ARTICLES

 

Evaluating Boundary Crossing Social Learning in Vocational Education and Training: A value creation approach

 

 

Heila Lotz-Sisitka^I; Lawrence Sisitka^I; Gamuchirai Chakona^I; Mandilive Matiwane^I; Chamu Matambo^II

^IRhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre, South Africa
^IIFort Cox Agricultural and Forestry Training Institute, South Africa

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on the development and application of an evaluation model and approach for evaluating boundary crossing social learning in a Vocational Education and Training (VET) learning network in South Africa, with an emphasis on a Training of Trainers (ToT) course that helped to catalyse and strengthen this learning network via two iterations of the course over an eight-year period. The article shares how we adapted the value creation framework (VCF) of Wenger, Traynor and De Laat (2011; Wenger & Wenger-Traynor, 2020) in the evaluation of a VET Training of Trainers (ToT) programme and learning network that focussed on the uptake and circulation of rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) knowledge in a particular formal and informal VET context in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, where smallholder farmers were struggling to find water for producing food. The evaluated ToT course was catalytic in establishing a boundary crossing social learning network approach in a VET context that linked formal and informal VET (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022; Pesanayi, 2019); hence we found it important to develop adequate tools for its evaluation. The focus of this article is to share how we developed an evaluation approach to this work. We share insights on the indicators developed for different types of value created, and also insights gained into the use of this evaluation approach in a boundary crossing VET social learning project that took a ToT course as focus. In short, evaluation findings show that the boundary crossing ToT course offers strong immediate, potential and applied value that can lead to realised and reframed value, especially if supported by ongoing learning network activities that follow the initial engagement in the boundary crossing ToT course. This leads, over time, to transformative value which is important in achieving the overall objective of such social learning, namely making knowledge more co-engaging, accessible and useful in the context where improved food security via better use of rainwater harvesting and conservation amongst smallholder farmers and household food producers is a necessary form of sustainable development. Orientation value, and enabling value were found to be vital for the emergence of other kinds of value. The evaluation model also allows for the lifting out of strategic value which points to wider uptake potential. All this creates the possibility for indicator development that can help inform iterative development of boundary crossing VET courses used to stimulate the co-construction of learning networks and ongoing social learning for sustainable development.

Keywords: Vocational Education and Training, evaluation, social learning, value creation framework

---

 

 

Introduction: The project and site of the evaluation

This article focuses on the development and application of an evaluation model and approach for evaluating boundary crossing social learning in a VET¹ learning network (the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network/IBLN). This VET learning network was catalysed and supported in a Water Research Commission (WRC) research project focussing on creating a social learning model for knowledge uptake and use in South Africa (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022; Pesanayi, 2019). More popularly known as the 'Amanzi for Food' project (www.amanziforfood.co.za), the IBLN learning network and a Training of Trainers (ToT) course was developed between 2014-2021 to support the uptake and circulation of rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) knowledge in a particular formal and informal VET context, where smallholder farmers were struggling to find water for producing food. The course was a boundary crossing course, in that both formal educators (lecturers) and students, as well as farmers, and extension service officers, NGOs and other government partners involved in supporting smallholder farmers in the area completed the course.

The course applies a situated, reflexive learning model (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022), and assignments included: 1) contextual profiling to find out what people knew about rainwater harvesting and what challenges farmers were facing to bring water to smallholder farming plots, 2) collaborative productive demonstration site development in which course participants chose a new rainwater harvesting and conservation practice to demonstrate to others in a productive farming plot, and 3) collective review and evaluation of the practice to decide whether it was viable to take forward as a local farming practice.² The content of the course was informed by materials produced by the Water Research Commission on 26 rainwater harvesting and conservation practices, made accessible via a 'navigation tool'³and a shared website (www.amanziforfood.co.za).

