Evaluation of knowledge gain among fisheries trainees participating in fisheries training programmes

Introduction

In India, food and nutritional security concerns for its continuously increasing population need a multifaceted approach to fish farming/livestock production (Hundal et al., 2016) [32] . The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2024) [26] estimates that 713 and 757 million people, or 8.9 and 9.4% of the world's population, respectively, may have experienced hunger in 2023. 52% of the world's 767.9 million undernourished people live in the area, with Southern Asia accounting for 83% of them. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, war, and climate change, the number of undernourished people in the Asia-Pacific area surged from 370 million in 2020 to 396 million in 2021, and the PoU increased to 9.1%. The second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 2) aims to eradicate all types of malnutrition by 2030 and guarantee that everyone has yearround access to sufficient, safe, and nourishing food. One way to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 (zero hunger) is to use fish and fisheries products as a source of animal protein. According to Christiaensen et al., (2011) [20] , agricultural development is thought to be up to 3.2 times more successful than any other sector in reducing poverty in low-income, resource-rich nations. Because poverty and food insecurity are closely related (FAO, 2002; de Alan et al., 2015) [22] , agricultural development may also help reduce hunger, especially for women, whose empowerment in agriculture increases household food security and nutrition. Fisheries and aquaculture are one of the world's fastest-growing businesses, and India is the world's secondlargest producer of fish after China; hence, fisheries and www.extensionjournal.com aquaculture are considered a growing industry in the Indian economy (Tacon, 2020) [70] . India also accounts for 10.14 per cent of the yearly average growth rate (Anonymous, 2019) [5] . Fish is recognised as a nutrientrich animal food choice for many nutritionally vulnerable people. Fish is rich in protein and contains nearly all bioavailable minerals, including calcium, iodine, iron, zinc, phosphorus, selenium, and fluorine (Bene et al., 2016). Fisheries and aquaculture provide dietary essentials for human consumption and play an important role in economic development opportunities and generating livelihoods through their contributions to food and nutritional security, national income, and employment opportunities (Kumar and Shivani, 2014) [36] . Approximately 80 per cent of farmers in the NE area are small (less than 1.44 ha) or marginal (less than 0.40 ha). Furthermore, as the population grows, the average amount of land holdings shrinks with time (De and Singh, 2017) [23] .

To exploit the available resources to their potential, technical assistance needs to be provided. The massive need for training among farmers, farm women, and extension workers is not being met in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Lack of education in agricultural-related fields or skill development is one barrier to young people's involvement in agriculture (Salvago et al.,, 2019; Yeboah et al., 2020) [60,73] . Youth in rural Ethiopia are interested in entering the agricultural sector as a result of government initiatives to boost productivity and skills as well as introduce modern and improved farming techniques; in Indonesia, vocational training has been found to increase the likelihood of a successful career in the agricultural sector (Yeboah et al., 2020) [73] . Therefore, there is a need to give technical and training support to farmers in order to raise aquaculture production. It is emphasized that providing appropriate training in improved fish-farming practices can increase the rate of technology adoption in these resourcepoor family groups. Training is a process in which trainees develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes through a sequence of programmes. It also fills the gap between what they have and what they require (Beach, 1980) [9] . Training is a structured communication process for workforce development that seeks to bring about desired changes in knowledge (K), skills (S), practice (P), attitude (A), behaviour (B), and other areas (O) that correspond to a position's requirements. Thus, training is a mix of K, S, P, and O that results in a shift in attitude and behaviour among extension workers working on agricultural development projects and programmes (Misra, 1999) [44] . It also increases an individual's knowledge, skills, and attitude in preparation for a particular job. When situations change, people should learn new skills, gain new information, and adopt new attitudes. Training is an ongoing process that never ends at any stage of life; it changes the employee's thinking and brings a good attitude toward other people and the workplace (Ganesh and Indradevi, 2015) [27] . With the advancement of information and communication technology (ICT), young people now have more opportunities to develop their skills and obtain pertinent information. As a result, they are in a good position to comprehend market dynamics as well as institutional and financial systems, which allows them to start and profit from processes of change in the agricultural sector (Gyimah-Brempong and Kimenyi, 2011; Roser et al.,, 2016) [57] . Cheteni (2016) [19] asserts that skill-training interventions promote youth involvement or agricultural entrepreneurship. According to Julliet et al., (2010) [34] , training programs are now a crucial aspect of working in an organisation. A training program is not complete until the procedures and results have been evaluated. Training evaluation is the most key component of any training program. In general, successful training programs begin with identifying training requirements and finish with training evaluation (Gopal, 2008) [29] . According to Julliet et al., (2010), assessment of learning in training activities offers a standard by which organisations may gauge how successful training is (Lundy, 2002) [38] demonstrated how post-training follow-up facilitates the shift from documented to applied and locally applicable knowledge. Evaluation is the systematic process of gathering and examining data in order to assess whether and to what extent objectives were or are being met Boulmetis and Dutwin (2000) [14] . Training evaluation ensures that applicants' knowledge can be used in their workplaces or daily tasks. In the simplest of ways, evaluation is the assessment of objectives with outcomes to answer the question of whether training has accomplished its objectives (Topno, 2012) [71] . According to Phillps and Ostroff, training assessment may be used as a diagnostic method to allow programs to be revised in order to achieve the many aims and objectives. Programs can therefore be chosen or changed using the information. Good assessment data can show how beneficial the training program is. In fact, this kind of data can demonstrate the training's financial advantages. Evaluations may assess the validity and clarity of exercises, questions, and examinations. They have to assess the talents, information, and skills that the program is intended to impart. Evaluation frequently offers a way to validate tools. There is adequate evidence to indicate that organizations do not place as much emphasis on the evaluation and objective assessment of the efficacy and results of their training programs as they do on their planning and execution (Rajeev et al.,, 2009) [55] . Inadequate funding, insufficient time, a lack of experience, naive faith in training solutions, or a lack of techniques and resources are all potential causes of subpar assessments (McEvoy and Buller, 1990) [41] . Most organisations do not collect the information to determine the utility of their own training programs (Goldstein,1993) [28] . Aside from the great regard that training staff may have for them, many training activities continue to receive low ratings. For instance, a Phillips study reveals that trainee responses, which are recorded at the conclusion of the course, are the most popular type of assessment

