcases �

entertainment �

meteorology �

cost-beneªt analysis �

entrepreneurship �

lectures �

events �

Screening Location

patio �

street �

school �/�

political leader �/�

personal TV �/�

cable �/�

Screening Mediator

hand-out supplies �

low-skill mediator �

medium-skill mediator �

expert-skill mediator �/�

no mediator �

Notes: The symbols (�) and (�) denote an initial esti-mation of future potential of an approach, based onthe qualitatively assessed responses of farmers. Bothsymbols (�/�) denote a qualitative uncertainty in theutility of an approach.

tension. The experiments were conducted in twovillages, comprising 375 households. The discussionin this section reviews some of the initial ªndingsthat led to the design of the components of the cur-rent Digital Green system.

To bootstrap the initial studies, the ªrst authorrecorded a number of videos that featured experts,NGO staff, and farmers. The experts and NGO staffconveyed some practice to the farmers, usually withthe farmers actively trying out a given technique.Other farmers were then shown these videos in vari-ous situations in their villages. We experimentedwith a range of possibilities in terms of how the vid-eos were recorded and screened. Some of the pa-rameters included:

• Degree of mediation: Acts of mediation in-clude the mediator pausing the video to makeadditional commentary, inviting questions, orengaging in a discussion with the viewers. Thedegree of mediation ranged from straight play-back with no mediation to highly interactivesessions with heavy mediation.

• Background of the mediator screening thevideo: Other farmers, extension ofªcers, andPhD experts.

• Background of people featured in video:regular farmers, low-skill extension agents, andagriculture university graduates.

• Type of content: Shown under “VideoThemes” in Table 1.

• Location of screening and method of dis-semination: Shown under “Screening Loca-tion” in Table 1.

• Other factors: The use of extra incentivessuch as handouts offered during screenings,etc.

Our initial ªndings are described in the remainder ofthis section, and Table 1 coarsely tabulates ourªndings.

One of the clearest things we observed was thedegree to which farmers sought videos featuringpeople similar to themselves, who spoke in their dia-lect and accent, and who had low- to medium-levelsof formal agricultural expertise. They made snapjudgments of a person’s occupation, education, andstation, apparently based on language, clothing, andmannerism cues, consistent with previous observa-tions [14]. For example, a progressive farmer might

be considered low-skill, an extension agent withsome bachelor’s-level education might be consideredmedium-skill, and a director-level extension agentwith a master’s or doctoral degree in agriculturecould be considered high-skill. As Table 1 suggests,low- and medium-skilled people were generallymore trusted. Interviews with farmers revealed thatthey had encountered many experts in the past, butthat expert advice was confounding. Farmers thusexpressed apathy toward expert lectures, preferringthe persuasion of familiar neighbors.

Not surprisingly, farmers’ interest in watching aparticular video depended strongly on its content.Videos of classroom-style lectures and large eventswere perceived to be monotonous, and farmersthemselves often requested a variety of more inti-mate content types that included concrete demon-strations, testimonials, entertainment, etc. In somecases, they demanded videos that featured multiplefarmers adopting the same practice, possibly to seeproof of a broader base of acceptance.

Farmers were always sensitive to the appropriate-ness of the content to the current season and thetangible beneªts that its application could provide.The videos captured the range of sustainable agri-cultural practices that were promoted by GREENFoundation and included demonstrations for settingup low-cost, vermicompost production units and themethod of system of rice intensiªcation (SRI). Themost signiªcant complaints about content were thata given video was not appropriate for the season orfor a particular village. Farmers were not willing tosit through videos that were not of immediate valueto them. A related issue was that farmers neededsome assurance of immediate gains before theywould be willing to consider practices that offeredlonger-term returns. Most of the sustainable agricul-tural practices that GREEN Foundation promotes cantake farmers several months to realize any improve-ments; videos containing this content were not well-received until farmers ªrst tried a technique with ashorter reward cycle.

The presence of the mediator during screeningwas also signiªcant. In particular, a playback ofvideo alone, no matter the content, frequently re-sulted in audiences leaving well before the playbackwas ªnished. In contrast, even slight mediation ap-peared to result in more prolonged interest. SharedTV and DVD player screenings were typically well-attended in public locations, but semi-private places,


DIGITAL GREEN

such as a school at the edge of a village or thehouse of a partisan politician, restricted farmers’participation. Exchanging DVDs with individualhouseholds or broadcasting the videos on local ca-ble networks allowed the videos to be seen by somefarmers who were otherwise unaware or incapableof attending public screenings; however, withoutthe involvement of a human mediator, these meth-ods tend to connect with only the most progressivefarmers. A similar response was observed when ashared TV and DVD player was set up in a public lo-cation without the presence of a mediator. In allcases, there was some initial curiosity, but interestwas rarely sustained without a mediator.

Farmers were more eager to participate if thetools or ingredients needed to adopt a techniquewere provided during the screenings. Even if thisequipment was provided for a fee, farmers preferredto make their purchases at the screening rather thanjourney to a larger village or town on their own. Forexample, during one particular screening, 16 farm-ers were introduced to a low-cost method of culti-vating azolla, an aquatic fern that can be used toadd nutrients to animal feed and to ªx nitrogen forpaddy. Twelve of the farmers expressed interest inthe practice and were given plastic sheets and cul-tures to attempt the method on their own. The re-maining four claimed the technique was either notapplicable or not understandable to them.

