Assurance Of Learning Process Research Articles

Assurance of learning in business education – what exactly are we assuring, and whose business should it be?

PurposeThis paper aims to critically evaluate the evolution of Assurance of Learning (AoL) in business education and identify gaps and responsibilities in higher institution landscapes moving into the future. This comes amidst increasing structural reforms, an increasingly digitalised world, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and wider scrutiny of graduate competencies for job readiness.Design/methodology/approachA systematic literature review comprising 27 journal articles published between 2018 and 2022 is the methodology used in this research. This approach is justified as it provides a recent synopsis of current trends on AoL and encompasses the changes over the course of the COVID-19-induced higher education landscapes.FindingsThe systematic literature review revealed a strong flavour for AoL measurement through the students' perspectives, with little emerging from faculty insights. Only six out of the 27 articles were framed in a non-English speaking background, revealing that most studies were still concentrated in a US or English environment. Also, while papers on AoL have increased in numbers from 2018 to 2022, there remains scant literature on AoL measurements related to the COVID-19 pandemic and recent digital technologies, and how these would have changed given the rapid shift to online or hybrid environments.Originality/valueA comprehensive review of AoL literature from 2018 to 2022 is undertaken through Leximancer, which reveals conceptual and relational ties between core themes and concepts of interest. The findings inform business school leaders of the current state of AoL processes, by combining the views of students, faculty and managers.

Is your AoL process overly complex?

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify signs of unnecessary assurance of learning (AoL) complexity and to provide suggestions for simplifying the AoL processes. Design/methodology/approach While this paper is grounded in the existent AoL literature, the paper also presents several anecdotal observations from the authors’ practical knowledge in designing, leading, maintaining and consulting on AoL systems and processes. Findings Based on both a conceptual review of AoL literature and the authors’ own experiences, the authors outline 13 specific symptoms of unnecessary AoL complexity, identify potential underlying causes for each symptom and propose practical solutions that can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of dysfunctional AoL systems and processes. Research limitations/implications Although this work is grounded in the existent AoL literature, the present paper presents several anecdotal observations from the authors’ experiences. While the intent is to provide guidance that is actionable, it is understood that variability exists within and across schools and programs. Future research is needed to provide a more formal structure for reviewing AoL complexity, efficiency and effectiveness. Practical implications While future research is needed to provide a more formal structure for reviewing AoL complexity, efficiency and effectiveness, the intent of this paper is to provide guidance that is actionable with the understanding that variability exists within and across schools and programs. Social implications Society increasingly is demanding accountability from institutions of higher learning, and properly structured AoL programs can provide evidence of institutional effectiveness in preparing students to be productive members of society in their chosen fields of study. Stated succinctly, “although accountability matters, learning still matters most” (Angelo, 1999, n.p.). Originality/value Consideration of the 13 symptoms presented here along with other drivers that are unique to each school and program should result in the identification and development of practicable remedies to simplify AoL processes and systems, increase efficiency and effectiveness and improve the documentation of improvements to student learning.

Understanding assuranzce of learning in light of experiments, errors and sampling methods

The objective of this paper is to bring a clear understanding of experiments, the effect of errors and sampling methods used in effective learning among students known to be the assurance of learning (AoL). Extant literature was referred to explore the gaps as; experimentation adoption in AoL implementation is very limited and effects of errors are not being identified and reported, making it difficult to generalize assessment results of student learning. A detailed description of AoL process was presented in five steps. Six basic experimental designs were discussed with reference to AoL implementation. Sixteen errors were briefed, and their effect on the dependent variable in AoL experiments was given. For readers' quick bite, results of the study were presented in two summary tables, one enlightens experiments and the effect of errors on them, the other about AoL error categories and outcome of errors. Also, observations of AoL reports of five business schools on seven factors related to AoL implementation were presented. Ended with a conclusion highlighting the use of experiments in AoL, errors which may potentially harm results and sampling methods to use. Statistical experimental designs and error control mechanisms are out of the scope of the present study. Keywords: Assurance of learning, experiments, errors, sampling methods, closing the loop, rubrics, learning outcomes.

Business school learning goals: Alignment with evidence-based models and accreditation standards

AbstractProgrammatic learning goals serve as the foundation for an educational institution’s curriculum design and assurance of learning processes. The purpose of our study is to determine the relevance or alignment of undergraduate business school learning goals. We identify the learning goals of US undergraduate business programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International (AACSB) and determine the extent to which the goals are aligned with (a) evidence-based competencies that are needed for managerial success (including the ‘Great Eight’ and the ‘hyperdimensional taxonomy’) and (b) content areas identified in AACSB’s Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. We found that learning goals conform to AACSB Standards and evidence-based managerial competencies, but goals are most closely aligned with AACSB Standards, followed by the Great Eight, and the hyperdimensional taxonomy, respectively. We discuss the implications of our findings with respect to business schools’ assurance of learning processes and provide recommendations for AACSB, business schools, the broader academy, and future research.

The AACSB Assurance of Learning process: An assessment of current practices within the perspective of the unified view of validity

The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for quality assurance of assessment practices in business schools within the Assurance of Learning (AoL) process. This framework is based on the unified view of validity (Messick, 1989), which encompasses six aspects: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external and consequential. Parallels are made between these aspects and each of the AoL steps, while inventorying previous studies conducted in the field of business education on this matter. Moreover, this paper sheds some light on the main points to consider and the pitfalls to avoid when implementing the AoL process. The discussion related to each aspect raises the necessity to perform particular studies in order to ensure the quality of assessment practices within the AoL process.

Applying the Capability Maturity Model to Assurance of Learning

Assurance of Learning (AoL) focuses on the continuous improvement of curriculum development, program review, and, in many cases, accreditation. AoL programs are important for assessing undergraduate, masters, and/or doctoral degree programs, as well as the impact on curriculum management. A recent mandate from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is the need for mature AoL processes to be in place. This paper describes the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and discusses how it can be applied to assess the maturity and capability of any educational institution’s AoL initiative. An Aol-CMM model introduced and discussed in this paper can be used to assess an academic institution’s AoL maturity and then act as a road map to develop and align key processes to plan and advance to a higher level of AoL maturity. A set of AoL key processes at an AACSB accredited business school provides a backdrop and discussion to understand better the application of this CMM framework. This should be of interest and value since the model can be used by schools and programs with varying levels of process maturity and capability. Even institutions not interested in accreditation may find the application of a maturity model useful for improving academic excellence. Regardless, each school or program can assess its current state and then develop an evolutionary plan to reach the next higher level of AoL process maturity.

Hunting and gathering: new imperatives in mapping and collecting student learning data to assure quality outcomes

Assurance of learning (AOL) is a quality enhancement and quality assurance process used in higher education. It involves a process of determining programme learning outcomes and standards, and systematically gathering evidence to measure students' performance on these. The systematic assessment of whole-of-programme outcomes provides a basis for curriculum development and management, continuous improvement, and accreditation. To better understand how AOL processes operate, a national study of university practices across one discipline area, business and management, was undertaken. To solicit data on AOL practice, interviews were undertaken with a sample of business school representatives (n = 25). Two key processes emerged: (1) mapping of graduate attributes and (2) collection of assurance data. External drivers such as professional accreditation and government legislation were the primary reasons for undertaking AOL outcomes but intrinsic motivators in relation to continuous improvement were also evident. The facilitation of academic commitment was achieved through an embedded approach to AOL by the majority of universities in the study. A sustainable and inclusive process of AOL was seen to support wider stakeholder engagement in the development of higher education learning outcomes.

Faculty Ownership of the Assurance of Learning Process: Determinants of Faculty Engagement and Continuing Challenges

Although this article provides further evidence of serious impediments to faculty ownership of assurance of learning, including inadequate and misaligned resources, the results indicate that faculty can be energized to become actively engaged in the assurance of learning (AOL) process, particularly when they believe that AOL results are useful and help students prepare for future business challenges. The authors suggest strategies for building a more engaged faculty as well as highlighting ongoing challenges in that process.

