You've spent much of your career championing vocational and technical education. What has changed most significantly in how we think about education, skills and career pathways?
Perception. For example, in my field of interest, the perception of apprenticeships has become an aspirational programme available at all educational and skill levels: from Level 2 (equivalent to GCSEs) to Level 7 (master’s degree level) that can be said to represent the best of both worlds; a degree qualification and a job with training that is neither solely an academic nor solely a vocational programme, but both and as an apprenticeship model, carries high expectations. As early as 2012, I wrote how investing in the expansion of good quality higher apprenticeships not only creates a viable new career option for many young people and adults but also changes the popular perception of apprenticeship. A vibrant higher apprenticeship programme will position higher apprenticeships as a valued career option for high achievers as well as an accessible way into work. They also enable up-skilling and progression in the workplace and, more importantly, challenge the way that employers typically recruit to the professions.
As CEO of UVAC, you're at the centre of conversations about degree apprenticeships, skills and workforce development. What do you see as the biggest opportunities and challenges facing the sector over the next five years?
As skills focussed, and a higher education membership body, UVAC would emphasise how degree apprenticeships are a youth route: about 30% of chartered manager degree apprentices are 24 or under. The choice between young people and higher levels is a false one and one of the biggest challenges in terms of policy direction. Importantly, progression matters: without funded higher-level routes, today's young apprentices "age out" before they can progress. An "apprenticeship at 18" guarantee needs high-quality higher level learning options for school leavers, which universities are best placed to offer. Policy is now driven by one question: how to get a million young people who are not in education, employment or training into work. Every party has framed apprenticeships and skills as the answer for under-25s, and the government is funding that by withdrawing levy support from higher-level, older-learner provision.
Most institutions still rely heavily on contact forms, emails, traditional chatbots and telephone services during office hours. Is it time we fundamentally rethink how prospective students communicate with educational institutions?
Absolutely. The frustration that comes with an inability to speak to your institution of choice on any matter, whether concerning finance, programme or something else, at a time that is urgent and pressing, can lead to damaged reputation and a loss of trust by the student. There is no need to keep students waiting online or on the phone or limit the answering capability of chatbots when issues can be complex and very personal to the student’s context.
The traditional student is no longer necessarily an 18-year-old leaving school. How should universities and training providers rethink how they communicate with working adults, career changers and lifelong learners?
That access to higher level learning is available to everyone and that an institution’s system of recognising prior learning and experience is in place to identify talent. Supporting adults in work realise their potential is a main UVAC ambition and informs much of our lobbying and advocacy work. Under a different government it was satisfying that higher and degree apprenticeships totally met the objective that higher education focuses on ‘getting on rather than just getting in’.
As someone who regularly engages with senior leaders, do you think institutions are sufficiently ambitious about how AI could transform their student experience?
Just five years ago, I remarked that universities and HE institutions had invested mostly in bricks than clicks up till that point. In early 2020 education and training activities worldwide experienced unprecedented disruption due to public health measures implemented in response to the emergence and rapid spread of Covid-19. The most obvious effect, at least for periods when the most restrictive measures were in force, was the widespread transfer of learning from face-to-face methods to technology-mediated means. With the need to study or work from home as having accelerated many organisations’ digital strategies by three years or more. Then much of the concern was about innovative use of digital technologies in the mode and method of teaching, learning and assessment, and less about the use of AI. The ambition is still identifying itself. During emergency measures, online education was generally seen as good enough with decisions made quickly and under pressure. Now, there is an opportunity to build on those developments with digital and AI-enabled learning a core and intentional part of teaching. Now is also the time to stop thinking about how individual tools can enable teaching and instead consider how a holistic AI outlook can enhance learning, wherever it takes place, whether supporting a great, full-time, on-campus experience or making learning more flexible, inclusive and personalised for students who are off-campus, in apprenticeships or on placement. Doing this will require bringing people, practice, pedagogy, space and technology together in conversations.
What does meaningful innovation in education look like to you, in the context of AI?
AI integration in education offers opportunity and challenge and speaks to HE institution’s preparations for their students in AI-driven workplaces. In work-based learning the challenges of implementation are immediate. AI is presently reshaping professional roles and organisational practices so educators and practitioners must rethink how adult learners (apply theory in workplace practice, ensuring ethical and impactful AI use. Where innovation appears to be less visible is in practitioner CPD. Any digital / AI competency framework should provide a point of departure for teachers and practitioners who wish to understand and employ AI competency skills in their own context and practice. Signature AI pedagogies are also a necessary consideration. As is supporting academic staff to make informed choices about how they use AI and technology to underpin the curriculum. What is clear is that there is still a large need to surface shared themes and provide practitioners and teachers with ideas for embedding AI wisely whilst underpinning the pedagogy and practice.
What initially attracted you to AskEd and the opportunity to join its Advisory Council?
It presented an opportunity for learning more about the use of AI in an educational context and to extend my professional interest in exploring any impetus for pedagogic (or process) innovation and change. An advisory council with this level of expertise and gravitas allows me to seek personal advice and guidance on the implications on the use of AI for staff and institutional competence.
If we were having this conversation in 2030, how different do you think the student experience will look?
We should be beyond initial anxiety about the use of AI in higher education, and it should be fully embedded in all curriculum areas and demonstrate its full support for inclusion such as in the use assistive technology. How disappointing it will be if institutional systems, policies and management have not supported emerging practices. Regulations, guidance and frameworks for quality, ethics and accessibility should all be updated to reflect digital teaching and learning. Without change, the flexible practices necessary for AI/digitally-facilitated classroom based, work-based or work-integrated learning, may still face a continual struggle to align with university structures and administrative procedures.