Material and methods A) Description of study area

The northeast India is the for the present study, which includes the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura (with a total geographical area of 2.55 lakh km2 (about 8% of the country), of which 43% is located at an elevation of 300m, 30% between 300 and 1200m above MSL, and 27% above 1200m above MSL) (Chakravarty et ± bal., 2012) [17] , has been blessed with abundant biodiversity and fisheries resources. The area has been divided into two biogeography zone-Eastern Himalaya and north-eastern India, based on floristic composition, the naturalness of the flora and the local climate (Chakravarty et al., 2012) [17] . Cultivable area in the NE regions (62.04%) is less than the national average (73.05%) (Sahoo, 2013) [59] . About 80% of the farmers in the NE region belong to small (less than 1.44ha) and marginal (less than 0.40 ha) categories, moreover, with the increase in population, the average size of land holding is gradually reduced over the years (De and Singh, 2017) [23] . The region produces around 0.214 million metric tons of fish per year, over half of which comes from aquaculture, yet this is insufficient to meet the region's food needs. Rivers, Coldwater streams, floodplain wetlands, reservoirs, lakes, ponds, paddy fields, and mini-barrages exist in the region to support large-scale aquaculture activities (FAO, 2011) [25] . The fish farmers in the region achieve considerably less production than the national average of 2400 kg/ha per year. As a result, farmers' average production was just 1400 kg/ha per year (Barman et al., 2012) [7] . Fish farmers of different states of the North-Eastern region of India gain training conducted by the College of Fisheries Lembucherra, Agartala (CAU) to improve their knowledge, and skills regarding aquaculture. College of Fisheries Lembuchherra, Agartala provides different kinds of training to farmers and line departments on different subjects e.g.: pond preparation and pond management, feed formulation, fish processing, capacity building, entrepreneurship and business start-up. It provides training programmes both on the college campus and off campus.

B) Research design

The quasi-experimental research design was adopted for the present study; it is an empirical interventional study used to estimate the causal impact of an intervention on a target population without random assignment. According to Campbell and Stanley (1966) [15] , Experimental designs that are not randomized are quasi-experimental; in these designs, the researcher can manipulate or observe the manipulation of treatment. The theoretical basis of evaluation and research designs, and their practicability, were taken into consideration when selecting appropriate methods to measure the effectiveness and outcomes of training programmes. The evaluation indicators selected in the study were: trainee feedback, trainee knowledge gained, and the adoption and economic benefits of the training programmes. In the present study, a "pre-test and post-test" quasi-experimental research design was used.

