By Dan LeClair
Nearly ten years have passed since AACSB formulated the Assurance of Learning section of its accreditation standards. Building on a long tradition of assessment and continuous improvement, the new standards required accredited business schools to demonstrate achievement of learning goals specified by program. By placing greater emphasis on outcomes, accreditation could be more flexible about how learning objectives are met and standards would, thus, be more globally applicable. The change was also a response to increasing demands for accountability. It was no longer enough to use indirect measures, such as surveys of graduates, and other broad indicators, assurance of learning standards expected direct evidence that program learning goals have actually been met by graduates.
Today, the Blue Ribbon Committee on Accreditation Quality is examining AACSB’s experience with assurance of learning. To assist, staff colleagues and I gathered insights from the assessment literature and accreditation volunteers, as well as from our efforts to maintain an online Assessment Resource Center, convene the assessment listserv which now resides in AACSB’s Exchange, create two assessment seminars, and build an annual conference that focuses entirely on the subject. Our research revealed three major opportunities to broaden our view of assurance of learning.
First, assurance of learning could be recast so that it fits more appropriately within a broader curricula management system. Like other accreditation standards, the benefits of assurance of learning are derived mostly from the process of determining and revising learning goals and measures, as well as designing related policies and procedures. However, feedback from experienced deans reveals these benefits are sometimes lost to schools that adopt “cookie-cutter” approaches already being used other schools. In addition, taking on a life of its own, assurance of learning often exists separately from the curriculum. As a consequence, learning goals often do not reflect the wide range of distinctive missions across business schools, and some even claim that learning goals are so generic they can be applied to any professional education.
In Committing to Quality: Guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education the New Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability urges institutions to “set ambitious goals.” The Alliance provides several guidelines for doing so, including ensuring that outcomes reflect appropriate higher education goals. For business schools, that would mean engaging employers and other business stakeholders, as well as academic thought leaders, in developing learning goals. Two other guidelines from Committing to Quality also illustrate why a broader curricula management approach makes sense:
Institutional practices, such as program review, are in place to ensure that curricular and cocurricular goals are aligned with intended learning outcomes.
The institution and its major academic and cocurricular programs can identify places in the curriculum or cocurriculum where students encounter or are expected or required to achieve the stated outcomes.
The second opportunity is to encourage more holistic approaches to assessment. Perhaps unintentionally, AACSB accredited schools have been steered away from using indirect measures (e.g. surveys of stakeholders), which can provide valuable contextual information to inspire and support curriculum change. The opinions of recruiters, faculty, and students can help schools to interpret gaps in learning goal achievement and provide insights about how to close these gaps. Similarly, data and information about students, including their characteristics and values, can help schools to use the results of direct assessments to improve curricula.
Many schools responded to the call for direct assessments by putting resources into those projects at the expense of other tools that can provide valuable insights about student learning. A broader view might encourage a portfolio of “evidence” (rather than strictly quantitative “measures”), including direct assessments, survey results, qualitative information, course taking patterns, etc. Subtle changes in accreditation language could encourage schools to examine all of their evidence to determine how students learn, detect patterns, and identify the changes needed.
The third opportunity to broaden our view of assurance of learning is to embrace national requirements for accountability, assessment, and program review as part of a broader assurance of learning framework. Knowledgeable accreditation volunteers have argued that AACSB standards have not been especially adaptable to different requirements internationally. Ironically, assurance of learning standards were originally adopted to enable globalization by focusing on outcomes rather than inputs, but did not fully consider how other national requirements could be substitutes, complements, or sources of conflict. Some require periodic in-depth and independent program reviews, while others require nothing at all. Some have national exams by field, others do not. Recognizing this diversity, schools could be encouraged to tailor their approach based on the national requirements; presenting existing evidence, filling the gaps, reducing duplication, and using resources more efficiently.
Since 2003 AACSB has been committed to assurance of learning, holding schools accountable for achieving their designated learning outcomes. This commitment has gained momentum within the higher education community, positioning AACSB as a leader in the area. Now, it is again a pivotal time in the evolution of assurance of learning: a time when it is important to broaden our view of its scope, purpose and implementation.