Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20

Download by: [National Academy of Agricultural Research Management] Date: 03 July 2016, At: 23:08

The Journal of Agricultural Education and ExtensionCompetence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: 1389-224X (Print) 1750-8622 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Academic achievement and personality traitsof faculty members of Indian agriculturaluniversities: their effect on teaching and researchperformance

P. Ramesh, K. M. Reddy, R. V. S. Rao, A. Dhandapani, G. Samba Siva & A.Ramakrishna

To cite this article: P. Ramesh, K. M. Reddy, R. V. S. Rao, A. Dhandapani, G. Samba Siva & A.Ramakrishna (2016): Academic achievement and personality traits of faculty members ofIndian agricultural universities: their effect on teaching and research performance, The Journalof Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2016.1202845

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1202845

Published online: 01 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Academic achievement and personality traits of facultymembers of Indian agricultural universities: their effect onteaching and research performanceP. Ramesha, K. M. Reddya, R. V. S. Raoa, A. Dhandapania, G. Samba Sivaa andA. Ramakrishnab

aICAR – National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad, India; bDepartment ofEducation, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India

ABSTRACTPurpose: The present study was undertaken to assess academicachievement, teaching aptitude and research attitude of Indianagricultural universities’ faculty, to predict indicators for successfulteachers and researchers, and thereby enhancing the quality ofhigher agricultural education. Methodology: Five hundred facultymembers were selected to elicit information on academic,teaching and research achievements. Teaching aptitude andattitude of faculty towards research were measured throughstandard psychometric tests. Correlation and regression analysiswas carried out to establish the relationship among selectedvariables. Findings: Combination of academic achievement andteaching aptitude was a superior predictor for the teachingachievement compared to either of them alone. Similarly, researchachievement of faculty was predicted better by the combinationof academic achievement and research attitude. PracticalImplications: The study showed the need for training facultymembers in interpersonal relationships for effective teaching, andin research methodology and research processes for improvingresearch attitude of faculty. Theoretical Implications: The expectancy-value model provides a useful framework to understand the role ofattitude/aptitude in better prediction of research and teachingbehavior. Originality/Value: The present study showed that teachingaptitude and research attitude be considered along with academicachievements for promoting quality teaching and research andhence the educational programmes.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 29 January 2015Accepted 14 June 2016

KEYWORDSTeaching aptitude;research attitude;agricultural education;academic achievement;teaching achievement;research achievement;quality of teaching; qualityof research

Introduction

India is an agrarian country. Agriculture and allied activities act as the main source of live-lihood for more than 80% population of rural India and they contribute 14.5% to grossdomestic product (Ayyappan 2012). Higher agricultural education is the backbone ofthe national agricultural research and extension systems. A strong network of agriculturaleducational institutions is the foundation for producing quality human resource and

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT P. Ramesh rameshp@ naarm.ernet.in ICAR – National Academy of Agricultural Research Management,Hyderabad 500 030, India

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1202845

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

relevant research for a range of stakeholders in the food chain (Rama Rao, Muralidhar,and Kalla 2007). Indian higher agricultural education system embraces at present 59State Agricultural Universities (SAUs), 2 Central Agricultural Universities, 5 Deemed-to-be Universities (DUs), 4 Central Universities with agriculture faculty, and one OpenAgricultural University.

These SAUs are modelled on US land grant university pattern with one fundamentaldifference, that is, the functions of teaching, research and extension are not fully inte-grated. As the research being done is not always relevant to farmer’s needs and responsi-bility of extension service is with the state department of agriculture, the linkages betweenresearch and extension are rather weak. Furthermore, SAUs also heavily depend on stategovernments for funding, approval of appointing and promoting faculty (Tamboli andNene 2011). Agricultural universities established in India initially were multi-facultymono-campus universities. With time, most of them have become multi-campus univer-sities. Nineteen have become specialised universities (Veterinary, Animal and FisherySciences-13, Fishery Sciences-2, Horticulture and Forestry-4). Presently, the number ofcolleges stand at 623 (360 in SAUs/DUs, 160 colleges affiliated to SAUs and 103 collegesin general universities and other institutions). These institutions annually admit about40,000 students at all levels in agriculture and allied sciences in the country. At the under-graduate level, education is imparted in 13 disciplines while at the postgraduate level, it isimparted in more than 90 subjects. (ICAR 2012).

The SAUs are established through the enactment of Legislative Acts of respective States.Through a Cabinet decision in 1973, the Department of Agricultural Research and Edu-cation was given the responsibility of coordinating agricultural education in the countryand it has been discharging this function through the Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR). ICAR is equivalent of University Grant commission in matters ofpolicy suggestions for agricultural education in the country, but has no regulatory auth-ority on SAUs. The major financial support to SAUs comes from the respective State Gov-ernments which also exercise functional and policy controls. ICAR provides professionaland partial financial support for enhancing the quality, relevance and uniformity of higheragricultural education in the country (NAEP 2012).

Agricultural education has to keep pace with scientific advances in the emerging fieldslike biotechnology, food processing, communications and marketing. In addition to focus-ing on skill sets as per market demands, education must keep pace with global standardsconsidering environmental and sustainability aspects. Food security and its relationship tosustainable agricultural and rural development have increasingly become matters ofconcern for developing countries and so also for the international community. Whilethere are many complex factors that influence sustainable development and food security,higher agricultural education plays an important role in preparing farmers, researchers,educators, extension staff, agri-entrerpreneurs and other stakeholders to make productivecontributions. A critical issue in the twenty-first century will be the changes and adap-tations required in agricultural education in order to contribute more effectivelytowards improved food security, sustainable agricultural production and rural develop-ment (NAAS 2005).