Farmers frequently required more than a singlesession of video to absorb the material. During thescreening of the azolla video, for instance, the medi-ator repeated the content to allow individual farm-ers in the audience to demonstrate that they couldrecall both the required set of ingredients and thenecessary steps to construct a cultivation unit. Tomitigate the complexities of the promoted practices,GREEN Foundation segmented each practice intotime- and event-based modules. These moduleswere used to develop the various ªeld demonstra-tions and exposure programs that the NGO con-ducted. For the cultivation of transplanted paddy,the NGO developed modules for varietal selection,seed bed preparation, seed treatment, plantingmethod, ªeld preparation, manures and fertilizers,water management, pest and disease management,post-harvest processing, and marketing. These mod-ules provided the basis for producing videos in theªeld.

Though the information was sectioned into mod-

ules, farmers still requested that the same contentbe shown multiple times to build sufªcientconªdence before they attempted a procedure ontheir own. In some cases, an extension agent’s directsupport was required for adoption. Going back tothe example of screening a video on azolla cultiva-tion, of the 12 interested farmers, only three suc-cessfully completed the process without any ªeldsupport. Another three farmers began the processon their own, but requested a follow-up visit to vali-date their work. The remaining six farmers requiredthe full-time supervision of extension staff.

After about six months, our key ªndings were:mediation is essential to the process of extension;farmers were most convinced by appropriately tar-geted and pitched content; and concrete, short-termincentives are critical in the beginning. We began tobelieve that we were converging on a video-basedsystem that could amplify the effectiveness of exten-sion workers.

IV. The Digital Green SystemThe Digital Green system (DG) was designed basedon the preliminary design experiments describedabove. DG consists of (1) a participatory process forcontent production, (2) a locally generated digitalvideo database, (3) a human-mediated instructionmodel for dissemination and training, and (4) regi-mented sequencing to initiate new communities.

A. Participatory Content ProductionThe DG cycle begins with producing video content.Although we encourage the recording of a numberof different types of content, including testimonialsand what might be considered entertainment (e.g.,groups of village children singing), the majority ofthe video produced is instructional in nature. Instruc-tional videos are recordings of demonstrations thatare made when an extension agent is teaching afarmer a new technique. Typically, the videos promi-nently feature either an experienced farmershowcasing the beneªts of a particular technique, ora new farmer attempting a technique on her ªeldfor the ªrst time. As seen in Figure 1, most video re-cordings involve three people: a teacher, a farmer,and a content producer who doubles as the cameraoperator.

The content producer tries to enforce the follow-ing format in each instructional video: (a) a brief ver-bal overview of the process; (b) an itemization of



the required resources and associated costs; (c) step-by-step instructions in the ªeld, usually with thefarmer and, sometimes, also the teacher actually im-plementing the technique; (d) a showcasing of theuses and beneªts; and (e) interactions with farmersto address common questions and concerns. Someadvance “lesson planning” in the form of informalstoryboarding is encouraged for content producersso that they are prepared for recording, but much ofthe actual recording in the ªeld is, at once, ad hocand chronologically true to the way extensionagents interact with farmers.

Content producers can be university scientists,NGO experts, ªeld staff, progressive farmers, andother volunteers from the local community, with themost common producers of content being NGO ex-tension agents. Extension agents perform their regu-lar extension duties, mostly ªeld assessments ordemonstrations, and capture these interactions withfarmers on video. In this way, an extension agentcan produce one or two clippings per ªeld visit withminimal additional effort.

One of the crucial aspects of DG is the inclusionof local farmers in the instructional videos. This is acritical, but subtle feature, based on our learningthat other farmers in the area are more likely toadopt a practice when they can see that is alreadybeing implemented by their peers. As an addedbeneªt, the appeal of appearing in a video is incen-tive enough for some farmers to adopt a new prac-tice. Occasionally, farmers themselves also contribute

insight or innovative techniques during recordings.However, we should not over-romanticize this possi-bility—in the majority of cases, the expertise doeslie, in fact, with the extension agent, and the pri-mary value of the farmer’s participation is to demon-strate willingness to learn.

The NGO’s extension agents are already attunedto the needs and local variations in what informa-tion should be provided to the farmer, so by hitch-ing the recording process to an existing extensionsystem, appropriate content is naturally generated.

The videos are made using inexpensive camcord-ers; external microphones and tripods help to im-prove the quality of the audio and video production.

B. Locally Generated Video DatabaseContent recorded in the ªeld, like all raw footage, isusually unusable as is, so DG requires at least onevideo editor. This person must demonstrate basiccomputer literacy, have some rudimentary under-standing of the nature of the content, and be capa-ble of being trained in the basics of video post-production. In our case, we found this role is bestªlled by someone with at least a bachelor’s degreewho has discipline and experience with formal train-ing and critical thinking.

Video editors serve as the second and ªnalcheckpoint at which the recommended format of in-struction video is ensured. Editors check for the ac-curacy, clarity, and completeness of the content.Where content is missing, they send content pro-ducers back into the ªeld to gather missing footage.A minimum amount of titling and metadata, such astags for language and thematic category, is addedfor indexing into a database.

