Enhancing apprenticeships within the Higher Education curriculum – an Action Learning and Action Research study

ABSTRACT

This Action Learning (AL)/Action Research study (AS) explores the practice of Action Learning (AL) to further higher education (H.E.) apprenticeships by collaboration between University Provider (UP) and employer. AL members aim to address complexity, bridging the gap between management education delivered by a work-based learning (WBL) apprenticeship course and translating into the apprentices’ workplace. Set members followed a systematic cycle of planning, action, observing and reflecting. This demonstrates how AL, as a methodology, supports apprenticeship ambassadors (who lead apprenticeships in their organisations) and UPs to solve complex problems through inquiry and critical reflection to enhance the apprenticeship curriculum. The principal findings from AL to cultivate stronger collaboration were clarity of WBL, value proposition and ownership expectation; support of translation of theory into practice; empowering the apprenticeship mindset and professional identity; and senior management buy-in.

KEYWORDS:

• Action research
• action learning
• work-based learning
• degree apprenticeships
• university providers
• problem-solving

Introduction

Action Learning (AL) in leadership/management development has expanded rapidly since its inception in the 1940s by Revans, especially within larger organisations (Brook and Pedler 2020; Raelin 2008; Volz-Peacock, Carson, and Marquardt 2016). AL has contributed to education by enhancing teaching practice (Chavan and Carter 2018; Marchand 2017), solving complex course design and engagement challenges (MacNamara, Meyler, and Arnold 1990) by facilitating active cycles of problem-based discussion, taking action and reflecting. The provision of apprenticeships in higher education (H.E.) introduced by the government in 2014 claimed to offer greater opportunity for employers’ curriculum contribution (Richard 2012), and AL offers a means of helping to facilitate that.

This Action Learning/Action Research study does not question the Assessment Standards and Plan (Gov.uk 2017) set by select employers (trailblazers). The context is the ‘ongoing curriculum’ seeking to improve collaboration through learning between employers that have an existing relationship with a business school through the provision of level 6 and 7 apprenticeships and the University Provider.

Despite a shared interest in apprenticeship success, it is accepted that factors may differ amongst stakeholders, including meeting apprentice learning needs, offering value to levy-paying organisations and meeting demands realistically by university providers (UPs). A mutual concern is that underdeveloped curricula, with little collaboration, potentially decrease the opportunity for apprenticeships as a viable route to authentic learning (Lombardi 2007), thus lessening impact and value. This may compromise future apprenticeships, which limits social mobility through H.E. This study of AR involved instigation of AL sets that are credible in both the employing organisations and education. The sets included ambassadors representing employers and a lead from a UP. The intention was to provide a safe place for reflection, self-enquiry and action to resolve complex problems.

This paper is divided into four sections. First, a literature review of different approaches to work-based learning (WBL) and AL identifies the initial inquiries. Second, the method of action learning is discussed. Third, findings are shared from the action phase. Finally, an initial discussion of recommendations is provided, highlighting future learning.

Research questions

The research aim is to enhance the apprenticeship curriculum through employer collaboration, by addressing the following research questions:

1. How can the learning from management education be translated into WBL? What are the barriers to curricular enhancing relations between UP and employers?

2. What does enhanced translation of workplace learning look like to the action learners?

3. How might AR assist in fostering workplace learning using AL sets?

Literature review

The literature review explores the long-standing challenges of management education for employer/university interventions, the role of the ambassador and subsequent review of the influence of the apprenticeship framework through WBL.

Challenge of management education university/employer collaboration

Prior to launching H.E. Apprenticeships in 2015, critics claimed leadership development models were ineffective and expensive (Lynham 2001; Pfeffer and Fong 2002). Management education is criticised for failing to provide employers with capable graduates (Tekarslan and Erden 2014), as current graduates lack innovation, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills (Thomas et al. 2014). For apprenticeship courses, such competencies are seen as essential learning; apprenticeship standards are key and the onus is on apprentices to translate their new knowledge into the workplace. This active view encourages learning primarily from problems they are trying to solve, while learning from teachers is secondary (MacNamara, Meyler, and Arnold 1990). The challenge for apprentices is to achieve an authentic learning experience, which is supported by collaboration from the University/Employer.

Within management education, the importance of University/Employer collaboration is high on the agenda, as has been documented by numerous sources over the past 25 years, such as the Dearing Report (1997), Leitch Report (2006), Browne Review (2010), Wilson (2012) and Richard Review (2012). Despite criticism, there is evidence of good practices to exhibit authentic learning (UUK 2016), and for apprenticeships, there is an expectation throughout the programme that this experiential learning will be captured and assessed.