During the eight-year life of the Amanzi for Food project, the ToT course was run twice in the Eastern Cape Province, once in Mpumalanga, and once in the North West. The focus of this article is only on the Eastern Cape Province ToT course, with data generated in the rural Eastern Cape, in the Nkonkhobe municipal district. Fort Cox Agricultural and Forestry Training Institute (FCAFTI) and Rhodes University were collaborating partners supporting the ToT programme, with lecturers and students from these institutions also participating in the ToT and the learning network. Table 1 below provides an overview of the contextual aspects of the course.

 

 

The Eastern Cape ToT course was complemented by other social learning approaches such as use of social media and community radio, change laboratories and learning network meetings to strengthen the social learning, with the productive demonstration sites becoming a key feature of the boundary crossing social learning model (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022; Pesanayi, 2019). Supported by the boundary crossing ToT course, over time the IBLN developed into a social skills ecosystem (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022; Lotz-Sisitka & McGrath, 2023; Ramsarup et al., 2022; Wedekind et al., 2021). The wider context of the project is that it contributes to small-scale farming and household food production addressing the problem of household food insecurity in South Africa, which remains a national challenge (Hart, 2009; Labadarios et al., 2011; Wenhold and Faber, 2008 in Backeberg and Sanewe, 2010).

 

Concepts of sustainable VET

As indicated above, our interest was to identify and test an appropriate evaluation methodology for the ToT programme in the VET learning network. There is a long history of evaluation research (Patton, 2010; 2018; Pawson & Tilley, 1997) which we will not repeat here. When searching for an evaluation approach, we turned to identifying suitable evaluation frameworks for social learning, with the Value Creation Framework (VCF) of Wenger, Trayner and De Laat (2011) and Wenger and Wenger-Trayner (2020) being specifically developed for this purpose. As will be shown below, we adapted the value creation framework (VCF) of Wenger et al. (2011) and Wenger et al. (2020) to the context, and by applying data emerging from the Eastern Cape ToT course in the VET learning network (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2022; Pesanayi, 2019).

Social learning, as understood by Wenger et al. (2011) and Wenger et al. (2020) takes place in both communities of practice and networks. Communities of practice are defined as "a learning partnership among people who find it useful to learn from and with each other about a particular domain" (Wenger et al., 2011, p. 9). Social networks are defined as a set of connections among people who have personal reasons to connect for information flow, joint problem solving and knowledge creation (Wenger et al., 2011). Communities and networks have different effects on learning potential. The learning value of a community is the "ability to develop a collective intention to advance learning in a domain" (Wenger et al., 2011, p. 10). Wenger et al. (2011, p. 10) argued that "over time, a joint history of learning also becomes a resource among the participants in the form of a shared practice - a shared repertoire of cases, tools, stories, concepts and perspectives". Learning in a network can also become a resource to extend repertoires, tools, perspectives and practices on a landscape of practice. In our research, both were in focus as the ToT helped to consolidate the shared practice of rainwater harvesting and conservation via productive demonstration sites, and the learning network helped to expand these practices in the landscape of practice.

The VCF is a nuanced evaluation framework, specifically designed for evaluating social learning processes over time and in landscapes of practice. It is located more in the hermeneutic tradition, but can also be used within a co-construction model of evaluation, and can be deepened with a developmental and/or a realist approach that asks questions about what works for whom under what conditions (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). In designing the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for the Amanzi for Food programme, we chose to work with the VCF, but needed to adapt it to the particular project context and mediation processes. We also aimed to underlabour it with realist questions such as 'what works for whom under what conditions' in a second phase of the evaluation, and were also interested in generative mechanisms that produce these conditions (see below). We focused adaptation of the Value Creation Framework for M&E of the Amanzi for Food project, with an in-depth analysis of the ToT course as this was the most catalytic of the social learning processes. We also undertook VCF analysis of the other social learning mediation processes, but with less in-depth analysis. This article therefore focuses on the ToT but links to other mediating processes.

