As an initial and critical step in its demonstration of learning, the school must develop a list of the learning goals for which it will demonstrate assurance of learning. This list of learning goals derives from, or is consonant with, the school's mission. The mission and objectives set out the intentions of the school, and the learning goals say how the degree programs demonstrate the mission. That is, the learning goals describe the desired educational accomplishments of the degree programs. The learning goals translate the more general statement of the mission into the educational accomplishments of graduates.

Standards that Relate to Learning Goals

Four of the standards in the Assurance of Learning portion of the standards relate directly to the setting and achievement of learning goals. Those are Standards 16, 18, 19, and 21. Reviewers will expect schools to explicitly identify the goals and the demonstrations of achievement for each of these standards. For Standard 21 the bulleted statements in the standard represent the normal learning goals for doctoral programs. Schools need only specify doctoral learning goals for programs where they differ from those listed in the standard.

Intent of Learning Goals

Learning goals serve two purposes. First, learning goals convey to participants, faculty and students, the educational outcomes toward which they are working. This helps in setting priorities and emphasis, designing learning experiences, and fulfilling educational expectations. While the learning goals cannot be exhaustively stated for any higher education program, it is possible to set educational targets and to assure that the learning is progressing in the specified direction. Second, educational goals assist potential students to choose programs that fit their personal career goals. Only with an accurate understanding of the learning goals will a potential student be able to make an informed choice about whether to join the program.

What is a Program?

The school must specify learning goals for each separate degree program. Generally, such goals are anticipated for each degree program, not for separate majors or concentrations within a degree. Curricula content will determine if one set of learning goals or different sets of learning goals will be required for separate degree programs. For example, regardless of the degree title, if an undergraduate business program has a common framework for general knowledge and skills areas and management-specific knowledge and skills areas as the foundation for a major, concentration, or emphasis area, one set of leaning goals may be defined for all degree programs with this format and goals for each major, concentration, or emphasis area (while they may, or may not, be developed for the school’s use) would not be required for accreditation review purposes. If there are major differences in the curricula content in terms of general knowledge and skills areas that support a major, concentration, or emphasis area, specification of differentiated learning goals for each degree program would be expected though some learning goals could be the same across the different degree programs.

A school may offer substantially the same MBA degree to full-time day students and to part-time students in evening classes. The school might decide that the goals of the program are the same in both delivery modes, and thus, one set of goals would be provided. Alternatively, the school could determine that the two programs should have distinct learning goals. An executive MBA program would require a separate set of goals to denote its differences from other programs.

Each specialized masters program would require a unique set of learning goals though a subset may be common to multiple programs. Doctoral programs should have appropriate learning goals reflecting the content of the program and emphasis or concentration area.

Differences among Schools

Because of differences in mission, faculty expectations, student body composition, and other factors, schools vary greatly in how they express their learning goals. Definition of the learning goals is a key element in how the school defines itself. Thus, care should be exercised in establishing goals and in the regular review and revision of the learning goals and measurement of their accomplishment.

Even if schools choose similar domains of learning goals, they are likely to develop the goals in different ways. There is no intention in the AACSB Accreditation process that schools should have the same definitions of learning goals, or that they should assess accomplishment of learning goals in the same way. To the contrary, the standards expect faculty members of each school to determine the proper definitions and measurements for their situation.

Goals at the Program Level

Learning goals can be established at different levels in the educational process. At the course or single-topic level, faculty members normally have very detailed learning goals. These standards do not focus on such detailed learning goals.

AACSB Accreditation is directed at program-level learning goals of a more general nature. These goals will state the broad educational expectations for each degree program. These goals specify the intellectual and behavioral competencies a program is intended to instill. In defining these goals, the faculty members clarify how they intend for graduates to be different as a result of their completion of the program. By developing operational definitions of the goals and assessing student performance, the school measures its level of success at accomplishing the goals. Normally, four to ten learning goals will be specified for each degree program.

General and Management-Specific Goals

The core learning goals for business programs will likely include two separate kinds of learning. First, there will be goals for the general knowledge and skills acquired by students. The general knowledge and skills goals, while not management specific, relate to knowledge and abilities that graduates will carry with them into their careers. Such learning areas as communications abilities, problem-solving abilities, ethical reasoning skills, and language abilities are the types of general knowledge and abilities that schools might define as a part of these goals.

Second, there will be management-specific learning goals for students. These goals relate to expectations for learning accomplishment in areas that directly relate to management tasks and form the business portion of degree requirements. Such areas include traditional learning disciplines such as accounting, management science, marketing, human resources, and operations management, and, depending on how the school defines its mission, might include such management-specific but non-traditional areas as corporate anthropology, change management, or others. In developing learning goals, the school should give careful attention to both the general and the management-specific learning goals.

Faculty Responsibility for Learning Goals

The faculty in aggregate (either in total, in representative units, in disciplinary units, or through some other organizational structure) will normally be the persons responsible for listing and defining the school's learning goals. Different schools have developed different structures and procedures for creating learning goals; deep involvement of faculty members in the process is a critical feature of whatever mechanisms the school uses. Agreement on learning goals for academic programs is one of the central defining features of higher education, and thus, faculty involvement/ownership is a necessary ingredient.

After setting the learning goals, the faculty must decide where the goals will be addressed within degree curricula. What coursework or learning experiences provided by the academic pursuit of degrees will help students to achieve the goals? Goals may be course specific, or they may be spread throughout the curriculum, or both. For example, a learning goal stated as "ability to express complex business matters in writing" may be a part of a business communications course, and it also may be addressed in required writing projects in additional courses.

