Informatics Publishing Limited

Kailash Saini ¹, Shammi Nagpal ²

Affiliations
1 Dravidian University, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, IN
2 Department of English, Dayanand College, Hisar, Haryana, IN

Abstract

No Abstract

Full Text

     

Vinod Kumari ¹, Kailash Saini ¹, N. P. Singh ¹

Affiliations
1 Department of Zoology, University of Rajasthan, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN), IN

Abstract

No Abstract.

Keywords

Rajasthan, Spiders.

Full Text

     

Satyakaam Malik ¹, Jasvinder Kaur ², Kailash Saini ³, Ashok Kumar ⁴, K.K. Yadav ⁴, Atul Dhingra ¹, Abhilash ⁵, Rekha Malik ³

Affiliations
1 Department of Business Management, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, IN
2 Extension Education Institute, Nilokheri, Karnal, Haryana, IN
3 ICAR Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Agrasain Marg, Karnal, Haryana, IN
4 Directorate of Extension Education, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, IN
5 ICAR Central Island, Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, IN

Abstract

This research paper presents a comprehensive analysis of various aspects related to training programs in agricultural extension services. The findings reveal important insights. Firstly, the majority of trainers (83.33%) serve as resource persons, while a smaller percentage (16.67%) function as organizers, indicating the distribution of roles and responsibilities among trainers. Secondly, the data on the number of training programs conducted by trainers highlights the varying levels of experience, with a range of program frequencies reported: less than five programs (10%), five to ten programs (40%), eleven to twenty programs (30%), and more than twenty programs (20%). These results provide valuable information for evaluating trainers' expertise and capability in delivering agricultural extension training programs. Thirdly, the background analysis of participants attending the training programs indicates that a significant majority (76.67%) come from state agricultural universities or agriculture departments, while a smaller percentage have backgrounds in non-agricultural departments (13.33%) or other categories (10%). These findings contribute to understanding the target audience and tailoring training content to meet their specific needs. Additionally, the effectiveness of utilizing state departments (90%) as a means of inviting trainees is highlighted, along with a smaller proportion being invited through general circulation letters (10%), suggesting potential avenues for improving participant reach and diversity. Furthermore, the perceptions of trainers regarding H.R training as a tool for improving work performance reveal that a majority view it as a means to enhance employee efficiency (36.67%) or to change attitude, knowledge, and skills (26.67%). A smaller proportion believes it will improve agricultural production (16.67%), while 20% consider it primarily for improving technical skills. Lastly, the impact of H.R training on trainers' behaviour is explored, with 40% reporting being "too much affected," 43.33% indicating that the effect is evident, and 16.67% stating that it may affect their behavior. These findings emphasize the significance of understanding how delivering H.R training can shape trainers' behaviour. Overall, the research provides valuable insights into trainer roles, program frequency, participant backgrounds, invitation approaches, perceptions of H.R training, and its impact on trainers' behaviour in agricultural extension services, enabling informed decision-making, improved program effectiveness, and enhanced training experiences.

Keywords

agriculture, extension, impact, training, trainers.

Full Text