SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: mentoring


by Leave a comment

Investigating the experiences of the many stakeholders of degree apprenticeships

by Andrea Laczik, Kat Emms, and Josh Patel

Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) have been ascendant in popularity and visibility since their launch in 2015. They are of particular interest to us at the Edge Foundation, where we’ve long championed novel approaches to the alignment of employer needs with provider offer and of the importance of access to high quality education experiences. In our recent event hosted with the SRHE’s HE Policy Network, we explored how DAs fit in the English higher education system, and reflected on their purpose.

DAs are offered across 17 industry sectors by employers ranging from SMEs to large national and international employers and are widely used in the public sector including in policing and the NHS. Studying on a DA programme is an opportunity to earn alongside learning at degree level and without paying tuition fees. About 100 higher education providers currently deliver this learning. The content of the curriculum is designed in partnership with employers, and employers fund DAs through an employer levy which employers can claim against to fund apprenticeship training. The number of DAs continue to grow, with participation up 8.2% to 46,800 in 2022/23.

While DAs were originally designed to address skills shortages and contribute to national economic growth, there has been some debate as to how effective DAs are as instruments to increase access and widen participation as claimed. It is also unclear how far the content of the curriculum should be determined by immediate employer needs versus the duty to prepare an effective and productive workforce for the future.

Our presenters provided productive and complementary perspectives on these questions from different stakeholders around DAs: employers, students, and mentors.

Employers and returns

Andrea Laczik and Kat Emms presented findings from Edge’s forthcoming research report on ‘Degree Apprenticeships in England’. This work based on interviews with nearly 100 stakeholders provides a broad sample of experiences of these groups which hitherto have often been considered in separation. Here we concentrated on employers’ motivations to engage with degree apprenticeships.

Employers favoured the sustainable employment and progression opportunities moulded closely to their needs that DAs facilitate. Some employers did see this as an opportunity for upwards mobility and diversification of the workplace. As one SME employer told us:

‘There are too many people in the IT industry that are like me. Okay, so we’re talking middle aged white guys… degree apprenticeships allow people who wouldn’t consider getting into this industry from a variety of backgrounds, creeds, colours. I want to increase the diversity in IT’.

Apprentices were also valued for their ability to apply theoretical learning to practical applications in work, for their developed communication and teamworking skills.

However, it was primarily large employers who had both greater resource and capacity to administer their levy funds and input into the design of DAs, meaning their DAs are often more closely aligned to their needs compared to SMEs. Many employers prioritised operations at the expense of workforce development and struggled with what was perceived as the loss of an apprentice for their off-the-job training for one day a week. The serendipity of the deployment of DAs in most sectors indicates a lack of clarity, dispersion, and embeddedness in employer thinking, behaviours, and strategising. There is a place for regional authorities to help administer levy transfer schemes, which may be underutilised currently.

Apprentices and belonging

Julie Pepper and Katherine Ashbullby, University of Exeter, explored how degree apprentices negotiate dual identities as both employees and students, and how this affects their relationship with the university. The degree apprentices they spoke to regarded themselves as employees first and foremost. This may be linked to the fact that they felt disconnected from a traditional university life and experience. However, many also regarded themselves as lifelong learners with distinct qualities including industry experience, connections and resilience. They discussed their ‘journey of transformation and change’ which they were able to fulfil through a DA. The weight of the dual identity nevertheless came with increased pressures.

The identities Julie and Katherine described bear considerable resemblance to that in existing research on part-time learners. And they illuminate some of differences between the highly structured programmes of employment-oriented identity formation in DA models and the more ‘open’ identity formation of UG courses. This is a productive difference. But it involves a trade-off – full time students have a disconnect with employers which mirrored DAs’ disconnect with socialisation opportunities in educational institutional communities.