2 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Challenges and issues

The agricultural education in India is faced with a big challenge to identify its role inequipping the human resources for enhanced agricultural productivity and sustainableuse of natural resources. There is also a strong need to integrate teaching, research andextension functions of SAUs as they form the interrelated, theoretical and practicalbasis of modern agricultural education in India. In spite of the significant contributionsmade by the ICAR and Agricultural Universities for human resource development inthe agricultural arena, the present Indian higher agricultural education sector is facingthe following critical challenges as reported by Challa, Joshi, and Tamboli (2011) andTamboli and Nene (2013):

(1) Inadequate and substandard quality of human resources in agricultural universities.(2) Funding crunch in agricultural universities.(3) Lack of central regulatory authority for quality assurance in agricultural education.(4) Declining quality of students admitted to agricultural universities.(5) Weaknesses in teaching–learning process.(6) Lack of networking and partnerships with professional institutions.(7) Declining quality of agricultural education.(8) Inadequate students’ assessment tools.(9) Poor internet connectivity to assess national and international journals.

(10) Lack of concerted efforts for faculty development.(11) Poor centre–state relations and relations between the universities and state

departments.(12) Unresolved organisational and management issues.

Quality teaching and research

Manpower is one of the main issues for colleges in agricultural universities and it is also anissue of quality assessment (Challa et al. 2007). The quality of any educational programmeis largely determined by the competence and performance of its teachers. Ever since Boyer(1990) defined the scholarship of teaching as distinct from the scholarship of research, theissue of links tying teaching to research has been the most controversial one among scho-lars writing on quality teaching. Some scholars suggest that there is a strong, symbiotic linkbetween teaching and research. Teaching should not be separated from research andindeed, ‘professors teach best what they know best’ (Benowski 1991). Stephenson(2001) stated that one of the characteristics of extraordinary teachers is that they havepassion for their field. Yair (2008) also noticed that memories of extraordinary professorsoften described how these teachers were passionate about their subject matter. Thispassion may arise through research. Therefore, research could help professors to bebetter teachers. The real relationship between quality in research and quality in teachinglies in the intellectual rigour and scholarship involved in their enhancement processes(Gibbs 1995).

The definition of quality teaching is related to each teacher’s values, aptitudes and atti-tudes. Teaching is a dynamic activity, which has strong subjective aspects, which depend

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

on personal and collective philosophy, and values (IMHE 2009). Although an educationalsystem has excellent resources, if the teachers are lacking teaching aptitude and are incom-petent or indifferent to their responsibilities, the whole programme is likely to be ineffec-tive and largely wasteful. Several studies have provided substantial evidence favouringteacher aptitude, for teaching effectiveness and quality education (Beena 1995; Kanti2013; Kaur, Singh, and Sangha 2014; Ramesh and Reddy 2015). Complexity and multi-dimensional nature of teacher aptitude warrants a comprehensive study of factorsrelated to it. Teachers are the focus of many quality teaching initiatives.

The attitude towards teaching and research are multifaceted and faculty membersbelieve that teaching and research are mutually supportive and represent the basicmission of the universities; the reward system influences teaching staff’s participation inresearch, while both teaching and research offer satisfaction. Though teaching andresearch are incompatible, they have a positive effect on teaching. However, t-test analysesshow that the faculty differs in the strength of their attitudes due to institutional affiliationsand personal characteristics (Olugbenga 2003)

Teaching and research are central to the delivery of higher education. The relation-ship between teaching and research is fundamental in defining the distinctive natureof the university as an institution (Taylor 2007). However, both these jobs requirespecialised skills in order to excel. For example, teaching needs three qualities: knowl-edge is the first, communication skill is the second and aptitude is the third. Likewise,to be a successful researcher, one should have a high aptitude for research, innovationand creativity. To be successful in any profession, a cluster of personality traits suitablefor that profession are required. These psychological attributes (aptitude, personalitytraits and attitude) are important components in the selection, placement and trainingof manpower in any profession including teaching and research (Jensen 1987; Rameshand Reddy 2015).

Assessing teaching aptitude and research attitude besides academic achievementsamong faculty members are likely to predict indicators for successful teachers andresearchers for improving the quality of higher agricultural education. Studies to assessteaching aptitude and research attitude, and their relationship with the performance ofteachers and researchers in higher education, with specific reference to faculty of IndianAgricultural Universities were not available.

Theoretical foundation

In this study, Fishbein’s expectancy-value theory was applied. This theory suggests that, aperson’s attitude determines the intended behaviour which in turn affects outcome (Fish-bein and Ajzen 1975). Accordingly, a person’s positive or negative attitude influences theperson’s favourable disposition to engage in the activity and its outcome. Numerousresearch studies were conducted to test the relationship between attitude and academicachievement. Most of them indicated higher possibility of good academic performancewith higher positive attitude towards academics. House (1995) conducted a longitudinalstudy and found that attitude had a powerful influence on student’s academic achieve-ment. However, Mickelson (1990) stated that academic achievement depended on anumber of variables; significant among them are ethnic background and social class,which is also supported by the study of Ma and Kishor (1997).

