STUDY REVIEWED:

Tendutic, R. (1994).  An Evaluation Model for Community
     Colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(01),534B
     (University Microfilms No. AAD93-15947).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

     Community colleges are not effectively evaluating their
programs. 

RESEARCH QUESTION

     The central question under consideration in this study focuses
on the potential value and validity of using a curriculum evaluation
model to evaluate the educational programs, processes and products at a
community college. 

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

     The purpose of this study was to use a formal plan to aid a
community college in evaluating its curriculum. 
     
SCOPE OF THE STUDY

     This study was pilot tested with one general education course
in the general education curriculum of a large, urban, multi-campus
community college.  The purpose of this pilot test was to investigate
the efficacy of evaluation at a larger scale. 

ASSUMPTIONS


     1. The study stated that the stakeholders identified within
the study were those most likely to be affected by the outcome of the
study and that no key stakeholders were excluded. 

     2. The sample of stakeholders participating in the pilot
project were representative of all stakeholders at the community
college. 

LIMITATIONS

     1. Pilot testing the evaluation using only one of the general
education courses rather than the entire general education curriculum
may limit the generalizability of the study. 

     2. Using one campus of a multi-campus community college may
affect the generalizability of the effectiveness of the chosen
evaluation model. 
  
DELIMITATIONS

     1. Only one course in the general education curriculum was
chosen for evaluation.  This may affect the generalizability of the
results to the curriculum as a whole. 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

     Evaluation Model - An evaluation model serves as a basis upon
which to build or guide in the development of an evaluation plan. 

     Stakeholder - The term stakeholder refers to group members
that make decisions about the future of the entity being evaluated, such
as decisions to continue or modify. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA

     Unable to find similar studies, Tendutic identified the
criteria via an evaluation planning matrix.  He identified several
questions that would be put forth to stakeholders.  Examples of these
questions included:

     1.   What is taking place within the selected course to help
          students stay enrolled?

     2.   What demonstratable skills has the student achieved?

     3.   What continuity exists between course goals and actual
          achievement in the course?

     These questions were presented to the stakeholders in an
effort to determine the standard (criteria) by which they would be
evaluated, what would constitute evidence that the criteria had been
met, the source of the evidence and the method by which the evidence
would be collected and captured. 
     

IDENTIFICATION OF AN EVALUATIVE MODEL

     The researcher, in this study, evaluated the following models
prior to selecting a model for his use:

     - Stufflebeam' CIPP model
     - Stakes Countenance Model
     - Sanders and Nifziger Checklist
     - Gowin and Millman QUEMAC model
     - Worthen and Sanders
     - Scriven's MEC (meta-evaluation checklist)

     Tendutic eventually did a meta-evaluative study where he took
component parts from the Stufflebeam and Stakes models and created a new
model called the TICE (Tendutic Investigative Curriculum Evaluation)
model.  This model was additionally validated by a expert panel
identified by Tendutic.  The model was approved due to
"its comprehensive design, its clarity, high degree of conciseness,
and the fact that it incorporated the views of a wide range of
stakeholders". 

     After validation, the model was then pilot tested using one
course from the general education curriculum at an urban, multi- campus
community college. 

DATA COLLECTION

     Data were collected via interviews with all stakeholders. 
This included program professors, administrators and students.  These
data were analyzed using various inferential and descriptive techniques.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

     The ICE model was found to have high potential and validity
for use by community colleges in conducting the types of evaluation
necessary.  This model clearly demonstrated that the criteria for
success that were established and identified at the start of the study
were only marginally being met by the community college in question. 
Again, due to the limitations and delimitations of the study, these
results may not be generalizable to the entire curriculum, the community
college as a whole or other community colleges. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

     1. Effective evaluation required the commitment of
stakeholders to the evaluation process.  In order to do this,
stakeholders must be adequately prepared for and compensated for their
participation in the evaluation process. 

     2. In order to better ensure success in evaluation, it is
mandatory that stakeholders, at all levels, cooperate with one another.