Heffernan, T. (2022). 'Introduction'. In. Bourdieu and Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. pp. 1-6.

Heffernan seems to be writing and researching in the same area I am. This book is an amalgamation of much of his research in the area of higher education policy and administration and, in particular, inequity in the sector. He is currently based at the University of Manchester, but was previously working in Australia. 

The introduction to the book has prompted me to think that there may be a need for a small section on the history of higher education in my thesis, which could help illustrate how the primary objective of higher education appears to have changed. Some of this appears, on the face of it, to be negative - a shift from institutions focused solely on the acquisition and sharing of knowledge to a business model reliant on revenue generation. However, as Heffernan reminds us, the shift has also been from an exclusionary institution to one that welcomes (and, with widening participation, actively encourages) women, people of colour and those with disabilities and from different cultures. 

I think this book is going to be helpful in providing context for understanding the impact apprenticeships are having on the sector, in particular the perception of the intention of higher education. From my learning to date, I would argue that higher education should be about teaching people how to think, how to learn and how to communicate through the acquisition of knowledge (whether through teaching or research). As things currently stand, it seems the current driver is for higher education purely to deliver knowledge with the intent to increase earning potential and that it is this that creates social mobility and reduces inequality. My argument is that it is actually that 'hidden curriculum' of having the tools to become curious, critical, creative thinkers capable of lifelong learning, development and of communicating to share knowledge (i.e. the original aim of higher education). I would argue that it is the widening participation in higher education that drives social change; not the fact that larger numbers of people know more things and can earn more money.

References

Heffernan, T. (2022). 'Introduction'. In. Bourdieu and Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. pp. 1-6

Gillen-O'Neel, C. (2021). 'Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement: A Daily Study of First- and Continuing-Generation College Students'. Research in Higher Education. 62:45-71

This research is US based but is important to my work firstly because it looks at first generation university students and secondly because of the insights it affords into the concept of 'belonging' and its impact on higher education study. Gillen-O'Neel (2021) discusses the theories that suggest a connection between a sense of belonging and the maintaining of motivation required to succeed, supporting this with a large body of evidence (p. 45-46). 

Her research asked students to record their daily sense of belonging and their daily levels of engagement in order to look for possible connections between the two. She also looked at differences between first- and continuing-generation students. One of the reasons for this is the higher number of first-generation students that report lower levels of sense of belonging as well as differences in the impact of that low sense of belonging. She seeks to explore the hypothesis that first-generation students are more likely than continuing-generation students to experience low engagement when they are feeling a low sense of belonging. This is relevant to me because UK data suggests a far higher proportion of first-in-family students on apprenticeship programmes than in other courses (61% in 2021/22 (Office for Students, 2023); compared to 43% across the sector (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2024).

Gillen-O'Neel cites work completed by Walton and Cohen (2007) that describes this increased sensitivity to fluctuations in belonging as 'belonging uncertainty' particularly among those from backgrounds associated with negative stereotypes. This suggests that universities must be mindful that coaching students as they 'deschool' is not a 'one and done' action, but should be a long, iterative process over the course of their university time in order to embed a new, stronger way of interacting with their studies. Of course, it is likely all of this will have been impacted by prior educational experiences: if students spent school in the 'bottom sets', how likely is it that they will feel they 'belong' in an environment that has been sold to them as being solely for 'clever' or 'academic' people?

This research found that it may be that increased engagement actually causes an increased sense of belonging. This is relevant for apprenticeship students who are required to attend classes, offering academics golden opportunities to deliver this 'deschooling' work through relationship-building and 'training' in autonomous learning.

Gillen-O'Neel describes the concept of 'student engagement' as something multidimensional, which includes emotional and behavioural elements. To me, this feels a lot like 'mindset', but Gillen-O'Neel writes about it in terms of something that can fluctuate day to day, rather than something fairly static, in the way Dweck (2017) writes about it. Maybe they're not the same but simply closely connected. According to Gillen-O'Neel, the emotional element relates to how students respond to school or university - are they interested and engaged or bored and frustrated? And the behavioural element relates to what students do both in and outside of school. My questions are, as with mindset, where are these things learned and what is HE's role in addressing them? Gillen-O'Neel's findings suggest a reciprocal relationship between all these elements and that sense of belonging, engagement, resilience etc. are all interconnected. Should this mean that university academics need to think of 'deschooling' as a complex, multi-faceted process? Indeed, Gillen-O'Neel argues that many of these challenges facing these students are structural rather than internal to students. Some of this structure will be based within the institution itself but I think there is a need for academics to have a deep understanding of the social structure from which all students are coming and what the impact of those structures can be on people.