The videos are digitized on a PC and edited, us-ing simple non-linear editing software. The videosare then either mailed as DVDs or directly uploaded,if adequate bandwidth is available, on to a search-able Internet database that makes the content avail-able for public use under a Creative Commonslicense (Figure 2).

C. Mediated Instruction for Disseminationand TrainingAlthough the videos are available on the DG Website (http://www.digitalgreen.org), the principalmeans of distributing videos from the DG databaseto farming communities is by physically mailing orcouriering DVDs. Villages are provided a minimum


DIGITAL GREEN

Figure 1. An extension ofªcer prepares to record ademonstration for setting up a low-cost, vermicompostunit, featuring local farmers in Bhanavasi, Karnataka.

of one TV and one DVD player each and batterybackup equipment if necessary.

In each farming community, local mediators arehired on a part-time basis (in our study, by GREENFoundation). These mediators are residents of thesame communities in which they share DG content;this reduces the logistical challenges of regular visitsto a village and provides local access to agriculturalknowledge from a familiar source. In each village,the mediators conduct a minimum of three screen-ings per week during suitable evening hours. Theytransport DG equipment to different segments oftheir communities, maintain attendance records, andtrack the interest and adoption of the promotedtechniques. These mediators are additionally sup-ported by a full-time extension system (in our study,NGO) that provides mechanisms for feedback andaudit for a cluster of villages. The mediators aregiven a performance-based honorarium of up toRs. 1,500 (US$30) per month, which is calculatedfrom a mutually agreed set of target metrics thattake into account the local population of farmersand the agro-ecological conditions of the season.

Villages usually do not have a public forum atwhich farmers regularly gather, so location and tim-ing of the screenings is a major concern. Farmersare often only willing to take a short diversion of be-tween one to two hours from their daily routine inthe evening. In addition, political and socioeconomicdifferences within village communities rarely permitall the farmers to gather in one place at one time.As illustrated by Figure 3, the night showings typi-cally involve small groups of 20 to 30 farmers who

are willing to come to gather at a common sitewithin a short distance from their homes. Severalsmall groups are formed within a single village toscreen content on a regular basis, based on theavailability and interests of group members. Sincethe screening locations preferred by each smallgroup may differ, multiple screenings are scheduledeach week on a rotational basis. Actual locations areselected by local extension agents and mediators,who typically choose accessible sites—bus stands,temples, schoolhouses, panchayat (administrative)ofªces, storefronts, individual homes, and on thestreets.

Extension agents use the DG system as a tool tosupport their regular duties and require some train-ing in its optimal use. Since extension agents oftencome from various backgrounds, videos are used totrain and standardize their own interactions withfarmers as well. In addition, the extension staff isshown how to integrate the DG system into its ex-isting operations. Training introduces staff to thesystem, available content, and facilitation tech-niques. Mediation itself and training in mediationare critical elements; both roughly follow guidelinesof established pedagogy for mediated instruction[15].

D. Regimented Sequencing for InitiationFarmers’ acceptance of new agricultural practicesdoes not occur over a single video screening. So,communities are approached in a particular mannerand order: First, a village gathering is organized in acentral location to showcase highlights of the ser-



Figure 2. A snapshot from the Digital Green video re-pository. Figure 3. A typical night screening with farmers gath-

ered in front of a temple in Yellachavadi, Karnataka.

vices that will be provided; interested farmers areidentiªed; new content is recorded, with extensionstaff introducing a particular practice to theidentiªed farmers in the ªeld; informal screenings ofcontent of peer farmers are held; small groups of in-terested farmers are then formed with a regularschedule of content screenings (as described in theprevious subsection); ªnally, community participationis encouraged through peer pressure to learn,adopt, and innovate better agricultural processes.

Small groups that will regularly participate in therecording and screening of DG content are alsofounded within existing formal structures, such aslocal farmer cooperatives and self-help groups(SHGs), or are initiated by the DG system itself.

While the DG Web site provides functionality tosearch and browse the video database, the DVDsused by the village facilitators only provide a basicnavigational menu that lists the titles of the 10 to15 videos on a single disc. Still, the order in whichthe content is presented is important, so mediatorsare trained to begin by showcasing practices thatare known to provide immediate results for farmers.Local extension agents also assist in determining thesequence of the content to be shown. We try topresent material that was recently recorded, as fea-tured farmers are especially interested to see them-selves “on TV.” Because such recordings happen inseason, the timeliness of the promoted practicesalso align with the issues that farmers face in theªeld.

V. Results

A. MethodologyA controlled study was conducted between April2007 and April 2008 in 16 villages to evaluate theimpact of the DG system.

For the study, three village clusters were selectedwithin GREEN Foundation’s operational area. Theclusters were, on average, 30 kilometers apart andwere similar in terms of climatic, agro-ecological,political, and cultural conditions, thus minimizingdisparities in the results due to these factors. In eachcluster of villages, the NGO’s extension agents fol-lowed the classic T&V approach as a baseline. Exten-sion agents visited each village in their cluster aboutone day per week to meet individual farmers and toperform ªeld demonstrations.

The communities were primarily comprised of dryland, subsistence farmers; ªnger millet, banana,

mulberry, and coconut were the major crops of theregion. Farmers faced issues ranging from water andfodder scarcity to elephants trampling on ªelds atnight.

