Nick Mapletoft

My portfolio has four constituents, which together relate to my setting up of UCQ and delivery of degree apprenticeships:

Section One (1989 – 2013)
The first section reflects and evidences what happened before I decided to set up UCQ and to deliver the degree apprenticeship. This starts with my undergraduate degree, through establishing the Nimis business, reflection on the quinquennial cycles of change and my own personal growth during that quarter of a century.

Section Two (2014-2015)
In the second section I reflect on the motivators and agents of change that led to me setting up UCQ and the creation of a degree apprenticeship programme. This includes my business review and analysis, sectoral analysis and personal motivation to enter higher education (as a disruptor) and to deliver on degree apprenticeships. It also details participation on the Trailblazer groups and parliamentary attendance and input, together with details of my qualifications and fellowships.

Section Three (2016)
In section three I detail what was involved in the setting up of UCQ. This includes the various Gap Analyses showing what we would need in order to apply for Degree Validation and Institutional Approval. Evidence includes the new organisation structure, policies and procedure documents, the BA (Hons) Professional Management degree programme I wrote with my colleagues with input from employer and learner focus groups, the CMI, ESFA, QAA and The Open University. Included are links to the brochures, Student Handbook, website, Strategic Plan and other engagement and promotional materials I created with two of my colleagues.

Section Four (2017-2019)
The final portfolio section details my experience of running the degree apprenticeship programme, together with consideration of the main tensions. This evidence includes the creation, monitoring and review of the UCQ sales & marketing strategy, the corporate strategy, staff and student focus groups, engagement with regional sector and employer groups, sharing of research through the OUVP (Open University Vocational Partners) conference. Included are details of the UCQ review process.

Introduction
This study undertakes a critical review of the strategic and operational challenges in service delivery of the Chartered Manager Degree Apprenticeship (CMDA) by an alternative provider of higher education (HE), following the implementation of the Apprenticeship Levy in England. It explores some of the main tensions that are likely to affect the success of establishing an alternative provider of HE and degree apprenticeship delivery, taking account of provider staff, employers and learners.

The subject of study
The intrinsic case study company is the University Centre Quayside (UCQ), a small market disrupting alternative provider of HE delivering the CMDA. UCQ provides adult education predominantly in the North East of England but is increasingly expanding nationwide.
The study explores the evolution of HE, the concept of ‘value’, WBL and the introduction of degree apprenticeships, and how these themes then converge, the resulting tensions and possible impact on success.

Research approach
Following an interpretivist and constructivist philosophy, mixed methods were employed involving questionnaires, then interviews and focus groups for triangulation of data across employers, students and staff. Quantitative data was analysed in Excel, looking for statistical and visual differences, and using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), qualitative results were transcribed and then thematically analysed using NVivo.

Key findings
The key findings are that there is a significant difference of understanding between provider staff, the employers and students as to what a ‘higher’ education should be, especially in terms of civicness. National employers want national, rather than place- based, provision. Programme contextualisation is very important to the employers and the students; but can be challenging for the provider. A majority of apprentices believe that their employer (as the perceived funder) should see a financial return on their investment, equally apprentices felt they should personally achieve a financial benefit from participation.
Employers appear to be formalizing their training needs analysis, perhaps in response to the Levy and the availability of higher level programmes.

Contribution
There is much written about private provision of HE, marketisation and consumerization, but there is little research. There is even less research originating from within a private provider. This study contributes to the HE WBL community and although the main beneficiary is UCQ, the results are intended to be of value to alternative and existing HE providers delivering degree apprenticeships.
Degree apprenticeships are new (in England) and there is little understanding of the tensions between the providers, employers, students and funders, and how they may be overcome. This study contributes to the body of knowledge in this area and is expected to stimulate further debate and study within the community of practice.

Conclusions
This study found that employers, learners and provider staff believe it is important that there should be a return from the degree apprenticeship that should be of value to the employer and the learner, but measuring such value is difficult. The degree apprenticeship should take account of recognition of prior learning, however there is no standardized approach. Assessments need to be heavily contextualized, and staff and students differ in opinion on whether this is the case. There is a suggestion that providers need to deliver nationally and with industry specialism(s), and there is disagreement between provider staff, and employers and their staff, on whether the programme should include civic development. HE work-based learning providers may need to share resources in order to cost effectively deliver nationally. Employers do not see themselves as really being ‘in the driving seat’ because the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Institute for Apprenticeships make and change policy and pricing to suit their political agenda.

This is one of a series of position statements developed following a conference on 'Building the Post-Pandemic University', organised on 15 September 2020 by SRHE member Mark Carrigan (Cambridge) and colleagues.