 

Methodology: An adapted Value Creation Framework (VCF)

The following questions, adapted from Wenger et al. (2011) framework were useful for guiding the evaluation design of the ToT programme in the VET learning network and the associated knowledge dissemination and uptake processes, where the knowledge dissemination was directly linked to practical interests:

■ What is the value within the activities and interactions themselves?

■ Does the learning network result in creation of knowledge and practice that can be shared?

■ Are members able to leverage that knowledge and practice?

■ What is the impact of knowledge and practice on learning network members' goals if any?

■ How does involvement in the Learning Network and the knowledge and practice created and shared cause members to reframe, reconsider and transform their actions or work?

■ What insights are gained for expanding the learning networks, for knowledge dissemination, and for managing and supporting such processes?

We drew on these and the VCF to develop a set of more detailed questions to guide the evaluation research (see Appendix A). These helped us to source evaluative insights from different data sources, and to develop value creation narratives. The VCF requires researchers to generate data from a range of different sources, and to develop value creation narratives which are then analysed to identify potentially eight different types of value (see Boxes 1 and 2). Wenger et al. (2011) explained that there are potentially five cycles of value creation in social learning initiatives which could help to establish how knowledge dissemination processes such as that being developed in the Amanzi for Food programme can be created (Box 1). In later work, Wenger et al. (2020) argued that these forms of value are influenced by, and also influence the generation of orienting value, enabling value, transformative value and strategic value, explained briefly in Box 2 (as also applied to the Amanzi for Food study), and as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value creation stories give meaning to value creation cycles and their complementary indicators shown in Figure 1 below. Wenger et al. (2011, p. 37) articulated this well explaining that "stories substantiate indicators, give them life, and make them more meaningful by connecting them into more extensive processes of value creation". Stories and indicators thus point to and reinforce one another and the data from each cycle needs to be combined with the cross-cycle stories in order to provide an integrated understanding of the value created in communities and networks. If this is not done then an indicator by itself is only suggestive and the story merely anecdotal. In Figure 1 below (which shows the overall evaluation design of the Amanzi for Food programme), this is indicated by the broken lines that show the cycles, and the connections between the cycles of value creation, and how these are influenced and shaped by the orienting and enabling value (and constraining factors) and by the emerging transformative and strategic value, which in turn then can shape new orienting value and enabling value that helps to create new forms of immediate, potential, applied, realised and reframed value. This framework is very useful for social learning evaluation as it creates a means of monitoring and also reflecting on 'what value is created for whom under what conditions', with the critical realism of Bhaskar and Hartwig (2016) drawing attention to the underlying causality of the 'what conditions', which then sheds light on how this value is created over time (or not), not only what value is created for whom. Our ultimate goal of the programme was to inform a strategy for knowledge uptake and use via social learning approaches, hence we see 'strategic value' arising from the overall evaluation and other forms of value contributing to this wider goal as outlined in Figure 1.

Important to this evaluation design, is the emphasis that Wenger et al. (2011) placed on cumulative evidence when presenting stories. They explained that from the value creation narratives, and a following of the 'cumulative threads' across the stories, data is then analysed into a matrix - see Tables 2-6 below, where indicators are refined further for each type of value aligned with the different activities that make up the full knowledge dissemination process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To construct the narratives informing the analysis matrix in Table 2 below, we drew on the following data:⁴

1. ToT course observations: Video and photographic data was generated from all course sessions), especially course excursions and practical demonstrations which helped to mediate the content of the WRC materials.

2. ToT course assignments and assessments contained information on the 'sense' that course participants made during their participation in the ToT programme. The course assignments (40 in total over two cohorts) also showed participants' plans for change projects, and gave indications on which of the WRC materials were most favoured for supporting their planned change projects.

3. ToT course evaluations provided information on how the programme was being experienced, as well as information gained, and value of the course to participants. Course evaluations were generated from all course sessions.

4. Demonstration site observations via follow-up site visits: Regular visits to capture evaluation data on the demonstration sites were undertaken over a period of five years. This captured data on the learning, and learning network links, as well as the practical value of the WRC materials and the demonstration sites.

