I. Rationale
Quality faculty, a thoughtful and relevant curriculum, and support for teaching are all
input contributions to learner success. However, to ensure that learners are prepared
for careers or further study, it is necessary to assess competencies through a
combination of direct and indirect assurance of learning (AoL) measures. Competencies
include knowledge, skills and abilities and are a demonstration of learner ability to
accomplish tasks. Thus, they are more outcome-focused and broader-based than
learning goals.
It is important to know whether graduates are satisfied with their program of study,
prepared for a world of work or further study, and successful in their future endeavors.
The primary goal of AoL is to ensure competency or proficiency with business skills and
knowledge. Direct measures are useful because they provide evidence that learners
can demonstrate competency; however, indirect measures can be useful in assessing
whether a curriculum is accomplishing desired objectives.

II. Clarifying Guidance
Philosophy of AoL
AoL is not intended to be a check-the-box, compliance exercise. Such an approach
deprives a school and its learners of a real opportunity to live the spirit of continuous
improvement for the degree programs covered by AACSB accreditation. Peer review
teams should not approach AoL from a purely compliance mindset. Rather, they should
keep in mind that they are determining whether the school is meeting the spirit and
intent of Standard 5 and showing continuous improvement, and that the learners are
substantially meeting stated learning competencies. The AoL standard is principlesbased
and is meant to provide guidance in conducting direct and indirect assessment of
learner competency. It is AACSB’s position that more complexity, a greater number of
competency goals, or assessing every competency every year does not make an AoL
process better. It is the systematic process, informed by the school’s mission and
strategies and resulting in meaningful improvements in curriculum and learning, that
defines a strong and mature AoL system.
One of the essential elements of AoL is faculty and key stakeholder involvement. It
cannot be emphasized enough that AoL is not about one or a few members of the
faculty or staff doing most of the work. AoL should be faculty driven, with the majority of
faculty involved at some level. Faculty in whose courses assurance of learning
competencies are measured have a particularly high responsibility to ensure that the
learning goals are appropriate and meaningful, and that student learning is enhanced
through the AoL process. However, the faculty as a whole should be familiar with the
school’s AoL processes and should be involved in reviewing and providing feedback on
a continuous improvement basis. External stakeholders such as advisory councils can
be invaluable assets in helping a school determine whether they have the right
competencies specified for a given degree program. AACSB strongly encourages such
input.
Essential Elements
The essential elements for alignment with Standard 5 emanate from the language in the
standard and the interpretive guidance aligned with the standard and are as follows:

• A well-documented plan identifying competency goals for each degree program
  and describing where and when each competency is assessed;
• A process that involves broad faculty and other key stakeholder involvement;
• Competencies measured systematically (i.e., at regular pre-established
  intervals), with curriculum improvements emanating directly from the AoL
  process;
• A combination of direct and indirect assessment of learning across all degree
  programs, but each degree program may use either direct or indirect
  assessment or a combination of both; mission, strategy, and competency goals
  are factors in selecting the best approach;
• Competency goals consonant with the school’s mission, expected outcomes,
  and strategies are established for each degree program; and
• Demonstration that degree competency goals have been substantially met, or
  in cases where goals are not being met, the school has instituted efforts to
  eliminate the discrepancy.

Direct vs. Indirect Measures
Both direct and indirect measures of assessment should be used within the portfolio of
programs. Any individual program may rely on either direct or indirect measures, or a
combination of both. However, the peer review team will normally expect to see both
measures across the portfolio of all degree programs.
In some cases, indirect assessments may have a more comprehensive impact on
curriculum. For example, a survey of students returning from internship experiences or
of internship employers might indicate that learners are lagging in their presentation
skills compared with interns from other institutions. The standard does not prescribe
frequency or type of indirect assessment. Some schools may have regularly scheduled
alumni surveys, while others may convene focus groups on an ad hoc basis. Indirect
assessments might incorporate graduation and alumni surveys, feedback from
employers, focus groups, interviews, and other advice from stakeholders. If direct
measures are used solely for a particular program, then it is expected that there would
be multiple competency goals with regular patterns of assessment, feedback, and
curricular adjustment. If indirect assessment is the only AoL measure used in a
program, it is expected that there would be multiple stakeholders engaged in providing
feedback in systematic fashion, on a regularly scheduled basis. The school should be
prepared to provide its rationale for whichever approach it employs within respective
degree programs.
Determining the Right Amount of Data to Collect and Analyze
One observation with respect to AoL is that schools sometimes gather data on every
course, every semester, and on every student. This practice is not the intent of AoL and
is not appropriate. Sampling is entirely appropriate, keeping in mind the principles of
sampling related to gathering a representative sample across the sample frame.
While a robust AoL system will have multiple competency goals for each degree
program, AACSB does not prescribe an optimal number of competencies for a given
degree program; Competency goals should focus on what is most important for learners
to comprehend or possess. The school should create the AoL system across programs,
with a combination of direct and indirect measures, that best supports its mission.