Challenge of apprenticeship university/employer collaboration

During the early stages of Degree Apprenticeship development in 2014, it was recognised that employers and universities need to work together for success (BIS 2016) advocating similar underpinning in design for H.E. as lower-level apprenticeships delivered in further education. Specifically, it has been claimed that apprenticeships provide an opportunity for employers to shape curriculum and shift purchasing power to the employer. As Daley, Coyle, and Dwyer (2016) acknowledge, the programme is committed to ‘empowering employers and placing them at the heart of the apprenticeship system’ (372).

In practice, apprenticeships are pre-requested to be led by business. Trailblazing employer groups set the apprenticeship standard, and then employers work with UPs – often through existing relationships – to ensure a co-adaption of the curriculum. This one employer–one programme approach has worked well. However, concern for multi-employers was raised early: ‘if there had been more employers then pragmatically it may have been impossible’ (Irons 2017, 65), and this is possibly where the tension lies today as each employer identifies different needs for their employees that the UP is expected to fulfil.

The spirit of apprenticeships implies there is an opportunity to widen social mobility (Cullinane and Doherty 2020); this inclusivity fits well with university strategy. The apprenticeship levy introduced in April 2017 was a bold, mandatory approach to influence employers to further invest in higher-level skills. This monetary lever increased diversity via multi-employers, who were required to negotiate with UPs to design courses suited to their training needs. However, it led to a complex provision requirement to meet apprenticeship standards, open cohort design and apprentices with different working experiences and abilities, but ultimately involved collaboration with different employer groups with different training needs, which inevitably causes tension. For UPs, there was a commitment to provide management education, to meet multi-employer demand and ensure capacity was met (i.e. enough apprentices to make courses viable). UPs in response were required to invest heavily, setting up central Apprenticeship support teams, which was acknowledged as a factor for critical success (Mulkeen et al. 2017; Rowe, Perrin, and Wall 2016).

Apprenticeship ambassadors

As a practitioner researcher, it has been observed over five years that apprenticeship ambassadors have similar shared concerns and passions (Wenger 2009). Apprenticeship Ambassadors, key stakeholders, potentially having different job titles, but, defined for the purpose of this research, they are the primary facilitator to Apprenticeships within the large employer organisations or ‘champions' (McGill and Brockbank 2003). Their responsibility is to ensure a levy is utilised to meet organisation needs to raise learning and qualifications and uphold apprenticeship contracts. They offer psychological and tangible support to apprentices and managers. Partnering with H.E. is often a new relationship for both parties, including in terms of managers’ involvement, and is not necessarily straightforward. Bravenboer and Lester (2016) emphasise both universities and professional bodies have a role in recognising knowledge, understanding and skills for individuals, and they also highlight with two such stakeholders that there remains a ‘degree of tension between what each may think they are recognising’ (409). This study, therefore, proposes to take a proactive response to problems, identifying wicked issues and finding solutions of best practices and learning for the future to ensure that ambassadors and UP can work together to build mutual respect to benefit from the apprenticeship experience.

Collaboration expectation for apprenticeships

Apprenticeship collaboration concerns between the employer and UP are well documented (Felce 2017; Irons 2017; Mulkeen et al. 2017). There has been little guidance or expectation from government sources on how collaboration can be achieved for joint stakeholders, especially regarding curricula. Bravenboer (2016) affirmed that it is challenging for all parties to navigate. It is also well documented that the terrain is made more complex (Atkins 2016; Nightingale and Sevens 2019) due to different engagement levels and employer needs. This implies that the best practice of engagement for employers and UPs should facilitate the positive impact of the programme once relationships become binding by the apprenticeships contract. As Irons (2017) highlights for UPs, it results in time and effort to develop suitable collaboration with employers, which leads to huge pressure on the UPs to adapt.

In practical terms, there is expectation employers will support their apprentices by ‘release’ to H.E. institutions and by providing opportunities for apprentices’ WBL aligned to the required standard skills and behaviours. To evaluate apprentices’ progress, ‘regular tripartite meetings’ take place. As Rowe et al. (2017) observe, there is an implied expectation that managers need to adopt new approaches to support and manage their apprentices whilst they study and work. Additionally, Rowe et al. (2017) have highlighted potential wicked issues: difficulties in engaging employers in programme design at the stakeholder stage, employers being uncomfortable leading the curriculum and the nuance of the vocational nature at this level.

From September 2019, Ofsted was granted the power to inspect level 6 and 7 apprenticeships; although this ceased in March 2020 during the pandemic, it was resumed in April 2021 (Gov.Uk 2021). The F.E.-style documentation requests to ‘inspect the quality of apprenticeship training’ are in addition to normal academic rigour to ensure good practice of management education. The UPs are audited to ensure apprentices learn, develop and make the progress expected and that the employer is fully informed. Practically, the Ofsted regulation, ‘meeting the needs of employers’ (Gov.Uk 2021), increases the complexity of an already complicated administrative process.

This research investigates the feasibility of working with multi-employers represented by ambassadors via action learning sets as part of the aim of UPs bridging the gap between management education (more than employer training) and work-based delivery by the apprentice.