C) Sampling Procedure

For the present study, the north-east region was selected purposively. The region is blessed with huge natural resources, where a large number of farmers are engaged in farming, and average per capita fish consumption is also high in this region. College of Fisheries, situated in the northeast region, plays an important role in fisheries development in this region (Munilkumar and Nandeesha, 2007) [46] . The farmers and officials of line departments from different states of north-eastern India who had participated in training programmes conducted by College of Fisheries were selected for study in which 146 fish farmers and 40 officials of line department (fisheries officer, FI and extension officer) were selected from the on-campus training programme and 42 fish farmers were selected from offcampus training programmes which were conducted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and village panchayat in Sepahijala, Agartala during 2022-2023. A complete enumeration sampling technique was used to select the respondents. Primary data was collected by using a pretested semi-structured interview schedule through the personal interview method. The secondary information regarding the training programme was collected from different published and unpublished sources. A pilot study was administered on 30 sample respondents to judge the efficacy of the interview schedule and necessary modifications and alterations were made to the interview schedule based on the feedback received from the pilot study. Operationalisation and measurement of variables based on the available literature and in consultation with the experts, and certain relevant independent and dependent variables were identified and included in the study that fit into the objective of the study. To ascertain the socio-economic information of trainees, a pre-structured interview schedule was used. Information on knowledge gained by trainees during the training programme, a set of multiple-choice questions was developed and used to ascertain the data. To assess the www.extensionjournal.com perception level of trainees, a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree [5] to strongly disagree [1] was used. To get perceived suggestions about the training programme, frequency and percentage were used.

D) Knowledge gained by trainees

Knowledge can be defined as information, an idea or a skill which is learned through a learning experience in an appropriate teaching-learning situation. The main aim of any training programme is to increase the skills, knowledge and attitude of trainees in a particular area. To assess the knowledge gain by trainees, a set of 25 multiple-choice questions in five subjects related to fisheries and aquaculture was administered to the trainees both before training and after the training programme. '1' score for a correct response and '0'score for an incorrect response was given for analysis of the knowledge level and gain in knowledge. Pre-test and post-test knowledge gain was analysed to calculate relative knowledge gained by using the formula:

Respondents will be categorised into three groups viz. low [total score on knowledge less than (Mean-½ S.D.)], moderate [total score on knowledge between (Mean±½S.D.)] and high [total score on knowledge more than (Mean+½S.D.)]. Paired t-test/ANOVA was used to analyse the data of the pretest and post-test. Hundal et al., (2016) [32] ; Chakraborty et al., (2022) [16] also used this method to assess the knowledge gained by the trainees.

Hypothesis H0:

There is no significant difference in the knowledge level of trainees before and after the training programme.

Result and Discussion

A) Demographic profile of respondents

This section consists of the socio-profile characteristics of the trainees. The socio-economic profile of trainees such as fish farmers and officials of the line department and other extension personnel (fishery officer, fishery inspector, subject matter specialist and other extension officers) who participated in oncampus or off-campus training programmes conducted by the College of Fisheries, CAU, Lembucherra, Tripura. The socio-economic profile included age, gender, education, family size, occupation and mass media contact, and the psychological profile includes innovativeness, Market orientation, scientific orientation, economic orientation, and perception level of trainees. Observed from Figure 1, the socioeconomic profile of the trainees revealed that most farmer respondents were young (59.04%), female (60.11%), belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category (44.68%), and had education up to the high school level (39.36%). Education has consistently been identified as an important determinant of technology adoption and decision-making among farmers (Rogers, 2003 [56] ; Kumar, 2020; Rahman et al., 2019 [53] ; Muddassir et al., 2022). Whereas 50 percent of department official trainees were young [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] , 80 percent were male, and 100 percent of line department respondent were having education above higher secondary. This indicates that the young age group is more receptive to innovation and improved technology. Similar findings were reported by Rajan et al., (2011) [54] , Kumar and Sharma (2018) [35] , Rahman et al., (2019) [53] , Saha and Dutta (2018) [58] , and Argade et al., (2023), who observed that the majority of fish farmers belonged to the young and middle-aged categories. Similar observations regarding gender participation in aquaculture and fisheriesrelated activities were reported by Adewuyi et al., (2010) [2] , Ahmed et al., (2015) [3] , and Das et al., (2021) [21] . Most farmer trainees and line department trainees had mediumsized family's 57.98 percent and 62.50 per cent respectively. Similar findings were reported by Saha and Dutta (2018) [58] , Barman et al., (2017) [8] , and Islam et al., (2020) [33] , who found that most fish farming households belonged to the medium family-size category which is in line with the findings of Nirmalkar et al., (2022) [47] ., and possessed pond areas up to 0.40 ha (64.89%), corroborating the results of Upadhyay et al., (2012) [72] . Aquaculture was the primary occupation for 62.77 per cent of the farmers trainees where as 67.00 percent official of line department were engaged in aquaculture as a secondary occupation. Similar observations were reported by Rajan et [65] , who found fish farming to be the principal occupation of a majority of aquaculture farmers. Most farmer trainees belonged to the medium annual income category (81.91%). Furthermore, the majority of farmers trainees and line department trainees had medium levels (9.03-16.78) of mass media exposure 58.51 percent and 70.00 per cent, respectively. This finding corroborates the results of Pandey et al., (2014) [50] , Meena et al., (2017) [42] , Mande and Darade (2011) [40] , and Patel et al., (2020) [51] , who reported that most farmers possessed a medium level of mass media exposure and informationseeking behaviour. Singh and Tanwar (2020) [66] emphasized that extension services, ICT tools, and social media platforms play a crucial role in disseminating information and enhancing technology adoption among fish farmers. According to Singh et al., (2010) [67] , adoption decisions for beekeeping were highly influenced by trainee occupation and age, while adoption decisions for mushroom cultivation were significantly influenced by family income and education. Form the table 1 observed that the psychological profile of the respondents (farmers and line department trainees), where majority of the farmers trainees (77.66%) and line department trainees (72.50%) were exhibiting the medium level (10.07-13.47) of the innovativeness, market orientation 67.02 percent farmers trainees and 70.00 percent had medium level of market orientation, medium level of scientific orientation for farmers trainees (70.21%) and line department trainees (72.50%), medium economic orientation for farmers trainees (62.23%) and for line department trainees (72.50%). Similar trends were reported by Dubey et al., 2011; Goswami, 2016) [24,30] , who found that fish farmers commonly exhibit moderate levels of adoption-related characteristics. These findings indicate that the trainees were predominantly small-scale fish farmers with moderate socio-economic status and considerable potential to benefit from training and extension intervene. www.extensionjournal.com [64] and Biswas et al., (2008) [13] as a significant change in the knowledge score of dairy farmers after attending training. The result suggests that the training programme conducted by the College of Fisheries, Lembucherra, Agartala, both on-campus and off-campus has a positive impact on the knowledge level of the farmers trainees. 6) was found to be significant, which clearly indicate that there was a significant increase in knowledge level after attending the training programme. An average of 52.08 per cent of line department trainees knew pond construction and water quality management prior to the training programme, whereas this proportion was increased significantly (P<0.01) after the training programme (70.50%), similarly about 56.67 per cent line department trainees had prior knowledge on the subject of fish rearing and feed management, which increased to 69.04 per cent after the training programme. Similarly, on the subject of breeding and larva rearing, more than half of the respondents (44.17%) had knowledge prior to the training programme, which significantly (P<0.05) improved after the training programme (58.33%). It also revealed that an average of 31.25 per cent of line department trainees had prior knowledge about the health care management of fish, after the training programme, the average improved to 56.88 per cent of responses. In the context of harvest and post-harvest technology, an average of 60.00 per cent of line department trainees had prior knowledge, which improved by 80.63 per cent after the training programme. The data further revealed that 43.75 per cent of line department trainees had prior knowledge about information and communication technology, which significantly (P<0.05) improved (70.63%) after the training programme. Overall, increase from 47.99 per cent to 67.67% of line department trainees' knowledge in different dimensions of fisheries and aquaculture after the training programme and this increase was significant at P<0.01. Results of the paired t-test indicated that there was a significant difference in the knowledge level of the line department trainees prior to and after the training programme. The mean score for pretraining knowledge was (Mean= 14.58, n=40) and the mean score for the post-training knowledge was (Mean=19.95, n=40). The test statistics revealed that there is a significant difference in the mean score of knowledge score of trainees before and after the training programme at the 0.0090 level (2-tailed). Results suggest that the training programme conducted by the College of Fisheries Lembucherra has a positive and significant impact on the knowledge level of the line department trainees. www.extensionjournal.com

Relative knowledge gain

Relative Knowledge Gain (RKG) was calculated to assess the percentage increase in trainees' knowledge relative to Singh and Tanwar (2020) [66] reported that vocational training programmes on integrated fish farming significantly enhanced trainees' knowledge levels, confirming the usefulness of knowledge gain measures in evaluating fisheries training programmes.

