Ministry of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture

Department of Veterinary Department of Veterinary ServicesServices

Objective 1 :

To what extent the skills, knowledge and abilities acquired by farmers during training can be transferred to farm practice ?

Objective 2 :

To find out whether there is productivity improvement after training.

Objective 3 :

To find out whether the training has brought about positive result to the farmers.

ImmediateDevelopmental

Knowledge/skill acquisitionMore cost-effective production

Technology know howInnovation

Improve farm managementImprove harvesting

Yield increasePoverty reduction

Productivity increaseImproved livelihood

What do training providers really want the farmers to achieve?

EVENT / INTERVENTIONEVENT / INTERVENTION

Level 1Training Event Evaluation

Assess Satisfaction of TraineesEvent Assessment Questionnaire

Completion of Training

Level 1Training Event Evaluation

Assess Satisfaction of TraineesEvent Assessment Questionnaire

Completion of Training

Level 2Skills/Knowledge Acquisition

Assess Change in Knowledge,Skills, Attitudes

Pre-Test/Post TestCompletion of Training

Level 2Skills/Knowledge Acquisition

Assess Change in Knowledge,Skills, Attitudes

Pre-Test/Post TestCompletion of Training

EVENT / INTERVENTIONEVENT / INTERVENTION

FOLLOW-UPFOLLOW-UP IMPACTIMPACT

Level 3Skills/Knowledge Transfer

Assess Extent of Application of Skills/Knowledge to Job Related Activities

Survey : Interview and/orQuestionnaires

3 months to 6 months

Level 3Skills/Knowledge Transfer

Assess Extent of Application of Skills/Knowledge to Job Related Activities

Survey : Interview and/orQuestionnaires

3 months to 6 months

Level 4Organizational Performance Change Assess Organizational Change as a

Result of Skills/Knowledge Transfer And Incorporation

Baseline Comparison1-3 years

Level 4Organizational Performance Change Assess Organizational Change as a

Result of Skills/Knowledge Transfer And Incorporation

Baseline Comparison1-3 years

This study subscribes to Level 3 and Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model.

Chart 1

Distribution of Respondents and Gender Composition

21.118.9

31.1

10.0

16.7

2.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Per

cent

age

Noexperience

at all

2 - 3 years 6 yearsand above

Statement Disagree Not Sure Agree Total

The course is adequateNo. 67 10 13 90% 74.4 11.1 14.4 100

Recommend the course to othersNo. 3 7 80 90% 3.3 7.8 88.9 100

The course content is suitable to apply in farming job

No. 9 8 73 90

% 10.0 8.9 81.1 100

This course has changed my behavior

No. 5 13 72 90% 5.6 14.4 80.0 100

Will attend this course againNo. 9 7 74 90% 10.0 7.8 82.2 100

I am highly motivated in farming after attending this course

No. 1 8 81 90

% 1.1 8.9 90.0 100

Able to practice what have been taught

No. 10 11 69 79% 11.1 12.2 76.7 100

Much can be appliedNo. 16 17 57 73% 17.8 18.9 63.3 100

The course content is relevant to farming job

No. 4 9 77 81% 4.4 10.0 85.6 100

Easy to apply what have been taught

No. 12 17 61 90% 13.3 18.9 67.8 100

Most of the training content can be applied

No. 35 21 34 56% 38.9 23.3 37.8 100

Practice almost everything that have been taught

No. 22 19 49 71% 24.4 21.1 54.4 100

This course is importantNo. 9 7 74 83% 10.0 7.8 82.2 100

More knowledgeableNo. 2 9 79 81% 2.2 10.0 87.8 100

Statement DisagreeNot Sure Agree Total

By attending the course, it can improve my income

No. 12 26 52 90

% 13.3 28.9 57.8 100

The farming productivity has increased

No. 9 17 64 90

% 10.0 18.9 71.1 100

My life has changed

No. 9 30 51 90

% 10.0 33.3 56.7 100

About 58% of the farmers indicated that training programs had brought about improvement in their revenues. When asked about productivity improvement, 71% said their farming productivity had improved because of training. And 57% also noted that their life had changed resulting from the training attended.