Work-based learning

Apprenticeships in business offer an alternative option to a traditional Business Management Degree. The underpinning rests on apprentices applying declarative knowledge (Kirkhart 2001) referring to their knowing of facts and information in their own work situations. This is facilitated by employers providing opportunities for apprentices to practise and develop new skills and behaviours outlined by the associated professional standard. The design of apprenticeship programmes, therefore, seeks to develop practice-based pedagogical curricula for the workplace. This strengthens the case further for the employer to fulfil the mutual responsibility to contribute to enhancing the curriculum.

This administrative support in the apprenticeship agreement requires the employer to meet the somewhat confusingly termed 20% ‘off the job’ (BIS 2016) by supporting their apprentice in studying and progressing towards the professional standard. Bravenboer (2016) comments that there is a perpetual distinction between ‘academic learning’ expected from the UP and ‘off the job delivery’ from the employer. Despite this, the ‘off the job’ is where the employer – or perhaps more precisely, the manager – potentially has the opportunity to truly collaborate and not be seen as distinct. However, there seems to be a mixed response from employers in the level of ‘stakeholder buy-in’ (McKnight et al. 2019), which potentially leads to inconsistent apprenticeship experiences even within the same organisations.

WBL is notoriously challenging (Harrison 2009). According to a definition adapted from Boud and Solomon (2001) for the purposes of this research, WBL instigates collaboration between universities and employers to create new workplace learning opportunities. It is widely agreed that authentic experience is necessary (Peach and Matthews 2011). The apprentice resolves real workplace issues by integrating learning from their study. It is the ‘translation’ of their learning that is neither obvious for apprentices or their managers to support and is often referred to as bridging the gap.

Bridging the gap

Essentially stakeholders are fulfilling a common objective, and apprentices are developing knowledge, skills and behaviours with the intention that there is a notable impact for apprentices, employers and UPs. Therefore, the UPs’ obligations are as a ‘knowledge catalyst’ rather than as ‘knowledge providers’ (Costley and Armsby 2007) that encourage apprentices to learn skills applications immediately and facilitate workplace practice under management supervision.

Managers benefit from apprentices adding value when apprentices translate new knowledge and skills.

However, as Irons ( 2017) summarises, it is well documented that there is an emphasis on the need for ongoing support from employers to work with UPs to co-design curricula to capture positive lessons from academic learning and translate them into the workplace. This support relies on managers directly, guided by the ambassadors which contributes to programme complexity. Managers review each apprentice’s unique gap of learning against standards that need reframing in the context of the apprentice’s workload. Clarity is required of this WBL approach, and often WBL is a concept that managers have not met before and may not have the desire to meet, given their busy workload pressures.

Methodology

Research philosophy

The purpose of this research is to make a difference to practice, a pragmatic approach where reality is the consequence of group ideas. This action-oriented research (Coghlan and Brannick 2014) provides an opportunity to collect data via AL sets to focus on current practice in anticipation of problem-solving and to inform future practice. Essentially, we are seeking value through our research with an emphasis on practical outcomes or support actions (Kelemen and Rumens 2008). The approach to theory development will be inductive using AR.

Action learning and action research

The method employed was AR using AL sets as a principal vehicle for data collection with ambassadors from contracted organisations with current programme apprentices. This approach involved a ‘participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview’ (Reason and Bradbury 2001, 1). The core AR process followed a systematic cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting; the ultimate goal was to improve practice (McTaggart 1994). The researcher’s position was key, as a UP to gather ambassadors in AL sets who had a common interest to work via action learning to ‘champion' success but more importantly securing genuine improvement in learning. The ambassador's discussions and involvement as co researchers within sets provided the opportunity to attempt collaborative data collection. The data were analysed by the author using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage thematic approach. First, data were transcribed, read and initial ideas noted. Second, each data set was coded systematically. Third, codes were collated into themes. Fourth, themes were reviewed in regard to codes and then with the entire data set, which was then gathered into a thematic map of analysis. The fifth stage was defining and naming themes, ensuring that each had a clear definition. Finally, a report was drawn up on the findings, offering selected extracted examples and quotes. From this analysis, the data disclosed five themes in the first set and a sixth was added in the second set. Using each of the themes, wicked problems were identified and solutions were offered through questioning.

Action learning as a data collection method

AL is defined as ‘an approach to problem-solving and learning in groups to bring change in individuals, teams, organisations and systems’ (Pedler 2008, 1). The AL sets offered a vehicle to collect data in ongoing phases, providing an evolving process undertaking to continuously develop and innovate ‘self-help’ changes of practice. A key feature of AL is leading with questions that focus on real problems in the workplace (Marquardt 2011; Pedler, Burgoyne, and Brook 2005) thus encouraging dialogue (McGill and Brockbank 2003) and supporting a constructivist approach to knowledge (Belenky et al. 1986).