5. Learning network minutes and interactions on WhatsApp: Learning network meetings were also documented using minutes, and ongoing interactions in the learning networks were captured on the WhatsApp groups between 2014-2021.

6. Interviews with co-ordinators of the learning networks: A series of interviews were done with ToT participants, co-ordinators of the learning networks, and with farmers who were benefitting from the use of the WRC materials (also ToT participants) to probe the value that created, as well as difficulties experienced.

7. Ongoing contextual data generation including documenting radio, newspaper and website interactions and coverage: The project continued to generate contextual profile data and document media interactions over the period 2014-2021.

8. Evaluation questionnaire: An online evaluation questionnaire was used to 'fill in' any gaps in insights that were not covered via the above-mentioned data sources.

In this article, we demonstrate how we undertook the value creation evaluation analysis based on the narrative data constructed from the above (cf. also Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016, 2022). The evaluation analysis started with capturing information on the different types of value that were being created for different groups of participants and different types of activity (e.g. farmers, LED officers, lectures, NGOs) in the form of value creation narratives that were written up based on triangulation of the raw data. From here, cumulative narratives on key emerging themes were identified and written up, and these were then plotted into the analytical matrix, to inform the development of indicators which provide more insight into the types of value created via different types of activity via the social learning process. To make sense of the data within a useful evaluation framework for the project, we needed to 'customise' the generic evaluation framework of Wenger et al. (2011) and Wenger et al. (2020) so that we could offer more meaningful interpretations of the value that was created (or not) in the evaluation work (cf. Appendix A and Tables 2-5 below).

The data to support the analysis was selected from the assignments, the course evaluations and other course records according to the key questions in the framework. The experiences related to some of the questions; many of those associated with Cycle 1, in particular, and some in Cycle 2, were inevitably similar for all participants within a particular course. These were analysed on a generic basis for each course. However, to illuminate aspects of the process with 'thick descriptions' we include extracts from the data sets (see Tables 2-5). The questions associated with Cycles 3 and 4 provided more opportunities for richly textured data to inform the thick descriptions. We integrated Cycle 5 into an overall analysis of transformed value.

 

Findings from the evaluation analysis

Tables 2-5 provide insight into the value created by the ToT course and associated network activities as revealed by the five cycles of value (Box 1). Tables 2-5 also share the indicators relevant to the types of value identified in the Amanzi for Food programme. Each type of value is briefly discussed. We also recognise that there are often relationships between the types of value and while one type of value may for example be 'immediate value', it can also provide 'potential value'.

 

Orienting, transformed, enabling and strategic value

As can be seen from the above, the longevity of the IBLN (enabling value), following two ToT courses facilitated in the Eastern Cape enabled a more in-depth analysis of the impacts and value realised from the ToT course and social learning intervention associated with the WRC materials and the Amanzi for Food project in this province. When compared to the Mpumalanga and North West sites (shorter duration), the Eastern Cape setting provided data for an analysis of Cycle 4 of the VCF, which was not possible in the other areas. Expansion of the IBLN network, especially through the second iteration of the ToT course, brought in a number of new activist farmers and organisations who changed the network dynamic quite considerably. The new energy brought into the network by these members (enabling value) fostered a resurgence of interest in a range of pressing issues, including agroecology, seed rights and food sovereignty, through which alternatives to conventional agricultural practices were highlighted and explored, indicating a commitment to reframed and transformative value. Experience of drought (orienting conditions) also catalysed ongoing interest in the IBLN and the ToT programmes as farmers were seeking solutions. Within the FCAFTI, a history of teaching monoculture and large-scale irrigation to students (orienting conditions) was increasingly seen to be inadequate to respond to the needs of local farmers, which also contributed to the emergence of transformative value. Throughout the process, farmers, lecturers, LED officers, NGO partners and extension services, sought to extend their knowledge of viable alternatives to use RWH&C practices, to strengthen food production, with the collaboration across these stakeholders producing significant enabling and transformative value. For many farmers, RWH&C became almost the default position in terms of water provision in the absence of regular rainfall and experience of drought periods (orienting conditions). The inherent activist nature of the new members also added to the already strong culture of sharing information and understanding (i.e. strengthened potential value), not only within the network, but beyond into their own and neighbouring communities (strategic value). The impacts of the ToT courses were therefore amplified through the passion and dedication of IBLN members (enabling value).