4 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

A positive correlation between attitude towards research and academic achieve-ment was reported by Lilian (2012). According to Sridevi (2010), research attitudedid not significantly differ with respect to gender, marital status and the subjectstreams. It is proved by Mishra and Chincholikar (2014) that aptitude along withanxiety is a significant predictor of achievement but attitude is not a significant pre-dictor of achievement.

Another study by Sajan (2010) found that achievement has no apparent influence onteaching aptitude. Teaching aptitude and academic achievement of teacher trainees ispositive and low, according to Fatima and Humera (2011), and they also reported thatthese variables do not differ with respect to gender. The teaching aptitude and attitudetowards teaching conjointly predicted teaching skills significantly higher compared totheir individual prediction for prospective science teachers (Appadurai and Saraladevi2015). The said study also concluded that there is a positive correlation between teacherattitude and teaching aptitude. In view of the inconsistent findings of the variablesunder study, the present investigation was undertaken to elicit the influence of teachingaptitude, research attitude and academic achievement on teaching and research achieve-ments of the faculty of Agricultural universities across India.

Research methodology

Sample

The present study was conducted on faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Universitieswho have participated in various capacity-building training programmes organised bythe National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM), Hyderabad,India during 2012–2014. A total of 500 faculty members (280 from Veterinary and 220from Agricultural Universities) from different States of India participated in this study(Table 1). They were in the cadres of Assistant Professor (n = 368), Associate Professor(n = 80) and Professor (n = 52). Among the participants, 28% were females (n = 141)and 72% were males (n = 359). The age of participants ranged from 25 to 57 years withan average of 39.5 years (SD = 5.2).

Table 1. Name of the universities and number of faculty members involved in the study.S. no. Name of the university Sample size

1. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh 1452. Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar, Karnataka 603. Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, Maharashtra 554. Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 20

Total (Veterinary universities) 2805. Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 426. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chattisgarh 387. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Srinagar 318. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra 279. Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra 2410. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 1611. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Dharwad and Raichur, Karnataka 1412. Other Agricultural Universities (wherein, the sample size is less than 10) 28

Total (Agricultural universities) 220Grand Total 500

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Tools used for data collection

Personal information sheetThis sheet was prepared to collect information to assess and score the participant’s aca-demic, teaching and research achievements (Table 2). The academic achievements inIndian educational system is mainly measured through the marks/overall grade pointaverage (OGPA) obtained. The qualitative aspects of academics, to some extent, aremeasured through post-doctoral fellow/scholarships received by the participants. Teach-ing achievement is measured in qualitative terms through the teaching awards, newcourses and course material developed in a limited sense as per the scope which is quan-tified suitably. The other quality measures like peer evaluation and evaluation of teachersby the students are not in practice in the universities studied. Furthermore, researchachievement as measured by the number of externally funded projects, research articlesin peer-reviewed journals, professional recognitions, consultancy and so on are qualitativein true sense, which are quantified in the study.

Components for arriving at total scores for these parameters were based in principle onthe scorecard as reported in the ‘Guidelines for Screening of Applications’ for recruitmentof different scientific positions in ICAR (ASRB 2014). The respective weights allotted toeach component for arriving at total scores for different parameters assigned in thepresent study were based on the opinion and concurrence of senior faculty members ofboth Academy (NAARM) and Agricultural Universities.

Teaching Aptitude Test (TAT) (Gakhar and Rajnish 2010)This test was used to measure the level of aptitude of the faculty for teaching and com-prised 35 statements divided into six categories, namely (i) Teaching profession, (ii) Inter-est towards students, (iii) Social contacts, (iv) Innovations in teaching, (v) Professionalethics and (vi) Teaching potential.

Teaching profession category possesses items such as: You have taught 3–4 years. Thereis an opportunity to change the profession. Would you: (a) stick to teaching, (b) be unde-cided, (c) change temporarily and (d) avail the opportunity.

Table 2. Information collected from the faculty to assess academic, teaching and researchachievements.Domain Information

Academic achievement Percentage of marks/OGPA in undergraduate degree (40)a

Percentage of marks/OGPA in postgraduate degree (20)Percentage of marks/OGPA in Ph.D. (30)Post-doctoral fellow/NET score/Any other fellowships/scholarships (10)

Teaching achievement No. of courses taught /year/total credit load/year (40)Text books published/edited/book chapters (10)No. of students guided for PG/Ph.D. (10)Course materials developed (20)Teaching awards (10)New courses developed/participation in academic administration (10)

Research achievement Research output: improved varieties/breeds/strains/management practices/Patents (30)Publications: refereed/non-refereed papers/books/chapters/bulletins (30)Training programs organised (5)No. of externally funded projects handled (10)Professional recognitions (10)Research management/resource generation /consultancy (15)

aWeightage (%) given to calculate the achievement scores

6 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Interest towards students covered the disposition towards students with questions suchas: If your students point out any of your mistakes during teaching, then you will: (a)accept it, (b) say him to keep quiet, (c) come prepared the next day and (d) say him tosee you after the class.

The item ‘what type of social relationship should be there among your colleagues in theschool: a) pleasant and cooperative, b) pleasant, c) I do not care for others, d) there shouldbe rivalry’, tested the social contacts of the respondent.

Innovations in teaching are known through an item – ‘suppose there are no teachingaids in the school for teaching a particular lesson, then would you: a) teach withoutaids, b) prepare them, c) tell students there is no aid, d) insist on the head to purchase’.