Mentors and mentoring

Aimee France, Claire Staniland and Karen Stevens presented on their research, with Trudy Sevens from Sheffield Hallam University and with Josh Patel from Edge, on the role and identity of Work Based Mentors (WBMs) of degree apprentices in Allied Health Professions (AHP). DAs are increasingly important in NHS workforce planning. Defining the role of a WBM and identifying good practice is consequently valuable to ensure the success of DAs. As Aimee, Claire and Karen discussed, WBMs have a unique role distinct from an academic tutor or workplace assessor. Their role is both pastoral and acting as a bridge between the academic world and practice, particularly helping to identify opportunities to better integrate theory and practice. This is critical to providing recognition, perhaps accreditation, and effective training for WBMs. The formalisation of such roles might be welcomed, but only if important virtues of voluntarism, care, and reciprocity are maintained. The relevance of these findings outside AHP is likely to be high regarding other liminal mentorship roles.

Providers and social justice

Charlynne Pullen, also of Sheffield Hallam, turned to the perspective of providers, drawing on her research with Colin McCaig, and Kat Emms and Andrea Laczik from Edge. In the current uncertain higher education landscape, providers are motivated to strengthen and diversify their applied provision to draw on ‘untapped markets’ of student demand. Cultivating this market requires substantial efforts to stimulate interest from employers and potential students. How far these efforts do broaden entry and widen participation varied. With the growing awareness of DAs, concerns have arisen around so-called ‘middle-class capture’ of DA opportunities by candidates who likely would have attended HE regardless. DAs have high entry requirements, sometimes including assessment centres, and providers have limited means to influence recruitment which is ultimately the purview of employers. This meant that DAs currently display a contested role in enabling individual social mobility. Opportunities for school leavers seemed limited, though there is an arguable role for DAs in widening participation and entry to higher-level professions for adult learners. Social justice can potentially be achieved through DAs in two ways – either through social mobility of degree apprentices, and/or through widening participation in HE. DAs can offer social mobility for existing employees (as can any substantial on-job training) but will have no substantive role in widening participation to HE on current measurement methods which focus on young people, because DAs aimed at 18-year old school leavers do not attract the same level of diversity as existing undergraduate degrees offered by providers.

Conclusions

DAs represent one of the most exciting innovations in the way providers approach the design and delivery of degree level education in the UK. Together, this research indicates that while for employers and learners who can take advantage the benefits are substantial, there is work to do to improve their accessibility. DAs are still small scale. And, first and foremost, they are jobs. If employers do not have degree level vacancies, DAs cannot be offered. Until there are programmatic efforts to simulate job creation, distributing resources between employers, evidencing the impact of DAs more clearly, and identifying best practice in areas such as mentoring, would help strengthen the effectiveness of DAs.

Edge will be publishing three of the pieces of research on DAs featured in this blog in September and October 2024. To keep up to date with our research, sign up to our mailing list, or follow us on Twitter @ukEdge and LinkedIn.

The Edge Foundation is an independent, politically impartial foundation, inspiring the education system in order to help young people acquire the knowledge, skills & behaviours to flourish. Andrea Laczik is the Director of Research, Kat Emms is an Education and Policy Senior Researcher, and Josh Patel is a researcher.


by 1 Comment

Doctoral progress reviews: managing KPIs or developing researchers?

by Tim Clark

All doctoral students in the UK are expected to navigate periodic, typically annual, progress reviews as part of their studies (QAA, 2020). Depending on the stage, and the individual institutional regulations, these often play a role in determining confirmation of doctoral status and/or continuation of studies. Given that there were just over 100,000 doctoral students registered in the UK in 2021 (HESA, 2022), it could therefore be argued that the progress review is a relatively prominent, and potentially high stakes, example of higher education assessment.  However, despite this potential significance, guidance relating to doctoral progress reviews is fairly sparse, institutional processes and terminology reflect considerable variations in approach, empirical research to inform design is extremely limited (Dowle, 2023) and perhaps most importantly, the purpose of these reviews is often unclear or contested.

At the heart of this lack of clarity appears to be a tension surrounding the frequent positioning of progress reviews as primarily institutional tools for managing key performance indicators relating to continuation and completion, as opposed to primarily pedagogical tools for supporting individual students learning (Smith McGloin, 2021). Interestingly however, there is currently very little research regarding effectiveness or practice in relation to either of these aspects. Yet, there is growing evidence to support an argument that this lack of clarity regarding purpose may frequently represent a key limitation in terms of engagement and value (Smith McGloin, 2021, Sillence, 2023; Dowle, 2023). As Bartlett and Eacersall (2019) highlight, the common question is ‘why do I have to do this?’

