be defined by a clear framework, established by the department and principally led by personal
tutors. Students need guidance before they can begin to take ownership of the process, so robust
supports must be in place in order to switch leadership away from staff and over to students. Within
such a framework, flexibility can be introduced – a ‘patchwork’ approach, for instance, whereby
students can select activities that are tailored to their particular circumstances and objectives.
There is also strong general support for ‘vertical’ mentoring, where older students mentor younger
students (either one-to-one or in groups); but training must be provided for mentors.
The HEAR, with its clear link to employability, is recognised as a good reference to support
progress review and development planning. Its presentation of academic and extra-curricular
achievements together in a single formal document is indicative of the wider expectations that now
associated with higher education. Furthermore, its comprehensive scope makes it relevant as a
focus for PDP, and its final summative function helps to promote student engagement. In order for
PDP to be successfully re-launched, however, a focus on staff engagement is just as important. If
the HEAR is delivered electronically and made accessible to staff and students alike from the point
of enrolment, this could assist with securing engagement on both sides.
The broader question of whether student engagement with PDP should be rewarded incited lively
debate. The option to give students recognition for extra-curricular activities in Section 6.1 of the
HEAR could potentially allow an institution to incentivise completion of a PDP scheme (especially
if voluntary); but this could equally undermine the PDP process by shifting students’ focus away
from internal reflection, towards more external