C) Relationship of Independent variables with Knowledge gain by trainees

From Table 7, it is evident that education, experience and innovativeness have positive and significant correlation with knowledge level on fish farming of the trainees. From this, it is evident that as education increases, the level of knowledge of trainees also increases. It facilitates their having better access to farm information sources such as farm magazines, farm bulletins, books on aquaculture, etc. and possessing a better capacity to grasp things and analyze and interpret them in proper ways. Further, educated people have more exposure to extension agencies, scientists, research stations, etc., which also contributes to their increased knowledge. The similar finding was reported Sriramana (2014) [69] . In the case of farming experience, the table shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between farming experience and the knowledge level of trainees, It is evident that as farming experience increases, the level of knowledge of trainees also increases. This might be due to most of the fisheries trainees having medium farming experience, which allows them to grasp training concepts more easily and apply new knowledge effectively during the training programme. Their practical experience could enhance their ability to relate the theoretical concept to real-world situations. It is clear from the table that there was a positive and significant relationship between innovativeness and the level of knowledge of the trainees. This means that the higher the innovativeness of the trainees, the higher the level of knowledge gained. This trend might be because farmers with high innovativeness desire to seek changes in farming techniques and introduce changes in their own operations. This desire makes him acquire innovations directly from scientists in terms of knowledge about recommended practices.

Discussion

The findings revealed that the majority of fish farmer trainees belonged to the young age group, indicating a greater willingness among younger farmers to adopt innovations and participate in training programmes (Bello, 2000; Argade et al.,, 2023) [10] . According to Singh et al., (2010) [67] Age and trainee occupation had significant influence on the adoption decision of beekeeping vocation, whereas education and family income significantly affected the adoption decision of farmers. Most respondents had education up to the high school level, which may facilitate better understanding and adoption of improved aquaculture practices (Abdullahi, 2010) [1] . Similar findings were reported by Nyamwamu et al., (2014) [48] and Chauhan et al., (2022) [18] . The majority of respondents belonged to medium-sized families and possessed pond areas up to 0.40 ha, reflecting the predominance of small-scale fish farming. Similar observations were reported by Upadhyay et al., (2012) [72] . Small pond owners can benefit significantly from training programmes that enhance productivity and resource utilisation. Family size also influences household income and labour availability (Ali et al.,, 1995) [4] . Most trainees had limited fish farming experience, which may increase their willingness to learn and adopt improved technologies (Lawal, 2021) [37] . The respondents exhibited medium levels of economic orientation, market orientation, mass media exposure, and extension contact, all of which positively contributed to training effectiveness. Similar findings have been reported by Singh et al., (2023), Sangma et al., (2022) [61] , and Sennuga et al., (2020) [62] . The increase in knowledge may be attributed to the practical demonstrations, expert interactions, and need-based training content provided during the programme. Similar results were reported by Senthilkumar et al., (2016) [63] , who found substantial improvement in knowledge levels of fish farmers after training interventions. Sennuga et al., (2020) [43] indicate that a number of factors, including the number of years of education of the household head, sex, size of farmland owned by farmers, distance from household to the training center (ATDC), association membership, access to extension advice, credit, and irrigation farm, are likely to have a significant impact on the farmers' participation in the training program. The findings revealed that the majority of fish farmer trainees belonged to the young age group, indicating a greater willingness among younger farmers to adopt innovations and participate in training programmes (Bello, 2000; Argade et al.,, 2023) [10] . According to Singh et al., (2010) [67] Age and trainee occupation had significant influence on the adoption decision of beekeeping vocation, whereas education and family income significantly affected the adoption decision of farmers. Most respondents had education up to the high school level, which may facilitate better understanding and adoption of improved aquaculture practices (Abdullahi, 2010) [1] . Similar findings were reported by Nyamwamu et al., (2014) [48] and Chauhan et al., (2022) [18] . The majority of respondents belonged to medium-sized families and possessed pond areas up to 0.40 ha, reflecting the predominance of small-scale fish farming. Similar observations were reported by Upadhyay et al., (2012) [72] . Small pond owners can benefit significantly from training programmes that enhance productivity and resource utilisation. Family size also influences household income and labour availability (Ali et al.,, 1995) [4] . Most trainees had limited fish farming experience, which may increase their willingness to learn and adopt improved technologies (Lawal, 2021) [37] . The respondents exhibited medium levels of economic orientation, market orientation, mass media exposure, and extension contact, all of which positively contributed to training effectiveness. Similar findings have been reported by Singh et al., (2023), Sangma et al., (2022) [61] , and Sennuga et al., (2020) [62] . The increase in knowledge may be attributed to the practical demonstrations, expert interactions, and need-based training content provided during the programme. Similar results were reported by Senthilkumar et al., (2016) [63] , who found substantial improvement in knowledge levels of fish farmers after training interventions. Sennuga et al., (2020) also emphasized that training enhances farmers' knowledge, skills, and capacity to adopt improved technologies. Likewise, Lynton and Pareek (2011) stated that training serves as a systematic process for increasing knowledge, developing skills, and bringing desirable changes in attitudes and behaviour. The findings are further supported by Chauhan et al., (2022), who reported significant knowledge enhancement among fisheries trainees following participation in structured training programmes. Therefore, the observed knowledge gain confirms that training is an effective extension tool for strengthening the technical competence of fish farmers and promoting the adoption of improved aquaculture practices. The positive effectiveness of training programmes observed in the study is in agreement with the findings of Senthilkumar et al., (2016), who reported significant improvements in knowledge and skills among trained fish farmers. Overall, socio-economic and communication characteristics played an important role in influencing the effectiveness of fisheries training programmes. The findings of Mgendi et al. •, (2021) [43] indicate that a number of factors, including the number of years of education of the household head, sex, size of farmland owned by farmers, distance from household to the training center (ATDC), association membership, access to extension advice, credit, and irrigation farm, are likely to have a significant impact on the farmers' participation in the training program.

