General Role and Technical Proficiency of Agricultural Extension Agents under Human Resource Development in Myanmar
Nyi Nyi[1], Khin Oo[2], Thanda Kyi[3]
Nyi Nyi[1], Khin Oo[2], Thanda Kyi[3]
Abstract
This study was conducted to examine the working condition and technical proficiency of agricultural extension agents in Mandalay division in the year 2003. The data were collected through group interviews using questionnaires from stratified random sample of 117 respondents (B.Ag/B.Agr.Sc degree holders) in different agricultural enterprises and services. The collected data included extension activities, attitude on their job, problems encountered in extension, experience in in-service trainings, biography and technical knowledge.
Usual extension functions were performed by agricultural extension agents, such as making contact with farmers, writing reports, meeting with administrative personnel, supervising demonstration plots and distribution of inputs. Having contact with farmers was for the reason of supervising demonstration plot and to collect some data. Extension workers mostly used the farm and home visits (21%) and group meetings (20%) and demonstrations (19%) of extension methods. The extension workers were facing with hard or difficult conditions such as poor transport, no incentives (such as salary scale, advancement in job opportunities).
Most of the deputy supervisors had worked about 10 years as field workers. Given them the choice, fifty two percent of respondents want to establish private agricultural business. Most of the respondents (95%) had been to in-service trainings. It was found that training emphasis was placed on field crop production. There were only six respondents who had participated in extension education trainings. Comparison between two types of pre-service trainings, namely, general agriculture (up to 1994) and the elective stream system (1994 and up to date) practiced by Yezin Agricultural University was not significantly different in technical knowledge offered. Extension agents were strong in production subjects, but not strong in technical knowledge on plant protection, agricultural engineering and agricultural economics.
INTRODUCTION
The broader function of extension work is to help people to solve their own problem through the application of scientific knowledge is now generally accepted. If this be true then extension must be regarded as largely educational. Extension education differs from formal education. It is concerned not only with learning, but with the application of the knowledge gained to the everyday problems of rural living. It is an extremely practical and concrete type of education that may in most cases be put to use at once.
When agricultural extension work is reasonably well developed in a country, a team of staff members will be found working at different levels of administration to establish a channel of communication and to ensure a continuous flow of useful information (Chang, 1963).
There are four groups of extension personnel; administrators, supervisors, subject matter specialists and farm advisors. The first three are comparatively few in number. Farm advisors are village level extension workers (VEWs) and by far the largest and most important group in any extension service (Chang, 1963).
An extension service is primarily people. Their attitude and behaviour determine the effectiveness of the organization. It is important to have enough personnel to organize and conduct programmes reaching all members of the rural community, quality of personnel is being more important (Maunder, 1978). “An agricultural extension worker who has no solid subject matter to convey to farmers does not really have anything valuable to offer, regardless of his enthusiasm and communications skills” (Blum, 1985).
There are three services for a country’s agricultural development, agricultural education, research and extension. Among three services, education is of course basically important for it produces extension workers, teaching staff and researchers who must be well trained in order to do what is required of them (Chang, 1963). The primary objective of agricultural education is to train manpower for the agricultural and rural sector (Hoffmann, 1985). Two types of instructions are essential to produce capable field extension workers, namely, (basic) pre-service education and training, and (on the job) in-service training (Maalouf and Contado, 1983).
For a successful extension agent, there are nine categories of professional competencies. These are administration, programme planning, programme execution, teaching, communication, understanding human behaviour, professionalism, evaluation and youth programmes. At the pre-service level, emphasis needs to be placed on extension methodology, communication skills, understanding human behaviour and principle of extension education. In-service training has immense potential for improving and upgrading extension programmes (Lindley and Gonzales, 1983).
The technical competencies taught at the pre-service level are a foundation (Lindley and Gonzales, 1983).
Although extension is one of the components supporting development, it is also supported and affected by the quality of agricultural research, the degree to which policies and prices support the use of technological adoption, and the effectiveness of supporting infrastructure (Watts, 1984). Extension effectiveness will be dependent upon (a) appropriate technology (b) attractive market and (c) available inputs, which are outside its direct control (Russell, 1981).
