Category: AOL

Posted on

When “Good” Isn’t Good Enough: Continuous Improvement After You Meet AoL Targets

AACSB Standard 5 Continuous Improvement

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Understanding the Intent of AACSB Standard 5

Under AACSB Standard 5, Assurance of Learning (AoL) is far more than reaching a certain numeric target in relation to student competencies. The standard expects every accredited business program to articulate clear and measurable program learning outcomes (PLOs), meaningful performance targets, assess those outcomes using valid and reliable instruments, analyze and discuss the results, and implement improvements based on those findings.

The final component, often referred to as “closing the loop,” is what transforms assessment from a measurement exercise into a quality enhancement system. Without documented improvement actions that follow from data analysis, the AoL cycle remains incomplete. The goal is not simply to demonstrate that learning occurred, but to show how assessment evidence systematically informs better teaching, better curriculum design, and stronger alignment with the school’s mission and strategic objectives.

When Targets Are Missed vs. When Targets Are Met

When assessment results fall below the established benchmark, the path forward is relatively clear. Faculty recognize that something may need adjustment. They may refine assignments, recalibrate rubrics, modify instructional strategies, or introduce additional student support mechanisms. In these situations, improvement feels necessary and natural.

However, a more subtle situation occurs when results meet or exceed the target. When 85%, 90%, or even 95% of students achieve the learning objective, the discussion often becomes brief. Faculty may conclude that everything is working well and that no changes are required. While this response appears reasonable, it risks undermining the spirit of continuous improvement underscoring AACSB Standard 5. Assurance of Learning is not designed to confirm adequacy; it is designed to promote ongoing enhancement.

Reflecting on Success

When targets are met, the first responsibility of faculty is thoughtful reflection. Strong results should prompt careful inquiry into their underlying causes. Some of the questions that can be asked in the light of strong results are discussed below. 

Question 1: Why Were the Results Strong?

First, the faculty analyzing results can reflect on the question of why the results were so strong. The following questions can be asked: 

  • Were there specific pedagogical approaches that contributed to improved performance? 
  • Did better alignment between course objectives and assessment instruments make expectations clearer to students? 
  • Was there greater consistency in rubric application across sections? 
  • Did curricular sequencing better prepare students for this particular competency?

Answering these questions generates valuable institutional knowledge. Instead of assuming that success will automatically continue, faculty identify the practices that produced strong outcomes and ensure they are sustained, documented, and shared. This deliberate reflection strengthens program competencies and reduces reliance on individual teaching styles alone. In doing so, the program builds a more resilient and transferable model of effective instruction.

Question 2: Was the target challenging enough? 

A second, more challenging question must also be addressed: were the set targets sufficiently demanding? If results consistently and comfortably exceed the benchmark, it may indicate that the performance standard was set too low. Targets should not be symbolic thresholds designed for easy attainment; they should represent meaningful expectations that reflect the school’s aspirations and strategic positioning.

Raising performance thresholds, refining the criteria for “exceeds expectations,” or introducing more sophisticated assessment tasks may be appropriate responses. Increasing the target does not signal dissatisfaction with students or faculty. Rather, it reflects confidence in student capability and a commitment to academic rigor and growth. Continuous improvement often requires redefining what excellence looks like.

Question 3: Are there additional opportunities for improvement? 

Even when targets are appropriately calibrated and performance is genuinely strong, opportunities for further enhancement often remain. Continuous improvement does not always mean correcting deficiencies; it can involve innovations that deepen and expand learning. Faculty might consider whether students can demonstrate more advanced integration of knowledge, stronger analytical depth, greater ethical reasoning, or more polished communication skills.

In this sense, improvement becomes developmental rather than remedial. The absence of problems does not imply the absence of growth potential. A mature AoL system encourages faculty to explore incremental refinements that gradually elevate program quality over time.

AoL Is About Improvement, Not Percentages

Ultimately, Assurance of Learning is not about achieving a particular numerical threshold. It is about cultivating a disciplined, evidence-based culture in which faculty use assessment data to continuously enhance student learning and advance the school’s mission and vision. Whether targets are missed, met, or exceeded is secondary to the central question: how does this information help us improve?

When programs treat strong results as the end of the conversation, AoL becomes a compliance exercise. When they treat strong results as an opportunity for reflection, recalibration, refinement, and innovation, they embody the true intent of AACSB Standard 5: continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is not triggered only by shortcomings. It is a permanent expectation—one that remains in force regardless of how impressive the numbers may appear.

