Lu Li argues apprentice student voice should fit work and study

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Feedback routes for degree apprentices should account for their employment as well as their studies, argues Dr Lu Li of Loughborough University. On 22 July 2026, Advance HE published Rethinking inclusion as degree apprenticeships gain ground, an analysis by Dr Lu Li that connects rapid growth in degree apprenticeships with weaker 2025 NSS results for apprentices in England. For teams responsible for student voice, the practical message is clear: degree apprentice student voice needs collection and action routes that account for the interaction between work and study.

What has changed for degree apprentice student voice

Li reports that Level 6 and Level 7 degree apprenticeship starts in England rose from about 22,500 in 2018/19 to more than 60,000 in 2024/25. These are her contextual figures; the reflection does not set out the underlying data calculation, and this summary does not independently reproduce it. As that population grows, the article argues that inclusion should be judged against the actual conditions in which apprentices learn, not against a full-time campus model.

Those conditions are structurally different. Degree apprentices are employees as well as students, with protected off-the-job training but continuing workplace responsibilities. Li therefore treats organisation, communication, assessment timing, and feedback as connected parts of the student experience rather than separate services. Its central point is concise:

"Voice is not only about being asked for feedback; it is about whether feedback mechanisms reflect the realities of learning while working."

The 2025 NSS evidence gives that argument weight. Li reports that degree apprentices were less positive than full-time students on six of the seven NSS themes, with the largest difference, about 13 percentage points, in organisation and management. It also identifies a clear shortfall in student voice. She says differences remained after adjustment for subject, age, sex, ethnicity and disability. The reflection does not provide sample sizes, model specifications or uncertainty estimates, so these comparisons are reported here as her analysis. They do not establish that feedback design caused the gap, or that apprentice feedback is intrinsically weaker evidence. This article reviews the full public reflection, not the underlying NSS analysis or the earlier QAA study it cites.

What this means for institutions

The first implication is about collection design. Universities should test whether survey windows, representative forums, and course-level check-ins fit around apprentices' employment patterns and protected study time. A feedback invitation sent during a workplace peak, or a committee scheduled when apprentices are off campus, can narrow participation before analysis begins. Institutions do not necessarily need a separate survey for every apprentice cohort, but they do need routes that apprentices can realistically use and questions that cover the coordination between provider, employer, and learner.

The second implication is about diagnosis and ownership. Headline NSS averages can conceal where apprentices experience different barriers, a concern that also appears in QAA's recent discussion of part-time and apprenticeship gaps. Teams should examine apprentice results and comments separately where sample sizes and disclosure rules allow, then identify whether each issue sits with the university, the employer, or their joint processes. The resulting action plan should name an owner across that three-way relationship. Without that ownership map, an apprentice can give clear feedback and still see no coordinated response.

Li's practical suggestions include giving sufficient notice of timetable and deadline changes, mapping employment and academic workload peaks, offering assessment windows where appropriate, and training workplace mentors to support learning. These are not mandatory measures or a fixed implementation timetable. They are design tests that Student Experience, quality, apprenticeship, and academic teams can use now. The wider takeaway is that a feedback process is only inclusive when its timing, questions, and follow-through reflect how the learner actually participates.

How student feedback analysis connects

The reported NSS comparisons identify differences among respondents; open-text comments can suggest explanations to investigate, without establishing a cause. Organisation and management concerns might refer to short-notice timetable changes, clashes with workplace duties, unclear responsibility between an employer and provider, or assessment schedules that ignore employment peaks. A consistent NSS open-text analysis methodology can help teams review those themes. Common coding does not make populations or survey questions comparable, or make the available comments representative.

Student Voice Analytics can provide one governed way to compare apprentice comments by theme, programme, and cohort while retaining a repeatable coding method. The analysis should still be read alongside response rates, quantitative results, and local dialogue with apprentices. The useful outcome is not another dashboard; it is evidence that helps the right university and employer teams understand a problem, assign responsibility, and show apprentices what changed.

FAQ

Q: What should institutions do now about degree apprentice student voice?

A: Audit when and how apprentices are asked for feedback, whether the questions cover the interaction between work and study, and who owns action across the provider-employer relationship. Then review NSS scores and open comments by apprentice cohort where the data is sufficiently robust, and report back on the specific changes made.

Q: What is the timeline and scope of this development?

A: Advance HE published the analysis on 22 July 2026 using 2025 NSS comparisons for degree apprentices in England. The growth figures cover Level 6 and Level 7 degree apprenticeship starts through 2024/25. This is sector analysis and practice guidance, not a regulatory change, so it creates no new compliance deadline.

Q: What does this mean for student voice more broadly?

A: Li's argument invites institutions to examine whether access to a questionnaire translates into usable opportunities to influence decisions. Student voice is more credible when collection methods reflect different modes of study, analysis distinguishes the experiences of those groups, and institutions make responsibility for action visible.

References

[Advance HE]: "Rethinking inclusion as degree apprenticeships gain ground" Published: 2026-07-22