Statement Disagree Not Sure Agree Total

This course made them better breederNo. 4 5 81 90

% 4.4 5.6 90.0 100

They will become better breederNo. 3 13 74 90

% 3.3 14.4 82.2 100

Bring positive impact to themNo. 10 7 73 90

% 11.1 7.8 81.1 100

Their livelihood had changedNo. 14 23 53 90

% 15.6 25.6 58.9 100

There are changes after attending the course

No. 3 12 75 90

% 3.3 13.3 83.3 100

Bring great benefit to themNo. 3 9 78 90

% 3.3 10.0 86.7 100

Can coach another farmerNo. 10 37 43 90

% 11.1 41.1 47.8 100

Achieved the objectiveNo. 6 18 66 90

% 6.7 20.0 73.3 100

A B C

Pearson Correlation

A B C

1.000 0.562** 0.778**

0.562** 1.000 0.699**

0.778** 0.699** 1.000

Significance (2-tailed)

A B C

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N A B C87 86 87 86 86 86 87 86 88

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

A : SKAs acquired by farmers,

B : Productivity improvement after training

C : Positive results to the farmers

It can be said that the SKAs acquired by farmers, significantly, showed positively correlated to the productivity improvement after training. Analysis suggested that the impact of training to the farmers had been positive as this test showed that acquisition of SKAs by farmers had resulted in productivity improvement. Hence, training has been effective.

Responses No. %

Very Useful 56 62.2

Useful 28 31.1

No Change 1 1.1

Less Relevant 3 3.3

Not Relevant At All 1 1.1

Did Not Respond 1 1.1Total 90 100.0

Majority or 93.3% of the respondents agreed the programs were useful compared to only 3.3% who disagreed and said the programs were less relevant.

Responses No. Percent

Very Successful 13 14.4Successful 61 67.8

No Comment 8 8.9Less Successful 5 5.6

Failed 2 2.2Did Not Respond 1 1.1

Total 90 100.0

A total of 82.2% of the farmers said the training had been successful and had changed their livelihood. In short, generally the programs had fulfill their (farmers’) training need.

Responses No. Percent

Adequate 22 24.4

Need Improvement 63 70.0

No Comment 1 1.1Less Successful 2 2.2

Not Relevant 1 1.1Did Not Respond 1 1.1

Total 90 100.0

When asked about training programs relevancy, majority or 70% responded that continuous improvement should be made to the existing programs. This finding converge with the analysis revealed from interviews.

Recommendations Categorize training courses

systematically by identifying trainees in accordance to their levels:Level 1 – fresh beginners/those with skills

but lack knowledge;Level 2 – intermediate/small-scale farms,

experienced but no formal training;Level 3 – large scale-farm, experienced and

knowledgeable but need further training for production expansion.

Recommendations2. Competency Level Certificates –

proposed that training centres identified its training niche and build programs in relation to its focus. A certificate of competency level be given to trainees in recognition to SKAs acquired. (May require certain kind of assessment on trainees e.g. practical or written exam).

Recommendations3. State Coordinators to Liaise with

Training Institutes –Particularly follow-ups on trainees;Training institute to inform State, name of

trainees immediately after training;Training institutes to provide selection

criteria to State for the purpose of “fitting” trainees with the courses to be attended;

Recommendations4. Program Improvement

more practical/visits reduce the theoretical or simplified the

theory part into easy reading notes. to include Business Proposal paper as one

module.

TRAINING IMPACT

Level 4 of Kirkpatrick’s Model was used to evaluate training results. Two important components of analysis: COST and BENEFITS.

Cost – refers to cost such as direct, indirect, developmental, that was incurred by training institutes.

Benefits – refers to potential benefits (impact) gained from the training. For e.g., increased in harvest, reduced wastage etc.

On average, the total cost spent by ITU for about 30 participants amounted to RM11, 478.43.

Of the total cost, 47% was direct training expenditure, another 43% of the cost spent on training module.

