The assessment standards TEQSA applies are set out in Standard 1.4 of the Threshold Standards, and they are demonstrated by a specific evidence set: an assessment policy, a matrix mapping every course learning outcome to the assessments that test it, rubrics that show what each grade means, moderation records showing marks were checked, grade distribution analysis showing the results were examined, external calibration showing they hold up against other providers, and integrity case records showing breaches were dealt with. Assessors read that set in a particular order, and the order tells you where to concentrate.
This article describes each item, what a strong version looks like, and what TEQSA reads first. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA accreditation and registration work with private providers, in which assessment evidence is the section I have most often had to rebuild before lodgement.
What Standard 1.4 requires
Standard 1.4 of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 covers learning outcomes and assessment. In short, it requires that course learning outcomes are specified and consistent with the AQF level and field, that assessment is designed to test whether those outcomes have been achieved, that methods of assessment are valid and reliable and grades are awarded consistently, that students receive feedback, and that the achievement of outcomes is credible and comparable with equivalent courses elsewhere. Standard 5.2 adds the requirement that academic integrity is protected and breaches are detected and addressed.
Every one of those clauses is written in the present tense. Assessment is designed, grades are awarded consistently, outcomes are comparable. The evidence therefore has to show the standards being applied, not a plan to apply them. The assessment reform material TEQSA has published since 2023 is guidance on how it reads the standard in the age of generative AI, and guidance notes are not themselves Threshold Standards, but the standard has not changed.
The assessment policy and the mapping matrix
The policy is the first document assessors open and, in my experience, the one they spend least time on. It needs to say how assessment is designed and approved, how grades are defined, how moderation works, how feedback is given, how extensions and special consideration are handled, and how results are ratified. A policy that says all of this in eight pages is better than one that says it in forty, because assessors then look for the operation of what the policy describes.
The mapping matrix is where they look next, and it is the document that most often lets a provider down. For each course, it lists every course learning outcome across the top and every unit down the side, and marks which units and which assessments within them contribute to each outcome, at what level (introduced, developed, assured). A matrix that shows an outcome assessed only in the first year, or assured nowhere at a secured assessment point, tells the assessor the course cannot demonstrate its graduates achieve it. This is why the matrix is the hinge between course design under Standard 3.1 and the assessment standards TEQSA tests under 1.4.
Rubrics and what they reveal
A rubric describes, for each criterion in an assessment, what performance at each grade looks like. Assessors read rubrics to see whether the grade descriptors reflect the AQF level. A rubric for a level 9 unit whose highest band asks for accurate description rather than critical evaluation and independent judgment tells them the assessment is pitched below the level, whatever the unit outline says. They also read rubrics against the sample of marked work: if the rubric and the marks do not correspond, the rubric is decorative.
The practical test I apply with clients is to hand a rubric and three anonymised scripts to a colleague who did not mark them and ask them to grade the scripts. If their marks fall within a grade band of the original, the rubric works. If not, the rubric or the marker needs attention, and the exercise itself becomes a moderation record.
Moderation records: what TEQSA reads first
Of the whole set, moderation records are what assessors read first and most carefully, because they show the standards being applied to real work. A moderation record shows that before grades were released, a second academic reviewed a sample of marked work across the grade range, that discrepancies were identified and resolved, and that the outcome was signed off. It records who moderated, what was sampled, what was found and what changed.
The records I see fail are the ones that say "moderated, no issues" for every unit in every term, and assessors do not believe that any more than I do. Real moderation finds something: a marker consistently generous on one criterion, a task that did not discriminate, a rubric band that nobody used. A record that shows those findings and the response to them is the single most convincing piece of assessment evidence a provider can produce. Our article on assessment integrity best practices goes further into how moderation and integrity processes interlock.
Grade distribution analysis and external calibration
Grade distribution analysis is the provider looking at its own results. For every unit, every term, the spread of grades is compared with the previous offerings, with other units in the course and with any benchmark, and anything outside an agreed band is explained. A unit with a 98 per cent pass rate and no high distinctions, or a unit whose grade profile shifted sharply when a new marker arrived, is flagged, investigated and reported to the academic board.
External calibration is someone outside the provider looking at the same results, and it takes two common forms. In the first, an external academic in the discipline reviews a sample of marked work with the rubric and reports on whether the grades awarded are consistent with the standard they would apply. In the second, the provider participates in a benchmarking exercise with one or more other providers, exchanging assessed work and comparing marks. The standard requires that achievement of learning outcomes is comparable with equivalent courses elsewhere, and calibration is the only direct evidence of that. What counts as evidence of student learning is the broader question this addresses.
Integrity case records
Standard 5.2 is demonstrated by cases. A register of academic integrity allegations, showing the allegation, the investigation, the finding, the penalty and any appeal, is evidence that the policy operates. Providers are sometimes reluctant to show a register with entries in it, on the assumption that cases signal a problem, but the reverse is true. A register with no entries over three years signals that nobody is looking. Assessors also read a sample of case files to see whether procedural fairness was observed and whether penalties were consistent, and our piece on achieving academic integrity compliance sets out what a defensible file contains.
Putting the assessment standards TEQSA evidence set in order
For an initial course accreditation, the provider has no marked work, so the set is policy, matrix, rubrics and the moderation and integrity procedures the provider will follow, together with an external reviewer's opinion on the assessment design. For re-accreditation, renewal of registration or any compliance assessment, the set is the operating record: moderation records for every unit, grade analyses reported to the academic board, calibration reports, and the integrity register.
In my experience the most efficient way to present it is an evidence index organised by clause of Standard 1.4 and 5.2, with each clause pointing to two or three documents that show the clause in operation, rather than a folder of everything. Assessors are looking for evidence that the assessment standards TEQSA sets are being met in the present tense, and a short, specific, true index gets them there faster than a large one.
My view: assessment is where the course is real
Governance and policy describe intentions. Assessment is where a provider's claim to be delivering higher education at a given AQF level is tested against actual student work, and it is the section of an application where an assessor with discipline expertise can form a view in an afternoon. The evidence set is not large. It has to exist, it has to be honest about what it found, and it has to show the academic board received it and acted.
Download the Threshold Standards Map
— a clause-by-clause map of Standards 1.4 and 5.2 to the evidence that demonstrates each, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the map
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Which Threshold Standard covers assessment?
Standard 1.4, Learning Outcomes and Assessment, sets the requirements for specifying learning outcomes, designing valid and reliable assessment, awarding grades consistently and ensuring outcomes are comparable with equivalent courses. Standard 5.2 covers academic integrity.
What assessment evidence does TEQSA read first?
In my experience moderation records, because they show the standards being applied to real student work. Policy and the learning outcomes mapping matrix are read next, followed by grade distribution analysis, external calibration and integrity case records.
Do we need external calibration of assessment?
Yes in substance. Standard 1.4 requires that achievement of learning outcomes is comparable with equivalent courses elsewhere, and an external academic's review of marked work or a benchmarking exchange with another provider is the direct evidence of that.
Does an integrity register with cases in it count against us?
No. A register showing allegations investigated, findings made and consistent penalties applied is evidence that Standard 5.2 operates. An empty register over several years is more likely to raise questions.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.