Degree apprenticeships - a win-win model? A comparison of policy aims with the expectations and experiences of apprentices

ABSTRACT

This article compares policy aims with experiences following the introduction of a new model for STEM apprenticeships in the UK. Degree apprentices work while studying for a degree, undertaking work-based learning and attending on-campus classes. Specifically, this study explores an implementation in Scotland, where computing degrees are designed and delivered through partnerships between employers, universities, and the Scottish Government’s skills agency, Skills Development Scotland. This collaboration is designed to bridge employer-reported skills gaps and to bring about an increase in highly-skilled workers. To examine the policy implementation behind the new degrees, a review was conducted of the policy documents that framed their introduction, including texts from university and employer websites promoting apprenticeships. The apprentices’ perspectives, barely addressed in the policy documents, were examined through surveys and narrative interviews. The policy documents positioned the new degrees as a ‘win-win’ opportunity for employer-led higher education, and the apprentices recognised and valued the opportunity to undertake a work-based degree. However, underneath the superficial win-win narrative a complex implementation landscape was observed for employers, apprentices, and universities. Understanding these stakeholder contexts is essential for the longer term sustainability of degree apprenticeships.

KEYWORDS:

• Work-based learning
• work-integrated learning
• graduate apprenticeship
• degree apprenticeship
• computing

Acknowledgments

Graduate apprenticeships are funded by Skills Development Scotland and the European Social Fund.

1. The survey was completed by 22/28 of the first cohort of computing apprentices and 47/50 of the second; 15/28 of the first cohort were interviewed. Any demographics apply to the research groups, rather than the full cohorts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.