AL provided a forum of implied shared ownership of issues with the opportunity to exchange, support and challenge (Pedler 2008) and learn from attempts to change by actions taken to seek best practices. The group members were at an ‘advanced stage’, with senior teams and structures in place. The respondents’ quotes were anonymised and given an alphanumeric value. A lead question was shared prior to each of the three learning sets.

AL sets of two hours were conducted with six representative, large organisation ambassadors, over a nine-month period during April/July/February to provide time to complete actions and meet the AR cyclical process. The group set and agreed to ground rules, inclusive of anonymity (Pedler and Abbott 2013). Each set offered guidelines to discuss how they could influence the curricular (education needs, design, delivery and evaluation) leading to a community open to new and innovative ideas.

This is comparable to Revans (1982): ‘no rules, no drill or preconceived approaches by which all managers … can be taught’ (65). The emphasis was not on teaching how ambassadors could contribute, but for ambassadors to support each other to find potential solutions and models of best practice.

Throughout the AR cycle, the emergent enquiry was integrated with existing practical knowledge and applied to solve our shared identified problem of translating management workplace education.

While the AR research cycle was in progress, there was a continual inquiry into the steps of the cycles themselves, which would be central to actionable knowledge. It is ‘reflection on reflection’ that incorporates the learning process, so the outcome was more than problem-solving typified by Marsick and O’Neil (1999), but rather an ‘experiential’ school of AL, based on Kolb’s (1984) ideas of the learning cycle.

To close the AL set, each member summarised the actions planned. The outcomes of these actions were shared at the next set to decipher what learning had taken place. This created a positive environment of mutual support, with an apparently strong collegiate approach. The group talked through tougher issues in a professional way to discover breakthrough solutions and learn from each other’s experiences.

The first AL set involved identifying the ‘wicked' problems (Rittel and Webber 1973), fundamentally social in nature (Sarason 1978), that prevent apprentices translate of management education into the workplace. The literature clearly outlines drivers set by government-initiated policy and expectations for levy to be validated. The evidence in the literature also shows apprenticeships are challenging administratively. Within our discussion, if wicked issues were identified, we could potentially find solutions to overcome barriers to enhance curricular relations.

The second set reflected on the outcomes of the issues recognised, the themes of which facilitated dialogue to overcome barriers and facilitated offers of further ideas as to what best practices could maximise the translation of knowledge. The group was encouraged to reflect on reflection.

The third set reflected on the outcomes of the actions taken. This promoted further dialogue in an attempt to discuss best practices to enhance the WBL experience for all stakeholders for current and future practice.

Limitations

The main study limitations include the small collaborative online set that was person-centred (Roger 1983) in a new working relationship. Although there was acknowledgement of the potential political dimensions, there were no obvious power differences (Vince and Martin 1993). This is perhaps explained by the advanced stage of apprenticeship delivery amongst the ambassador’s organisations or the lack of face-to-face interaction. There was no representation from apprenticeship employers at less advanced stages. The study was also limited by the requirement for the facilitator and practitioner-provider to remain objective.

Findings

AL sets provided an important means of investigating the practice of apprenticeship collaboration. The first set investigated barriers that prevent curricular collaboration to answer the first research question. Through dialogue, wicked issues were identified by categorisation and selective coding (Braun and Clarke 2006). Initially, five codes or common themes arose:

• Defining WBL for our community of practice (CoP);

• Recognising the value proposition of WBL;

• Ownership expectation from the manager;

• Translation of theory into practice; and

• Empowering the apprenticeship mindset. A further sixth theme was added during Set 2:

• Senior management ‘buy-in’.

The themes offered the second set a framework for further dialogue, allowing exploration by reflecting and sharing on actions taken and identifying possible solutions and learning. This supported the second research question by offering some understanding of what an enhanced translation of learning looks like. We extended the dialogue further by AL-style questioning: developing questions that provide insight and define problems (Mumford 1996). This helped us evaluate methods for potential recommendations.

Unexpectedly, when asked to reflect on the initial framework, one ambassador raised the importance of strategic alignment offering the question: ‘where do apprenticeships fit within the organisation?’ This provoked further group dialogue where it was agreed that senior management buy-in was a worthy inclusion.

The final third set offered reflection, inclusive of the new theme, that again incorporated sharing but also engaged in refining our ideas and concepts. We summarised and constructed ideas about recommendations to support moving forward.

Defining WBL for our community of practice

Our CoP shared a common concern that WBL lacked clarity: what is it? What does it look like? This potentially made it harder for stakeholders to connect with the concept of WBL, especially early in the programme: ‘There should be no misunderstanding of what WBL looks like … How can I change rather than ‘I don’t need to change’ assumptions?' (S1-1).