No Before Training ( RM ) After Training ( RM ) Benefit ( RM )

F1 350 650 300

F2 700 900 200

F3 no change No change -

F4 1000 1200 200

F5 1000 2000 1000

F6 600 1000 400

F7 - 24 24.00

F8 350 700 350

F9 not yet not yet -

F10 500 1000 500

F11 200 400 200

F12 no change no change -

F13 150 150 0

F14 nil nil -

F15 nil nil -

F16 400 500 100

F17 250 320 70

F18 nil nil -

F19 350 500 150

F20 nil nil -

F21 nil nil -

F22 - 583 583

F23 400 500 100

F24 nil nil -

F25 2000 5000 3000

F26 500 1500 1000

F27 - 600 600

F28 1000 1500 500

F29 nil nil -

F30 500 680 180

F31 nil nil nil

F32 1000 3000 2000

TOTAL 11,457

Total Training Cost :-RM11, 478.43 30= RM382.60 per pax/course

ROI = Farmers’ Op Results Training Costs = RM11,457.00 RM7652.00 = RM1.50

On average, the total cost spent by IVM for about 15 participants amounted to RM10, 558.00.

Of the total cost, 49% was direct training expenditure, followed by delivery 24% and module preparation 25% of the cost spent.

No Before Training (RM) After Training (RM) Benefit (RM)

F33 1200 1500 300

F34 nil nil -

F35 1500 1500 0

F36 nil nil -

F37 not yet not yet -

F38 500 1000 500

F39 1000 1500 500

F40 40,000 40,000 0

F41 nil nil -

F42 - 1000 1000

F43 nil nil -

F44 2000 4000 2000

F45 200 500 300

F46 1000 2500 1500

F47 nil nil -

F48 <10,000 >10,000 -

F49 1,500 3,000 1,500

F50 2400 7500 5100

F51 3000 5000 2000

F52 1200 1500 300

F53 8000 10,000 2000

F54 nil nil -

F55 nil nil -

F56 nil nil -

F57 nil nil -

F58 nil nil -

F59 nil nil -

F60 not yet not yet -

F61 2000 4500 2500

F62 nil nil -

TOTAL 19,500

Total Training Cost :-RM10,267.15 15= RM684.50 per pax/course

ROI = Farmers’ Op Results Training Costs = RM19,500.00 RM8898.50 = RM2.19

On average, the total cost spent by PLV for about 32 participants amounted to RM11,077.42.

Of the total cost, 55% was direct training expenditure, followed by payroll 21% (external trainers).

No Before Training (RM) After Training (RM) Benefit (RM)

F63 500 1000 500

F64 500 1500 1000

F65 800 1200 400

F66 400 500 100

F67 nil nil -

F68 nil nil -

F69 600 900 300

F70 500 700 200

F71 nil nil -

F72 no change no change 0

F73 2000 2500 500

F74 nil nil -

F75 nil nil -

F76 nil nil -

F77 500 1500 1000

F78 600 1000 400

F79 nil nil -

F80 not much change not much change -

F81 0 250 250

F82 300 350 50

F83 500 800 300

F84 200 300 100

F85 1500 3000 1500

F86 500 2000 1500

F87 1,000 1,000 0

F88 500 1000 500

F89 350 500 150

F90 nil nil -

TOTAL 8750

Total Training Cost :-RM11,077.42 32= RM346.20 per pax/course

ROI = Farmers’ Op Results Training Costs = RM8,750.00 RM5,539.20 = RM1.57

On the overall the training impact has been positive and resulted in productivity improvement to majority or 71.1% of the farmers.i. Farmers trained at ITU Malacca showed an

increase of 33.3% from the training attended.ii. Farmers from IVM Kluang showed an increase

of 54.3% after training.iii. Farmers trained at PLV Jerangau showed an

increase of 36.3% as a result of attending training.

. We would like to acknowledge and extend our sincere thanks to Professor Dr Khairul Baharein Mohd Noor, University Selangor who have completed this study successfully. We would also like to express our acknowledgement to the Training Heads from the three training institutes as well as to all the DVS staff involved whose tireless efforts initially contributed a lot to assisting the researchers to complete this study.

 

We are equally indebted to farmers, trainers and state coordinators who had participated and contributed towards this research study. Our special thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Azami Zaharim from UKM, En Alias the Research Assistant from UPM and En Ryan Harne from Unisel for their valuable technical assistance and cooperation in preparing the report. The first researcher is finally responsible for the writing-up and completing the entire report.