By Dr. Vlad Krotov

The 2026 AACSB Global Standards for Business Education introduce several important changes. One of the most significant changes is the increased emphasis on teaching effectiveness and teaching impact as articulated by Standard 7. This change affects faculty directly and creates ripples across other important standards.

Teaching effectiveness is no longer simply something that schools are simply expected to measure. For example, under the 2026 standards, teaching effectiveness is explicitly connected to faculty qualifications. Standard 3.2 requires faculty classified as Scholarly Academic (SA), Practice Academic (PA), Scholarly Practitioner (SP), or Instructional Practitioner (IP) to meet the school’s established teaching-effectiveness criteria, in addition to meeting the scholarship and engagement requirements associated with their respective faculty qualification category.

This article examines the three major components of Standard 7 and their implications for business schools going through AACSB accreditation. Standards 7.1 and 7.2 address teaching effectiveness and institutional support for effective teaching—areas in which many schools already have established practices. Standard 7.3 introduces a more substantial challenge by requiring schools to define and measure teaching impact using multiple forms of evidence, recognize and reward faculty who generate meaningful teaching impact, and link teaching impact measures to continuous improvement. The article also explains how Standard 7 connects to other AACSB standards, provides examples of measures schools can use to demonstrate teaching impact, and concludes with five practical steps for developing a systematic approach to AACSB Standard 7 compliance.

Standard 7.1: Teaching Effectiveness

For many business schools, meeting the basic expectations of Standard 7.1 should not require building an entirely new system.

Most universities already have formal mechanisms for evaluating teaching effectiveness. Student evaluations of teaching are probably the most common example. Many business schools also supplement student evaluations with other measures, such as:

• Peer observations of teaching
• Teaching portfolios
• Faculty self-evaluations
• Department chair or program director evaluations
• Reviews of course materials 
• Evidence of pedagogical innovation
• Evidence of continuous improvement based on previous teaching evaluations

The important point under the 2026 standards is that the process should be systematic and use multiple methods. Schools should not simply collect teaching evaluations and file them away. They should establish criteria for effective teaching, collect appropriate evidence, provide feedback to faculty, and demonstrate that the resulting information contributes to continuous improvement. In other words, collecting student evaluations is not the objective. Improving teaching is the objective.

Standard 7.2: Supporting Teaching Effectiveness

Standard 7.2 is also likely to be relatively familiar territory for many business schools.

Most schools already provide some form of professional development intended to improve faculty teaching and maintain faculty currency. Examples include funding or support for:

• Academic, professional, and pedagogical conferences
• Faculty development programs
• Teaching workshops and seminars
• Professional certifications
• Training in educational technologies and instructional design
• Consulting and professional practice
• Various forms of industry engagement

Many schools formally recognize consulting and other professional engagement as legitimate mechanisms for maintaining professional currency. Such activities can be particularly important for PA, SP, and IP faculty because they help faculty remain connected to contemporary business practice.

The 2026 standards, however, encourage schools to think about these activities as part of an integrated system. Faculty development should help instructors continuously improve their teaching and ensure that curriculum and instruction remain current and relevant, especially in relation to the identified area of societal impact.

Standard 7.2 also emphasizes recognition and rewards. Schools should be able to demonstrate that mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding effective teaching are applied fairly and consistently across faculty roles and teaching modalities.

Standard 7.3: Demonstrating Teaching Impact

Standard 7.3 is where the 2026 standards become particularly interesting.

AACSB expects schools to define teaching impact in a manner consistent with their missions, especially the part of the mission that deals with the chosen area of impact. Schools must then measure that impact using multiple forms of evidence, recognize and reward faculty who generate meaningful teaching impact, and demonstrate how evidence of impact is used for continuous improvement.

Teaching impact should not be confused with teaching effectiveness.

Teaching effectiveness asks questions such as:

Was the course taught well? Was the instructor effective? Did students find the instructional methods helpful?

Teaching impact asks a different question:

What positive changes happened to the learners because of the teaching?

Thus, teaching impact concerns the sustained influence of teaching beyond immediate course evaluations or point-in-time instructional assessments.

A professor might receive excellent student evaluations, use innovative teaching methods, and receive strong peer observations. These are useful indicators of teaching effectiveness, but they do not necessarily demonstrate teaching impact.

Impact requires evidence of broader consequences resulting from the educational experience. For example, a consulting project completed by MBA students might help a local nonprofit improve its operations. An entrepreneurship course might contribute to students launching businesses. A cybersecurity course might prepare students to obtain industry certifications. A service-learning project might create measurable benefits for an underserved community.

