in-service training effectiveness for upgrading technical competencies of agricultural extension agents

Introduction

The assumption that a degree in agriculture prepares someone for a career in extension work is dangerously outdated. Farming systems shift, new technologies arrive, pest and disease profiles change, and market conditions fluctuate all of which demand that extension agents continuously update their technical toolkit [1] . In-service training is the main mechanism through which extension organizations attempt to close this gap, yet remarkably little evidence exists about whether these programs actually work [2] . In Zambia, the Ministry of Agriculture employs approximately 2,800 extension agents across ten provinces, many of whom received their initial training more than a decade ago [3] . The crop advisory landscape has changed dramatically since then: conservation agriculture practices, climate-smart technology packages, and digital recordkeeping tools have all entered the mainstream, but agent competency hasn't kept pace [4] . A 2021 internal assessment found that 58% of agents scored below acceptable thresholds on basic technical knowledge tests, with digital skills showing the largest deficits [5] . Several authors have questioned whether the problem lies with training content, delivery methods, or both. Mulder [6] argued that competency-based training produces better outcomes than traditional lecture formats, while Davis and Sulaiman [7] emphasized that training disconnected from field realities rarely translates into changed practice. This research evaluated the effectiveness of in-service training programs conducted for extension agents in Zambia's Central and Southern Provinces during 2023, measuring changes across six competency domains.

Theoretical Framework

The research was anchored in Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model [8] , which assesses training outcomes at the levels of reaction, learning, behavior, and results. For this research, Levels 2 (learning) and 3 (behavior) were the primary focus, measured through competency assessments and supervisor-reported behavioral observations. This was supplemented by Bandura's selfefficacy theory [9] , which predicts that agents who gain confidence through successful training experiences are more likely to apply new skills in the field.

Material and Methods

Material:

The research was carried out through the School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia, Lusaka, in collaboration with provincial extension offices in Central and Southern Provinces, between January and December 2023. A total of 156 extension agents who were enrolled in government-sponsored in-service training programs formed the research sample. Agents were drawn from 23 districts using purposive sampling based on training enrollment records. The sample included 97 male and 59 female agents with field experience ranging from 2 to 28 years. A structured competency assessment tool with 72 items across six domains was developed and validated through expert review by eight senior extension professionals. Ethical Considerations: Participation was voluntary with written informed consent. Agents were assured that competency scores would not affect their employment status or performance reviews. Individual results were shared only with the respective agent and kept confidential from supervisors and district administrators.

Methods

Results

Table Training duration was significantly associated with competency gains (F = 18.47, p<0.001). Programs exceeding 60 hours produced mean gains of 29.6-31.8%, compared to 17.3% for short programs. However, the difference between long (61-90 hrs) and extended (91-120 hrs) categories was modest, hinting at diminishing returns beyond a certain threshold. The schematic maps the six competency domains around the central in-service training system. Technical knowledge and farmer engagement showed the highest baseline scores, while digital literacy and report writing started lowest and showed the most room for growth.

Discussion

The overall competency gain of 24.7 percentage points with a large effect size (d = 1.21) indicates that in-service training made a meaningful difference for participating agents. This aligns with findings from Mulder [6] who reported similar magnitudes in competency-based agricultural training programs across sub-Saharan Africa.

The particularly strong gains in digital literacy (d = 1.58) are encouraging given that this was identified as the weakest baseline area-agents essentially had the most room to grow.

The weaker results in problem solving and report writing deserve attention. These are higher-order cognitive skills that likely require sustained practice and mentoring rather than concentrated workshop exposure [10] . Davis and Sulaiman [7] made a similar observation, noting that procedural skills can be taught in short sessions but analytical abilities need longer developmental arcs. The diminishing returns beyond 90 hours of training also warrant consideration. While more training generally helped, the flattening curve between 61-90 and 91-120 hours suggests that training design matters more than training volume past a certain point [11] .

Limitations

The absence of a control group limits causal attribution, as competency gains may partly reflect test familiarity or concurrent field experience.

References

1. Alex G, Zijp W, Byerlee D. Rural extension and advisory services: new directions. Washington (DC): World Bank Rural Development Strategy Background Paper No. 9; 2002. p. 1-67.
2. Pye-Smith C. Agricultural extension: a time for change. Wageningen: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation; 2012. p. 1-48.
3. Ministry of Agriculture Zambia. National agricultural extension strategy 2020-2025. Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia; 2020. p. 1-86.
4. Ngoma H, Mason NM, Sitko NJ. Does minimum tillage with cover crops improve yields and livelihoods in Zambia? Food Policy. 2015;53:67-78. www.extensionjournal.com
5. Zambia National Extension Assessment. Agent competency baseline report: internal technical document. Lusaka: Ministry of Agriculture, Extension Division; 2021. p. 1-34.
6. Mulder M. Competence-based education and training: about frequently asked questions. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2012;18(3):319327.
7. Davis K, Sulaiman RV. The new extensionist: roles and capacities to strengthen advisory services. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2014;21(3):6-18.
8. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2006. p. 1-379.
9. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977;84(2):191-215.
10. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longman; 1956. p. 1-207.
11. Spielman DJ, Birner R. How innovative is your agriculture? Using innovation indicators to assess performance. Washington (DC): World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 41; 2008. p. 1-57.
12. Maguire CJ. Agricultural education and training to support agricultural innovation systems. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2012. p. 1-45.
13. Ragasa C, Ulimwengu J, Randriamamonjy J, Badibanga T. Factors affecting agricultural extension agent performance. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2016;22(2):113-143.
14. Haug R. Forced migration, the famine machine, and Norwegian aid in the Sudan. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2002;8(3):115-130.