Because the standard is principles-based, it is helpful to keep the following clarifications
in mind with respect to what the standard is not intended to do:

• Specify the number of competency goals a school should adopt;
• Require that each competency goal must be assessed solely with either direct
  or indirect measures of AoL;
• Prescribe that learning objectives must be included underneath each
  competency goal (though a school can choose to do so if they do desire);
• Prescribe how many times a competency goal must be assessed in order to
  constitute “regular” assessment;
• Describe specifically what a school needs to do to have a “mature” AoL
  system;
• Require formal AoL processes for components smaller than a degree; and
• Require formal AoL processes for non-degree executive education.

Learning Objectives or Not?
How schools incorporate operational definitions is a school choice. Many schools
choose to include learning objectives under each competency goal in direct assessment
as the operationalization of competencies. Similar to competency goals, if a school
chooses to include learning objectives under each competency goal, there is no optimal
number of learning objectives; however, as a guideline, schools that use competency
goals tend to have one to three learning objectives for each competency goal. This
guideline may vary in practice. An alternative way to incorporate operational definitions
is to write competency goals that contain specific and measurable components
embedded within the goal. Either way, in a system of direct assessment, competency
goals are typically measured twice in a five-year cycle with improvements launched
between the two measurement cycles in order to facilitate the curriculum improvement.
Closing the Loop
This terminology has created some confusion due to inconsistent interpretations.
Simply put, AACSB interprets closing the loop to mean that a school shows how
curriculum was improved as a result of the assurance of learning process. Specifically,
data from the second measure allows faculty, a peer review team, or other engaged
stakeholders, to judge whether the curriculum improvements that were driven by the
first round of data/results have been effective in helping students learn and/or perform
better. Schools typically “close the loop” at least once in their accreditation cycle for
each competency goal. A commonly repeated phrase that is a misconception is that
schools must “close the loop twice.” This misconception appears to be a
misinterpretation related to the fact that schools commonly assess competency goals
twice in a normal accreditation cycle.

Curriculum review and revision should occur routinely and systematically and be
informed by the AoL process. Because curriculum changes emanate from a multitude of
sources (e.g., external stakeholder input, university or school strategic choices, financial
or competitive drivers, etc.), Standard 5 does require schools to identify the specific
curriculum changes that were made directly as a result of their AoL process and how
student learning was improved as a result of AoL. If process changes were made as a
result of AoL (e.g., the school decides to measure learning outcome in a different
course), these are important improvements that would also be captured in Table 5-1 for
initial schools or elsewhere for continuous improvement review schools and indicated
with a “P” for process change.
Other AoL Regulators and Quality Assurance Organizations
Many institutions are accredited by organizational entities other than AACSB. In some
cases, these accreditors require assessment processes similar to the AoL requirements
of AACSB. For AACSB purposes, it is the “Essential Elements” as listed above that are
paramount, whether those are created solely for AACSB, or emanate from a process
created for a different regulator. Direct substitution of a regional or country regulator is
appropriate only where the process meets all of AACSB’s “Essential Elements” for AoL.
For example, an assurance of learning process focused on the major, as opposed to
the degree level, would not be directly substitutable but could be built upon and
leveraged for AoL purposes at the degree level. When relying on a system developed
for a regional or national regulatory system, gaps from AACSB-required essential
elements should be identified and filled and the school is expected to tell its assurance
of learning story within the AACSB framework.
Competency-based Education
Competency-based education (CBE) is an outcomes-based approach to earning a
college credential. CBE is commonly equated with prior-learning assessment (PLA) in
which learning that occurs outside of the traditional classroom is evaluated for credit
toward a degree. While PLA is considered to be one type of CBE, another major type of
CBE is credit awarded through project-based direct assessment. The standard
indicates that CBE should reflect a small percentage of the total academic program.
This refers to PLA and not CBE based on project-based direct assessment of the
mastery of concepts for a course. This distinction between CBE based on PLA and
CBE based on direct assessment is important in the context of this standard. In the
case of direct assessment CBE, there is no limitation in terms of credit earned in this
manner. The school must demonstrate that CBE programs are of the same quality and
rigor as its traditional degree programs.
Microlearning credentials and Non-Degree Executive Education
Microlearning credentials are certificates, badges, executive education courses, or
clusters of courses offered that normally do not lead to degrees. AACSB standards
expect that these types of credentials should be reviewed for quality; however, a formal
AoL systematic process with competency goals in each program is not required.

The objective of this standard is to ensure that all educational offerings of the school
are of the quality commensurate with the school’s mission.
The standard indicates that non-degree executive education should be reviewed for
quality if it exceeds five percent of the school’s total annual resources. In recognition
that client feedback and program sustainability provide some measures of AoL for this
area, this quality review need not entail a comprehensive combination of direct and
indirect assessment measures. Similar to the assessment of other non-degree
offerings, the review should ensure that the executive education is of a quality
commensurate with the school’s mission and degree programs.

III. Sample Tables
Note as a reminder that Table 5-1 is mandatory for schools in the initial accreditation process
for every program that is in scope for AACSB purposes. The table is optional for schools in the
continuous improvement review (CIR) process. We distinguish degree programs from majors.
Thus, a BBA program with 10 majors or specialty areas would only complete one table.