Speaker
Description
This study examines how university EFL instructors in Japan justify claims that students have achieved course learning outcomes in AI-present contexts. Drawing on syllabus analysis and interviews with 18 instructors, the study identifies variation in outcome clarity, assessment alignment, and evidentiary reasoning. Three patterns of assurance-of-learning practices emerged, with verification-based approaches demonstrating stronger justification. Implications for assessment design and instructor assessment literacy will be discussed.
Abstract section 5: References
Ito, H., & Yokoyama, K. (2025). Assurance of learning under accreditation pressures: institutional struggles and lessons from AACSB. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2025-0237
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of educational measurement, 50(1), 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
This study investigates instructor-level assurance of learning (AoL) practices in AI-present Japanese university EFL contexts. It addresses four research questions: (1) How are learning outcomes articulated and assessed in university EFL syllabi? (2) What types of assessment evidence are used to support learning claims? (3) How do instructors justify claims that students have achieved course outcomes? (4) To what extent do documented assessment structures align with instructors’ expressed reasoning?
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
Analysis of 18 university EFL courses revealed substantial variation in assurance-of-learning practices. Only 33% of syllabi articulated clearly measurable learning outcomes, and strong outcome–assessment alignment was limited. Three patterns of instructor reasoning emerged: grade-centered reasoning (45%), multi-evidence reasoning (31%), and performance-verification reasoning (24%). Instructors relying primarily on aggregated grades offered limited evidentiary justification, whereas those incorporating in-class performance checks demonstrated stronger support for learning claims. Cross-source comparison showed partial alignment between documented assessment structures and instructors’ reasoning, indicating that assurance-of-learning practices remain largely instructor-dependent and unevenly formalized in AI-present contexts.
Abstract section 3: Content/method
This study employed a qualitative multi-source design. 18 Japanese university EFL instructors provided course syllabi, assessment descriptions, and grading breakdowns, and participated in post-course semi-structured interviews. Syllabi were analyzed for clarity of learning outcomes, outcome–assessment alignment, and diversity of evidence sources. Interview data were thematically analyzed to examine how instructors defined evidence of learning and justified learning claims. Findings were integrated through cross-source comparison to identify patterns in assurance-of-learning practices.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Assurance of Learning (AoL) has become central to higher education quality assurance under accreditation regimes emphasizing systematic assessment and continuous improvement. Recent research in Japan shows that AoL implementation under AACSB pressures can generate institutional tensions, inconsistent assessment practices, and validity concerns, particularly in AI-disrupted contexts (Ito & Yokoyama, 2025). Drawing on argument-based validity theory (Kane, 2013), this study examines how university EFL instructors in Japan construct and justify learning claims within AoL frameworks and how documented assessment structures align with instructors’ interpretive reasoning in AI-present contexts.
| Title | Assurance of Learning in AI-Present Japanese University EFL |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |