The Quality Assurance and Reflection System (QUASAR):

  • gives all teaching staff a place to reflect upon their subjects and plan improvements for the future
  • helps staff to record the quality assurance processes (in particular moderation) which happen with a subject
  • enables Faculties to record and provide feedback on assessment and subjects.


The purpose of this system is to enable the university to ensure quality, guide future improvements and comply with Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) requirements. The HESF standards require us to support comprehensive reviews of courses of study through regular interim monitoring of the quality of teaching (HESF 5.3.3) and mitigate future risks to the quality of education and guide and evaluate improvements to subjects and courses (HESF 5.3.7).

Key features

  • Single university-wide process, easy to use and access, reducing administrative burden
  • Provides clear documentation on the quality assurance and improvements of subjects that can be used in course reviews, course accreditation, and reporting to TEQSA.
  • Forms available based on allocated roles and functions.
  • Subject Convenors, as well as Coordinators of each offering, can add comments.
  • The timing of each form fits within timelines for subject preparation, delivery and reflection. This allows for quality assurance and moderation to be recorded at critical stages of delivery.
  • The Subject Validation form verifies that the design work from subject and course reviews have been implemented.
  • The Moderation and Grades form documents the moderation of marking and assists with the end of session processes in each subject.
  • The Reflection and Planning form gives key data to evaluate a subject and allows the creation of action items to inform schools and associated divisions of work that is required in specific subjects.
  • The system creates a feed-forward loop to improve quality by feeding the planned action items from one session into school plans for improvement prior to the next session of delivery.
  • Academics get access to key data and the ability to request workload and resources.
  • Provides reporting functionality for school, faculty and university governance committees to help assure that schools have robust quality processes. Data from each form is automatically collated into reports for School and Faculty Committees.
  • Integrates with Interact2, CASIMS/CDAP, and key subject data.


The online forms in this system are used in conjunction with the current Faculty Assessment and Moderation guidelines.

Moderation and Quality Assurance is conducted at a subject level. All offerings and cohorts in a subject for a specific session should be moderated together, therefore there is only one form for each subject.


Subject codes for each session are pre-loaded into the Quality Assurance and Reflection System based on the data in the Subject Availability List (SAL). Academics will be allocated to the relevant subjects as either a subject convenor, subject coordinator or moderator. Subjects that are exempt from moderation (like higher degree by research thesis subjects) are automatically excluded.

General workflow by role

The section covers the flow and timelines in QUASAR (see glossary for terms used):

Workflow 1

Subject Validation

Only needed after CASIMS/CDAP change, due 6 weeks before session.

  • Head of School: performs the initial assessment. If no review is required, HOS signs off and form progress to the next stage (Moderation & Grades)
  • If full review is needed:
    Subject Convenor: provides a description of change
    Moderator: performs a detailed review of subject (approx. 1 hour)
  • If an issue is found in review:
    Head of School: has to resolve before finally moving to approved state


  • HOS/admin to give initial assessment.
    • If deemed validation not required then process ends. Otherwise, form goes to convenor to fill in a description of change.
  • Then transfer to moderator to do a comprehensive validation.
    • If no issues – form becomes approved.
    • If issues – they are immediately flagged to HOS (and Course Directors). HOS has to resolve before finally moving to APPROVE state.
Workflow 2

Moderation and Grades

Due before SAC1.

  • Subject Convenor: Completes Q1-3, the grade distribution question and subject declarations (or whole cohort TA if late), and then selects “Submit to moderator”
  • Moderator: Receives an automated “Moderation and Grades” email when this page is ready for their input. Completes Q4-5, subject declarations, and then selects “Submit to SAC”
  • SAC Member: May add notes for minutes (optional), then selects “Approve” in SAC meeting


  • The form starts in the CONVENOR* state.
  • Once convenors have completed their section, they will ‘Submit to Moderator’ and it moves to the MODERATOR state.
  • Once the moderator has completed their section, they will either 'Return to Convenor' (send back for amendments) OR ‘Submit to SAC Member’ and it moves to the SAC (School Assessment Committee) state.
  • Once this committee has reviewed the form they can either APPROVE or send it back for amendments.

*The moderator can edit subject declaration moderation boxes in CONVENOR or MODERATOR states.

Workflow 3

Reflection and Planning

Due before SAC2 or SQC.

  • Subject Convenor: Review subject performance data (once available). Completes Q1-3, may “add action item” (as required), and then selects “Submit to SQC”
  • Subject coordinator: May “Add comment” (optional)
  • SQC Member: May "Add a Note" for minutes (optional), and then selects “Approve” in the meeting


  • The form starts in the CONVENOR state.
  • Once convenors have completed their section, they will ‘Submit to SQC’ and it moves to the SQC (School Quality Committee) state.
    • For most schools, this function is taken on by the second School Assessment Committee.
  • Once this committee has reviewed the form they can either APPROVE or send it back for amendments.

Explore more