A key theme highlighted by apprentices and managers was the lack of ‘apprentice identity’, caused by preconceived concepts of lower level apprenticeships and the pioneering nature of the programme. Some apprentices felt isolated without this clear sense of identity within the organisation. One participant observed: ‘Often it was the apprentice’s first time in H.E. so initially unsure how to apply it and how to interact with the knowledge they are gaining' (S1-1).

The group accepted, despite this well-documented challenge, a consensus to create a CoP definition for WBL and action to be taken to investigate ways to maximise apprentices’ professional learning and workplace contribution. Set 2 agreed on a working definition that helped to clarify the intent and spirit of WBL, if communicated clearly, and prompting opportunities for discussion. Two set members requested more clarity at each stage of the apprentices’ journey.

It was agreed that, prior to the commencement of the apprenticeship, WBL should be discussed and understood by all stakeholders. One set member confirmed that the apprentice should be: ‘Thinking in terms of what impact they will have in the workplace?’ (S2-3). A further suggestion during programme selection was that apprentices should offer evidence on how they would like to implement change, and they were encouraged during tripartite discussion to: ‘Have the conversation to make sure they have thought about it and linked it to the (apprenticeship) standards’ (S2-1). All participants agreed that understanding WBL can be reinforced by initial provider information that is relevant, timely and detailed. This expectation should be enhanced by previous apprentice stories and project successes building apprenticeship identity (Clarke, Brown & Hailey, 2009) during the attraction stage and reinforced during induction.

Ambassadors and providers agreed to consider what WBL ‘can look like’. This helps apprentices and managers understand project scope, interaction with new knowledge and alignment to apprenticeship standards. Wide-ranging communication methods were favoured such as videos, case studies and peer group sharing.

The final set reflected that improvement was required to identify an optimum number of materials. The sheer volume of resources, especially the number of clicks to access them, could be a deterrent to busy managers. It was recommended that materials should be classified as mandatory, optional or of interest.

Recognising the value proposition of WBL

The first set recognised the importance of the value proposition of WBL for each stakeholder. A key issue highlighted was that each stakeholder perceived value differently, making it challenging to identify and articulate those values for each stakeholder group. The ambassadors felt that value was obvious for learners: gaining a degree, ‘earn while you learn’, no payment of fees and potential for promotion. It was confirmed that, during enrolment, it is important for the tone to be that an apprenticeship is learning through workplace practice and not just the degree. One member observed that apprentices who bought into the value of the apprenticeship were more involved with WBL and often reached out to managers for support.

Interestingly, managers identified least with the value proposition of WBL, evidenced by group comments associated with a desire for instant results and immediate relevance: ‘Connection for other stakeholders was more obvious: apprentices would not volunteer if not self-motivated, UPs are paid, ambassadors are paid for delivery, but managers are not paid directly to support the apprenticeship’ (S2-5).

Some managers resented the apprenticeship, considering it a disturbance to apprentices’ work and perceiving it as adding work to already busy roles: ‘Levy aside, the value of the programme needs to be of higher value than the loss of the apprentice ‘timeout’ or ‘I lose them for a day attitude’ but also the supervising manager time too' (S1-2).

It was also acknowledged that long-term value was more obvious to individuals, and for the managers, this value proposition needs to be clarified further to ensure managers also achieve recognition for their support. One set member questioned: ‘How do we help leaders … understand how we can use apprenticeships to build capabilities for the medium to long term rather than expecting immediate results from an operations perspective?’ (S1-6).

The group was thus presented with a wicked problem. Manager disengagement particularly affected those without an understanding of their reward, which made it difficult to gain support for the apprenticeship programme. To partially resolve this problem, it was felt that the value for each stakeholder should be more explicit to increase engagement of every stakeholder and promote useful conversations between them. It is important to answer the key question: ‘Why should they spend time reading resources provided?’ (S2-3). One set member observed: ‘If the value of WBL was appreciated, then perhaps the opportunities for application could be more easily recognised by “how to turn it into something useful”’ (S1-2).

The second set identified the benefits for managers: The opportunity to work directly with apprentices via their WBL, better-qualified staff achieving more in their own department and most importantly, personal fulfilment from mentoring and coaching. Managers could be encouraged to recognise the self-fulfilment and enhanced development achieved from coaching an apprentice.

However, for true engagement, managers need to be incentivised properly after discussion with senior managers.