Professional ethics is revealed through the items such as ‘you have read a new book fullof ideas on education. What will you do: a) keep the ideas to yourself, b) share them withall colleagues, d) hide the book’.

Finally, the items such as ‘for making the teaching efficient and interesting, you will: a)introduce long stories, b) dictates notes, c) present practical examples, d) teach with books’tested the teaching potential of a respondent.

Four alternative answers were given for each statement with only one correct answer,which could be found out with the help of scoring key. Each correct answer carried onemark. The maximum achievable score could be 35 and minimum 0. This score formedthe Raw Score for the test. For conversion of Raw Score into Standard Score, Z-ScoreNorms given were used. To find out the status of teaching aptitude, InterpretationNorms were also given. The tool is validated on the sample of pre-service teachers andwas found to have construct and content validity. Test–retest method was used forfinding reliability of the tool. Reliability coefficient was found to be 0.76, which is signifi-cant at the 0.01 level of significance.

Attitude Scale towards Research (ASTR) (Vishal Sood and Sharma 2012)This scale was intended to measure the attitude of faculty towards research work or studiesundertaken in their fields. It comprised 42 statements out of which 26 were of positive(favourable) type and remaining 16 items were negative (unfavourable) type. The distri-bution of these statements (both favourable and unfavourable) was spread among fourdimensions of attitude towards research, namely (i) General aspect of research andresearch process, (ii) Usefulness of research in professional career, (iii) Relevance ofresearch in personal and social life and (iv) Difficulties in research and research anxiety.

General aspects of research and research process of the respondents were found withthe help of items such as ‘It is my strong feeling that research requires an expert, accurateand systematic observation’.

Usefulness of research in professional career was found with help of items such as,‘Research is useful for my professional career’.

Relevance of research in personal and social life is measured through the items such as,‘I feel that society gets benefited from research’.

Difficulties in research and research anxiety are measured through the items such as, ‘Ifeel at ease with arithmetic and statistical computations in research’.

The method of summated rating (Likert 1932) was employed for constructing the presentscale. Each item/statement of the scale was to be rated on five consecutive points, that is,strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. An individual respondent’s

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

score on the attitude scale was obtained from the sum total of his/her ratings on all state-ments. The score on the scale could range from 42 to 210. The higher total score on thescale would reflect favourable attitude towards research and vice versa.

The tool is validated on Research scholars, postgraduate students of Psychology andEducation, Teacher Educators and College teachers of Himachal Pradesh. Validity ofthe tool is established through ‘Item analysis’ and items on the final tool had significantt-value. So, the tool has content, construct and empirical validity. The product momentcorrelation, that is, reliability index based on test–retest method was found to be 0.739,which is significant at the 0.01 level of significance and scale has high reliability.

Procedure

The data were collected during the faculty development training programmes conductedby the Academy, either on-campus (Hyderabad) or off-campus (at the respective univer-sity campuses). The duration of these training programmes ranged from 7 to 21 days. Dataon the personal information (as shown in Table 2) were collected from the faculty afterexplaining the purpose and objectives of the study. From the data, academic, teachingand research achievement scores (maximum 100) were calculated based on the weightageassigned to each parameter.

TAT and ASTR were administered to the faculty (on consequent days) after brieflyexplaining the purpose of these tests. Scoring keys and interpretation norms were providedto find out the level of teaching aptitude and research attitude of the faculty. The researcherpersonally administered the tool to the sample and collected the data. Tests were scored,tabulated and descriptive statistic indicators were calculated using MS Excel. Student t-test was employed to find out the significance of difference (P < .05) between the means.Correlation and regression analysis was carried out for the interpretation of the data.

Variables for the study

. Independent variables(i) Academic achievement: Faculty’s academic background, as given in Table 2.(ii) Teaching aptitude: innate ability of the respondent in the teaching activity.(iii) Research attitude: disposition of respondents towards research works or studies

undertaken in their fields for improving the quantum of knowledge and solvingvarious kinds of problems related to their concerned areas.

. Dependent variables(i) Teaching achievement: as given in Table 2.(ii) Research achievement: as given in Table 2.

Results

Academic, teaching and research achievements of faculty

In the present study, the average age of faculty of veterinary universities was 38 years,whereas the average age of faculty of agricultural universities was 41 years, with anoverall mean of 39.5 years (Table 3). The mean academic achievement score of the

8 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

faculty of veterinary universities (63) was found to be significantly higher (P < .05) com-pared to the mean score of agricultural universities faculty (55).

The mean teaching achievement score of the veterinary faculty (50) was significantlyhigher (P < .05) compared to the faculty of agricultural universities (47). Similarly,research achievement score of veterinary faculty (44) was significantly higher comparedto the faculty of agricultural universities (41).

Teaching aptitude of faculty

TAT scores of the sample (n = 500) varied from 16 to 33 (as minimum and maximum),with an average of 26.2 (Table 4). The TAT scores of faculty of veterinary (26.5) and agri-cultural (26) universities were almost similar, even though their distribution pattern(minimum and maximum values) was different.

Among six dimensions of teaching aptitude measured, scores of T2 dimension (interesttowards students) were the lowest in both veterinary (3) and agricultural (2.8) faculties asagainst the maximum possible score of 6. However, scores in different dimensions ofteaching aptitude did not differ significantly between the veterinary and agricultural fac-ulties in the study.