Nevertheless, the whole extension process is dependent upon the extension agent, who is the critical element in all extension activities. If the extension agent is not able to respond a given situation and function effectively, it does not matter how imaginative the extension approach is or how impressive the supply of inputs and resources for extension work is. Indeed, the effectiveness of the extension agent can often determine the success or failure of an extension programme (Chamber, 1993).
OBJECTIVES
Generally, it is accepted that, human resource is the most important for the development, up-to-now, there is no investigation on technical knowledge of agricultural extension agents under human resource development in Myanmar. This study might be the first attempt of such an investigation and it was carried out with the following objectives:
(1) To examine extension methods and activities performed in Myanma Agricultural Extension Services;
(2) To investigate the motivation, job opportunities and aspiration on extension job, and;
(3) To identify the training needs of extension agents by examining their technical knowledge level.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Criteria for Sampling Method
The study had focused on technical proficiency of extension agent (agricultural executive staff). Thus, the sampling design of stratified random sampling was used for the following reasons:
Selection of respondents having the same educational level (that is B.Ag./B.Agr.Sc degree holders) might reduce sampling errors,
Respondents were field level extension worker, (Non-Gazetted Officers) who had direct contact with farmers, and;
Their graduation year were from 1984 to 2003, aiming at age group of 25 to 45, in the sense of active group.
Sampling Procedure
The sampling frame was the lists from divisional headquarters of respective organizations from Mandalay Division. Those who had interests and matched with above criteria were selected as respondents.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed at the Yezin Agricultural University. It was prepared in bilingual, to overcome the language barrier for some respondents.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections;
Section A included questions specifically on the extension services, such as the extension methods, main problems in performing extension work,
Section B focused questions specifically on trainings, such as type of training received, training duration etc.
Section C had questions focused on biography and service year
Section D organized questions aiming to evaluate their technical knowledge of the extension staff. These questions were arranged in subjects, namely; Agronomy, Agricultural Botany, Agricultural Chemistry, Plant Protection, Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Economics and Horticulture. There were 20 questions in each subject except agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Economics. The reason is that these subjects are complementary. The questions were carefully selected in consultation with some experienced lecturers from YAU. All of these questions were extracted from “multiple choice questions for CXC Agricultural Science” written by Hammans (1988). It should be noted that all these questions were not norm-referenced type.
These objective questions were designed to test knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of the agricultural extension staff.
The questionnaire was pre-tested with three M.Agr.Sc candidates and one demonstrator from YAU before the study.
Data collection
The data for this study were gathered by group interview technique. Printed questionnaires were delivered to each respondent and after filling up the questions the paper were collected and given numerical codes. Before starting the survey, the plan of interviewing scheme was made with the agreement of official personnel from each department. Some officials from each department helped for this purpose. There were ten group interviews for this study. This study was done in Mandalay division for the reason of easy to travel and one of the largest divisions established with different agricultural organizations. Therefore, Mandalay division could be assumed a representative of the Myanma agricultural extension service.
Each interview was done at their meeting rooms. The interview commenced on 27th October 2003 and ended on 8th December 2003. After each interview session, the responded questionnaires were checked for mistake or incomplete information. A total of 117 respondents were selected. Thirty final year students were selected to get benchmark of technical knowledge at pre-service level.
Data processing and analysis
All responses were given numerical codes. The open-ended questions were carefully read, response categories identified and then coded for response types. Descriptive analysis, and ‘t’ test were done by using Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the Respondents
There were one hundred and seventeen (117) respondents in this study and all of them were (B.Ag. or B.Agr.Sc) degree holders, among them 4 respondents were M.Agr.Sc degree holders. Regarding their age the minimum was 24 and the maximum was 47 years old. Mean value of their age was 32.4 years. Their occupations or designations were deputy supervisor (24.8%), assistant supervisor (53.8%) and deputy assistant supervisor (21.4%). Their services ranged from 0.5 to 20.0 year and average service was 6.2 years.