Ownership expectation from the manager

An additional theme presented was the lack of ownership from the manager, which, if weak, could lead to inconsistency in apprentice support. The problem was encapsulated by one manager as follows: ‘The manager is neither a self-motivated volunteer or someone who is accountable for the apprenticeship delivery’ (S1-6). This ownership expectation seems blurred, with some managers unaware of their contractual responsibility. This lack of engagement was explained by managers being too busy, unmotivated due to the insignificance of the apprenticeship to them or not seeing development as priority. An interesting finding was that managers were unsure how to support the apprentice, especially if they were unfamiliar with the topic:

Is there an underlying assumption here that their managers can actually help them? … and could there be a barrier perhaps because that manager has not done the course and is not educated to that level? I certainly know there are situations where the learner may ask their manager about something and the manager doesn’t really relate to that subject area. (S3-5)

There were also examples of obstructing or blocking change: ‘The apprentices know how they could change practice through studying the topic but feel blocked’ (S1-1). Some managers had not truly identified with the apprentice, unaware of the expectation of their ownership and the facilitation required. This problem was exacerbated if managers moved and were not the initial supporters of the apprentice’s learning.

In the response in the second set, practical solutions were offered for the manager to create value by guiding the individual WBL outputs. An ambassador raised a helpful question: ‘How can we encourage managers to not lose sight of their apprentices as they progress through their programme? How can we continue to gain managers’ buy-in to support the programme?' (S2-3). The key suggestion from the dialogue was communication – that is, ‘encouraging apprentices to talk … I have been studying this topic and have found it links to the workplace in this way. We need to start those conversations’ (S2-1).

Additionally, apprentices have a responsibility to engage with their manager/mentor regarding their study by offering sensible business propositions that are greater than assignment requirements. The UPs have a responsibility to facilitate apprentices in instigating conversations with managers.

Finally, the second set suggested a manager checklist to elicit real discussion to appreciate how apprentices study fits with the workplace and business strategy: ‘I am focused on … how I can convince line managers that it adds value to them as well as being an important part of the apprentices journey’ (S3-1). This could be supported by regular milestone meetings between managers (perhaps mandatory) with UPs’ business coaches to keep the journey alive and engaging.

Translation of theory into practice

The initial set highlighted the importance of translating theory into practice in the ‘spirit of apprenticeships’; attempting to apply the new knowledge and skills to real work situations. It was observed that this was problematic at H.E. level. There is the inconsistency of practice: some apprentices are confident enough to steer their own learning and make swifter connections between theory and application, but others require support from their employers to connect ideas in the context of their working environment to address. If the apprentice has less prior or tacit knowledge they struggle to apply sense or meaning. ‘They are unsure how to apply it, how to interact with the knowledge that they are gaining’ (S1-1), and ‘Mainly early learners have aspiration but are aware of a lack of experience and find it difficult to make the links’ (S1-4).

There was discussion that the application of theory into practice should not be the sole responsibility of the apprentices. Managers should support apprentices to ensure the translation of learning links to, and strategically aligned with, workplace practice. It was agreed that less experienced learners increased the challenge of translating learning into the workplace with the right support to reflect led to a positive learning contribution.

The second key challenge was encouraging dialogue and opening lines of communication to raise engagement with the application of learning in the workplace. It was agreed that managers quite simply want to be informed in a quick and timely fashion with simple messages, with the suggestion of questions and discussions and example case studies: ‘Focusing on managers and mentors to help work out what they might get from the programme’ (S2-3) and ‘There is probably a question about what is the optimum amount of information that managers do want? Do you categorise it? … I know if I sent out five links would any of them get opened?’ (S3-3).

One ambassador action point was to create an information handbook, but finding time that managers had to devote to this was limited. An important step was to encourage managers to have regular and relevant communication with apprentices, and employers with multiple apprentices should be encouraged to facilitate at group level.

Some of our managers are really good and every week when the apprentice comes back from Uni, they speak to them about it, and discuss what they have learnt that fits into the workplace and that’s amazing. (S3-4)

Continue with Pre-Module talks - answers the questions as to why it is relevant, especially as they are seen as ‘early careers’ … cannot assume they can make the connection. (S3-5)

There was also an expectation that managers need to be directive initially, but by the end of the programme the apprentice should be seeking the manager’s buy-in. One responsibility of UPs would be to train the apprentice to develop the skills to meet this need.

Empowering apprenticeship mindset

The first set highlighted the positive nature of apprenticeships, with courses offering a platform for apprentices to realise their potential but also encouraging their empowered mindset: ‘Social mobility in action … (anecdotally from an apprentice) achieved more than they ever thought they could … .realise what they can actually do/what they are capable of’ (S1-1). The most valuable, but often difficult to quantify, change for the apprentice is an increase in confidence giving apprentices more conviction in their own ideas for business improvement. The difficulty was how to encourage empowered mindsets; braver to share thoughts than hiding their good work: ‘What happens in practice when the apprentice ‘goes off’ and ‘heads down and studies’?' (S3-3). To overcome this, ideas were shared to encourage individuals to reflect on their achievements, share positive experiences, offer opportunities to discuss workplace issues with their managers and create a supportive workplace learning culture.

