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.