Once faculty members have decided which components of the curriculum will contain certain learning goals, they must establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the proper learning experiences occur. Course syllabi, examinations, and projects should be regularly reviewed to see that learning experiences are included to prepare students to accomplish the intended learning goals. While this monitoring activity does not require elaborate processes, it must be regular, systematic, and sustained.

Beyond choosing and developing the list of learning goals, faculty members must operationalize the learning goals by specifying or developing the measurements that assess learning
achievement on the learning goals. Obviously, operationalization of the learning goals is the ultimate step in the definition process. No matter how carefully the goals have been determined, making them operational through actual measurements is the definition. While the school may engage the assistance of strategic consultants in the creation of the list of goals or measurement consultants in the operationalization of goals, faculty members cannot abrogate their own responsibility for final definitions of goals and measurements.

Standards 18 and 19 include language intended to set the intellectual capacities of master’s level learning. This language suggests how graduates will be able to use their knowledge and skills. It is not intended to specify learning goals for master’s degree programs. The specific language at issue is:

In Standard 18: "The capacities developed through the knowledge and skills of a general master’s level program are:

• Capacity to lead in organizational situations.


• Capacity to apply knowledge in new and unfamiliar circumstances through a conceptual understanding of relevant disciplines.


• Capacity to adapt and innovate to solve problems, to cope with unforeseen events, and to manage in unpredictable environments."

In Standard 19: "The level of knowledge represented by the students of a specialized master’s level program is the:

• Application of knowledge even in new and unfamiliar circumstances through a conceptual understanding of the specialization.


• Ability to adapt and innovate to solve problems.


• Capacity to critically analyze and question knowledge claims in the specialized discipline."

While schools may wish to include some of these concepts in their learning goals for specific programs, there is no requirement to do so. The learning goals developed by each institution should fit the mission of that institution and the particular degree program.

Using External Guidance

The faculty has the responsibility for setting the learning goals for degrees. However, they need not, indeed they should not, operate in an isolated fashion on a task so critical to success of the school in meeting its mission. External constituencies can inject expertise and perspectives into the process that will be unavailable if the faculty operates alone.

For business degrees, the business community provides valuable information about critical skills and knowledge for graduates. Major employers of graduates and corporate advisory groups give information about the situations most often faced by graduates and view the learning goals of the school from the perspective of persons who must put knowledge into practice on a daily basis. They also may provide insight into trends and anticipated demands on graduates, thus assisting in curricular revision toward future needs.

University expertise outside of the business school can also be a valuable resource. Faculty in language and area studies, communications, social sciences, law, information technology, and other disciplines can share information about the latest research of their disciplines, how it is best taught, and how business graduates may utilize it.

Students and recent graduates of degree programs can provide their insights into strengths and weaknesses of the educational experience provided by the business degree programs. Faculty may incorporate those ideas into the work of shaping the set of learning goals.

The definition of learning goals must be developed at each member institution to fit the characteristics, circumstances, and mission of the institution and its business degree programs. The definition of learning goals is the first step toward the development of a program of assurance of learning. This first step answers the question, "Assurance of learning of what?" Once this first step has been completed, the faculty can begin its work on the final question of an assurance of learning program, "How do we demonstrate that we are accomplishing our learning goals?" The following discussion provides suggestions for demonstrating learning accomplishment.

Demonstrating Learning Achievement

The school must demonstrate what learning occurs for each of the learning goals the school identifies as appropriate for its programs. This discussion focuses on approaches schools can use to assure that students achieve learning expectations. By no means does this imply that these approaches exhaust the ways schools can demonstrate that learning goals are met. This presentation of different approaches is meant to declare that no single approach to assurance of learning is required. Schools are encouraged to choose, create, and innovate learning measures that fit with the goals of the degree programs, pedagogies in use, and the schools' circumstances.

Indirect Measures of Learning

As part of a comprehensive learning assessment program, schools may supplement direct measures of achievement with indirect measures. Such techniques as surveying alumni about their preparedness to enter the job market or surveying employers about the strengths and weaknesses of graduates can provide some information about perceptions of student achievement. Such indirect measures, however, cannot replace direct assessment of student performance. Often, schools find that alumni and employer surveys serve better as tools to gather knowledge about what is needed in the current workplace than as measures of student achievement. Such surveys can alert the school to trends, validate other sources of curriculum guidance, and maintain external relationships. By themselves, surveys are weak evidence for learning.

Use of Achievement Measures

Measures of learning have little value in and of themselves. They should make a difference in the operations of the school. Schools should show how results impact the life of the school. Such demonstration can include uses to inform and motivate individual students and uses to generate changes in curricula, pedagogy, and teaching and learning materials.

Implementation of Assurance of Learning Processes

The development of systematic meaningful assurance of learning processes with fully developed learning goals and outcomes assessment processes is normally a multi-year project. These standards were originally adopted in April 2003. For 2007 and beyond, schools should be demonstrating a high degree of maturity in terms of delineation of clear learning goals, implementation of outcome assessment processes, and demonstrated use of assessment information to improve curricula. This expectation applies to schools entering the initial accreditation process as well as those that are in the maintenance of accreditation stage. For schools with visit years in 2007–08 and beyond, the impact of assessment outcomes on continuing development of degree programs should be evident.

a. (1996). Banta, T.W., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E., and Oblinger, F.W. (Eds.). Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

b. (2000). Mentkowski, M. and Associates. Learning that Lasts: Integrating Learning, Development, and Performance in College and Beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

c. (1999). Palomba, C. A. and Banta, T. W. Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

d. (2001). Palomba, C. A., and Banta, T. W. Assessing Student Competence in Accredited Disciplines: Pioneering Approaches to Assessment in Higher Education. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

e. (1998). Schneider, C. G. and Shoenberg, R. Contemporary Understandings of Liberal Education. Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.