Assuring of Learning Goals System Implementation as a Catalyst of School of Economics and Business Sarajevo Quality Upgrading

The main goal of this paper is to present the Double Closing Quality Loop Model and assuring of learning tools and data that could be used to obtain continuity in quality development of higher education institutions in sense of learning outcome achieving and assurance of learning considering all main stakeholder requirements. Model is created to assure internal and external monitoring of improvements of core higher education institution processes. This integral procedure is aimed to obtain sufficient and solid decision making platform for higher education institution management and inform other stakeholders to ensure continuous modifications and improvements of academic programs quality and assurance of learning process.

Changing the Culture of Assessment: Moving from Bureaucratic to Clan Control

Many business schools adopted assessment plans under pressure from accreditors and university-level administration. With external forces causing the adoption of assessment practices, many faculty and business school administrators perfunctorily created student learning outcomes and data collection mechanisms that satisfied the basic requirements for assessment or assurance of learning (AoL). However, often faculty and administrators do not embrace the possibilities embodied in the AoL processes. Rather than view assessment as a catalyst for transformational change that benefits student learning, assessment has become a burden completed by rote that fails to achieve the goals of an AoL system. This approach toward assessment provides the outcomes required by accreditation bodies, but also presents a number of drawbacks inherent to bureaucratic control processes. In this paper, I describe how assessment functions as a control process and outline how it has taken on the characteristics of a bureaucratic cont...

"Undergrad Business Program Learning Goals: Differentiation, Common Aspirations, or Cursory Cloning?"

Establishing learning goals is the first step in the assurance of learning process. Proper assessment cannot take place if appropriate learning goals are not first developed. We identified the types of undergraduate learning goals that AACSB-accredited U.S. business programs use for assurance of learning. Given that the AACSB accreditation standards call for business schools to develop differentiated learning goals, we determined the extent to which the learning goals of our sample of business programs were differentiated versus homogeneous. We also determined if any learning-goal homogeneity was a result of properly unified aspirations among the schools or cursory cloning of the AACSB Standards. Even though the results with respect to differentiation versus homogeneity were equivocal, our results provide compelling evidence that learning goals were established through the cursory cloning of the AACSB standards. Learning goals were much more closely aligned with content areas listed in the AACSB standards than with managerial competencies that have been derived through empirical research. Implications for assurance of learning and assessment are discussed.

Implementing Mission-Driven Assurance of Learning: Improving Performance Through Constructive Collaboration

Assurance of Learning (AoL) practices can be implemented in a variety of ways, as long as they are geared toward business schools’ missions and curricula. The authors first address the purpose of implementing AoL, and briefly evaluate the ongoing debate about the pros and cons of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business's policies regarding AoL procedures in business schools. The authors then report how a small-sized, private business school implemented the AoL process in its bachelor of business administration program in a manner that satisfies accreditation requirements without losing its institutional or disciplinary distinctiveness. The authors end with lessons learned about how an assessment program can satisfy accountability needs while still encouraging flexibility and innovation.

A Framework for Teaching Social and Environmental Sustainability to Undergraduate Business Majors

The authors outline an undergraduate exercise to help students more fully understand the environmental and social justice aspects of business sustainability activities. A simple hierarchical framework, based on Maslow's (1943) work, was utilized to help the students understand, analyze, and judge the vast amount of corporate sustainability materials and publications. The students achieve a deeper understanding of related issues facing organizations, what some organizations have done to date, and what remains to be done. This experience also helps students to further develop communication and critical thinking skills that can aid the assurance of learning process required by many accreditation bodies.

Development and Implementation of A Multidimensional MBA Program Assessment Day

This study provides an overview of a unique and innovative assessment approach: a one-day series of events to capture assurance of learning data across multiple program learning goals/objectives. The MBA Assessment Day discussed here included a group presentation (assessment of oral communication), a case twist analysis assessment of analytical/critical thinking and problem solving, global awareness, and written communication, a quiz show assessment of general business competence, and a teamwork questionnaire. The MBA Assessment Day provided faculty with a training experience to efficiently focus preparations for both undergraduate and MBA program assessment as the college of business progresses toward AACSB accreditation. Additionally, intensive involvement gave faculty members ownership of the process. The assurance of learning process and its relationship to AACSB learning standards are outlined in detail, along with the development of the MBA Assessment Day. A discussion and analysis of results leads to specific guidance and recommendations for future MBA Assessment Days.