As a relatively new doctoral supervisor and examiner, with a research interest in doctoral pedagogy, in the context of these tensions, I sought to use a pedagogical lens to explore a small group of doctoral students’ experiences of navigating their progress review. My intention for this blog is to share some learning from this work, with a more detailed recent paper reporting on the study also available here (Clark, 2023). 

Methods and Approach

This research took place in one post-1992 UK university, where progress assessment consisted of submission of a written report, followed by an oral examination or review (depending on the stage). These progress assessments are undertaken by academic staff with appropriate expertise, who are independent of the supervision team. This was a small-scale study, involving six doctoral students, who were all studying within the humanities or social sciences. Students were interviewed using a semi-structured narrative ‘event-focused’ (Jackman et al, 2022) approach, to generate a rich narrative relating to their experience of navigating through the progress review as a learning event.

In line with the pedagogical focus, the concept of ‘assessment for learning’ was adopted as a theoretical framework (Wiliam, 2011). Narratives were then analysed using an iterative ‘visit and revisit’ (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009) approach. This involved initially developing short vignettes to consider students’ individual experiences before moving between the research question, data and theoretical framework to consider key themes and ideas.

Findings

The study identified that the students understood their doctoral progress reviews as having significant potential for supporting their learning and development, but that specific aspects of the process were understood to be particularly important. Three key understandings arose from this: firstly, that the oral ‘dialogic’ component of the assessment was seen as most valuable in developing thinking, secondly, that progress reviews offered the potential to reframe and disrupt existing thinking relating to their studies, and finally, that progress reviews have the potential to play an important role in developing a sense of autonomy, permission and motivation.

In terms of design and practice, the value of the dialogic aspect of the assessment was seen as being in its potential to extend thinking through the assessor, as a methodological and disciplinary ‘expert’, introducing invitational, coaching format, questions to provoke reflection and provide opportunities to justify and explore research decisions. When this approach was taken, students recalled moments where they were able to make ‘breakthroughs’ in their thinking or where they later realised that the discussion was significant in shaping their future research decisions. Alongside this, a respectful and supportive approach was viewed as important in enhancing psychological safety and creating a sense of ownership and permission in relation to their work:

“I think having that almost like mentoring, which is like a mini mentoring or mini coaching session, in these examination spots is just really helpful”

“I’m pootling along and it’s going okay and now this bombshell’s just dropped, but it was helpful because, yeah, absolutely it completely shifted it.”

“It’s my study… as long as I can justify academically and back it up. Why I’ve chosen to do what I’ve done then that’s okay.” 

Implications

Clearly this is a small-scale study, with a relatively narrow disciplinary focus, however its value is intended to lie in its potential to provoke consideration of progress reviews as tools for teaching, learning and researcher development, rather than to assert any generalisable understanding for practice.

This consideration may include questions which are relevant for research leaders, supervisors and assessors/examiners, and for doctoral students. Most notably: is there a shared understanding of the purpose of doctoral progress reviews and why we ‘have’ to do it? And how does this purpose inform design, practice and related training within our institutions?

Within this study it was evident that in this context the role of dialogic assessment was significant, and given the additional resource required to protect or introduce such an approach, this may be an aspect which warrants further exploration and investigation to support decision making. In addition, it also framed the perceived value of the careful construction of questions, which invite and encourage reflection and learning, as opposed to seeking solely to ‘test’ this.

Dr Timothy Clark is Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Education at the University of the West of England, Bristol. His research focuses on aspects of doctoral pedagogy and researcher development.


by Leave a comment

Supervising and assessing ‘the new generation of researchers’: the power of posing questions and sharing perspectives

by Bing Lu

The SRHE event on doctoral supervision and assessment, followed by a celebratory book launch, in February this year had at first struck me as pretty ambitious. The description on the website said that, as members of the research community, we should strive to undertake new research through supervising and assessing ‘the new generation of researchers’. With doctoral supervision being my own doctoral research field, I cannot help contemplating whether our research community has already moved into a new generation. How does this ‘new generation of researchers’ differ from the older generation in terms of research interests when they first embark the research journey? And how much intellectual tradition we should keep in such a fast expanding community which is increasingly marked by globalization and individuality? With this curiosity in mind, I arranged my trip to London, hoping to find answers from the presenters and other attending researchers.

