The development, implementation, and evaluation of a model for the review of associate in science degree programs

Seminole Community College began the process of reaffirmation of accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools with the appointment of its self-study committee in 1991. Faculty and administrators had expressed a concern that the current program review protocol was inadequate, and that a contemporary program review protocol should be developed and implemented to comply with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools criteria for accreditation. The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a model for the review of associate of science degree programs.;The program review protocol was implemented via pilot-test on the college's associate in science degree program in Electronics Engineering Technology. The pilot-test was then evaluated in terms of evaluative objectivity, ease of implementation, availability of supporting documentation, and integration with both the Florida State Board of Community Colleges and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools requirements for program review.;The conclusions and recommendations of this project paralleled the research questions and were presented as a result of this study. Criteria have been developed by various states for the review of associate degree programs. The program review instrument should include three to six evaluative criteria supported with relevant documentation for each of the following sections: program purpose; program quality; program demand; program cost; projected changes in purpose, quality, demand, and cost; and conclusions and recommendations. The program review protocol incorporated both state and accrediting agency requirements and was successfully implemented at Seminole Community College.;The procedures followed in this research project were executed in three phases: protocol development, pilot-test of the protocol, and evaluation of the pilot-test. The protocol was developed in three steps. First, the related literature was reviewed to ascertain the findings of previous research pertinent to program review. The findings of the literature review were used to develop the elements of comparison between requests for program review protocol information solicited from twenty-two public community college systems. Second, the protocols supplied by the state community college systems were compared and analyzed to develop (1) a matrix of elements of comparison among state-level program review protocols, and (2) a list of generally accepted program review evaluative criteria. Third, the program review protocol was developed from the conceptual framework provided by the literature review and comparative analysis.