Validation and Periodic Review

All programmes offered by the University have gone through a process of development and validation before being offered to students as a programme of study. In addition, all programmes are periodically reviewed to make sure that they remain current and relevant.

There are two main types of approval process used for all programmes currently offered and all new programme developments at the University, which are:

Validation - the process of initial approval, development and consideration for any new programme.

Periodic review/ Revalidation - the process of re-approval, re-development and consideration for any existing programme (home or collaborative) offered at the University/ at a partner institute.

Why is it necessary to carry out a validation of a programme?

It is necessary to formally validate our programmes of study (i) to be sure that the standards of the awards given by the University of Hertfordshire are in line with sector expectations as articulated in the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education; and (ii) to ensure currency of content, programme coherency and educational challenge; and (iii) appropriate student support, learning, teaching and assessment strategies that together result in an excellent student experience.

To achieve the above, the University must be satisfied that the proposed programme:

Reflects Subject Benchmark statements and/or relevant Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements;
Satisfies the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications
Is appropriate in the light of student demand, employer expectations and employment opportunities;
Reflects the University’s academic drivers and initiatives;
Is sufficiently resourced in terms of both the availability of staff and physical resources;
Reflects current research and practice in the application of knowledge in the relevant discipline(s), technological advances, and developments in learning and teaching.

Why do we review programmes?

The periodic review process enables the University to ensure that the portfolio of study remains relevant to both the School and to our prospective students, that the curriculum content is appropriate, and that learning and teaching is up-to-date and well-resourced. This process also ensures that our internal requirements are met, for example, University strategic policies and Academic Quality regulations, as well as all external requirements, such as the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (2024), the OfS conditions of registration, QAA Subject benchmark statements and any relevant professional and statutory regulatory body standards requirements. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regulations are also considered during the development of programmes.

All academic programmes are required to undergo periodic review (and revalidation for programmes offered by our collaborative partners) no longer than every six years. However, revisions to programmes may be required in between these events with some requiring a full periodic review and others requiring approval only at programme level. The process for approving these revisions, based on the scale of revision required is outlined here:

Amendments to programmes in between full Periodic Review

Deadlines

All programmes undergoing validation, re-validation or review have to be ratified by the Academic Board before they can be delivered. Staff can find the relevant deadlines here:

Validation and Periodic Review deadlines

Any exceptions to these deadlines must be agreed with the Director of Academic Quality Assurance. An extension to the deadline may be granted in certain exceptional circumstances, set out in the paper 'Requests for Extensions to Validation and Periodic Review Deadlines', available to University staff. If you require an extension to a validation or periodic review event, then you will need to inform and seek advice from the relevant Associate Director of Academic Quality Assurance. You must complete the Validation and Periodic Review extension form and send it to your Schools Academic Services Officer (Academic Quality Assurance) for permission to be sought from the Director.

The processes of validation, revalidation and periodic review

The Centre for Academic and Quality Assurance (CAQA) manages all validation, revalidation and periodic review activity at the University liaising closely with Schools and programme teams during the process. Schools will be aware of which programmes are due for periodic review or revalidation in the current academic year. CAQA also offer a workshop for leading a Programme Development or Periodic Review, as well as various other relevant workshops, which can be booked via the Staff Core portal.

CAQA Workshops

The processes for validation and review activity are detailed in the UPR AS17 Section B: Development and approval procedures for new programmes of study. The process involves a number of steps. Detailed information on how to undertake a validation, revalidation or periodic review can be found in the relevant handbook.