Out of the total sample (n = 500), 0.6, 4.0 and 24.2% of faculty have low, below averageand average level of teaching aptitude, respectively (Table 5). However, 55.4% of facultyhave above average teaching aptitude, 15.2% have high teaching aptitude and less than1% (0.6) has very high teaching aptitude. In general, agricultural universities havehigher proportion of faculty having above average (60%) and high aptitude (16.8%) cat-egory compared to the veterinary faculty (51.8% and 13.9%, respectively).

Research attitude of faculty

ASTR scores of the sample (n = 500) varied from 123 to 199 (as minimum and maximum),with an average of 167 (Table 6). The ASTR scores of faculty of veterinary (166) and

Table 3. Academic, teaching and research achievement scores of faculty of veterinary and agriculturaluniversities.

FacultyAv. age(yrs)

Academic achievementscore (per 100)

Teaching achievementscore (per 100)

Research achievementscore (per 100)

Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD

Veterinary (n = 280) 38 41 88 63 14.3 32 88 50 18.5 27 81 44 16.6Agriculture (n = 220) 41 34 83 55 15.6 28 79 47 20.3 23 73 41 19.9Average 39.5 37.5 85.5 59 14.9 30 83.5 48.5 19.4 25 77 42.5 18.2

Abbreviation: SD: standard deviation.

Table 4. TAT scores of faculty of veterinary and agricultural universities.

Faculty

TAT score (35)a Dimensions of teaching aptitude

Min Max Mean SD T1 (6)a T2 (6) T3 (5) T4 (5) T5 (6) T6 (7)

Veterinary (n = 280) 16 33 26.5 2.8 5 3 4 4 5 5.5Agriculture (n = 220) 20 30 26 2.5 5 2.8 4 4 5 5Average 18 31.5 26.2 2.6 5 2.9 4 4 5 5.3

T1, teaching profession, T2, interest towards students, T3, social contacts, T4, innovations, T5, professional ethics, and T6,Teaching potential.

aMaximum possible score.

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

agricultural (168) universities were almost similar, even though their distribution pattern(minimum and maximum values) was different.

Among the four dimensions of research attitude measured, the scores in R1 (Generalaspect of research and research process) and R4 dimensions (Difficulties of researchand research anxiety) were the lowest (56.5 and 43.5) compared to their maximum poss-ible scores (75 and 55). The scores in different dimensions of research attitude betweenveterinary and agricultural faculties did not differ.

Out of the total sample (n = 500), 2.0, 5.4 and 14.4% faculty recorded extremelyunfavourable, highly unfavourable and unfavourable levels of attitude towards research,respectively (Table 7). Overall, 38.8% faculty had moderately favourable while 22.8%had above average, 13.6% had highly favourable and 3.0% had extremely favourable atti-tude towards research. Agricultural universities have higher proportion of faculty havingabove average (27.7%) category compared to the veterinary faculty (19.0%).

Correlation and regression studies

In the present study, academic achievement was positively correlated with both the teach-ing (r = 505**) and research achievement (r = 0.559**) of faculty (Table 8). However,academic achievement was not found correlated with either the teaching aptitude or theresearch attitude of the faculty. There were significant positive correlations between theteaching aptitude and teaching achievement (r = 0.446**), research attitude and researchachievement (r = 0.457**) and teaching aptitude and research attitude (r = 0.237**).

Regression studies revealed that a combination of academic achievement and teachingaptitude was a better predictor of teaching achievement (r2 = 0.327) compared to eitherthe academic achievement (r2 = 0.255) or teaching aptitude (r2 = 0.198) of the faculty(Table 9). Similarly, research achievement was better predicted by the combination of aca-demic achievement and research attitude (r2 = 0.344) compared to either academicachievement (r2 = 0.312) or research attitude (r2 = 0.208) of the faculty.

Table 5. Teaching aptitude status of faculty of veterinary and agricultural universities.

Faculty

Teaching aptitude status (maximum possible score = 35)

Low(13–16)

Below average(17–20)

Average(21–24)

Above average(25–28)

High(29–32)

Very high(33 and more)

Veterinary (n = 280) 2 (0.7)a 11 (3.9) 81 (28.9) 145 (51.8) 39 (13.9) 2 (0.7)Agriculture (n = 220) 1 (0.4) 9 (4.1) 40 (18.2) 132 (60.0) 37 (16.8) 1 (0.4)Total (n = 500) 3 (0.6) 20 (4.0) 121 (24.2) 277 (55.4) 76 (15.2) 3 (0.6)aPer cent.

Table 6. ASTR scores of faculty veterinary and agricultural universities.

Faculty

ASTR score (210)* Dimensions of attitude towards research

Min Max Mean SD R1 (75)a R2 (40) R3 (40) R4 (55)

Veterinary (n = 280) 123 199 166 16.6 56 34 33 43Agriculture (n = 220) 136 195 168 14.6 57 34 33 44Average 129 197 167 15.6 56.5 34 33 43.5

Notes: R1, general aspects of research and research process, R2, usefulness of research in professional career, R3, relevanceof research in personal and social life, R4, difficulties in research and research anxiety.

*Maximum possible score.

10 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Table 7. Levels of Research Attitude of faculty of veterinary and agricultural universities.