Service
Generally, total service duration and point of entry influence on getting higher position. There were some differences concerning with point of entry and duration in each position. These differences were found not only in the same organization but also in different agricultural organizations (Table 1).
For the case of deputy supervisors from MAS, most of them have been working in the present position for about four years (3.88 year) on the average. However, they had to serve as deputy assistant supervisor and assistant supervisor for 5.58 and 5.41 years, respectively. The total service required to get the position of deputy supervisor was about 11 year (10.99) in average.
In MCSE, the average total service of deputy supervisors was 9 years. They served as deputy assistant supervisor for 1.5 years and as an assistant supervisor for 5.5 years. They have been serving as deputy supervisor for an average of 2.5 years.
For the case of MFE, the deputy supervisors had worked for 2.25 years as deputy-assistant supervisor, 4.5 years as assistant supervisor. They have served as deputy supervisors (present post) for 4.16 years at the time of this study. Their total service was 10.1 years in average.
In this study, there were only seven respondents from MSE; one deputy supervisor and six assistant supervisors. The case for the deputy-supervisor was exceptional because she was transferred from the university to MSE. Assistant supervisors had different point of entry, three of them had to start their service as fixed pay.
Among these organizations, MAS is the largest and foremost one. Most of the graduates are absorbed by this organization. In the last 20 years, point of entry and advancement in job opportunities in MAS were low compared to the present situation. Nowadays, after reforming the enterprises, one step higher point of entry was adopted, and its point of entry is higher than before. This situation may be favourable for the employees. It was noticed that the job opportunity was relatively higher in MFE (4.5 years was required for an assistant supervisor to become a deputy supervisor, while 5.4 years was required in MAS and 5.5 years in MCSE).
In other organizations, such as MCSE and MSE, the point of entry was high (assistant supervisor), but at present, the point of entry was comparatively lower in MSE (3 employees with fixed pay) than in MAS. However, service career of staff was found to be better than the past in all organizations.
Considering agricultural graduates as a professional group, starting their life career as a deputy assistant supervisor would be very low. So, it would be essential to raise their confidence, morale and motivation towards their fit performance by promoting their point of entry. Another investigation on their service career is strongly recommended.
Table 1. Service career for the extension agents
Present Position
N
Duration in each position (year)
Fixed Pay
Deputy Assistant Supervisor
Assistant Supervisor
Deputy Supervisor
Total service (year)
MAS
1) a. Deputy Supervisor
4
-
-
6.25
2.5
8.75
b. Deputy Supervisor
3
-
7.33
4.66
5.3
17.33
c. Deputy Supervisor
6
4.5
3.83
5.33
3.66
17.33
Average
-
-
5.58
5.41
3.88
14.47
2) Asst - supervisor
25
-
1.32
5.76
-
7.08
3) Dpty-asst-supervisor
20
-
1.98
-
-
1.98
MCSE
1) a. Deputy Supervisor
2
-
-
5.5
3.5
9
b. Deputy Supervisor
9
-
1.50
5.5
2
9
Average
1.50
5.5
2.5
9
2) a. Assist – supervisor
8
-
2.18
6.55
-
8.73
b. Assist – supervisor
3
-
-
8
-
8
Average
-
2.18
7.27
-
8.37
3) Dpty-Asst-supervisor
5
-
3.00
-
-
3
MFE
1) a. Deputy Supervisor
2
4
4.5
8.5
b. Deputy Supervisor
1
4
5
7
16
c. Deputy Supervisor
1
0.5
4.5
1
6
Average
2.25
4.5
4.16
10.1
2) a. Assist – supervisor
20
-
-
2
-
2
b. Assist – supervisor
1
-
1
1
-
2
Average
-
1
1.5
-
2
MSE
1) Deputy Supervisor
1
-
-
-
4
4
2) a. Assist – supervisor
3
0.5
-
1.5
-
2
b. Assist – supervisor
2
-
-
8
-
8
c. Assist – supervisor
1
-
1
4
-
5
Average
-
1
4.5
-
5
It is worthy to note that uniformity in policy and equity in handling extension personnel matter are essential and afford a way to limit political and outside interference, and dissatisfaction and rivalry among the personnel (Maunder, 1978).
