What are the AQF levels and how do learning outcomes differ between them?

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training, covering senior secondary, vocational education and training (VET), and higher education. The AQF website states that it "defines the essential characteristics, including the required learning outcomes, of the different types of qualifications" issued across those three sectors.

As at September 2026, the main policy document is still the AQF Second Edition January 2013. It has been amended through numbered addenda rather than replaced. The most recent are Addendum No. 5 (November 2024, Masters Degree (Extended) and the Issuance Policy), Addendum No. 6 (January 2025, the permanent Undergraduate Certificate) and Addendum No. 7 (February 2025, the Vocational Degree).

According to the AQF governance page, the framework is managed by the Australian Government Department of Education in consultation with the states and territories. Changes are endorsed by Commonwealth, state and territory Education and Skills Ministers. The AQF Council was disbanded by ministers in 2014.

The AQF is policy, not legislation, but it binds providers through accreditation. For higher education, Standard 1.5.3 of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 requires that "the learning outcomes for the qualification are consistent with the level classification for that qualification in the Australian Qualifications Framework". See what the HESF requires of course design. For VET, qualifications are developed through training packages or accredited courses and delivered under the 2025 Standards for RTOs.

An AQF level is a statement of the relative complexity and depth of achievement, and the autonomy required to demonstrate it. Level 1 has the lowest complexity and level 10 the highest. The AQF levels page describes the level summaries as "statements of the typical achievement of graduates" awarded a qualification at that level.

The AQF Second Edition expresses every level and every qualification type as learning outcomes, "what graduates are expected to know, understand and be able to do as a result of learning", in three dimensions:

• Knowledge: what a graduate knows and understands, described by depth (general to specialized), breadth (a single topic to multidisciplinary), kind (concrete to abstract) and complexity.
• Skills: what a graduate can do, including cognitive and creative, technical, communication, interpersonal and generic skills.
• Application of knowledge and skills: the context in which a graduate applies them, expressed as autonomy, responsibility and accountability, in contexts ranging from predictable to unpredictable and tasks from routine to non routine.

The level criteria are written broadly so that more than one qualification type can sit at a level. The qualification type descriptor is more specific, which is why a Graduate Certificate and a Bachelor Honors Degree share level 8 but have different purposes and descriptors. The AQF also recognizes four categories of generic learning outcomes: fundamental skills, people skills, thinking skills and personal skills.

The 10 levels run from Certificate I to the Doctoral Degree. VET qualifications span levels 1 to 8 and higher education spans levels 5 to 10, so Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas, Graduate Certificates and Graduate Diplomas can be issued in either sector. The summaries below are quoted from the AQF levels criteria; qualification types are from the AQF qualifications page; volume of learning is from the qualification type descriptors.

Two qualification types sit outside a single level. The Senior Secondary Certificate of Education is not located at any level (typically 2 years). The Undergraduate Certificate is not located at a particular level but draws its content from higher education units at levels 5, 6 or 7 (typically 0.5 years).

Outcomes change in three predictable ways as the level rises: knowledge moves from factual and procedural to theoretical, integrated and then original; problems move from predictable to complex and unpredictable; and application moves from autonomy within narrow parameters to authoritative judgment as a leading practitioner or scholar. The phrases below are taken directly from the AQF level criteria.

The verbs matter. Level 5 skills include the ability to "analyse information"; level 7 adds "analyse and evaluate"; level 8 requires graduates to "analyse critically, evaluate and transform information"; level 9 requires them to "reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories". This is close to the progression in Bloom's taxonomy, and it gives designers a defensible basis for choosing outcome verbs.

The same subject can be taught at almost any level; what changes is the outcome statement and the evidence that proves it. The example below is illustrative only, written for this page using the AQF level criteria. It is not taken from any accredited qualification or training package.

Two points follow. First, the evidence has to match the application dimension: a level 7 outcome cannot be proven by a checklist, because the criteria require judgment in self-directed contexts. Second, a program that claims a level must show the outcomes at that level are actually assessed. Mapping each outcome to a level criterion and an assessment task is the core of writing measurable learning outcomes and building a curriculum map.

Volume of learning is the notional duration of all activities needed to achieve a qualification's learning outcomes, expressed in equivalent full time years. It is a dimension of complexity used alongside the level criteria and qualification type descriptor, not a measure of seat time.

The AQF's Volume of Learning: An Explanation sets out the working rules:

• The volume set for a qualification "must fall within the range provided in the descriptor for the qualification type".
• "Typically" allows flexibility for pathways, but "is not intended as justification for not applying the requirement".
• The generally accepted length of a full time year is 1,200 hours.
• The volume includes all teaching, learning and assessment activity: guided learning, individual study, research, workplace learning and assessment.
• Developers and accreditors should be able to give a pedagogical rationale for the volume chosen.

The explanation also says it is usual to allocate more volume where a qualification builds on a lower level or a different discipline, or requires workplace, clinical or professional practice. For corporate programs mapped to AQF units, the same logic applies: a short course cannot credibly claim level 8 outcomes if its volume is too small to develop and assess them.

Two changes in 2025 altered the qualification types; the level criteria themselves have not changed since 2013. The broader 2019 review has not produced a new edition as at September 2026.

1. Undergraduate Certificate made permanent. Introduced in response to the COVID-19 crisis, it was due to sunset on June 30, 2025. Addendum No. 6 (January 2025) makes it permanent. It is a higher education qualification of six months equivalent full time study, accredited by TEQSA or by self accrediting providers, according to the AQF Undergraduate Certificate page.
2. Vocational Degree introduced at level 7. Addendum No. 7 was endorsed by Education and Skills Ministers on February 17, 2025 and the specifications are available for use from that date. It shares the level 7 criteria with the Bachelor Degree but has its own descriptor, with learning achieved "through a combination of institution and work-based learning" and up to 6 years through a contract of training. The AQF Vocational Degree page says these can be approved through training packages or as accredited courses accredited by ASQA, VRQA or WA TAC.
3. AQF Review, 2019. The Department of Education reports that the review's final report was released in October 2019. The Government accepted all higher education recommendations, and the aims of the VET recommendations contingent on discussion with states and territories. A cross-jurisdictional working group coordinates advice to ministers. The level structure described on this page is the one in force.

Organizations should use AQF levels as a calibrated vocabulary for the depth of capability a role needs, and only claim a level formally when training is accredited. Only accredited qualifications issued by authorized providers are AQF qualifications, and HESF Standard 1.5.9 prohibits describing other qualifications with AQF nomenclature.

• Role requirements: specify the level of outcome a role needs (for example, level 5 application: defined responsibility in changing contexts), not just a qualification title.
• Internal programs: write outcomes using the level criteria's verbs and contexts, and design assessment that captures the application dimension, not only knowledge recall.
• Credit and recognition: where staff hold qualifications, recognition of prior learning and credit transfer follow the AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy and the provider's own policies.
• Partnerships with providers: when co-designing a Graduate Certificate or skill set with a university or RTO, expect the provider to test outcomes against the level criteria and the qualification type descriptor during accreditation.

Knowledge Foundry records each learning outcome in a program's knowledge framework with its target AQF level, its dimension (knowledge, skills or application) and the assessment point that evidences it. Reviewers can then see where outcomes claimed at a level are not actually assessed at that level, before any content is written.