The course review TEQSA expects under Standard 5.3 is a two-speed cycle: a short annual monitoring report on every course, and a comprehensive review of each course on a fixed schedule, both drawing on outcomes data, student feedback, benchmarking and external referencing, both ending in a decision of the academic board, and both feeding an action register that is tracked until closed. A provider that can show that cycle turning for several years has met the standard. A provider that has a review policy and no reviews has not.
This article sets out how to design the framework: what goes into each speed of review, which inputs the standard actually names, how the academic board's decision should be recorded, and what the templates look like when written in plain prose. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and re-accreditation work with private providers, most of whom had to build this cycle from nothing.
What Standard 5.3 actually asks for
Standard 5.3 of the Threshold Standards sits within Domain 5, Institutional Quality Assurance, and covers monitoring, review and improvement. It requires that all accredited courses are subject to periodic comprehensive review, with a scope that includes design, methods of delivery, assessment, learning outcomes and the currency of content. It requires that reviews are informed by external referencing, including benchmarking of student outcomes and comparison with equivalent courses elsewhere, and it requires that performance is monitored in between reviews, and that the results of both are used to improve the course.
Two features of the wording matter for design. First, the standard distinguishes comprehensive review from ongoing monitoring; a provider that does only one is doing half the job. Second, the standard is in the present tense and is about use: findings are acted on. The guidance note on monitoring, review and improvement is a useful companion, with the usual caveat that guidance notes are not themselves Threshold Standards.
Annual monitoring: the fast speed
Annual monitoring is a short report on each course, produced every year on a fixed date, using the same indicators every time. In my experience the discipline of sameness matters more than the sophistication of the indicators. A three-page report that appears every February for five years is far stronger evidence than a forty-page report produced once.
The indicators I recommend are commencing and continuing enrolments, progression and attrition rates by cohort, grade distributions by unit with any unit outside an agreed band flagged, student feedback summarised by unit with response rates, complaints and academic integrity cases by unit, staff changes, and the status of last year's actions. Each indicator is compared with the previous year and, where the provider has the data, with a benchmark. The report ends with no more than five proposed actions, each with an owner and a date. Where the provider has begun collecting and using student feedback systematically, the feedback section becomes the most useful part of the report, because it is the one place the student voice enters the cycle.
Comprehensive review: the slow speed
Comprehensive review happens on a cycle the provider sets for itself and writes into policy. Five years is common and aligns with course accreditation periods; some providers review a year before re-accreditation is due so that the findings feed the renewal application. The review looks at the whole course rather than the year: whether its learning outcomes still match the AQF level and the field, whether the structure and assessment design still make sense, whether content is current, whether graduates are getting where the course said they would, and how the course compares with equivalent courses at other providers.
The inputs the standard names are the ones assessors look for first. Outcomes data means the five years of monitoring reports read together, plus graduate destination information where it exists. Feedback means student, graduate and employer views, gathered for the review rather than recycled from unit surveys. Benchmarking means a comparison of admission standards, progression, grade distributions and completions against equivalent courses, using published data or a benchmarking partner.
External referencing means an external academic in the discipline reading the course documents, a sample of assessed work and the outcomes data, and writing a report. In fifteen years I have not seen a comprehensive review without an external referee's report survive scrutiny at re-accreditation.
The course review TEQSA accepts ends in an academic board decision
A course review TEQSA will accept ends in a decision, and the decision is made by the academic board. This is the point most frameworks get wrong. The review report is often excellent; it is then noted by the academic board and filed, and no decision is ever recorded. Assessors read the minutes looking for what the board decided and cannot find it.
The board has a small number of options and the minutes should record which it chose: to continue the course as it is, to continue it with specified changes, to require a further report on a specific matter, or to recommend to the corporate board that the course be taught out. The minutes should also record the questions asked and any conditions attached. Where the review recommended changes that need re-accreditation, the board's decision should say so and set the process going. This is the same principle that governs course approval under Standard 5.1: the academic board is the decision-maker, and the record must show it deciding rather than receiving.
Action tracking is where the evidence lives
Every review and every monitoring report produces actions. The framework needs one register, owned by one person, reported to the academic board at every meeting until each action is closed. Each line records the source (which review, which year), the action, the owner, the due date, the current status and, when closed, the evidence of closure. A line that says "revise assessment in Unit 204" is closed by a reference to the revised unit outline approved on a given date, not by the word "done".
TEQSA reads the action register more closely than the reviews themselves, because it shows whether the cycle produces change. A register with fifty open items and nothing closed tells one story. A register with items closed on time and a few overdue ones honestly marked as such tells another, and it is the better one. Providers that draw on learning analytics for continuous improvement often find it easiest to close actions with data, because the effect of a change can be seen in the next year's indicators.
Templates in prose
The annual monitoring template is a single document with seven headings, one per indicator group, a comparison column against the prior year, a short narrative under each heading of no more than a paragraph, and a closing table of proposed actions. The comprehensive review template has a terms of reference section stating the scope and the reviewers, a section for each of the five inputs named above, a findings section organised by Threshold Standard, a recommendations section, and an appendix holding the external referee's report in full. Both templates end with a space for the academic board's decision and the minute reference, so that the document itself carries the evidence that it was decided upon.
How the finished report is written up for the regulator is covered in our article on building an evidence-based course review report for TEQSA. The point of the templates is not their format but their repetition. The same headings, year after year, are what allow an assessor to see trend, and trend is what Standard 5.3 is about.
My view: design for the fifth year, not the first
The value of a course review framework is only visible after it has run for several cycles. In year one it produces a report nobody outside the provider will read. In year five it produces a body of evidence that answers most of Domain 5 without any additional work, and it sits at the centre of the institutional quality assurance system TEQSA expects.
The providers who struggle at re-accreditation are those who treated review as a task to complete rather than a habit to keep. Set the calendar, fix the indicators, name the owner, and put the register on every academic board agenda. That is the entire design.
Download the New Course Readiness Checklist
— a one-page checklist covering approval, monitoring and review design for a new course, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the checklist
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
How often does TEQSA require a comprehensive course review?
Standard 5.3 requires periodic comprehensive review but does not fix the period. Most providers set a five-year cycle aligned to course accreditation, and review a year before re-accreditation so the findings inform the application.
What is external referencing in a course review?
It means comparing the course and its outcomes with equivalent courses elsewhere, including benchmarking of student outcomes and, in practice, a report from an external academic in the discipline who has read the course documents and a sample of assessed work.
Who approves the outcome of a course review?
The academic board. The minutes should record a decision to continue the course, continue it with changes, seek further information or recommend teach-out, together with the questions asked and any conditions set.
Is an annual monitoring report enough on its own?
No. The standard distinguishes ongoing monitoring from periodic comprehensive review, and TEQSA expects both, with the results of each feeding an action register that is tracked to closure.
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.