Three key theories mentioned in this paper that I want to read more about are Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000); Stage-Environment Fit Theory (Eccles et al., 1993) and Social Identity Threat theories (e.g. stereotype threat (Pennington et al., 2016)). Gillen-O'Neel puts these three theories together with the hypothesis of belonging and argues that students will have greater success and satisfaction when institutions prioritise meeting students' core developmental needs, one of which is 'belonging' (the third level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943)).

References

Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset: How you can Fulfil your Potential. New York: Ballantine Books.

Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C.M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., Iver, D.M. (1993). 'Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families'. American Psychologist. 48(2):90-101

Gillen-O'Neel, C. (2021). 'Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement: A Daily Study of First- and Continuing-Generation College Students'. Research in Higher Education. 62:45-71

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2024). 'Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2022/23 - Student numbers and characteristics'. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/08-08-2024/sb269-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers (Accessed: 6 February 2025).

Maslow, A. H. (1943). 'A theory of human motivation'. Psychological Review. 50(4):370–396.

Office for Students. (2023). 'Annex C: Characteristics of OfS-fundable starts on Level 6 degree apprenticeships'. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/8857/annex-c-characteristics-of-ofs-fundable-starts-on-level-6-degree-apprenticeships.pdf (Accessed 6 February 2025)

Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. (2000). 'Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being'. American Psychologist. 55(1):68-78

Pennington, C.R. et al. (2016) ‘Twenty Years of Stereotype Threat Research: A Review of Psychological Mediators’, PLOS ONE. 11(1)

Walton, G.M., and Cohen, G.L. (2007). 'A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92(1):82-96

Baker, D. (2019). 'Potential implications of degree apprenticeships for healthcare education'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(1):2-17

This paper by a health and social care academic in a UK university is the first I have read that is ostensibly about exactly the same area my research will focus on. However, on reading a little more deeply, it is much more about the broader implications of apprenticeships, rather than the impact on the apprentices themselves. 

Baker (2019) attempts to review the literature. I write 'attempts' because relevant literature was few and far between when she did this work, so most of the articles she found were not focused on health and social care apprenticeships. The majority were based in the UK but were mostly written before the major changes in apprenticeship provision.

Although Baker reinforces Hughes and Saiva (2019)'s recommendation that thorough and focused support for apprentices is required to ensure success, she doesn't explore this in a whole lot of depth in terms of academic support and focuses more on the support from employers and work-place learning environments.

She does note research stating that success is more likely for students who have achieved higher levels of educational attainment prior to starting their apprenticeship, which is surely a bit of a no-brainer! However, she stops short of exploring this in any further depth and even goes on to display a view that feels depressingly short-sighted: that educational "low achievers" (p. 12) ought to not be admitted to apprenticeship programmes by entry requirements being kept the same as for direct entry programmes. In my opinion, this view perpetuates the assumption that 'low achievers' are, by definition, also incapable of becoming high achievers (or even 'adequate' achievers). There is no acknowledgement of what could have caused that 'low achievement' and this automatically 'writes off' individuals who struggled at school. 

In fact, although Baker makes an interesting point that the stigma surrounding apprenticeships - that they are the option for those who didn't do well at school and that they are associated with "the acquisition of low level skills and competencies" (p. 11) - could impact their take-up and also subsequent career progression of apprentice graduates. This point is interesting to me because it suggests that the very concept of an apprenticeship and associated 'stigma' could impact on the mindset of those students who are studying them. What is the risk of this being a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' for apprentices, many of whom already don't see themselves as university students capable of studying academically?

I'm interested here in the connection between attainment and mindset as well - is it possible to have high attainment without a good mindset (growth, agency, curiosity)?  Baker refers to one study (Bishop, 2017) that suggests the impact of the apprentice's personality and associated preferred learning style (Bishop compares a more prescribed learning journey vs. one that requires initiative and drive on the part of the apprentice) on their ability to succeed. Again, this is interesting - where is the line between personality and mindset? How are each shaped by prior experiences? What is our role as HEIs in supporting students to make that shift from 'passive' to 'active' learner? I think this is more of the work that is encompassed by deschooling. 

Another element of mindset that Bishop (2017) refers to is that of "motivation to learn" (p. 10), which immediately drew me to ponder on the difference between 'motivation to learn' and 'motivation to get a qualification', which I think are very different things. This links with my blog post on Hughes and Saiva (2019)'s work and the way assessments could be viewed as 'hoops to jump through' rather than as opportunities to deepen learning and satisfy academic and professional curiosity. Is the 'motivation to get a qualification' the 'schooled' mindset and the 'motivation to learn' the 'deschooled' mindset?

