By Dr. Vlad Krotov
Many business schools have an illusion of an effective Assurance of Learning (AoL) system. On paper, everything looks perfect: clearly stated learning outcomes, well-designed rubrics, defined targets, and annual reports that appear thorough and complete. During accreditation reviews, these systems are often presented as evidence of a mature, well-functioning continuous improvement process.
However, experienced Peer Review Team (PRT) members can usually see through this very quickly. In fact, one of the most common questions they ask during visits is deceptively simple: “Can you give us specific examples of improvements that resulted from your AoL data?”
This question can separate AoL systems that work from systems that merely exist. When faculty struggle to provide clear, concrete examples, it becomes evident that the AoL process is not truly driving improvement. And yet, in many cases, the documentation still looks strong.
This is where the disconnect becomes clear. Many AoL systems are well-designed on paper, but they fail to function effectively in practice. Faculty experience AoL as an administrative burden rather than an academic tool. Committees meet irregularly. Reports are completed, filed, and rarely revisited. Most importantly, the system does not consistently lead to real, tangible improvements in student learning.
Typical Mistakes in Assurance of Learning
The gap between what exists on paper and what happens in reality is where most AoL systems begin to fail. This usually happens due to the mistakes discussed below.
Mistake 1: Too Many Outcomes, Too Little Focus
One of the most common design issues is simple: schools try to assess too much.
Programs often define:
- 8–12 Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
- Multiple measures for each outcome with sub-criteria
- Several layers of lengthy rubrics
While this may appear comprehensive, it creates a system that is difficult to manage and even harder to interpret. Faculty are asked to assess too many things at once, often across multiple courses and time periods.
The result is predictable:
- Assessment becomes superficial rather than meaningful
- Data is collected, but not deeply analyzed
- Faculty disengage due to growing workload
Also, more data does not lead to better decisions. In fact, it often obscures the insights that matter most.
Effective AoL systems are selective. They focus on fewer outcomes, measured well, rather than many outcomes measured poorly.
Mistake 2: Measuring the Wrong Things
Another common issue is misalignment between what is intended and what is actually measured.
In many cases, programs:
- Assess broad goals instead of specific, measurable PLOs
- Use rubrics that capture general performance rather than targeted competencies
- Rely on assignments that do not directly reflect the stated outcome
This often happens in programs that must align with external standards (for example, professional or discipline-specific requirements). While alignment is important, it can unintentionally shift the focus away from the actual learning outcomes the program is supposed to assess.
The consequences are subtle but significant. The data looks structured and complete, and reports appear professional and well-organized. But the conclusions are not meaningful
In short, the system produces information, but not specific, actionable insights.
A well-designed AoL system ensures tight alignment:
- PLO → Assessment Method → Rubric → Target
When this alignment is missing, the entire system becomes performative rather than informative.
Mistake 3: “Closing the Loop” as a Ritual
Most schools understand what to do when targets are not met. If only 60% of students meet a benchmark of 80%, the response is straightforward: identify the issue and implement improvements.
But what happens when targets are exceeded?
In many cases, the response is minimal:
- “Students performed well.”
- “No changes are needed.”
- “We will continue current practices.”
This is where the concept of “closing the loop” quietly breaks down.
If results consistently exceed targets, important questions should still be asked:
- Are the targets too low?
- Is the assessment too easy?
- Are we capturing the full depth of the outcome?
- What exactly is working—and can it be replicated elsewhere?
Without this reflection, success becomes a stopping point rather than a learning opportunity. Closing the loop is not about reacting to failure. It is about learning from both success and failure in a systematic way.
Mistake 4: No Clear Ownership or Accountability
Many AoL systems suffer from a governance problem. Responsibility is often distributed across committees, departments, and faculty groups without clearly defined roles. While this may seem collaborative, it frequently leads to ambiguity.
Typical symptoms include the following:
- Irregular committee meetings
- Delays in data collection and reporting
- Inconsistent interpretation of results
- Loss of continuity when faculty rotate off committees
When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable.
Effective systems define:
- Who collects the data
- Who analyzes the results
- Who leads discussions
- Who ensures that improvements are implemented
Clarity of roles is not bureaucratic; it is essential for consistency and sustainability.
Mistake 5: AoL Is Not Embedded in Normal Academic Work
Perhaps the most important issue is structural. In many schools, AoL operates as a separate process:
- Data is collected through special forms or templates
- Faculty complete additional reporting tasks outside their teaching
- Assessment activities are disconnected from regular coursework
This creates a system that feels artificial and burdensome. The consequences are predictable:
- Low faculty engagement
- Inconsistent data quality
- Perception of AoL as “extra work”
In contrast, effective AoL systems are embedded into normal academic activities. This often includes:
- Signature assignments used for both grading and assessment
- Rubrics that serve both instructional and assessment purposes
- Data collection integrated into existing systems (e.g., LMS or centralized platforms)
When AoL becomes part of what faculty already do, it stops being a burden and starts becoming useful. Faculty start viewing assessment not as an additional task but rather as an essential part of their teaching responsibilities.
What Effective AoL Systems Do Differently
High-functioning AoL systems are not necessarily more complex. In fact, they are often simpler and more intentional. Effective AoL systems tend to share several characteristics:
- A limited number of well-defined, meaningful PLOs
- Strong alignment between outcomes, assessment method, rubrics, and targets
- Embedded assessment methods that fit naturally into courses
- Clear roles, timelines, and accountability structures
- Regular, substantive discussions of results
- A genuine commitment to learning from both strong and weak performance
Most importantly, these systems are designed with usability and sustainability in mind. They recognize that faculty time and attention are limited resources, and they aim to maximize impact while minimizing unnecessary complexity.
From Compliance to Continuous Improvement
Assurance of Learning was never intended to be a compliance exercise. At its core, it is about understanding whether students are achieving meaningful outcomes and using that knowledge to improve programs.
Most accreditation frameworks, such as AACSB International, emphasize continuous improvement via AoL, but the effectiveness of this process depends entirely on how the system is designed and implemented by a business school. AoL systems that are overly complex, poorly aligned, or disconnected from everyday academic work are not likely to lead to tangible improvements in student learning. Masking this failure with extensive and professionally looking documentation will not help.
How Accreditation.Biz Can Help
The good news is that most AoL problems are not faculty problems. Most faculty members treat teaching seriously and view assessment as an important vehicle for improving the quality of education that they deliver. Most AoL problems are design problems. A well-designed AoL system should make life easier, not harder. It should provide clear insights, support meaningful discussions, and integrate seamlessly into existing academic processes.
An experienced accreditation partner such as Accreditation.Biz can help your school:
- Simplify and streamline AoL processes and structures
- Align PLOs, assessment methods, and rubrics effectively
- Embed assessment into normal teaching activities
- Establish clear roles and sustainable AoL processes
- Avoid common design mistakes that lead to faculty burnout
The purpose behind AACSB Standard 5 is not to force business schools to do more assessment. AACSB Standard 5 requires business schools to design AoL systems that support tangible and continuous improvement in student learning.