The learning and teaching TEQSA assessors want to see is described in Domain 3 of the Threshold Standards, course design, staffing and learning resources, read together with Standards 1.3 and 1.4 on progression and assessment. What they look for is not a philosophy of teaching but evidence that the course as specified is the course being taught: unit outlines that match the accredited design, staff whose CVs match the staffing profile, a learning management system that shows real activity, and assessment that confirms the stated outcomes.
This article walks through what an assessor reads, in the order they usually read it, at a site visit and in the documents. It is written for academic directors and course coordinators at private providers and draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and accreditation work.
What Domain 3 requires of learning and teaching under TEQSA
Domain 3 of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 has three sections. Standard 3.1 requires a course design specification covering qualification, structure, duration, modes, units, entry, learning outcomes, assessment, workload and pathways, with content that engages with advanced knowledge and current scholarship, activities arranged for progressive achievement of outcomes, and outcomes achievable regardless of place or mode. Standard 3.2 requires a staffing complement sufficient for the cohort, an academic profile capable of leading intellectual inquiry at the level of the course, and staff qualified at least one AQF level above the award or with equivalent experience. Standard 3.3 requires learning resources that relate directly to the outcomes, are current and accessible, and learning support consistent with mode and cohort.
Each of those is written in the present tense. Assessors do not ask whether the provider plans to have qualified staff; they ask who is teaching the unit this study period. That distinction between existence and operation is the whole difference between a course that reads well and a course that passes.
The unit outline is the first document an assessor opens
In my experience the unit outline is where learning and teaching TEQSA scrutiny begins, because it is the document that connects the accredited design to what a student actually experiences. Assessors compare it with the course specification. They check that the unit's learning outcomes are the ones in the accredited map, that the assessment tasks and weightings are the ones the academic board approved, that the readings are current, and that the workload matches the indicative hours in the specification.
The failures are specific. A unit outline that lists an examination the design document says was replaced with a portfolio two years ago. Prescribed readings with nothing published in the last decade in a field that moves quickly, which Standard 3.1.2(c) treats as a design fault. A set of outcomes that could belong to an AQF level 5 diploma sitting in a level 7 bachelor course. Any one of these tells the assessor that the course being taught has drifted from the course that was accredited, and the questions that follow are about how the academic board let that happen.
Staffing: the CV must match the timetable
Standard 3.2 is assessed against people, not positions. Assessors ask for the staffing profile for each course, the current teaching allocation, and CVs. They then cross-check. The person the allocation names as teaching the AQF level 9 research methods unit should hold a doctorate or show equivalent experience, as Standard 3.2.3(c) requires. The person teaching the specialised practice unit who does not meet that standard should be visibly guided and overseen by someone who does, as 3.2.4 permits.
The mistake I see most often is a staffing profile written for the application and a timetable staffed from whoever was available. Sessional staff appear in the LMS as unit coordinators without appearing in the profile at all. A single academic is listed as coordinating five units across two courses with no evidence of the workload being sustainable, which fails 3.2.1 on sufficiency. The staff record should also show what 3.2.3(a) calls knowledge of contemporary developments informed by continuing scholarship, which for a private provider usually means a documented scholarship policy and evidence that staff use it. Our article on faculty and staff in higher education goes further into what that record looks like.
What assessors read in the learning management system
A site visit will almost always include time in the LMS, and assessors know how to read it. They look at activity, not architecture. A unit shell with a polished landing page and no announcements since orientation week, discussion forums with student posts and no staff replies, assessment submissions with no feedback returned, and gradebooks that show marks entered in a single batch the night before results were due all tell a story about the learning and teaching TEQSA is being asked to accept.
Standard 3.3.2 requires timely access to the system and training in its use, and 3.3.4 requires learning support consistent with mode of study, including for off-campus students. Assessors will ask to see the analytics: log-in patterns, time on task, and how the provider identifies students who have disengaged. They will then ask what happened to those students, which takes them to Standard 1.3.
Progression and support under Standard 1.3
Standard 1.3 requires orientation, early identification of students needing support, and equivalent opportunities for progression regardless of background, entry pathway, mode or place of study. The evidence is operational: a first-assessment early-warning process, records of contact with at-risk students, and progression data reported to the academic board with something done in response.
Assessors join this to the LMS record. If the analytics show a cohort that stopped logging in by week four and the progression policy says such students are contacted, they will ask for the contact records. If there are none, the policy exists but does not operate. A provider that can show the emails, the calls and the outcomes has answered the question before it is asked.
Assessment under Standard 1.4: does it confirm the outcomes?
Standard 1.4.3 requires assessment methods consistent with the outcomes being assessed, capable of confirming that all specified outcomes are achieved, and producing grades that reflect the level of attainment. Standard 1.4.4 requires that on completion students have demonstrated the outcomes, whether at unit or course level. Assessors read this through samples: marked student work at the top, middle and bottom of a grade distribution, with the rubric and the feedback.
What they are checking is whether a high distinction and a pass differ in the way the rubric says they should, whether feedback engages with the outcome or merely the presentation, and whether a task said to assess critical analysis could be completed by summary. Moderation records matter here. Standard 5.3.4(b) requires external referencing of assessment methods and grading for selected units, and an assessor will ask which units, with whom, and what changed as a result. Our guide on how to document and demonstrate assessment standards for TEQSA covers the evidence file in detail.
The site visit: what happens in the room
At a site visit assessors meet students and teaching staff separately from management, and the conversations are unscripted. Students are asked what they were told at orientation, how they get help, how long feedback takes, and whether they could describe what the course is preparing them for. Staff are asked how the unit they teach was designed, who approved changes, how they moderate, and what scholarship they have done this year.
The answers are compared with the documents. A staff member who does not know the course learning outcomes, or a student who has never had a piece of work returned with comments, will undo a well-written application. Conversely, a coordinator who can explain why an assessment was redesigned after last year's external moderation is the strongest evidence a provider can offer. The design side of this preparation is covered in our article on what to include in course design for TEQSA accreditation.
Teach the course you accredited, and keep the record
Everything in this article reduces to one instruction. Teach the course that was accredited, with the people the profile names, on a platform that shows it happening, and keep the record. The standards are written so that a provider doing that will have the evidence without manufacturing it. The providers who struggle are the ones who treated accreditation as a document rather than a commitment and then had to reconstruct a record of teaching that never quite matched. Assessors have read many such reconstructions, and they are rarely persuaded.
Download the Threshold Standards Map
— a one-page map of Domains 1 and 3 to the documents and data that evidence them, drawn from our TEQSA registration and accreditation 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
What qualifications do teaching staff need under the Threshold Standards?
Standard 3.2.3(c) requires a qualification in a relevant discipline at least one AQF level higher than the award being taught, or equivalent relevant academic, professional or practice-based experience. Staff supervising doctoral degrees need a doctoral degree or equivalent research experience.
Does TEQSA look at the learning management system during a site visit?
Yes, routinely. Assessors look for evidence of activity: staff engagement, feedback returned, timely grading and analytics used to identify disengaged students. An empty or unmaintained unit shell is read as evidence about the teaching, not just the platform.
What student work samples does TEQSA ask for?
Typically marked work across the grade range for selected units, with the task, the rubric and the feedback, together with moderation and external referencing records. Assessors check that grades reflect the stated level of attainment and that tasks confirm the specified learning outcomes.
How does Standard 1.3 relate to teaching?
Standard 1.3 requires orientation, early identification of students who need support, and equivalent progression opportunities regardless of mode or background. Assessors connect it to teaching by checking whether disengaged students identified in the LMS were actually contacted and what happened next.
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.