Tables 2-4 above contain detailed descriptions and analyses in relation to the first four cycles of the VCF, with the relevant indicators showing a strong and lasting impact in almost every area (i.e. sustained value creation). The most compelling areas are certainly the idea and proactive nature of collaboration and sharing (potential value), with a focus on practical activities (applied value), including productive demonstration sites (realised and transformative value), but increasingly focussed on individual farmer practices that are reframed towards more sustainable agricultural practice and improved food production and social engagement (transformative, strategic value). References to the use of the WRC materials have continued for several years after the implementation of the second course, indicating an ongoing engagement with the materials and their strong potential value for applied and reframed/transformative value. This is taken further by clear indications of wide sharing of the information contained in the materials through the social learning model, confirming their potential value for applied, realised, reframing and transformative value. However, we noted that before the social learning process and ToT were instituted, the materials had not been used, thus it is not the materials themselves, but rather the processes that enable contextually and socially relevant uptake and use of the materials that seems to be significant for applied, realised, reframing and transformative value creation.

IBLN members' involvement with activist networks both widened the influence of the IBLN and increased the levels of lobbying and advocacy for agricultural policies (potential value) that are better attuned to the needs of small-scale and emerging farmers and household food producers. There was also greater recognition of the importance of sustainable practices such as RWH&C (contributing to reframed and transformative value creation). Active involvement of lecturers and students led to curricula that are better attuned to the needs of smallholder farmers (reframed and transformative value, as well as increased potential value). These activities have led to greater recognition within and beyond the farming sector of the IBLN and what it stands for, as well as farmer-centred curriculum innovations (strategic value).

One Cycle 4 indicator with which the project has perhaps not been sufficiently engaged is the issue of productivity, in terms of the quantitative outputs achieved by farmers using RWH&C practices. Any serious analysis of this will require focussed research activities conducted in collaboration with agricultural scientists and other specialists going forward. We note that the WRC materials used in the Amanzi for Food programme were written and based on strong scientific understandings of RWH&C practices that were developed over many years by large groups of scientists (i.e. their scientific potential value has already been proven in the early stages of the WRC research), thus it would be helpful to undertake such an evaluation with these scientists, pending their availability.

 

Conclusion: Insights into evaluation indicators and methodology for boundary crossing social learning in VET

As can be seen by the wealth of evidence in Tables 2-5, and the short discussion above, the VCF approach can provide useful insight into a range of processes and outcomes associated with boundary crossing social learning in VET, when supported via a ToT process that is oriented towards practice, as well as expansion of social learning networking, collaboration and knowledge use and uptake. We summarise the indicators of value creation identified in Table 6 below. In doing this, it is not our intention to prescribe indicators, but rather to share how we have come to develop these indicators from the VCF analysis as described above.

In applying the VCF to the WRC Amanzi for Food project, we have also observed the following:

■ It was important and useful to adapt the VCF questions of Wenger et al. (2011) to the specific context of our study (see Appendix A). This adaptation enables evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative impacts from the very beginning of social learning and knowledge uptake processes to a time when the impacts have spread beyond the immediate people and activities initially involved.

■ We noticed that time was an important factor for the evaluation, especially in relation to the creation of realised value, and that this also affects transformative value. Our data analysis showed that applied value and realised value only emerged after a period of time. The creation of these forms of value were explicitly scaffolded by the practical demonstration site assignment in the ToT course, and the expanded set of social learning tools used, especially also the WhatsApp group, the ilima workdays and ongoing sharing of information from the WRC materials.