Conclusion

From this research finding it can be concluded that the training programmes conducted by the College of Fisheries, Agartala, Tripura, in different subject areas: fish processing, fish by product, aquaculture, pathology, marketing and information and communication technology, have improved the knowledge, skill, and overall confidence of the farmers from the northeast India who participated in the training programmes. In the context of the knowledge gain, the majority of trainees acquired skills and knowledge in training programmes from the base knowledge; evidence from the relative knowledge gain and paired t-test score showed a significant difference. Overall, the training programmes were highly effective in terms of knowledge and skill gain. To further improve the effectiveness of training programmes, the majority of the trainees suggested that adequate duration for training should be provided, more focus should be given on the practical portion etc.  Funding: There was no funding support for conducting this research.  Declaration of competing interest: Authors have no competing interests.  Data availability: Data would be made available on request

References

1. Abdullahi OE. Comparative study of Kwara state secondary school students, habits in the English language. Its implication for counselling. Edu Res. 2010;1(6):25-30.
2. Adewuyi SA, Phillip BB, Ayinde IA, Akerele D. Analysis of profitability of fish farming in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 2010;31(3):179184.
3. Ahmed N, Thompson S, Glaser M. Global aquaculture productivity and women's participation. Aquaculture International. 2015;23(5):1225-1240.
4. Ali MH, Hossain MD, Hasan ANGM, Alam MF, Bashar MA. Assessment of the livelihood status of the fish farmers in some selected areas of Bagmara upazilla www.extensionjournal.com under Rajshahi district. J Bangladesh Agri Univ. 1995;6(2):367-374.
5. Anonymous. Handbook on Fisheries Statistics 2018-19. Fisheries Statistics Division, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Dairying Department of Fisheries, Government of India; 2019.https://dof.gov.in/sites/default/files/202008/HandbookonFS2018.pdf
6. Barman D, Mandal SC, Kumar V. Aquaculture status and potential in the northeastern region of India. World Aquac. 2012;43(1):26.
7. Barman U, Kumar B, Singh AK. Socio-economic profile of fish farmers in India. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 2017;64(4):123-128.
8. Beach DS. Personal-The management of People at work. New York: MacMillan publishing company; 1980.
9. Bello MO. Cauterization of potential adopters for organic-based fertilizer among vegetable farmers in Ojo LGA, Lagos State, Nigeria. B.Sc. (Agri) Thesis, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta; 2000.
10. Little D, Squires D. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current evidence. World Dev. 2016;79:177-196.
11. Biswas S, Sarkar A, Goswami A. Impact of KVK training on advance dairy farming practices (ADFPS) in changing knowledge and attitude of Prani-Bandhu. J Dairy Foods Home Sci. 2008;27(1):43-46.
12. Boulmetis J, Dutwin P. The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley; 2000.
13. Campbell D, Stanley JC. Experimental and Quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.
14. Chakraborty A, Pathak PK, Nath LK, Das J, Bhuyan S, Hazarika D, et al. Assessment of Knowledge Gain of Farmers on Attending Training Programmes on Scientific Dairy Farming. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(6):67-72.
15. Chakravarty S, Suresh CP, Puri A, Shukla G. North-east India, the geographical gateway of India's Phyto diversity. Indian For. 2012;138(8):702.
16. Chauhan JK, Meena BS, Meena HR, Bhakat C, Upadhyay AD, Lahiri B, et al. Assessment of livelihood security and diversification of tribal dairy farmers in NEH region of India. Indian Res J Ext Edu. 2022;22(3):182-187.
17. Cheteni P. Youth participation in agriculture in the Nkonkobe District Municipality, South Africa. J Hum Ecol. 2016;55:207-213.
18. Christiaensen L, Demery L, Kuhl J. The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction-an empirical perspective. J Dev Econ. 2011;96:239-254.
19. Das P, Mishra S, Mohanty RK. Gender participation in fisheries and aquaculture sector. Journal of Fisheries Sciences. 2021;15(2):45-53.
