What does the Higher Education Standards Framework require of course design and learning outcomes?

The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 is the legislative instrument that sets the minimum requirements every provider must meet to be registered to deliver higher education in or from Australia. It took effect on July 1, 2021 and is made by the Minister for Education under subsection 58(1) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) regulates providers and courses against it.

As at September 2026, the current version on the Federal Register of Legislation is Compilation No. 2 (F2026C00804), compiled at July 14, 2026. It incorporates the Higher Education Standards Framework Amendment (Threshold Standards) Instrument 2026, which adds requirements on preventing and responding to racism and on governance. Those new obligations apply from January 1, 2027 for racism and, for governance, from January 1, 2027 for Table A Australian universities and July 1, 2027 for all other providers. The course design, learning outcomes and course review standards covered on this page were not amended.

Stewardship of the standards has also moved. From April 29, 2026, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) advises the Minister and TEQSA on the Threshold Standards, supported by its statutory Higher Education Standards Committee. The ATEC notes the standards must be reviewed at least once every five years, so further change is possible.

Standard 3.1.1 requires that "the design for each course of study is specified" and lists what the specification must contain. In practice this is the course document an expert peer, TEQSA and prospective students rely on to understand what the course is and how it works.

1. The qualification or qualifications awarded on completion.
2. Structure, duration and modes of delivery.
3. The units of study (or equivalent) that make up the course.
4. Entry requirements and pathways.
5. Expected learning outcomes, methods of assessment and indicative student workload.
6. Compulsory requirements for completion.
7. Exit pathways, articulation arrangements and pathways to further learning.
8. For Bachelor Honors, Masters or Doctoral courses, the proportion and nature of research or research related study.

Standards 3.1.2 to 3.1.5 then set the substance. Content and learning activities must engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry consistent with the level of study, including current scholarship, underlying theoretical frameworks, and emerging concepts. Standard 3.1.3 requires teaching and learning activities to be "arranged to foster progressive and coherent achievement of expected learning outcomes throughout each course of study". Standard 3.1.4 requires the design to enable achievement of outcomes regardless of place of study or mode of delivery, and 3.1.5 requires professional accreditation where graduates need it to practice.

Standard 1.4 requires each course to have specified learning outcomes that fit the qualification's level and field, cover four classes of outcome, and are all assessed and demonstrated before completion. Standard 1.4.1 states that expected outcomes must be "consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded, and informed by national and international comparators".

Standard 1.4.2 requires the outcomes to encompass discipline related and generic outcomes, including:

• specific knowledge and skills, and their application, that characterize the field of education or discipline
• generic skills and their application in the context of that field
• knowledge and skills required for employment and further study, including those needed to seek registration to practice where applicable
• skills in independent and critical thinking suitable for life-long learning.

Standard 1.4.3 requires assessment methods to be consistent with the outcomes being assessed and "capable of confirming that all specified learning outcomes are achieved and that grades awarded reflect the level of student attainment". Standard 1.4.4 requires that students have demonstrated the course learning outcomes on completion, whether assessed at unit level, course level, or both. Standards 1.4.5 to 1.4.7 add specific outcome and examination requirements for research training, including at least two independent assessors of international standing for higher degree by research theses.

TEQSA's course design guidance note identifies the risk it is guarding against: if outcomes and assessment are not aligned across the whole course, some outcomes may be assessed excessively while others are ignored, and students may graduate without having achieved the course outcomes. This is the problem constructive alignment and curriculum mapping are designed to solve.

Standard 1.5.3 requires that when an Australian higher education qualification is offered, the course is accredited (by TEQSA or under self-accrediting authority) and "the learning outcomes for the qualification are consistent with the level classification for that qualification in the Australian Qualifications Framework". Together with Standard 1.4.1, this makes the AQF level the benchmark for the depth and complexity of every course outcome.

TEQSA's AQF questions and answers states that it assesses outcomes for qualifications at AQF levels 5 to 10 against the corresponding level specifications and also considers the AQF qualification type descriptors. The HESF definitions table lists higher education qualifications from the Diploma (level 5) to the Doctoral Degree (level 10). For how the levels differ, see AQF levels and learning outcomes.

Every accredited course must be comprehensively reviewed at least every seven years under Standard 5.3.1, and every course must pass internal approval or accreditation before it is first offered under Standard 5.1. Standard 5.3.1 requires reviews to be "overseen by peak academic governance processes" and to "include external referencing or other benchmarking activities".

Standard 5.3.2 sets the scope of a comprehensive review: course design and content, expected learning outcomes, assessment methods, the extent of students' achievement of outcomes, emerging developments in the field, modes of delivery, the changing needs of students, and identified risks to quality. Reviews must be informed by regular interim monitoring (5.3.3), external referencing of cohort success and of assessment and grading in selected units (5.3.4), and student feedback (5.3.5). Standard 5.3.7 requires the results to be used to guide improvements, including approaches to course design.

Standard 5.1.3 allows a course to be approved or re-approved only when it meets the applicable standards, the decision is informed by academic scrutiny independent of the staff directly involved in its design, delivery and assessment, and the resources to deliver it will be available. TEQSA's monitoring, review and improvement guidance note lists peer review, moderation, professional accreditation and industry feedback as examples of external referencing.

A provider shows compliance by keeping design artifacts that trace each standard to a specific document and to evidence that the course operates as designed. TEQSA requires detailed course documentation for accreditation applications and states providers must comply with the standards at all times, not only at application. The table below is an illustrative mapping, not a TEQSA template.

The practical test is traceability: for any course learning outcome, a reviewer should be able to find its level justification, the units that develop it, the assessment that confirms it, and the last time it was reviewed. The method is set out in how to build a curriculum map and how to write measurable learning outcomes.

Before a course goes to internal approval or a TEQSA accreditation application, the course team should be able to answer yes to each item below. The checklist is original to this page and summarizes the standards above.

1. Does the course document cover every item in Standard 3.1.1, including exit points for nested awards?
2. Is each course learning outcome written at the depth and complexity of the AQF level for the qualification?
3. Is there a documented comparison with national and international comparators?
4. Does the outcome set cover all four classes listed in Standard 1.4.2?
5. Is every course learning outcome confirmed by at least one assessment task, with no outcome assessed only formatively?
6. Does the curriculum map show progressive development across the course, not all outcomes met in a single unit?
7. Can every outcome be achieved in every location and mode in which the course is offered?
8. Is the required professional accreditation in place or scheduled?
9. Is the course on the seven year review schedule, with external referencing planned?

Knowledge Foundry records course learning outcomes, the concepts behind them, and the assessment points that confirm them as a structured framework before unit content is written. Each outcome carries its AQF level rationale and links to the standard it evidences, so the map in this page's table can be produced from the framework rather than rebuilt for each review. Structure before content.