Villages were split into two groups: (1) eight con-trol villages where the NGO’s extension agents con-ducted periodic training visits (T&V extension); and(2) eight DG villages where the NGO’s periodic staffvisits were undertaken in combination with regularDG content screenings mediated by locally hired vil-lage persons (DG system). To minimize the effects ofconfounding factors, an attempt was made to bal-ance the groups in terms of population sizes, irriga-tion availability, and years of previous GREENFoundation interventions.

The villages ranged in size from 50 to 80 house-holds of which 10 to 20 had access to an irrigationfacility, such as a bore well. Most families wereofªcially designated as below the poverty line, basedon the Government of India’s deªnition of an aver-age earning of less than 12 rupees (US$0.25) perday [16]. Still, nearly one-third of the householdsowned a television and one-ªfth had subscriptionsto local cable networks. The GREEN Foundation hadworked in the communities from between two andfour years prior to the introduction of the DG sys-tem; however, fewer than 10% of the householdshad participated in any of the NGO’s previousinterventions.

In the eight villages selected for the DG interven-tions, the videos were screened by mediators fromthese same communities. The eight mediators werehired on a part-time, temporary basis and repre-sented balanced age groups and genders. They wereselected on the precondition of local language liter-acy (for record-keeping purposes) and were issued aperformance-based honorarium of up to Rs. 1,500(US$30) per month. In each village, the mediatorconducted meetings three nights per week and col-lected records, including farmers’ attendance, feed-back, and adoptions of promoted practices. Theserecords were randomly veriªed on a weekly basis byGREEN Foundation’s extension agents. Qualitativein-depth interviews with study participants, includ-ing the NGO’s extension agents and farmers, weresampled before the study commenced. Conveniencesampling was used to collect survey data.

Each of the eight DG villages incurred a ªxedcost of about Rs. 9,500 (US$190) for the TV andDVD player equipment and the recurring costs ofthe monthly performance-based honoraria of the


DIGITAL GREEN

mediators. Moreover, the NGO’s extension agents(present in both control and DG cases) received asalary, on average, of Rs. 6,000 (US$120) permonth. Since the mediators received a maximumhonorarium of Rs. 1,500 (US$30) per month, the in-cremental cost of labor was 25%.

NGO extension agents worked with farmers toproduce more than 300 videos in the local language(Kannada) of the region. The DG video repository in-cluded ªeld demonstrations led by agri-scientists,testimonials of progressive farmers, interactionsamong farmers, and market-based opportunities.The videos averaged 10 minutes in length and com-prised over 50 hours of content. The DG repositoryincluded the contributions of more than 50 farmersand 30 experts. The content belonged to the broadcategories of crop management, animal husbandry,indigenous technologies, value-addition activities,bio-fertilizers, pest management, composting, watermanagement, and entertainment.

Prior to the study, an initial baseline survey wasperformed during the ªrst meeting in each village toascertain the attendees’ sources of information, aswell as their prior knowledge of the agriculturalpractices that would be propagated during thestudy period. A sample of 236 farmers was selectedfor this. Then, the DG system, as described in Sec-tion IV, was implemented for a period of 13 monthsin the eight test villages, while the other eight con-trol villages received the NGO’s regular extensionservices. Seven categories of agricultural practiceswere sequentially promoted in both the control andDG villages, including seed treatment, kitchen gar-dening, azolla cultivation, silage, organic fertilizers,mulching, and vermicomposting. More than 1,500screenings took place over 13 months (an averageof over three per village per week), reaching morethan 2,000 farmers.

During each screening, attendance records werekept, and a simple survey was undertaken, consist-ing of one question about whether any attendeeshad an interest in taking up a practice. Throughoutthe study period, mediators and extension staff alsokept tabs on who had adopted new practices (rela-tively easy to do in the intimate setting of a smallvillage).

B. Quantitative ResultsFigure 4 depicts the sources of agricultural informa-tion that farmers claimed to have accessed at least

once during the year preceding our study, based onour baseline survey. The main source of informationfor farmers in our sample was the advice of privateagro-dealers. Across rural India, agro-dealers haveestablished stalls to sell agricultural inputs, such asseeds and fertilizers, and they conduct ªeld demon-strations to convince potential buyers of the utilityof their products. Our interviews revealed that somefarmers were suspicious of the agro-dealers’ motivesin offering information, but farmers felt that the al-ternatives were less accessible. A smaller percentageof farmers had been advised by a neighboringfarmer, perhaps due to a similar barrier in the diffu-sion of fertilizer technologies that Duºo and othersobserved between neighboring farmers in WesternKenya [17]. Also, though some farmers had indi-cated they listened to media programs broadcast bythe government agricultural department on TV andradio, none of the farmers had attempted any ofthe practices that had been featured in them.

Regarding prior knowledge, fewer than 5% ofthe farmers correctly answered questions on thespeciªc techniques that were to be promoted duringthe study, even though nearly 40% could describethe overall concepts. So, overall, farmers began withvery little knowledge of the sustainable agriculturepractices that GREEN Foundation hoped to spread.

As described in Section III, GREEN Foundation re-duced the complexities of the sustainable agricul-tural practices being promoted by developingmodules that were captured as short video clips. De-pending on the nature of a practice, farmers some-times needed to integrate the lessons from severalmodules to fully adopt the technique. For example,the process of setting up a vermicompost produc-



Figure 4. Sources of new agricultural information ac-cessed by farmers at least once in the preceding year.

tion unit was contained in a single module that cap-tured a demonstration of the technique. On theother hand, the adoption of the system of riceintensiªcation (SRI) method required farmers to fol-low a series a multiple modules (e.g., seed treat-ment, planting method, water management,weeding, etc.) across the span of a farming season.Though the promoted practices varied in requiredinvestments and expected returns, GREEN Founda-tion’s agri-scientists estimated that the adoption ofany one of the promoted modules of practiceswould raise the income of a farmer between US$20to US$100 each season, based on participatory re-search trials the NGO had separately performed.

In our controlled evaluation, we found that theset of practices adopted by farmers were nearlyequivalent in both the control and DG villages acrossthe duration of the study. Adoption rates, however,differed signiªcantly. Figure 5 compares the rate ofadoption of agricultural practices in the control vil-lages to the DG villages on a monthly basis. Adop-tion levels are computed as a ratio of farmers thatimplemented at least one new practice during a par-ticular period to the total number of farmers in thetarget group.

For the control areas, the results were consistentwith the NGO’s previous experience with extension,with rates of 1% to 4% of the farmers adopting anew technique per month. The low adoption rates

highlight the difªculties of reaching a large, scat-tered population of farmers using the classic T&Vapproach.

In the DG villages, an average of 280 farmers at-tended at least one screening each month (with arange of 250 to 310). Each month, slightly morethan one-half of these farmers (155 on average) in-dicated an interest in adopting a speciªc techniqueduring the screenings. The proportion of farmersthat actually implemented the practice in their ªeldsvaried from 10% to 33% in any given month.

We note that for each of the 13 months, adop-tion rates of the DG set over the control set wereseveral times greater, with multiplicative factorsranging from four to 36. In the cumulative 13-month period, we found that 85% of farmers in thetarget communities adopted at least one new agri-cultural practice in the DG villages, while only 11%of the farmers in the control villages did so. We thussaw an over seven-fold increase in adoption levelswith DG over the classic model. The individualmonthly results do not add up to the cumulative re-sults, because farmers who may have adopted mul-tiple practices over several months are still onlycounted once in the cumulative score, and the datawere normalized to the target population of thelargest DG village (200 households).

Notably, NGO extension agents are often taskedwith duties, such as internal training, that arebroader in scope than those of agricultural exten-sion. We estimated that extension agents spent80% of their time in T&V control villages, convinc-ing farmers to adopt new techniques, whereas theyonly spent 20% of their time doing so in DGvillages.

These approximations were determined by con-sidering the extra duties of an extension agent in aDG village. They include periodic training and moni-toring of the local facilitator, ªeld support for anyimmediate issues, and production of new video con-tent with the local facilitator and farmers. The costsof GREEN Foundation’s implementation of the T&V


DIGITAL GREEN

Table 2. Cost-Beneªt Analysis of Extension Systems.

Extension System Cost (US$)/Village/Year Adoption (%)/Village/Year Cost/Adoption (US$)

T&V (Control) $840 11% $38.18

Digital Green $630 85% $3.70

Data are normalized for a village population of 200 households.

Figure 5. Percentage of farmers in the target popula-tions that adopted at least one new practice in a calen-dar month from April 2007 to April 2008.

extension system was dominated by the salaries ofits full-time extension agents. DG improved theefªciency of these agents by leveraging the localsupport of part-time mediators and video program-ming at the village level. As a result, DG effectivelyreduced the costs of the entire agricultural extensionsystem by 25% on a per-village basis.

Table 2 summarizes a cost-beneªt comparison ofthe T&V control and DG extension systems. On acost-per-adoption basis, Digital Green was at least10 times more effective per dollar spent than theclassic extension system alone—this is extremely en-couraging, and GREEN Foundation was absolutelydelighted with these results.

C. Qualitative ResultsThroughout the study, we also made a number ofqualitative observations worth recording. These ob-servations were not systematically tabulated, butthey occurred with enough intensity that they couldbe the basis for further modiªcations to the DG sys-tem.

Self-reporting for non-adoption: In all cases,both for control and DG villages, where farmers didnot adopt a practice, farmers’ self-reporting citedlack of time, labor, or material resources as the rea-son.

Reinforcing diffusion: In a textbook example ofRogers’ theory of diffusion [18], farmers appearedmost swayed by videos of other farmers in the samesocio-economic strata as themselves. Some videosshowcased wealthier farmers in the community toinspire others to participate, but, while audiencesappreciated their success, they did not appear asmoved to adopt.

When those farmers featured in videos attendedcontent screenings, mediators encouraged them toshare their experiences to motivate their peers.Some were hesitant to become the center of atten-tion, but when they came out of their shells, theywere often the most effective at convincing theirpeers (Figure 6).

Farmers seemed to perceive relevance in a partic-ular technique presented on video, based on audioand visual cues, such as the use of the local accent.This sensitivity extended even to inanimate property:for instance, a plastic drum used in a demonstrationturned away some farmers because they possessedonly earthen urns.

Value of video: The videos bootstrapped on theability of the mediators who, we should recall, aremembers of the village community and generallynot formally trained in agriculture. Nevertheless,they became local resource persons for their com-munities, if only because they were the most ex-posed to the training videos. In many cases, themediators themselves were the ªrst adopters ofpractices. Such mediators actually enhance addedvalue, because they could discuss their own experi-ences with the new technique.

