Maximising employability in section 6.1 of the HEAR Dave Croot, HEAR Project Lead Plymouth University Marc Lintern, Director of Careers, Newcastle University

Outline We have 55 minutes! 15 minutes from us; 30 minutes discussion; 10 minutes feedback and discussion. Aim is to give you some background about Section 6.1 (where it fits in the HEAR, how it came about, what approaches people have taken, what people think it should do etc); discuss in your groups how best you think you can maximise it’s value; feedback to whole workshop.

A spectrum of opportunities for showcasing employability Overall toolbox: HEAR, presentational portfolio, application form, CV etc. HEAR has two forms: as an exit document and as an evolving document (evolving from entry point) HEAR: Section 4 : accredited employability-related modules including WBL, placement etc that carry academic credit (within or outside programme of study?) HEAR Section 6.1. Within a clear guidance framework…‘authorised statements of student achievement not included elsewhere, whether: – assessed and/or accredited by the University; – verified by appropriate and authorised University personnel; – approved by the University for inclusion on the basis of criteria confirmed under the relevant quality assurance procedures of the institution.’

What to include in Section 6.1? Stakeholder views. Who are stakeholders? Who is HEAR designed to be used by? Are there tensions here? Student views. (Students as Partners agenda). Verifiable achievements (the HEAR is a formal University document). When will the HEAR be most useful as an “employability” document? Does this help inform the content of Section 6.1?

Two contrasting approaches This is a University document, so limit 6.1 to only allow verifiable content (e.g. Plymouth Award, formal prizes). Anything outside this sits in CV or presentational portfolio. Establish a set of protocols through working with students that facilitate any content in 6.1 provided it meets the established protocols (see next slide)

Section 6.1: Keele Protocols 1. The activity is verifiable and is endorsed by the University. 2. The opportunity to undertake the activity is open to all students, in principle. 3. Information included is presented factually, not opinion-based (i.e. can say they held a position, can’t say they were good/competent at it; or can say did 15hrs of volunteering services, can’t say about the quality of it). 4. The activity/outcome is a direct part of the academic programme (e.g. Placements, study abroad). 5. The role/activity/outcome is defined by regulation (e.g. prizes, sabbatical officer). 6. The role/activity/position supports a University process, which is normally determined by election (student) or University nomination (e.g. Student Academic Representatives). 7. The activity/role supports wider University policy and strategy (e.g. volunteering, associate teachers, etc).

Discussion themes How important is HEAR for your institution compared with other means through which your students can present themselves e.g. CV? Within the context of your institution, what activities are or could already be included in 6.1 of the HEAR? How would you collect this? How far would you want to go to engage others in building opportunities for students to get the broadest choice of content in 6.1? How are you verifying student participation, and is this important? How far are you accrediting opportunities in the curriculum (to appear in Section 4) versus recognising them in Section 6.1 e.g. year-long placements? Any others.....