Faculty

Levels of attitude towards research (max possible score = 210)

Extremely unfavourable(131 and below)

Highly unfavourable(132–143)

Unfavourable(144–155)

Moderatelyfavourable (156–171)

Above average(172–183)

Highly favourable(184–195)

Extremely favourable(196 and above)

Veterinary (n = 280) 7 (2.5)a 14 (5.0) 43 (15.3) 114 (40.7) 53 (19.0) 37 (13.2) 12 (4.3)Agriculture (n = 220) 3 (1.4) 13 (5.9) 29 (13.2) 80 (36.3) 61 (27.7) 31 (14.1) 3 (1.4)Total (n = 500) 10 (2.0) 27 (5.4) 72 (14.4) 194 (38.8) 114 (22.8) 68 (13.6) 15 (3.0)aPer cent.

Table 8. Correlation coefficients between variables.

Faculty

Academic achievementvs. Teachingachievement

Academic achievementvs. Researchachievement

Academicachievement vs.Teaching aptitude

Academicachievement vs.Research attitude

Teaching aptitude vs.Teaching

achievement

Research attitude vs.Research

achievement

Teachingaptitude vs.

Research attitude

Veterinary (n = 280) 0.513** 0.589** 0.110 0.115 0.423* 0.429* 0.129*Agriculture (n = 220) 0.453** 0.479** 0.092 0.102 0.509** 0.488** 0.294**Total (n = 500) 0.505** 0.559** 0.103 0.111 0.446** 0.457** 0.237**

*P < .05.**P < .01.

THEJO

URN

ALOFAGRIC

ULTU

RALED

UCATIO

NANDEX

TENSIO

N11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Discussion

The study showed that faculty members of veterinary universities possess higher academicachievement besides higher teaching and research achievements compared to the facultyof agricultural universities (Table 3). It is a well-known fact that majority of Indian stu-dents (after 10 + 2 grade in biology stream) prefer to choose medical profession followedby veterinary and then agriculture professions according to their descending order ofmerit based on their academic performance or through common entrance test. This ismainly due to immediate employment opportunities in government and private sectors,opportunities for higher education with related career prospects in the academic andresearch arenas (Sasidhar and Gopal Reddy 2012).

However, higher academic achievement scores of veterinary faculty did not result ineither higher teaching aptitude (Table 4) or research attitude (Table 6) compared to thefaculty of agriculture. This was supported by the non-significant values of coefficient ofcorrelation between academic achievement and teaching aptitude or research attitude(Table 8).

In the present study, a cumulative total of 28.8% of faculty had ‘Average’ to ‘Low’ levelof teaching aptitude, which reflects the quality of teaching in these educational institutes(Table 5). The lower teaching aptitude score of faculty seems to be due to lesser scores inT2 dimension, that is, ‘Interest towards students’ (Table 4). This clearly indicates theimportance of personality characteristics of teacher towards the teaching profession andits stakeholders, that is, students. These findings are in line with studies of Yair (2008)who concluded that ‘Excellent teachers are those who have symmetric and personalizedrelations with their pupils, thus helping students to decrease their uncertainty, suspicionand disengagement, and providing them with the courage to raise innovative ideas andquality teaching.’

A cumulative total of 21.8% of faculty were found to have ‘Unfavourable’ and 38.8%have ‘Moderately favourable’ attitude towards research (Table 7). This is mainly due tolower scores of attitudes in R1 (General aspects of research and research process) andR4 (Difficulties in research and research anxiety) dimensions (Table 6). These resultsdraw support from earlier findings of Papanastasiou (2005) and Henson, Hull, and Wil-liams (2010) who have reported that lack of usefulness of research, misunderstanding ofinterpreting statistical findings, lack of job support, rudimentary awareness concerning theimportance of research in the educational process, deficient comprehension of the rel-evance of research in professional endeavours, or self-efficacy issues concerning abilityand motivation to learn and perform research-related procedures are some of the majorconcerns that resulted in unfavourable and negative attitude towards research. These

Table 9. Regression equations to predict teaching and research achievements of faculty (n = 500).Regression of Teaching Achievement (Y1) on Regression equations R2 F

Academic achievement (X1) Y1 = 24.66 + 0.33 X1 0.255 42.307*Teaching aptitude (X2) Y1 = 34.88 + 0.36 X2 0.198 09.549*Academic achievement (X1) + Teaching aptitude (X2) Y1 = 16.95 + 0.33 X1 + 0.30 X2 0.327 21.760*

Regression of Research Achievement (Y2) on Regression equations R2 F

Academic achievement (X1) Y2 = 18.76 + 0.36 X1 0.312 61.219*Research attitude (X2) Y2 = 16.68 + 0.13 X2 0.208 10.468*Academic achievement (X1) + Research attitude (X2) Y2 =− 2.03 + 0.12 X1 + 0.35 X2 0.344 36.302*

*p < .05

12 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

negative attitudes have been found to serve as obstacles to learning (Wise 1985; Waterset al. 1988) as well as poor performance in different programmes at higher education level.

The expectancy– value model of achievement motivation (Wigfield and Eccles 2000) hasprovided a useful framework to understand the question of why people choose to pursue ateaching career. Brookhart and Freeman (1992) suggested that ‘altruistic, service-orientedgoals and other intrinsic motivations are the source of the primary reasons enteringteacher candidates’ report for why they chose teaching as a career’. Understandingteacher candidates’motivations for choosing teaching has implications for teacher educationplanning and curriculum design, teacher recruitment authorities, and government and inter-governmental planning and policy decisions (Helen and Richardsen 2007).