Value of mediation: In outdoor screening environ-ments, villagers expressed boredom by leaving. Thepresence of mediators, however, frequently fore-stalled a mass departure (and, hopefully, boredom).Because mediators make the content active—theyreiterate concepts between clips, ask questions togauge comprehension, and announce follow-up vis-its and subsequent screenings—more members ofan audience seemed to stay throughout the sessionswhen a mediator was present. In fact, in heavily me-diated sessions, the majority of an audience wouldstay to the end, whereas in sessions with a passivemediator, farmers walked out quickly.

Farmer insight: During the period of the study, afew farmers experimented with some practices anddiscovered further improvements that better suitedtheir local conditions. These innovations were cap-tured on video and distributed for wider adoption.



Figure 6. A farmer becomes an early adopter for culti-vating azolla in her community. A facilitator provides aplastic sheet to accelerate her adoption, during a DGscreening.

Veriªability: Local content production allowedfarmers to verify the subject matter of a video byauthenticating a known source or physically visitingthe recorded ªeld. During DG screenings, viewersfrequently asked for the names and villages of re-corded farmers. In addition, farmers on the verge ofexpressing interest in a particular technique typicallyasked for the names of farmers in their village whohad already adopted it.

Being “on TV” as an incentive: Some farmerscompeted to be included in the content, so thatthey could be seen by their peers on TV. In othercases, farmers who refused to even participate inscreenings would later become die-hard DG farmerswhen they themselves were featured in a video.Peer content often initiated curiosity and establisheditself as a medium for transference through commu-nity participation.

Repetition and novelty: There was a delicate bal-ance between achieving the right degree of repeti-tion and novelty, and DG needed be tweaked toªnd the optimal point. While farmers needed to re-peatedly view a video for some techniques beforefeeling conªdent enough to try it, they, neverthe-less, demanded to see new farmers featured in newvideos. We found that recording the same tech-niques being adopted by different farmers resultedin a suite of videos that were very effective at simul-taneously maintaining attention and inculcating thesubtleties of a practice. This ªt well with the factthat appearing on video is a non-monetary incentivethat encouraged farmers to adopt new practices.

Social side effects: DG does not explicitly seek todo anything but propagate good farming practices.However, because of its participatory content pro-duction and emphasis on bringing small groups to-gether, there were instances where DG reunitedestranged family members, whether they were feud-ing brothers or neglected widows—this effect wasmost frequent when the person alienated was fea-tured in a DG video.

Overall, these ªndings suggest quite a fewreªnements of the existing DG system, as well asfurther studies to better understand farmer and vil-lage interaction.

VI. Related Work

A. IT for Indian Agricultural DevelopmentSeveral groups have sought to provide informationto Indian farmers using technology. ITC’s widely ac-claimed e-Choupal initiative and Hindustan Lever’siShakti program were designed as kiosk-based Webportals that would provide real-time weather fore-casts and customized information to help farmersbetter manage their crops. While e-Choupal [19] hasdemonstrated success in streamlining the supply-chain for grain production, both programs havefaced difªculties in enabling farmers to recognizevalue from information that cannot directly be incor-porated into their existing operations [20]. IIT Bom-bay’s aAQUA [21] is one service that has beendeployed in kiosks to allow farmers to ask questionsof agri-professionals over the Internet. Farmers typi-cally receive answers within 24 to 48 hours, andthere are indications that farmers trust the informa-tion they receive. IIIT Hyderabad’s e-Sagu systemwas established on the alternative assumption thatfarmers have difªculty formulating the right ques-tions to ask. In the e-Sagu system, local coordinatorsobtain the weekly crop status of a farmer’s ªeld bytaking digital photographs that are compiled on aCD and mailed to agricultural scientists at the uni-versity who then prepare personalized advice foreach farmer. The system has shown that farmers canrealize signiªcant economic beneªts with targetedexpert support [22].

Whereas the e-Sagu system follows a push-basedmodel that details how individual farmers shouldproceed on a weekly basis, aAQUA captures farmerrequests for information on a needs basis. Both sys-tems have shown success in ªeld trials, and bothalso require available experts to provide advice on anindividual basis. In addition, aAQUA depends on afarmer’s ability to compose an appropriate querythat can be sent via SMS on a mobile phone or via aPC kiosk with Internet access. E-Sagu assumes theseincapacities of farmers, but does not attempt to im-prove farmers’ decision-making abilities in its push-based model.

B. Videos in Agricultural ExtensionMany organizations involved in agricultural develop-ment use a variety of media to communicate withthe masses. The Developing Countries Farm RadioNetwork (DCFRM), for example, has built reposito-


