Examining perceptions of the tripartite relationship in higher degree apprenticeship programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to examine conceptualisations and perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the tripartite relationship of a Higher Degree Apprenticeship (HDA) – apprentice, employer and higher education institution (HEI) – and how these contribute towards the successful outcomes of a Leadership and Management Senior Leader Degree Apprenticeship (SLA Level 7). The potential of these HDAs to contribute towards progression pathways is essential for integrated learning programmes, as they support strategic business goals and future economic growth. Design/methodology/approach Group concept mapping (GCM) is used to analyse conceptualisations and perceptions of that relationship. Data were collected using group discussions, analysed using multivariate statistical methods and debriefed with participants. Findings HDAs support personal and professional development for senior leadership progression. Three main tensions were identified; the employer–HEI relationship should be contextually matched for work-based learning (WBL), mentors should be trained by the HEI, and soft skill development for demonstrating leadership capability and executive behaviours must be a requirement. Research limitations/implications The scope of the study conducted was during a change and update of HDA standards and qualification credit requirements for the SLA. Practical implications There is still a need to improve the delivery of WBL, addressing practice-theory issues across the workplace and academic learning environments. Originality/value This paper provides an alternative method for examining the impact of the tripartite relationship on the delivery and outcomes of the SLA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".