The study showed that the combination of academic achievement and teaching apti-tude was a better predictor for the teaching achievement of faculty compared to either aca-demic achievement or teaching aptitude alone. Similarly, research achievement of facultywas better predicted by the combination of academic achievement and research attitude.Earlier studies by Kaur, Singh, and Sangha (2014) and Mishra and Chincholikar (2014)also revealed that the personality parameters like aptitude and attitude should also be con-sidered significant along with the academic scores for effective teaching and improvededucational programmes.

Conclusions and recommendations

Quality education is a prerequisite for regional, national and global development. Fordelivery of quality education, we need quality faculty members who are equipped withnecessary knowledge, skills and competencies for effective functioning besides commit-ment for teaching and research. The teacher’s personality factors are equally responsiblefor his/her effectiveness in the teaching–learning process. Presently, much emphasis isgiven in recruitment/selection to academic achievements of personnel, thereby ignoringthe personality traits. The present study clearly showed that the personality traits,namely teaching aptitude and research attitude, should also be considered significantalong with the academic achievements of faculty for improved quality of teaching andresearch and hence educational programmes. Based on the findings of this study, the fol-lowing recommendations are made:

(1) There is a need to recruit faculty members of Agricultural Universities (especiallythose engaged exclusively for teaching or research) based on a minimum level of apti-tude for teaching or favourable attitude towards research, besides their academic andprofessional proficiencies. For this purpose, the faculty recruitment board/authorityshould include an appropriate test for teaching aptitude/research attitude alongwith regular scholastic testing of the subject matter concerned. Appropriate weightsmay be worked out and assigned to (a) academic and professional proficiencies, (b)teaching aptitude, (c) research attitude and (d) scholastic testing as per the leveland profile of faculty positions being filled in.

(2) Educational administrators may consider faculty members’ deployment in differentfunctional areas of the university, namely, teaching and research based on scoresobtained by them in teaching aptitude/research attitude tests, so that they may bemore productive and effective in their pursuits.

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

(3) Induction/orientation training programmes be made mandatory for entry-level facultymembers of Agricultural Universities. In these programmes, emphasis should be givento the basics of teaching–learning process, pedagogical skills required for the teaching,knowledge and skills required for research and research-related processes and interper-sonal skills besides understanding on tri-functional mandate of universities. Thisensures smooth transition of entry-level faculty to their professional career.

(4) There is a necessity to take up appropriate capacity building initiatives periodicallythrough need based trainings for improving in-service faculty members’ interperso-nal, team building, leadership skills to improve their personality besides boostingtheir commitment to the organisation for the profession.

(5) Universities may also visualise the need and introduce courses to provide an under-standing of research–teaching–extension linkages and their role in national develop-ment at appropriate level to students. Necessary capacity building of faculty foroffering such courses with such intricate cross-functional integration should betaken up as per the need.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

P. Ramesh is a Principal Scientist (Educational Psychology) in the Division of Education SystemsManagement Division, ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hydera-bad, India.

K. M. Reddy is a retired Principal Scientist for ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural ResearchManagement, Hyderabad, India.

R. V. S. Rao is a Principal Scientist in the Division of Human Resource Management, ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad, India.

A. Dhandapani is a Principal Scientist (Agricultural Statistics) in the Division of Information andCommunication Management, ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management,Hyderabad, India.

G. Samba Siva is a Young Professional (Agricultural Statistics) in ICAR-National Academy ofAgricultural Research Management, Hyderabad, India.

A. Ramakrishna is a Professor of Education, Department of Education, Osmania University,Hyderabad, India.

References

Appadurai, R., and K. Saraladevi. 2015. “Teaching Aptitude and Teacher Attitude on TeacherEfficacy.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology4 (10): 10252–10261.

ASRB. 2014. “Guidelines for Screening of Applications for Recruitment of Different ScientificPositions using Revised Score Card.” Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, India. www.asrb.org.in/content/view/87/189.

Ayyappan, S. 2012. Transforming Agriculture in India: From Research and Extension to InnovativeSystems. Washington, DC: Lecture at the World Bank.

14 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

Beena, S. 1995. Determinants of Teacher Effectiveness. Ambala Cantt: The India Publications.Benowski, K. 1991. “Restoring the Pillars of Higher Education.” Quality Progress 3: 37–42.Boyer, E. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Brookhart, S. M., and D. J. Freeman. 1992. “Characteristics of Entering Teacher Candidates.”

Review of Educational Research 62: 37–60.Challa, J., P. K. Joshi, and P. M. Tamboli. 2011. “Revitalizing Higher Agricultural Education in

India: Issues and Challenges.” Economic and Political Weekly 46: 326–329.Challa, J., D. Rama Rao, and S. K. Nanda. 2007. Assessment of Qualitative Rating of Colleges in State

Agricultural Universities. ICAR-AP Cess Fund Project Report. Hyderabad: National Academy ofAgricultural Research Management.

Fatima, K., and S. Humera. 2011. “Teaching Aptitude and Academic Achievement of B.Ed. TeacherTrainees.” Golden Research Thoughts 1 (5): 1–6.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction toTheory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gakhar, S. C., and Rajnish. 2010.Manual for Teaching Aptitude Test. Agra: National PsychologicalCorporation.

Gibbs, G. 1995. “The Relationship between Quality in Research and Quality in Teaching.” Qualityin Higher Education 1 (2): 147–157.