 References

Baker, D. (2019). 'Potential implications of degree apprenticeships for healthcare education'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(1):2-17.

Bishop, D. (2017). 'Affordance, agency and apprenticeship learning: a comparative study of small and large engineering firms'. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 22(1): 68-86.

Hughes, C.J. and Saiva, G. (2019). 'Degree apprenticeships - an opportunity for all?'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(2):225-236.

Hughes, C.J. and Saiva, G. (2019). 'Degree apprenticeships - an opportunity for all?'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(2):225-236

This paper, which explores how curricula on higher and degree apprenticeships should be designed, is written by two academics from Solent University in the UK. It is based on their experiences of HDA delivery in the business studies sector. However, despite being focused on a different area than my work, much of its discussion is relevant. Their introduction describes the key value of HDAs in higher education (HE) as their obvious impact on widening participation and social mobility but highlight the importance of recognising the nature of students who apply for HDA courses. For instance, they tend to come to the course with a high degree of technical/industry skill and knowledge but a much lower degree of academic skill than more traditional HE students and highlight the need for institutions and academics to recognise, support and value these differences, explaining that course developers can't simply switch from a direct entry to an HDA course and need to pay close attention to the different profiles and demographics of HDA students. 

As with the students in Pearce and Down's study (2011), the authors had already noted how "academic writing did not feel natural" (p. 226) to apprentices they'd taught. Indeed, one of the four key themes their analysis identified was the need for course designers to:

"define how support mechanisms can ensure a high-level "apprentice experience", whilst supporting them to balance the rigorousness of work and study." (p. 226).

(Which also emphasises the extra weight apprentices carry of needing to work and function as part of a team while studying). Hughes & Saiva (2019) suggest that more than just 'teaching' must be undertaken for HDAs and that courses should be designed to include elements that support them to gain confidence studying in HE. 

One challenge the authors found that I have seen in many of our apprenticeship students is that they have been encouraged to come onto this course as a result of being high achievers within the level they are currently working at. They may have spent many years honing their skills at their current work and are looked to as leaders and role models. They arrive at university expecting to already know how to manage the course and with the impression that the course is simply a 'box to tick' that will give them a certificate to allow them to progress further. It can be a huge shock and a significant knock to confidence when they find that the HDA courses are much harder and more challenging than they thought. The authors argue the need for a relationship-focused approach with students having personal tutors to support them to navigate the course, which echoes the findings of Pearce and Down (2011) and my own understanding of the need for good relationships and a 'coaching' approach to student support. Hughes & Saiva (2019) emphasise the benefit of 1-1 time and detailed, bespoke support to enable students to become autonomous, deep learners who can apply theory effectively to practice. 

The authors also describe the conflict between the need for academic rigour (deep learning) and the pragmatic need to manage workload effectively (possibly resulting in surface level), an issue aggravated, in my opinion, by the pressure in school to learn for the test. For students to be able to move away from this 'assessments as hoops to jump through' mentality to one of 'hunger for deep learning', I would argue that they need an intentional, proactive approach from academics and that this is part of 'deschooling'.

The paper ends with a clear recommendation:

"...research needs to be undertaken around the best pedagogic practices to support these non-standard [students] even more." (p. 234).

References

Hughes, C.J. and Saiva, G. (2019). 'Degree apprenticeships - an opportunity for all?'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(2):225-236

Pearce , J. and Down, B. (2011). 'Relational pedagogy for student engagement and success at university.' Australian Association for Research in Education. 38:483-494

Pearce, J. and Down, B. (2011). 'Relational pedagogy for student engagement and success at university.' Australian Association for Research in Education. 38:483-494

Participants

This paper is based on research undertaken in Australia. They specifically studied university students who came from a low socio-economic background. At the moment, my research isn't going to make such a distinction in its participants, primarily because I argue that the impact of the experiences we see writ large in these groups of students is no less important to acknowledge and understand in all university students. The experiences of those from a low socio-economic background (or other less advantaged background) simply serve to highlight the issues of schooling and the impact higher education can have. 

Relational Pedagogy

The authors are particularly concerned about the importance of relationships between students and academics; a concern shared by Hughes & Saiva (2021) with regard specifically to apprenticeship students (who, due to the different entry requirements (UCAS, 2024a; 2024b), are more likely to come from the background Pearce and Down (2011) studied).