The evaluation also showed that it is important to develop an understanding of orientation value (through contextual profiling), and to document reframing and transformative value where it emerges. It is also important to look out for enabling value and constraining factors. Enabling value is particularly important as this can be expanded via the social learning process and network as has been shown across this study. The study also showed that it is crucial to produce immediate, potential and applied value as these are catalytic of realised and reframed value which in turn shapes transformative value possibilities and actualisation. These processes occur in cycles and are iteratively related (i.e. not necessarily linear).

In sum, our article has outlined an adapted monitoring and evaluation approach for evaluating boundary crossing VET ToT social learning processes. It drew on a brief historical analysis of the main trends in evaluation research to identify a suitable approach for social learning evaluation, used contextual profiling to establish orienting value, focussed on empirical analysis of Cycles 1-4 in the VCF which offered insight into Cycle 5 reframing/ transformative value creation, and drew on critical realist underlabouring to understand enabling value and constraining factors. The monitoring and evaluation methodology, as applied and developed here, shows potential for further adaptation and development, and has importantly also shown up areas where there are inadequate sources of data to provide perspectives on the indicators. This can therefore also improve the methodological processes for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of initiatives that seek to support boundary crossing VET ToT programmes that support uptake and use of new knowledge in smallholder farming contexts in Africa.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Water Research Commission of South Africa, who funded the Amanzi [Water] for Food project and enabled the generation of this article. The authors also recognise the National Research Foundation (NRF) and Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) for their support of the SARChI Chair in Global Change and Social Learning systems whose core research funding also supported the writing of this paper. The wider team of researchers, farmers and IBLN members who contributed to the Amanzi for Food programme over the eight-year period are also recognised, especially the late Tich Pesanayi, whose pioneering PhD work established the basis for the network and ToT programme in the first iteration.

 

Notes on Contributors and their Contributions

Lead author

Lotz-Sisitka, Heila

Heila Lotz-Sisitka is Distinguished Professor and SARChI Chair of Global Change and Social Learning Systems at Rhodes University. Her research interests are transformative environmental learning, agency social and education system change.

Co-author

Sisitka, Lawrence

Lawrence Sisitka is an independent Environment and Development consultant. He works on conservation, agrarian and rural development concerns. He is a project associate in the Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre.

Co-author

Chakona, Gamuchirai

Gamuchirai Chakona is a researcher in the Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre. Her interests are maternal and child nutrition and social learning in the agricultural sector.

Co-author

Matiwane, Mandilive

Mandilive Matiwane is a youth activist and researcher-practitioner in the agricultural, cultural and youth sectors. At the time of this study, she was a researcher in the Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre.

Co-author

Matambo, Chamu

Chamu Matambo is an agricultural engineer. At the time of this study, he was a lecturer at the Fort Cox Agricultural and Forestry Training Institute, South Africa. His research interests are agricultural engineering and agrarian development.

 

 

Endnotes

1 We use the concept of VET here as used by the VET 4.0 Africa Collective (Lotz-Sisitka & McGrath, 2023, p. 8), which encompasses "an expansive view of VET, one that avoids seeing this as only referring to formal provision, more narrowly to public provision, or even more narrowly still to only that provision that falls under an education ministry. This makes us view conventional boundaries between adult/community/lifelong research and vocational as problematic ... we see our concerns as having an important ontological dimension".
2 ToT course materials: https://amanziforfood.co.za/courses/online-training-of-trainers-course/
3 https://amanziforfood.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/New_Navigation-Tool_1.pdf
4 An extensive report on the whole programme including presentation and analysis of all of these data sources is offered in Lotz-Sisitka et al. (2016 and 2022), as well as in the PhD study of Pesanayi (2019), and the M.Ed studies of Weaver (2016), Lupele (2007), Sithole (2018), Matiwane (2020) and Maqwelane (2021). These were not evaluation studies, but rather sought depth of perspective on different aspects of the programme. The studies provided useful insights that also informed the VCF analysis.