Helen, M. G. W., and P. W. Richardsen. 2007. “Motivational Factors Influencing Teaching as aCareer Choice: Development and Validation of the FIT-Choice Scale.” The Journal ofExperimental Education 75 (3): 167–201.

Henson, R. K., D. M. Hull, and S. S. Williams. 2010. “Methodology in Our Education ResearchCulture: Towards a Stronger Collective Quantitative Proficiency.” Educational Research 39:229–240.

House, J. D. 1995. “The Predictive Relationship between Academic Self-Concept, AchievementExpectancies, and Grade Performance in College Calculus.” The Journal of Social Psychology135 (1): 111–112.

ICAR. 2012. “Policy on Higher Agricultural Education.” Education Division. New Delhi: IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research, 19.

IMHE. 2009. “Learning Our Lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education.”Institutional Management in Higher Education. www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44058352.pdf.

Jensen, Mary Cihak. 1987. How to Recruit, Select, Induct & Retain the Very Best Teachers. ERICClearinghouse on Educational Management. Eugene: University of Oregon, 58.

Kanti, K. S. 2013. “A Study of the Relationship between Teacher Attitude & Teaching Aptitude ofProspective Secondary School Teachers.” International Journal of Education and PsychologicalResearch 2 (4): 95–98.

Kaur, K., Gurmit Singh, and S. S. Sangha. 2014. “Teaching Aptitude and Attitude towards Teachingas Predictors of Teaching Skills of Prospective Science Teachers.” Edubeam Multidisciplinary-Online Research Journal 11 (1): 1–22.

Likert, R. A. 1932. “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitude.” Archives of Psychology 12 (140):5–55.

Lilian, K. Y. Li. 2012. “A Study of the Attitude, Self-efficacy, Effort and Academic Achievement ofCity U Students towards Research Methods and Statistics.” Discovery – SS Student E-Journal 1:154–183.

Ma, X., and N. Kishor. 1997. “Assessing the Relationship between Attitude toward Mathematicsand Achievement in Mathematics.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28 (1):26–27.

Mickelson, R. A. 1990. “The Attitude-Achievement Paradox among Black Adolescents.” Sociologyof Education 63 (1): 44–61.

Mishra, S. G., and K. L. Chincholikar. 2014. “A Study of Relationship of Academic Achievementwith Aptitude, Attitude and Anxiety.” International Journal of English Language, Literatureand Humanities 2 (1): 162–174.

THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016

NAAS. 2005. Redefining Agricultural Education and Extension System in Changed Scenario. PolicyPaper No. 31. New Delhi: National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 8.

NAEP. 2012. Draft Document of National Agricultural Education Project. Education Division. NewDelhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 32.

Olugbenga, J. L. 2003. “Attitudes toward Research and Teaching at some Nigerian AgriculturalInstitutions.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 9 (2): 83–91.

Papanastasiou, Elena C. 2005. “Factor Structure of the Attitude toward Research Scale.” StatisticsEducation Research Journal 4 (1): 16–26.

Rama Rao, D., U. Muralidhar, and J. C. Kalla. 2007. “Planning Agricultural Education in India.”European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 4 (1): 67–80.

Ramesh, P., and K. M. Reddy. 2015. “Teaching Aptitude and Personality Type of Faculty Membersof Agricultural Universities.” Journal of Psychological Researches, 59 (1): 29–35.

Sajan, K. S. 2010. “Teaching Aptitude of Student Teachers and their Academic Achievement atGraduate Level.” ERIC. ED 508977.

Sasidhar, P. V. K., and P. Gopal Reddy. 2012. “SWOT Analysis of Veterinary and Animal ScienceEducation in India: Implications for Policy and Future Directions.” Journal of AgriculturalEducation and Extension 18 (4): 387–407.

Sridevi, K. V. 2010. “Attitude of M.Ed. Students towards Research.” E-Journal of All IndiaAssociation for Educational Research 20 (1): 8–14.

Stephenson, F. 2001. Extraordinary Teachers: The Essence of Excellent Teaching. Kansas City:Andrews McMeel Publishing.

Tamboli, P. M., and Y. L. Nene. 2011. Revitalizing Higher Agricultural Education in India. Journeytowards Excellence. Secunderabad: Asian Agri-History Foundation, 299.

Tamboli, P. M., and Y. L. Nene. 2013. “Modernizing Higher Agricultural Education System in Indiato Meet the Challenges of 21st Century.” Asian Agri-History 17 (3): 251–264.

Taylor, E. W. 2007. “An Update of Transformative Learning Theory: A Critical Review of theEmpirical Research (1999–2005).” International Journal of Lifelong Education 26: 173–191.

Vishal Sood and Y. K. Sharma. 2012. Manual for Attitude Scale towards Research. Agra: NationalPsychological Corporation.

Waters, L. K., T. A. Martelli, T. Zakrajsek, and P. M. Popovich. 1988. “Attitudes towards Statistics:An Evaluation of Multiple Measures.” Educational and Psychological Methods 48: 513–516.

Wigfield, A., and J. S. Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.”Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 68–81.

Wise, S. L. 1985. “The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Attitude towardsStatistics.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 45: 401–405.

Yair, G. 2008. “Can We Administer the Scholarship of Teaching? Lessons from OutstandingProfessors in Higher Education.” Higher Education 55 (4): 447–459.

16 P. RAMESH ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t] a

t 23:

08 0

3 Ju

ly 2

016