Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Impact of ‘foundation Training for University Teachers’ Conducted by Bangladesh Agricultural University

M. M. Ali
Graduate Training Institute, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202

B. Mawa
Graduate Training Institute, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

This paper examined the impact of ‘Foundation Training for University Teachers’ through four levels of learning evaluation model proposed by Donald Kirkpatrick. Data for the study were collected in 2015 through mailed questionnaire and semistructured interviews. A total of 109 questionnaire responses out of 299 trained faculties of 25 public universities and 30 semi-structured interviews of them were analysed for this study. The overall impact of the training was very high at all learning levels; scores were 88.2% for reaction, 82.6% for learning, 86.4% for behaviour and 93.8% for results. While the quantitative data showed highest score on results, qualitative data showed contradictory findings on it. The participants experienced many challenges to yield results, such as lack of financial support from respective institute and resistance from senior colleagues who had not received FTUT. Among other levels of the model, learning showed the lowest score and it showed similarity with the qualitative responses, which revealed that the resulting increase in learning (in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes) was low. The mismatch between theory and practice, inability to practice classes with real students, and lack of variation of trainers etc. might be the reasons for the lower extent of learning. The study concludes that training of faculties alone cannot create good impact on institutes; it needs support of colleagues and governance of university.

Keywords: Foundation Training, University Teachers, Bangladesh Agricultural University

Location: Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh

Start Date: 00-00-2014

End Date: 00-00-2015

Program Area: Knowledge Management

Commodity: Training

Objectives:

Specifically, this study was carried out to determine the impact of FTUT in respect of teachers’: (a) Reaction (how well did the learners like the learning process?) (b) Learning (what did they learn and how much they learned?) (c) Behaviour (how well they are capable to practice the newly learned skills on the job?), and (d) Results (what changes did it make to the organization in terms of quality, efficiency, morale and increased client satisfaction etc.?)

Methodology:

The study was carried out at GTI, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh during 2014-15. Since its inception to 2014, the total number of FTUT was 13, and 299 young faculties from 25 public universities of Bangladesh participated in these courses who were the population of this study. This study was focused explicitly on the impact of the FTUT in terms of Kirkpatrick’s learning evaluation model. There are several models those have been proposed to review the effects and impact of teacher development programmes. But, the Kirkpatrick Model (1998) is probably the best known model for analyzing and evaluating the results of training and educational programmes. It takes into account any style of training, both informal and formal, to determine aptitude based on four levels criteria, i.e. reaction, learning, behaviour and results. The study was exploratory in nature and involved both quantitative and qualitative methods. The instruments used for data collection for the study included a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. A questionnaire was developed and was mailed to all 299 participants out of which 109 responses were obtained which represent 37 percent of the population. There were a total of 20 items in the questionnaire under the Kirkpatrick’s four levels to determine the impact of FTUT program. The questionnaire included items relating to teachers’ (i) Reaction (for example, did they enjoy the program, was it relevant, did they like the learning and interaction opportunities, etc.); (ii) Learning (e.g., did they learn what they intended to learn, did the training enhance their intellectual ability in teaching, etc ); (iii) Behaviour (e.g. did they see any measurable change after attending the training, do they use the relevant knowledge and skills in their work); and (iv) Results (e.g., do their students get more benefit from their teaching, do they involve themselves in academic activities more, etc.). These items were measured on a four point rating scale starting from A to D, while ‘A’ represented the ‘highest value’ and ‘D’ represented ‘the lowest value’. Semi-structured interviews, another data collection technique were also used to explore some of the issues identified by the analysis of the questionnaire responses. Emails were sent to 50 respondents to take part in this study as volunteers. However, only 30 faculties willingly responded to semi-structured interviews and talked about their experience of the FTUT and its impact on their teaching. These respondents were asked to answer questions like what were the strengths and weaknesses of the training program, if they had noticed anything in the training program that is worthy of improvement if the training had changed the way they teach, did they have any difficulties in passing their gained skills and knowledge to the colleagues after returning to their respective universities, and what are the main challenges in improving teaching and learning at universities, and so on. Quantitative data were recorded in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using descriptive statistics. For qualitative data, the content analysis technique was used to analyze the semi-structured interviews based on Kirkpatrick’s (1998) four levels of evaluation criteria.

Source of Information: Bangladesh Journal of Extension Education Volume 31, No. 1&2, 2019: 1-12

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

The overall impact of the FTUT was high for the trained teachers. However, there were some contradictions between the quantitative and qualitative responses. The discrepancy in the conclusions of quantitative and qualitative data can possibly be explained by the nature of the data. In terms of quantitative data, respondents generally answer questions without thinking critically, and there is limited scope for cross-checking data. On the other hand, qualitative data discover variation and interesting issues which emerge from interviewee responses to specific questions can immediately be probed to obtain further insight (Bryman and Bell 2003). In this regard, qualitative data is more reliable. While the quantitative data showed the highest score on Results (93.75%), suggests that the training had a positive impact on their respective universities to a great extent, qualitative data showed contradictory responses on it. Participants experienced constraints, such as resistance from senior colleagues who had not received FTUT, lack of financial support from respective departments/universities. In quantitative data, ‘Learning’ another level of the model, carries the lowest score (82.55%) resembles the qualitative responses, which suggests that the resulting increase in learning (in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes) was low. The mismatch between theory and practice, inability to practice classes with real students and lack of variation of trainers etc. might be the reasons for the lower extent of ‘Learning’. In order to achieve a better impact of the FTUT, combined efforts of university governance, senior faculties and the young trainees are equally required.

Knowledge Management: Journal