20. De Alan B, MH S. Linkages between poverty, food security and undernutrition: evidence from China and India. China Agric Econ Rev. 2015;7:655-667.
21. De LC, Singh DR. Natural resources in North East region of India. Int J Agric Sci Res. 2017;7(5):51-66.
22. Dubey MK, Rajan P, Agrawal S, Chauhan S. Assessing knowledge and adoption of fish farmers about fish production technology in Madhya Pradesh. Indian J Ext Educ. 2011;47(3-4):158-163.
23. FAO. Aquaculture practices in northeast India: current status and future direction. 2011. https://agris.Fao.Org/agris-
24. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children's Fund, World Food Programme, World Health Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024: Financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. Rome: FAO; 2024.
25. Ganesh M, Indradevi R. Importance and effectiveness of training and development. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015;6(1):334.
26. Goldstein IL. Training in Organizations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1993.
27. Gopal K. Effectiveness of executive training programs. Indian J Comer. 2008;62(3):143-150.
28. Goswami B. Factors influencing the adoption behaviour of fish farmers towards scientific fish culture. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India. 2016;48(1):84-92.
29. Gyimah-Brempong K, Kimenyi MS. Youth Policy and the Future of African Development. African Growth Initiative; 2013.
30. Hundal JS, Singh U, Singh N, Kansan SK, Bhatti JS. Impact of training on knowledge level of goat farmers in Punjab. Haryana Vet. 2016;55(1):47-49.
31. Islam MS, Rahman MM, Haque ME. Socio-economic characteristics of fish farming households. Aquaculture Reports. 2020;18:100456.
32. Wanjiku J, Mairura F, Place F. Assessment of Professional Training Programmes in International Agricultural Research Institutions: The Case of ICRAF. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2010;16(4):413431.https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2010.515064
33. Kumar R, Sharma P. Characteristics of fish farmers and adoption behaviour. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2018;18(3):62-67.
34. Kumar ST, Shivani P. Marine fisheries; its current status, sustainable management and socio-economic status of the marine fishers of Odisha, through Indian Marine Policy: A casestudy. Res J Anim Vet Fishery Sci. 2014;2(7):10-19.
35. Lawal AA. Assessment of the benefits derived by Agric-yes participants on integrated fish farming in Lagos state, Nigeria. Niger J Fish. 2021;18(1):30-36.
36. Lundy M. Learning Alliances with Development Partners. A Framework for Outscaling Research Outputs. CIAT Annual Review; 2002.http://clayuca.org/ www.extensionjournal.com
37. Lynton RP, Pareek U. Training for development (3rd ed.). Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd; 2000.
38. Mande JV, Darade NW. Communication behaviour of farmers in relation to information sources. Maharashtra J Ext Educ. 2011;30(1):75-79.
39. McEvoy GM, Buller PF. Five Uneasy Pieces in the Training Evaluation Puzzle. Training Dev J. 1990;44(8):3942.
40. Meena MS, Singh KM, Swanson BE. Information and communication behaviour of farmers. Indian J Ext Educ. 2017;53(1):34-39.
41. Mgendi G, Mao S, Qiao F. Is a Training Program Sufficient to Improve the Smallholder Farmers' Productivity in Africa? Empirical Evidence from a Chinese Agricultural Technology Demonstration Center in Tanzania. Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1527.https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031527
42. Misra M. Training HRD for sustainable agricultural development. Indian J Ext Educ. 1999;35(1&2):56-59.
43. Muddassir M, Noor MA, Ahmed A, Aldosari F, Waqas MA, Zia MA, et al. Awareness and adoption level of fish farmers regarding recommended fish farming practices in Hafizabad, Pakistan. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci. 2019;18(1):41-48.
44. Munilkumar S, Nandeesha MC. Aquaculture practices in Northeast India: Current status and future directions. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry. 2007;33(4):399412.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-007-9163-4