DIGITAL GREEN

ries of scripts that organizations use for communityradio programs [23]. The Government of Karnatakasponsors daily agricultural programs on public televi-sion broadcasters, like Doordarshan, and on Krishi(farm) radio; it also coordinates supplements innewspapers, like Prajavani. Some farmers may haveaccess to these media sources, but the programs areoften produced by experts of a different socioeco-nomic status in simulated conditions. Consequently,only the most progressive farmers tend to connectthese programs with improving their personal farm-ing operations. Broadcast television programs andmobile cinemas have been used in agricultural ex-tension systems throughout the world, including theUnited States, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, and Fiji [24].The videos sometimes complement T&V-based ap-proaches to generate mass awareness. In the late1970s, the World Bank supported the deploymentof the PRODERITH system [25], which incorporatedaspects of participatory video production and distri-bution in Mexico’s tropical wetlands. More than 700videos were produced, and PRODERITH successfullyincreased the incomes of 3,500 farmers by 50% be-tween 1977 and 1984. The Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) of the United Nations also sup-ported a farmer-training project in Peru between1975 and 1986 that recorded 1,000 videos (eachabout 20 minutes in duration) that reached morethan 150,000 small farmers [26]. These projects andothers, such as that of the Deccan Development So-ciety in Hyderabad, India, successfully demonstratedthe potential of using participatory video. Earlier,however, audio-visual technologies were cost pro-hibitive. These costs, however, have fallen dramati-cally in the last decade, and a 1996 FAO studysuggested that audio-visual training activities wouldcost one-third to one-ªfth of classical extensiontraining [27]. On the other hand, kiosk-based inter-ventions to connect farmers with expert informationusing PCs continue to be impractical for the ruralconditions of the developing world due to illiteracyand undeveloped infrastructure [28]. Furthermore,farmers prefer interpersonal methods of receiving in-formation on new or innovative farming practicesover mass media methods [29].

C. Tutored Video InstructionIn the 1970s, Jim Gibbons pioneered the use of Tu-tored Video Instruction (TVI) at Stanford University[30]. Under the TVI approach, minimally edited vid-

eos of unrehearsed lectures are viewed by groups ofstudents assisted by a “para-professional” mediator.The mediator engages students by interrupting thevideo lecture and asking questions and replayingsegments as necessary. Gibbons showed that stu-dents in TVI sections of an engineering course notonly performed better than those who watched vid-eotapes alone, they even outperformed studentswho attended live lectures. The University of Wash-ington’s Department of Computer Science and Engi-neering attempted to use TVI in a similar manner tooffer courses to local community colleges [31]. Theexperiment showed that the integration of videoproduction and distribution into existing social andorganizational structures is crucial for acceptanceand relevance. The Digital StudyHall (DSH) projecthas extended the TVI paradigm to the context of thedeveloping world by digitally recording the lessonsof good teachers in urban centers, collecting thevideos in a database, and distributing them on DVDsvia the postal network to poor rural schools. DSH re-solves the “impedance mismatches” [32] that existdue to the socioeconomic differences of an urbanschool and a rural school by localizing content inslum schools.

VII. Conclusions and Future WorkWe have presented the Digital Green (DG) system,which uses participatory local video content as a ba-sis for mediated instruction to amplify the effective-ness of agriculture extension agents. In a 13-month,balanced control study involving 16 villages, wefound that the DG system is able to multiply thevalue of a NGO’s extension agents by a factor of 10times per dollar spent. Locally hired mediators en-sure that farmers are engaged within a frameworkthat progressively enables them to achievesustainability in their operations.

These results, however, are not conclusive due tothe small size and geographic focus of the experi-ment, as well as our coarse evaluation of the wholeDG system, which depends on a number of factorsto succeed. To investigate further, we are currentlystudying a variant of the DG model in which village-level mediators conduct regular meetings, usingstatic posters as training aids instead of audio-visualtechnologies. This should allow us to evaluate thevalue of video as a medium in the current DGsystem.



We are also in the process of extending the Digi-tal Green system with grassroots-level partners inSouth Asia and Africa. We plan to continue studyingfarmer participation in both the recording andscreening of videos to understand the learning,adoption, and innovation of better agricultural prac-tices in different contexts. Our preliminary assess-ment was restricted to capturing the awareness,knowledge, and adoption of new practices. Wewould ultimately like to assess the end-to-endbeneªts provided to farming communities in termsof agronomic productivity, as well as the adoption ofpractices over successive agricultural seasons tomeasure both their continued acceptance andquality. ■

AcknowledgmentsThe authors specially thank the GREEN Foundationteam for inviting us to work closely with them in theªeld and the many farmers who welcomed us intotheir homes. Comments by anonymous reviewers ontwo different versions of this paper were also veryhelpful.

References[1] Stone, G. D. (2007). “The Birth and Death of Tra-

ditional Knowledge: Paradoxical Effects of Bio-technology in India,” In C. McManis (Ed.),Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property,Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge: 207–238, Earthscan.

[2] National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO).(2005). “Access to Modern Technology forFarming, Situation Assessment Survey ofFarmers,” 59th Round, Report No. 499, Govern-ment of India, Ministry of Statistics andProgramme Implementation, New Delhi.

[3] Stone, G. D. (2007). “Agricultural Deskilling andthe Spread of Genetically Modiªed Cotton inWarangal,” Current Anthropology, 48: 67–103.

[4] Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J.(1998). Improving agricultural extension: refer-ence manual, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, Rome.

[5] Anderson, J., Feder, G., & Ganguly, S. (2006,May). “The rise and fall of training and visit ex-tension: an Asian mini-drama with an African ep-

ilogue,” Policy Research Working Paper Series,No. 3928, The World Bank.

[6] Antholt, C. H. (1998). “Agricultural Extension inthe Twenty-ªrst Century,” In C. K. Eicher andJ. M. Staatz (eds.), International Agricultural De-velopment, Third edition, Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press: 354–369.