 

References

Backeberg, G. R., & Sanewe, A. J. (2011). Towards productive water use and household food security in South Africa: ICID conference Indonesia. SABI Magazine-Tydskrif, 3(2), 33-34.         [ Links ]

Bhaskar, R., & Hartwig, M., 2016. Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Routledge.         [ Links ]

Hart, T. G. (2009). Exploring definitions of food insecurity and vulnerability: Time to refocus assessments. Agrekon, 48(4), 362-383.         [ Links ]

Labadarios, D., Mchiza, Z. J., Steyn, N. P., Gericke, G., Maunder, E. M., Davids, Y. D., & Parker, W. (2011). Food security in South Africa: A review of national surveys. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 891-899.         [ Links ]

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Sisitka, L., Metelerkamp, L., Chakona, G., Van Staden, W., Durr, S., Matiwane, M., Maqwelane, L., Conde-Aller, L., Shawarire, P., & Pesanayi, T. (2022). "Amanzi for Food": A social learning network approach to agricultural water knowledge mediation, uptake and use in smallholder farming learning networks. Research and Development, WRC Report No. TT 868/21. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.         [ Links ]

Lotz-Sisitka, H., & McGrath, S. (2023). Introducing VET Africa 4.0. In S. McGrath, G. Openjuru Ladaah, H. Lotz-Sisitka, S. Allais, J. Zeelen, V. Wedekind, P. Ramsarup, D. Monk, L. Metelerkamp, J. Russon, B. Kyaligonja, G. Robbins, S. Adrupio, D. Ocan, K. Nyeko, P. Adoye, P. Molebatsi, T. Tshabalala, S. Muhangi, & M. Openjuru (VET Africa 4.0 Collective). Transitioning Vocational Education and Training in Africa. A social skills ecosystems perspective (pp. 1-22). Bristol University Press.         [ Links ]

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Pesanayi, T., Weaver, K., Lupele, C., Sisitka, L., O'Donoghue, R., Denison, J., & Phillips, K. (2016). Water use and food security: knowledge dissemination and use in agricultural colleges and local learning networks for home food gardening and smallholder agriculture. WRC Report. No. 2277/1. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.         [ Links ]

Lupele, J. (2007). Networking: Enabling professional development and institutionalisation of environmental education courses in Southern Africa. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Matiwane, L. M. (2020). The role of expansive learning in the potential development of rural youth as value creators: A case study of youth farming activity in the Amahlathi Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Maqwelane, L. (2021). Towards reconfiguring the Agricultural Expert System (AES) for black small to medium farmer development for commercialization. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press.         [ Links ]

Patton, M. Q. (2018). Evaluation science. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(2), 183-200.         [ Links ]

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage.         [ Links ]

Pesanayi, T. (2019). Boundary-crossing expansive learning across agricultural learning systems and networks in southern Africa. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Ramsarup, P., Lotz-Sisitka, H., & McGrath, S. (2022). A laminated, emergentist view of skills ecosystems. Journal of Critical Realism, 1-18.         [ Links ]

Sithole, P. (2018). Investigating the role of extension officers in supporting social learning of rainwater harvesting practices amongst rural smallholder farmers in Nkonkobe Local Municipality, Eastern Cape. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Weaver, K. (2016). Exploring the course-led development of a learning network as a community of practice around a shared interest of rainwater harvesting and conservation agricultural practices: A case study in the Amathole District in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Rhodes University.         [ Links ]

Wedekind, V., Russon, J. A., Ramsarup, P., Monk, D., Metelerkamp, L. & McGrath, S. (2021). Conceptualising regional skills ecosystems: Reflections on four African cases. International Journal of Training and Development, 25(4), 347-362.         [ Links ]

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum.         [ Links ]

Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B., 2020. Learning to make a difference: Value creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]