45. Nirmalkar C, Lahiri B, Ghosh A, Pal P, Baidya S, Shil B, et al. Perceived knowledge and attitude of fisheries extension professionals on usage of ICTs in Tripura. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2022;58(2):5864.
46. Nyamwamu RO, Ombati JM, Mwangi JG. Effectiveness of agricultural training centres 'curriculum in promoting the adoption of agricultural technologies: Evidence from smallscale potato farmers in Nyandarua County, Kenya. 2014.
47. Ostroff C. Training effectiveness measures and scoring schemes: a comparison. Personnel Psychology. 1991;44(2):353-374.
48. Pandey DK, Upadhayay AD, Datta MK, Biswas P. Information sources utilization pattern among tribal fish farmers. Fishery Technology. 2014;51(4):306-310.
49. Patel D, Chauhan NM, Patel MM. Mass media utilization by farmers. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2020;31(1):67-72.
50. Rahman MM, Hossain MS, Islam MR. Influence of socio-economic characteristics on adoption of fish farming technologies. Aquaculture Studies. 2019;19(2):87-95.
51. Rajan P, Dubey MK, Agrawal S, Chauhan S. Assessing knowledge and adoption of fish farmers about fish production technology. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2011;47(3&4):78-82.
52. Rajeev P, Madan MS, Jarayajan K. Revisiting Kirkpatricks Model*An Evaluation of an Academic Training Course. Current Science. 2009;96(2):272-276.
53. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.
54. Roser M, Ortiz-Ospina E. Global education. Our World in Data. 2016. https://ourworldindata.org/globaleducation
55. Saha D, Dutta S. Socio-economic characteristics of fish farming households and their implications for aquaculture development. Journal of Fisheries Sciences. 2018;12(1):15-22.
56. Sahoo UK. Parkia roxburghii: an underutilized but multipurpose tree species for reclamation of jhum land. Curr Sci. 2013;104:1598-1599.
57. Salvago MR, Phiboon K, Faysse N, Nguyen TPL. Young people's willingness to farm under present and improved conditions in Thailand. Outlook Agric. 2019;48:282-291.
58. Sangma N, Das P, Bora P. Effectiveness of the Training Programme on the Trainees: A Study in Assam. Indian Res J Ext Edu. 2022;22(2):96-100.
59. Sennuga SO, Oyewole SO. Exploring the effectiveness of agricultural technologies training among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan African communities. Eur J Train Dev Stud. 2020;7(4):1-15.
60. Senthilkumar K, Devaki K, Subramanian R. Assessment of the effectiveness of training programmes through perception of Krishi Vigyan Kendra Trainees. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2016;14(1):96-98.
61. Sharma M, Singh G, Keshava. Impact evaluation of training programmes on dairy farming in Punjab state. Indian Res J Ext Edu. 2014;14(1):105-108.
62. Singh AK, Kumar R, Verma S. Occupational pattern and livelihood status of fish farmers. Indian J Fish. 2021;68(2):98-104.
63. Singh K, Tanwar PS. Impact evaluation of integrated fish farming vocational trainings on knowledge gain by trainees. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(3):510-513.
64. Singh K, Peshin R, Saini SK. Evaluation of the agricultural vocational training programmes conducted by the Krishi Vigyan Kendras (Farm Science Centres) in Indian Punjab. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop. 2010;111(2):65-77.
65. Singh LS, Uchoi A, Das G. Impact of farm mechanization training on knowledge development of farmers: A study in Kamrup district of Assam. Indian Res J Ext Edu. 2023;23(2):81-85.
66. Sriramana V. A study on the knowledge and adoption of cashew growers in Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. M.sc Thesis, Submitted to the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University Bapatla, India; 2014.
67. Tacon AJ. Trends in global aquaculture and aqua feed production: 2000-2017. Rev Fish Sci Aquacult. 2020;28:43-56.
68. Topno H. Evaluation of training and development: An analysis of various models. J Bus Manag. 2012;5(2):1622.
69. Upadhyay AD, Patel AB, Pandey DK. Analysis of food security of fish farmers of Tripura using clustering technique. J Com Mobil Sustain Dev. 2012;7(1):32-37.
70. Yeboah T, et al. Hard work and hazard: young people and agricultural commercialisation in Africa. J Rural Stud. 2020;76:142-151.