Assurance of learning: moving from a compliance to an improvement culture

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe an organizational change effort that the College of Business Administration at a Midwestern university undertook to transform assurance of learning (AoL) from an inefficient process focused on responding to accreditors to the one that embraced continuous improvement focused on student learning. Design/methodology/approach A case study approach was employed along with the analysis of historical documents, interviews with stakeholders in the college, and a review from an external expert to reveal root problematic causes behind the current state of AoL in the college. Lewin’s model of planned change was applied at the beginning of the process to identify the ways to unfreeze the current state of assessment, implement changes, and refreeze by identifying rewards and incentives for faculty to institutionalize the new assessment culture of student learning. Findings Four root problematic areas were revealed behind the current state of AoL in the college: faculty resistance and lack of engagement, structural and communication challenges, inconsistency across degree programs, and misalignment of the college vision and mission with program learning goals. Improved communication and coordination between assessment groups and increasing faculty ownership were identified as the key factors for a successful AoL process. Practical implications Colleges looking to improve coordination of AoL activities and increase faculty engagement in the AoL process can implement many of the initiatives described in this study. Originality/value This case study takes into account new trends in the area of assessment and AoL and addresses common problems that colleges face regarding accreditation in an area where empirical studies do not exist.

Impact of AACSB accreditation on education quality: perceptions of faculty in an accredited school in Japan

“…In Bennett et al. ’s (2017) study, many faculty members emphasized the importance of active learning and student-centric educational approaches over assessment when asked about valued activities.…”

“…As one of the respondents reported, “Assessment is something we have to do, but I typically only worry about it when a report is due. What concerns me week to week is whether students are learning, mastering concepts and developing skills” (Bennett et al. , 2017, p. 157).…”

“…As Hommel and Vandenbempt (2022) state, "International accreditation systems are best understood as compliance frameworks" (p. 212). The assessment compliance mentality disengages faculty members from the AoL process (Wray et al, 2020) by resulting in their lack of ownership of and/or reluctance or resistance toward the assessment processes (Bennett et al, 2017). Kenworthy and Hrivnak (2014) address the influence of accreditation bodies and the pressures related to AoL as integral components of the rubric decision-making process.…”

“…As Kilpatrick et al (2008) note, if education aims to foster personal growth, expansion and innovative thinking, neatly predicting specific outcomes becomes challenging. Additionally, faculty members often perceive assessment as a diversion from other activities and do not see personal value in them, regarding them as obligatory extra tasks merely meant to fulfill accreditation criteria (Bennett et al, 2017).…”

“…The assessment compliance mentality disengages faculty members from the AoL process (Wray et al. , 2020) by resulting in their lack of ownership of and/or reluctance or resistance toward the assessment processes (Bennett et al. , 2017).…”