[7] Feder, G., Willett, A., & Zijp, W. (2001). “Agricul-tural Extension: Generic Challenges and the In-gredients for Solutions,” In S. Wolf and D.Zilberman (eds.), Knowledge Generation andTechnical Change: Institutional Innovation in Agri-culture. Boston, Mass: Kluwer.

[8] Tripp, R., Wijeratne, M., & Piyadasa, V. H. (2005).“What should we expect from farmer ªeldschools? A Sri Lanka case study,” World Develop-ment, 33(10): 1705–1720.

[9] Van den Berg, H., & Jiggins, J. (2007). “Investingin Farmers—The Impacts of Farmers Field Schoolsin Relation to Integrated Pest Management,”World Development, 35(4): 663–686.

[10] Rola, A. C., Quizon, J. B., & Jamias, S. B.(2002). “Do Farmer Field School Graduates Re-tain and Share What They Learn?: An Investiga-tion in Iloilo, Philippines,” Journal of InternationalAgricultural and Extension Education, 5(1): 65–75.

[11] Wang, R., Sahni, U., Sobti, S., Garg, N., Singh,J. P., Kam, et al. (2005, March). “The DigitalStudyHall,” Technical Report TR-723-05, Com-puter Science Department, Princeton University.

[12] Beyer, H., & Holzblatt, K. (1998). ContextualDesign: Deªning Customer-Centered Systems.Morgan Kaufmann, USA.

[13] Duºo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2006).Using Randomization in Development EconomicsResearch: A Toolkit. Available Online: http://www.povertyactionlab.com/papers/Using%20Randomization%20in%20Development%20Economics.pdf

[14] Gandhi, R. (2007, February). “Digital Green Ex-periments,” Working Draft, Microsoft ResearchIndia, Bangalore.

[15] Anderson, R. J., Dickey, M., & Perkins, H.(2001). “Experiences with tutored video instruc-


DIGITAL GREEN

tion for introductory programming courses,”SIGCSE: 347–351. Available at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=364447.364619#abstract

[16] Planning Commission. (2007). “Press release onPoverty Estimates for 2004–05,” Government ofIndia, March 2007.

[17] Duºo, E., Kremer, M., & Robinson, J. (2006,April). “Understanding Technology Adoption: Fer-tilizer in Western Kenya: Evidence from Field Ex-periments,” Mimeo, MIT.

[18] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations,Free Press, New York.

[19] Karnani, A. “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyra-mid: A Mirage,” November 2006, Ross School ofBusiness—Working Papers Series, February 2007.Available Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract�914518

[20] Kumar, R. (2004, September). “eChoupals: AStudy on the Financial Sustainability of VillageInternet Centers in Rural Madhya Pradesh”, In-formation Technologies and International Devel-opment, 2(1): 45–74.

[21] Ramamritham, K., Bahuman, A., & Duttagupta,S. (2006, June). “aAQUA: A Database-backendedMultilingual, Multimedia Community Forum (ADemonstration),” SIGMOD, Chicago.

[22] Ratnam, B. V., Reddy, P. K., & Reddy, G. S.(2006). “eSagu: An IT based personalized agricul-tural extension system prototype—analysis of 51Farmers’ case studies,” International Journal ofEducation and Development using ICT (IJEDICT),2(1).

[23] Amt, W. (1986). “DCFRN: a radio network forfarmers,” Development Communications Report,52: 11–10.

[24] Engelhard, R. (2003). “ICTs—transforming agri-

cultural extension?” Proceedings of CTA’s Obser-vatory on ICTs, Leiden.

[25] Fraser, C., & Restrepo-Estrada, S. (1997). “Com-munication for Rural Development in Mexico,”The Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome.

[26] Fraser, C. (1987). “Pioneering a New Approachto Communication in Rural Areas: The PeruvianExperience with Video for Training at GrassrootsLevel,” The Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, Rome.

[27] Coldevin, G. (2003). Participatory communica-tion: a key to rural learning systems, The Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions, Rome.

[28] Kuriyan, R., & Toyama, K. (Eds.). (2007). “Re-view of Research on Rural PC Kiosks”. Availableat http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/ruralkiosks/Kiosks%20Research.doc

[29] Riesenberg, L. E., & Gor, C. O. (1989).“Farmers’ Preferences for Methods of ReceivingInformation on New or Innovative Farming Prac-tices,” Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(3):7–13.

[30] Gibbons, J. F., Kincheloe, W. R., & Down, K. S.(1977).”Tutored videotape instruction: A new useof electronics media in education,” Science,195(3): 1139–1146.

[31] Anderson, R., Dickey, M., & Perkins, H. (2001).“Experiences with Tutored Video Instruction forIntroductory Programming Courses,” SIGCSE,Charlotte.

[32] Wang, R., Sahni, U., Garg, N., Dasgupta, N.,Sobti, S., Setia, T., et al. (2005, January). “DigitalNetworking Going Postal and Tale of ThreeSchools,” Small Change Magazine, India. Avail-able at http://dsh.cs.washington.edu:8000/distance/SC.pdf



Documents

Digital Green GANDHI, VEERARAGHAVAN, TOYAMA ... Ramprasad [email protected] GREEN Foundation P.O. Box No. 7651 No. 30, ‘Surya’ 4th Main, 19th Cross BTM II Stage N.S. Palya,