Posted on

Why Faculty Resist AOL and How to Fix This

Faculty AOL Meeting

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

AACSB Standard 5 is one of the most important accreditation standards because it makes business schools explicitly accountable for student learning. Unfortunately, in practice, Assurance of Learning (AOL) often presents the greatest challenges for most business schools undergoing accreditation.

Across business schools worldwide, AOL is the area most associated with faculty resistance, missed deadlines, incomplete data, and the infamous failure to “close the loop.”

Importantly, this resistance rarely comes from a lack of commitment to students or teaching quality. Instead, it usually reflects how AOL is designed, supported, and managed within the institution.

The most frequent causes of faculty resistance to AOL are examined below, along with—and perhaps more importantly—what actually works to get past those obstacles.

1. Faculty Don’t Understand AOL

The Problem

Many faculty members experience AOL as a confusing, jargon-heavy, compliance-driven exercise. Terms like learning goals, rubrics, direct measures, and closing the loop can feel abstract, disconnected from day-to-day teaching, and inconsistently applied across programs.

When faculty don’t clearly understand what AOL is, why AOL exists or how it improves student learning, resistance is almost inevitable.

What Works

The following can be done to equip faculty with practical AOL knowledge:

  • Invest in practical, faculty-centered AOL training
  • Focus on how AOL supports better teaching, not just accreditation
  • Provide hands-on workshops using the school’s actual courses and assignments

For example, Accreditation.Biz works directly with faculty to both train them on AOL concepts and co-develop assessment plans, rubrics, and reports, reducing confusion and anxiety.

2. Faculty Lack Time

The Problem

Faculty are already stretched thin by teaching, research, advising, and administrative work. AOL often feels like “one more unfunded mandate” added on top of an already overloaded workload. When AOL is perceived as extra work with no support, deadlines slip and enthusiasm disappears.

What Works

The following can be done to free up faculty time so that they can perform their normal duties and, at the same time, engage in AOL in a meaningful way: 

  • Hire dedicated AOL staff or assessment coordinators
  • Use consultants to handle technical and administrative tasks
  • Streamline data collection and reporting processes

Faculty should focus on academic judgment and improvement, not on spreadsheets, templates, and accreditation compliance paperwork.

3. There Are No Meaningful Rewards for AOL Work

The Problem

In many schools, faculty see AOL work as:

  • Invisible
  • Uncompensated
  • Not valued in tenure, promotion, or merit decisions

When faculty quickly realize that AOL efforts are not rewarded—financially or professionally—they deprioritize this important task. 

What Works

The following mechanism can be used to offer faculty tangible incentives for participating in AOL:

  • Create financial stipends or course releases for AOL leadership
  • Establish non-financial recognition, such as awards and public acknowledgment
  • Make AOL contributions a formal component of annual reviews, tenure, and promotion

Recognizing and rewarding AOL champions signals that assessment work truly matters.

4. AOL Doesn’t Lead to Real Change

The Problem

Perhaps the most demoralizing issue: faculty collect data year after year, but nothing changes. Reports are written, uploaded, and forgotten; there are no curricular revisions, no pedagogical innovation, and no feedback loops. This situation creates deep cynicism towards AOL. Indeed, why bother if nothing changes? 

What Works

The following can be done to make AOL a real vehicle for positive change and improvement in student learning:

  • Enforce full AOL cycles, including documented actions and follow-up assessments
  • Implement changes at course, program, department, and college levels
  • Actively communicate improvements that resulted from AOL to all the relevant stakeholders

When faculty see tangible improvements tied directly to assessment results, buy-in increases dramatically.

Additional Resistance Factors You May Be Overlooking

Beyond the “big four,” several other factors often fuel AOL resistance:

  • Fear of evaluation or blame (AOL perceived as faculty performance review)
  • Inconsistent leadership support
  • Overly complex assessment systems
  • Poor alignment between learning goals and curriculum

Each of these issues points back to system design—not faculty motivation.

Conclusion: It’s Not the Standard—and It’s Not the Faculty

AACSB Standard 5 is not the problem. Faculty commitment to teaching and learning is not the problem either.

In most cases, the real issue is an inefficient, overly complex, or poorly supported AOL system.

With the right design, tools, incentives, and leadership, AOL can:

  • Improve student learning in meaningful ways
  • Reduce faculty frustration and resistance
  • Strengthen accreditation outcomes
  • Build a sustainable culture of assessment

An experienced accreditation partner like Accreditation.Biz can design, implement, and manage an AOL system that meets AACSB Standard 5, supports faculty, and, most importantly, delivers real improvement in student learning.

When AOL works well, faculty stop resisting it and start owning it.