Assurance of Doctoral Learning through Interim and End Goal Assessments: Implementing AACSB International Guidelines within the Professional Doctorate. Dr Sandra Corlett. AACSB International and its Assurance of Learning Standards.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Assurance of Doctoral Learning through Interim and End Goal Assessments: Implementing AACSB International Guidelines within the Professional Doctorate
Dr Sandra Corlett
AACSB - a premier and the largest (Rubin and Martell, 2009) international accrediting body
Assurance of Learning (AoL) standards require schools to provide “hard evidence” (Rubin and Martell, 2009) of educational achievement against programme learning goals
a challenge generally to business schools, because of a lack of systems of direct learning measures
1.1 Create and interpret new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication
1.2 Demonstrate systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice
Three suggested assessment instruments
Three-point scale of student performance:
The programme ‘standard’ is that 70% and 80% of students at interim and viva stage respectively will achieve A or B award
15 Doctoral students submitted for examination in 2010-11 (8 DBA, 7 PhD)
Analyzed the assessment data from two ‘stand-alone performance tests’ (AACSB, 2007), at the mid-point progression (MPP) and viva stages
The checklist question and open comment responses were coded, using content analysis (Holsti, 1969), against the programme learning objectives.
The frequency of coding ‘counts’ were analyzed to inform curriculum development
All students met or exceeded expectations at both stages, but performance improved
Frequency of corrections mapped against Learning Objectives
‘Close the loop’ (Bisoux, 2008, p.22) - Suggestions for improvement relating to examiners’ comments:
Learning Goal 2
Learning Goal 5 (and particularly objective 5.2)