Academic & Law Serials

Articles

Indian Journal of Social Research Vol.53 (4) (July - Aug, 2012) (263 - 275)

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION OF WINTER SCHOOL OF INDIAN NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM: COMPARING WITH ESTABLISHED EVALUATION MODELS

M S Meena
Senior Scientist
Division of Socio-Economic, Extension and Training
I C A R Research Complex for Eastern Region
Patna (Bihar) - 800014

S N Jha
PS and Head
Agricultural Structure and Environment Control Division
Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology
Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141004

K M Singh
PS and Head
Division of Socio-Economic, Extension and Training
I C A R Research Complex for Eastern Region
Patna (Bihar) - 800014

K Narsaiah
Senior Scientist
Agricultural Structure and Environment Control Division
Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology
Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141004

Abstract

The study was carried out at Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana (Punjab), India to evaluate the winter school employing before and after training evaluation with single-group design. Data were solicited from the scientists of National Agricultural Research System (NARS). Summative evaluation model was compared with Kirkpatrick’s and Swanson’s PLS model. Study reveals that through experiential learning, scientists’ of NARS experienced a significant improvement in knowledge and satisfaction level. This evaluation model best describes the Kirkpatrick’s model. However, performance appraisal at workplace is required to fit in the Swanson’s model. Also enriches the body of knowledge for potential theory building and provides useful information and insight into how to use training evaluation to improve the performance of scientists. Results also allow a better explanation of the more performance perspective in practical extension training evaluation.

Key words: Summative Evaluation, Winter School, Agricultural Scientists, Nondestructive, Bio-sensing, Food Safety, Quality Assurance.

INTRODUCTION

Monitoring and evaluation are in-built components of extension and training system. Training evaluation acts as a systematic appraisal tool to provide corrective measures to improve an on-going or future training program. The importance of evaluation, hence, is well recognized (Bober and Bartlett, 2004; Noe, 2000; Swanson and Holton, 1999). Measuring return on training investment is indispensable necessity of training organizations. Training evaluation assumes maximum priority among training consultants and top management as means of justifying training investment (Hashim, 2001). Although, evaluation of training is extremely difficult (Mclean, 2005), but continues to be essential in demonstrating value of human resource development (Preskill, 1997). Now-a-days, need for understanding the evaluation techniques that measure effectiveness of training is becoming more important (Bober and Bartlett, 2004). In addition, exploring commonality of program evaluation may illuminate opportunities for training evaluation theory building in human resource development field (Wang and Spitzer, 2005). Through the process of evaluation, learning can be enhanced and transferred to workplace (Bartram and Gibson, 1999). Russ-Eft and Preskill (2001) observed that a well-planned evaluation goes through a process that includes focusing evaluation, determining design of evaluation, data collection methods, collecting and analyzing data, and communicating and reporting evaluation processes and findings. While expenditures have grown, many training organizations have not taken extra steps to show payoff of their efforts.

Purchase This Article