The six speakers were authors of the six newly published books in the Success in Research series. Referred to as being ‘interactive and practical’, these publications aim to add value to doctoral education, and cover six themes: inspiring doctoral researchers, collaboration and engagement, seeking funding, publishing, mentoring, as well as doctoral assessment and supervision. The event was attended by a wide range of researchers coming from different universities, experienced and novice supervisors, research developers, recently graduated doctoral students, and postgraduate students who are undertaking doctoral studies like myself. It was a pretty fun and productive day led by the positive and energetic ‘lady gang’, as Pam Denicolo from University of Surrey amusingly called themselves.

As the first presenter, Pam articulated ‘inspiring’, a major theme that would go through the whole session. By inviting the audience to think over the question, ‘what is inspiring supervision?’, she reminded supervisors and researchers of proactive participation in the research community by doing things like deliberately creating ‘lucky opportunities’, and reflecting on actions that make supervising/being supervised enjoyable. Julie Reeves, a research developer from University of Southampton, then presented on the value of collaboration and engagement. We were invited again to reflect and discuss with other members the nominal value of inspiring collaboration and why it matters in research supervision. It was a fun-filled experience of listening to others and sharing my own views with them in the group discussion. Also I noticed how effectively the first two presenters led us to think by deliberately posing reflective questions and encouraging us to talk. By doing so, I felt the boundary between presenters and audience was blurred, as we all contributed to each theme by listing our ideas on posters, with many of them indeed being ‘inspiring’.

The four presenters in the afternoon also demonstrated their topics with the same strategy, posing enlightening questions and prompting original thoughts. Marcela Acuna Rivera, research development manager, from Royal Holloway, University of London contributed a practical speech on seeking funding. Her presentation kindly provided a nuts-and-bolts guide navigating research funding with an emphasis on preparing the application, and reminded us why having a holistic view of the research landscape matters so much. The presentation up next was on publication, given by Dawn Duke from University of Surrey. She offered 10 top tips regarding publication strategies, and posed powerful questions about why impact matters in research community and who cares/should care about one’s own research. Funding and publication are always valued and even prioritised in research community, and sometimes the two issues cause anxiety among novice researchers. The two speakers presented both topics in a fun and productive way, pinpointing the significance of being confident and prepared for success.

Mentoring in the research community is a field I had known less about before, but was able to gain more understanding thanks to the fifth speaker, Alison Yeung, from University of Surrey. As an experienced mentor in helping postgraduates with writing skills, Alison explained the relationship between mentor and mentee, narrated her own stories of mentoring students, and invited us to think over the value of mentoring in assisting supervision. Sue Starbuck, from Royal Holloway, University of London contributed the wrap-up speech on doctoral assessment. She declared that doctoral assessment should be inspiring and empowering, and invited us to work in groups reflecting on the factors and motivators stimulating us to improve productivity in the assessment process. Again it was a quite fun discussion.

Have the questions that I posed at the beginning of this post been answered? I think yes. The global research community is fast expanding and changing today, and the rate is being accelerated by different facilitators like technology and increasingly professional training support. Having said that, in the doctoral education, as the main site for cultivating modern researchers and an area of practice for a large number of researchers/supervisors, there still exist essential traditions that can be followed. These traditions are people-oriented, characterized by inventiveness, curiosity and everlasting pursuit of answers. This productive event again verified the power of posing questions and sharing perspectives as a strong support to any volatile situation in the research community.

SRHE member Bing Lu (Warwick) is a second-year doctoral researcher from Education Studies, investigating how academics who have returned after a doctorate abroad conduct doctoral supervision in their home countries. Twitter @BingluAlice