The Role of Evaluation in the Improvement of Placement and Follow-Up in Institutions of Higher learning

Abstract

In order to adequately identify the role of evaluation in these areas, it is first necessary to provide a frame of reference or a set of terms into which the discussion can be cast. This con ceptual framework includes precise definitions concerning these terms and their interrelations which have been accepted by the writer. Evalua tion, in the specific sense used in the present pa per, refers to the various technics and process es which can be utilized to determine the degree to which definitely stated and clearly defined ob jectives of the placement and follow-up services are being attained. Thus, evaluation incl u d e s any means by which valid evidence may be c o 1 lected and interpreted for the purpose of judging the efficacy or value of present procedures that are being employed to attain the specific ends of placement and follow-up. Although placement and foilow-up are some times considered as distinct services, they are inseparable in both theory and practice. Place ment may be defined as a multi-phasic proc ess which aids an individual to make those decisions concerning an educational or vocational next step which will increase the probability that he will progress satisfactorily from one educational or vocational experience to another. Follow-up is the evaluative phase of placement and all the oth er antecedent services involved in the guida ne e and instructional programs of a given institution. Placement, in its educational phase, has for its major objective the matching of an individual student and an array of particular educational ex periences in such a way that the student will like ly attain maximum benefit. In its voc a t i o n a 1 phase, the aim of placement is to assist the indi vidual to find his appropriate place in the world of work. Appropriate, as used here, means a job, a vocation, or a profession which (1) is con sonant with one's interests and other emotionally toned preferences, (2) on a level with the config uration of one's general and specific mental abil ities, (3) makes use of one's achievements and past acquisitions of skills, (4) makes no physical demands upon the individual that he cannot satis fy, (5) is personally satisfying or rewarding to the individual to the degree that it continually contributes to higher levels of personality integ rity and stability, and (6) makes a significant contribution to the improvement of the social or der with which the individual is in interaction. It must always be borne in mind that placement is individually oriented. Its principal focus is al ways the individual who is being placed. Place ment should not be confused with either recruit ment or selection. Recruitment, in contrast to placement, is concerned primarily with meeting the needs of employers for workers or of educa tional institutions for students, while selection is the process, by which, from among many appli cants, certain ones are picked for given and lim ited educational or vocational experiences. It should be apparent that since the foci of theplace ment, selection, and recruitment services are different, the three terms should never be used synonymously or become confused in our think ing. Follow-up is conceived of as the continuous process of determining, by any valid means, the degree to which an individual's educational or vo cational choices are rewarding or satisfying to him in terms of the six criteria of appropriate ness identified above. Follow-up services should not be thought of as applicable only to the gradu ates of an institution of higher learning but should be conceptualized to include the appraisal of the degree of educational or vocational adjustment of those who have withdrawn before graduation. It should be axiomatic that both placement and fol low-up services should be employed with former students as long as there is need on the p a r t of the individual for these services.