Online learning has changed TEQSA accreditation in five specific ways: assessors now ask how a course is designed to produce engagement rather than whether content is available, they expect assessment to be secured against contract cheating and generative AI, they examine the digital learning environment as infrastructure under Standard 2.1, they ask what the teaching staff can actually do online, and they test whether the online cohort's outcomes are equivalent to the on-campus cohort's. None of this required a new standard, only that the existing ones be read against a mode of delivery that became the norm after 2020.
This article describes what an application for an online course needs to show today. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and accreditation work with private providers, most of whom now deliver something online.
What did online learning TEQSA accreditation look like before 2020?
Before the pandemic, online delivery was usually a mode listed in the course application, with a paragraph about the learning management system and a statement that materials would be equivalent. Assessors asked for a login and looked at a sample unit. In my experience the review was rarely searching, because online was a secondary channel for most providers.
That changed when every provider in the country moved online within a fortnight and TEQSA watched the results. The Standards did not move. The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 says nothing about mode in Standard 3.1 on course design or 1.4 on assessment. What moved was the regulator's understanding of where online delivery fails, and its questions now go directly to those points.
Engagement is now a design question, not a platform question
Standard 3.1 requires course design that ensures student engagement with the content, with each other and with teaching staff. For online delivery, TEQSA reads that as a question about the design of the unit: what students do in a week, how often they interact with a teacher, how discussion is structured and monitored, and what happens when a student goes quiet. A course that consists of recorded lectures, a reading list and a discussion forum nobody moderates does not meet the standard however good the platform.
The evidence assessors want is the unit-level learning design: the sequence of activities, the synchronous and asynchronous components, the workload calculation, the points at which a teacher intervenes. In my experience the providers that struggle are those that ported an on-campus course to a learning management system and described the result as online. The design of hybrid and blended courses raises the same questions with the added problem of keeping two cohorts genuinely equivalent.
Assessment security is where most online applications are tested
Standard 1.4 requires assessment that is reliable and that confirms the learning outcomes have been achieved by the student being assessed. Online delivery makes that last clause harder, and TEQSA knows it. Since its 2023 paper on assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence, the regulator has been explicit that trustworthy judgments about learning require multiple, contextualised approaches rather than reliance on a single unsupervised task or on detection software.
For an online course the practical expectation is a program-level assessment map that shows where the secured points are: an invigilated examination, a live viva, a supervised practical, an authenticated presentation. Assessors look for those points at each AQF level and for a rationale connecting them to the learning outcomes. An application whose assessment consists entirely of uploaded written work will attract a request for further information, and in my experience the answer that satisfies TEQSA is a redesign, not a proctoring subscription.
The digital learning environment is infrastructure under Standard 2.1
Standard 2.1 requires facilities and infrastructure fit for purpose and accessible. Online providers sometimes treat this standard as one they can largely skip. Assessors treat the learning management system, the library platform, the student management system, identity management and the help desk as the campus, and they ask the questions they would ask about a building: who owns it, what happens when it fails, how accessible it is to students with disability, and how student data is protected.
Business continuity, accessibility conformance, hosting arrangements and the vendor contract all become evidence. Where a third party runs the environment, Standard 5.4 is engaged and the provider must show it retains control. Our article on TEQSA and online education goes further into the infrastructure evidence.
Staff capability and equivalence complete the picture
Standard 3.2 requires staff who are qualified and skilled in contemporary teaching methods, and for online courses TEQSA reads that as including online pedagogy. Assessors ask what professional development staff have completed, who designed the units, and whether the academic leading the course has taught online before. A distinguished on-campus professor with no online experience is not evidence of capability in this mode.
Finally, Standard 5.3 requires monitoring and review of outcomes, and the comparison online learning TEQSA accreditation assessors now ask for is between modes. Retention, progression, grade distribution and student feedback split by mode of delivery, reviewed by the academic board, with action where the online cohort trails, is the evidence of equivalence. In my experience providers who cannot produce that comparison have not been looking, and TEQSA reads that as a monitoring failure rather than a data gap. The longer trajectory is covered in our piece on the future of distance education under TEQSA registration.
What I tell providers designing an online course now
Design for engagement first, decide where assessment will be secured second, and treat the platform as a campus you are responsible for. Then make sure the academic board sees the numbers by mode every year. Online learning TEQSA accreditation is not harder than on-campus accreditation. It is assessed against the same standards by a regulator that has seen online delivery done badly and no longer takes the description on trust.
Download the New Course Readiness Checklist
— a standard-by-standard check for online and blended courses, drawn from our course accreditation 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
Does TEQSA have separate standards for online courses?
No. Online courses are assessed against the same Threshold Standards as on-campus courses. What has changed since 2020 is how closely assessors examine engagement design, assessment security, the digital environment, staff capability and equivalence of outcomes.
Is online proctoring enough to satisfy TEQSA on assessment integrity?
On its own, no. TEQSA's 2023 assessment reform paper favours a program-level approach with multiple secured assessment points, and it does not treat detection or proctoring software as sufficient evidence that learning outcomes were achieved by the student assessed.
Does the learning management system count as infrastructure under Standard 2.1?
Yes. For an online course the LMS, library platform, student systems and help desk are the campus, and assessors ask about ownership, continuity, accessibility and data protection as they would about a physical facility.
How does a provider show its online and on-campus cohorts are equivalent?
By reporting retention, progression, grade distribution and student feedback split by mode of delivery to the academic board, and by showing action where the online cohort falls behind.
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.