These examples move beyond evaluating how well teaching occurred toward evaluating what the teaching ultimately accomplished.

Connections to Other AACSB Standards

Standard 7 should not be viewed in isolation. It has important connections to Standards 1, 3, and 5.

The connection to Standard 1 (Strategic Planning) comes through mission. Standard 7.3 requires teaching impact to be defined in a manner consistent with the school’s mission. A school emphasizing entrepreneurship, for example, may focus on new venture creation, while a school emphasizing regional or societal impact may examine how student projects benefit businesses, nonprofit organizations, or local communities. The mission should help determine what types of teaching impact the school seeks to create and measure.

The connection to Standard 3 (Faculty and Professional Staff Resources) is particularly direct. Under the 2026 standards, faculty classified as SA, PA, SP, or IP must satisfy the school’s teaching-effectiveness criteria in addition to meeting the engagement requirements for their qualification category. Teaching effectiveness therefore becomes part of the school’s faculty qualification system rather than simply an annual evaluation measure.

Standard 7 also connects to Standard 5 (Assurance of Learning), although competency attainment and teaching impact are different concepts. Standard 5 focuses on whether students attain competencies specified in program learning goals. Standard 7.3 looks beyond competency attainment toward the broader impact of the educational experience outside the immediate classroom setting. Put simply, Assurance of Learning asks what students learned; teaching impact asks what difference the educational experience ultimately made. Evidence collected under Standards 5 and 7 can work together as part of the school’s continuous improvement system. Assurance of Learning results, teaching evaluations, employer feedback, alumni outcomes, and evidence from experiential learning can all identify opportunities for changes in curriculum, pedagogy, learner support, faculty development, and strategy. Standard 7 therefore provides another important mechanism for using evidence to drive improvements that are consistent with the school’s mission.

How Can a Business School Measure Teaching Impact?

There is no universal teaching-impact metric that will work for every business school. AACSB’s standards are mission-driven. Consequently, a school’s definition and measurement of teaching impact should reflect its mission, learner population, educational portfolio, and strategic priorities.

For example, a school emphasizing entrepreneurship might measure student business creation and entrepreneurial activity. A school emphasizing regional economic development might focus on student consulting projects and their effects on local organizations. A school focused on professional preparation might emphasize certifications, career progression, employer feedback, and graduates’ application of knowledge in the workplace.

Potential measures include the following:

Area of Teaching Impact	Examples of Evidence
Career impact	Job placement, promotions, career progression, expanded professional responsibilities
Professional development	Professional certifications, licenses, or industry credentials earned by students or graduates
Employer impact	Employer feedback concerning graduate preparedness, skills, leadership, or professional performance
Entrepreneurship	Businesses or social enterprises launched by students and alumni
Community impact	People or organizations benefiting from student projects, service learning, consulting, or outreach
Organizational impact	Documented improvements resulting from student consulting projects, internships, capstones, or applied projects
Experiential learning	Evidence that internships, consulting engagements, competitions, or field projects produce outcomes beyond the classroom
External recognition	Teaching awards, pedagogical awards, employer recognition, or recognition by professional organizations
Knowledge application	Evidence that learners apply knowledge acquired through their programs in professional, organizational, or community settings
Learner progression	Evidence of meaningful learner progression where the school can establish a reasonable connection to the educational experience

The key is not to collect every possible measure. Attempting to collect dozens of unrelated indicators may produce an impressive spreadsheet without producing convincing evidence of impact. A smaller portfolio of mission-aligned measures collected consistently over time is likely to tell a much stronger story of teaching impact.

Schools should also be cautious about claiming causality. A graduate receiving a promotion five years after graduation does not necessarily mean that the business school caused the promotion. The school should instead be able to articulate a reasonable connection between its educational experience and the outcome being presented as evidence of impact.

Connecting Teaching Impact to Societal Impact

One particularly valuable opportunity is connecting Standard 7 with the school’s broader societal-impact strategy.

Suppose, for example, that a business school’s mission emphasizes improving economic opportunities within underserved communities. Teaching-impact measures might include:

• Number of community organizations assisted through courses
• Number of entrepreneurs receiving assistance from student teams
• Number of people positively affected through service-learning projects
• Documented organizational improvements resulting from student consulting projects
• Businesses or social enterprises created through entrepreneurship programs
• Community-partner evaluations of student contributions

Another school whose mission emphasizes preparing professionals for a particular industry might use an entirely different portfolio of evidence, including professional certifications, employer assessments, career progression, and industry-based experiential learning.

A useful way of thinking about this relationship is:

Mission → Desired Impact → Teaching Activities → Evidence of Teaching Impact

Teaching-impact measures should therefore not be selected simply because the data are convenient to collect. They should demonstrate whether the school is producing the type of impact that its mission says is important.