New apprentices need to identify with the apprenticeship with the help of the employer and manager, who should ‘Illustrate the ‘hearts and minds’ … on a staff platform providing real apprentice stories' (S2-2), and ‘Encourage pride in what they are doing … seen as positive rather than “thrusting for promotion” … there is no opposition from the organisation … they need empowerment … allowing them to be critical of the current process and work environment' (S1-1). The support required for self-awareness depended on the business-based experience and ability to recognise experience aligned to the standards. The group reflected that apprentices are individuals,

who often do not wish to have enforced engagement and interaction. Despite this, apprentices needed to be trusted and exposed to new experiences as required. The action proposed a checkpoint should be in place to ensure the apprentices are independently learning and not struggling learners.

Final year apprentices were expected to be far more self-sufficient, so from managers’ perspective, they should be more autonomous. One ambassador commented: ‘Managers will hold back on handing over a critical task to a young learner … my job is to push that a little’ (S3-1). Further action and ideas of support included the creation of an apprentice support network and also mentor support utilising in-house support expertise especially for apprentices who may not have contacts due to their early career experience.

Senior management buy-in

During the second set, one ambassador reflected that without senior management buy-in, it is unlikely a manager would commit to ownership: ‘So I think that most organisations are throwing people to apprenticeships and haven’t really taken the time to step back and reflect how all of this fits' (S2-4). It was agreed that apprenticeship initiatives needed alignment with strategic talent plans so they are fully supported by senior leaders. There was discussion that the depth of pride an organisation has for their apprenticeship scheme makes a difference as to how the apprentice is viewed. The group agreed that strategic alignment underpins the viability of a successful apprenticeship programme, which formed a key theme for our CoP.

By the third set, the group had taken action on promoting senior management engagement towards apprenticeships. It was notable that government awareness, such as Apprenticeship Week and the creation of awards programmes, accelerated senior management buy-in: ‘The senior leaders were really keen to talk to these individuals and are in a position to influence and bring it to life’ (S3-1).

Furthermore, there was notable success with internal and external awards. One ambassador noted senior management became interested in the numbers for Degree Apprentice promotions or recruitments.

Discussion and conclusions

This study has addressed the research questions through action learning and highlighted further recommended areas of research.

1. How can the learning from management education be translated into WBL? What are the barriers to curricular enhancing relations between UP and employers?

Apprenticeship collaboration to maximise the translation of apprentices’ WBL is complex, as evidenced by the degree of tension (Bravenboer and Lester 2016) in identifying issues. Some barriers were easier to address, such as defining and communicating WBL and Value Propositions. The request was not unexpected but was considered a ‘problematic terrain’ (Harrison 2009, 3) dependent on culture and work environments. Pragmatically, providing clarity for our CoP aligns the multiple perspectives regarding expectations of responsibility. Crucially for multi-stakeholders or multi-users from one organisation, it also supports consistency.

More complex barriers to address depended on managers’ engagement, such as issues of ownership expectation, translation of theory to practice and empowering apprentices. The findings suggested that managerial style needs to adapt to match the initial needs and the growth of apprentices’ autonomy and identity construction (Clarke, Brown, and Hailey 2009). The development time was, however, exacerbated by the fundamental underpinning of the apprenticeships to encourage inclusion and widening participation (Crawford-Lee and Moorwood 2019) and represent a diverse group (McKnight et al. 2019).

Ambassadors recognised the confidence and personal growth of their apprentices. Graduate apprentices often reflect that they initially suffered from ‘imposter syndrome’ (Slay and Smith 2016) and their self-efficacy was lower (Bandura 1977). The UPs support apprentices to construct their professional identity (Ibarra 2019) by awareness of their professional standards and encouraging responsibility for their own self-development. The group findings – for apprentices to embrace self-development and requiring a critical attitude – initially recognised two themes: realising potential and entrepreneurial orientation (Covin and Slevin 1991). The concepts were finally merged to encompass a theme of ‘mindset empowerment’. This encourages the apprentice to be brave enough to accept new learning and behave entrepreneurially (Brazeal and Herbert 1999). This concept of thinking by acting on one’s own ideas is fundamental to the philosophy of apprenticeships and, in essence, provides the vehicle for the apprentice to empower their own mindset. Therefore, the set felt that stakeholders need to agree on shared responsibility to encourage apprentices’ sense of ownership, driving their own learning to lead and implement practical solutions to maximise outcomes for all.

Finally, inclusion for senior management buy-in is critical due to the complexity of solving issues in a changing environment. Apprenticeships need top-level focus and realised the opportunity for future talent to influence ‘learning organisation culture’. This focus will raise managers’ accountability for apprenticeship success, thus incentivising them to engage their apprentice in authentic workplace change with impact.

• (ii) What does enhanced translation of workplace learning look like to the action learners?

The research findings acknowledged that enhanced WBL for apprenticeships cannot be wholly employer led but must support a collaborative approach. To maximise success, managers, apprentices and UPs are fully aware of responsibilities for a conducive learning experience and share the genuine belief that WBL can make a difference. Collaborative senior teams should lead the vision.