This purpose of this blog is to provide an insight into how an alternative provider of higher education, an English private university centre (University Centre Quayside (UCQ)) specialising in work-based learning (WBL), continued to deliver to degree apprentices throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.  WBL is a particular branch of higher education that is based upon work and should benefit the employer, which in itself creates tensions.  The post considers the impact on apprentices, who work for different employers throughout England including NHS frontline workers, through remote tutorials and remote assessment.  It also considers varying employer responses from abandoning or postponing apprentice starts, to maximizing the opportunity for off-the-job training for staff on furlough and starting a programme in specific response to the pandemic.

This manuscript explores the use and detection of ChatGPT artificial intelligence (AI) content, in the academic setting. The study involves an academic staff and student partnership at a Higher Education Provider (HEP), examining the implications of the chatbot's use in academic writing and its potential impact on educational practice.

Introduction This study undertakes a critical review of the strategic and operational challenges in service delivery of the Chartered Manager Degree Apprenticeship (CMDA) by an alternative provider of higher education (HE), following the implementation of the Apprenticeship Levy in England. It explores some of the main tensions that are likely to affect the success of establishing an alternative provider of HE and degree apprenticeship delivery, taking account of provider staff, employers and learners. The subject of study The intrinsic case study company is the University Centre Quayside (UCQ), a small market disrupting alternative provider of HE delivering the CMDA. UCQ provides adult education predominantly in the North East of England but is increasingly expanding nationwide. The study explores the evolution of HE, the concept of ‘value’, WBL and the introduction of degree apprenticeships, and how these themes then converge, the resulting tensions and possible impact on success. Research approach Following an interpretivist and constructivist philosophy, mixed methods were employed involving questionnaires, then interviews and focus groups for triangulation of data across employers, students and staff. Quantitative data was analysed in Excel, looking for statistical and visual differences, and using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), qualitative results were transcribed and then thematically analysed using NVivo. Key findings The key findings are that there is a significant difference of understanding between provider staff, the employers and students as to what a ‘higher’ education should be, especially in terms of civicness. National employers want national, rather than place- based, provision. Programme contextualisation is very important to the employers and the students; but can be challenging for the provider. A majority of apprentices believe that their employer (as the perceived funder) should see a financial return on their investment, equally apprentices felt they should personally achieve a financial benefit from participation. Employers appear to be formalizing their training needs analysis, perhaps in response to the Levy and the availability of higher level programmes. Contribution There is much written about private provision of HE, marketisation and consumerization, but there is little research. There is even less research originating from within a private provider. This study contributes to the HE WBL community and although the main beneficiary is UCQ, the results are intended to be of value to alternative and existing HE providers delivering degree apprenticeships. Degree apprenticeships are new (in England) and there is little understanding of the tensions between the providers, employers, students and funders, and how they may be overcome. This study contributes to the body of knowledge in this area and is expected to stimulate further debate and study within the community of practice. Conclusions This study found that employers, learners and provider staff believe it is important that there should be a return from the degree apprenticeship that should be of value to the employer and the learner, but measuring such value is difficult. The degree apprenticeship should take account of recognition of prior learning, however there is no standardized approach. Assessments need to be heavily contextualized, and staff and students differ in opinion on whether this is the case. There is a suggestion that providers need to deliver nationally and with industry specialism(s), and there is disagreement between provider staff, and employers and their staff, on whether the programme should include civic development. HE work-based learning providers may need to share resources in order to cost effectively deliver nationally. Employers do not see themselves as really being ‘in the driving seat’ because the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Institute for Apprenticeships make and change policy and pricing to suit their political agenda.

Preparing for a doctoral viva can be a very stressful event (it certainly was for me). It follows several years of intense work and the doctoral candidate is unlikely to know what the examiners will be asking. The viva is a 'live voice' defence of a thesis and as such, the candidate will typically have a copy of their thesis with them. As part of the preparation for my viva I was fortunate that my Director of Studies organised a mock viva with two of his colleagues. Following this mock (which was a real eye opener) I created a two page viva preparation summary, which I printed on a single sheet of A3 and took with me to the viva. This document served two main purposes. It gave me the confidence that I had comprehensively met all research objectives and answered all research questions. This sounds obvious, but some candidates don't. It also gave me the confidence to point the examiners to certain sections of my thesis and portfolio, to answer their questions. My viva consisted of three examiners (one internal, one external and one subject expert), there was an independent Chair, also my Director of Studies was present, but was not allowed to speak or in any way be involved. The result was that I was told that I had passed, subject to some minor amendments that arose during the viva. My viva preparation document was certainly helpful in minimising the necessary changes because it helped me to defend my arguments. Although my preparation sheet is specific to my thesis and portfolio, it is easily adapted. I have two doctoral colleagues who said that they found this very useful to help them prepare for their vivas, which they subsequently passed. I am sharing it in the hope that it may be of some help to other doctoral students.