Five Steps Toward Compliance With AACSB Standard 7

Step 1: Define the Impact the School Intends to Create

Start with the mission. A good mission statement should clearly articulate the types of impact it seeks to produce through its educational activities, including the societal impact it intends to create.

A mission emphasizing entrepreneurship logically leads toward different teaching-impact indicators than a mission emphasizing social mobility, sustainability, regional economic development, healthcare management, or global leadership.

Schools should therefore resist the temptation to begin by asking:

What teaching-impact data do we already have?”

A better starting question is:

Given our mission, what impact should our teaching have?”

Once this question has been answered, appropriate measures become much easier to identify.

Step 2: Establish Mission-Aligned Measures of Teaching Impact

Next, identify a manageable portfolio of indicators capable of demonstrating the desired impact.

The measures should be:

• Clearly defined
• Mission aligned
• Collectable on a continuous basis
• Based on multiple forms of evidence
• Meaningful to internal and external stakeholders
• Capable of showing trends over time

Schools should also establish responsibility for collecting the data, frequency of measurement, data sources, and mechanisms for reviewing the results.

Whenever possible, schools should build these measures into existing institutional processes rather than creating a completely separate “AACSB data collection” system.

Step 3: Integrate Teaching Effectiveness and Impact Into Faculty Systems

Standard 7 should not operate independently from faculty management systems. 

At a minimum, teaching effectiveness should be explicitly incorporated into the criteria used to maintain faculty qualification status. The 2026 standards explicitly connect teaching effectiveness with Standard 3. Faculty maintaining SA, PA, SP, and IP status must satisfy the school’s teaching-effectiveness criteria in addition to the relevant engagement requirements. Schools should also consider how meaningful teaching impact can be incorporated into annual evaluations, promotion systems, workload decisions, and other faculty-management processes.

Schools should therefore review their:

• Faculty qualification policies
• Annual faculty evaluation processes
• Promotion and tenure policies
• Workload policies
• Faculty development plans
• Merit systems

The objective is to make teaching quality and impact part of the school’s faculty management system, rather than treating Standard 7 as a stand-alone accreditation exercise.

Step 4: Create Tangible Rewards for Teaching Effectiveness and Impact

Standard 7 goes beyond measuring teaching. Schools also need transparent processes for recognizing and rewarding faculty who demonstrate effective teaching and meaningful teaching impact.

Possible mechanisms include:

• Merit-pay increases
• Teaching stipends or bonuses
• Internal teaching awards
• Summer funding
• Professional-development funding
• Conference travel funding
• Course releases
• Teaching-development grants
• Recognition in promotion and tenure decisions
• Recognition in annual faculty evaluations
• Funding for experiential-learning projects
• Public recognition of significant teaching accomplishments

The reward system should be transparent, mission consistent, and applied fairly across faculty roles and teaching modalities.

A school that claims teaching excellence is central to its mission but provides virtually all meaningful rewards for research productivity may have difficulty demonstrating that its systems genuinely reinforce that mission.

Step 5: Use the Evidence to Drive Continuous Improvement

Finally, teaching effectiveness and teaching impact should generate action. Schools should periodically analyze their evidence and ask:

“What should we change because of what we have learned?”

The answers might result in:

• Curriculum revisions
• New courses
• Changes to teaching methods
• Greater use of experiential learning
• New employer or community partnerships
• Additional faculty-development programs
• Changes to learner-support systems
• Greater integration of technology or AI
• New professional certifications embedded within programs
• Changes to internship or capstone requirements
• Changes to faculty hiring priorities
• Reallocation of resources toward high-impact educational activities

The critical point is that schools should be able to demonstrate not only that they measure teaching effectiveness and impact but also use the resulting evidence to improve. This closes the loop between teaching, curriculum, faculty development, strategy, and mission.

From Measuring Teaching to Demonstrating Its Impact

For many schools, Standards 7.1 and 7.2 will involve strengthening and documenting processes that already exist. Most business schools already evaluate teaching and provide opportunities for faculty professional development.

Standard 7.3 represents the bigger conceptual shift. This substandard clearly articulates that the question is no longer simply whether students liked a course, whether an instructor received acceptable teaching evaluations, or even whether students demonstrated the competencies specified in the program’s learning goals. The larger question becomes:

What meaningful and sustained difference does our teaching make, and how do we know that?

Answering that question requires business schools to connect their mission, teaching efforts,  faculty systems, and continuous-improvement processes into one single system that aims to make a clear positive societal impact through teaching.