Statistics & Methodology

Data is cited to support the need for the research but this is mostly very out of date (2008) and based in Australia. It will be necessary to cite current and local data for my research. However, the data used in this paper is used effectively to defend the need for such research. 

"If there is to be any serious shift in participation and completion rates of under-represented groups in higher education, then there is an urgent need for politicians, academics and university administrators alike to better understand the realities of such students' experiences of studying at university, from their point of view." p. 484. 

This quote underlines the need for qualitative research in this area. I have chosen to take a Critical Theory approach to my research, which foregrounds the need to raise the voices of those who are frequently oppressed and/or marginalised by society. This approach also supports the need to understand participants' social histories in order to understand their current experiences, as highlighted by Pearce and Down (2011). In fact, apart from the longer-term time-frame and the use of focus groups to enhance learning from individual interviews, my research seems to use similar methods to this paper. Pearce and Down (2011) aimed to "'illuminate the perspective of the 'tellers'" (p. 485) and ensured interviews were open-ended and exploratory.

Deschooling

One of the most interesting terms this paper uses is "schooled knowledge" (p. 485), which, to me, appears to describe the belief systems around social structure, power and education e.g. who should have access to education (i.e. who 'belongs')? Which 'sort of people' fit the "dominant middle class conceptions of the 'good' student" (p. 485)? What is the nature of intelligence and what role does it play in success? It is the process of dismantling these harmful and untrue ideas that I would term 'deschooling' and that I believe can take place in higher education, when it is done well.

The authors also found that participants found difficulties in understanding the 'rules' of higher education. I suggest that those who have had to rely heavily on school rules in order to get through their schooling, with the associated rigidity, paternalism and the disempowering nature, particularly struggle to interpret and engage with the nature of higher education learning. This would suggest that academics should be proactive in coaching students to develop this understanding if they want their students to succeed; and that this 'coaching' is part of 'deschooling'. Pearce and Down (2011) describe experiences of students who had poor relationships with academics and their feelings of frustration when lecturers seemed to expect them to just 'know' how the system works. This brings to mind the culture I have seen in some teams of HE students being adult learners and, as such, should not expect support from academics in learning how to become autonomous learners. Described by Pearce and Down (2011) as "gatekeeping" (p. 490), this assumption ignores the fact that many students have not been privileged enough to have had opportunities to learn how to learn independently and why university is, and should be, different from school. One participant described how:

"Some lecturers don't seem to think that they need to build people up..." (p. 489)

This suggests that students feel very acutely their naivety in this kind of environment and rely on academics understanding this. I would argue that it is disheartening that anyone should need to be 'built up' and prompts the question of why school leaves people with such a need.

One particular point noted by this paper is the need for clear communication that meets the students where they are at by not assuming that they will understand academic language. I think 'deschooling' is partly about how we 'ease' students into the world of higher education and that this process will enable students to actually live better, more critically and more effectively in the world meaning richer lives overall.  

The paper found that positive relationships between students and academics supports learning. I think my research will be seeking to understand why this would be the case. The paper also found that the building of these positive relationships is affected by institutional culture as well as individual academics' views on education and power (and, I guess, the concept of 'schooled knowledge'). 

Other concepts cited by Pearce and Down (2011) as closely associated with relational pedagogy are those of 'belongingness' (e.g. one participant said: "I've had lecturers where I have walked into the office to discuss something and I've thought 'I should not be here'." (p. 490)) and power in education. One key difference between school and higher education is that school relies heavily on a transmissive, 'banking' model of teaching, which hooks (1994) argues reinforces power imbalances. Pearce and Down (2011) suggest that a positive relationship between students and academics help students to feel they belong and also begin to dismantle the imbalance of power intentionally created by schools that appears to disempower people and hinder deep learning. Higher education institutions have an opportunity to impact this power imbalance, which is another element I would argue comes under the term 'deschooling'.

References

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. New York: Routledge

Hughes CJ. and Saiva, G. (2019). 'Degree apprenticeships - an opportunity for all?'. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 9(2): 225-236

Pearce , J. and Down, B. (2011). 'Relational pedagogy for student engagement and success at university.' Australian Association for Research in Education. 38:483-494

UCAS. (2024a). Foundation Degrees. Available at: https://www.ucas.com/undergraduate/what-and-where-study/choosing-course/foundation-degrees (Accessed: 9 August 2024).

UCAS. (2024b). Degree Apprenticeships. Available at: https://www.ucas.com/apprenticeships/what-you-need-know-about-apprenticeships/degree-apprenticeships-0 (Accessed: 9 August 2024)