An overview of the processes of (re)validation and periodic review

Approval Process
The first step in the development of a new programme or award is for the School Executive Group (SEG) to discuss and agree the proposal, which then will be recorded at the School Academic Committee (SAC). The proposal needs to be supported by a marketing report.
All new programmes and new awards, as well as substantial changes to a programme will require approval by the University Academic Development Committee (ADC). For this the School completes the appropriate ADC proposal paper, together with a resources statement and a risk assessment.
Planning
For any periodic review and revalidation as well as for a new programme or award (once ADC approval is given) a Planning meeting is held to agree the details of the programme including approvals, structure, start dates, student numbers, modes of study, DMD requirements, partner arrangements and to discuss the development process and plan for the event.
It is the responsibility of the Associate Dean of School (AQA) to inform the relevant Academic Services Officer (AQA), the Associate Dean of School (Learning & Teaching), the Associate Director of Academic Quality Assurance and the CLASS Learning and Teaching Specialist working with the School about the development. A planning meeting and relevant papers will then be organised for the programme by the Academic Services Officer (AQA) as clerk. Planning Meetings are chaired by the Associate Dean of School (AQA) for the relevant School and the notes form part of the final submission document. Details of required membership can be found on the planning meeting template and are detailed in UPR AS17 section B1.1.4.
For a validation the purpose of the meeting is to determine the steps to be taken to complete the development process.
For a periodic review or revalidation, the Programme Leader prepares an Initial Analysis of the state of the programme, which records the operation of the current programme with appropriate consultation and identifies any issues that the programme may face.
The Initial Analysis will form part 1 of the Planning meeting, for approval by the Associate Dean of School (AQA) and the Associate Director of Academic Quality Assurance. The Initial Analysis should be sent to the Clerk (Academic Services Officer) at least two weeks before the scheduled date of the Planning Meeting.
Please note - If the Initial Analysis is not accepted, Part 2 of the Planning Meeting will be deferred until such times as a satisfactory Initial Analysis has been completed.
In the event of the Initial Analysis document requiring further work before the re-scheduled Part 2 of the Planning Meeting, the document should be re-submitted to the Associate Dean of School (AQA) and the Associate Director for approval normally within two weeks of the date of the original Planning Meeting.
University staff can access the templates for the Initial Analysis and Planning meeting on HertsHub under the heading 'Planning for an Event'.
Development
The process for development of a new programme is similar to the periodic review of an existing one. The development team, as agreed at the Planning meeting, will consider all aspects of the programme and include consultation with students, staff, external advisors and stakeholders (where necessary). For programmes which are also franchised, the School must include consultation with partner(s), in any programme amendments.
Guidance and tools for curriculum design can be found here:
Curriculum Design
The Chair of the development team is responsible for completing the submission (Validation/Periodic Review/Revalidation) documentation and this is normally signed off by the Associate Dean of School (Academic Quality Assurance).
Guidance on how to do the development work and complete the documentation can be found here:
Guides for (Re)validation and Periodic Review
Links to the periodic review and validation templates are given in these guides and can also be found on the CAQA HertsHub site under the heading 'Periodic Review and Validation'.
Preparing for the Event
The event date and panel membership are usually agreed at the Planning meeting. Organisation of the event is co-ordinated by the Academic Services Officer (AQA) in consultation with the Associate Dean of School (AQA) and the Associate Director of Academic Quality Assurance, working with the School.
The development lead and ADoS (AQA) will be responsible for providing the ASO (AQA) with details of the External Panel Member and Student Panel Member in advance of any event.
A submission document (with a range of appendices) will be required from the development lead. The document will be sent to the ADoS (AQA) for approval. The final document will be submitted to the ASO (AQA) by a rigid deadline (agreed at the planning meeting), to ensure that all papers can be scrutinised by the approval panel ahead of the event.
All panel members provide comments on the documentation, which are collated by the Chair of the Chair of the panel and which will form the basis of the discussions at the event.
All comments are shared with the development team, to help them prepare for the event.
The Event
Events are designed to be non-biased, with a panel consisting of an independent Chair, an academic staff member as School representative, an external subject specialist, a student member (current or alumni), the relevant ADAQA and ASO (AQA). A typical event will provide the opportunity for the panel to meet with students and staff linked to a programme.
The event will either recommend approval or non-approval of the programme to the Academic Board. Approval is often subject to additional standard requirements and conditions to be met in accordance with the University deadlines. Any recommendations would also need to be considered.
In all cases, the outcome of the validation/review process will be a formal report written by the Clerk to the event (usually within 10 working days) and distributed to all members of the panel before final confirmation by the Chair. The report must record all significant issues discussed during meetings, taking particular care to demonstrate that any concerns have either been satisfied or embodied in conditions or recommendations, but ensuring that all significant items of comment or discussion are covered.
The report is sent to the Academic Board recommending approval, or in some cases, non-approval, of the proposal. University validation panels do not have the authority to approve a proposal; only the Academic Board is authorised to do this. In order to progress work on conditions of approval quickly, a summary of conditions and recommendations is normally produced by the clerk within 24 hours of the event.
Post Event work
Usually events require further actions to be completed in response to the panel’s conditions and standard requirements. To check that these action s have been completed a conditions meeting will be held. A date and time for this meeting will be agreed at the event. Papers are submitted to the Academic Services Officer (AQA) prior to the meeting, after approval by the Associate Dean of School (AQA).
All conditions meetings are chaired by the Associate Director of Academic Quality Assurance and clerked by the relevant Senior/Academic Services Officer (AQA). Attendance normally includes the Chair of the validation event, the Programme Development Lead and any other relevant person(s) such as the Collaborative Partnership Leader and/or a representative from a partner institution (if applicable). Typically the External Panel Member(s) and Student Panel Member will not attend the conditions meeting but may review and provide feedback on the conditions documents.
Final documents
Before students can be registered on a programme, all final paperwork must be completed. Paperwork includes a report of the event, a signed AQ3 form (UH programmes) or AQ4 form (Collaborative programmes), confirmed External Examiner appointments, a Programme Specification, a Course factsheet, approved DMDs and a supporting legal agreement, where applicable.
The programme will be ratified by the Chair of Academic Standards and Audit Committee (ASAC) once all requirements, conditions and legal agreements are confirmed. Collaborative partners will receive written confirmation and a copy of the signed AQ ratification papers (AQ3/4) once approval has been given for a new or revised programme.
A final ratified AQ3/4 form will be sent out to various stakeholders across the University to ensure that marketing materials and website information are made available for applicants and that registration processes are live for new applicants.