Table 2 Aspiration on extension job
Future career
Respondents
Number
To get high rank
To take high income job
To run private agricultural business
Male
40
14 (35.0%)
6 (15.0%)
27 (67.5%)
Female
77
41 (53.2%)
12 (15.6%)
34 (44.2%)
Total
117
55 (47.0%)
18 (15.4%)
61 (52.1%)
Respondents can answer more than one item.
Fifty two percent of total respondents stated that they wanted to establish their own agricultural business. Among them, sixty seven percent of male respondents and forty four percent of female respondents were included. It can be assumed that most of male respondents had more entrepreneur motive to establish their own business than their counterparts (Table 2).
It was found that forty seven percent of the respondents desired to become higher officials. For this future career, female respondents who were accounted for 53% of this group expected that future career. Alternatively, fifteen percent of both female and male respondents wanted to do high-income job instead of doing their present job.
Extension Agents’ Contribution to Extension Activities
Although respondents were from different organizations, their activities or functions were similar and most of them described that much of their time (23%) were spent on making contact with farmers (Figure 1).
Writing reports (22%) and attending meeting with administrative person (17%) took second and third places. Reporting by the extension worker is essential if that programme is to operate effectively (Maunder, 1978).
“Demonstration is the most effective method of extension teaching. This method is particularly useful in areas where literacy is low, and new ideas are not readily accepted” (Chang, 1963). Distribution of inputs is complementary extension function. Inputs needed in connection with extension message must be available. Where no organization or commercial enterprise provides these inputs, extension department must temporarily provide these services (SDC, 1997).
Collecting data is time consuming and competes with other extension functions. Extensionists should only collect data and information essential to extension work (SDC, 1997). In this study, it was clear that most of the agricultural executive staff had to make contact with farmers.
Figure 1. Extension agents’ contribution to extension activities
Specific extension methods used by individual staff
The most common extension methods were farm and home visit (21%), group meeting (20%) and demonstration (19%) (Fig 2). Farm and home visit technique is costly in terms of time spent and the member of clients contacted (which will be few). However, the benefits are numerous enough to make this a highly recommended technique. Group methods are especially effective in persuading extension’s clientele to try a new idea or practice (Kang and Song, 1984).
Figure 2. Specific extension methods used by individual staff
Though the mass media is powerful, this method was used comparatively less than other methods. Only 9% of respondents stated that they had used mass media (Fig 2). Mass media channels are more important than inter-personnel channels for earlier adopter than for later adopters. The effects of mass media channels, especially among peasants in less developed countries are greater when these media are coupled with inter-personnel communication channels (Roger and Shoemaker, 1971).
Main problems faced in performing agricultural extension work
Common problems experienced by the extension agents are given in eleven categories and in each category there are four levels: strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree (Table 3).
Table 3. Main problems faced in performing agricultural extension work
Sr.
Main Problem
Frequency
Mean
0
1
2
3
4
1
Poor transport
18
43
43
11
2
2.78
2
No incentive for staff
20
28
44
22
3
2.49
3
Inadequate staff
23
15
52
21
6
2.26
4
Too many farmers to advise
27
13
50
26
1
2.26
5
No suitable market for products
19
12
40
39
6
2.17
6
Not related to farmers needs
20
7
35
50
5
2.11
7
Farmers not involved in programme
21
7
41
45
2
2.09
8
Farmers are poor
22
11
36
44
4
2.09
9
Farmers are conservative
24
8
39
44
2
2.04
10
No cooperation of farmer
23
7
21
64
2
1.89
11
Farmers are illiterate
28
4
35
47
3
1.86
*0 = No response 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree
3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Their attitude values are listed in descending order. Respondents agreed that they had poor transport (2.78), no incentive (2.49) and inadequate staff (2.26). The two categories that they disagreed are “no cooperation of farmers in extension programme” (1.89) and “farmers are illiterate” (1.86). It is clear that the main problem of the extension agent is poor transportation. Williams (1977) also reported that the nature of extension activities requires that the staff be mobile since they must be in actual contact with the farmers. Lack of adequate transport and other essential requisite for the extension staff is likely to lead low morale and ineffectiveness among extension agents.
In-service training
Table 4. Training received by extension agents (days)*
Subject area
N
(%)
Min.
Max.
Sum
Std Dev.
Mean
Field crop production
41
(35.0)
2.0
240.0
2326.0
76.31
56.73
Management and finance
19
(16.2)
7.0
150.0
663.0
29.95
34.89
Induction training
29
(24.8)
21.0
60.0
891.0
5.87
30.72
Extension education
6
(5.1)
10.0
30.0
160.0
8.17
26.67
Plant protection
21
(17.9)
1.0
74.0
438.0
17.51
20.86
Seed technology
15
(12.8)
1.0
37.0
224.0
10.57
14.93
Soil and water management
25
(21.4)
3.0
42.0
361.0
10.39
14.44
Vegetable & fruit production
7
(5.9)
5.0
28.0
89.0
8.77
12.71
Who haven’t been to any training
6
(5.1)
-
-
-
-
-
*Some respondents attended more than one training.
n = 117
Most of the respondents (95%) had participated in in-service training courses. It was found that trainings emphasized on field crop production. In this item, there was high number of trainees (41) and long training duration (mean day 56.7).
Training for management and finance took 2nd position according to average training duration of 34.9 days. Nineteen respondents (16.2 %) had taken this course. As far as the concept of extension function is concerned, this training may be undue training, because village level extension worker may not have responsibilities of office management and finance.
Regarding with induction training, 24.8% had taken this training course. All the respondents (staff) should have taken this course. Though most of the respondents were village level extension workers, only 5.1% had taken training course of “extension education”. This figure indicated that there was a seriously need concerning with “extension education training”. More trainings should be practiced because training is “the process of acquiring specific skills to perform a job better”. It helps people to become qualified and proficient in doing some jobs (Halim and Ali, 1997).
Technical Proficiency of Respondents
Technical proficiency of respondents was assessed by asking objective type questions on seven different agricultural subjects.
Table 5. Marks obtained based on gender difference
Sex
Marks (mean value)
Agro
Bot.
Chem
P.P
Engg.
Eco.
Horti.
Total
Female
8.14
6.84
7.05
5.71
6.82
5.61
8.52
48.69
Male
7.78
7.36
6.91
5.91
6.07
5.79
8.15
49.97
Although mean value for male group was slightly high, there was no significant difference on agricultural technical knowledge of male and female extension worker (Table 5 and Table 6). It can be concluded that male and female extension workers have the same technical knowledge on agriculture.
Table 6. “t” test for male and female marks according to the subjects
Sex
Subject
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Err.
Min.
Max.
F
7
6.85
0.95
0.36
5.79
8.15
M
7
6.95
1.09
0.42
5.61
8.52
Variances
T value
DF
Prob.> T
Equal
-0.1891
12.0
0.8532ns
ns not significant at 0.10 probability level
Another attempt was made to high-light the importance of pre-service training. It was done by comparison with respondents who had not been to in-service training. They were students in the second term of final year B.Agr.Sc course. Their positions were 1 to 5 from each elective stream and many of them were various scholarship award holders. Their technical knowledge was assessed in the same manner. ‘t’ test was done for comparison. As there was different sample size for respondents (117) and final year students (30), the analysis was done by grouping them according to subjects.
There was no significant difference between these two groups concerning with their technical knowledge (Table 7 and Table 8). Getting a slightly higher mean value for extension agents may be the results of their experiences, accumulation of knowledge and in-service trainings. Regarding with the outstanding final year students, their mean value for each subject is slightly lower than extension agents. It might be explained by many reasons; firstly, they have been trained only four-year programme at university compared with the respondents, secondly, the former group had received various in-service trainings. Thus, regarding with the technical knowledge pre-service training (in University) is believed to be foundation for the agricultural staff.
Table 7. Marks obtained in different subjects between final year students (2004 only) and extension agents
Respondents
Marks (mean value)
Agro.
Bot.
Chem.
P.P
Engg.
Eco.
Horti.
Total
Final year students
7.57
7.67
7.62
5.48
6.71
4.43
7.95
47.43
Extension agents
7.90
7.18
6.96
5.84
6.32
5.73
8.28
48.22
Table 8. Comparison between technical knowledge of final year students and extension agents
Year
Subjects
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Err.
Min.
Max.
n
7
6.78
1.34
0.51
4.43
7.95
o
7
6.89
0.98
0.37
5.73
8.28
n: final year students ( only 2004)
o: extension agents
Variances
T
DF
Prob> T
Equal
-0.18
12.0
0.8605ns
For H0: Variances are equal, F’ = 1.84 DF = (6,6) Prob>F’ = 0.4758
Table 9. Technical knowledge level of respondents under different
pre-service trainings (general agriculture and elective stream
system)
Educational system
Graduation year
Before 1994 junior General agricultural system
1984
1985
1986
1987
1991
1992
1993
1994
No. of respondents
3
5
6
9
7
4
5
6
Marks (average)
43.57
53.57
54.29
45.71
47.55
45.54
50.14
47.14
After 1994 junior
Elective stream system
1994
1995
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
No. of respondents
2
6
11
10
11
12
12
7
Marks (average)
46.79
46.07
47.34
48.57
47.27
51.37
48.57
46.84
Moreover, the respondents had experienced different pre-service training in university; some of them (45 respondents) were trained in general agriculture programme and some (72 respondents) were trained under elective stream system (Table 9). To compare these two groups, ‘t’ test was done. Respondents were grouped according to their graduation year. The graduation year of 1996 was excluded, as there was only one respondent.
Table 10. Comparison between technical proficiency of respondents under different pre-service trainings
Year
Group
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Err.
Min.
Max.
a
8
47.85
1.66
0.59
46.07
51.36
b
8
48.44
3.88
1.37
43.57
54.29
a: after ’94 junior
b: before ’94 junior
Variances
T
DF
Prob> T
Equal
-0.39
14.0
0.6997ns
For H0: Variances are equal, F’ = 5.47 DF = (7,7) Prob>F’ = 0.0393
There was no significant difference concerning with their agricultural knowledge. Mean value for the respondents (48.4) who had trained under general agriculture programme was slightly higher than the other group (Table 10). It might be explained that they had trained full year of pre-service training duration and experiences gained through comparatively long service. Low mean value for the respondents under elective stream system might be the result/outcome of the elective stream system. They have been trained for shorter duration due to unexpected situation. It can be assumed that students could not view the agriculture as a system, they have comparatively shorter service and they had been trained in condensed form during pre-service training for some circumstances.
The next attempt is to investigate the weakest subject of the respondents. It was clearly seen that horticulture and agronomy had nearly the same high mean value of 8.2 and 7.9. Mean values for agricultural engineering (6.3), plant protection (5.8) and agricultural economics (5.7) subject areas were found to be significantly lower than that of others (Table 11 and Figure 3).
Table 11. Respondents’ technical knowledge level for each subject
Subject
Agro.
Bot.
Chem.
P.P
Engg.
Eco.
Horti.
Mean
7.91
7.18
6.96
5.84
6.32
5.73
8.28
n = 117,
minimum significant difference = 0.72
Figure 3. Marks obtained in different subjects
It could be explained that high mark in Horticulture, Agronomy and Agricultural Botany was due to the emphasis of in-service training on crop production. Regarding with plant protection, the respondents (18 %) had been to plant protection training for total duration of 438 days. This figure was relatively less than the crop production trainings, because respondents (35 %) had been to crop production training for total duration of 2326 days (Table 4).
None of the respondents had been to trainings on agricultural engineering and agricultural economics. Nowadays, as there is increase in irrigated area and more use of machines in farming, it would be necessary to obtain some knowledge on agricultural engineering. For efficient use of scarce resources training on agricultural economics should be exercised.
Regarding with the subject of plant protection, there are a lot of private organizations, which provide some agricultural chemicals, and most of these organizations are led by former SMSs’. To get the farmers’ impression on public extension officers, it may require sound knowledge on plant protection subject.
Recommendation and Conclusion
In Myanmar, extension services mainly conducted by government, usual extension functions were found as in other nations. Farm and home visit, group meeting and demonstration techniques were used to contact with farmers. Therefore group method was found to be the most common method in Myanmar. This method was especially suitable where worker-farmer ratio was high. It would be more effective when coupled with mass media.
One fourth of their activities were emphasized on contact with their clients (farmers) for supervising of demonstration plots and collecting some agricultural data. Extension agents should collect data and information essential to extension program. Such a duplication of function may lead to dilute the extension efforts.
Generally extension agents have to travel and work within their jurisdiction. This study revealed that the main problems of the extension agents were poor transport and lack of incentive for their performance. There is a need to provide an appropriate transport facility for the efficient mobility such as motor-cycle and bicycles.
Usually extension worker started their service career as deputy-assistant supervisor. They had to serve for an average 10 year to become a deputy-supervisor. This post is subordinate to gazetted officer. Employment and advancement in job opportunities should be create to look upon their job as life career.
Most of the in-service trainings were oriented towards field crop productions. There were very few trainings on extension education.
Sound technical knowledge is essential for extension agents. “To what is the level of extension agents should be” is depending on the development of country and availability of employees. Concerning with the technical knowledge of the extension agents, it was found that pre-service training was the foundation.
All respondents under different pre-service trainings in university had comparatively more knowledge on horticulture, agronomy and botany. Their weak subject areas were plant protection, agricultural engineering and agricultural economics. Therefore, more trainings should be emphasized on these subject areas. Training needs assessment should be done before conducting trainings.
REFERENCES
Blum, A. (1985). Theory into practice a case study of postgraduate agricultural extension training. In: Training for Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO, 1985. pp. 105-107.
Chamber, R. (1993). Challenging the professions; Frontiers For Rural Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Chang, C.W. (1963). Increasing Food Production through Education, Research and Extension, FAO, 1963. pp. 3-27.
Halim, A. and Ali, M. M. (1997): Training and professional development. In: Improving agricultural extension. F.A.O, 1997. pp. 135-137.
Hammans, C. (1988). Multiple Choice Questions for CXC Agricultural Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hoffman, H.K.F. (1985). Status of agricultural education and challenges for international agencies in education for agriculture. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Education for Agriculture, 1985. IRRI. pp. 73-85.
Kang, J.T. and H.K. Song. (1984). Individual and group teaching methods. In: Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual, edited by Swanson, B.E., FAO, 1984. pp. 133.
Lindley, W.I. and I.M. Gonzalez. (1983). Building curricula for extension agents. In: Training for Agricultural and Rural Development, FAO, 1983. pp. 112-114.
Maalouf, W.D. and T.E. Contado. (1983). Basic and in-service training for agricultural extension. In: Training for Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO, 1983. pp. 39-46.
Maunder, A.H. (1978). Agricultural extension: A Reference Manual, FAO, Rome. pp. 211-317.
Rogers, M. E. and F.F. Shoemaker. (1971). Communication of Innovation. New York press. pp. 266.
Russel, J. (1981). Adapting extension work. Finance and Development, 18 (2), 30-33. Cited by L.H. Watt (1984). The organizational setting for agricultural extension. In: Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual, edited by Swanson, B.E., FAO, Rome. pp. 29.
SDC. (1997). Agricultural Extension. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. LBL, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland. pp. 31.
Watts, L.H. (1984). The organizational setting for agricultural extension. In: Agricultural extension: A Reference Manual, edited by Swanson (1984), FAO, 1984. pp. 21.
Williams, T.S.K. (1977). Agriculture and adult education. In: Training for Agriculture and Rural Development. FAO, 1977. pp. 91.
+of+Paddy1.jpg)
