Curricula Importance in Enhancing the Capabilities of Agriculture Extension Agents at the Field

Subject Areas : Agricultural Extension

Muhammad  Israr ¹ (Department of Development Studies, University of Swat, Saidu Sharif Swat-Pakistan)
Nafees  Ahmad ² (Department of Economics, University of Malakand, Chakdara Dir (Lower)-Pakistan)
Dawood  Jan ³ (Institute if Development Studies, KP, Agricultural University Peshawar-Pakistan.)
Tahir  Ali Shah ⁴ (Accreditation Division, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad-Pakistan.)
M. M.  Shafi ⁵ (Institute if Development Studies, KP, Agricultural University Peshawar-Pakistan.)
Noshad  Khan ⁶ (Department of Agricultural Sciences, AIOU-Islamabad-Pakistan.)

Received: 2015-12-24 Accepted : 2015-12-24 Published : 2013-07-01

Keywords: Extension agents, Effective agriculture extension curricula, Supervision and administration,

Abstract :

Present study was conducted in the three provinces of Pakistan with the objectives to study the curricula relevancy with the participatory extension, supervision and administration and its practical applicability at the field level. For this extension agents of the selected provinces were selected purposively. Mail questionnaire were used as instruments for data collection form 227 respondents and were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Findings of the study revealed that the respondent either strongly agreed or agreed with the statements that the curricula in an extension education program helped them to win farmers trust for effective agriculture extension (93%), organize farmers into participatory learning groups (75%) and answer the questions raised by farmers (89%) and to use audio visual aids respectively (92%). This implies for the acceptance of null hypothesis that the curricula improve the extension agent’s skills in different field levels programs. Respondent were also either strongly agreed or agreed that the curricula in an extension education program helped them to supervise and guide official duties of field staff (87%), monitor the work of junior field staff (85%), maintain office morale (82%) and to develop leadership potential (86%) of the staff at the field. This implies for the acceptance of alternative hypothesis. Furthermore the respondents also reported rated the curricula contents and structure with respect to scope and topics as excellent (14%), good (61%), fair (21%) and poor (4%). The study as a whole concludes that the extension agents perceived the existing curricula as effective and result oriented. The study recommends that to make the curricula more effective for sustainable agriculture development there is a need for looking into the farmer’s needs and expressions, learning and instructional technologies and giving importance to the views of the extension field staff for revision and development of the curricula.

References:

1. Betterley, C and Dobson, B. (2000). Tools for evaluating written and audiovisual nutrition education materials. Journal of Extension, 38(4) Article 4TOT3. Retrieved from; http://www.joe.org/joe/2000august/ tt3.php, Dated; 14 Jan. 2014.

2. Bloom, D., Canning, D and Chan, K. (2006). Higher education and economic development in Africa. Harvard Univ. Retrieved from; .http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/esources/Higher_Education_Econ_Dev.pdf, Dated; 14 Jan. 2014.

3. Crowder,V., Lindley, L., Bruening, T and Doron, N. (1998). Agricultural education for sustainable rural development: challenges for developing countries in the twenty-first century. Rome: FAO .http://www.fao.org/sd/exdirect/exan 0025.htm, Dated; 14 Jan. 2014.

4. Ellis, A and Fouts, J. (1993). Research on educational innovations. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

5. FAO. (1999). Participatory curriculum development for agricultural education: A training guide. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from; ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/w9693e/w9693e00.pdf, Dated; 14 Jan. 2014.

6. Fitzgibbon, C. T and Morris, L. L. (1987). Table for determining sample size from the given population. How to design a program evaluation. Newbury Park CA: Sage Pub.

7. Hartman, N and Warren, D. (1994). Perspective on a framework for curriculum development created for use in the faculty of social sciences and humanities at the University of Cape town. South African Association of Academic Development, Conference.

8. Malik, W. (1990). A systems paradigm: A study of agricultural knowledge system in Pakistan. Leo Books, Islamabad.

9.

10. Maredia, M. K. (2007). Curriculum enhancement and reform to meet the needs of smallholder farmers in developing countries: Survey of literature, Michigan State Uni. A concept note. Draft paper, East Lansing: Deptt. of Agri. Econ., MSU.

11. Maguire, C. and Atchoarena, D. (2003). Higher education and rural development: A new perspective. In: Atchoarena, David and Lavinia Gasperini (eds.) Education for rural development: Towards new policy responses. Pp.311-384. Rome: FAO and UNESCO-IIEP.

12. Mercer, K. (1998). An examination of three perspectives on nutrition education materials: The curriculum expert, the dietitian, and the patient. Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA.

13. National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. Washington,DC: National academies press.

14. Nielsen, R. L. (1995). The role of an extension corn specialist in Indiana agriculture. Present. at Executive Workshop on Preparing Hungary's Agric. Universities for the 21st Century: Integrating teaching, Res. and Ext. 18-19 Oct. 1995, Godollo Univ. of Agric. Sci. Godollo, Hungary. Retrieved Jan. 14, 2014, from: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/ corn/talks/hu95.htm

15. Rivera, W. M. (2006). Transforming post-secondary agricultural education and training by design: Solutions for Sub-Saharan Africa. Background paper commissioned by the World Bank (AFTHD).

16. Shah, M. T. A., Khan, N., Israr, M., Shafi, M and Ahmad, N. (2009). Agriculture extension curricula in agricultural universities of Pakistan.Perspectives of agriculture extension personnel. Sarhad J. Agric. 25(3): 479-485.

17. Tagtow, A and Amos, R. (2000). The extent to which dietitians evaluate nutrition education materials. J. of Nut. Edu., 32, 161-168.