The quinquennial revalidation cycle replaced the periodic review process from 2020-21, as agreed at QLIC on 10 June 2020.
Initially, the schedule for quinquennial revalidation of home programmes will be based on the existing periodic review schedule. However, there is flexibility to extend the timescale for re-validation of individual programmes, for a period of up to two years, if there is clear evidence that they meet University criteria for quality, student outcomes, and currency.
4.3 The quinquennial revalidation process therefore involves an initial desk-based assessment by the FAESC/QLIC quality sub-group, to determine whether a re-validation is needed for all the programmes within the subject group due for review, or whether the validation period can be extended for any or all of the programmes.
4.4 The quality sub-group will consider the following factors:
- How long ago the programme was first validated or most recently revalidated
- A summary of modifications made since the above date
- When the programme was last re-accredited by the relevant PSRB
- Student recruitment numbers
- NSS/PTES scores, or other measures of student satisfaction
- Graduate outcomes (attainment/employability)
- Externality (external examiner reports, PSRB monitoring, industrial liaison/advisory activity, alumni activity including mentoring/placement activity, etc)
The Faculty quality sub-group will be looking for consistently good performance in respect of these indicators, over the last 3-4 years. Many of these indicators are covered in the annual quality monitoring/annual review report; therefore, Programme Leads or Subject Coordinators wishing to request an extension to the current validation period should refer to their annual review reports for the last 3-4 years, and make a brief submission to the quality sub-group (using template T2.19), setting out their rationale for seeking exemption from the current revalidation exercise. The rationale should cover the indicators listed above, and highlight any of the programme team’s recent achievements which they believe provide evidence that the programme meets University and sector expectations for quality, currency and benefits for students (for example, using the core practices in the UK Quality Code as a reference point). Advice on submissions may be sought from the Faculty ADESE or Head of QA & Validations.
If the Faculty quality sub-group considers that strong evidence regarding the quality of the academic experience has been provided, the revalidation schedule will be updated to reflect the programme/s exempted from the revalidation exercise and this will be reported to QLIC. Otherwise, the programme team will be asked to prepare for revalidation, following the new programme approval process described in the Quality & Standards Handbook.