To demystify WBL, a wider attempt was recommended by the action learners to communicate the positive impact. The set recommends an attempt to capture interest in ‘hearts and minds’ stories, authentic examples of progress and documenting benefits such as the Sheffield Hallam/Nestle relationship, which developed a pipeline of talent, improved retention and increased social mobility (Daley, Coyle, and Dwyer 2016). Additional consideration should include subjective rewards such as the ‘energy they [apprentices] bring to the workplace’ (Antcliff, Baines, and Gorb 2016).

The action learners agreed that the apprentice is central to learning, provided they have confidence to ‘navigate their own bridge’ to increase the impact to their levy-paying employers. Enhanced translation of workplace learning requires a strong foundation of support designed so both UPs and managers can positively influence performance outcomes, which includes verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, and physiological feedback. If inexperienced apprentices are guided by more experienced professionals, there is increased success (Minton and Lowe 2019). Workplace learning increases when apprentices’ self-efficacy improves; it is probable that performance is aligned to increased initiative and persistence (Eden 1992). Assisting apprentices to review, reflect and learn from their experiences (Boud and Solomon 2001; Kolb 1984; Raelin 2008) is powerful in developing skills and behaviours that become the ‘norm’ for their profession. Apprentices become ‘braver’ by sharing their tacit knowledge or ‘tacit knowing’ (Brook and Corbridge 2016) initially with their peer group and then with managers. This knowledge exchange enhances work-based practice, thus empowering the apprentice (Antcliff, Baines, and Gorb 2016). Enhanced translation occurs when apprentices are encouraged to be critical of themselves and when their attempts to challenge current practice in an environment are not met with undue resistance or criticism but rather guidance and an acceptance that making mistakes is fine. Further research to establish guidelines for managers to steer apprentices to practise new skills through vicarious experiences rather than instruction may be constructive.

The research findings highlight the challenge of management ownership, a wicked problem of the kind that can never seem to be eliminated (Rittel and Webber 1973), although some partial solutions were offered. These included: full engagement from managers from programme commencement, clear communication from senior management about where apprenticeships fit strategically and the provision of appropriate training and incentives for managers. Managers’ investment may be compromised by imbalance, when there are more costs associated with apprenticeship than rewards (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). In practice, managers often have a steep learning curve to support their apprentice with little motivation apart from personal interest in mentoring and self-fulfilment as their reward. There are also indirect manager costs in facilitating the apprentice learning, undertaking reviews and essentially one-to-one support but no real consensus on the benefits (Minton and Lowe 2019). Further research to establish the benefits of WBL, could reassure the ‘busy manager’ and reduce their anxieties about the extent of the management commitment required to facilitate apprenticeships (Mulkeen et al. 2017).

• (iii) How might AR assist in fostering workplace learning using AL sets?

AL and AR foster the approach of collaborative learning. Learning via the sets has been instrumental in positive changes within the ambassadors own workplaces due to their action taken. Some themes were easier to address, such as definitions to support clarity by providing a foundation for further discussion to a wider group. For complex themes, there was acceptance that issues may only be partially solved and there may be a requirement for them ‘to be (re-)solved over and over again depending upon the idiosyncratic context’ (Edmonstone 2019, 1). The action learners were keen to continue collaborating on issues, as collectively we had ‘learned to survive’ Wenger (2009, 1) and, at the very least, were closer in our mutual understanding of what success looks like and how we could facilitate positive benefits.

Potentially, there is a juxtaposition that some employers favour a tailored training course whilst UPs’ objective should be management education, seeking mindset change. Stakeholders have attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, which are variable and not a steady state, and this requires consideration to avoid the ‘dangerous employer phase’ (Powell and Walsh 2017, 8). Through true collaboration via action learning, there is every possibility that we can continue to raise the level of practice, but we must negotiate with understanding to reach the desired outcomes.

In conclusion, it is crucial to collaborate with stakeholders as we achieve more together. The AL approach allowed for cycles of action, reflection and collaboration to take place, and it proved to be a useful vehicle to develop collaboration between UPs and employers. It offered the opportunity to address immediate issues and to overcome longer-term problems. This was a small group, which is a limitation of this study, so sharing and collaborating with our wider ambassador community is proposed to extend the benefits to less experienced apprenticeship employers but also to determine the best practices to support managers in WBL practice. There may not be a perfect solution, a one-way model, but there should be an essentially flexible framework that parties can negotiate, and more research is required from the line management perspective to deliver this.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Quew-Jones

Rebecca Quew-Jones is a senior lecturer at the University of Portsmouth. Her area of expertise is human resource development, work based learning and over the past five years gained experience as programme director for apprenticeships in higher education. Formerly a regional manager for an international recruitment organisation with extensive experience in training and development consulting with government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations.