View PDF Version
 
DOI: 10.1039/D5RP00107B (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2025, Advance Article

Analysis of a degree level learners through a pandemic: the importance of vocation-linked education for chemical scientists in full time education and on apprenticeship studies†

Clare-Louise Peyton* and Thomas Swift*
School of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK. E-mail: c.peyton@bradford.ac.uk; t.swift@bradford.ac.uk

Received 31st March 2025 , Accepted 30th June 2025

First published on 2nd July 2025

Abstract

In 2015 the UK introduced a degree level apprenticeship framework that included creation of a Laboratory Scientist apprenticeship standard to meet demands within the chemical workforce. Here, we review our experience of a Laboratory Scientist (Chemistry) degree apprenticeship against a traditional BSc programme through presenting a case study that compares the progression of students enrolled on these two chemistry degrees. Both courses shared the same BSc degree curriculum and content, however, the traditional BSc course was delivered as a full-time course and the apprenticeship as a part-time, online course. The course content, learning objectives and assessment structures were identical for the majority of these two programmes. During the pandemic, the mode of delivery on the two courses became closely aligned enabling a meaningful comparison of learner attainment. We found that the module enrolment pass rate was significantly higher for the part-time apprentice students, demonstrating that vocation-linked learning is a vital tool in our educational arsenal and which suggests more focus should be given to the support and growth of degree level apprenticeship programmes.

Introduction

The landscape of Higher Education (HE) is changing. Students are being more mindful of their time spent in education and the value HE provides (Jenkins, 2023). Some have questioned whether HE courses where teaching occurs for less than half the year are sufficient for the student fees charged. At the same time, in many industries employers are no longer using degree classifications as a sole barometer for candidate selection, although these trends have not been reflected in STEM roles within the chemicals sector (Royal Society of Chemistry, n.d.). The coincidence of these broad changes in attitudes from both student and employer highlights a need to consider non-traditional HE pathways that meet the needs of all parties.

In 2015 the UK government introduced a standards based approach for Degree Apprenticeships (DA) with a target to increase the numbers of young people undertaking apprenticeships to 3 million by 2020 (Bolton and Lewis, 2024). The purpose of these higher-level apprenticeships was to provide an alternative pathway to the traditional university degree that would provide vocational education and training of young people. As part of the overall framework structure within the Institute for Apprentice and Technical Education (IfATE), multiple ‘standards’ were approved that match graduate skills and employers' needs (Smith et al., 2021). The introduction of the DAs framework was followed in 2017 by a new funding mechanism for large employers, the Apprenticeship Levy, to fund the Government's commitment to increasing apprenticeship numbers (Bolton and Lewis, 2024). Following a 2022 literature review that highlighted an overall positive link between DAs and social mobility (Nawaz et al., 2023), the Government has extended its commitment to DAs and for 2023–2025 the Office for Students (OfS) introduced a funding competition for further Framework for Higher Education Qualification (FHEQ) level 6 DA development (Students, 2025). For an explanation of FHEQ levels, please refer to S1 in the ESI.†

In 2018 the University of Bradford (UoB) launched a FHEQ Level 6 Laboratory Scientist (Chemistry) DA that mirrored the residential Royal Society of Chemistry accredited BSc programme. Not long after its launch came the COVID-19 pandemic, an event that fundamentally impacted the delivery and assessment of many chemistry curricula (Simmons and Mistry, 2023). Multiple institutions have reported on the challenges retaining synchronous learning activities during this period to ensure sufficient student engagement at distance (Accettone, 2021; Broad et al., 2023). At UoB, the pandemic resulted in learners on both the residential degree and apprenticeship programmes sharing a largely similar delivery mode both during and in the immediate post pandemic period, which was a hybrid learning approach predominantly delivered in an online distance-learning format with some practical sessions on campus. Surprisingly, the two cohorts, despite a similar delivery approach, exhibited distinct differences in academic performance.

Here we examine the outcomes of our Laboratory Scientist degree programme against those of our residential BSc degree to try and understand this disparity. As part of our analysis of learner outcomes, we will review the UK apprenticeship landscape and discuss the challenges that affected UK HE during this period, and the varied approaches that were adopted to combat these significant challenges. And, in performing this analysis, we demonstrate how DAs could be a more effective and authentic approach to teaching chemistry in HE than traditional UG chemistry programmes.

Background

UK apprenticeship landscape

Structured HE science apprenticeships are an established tradition in continental Europe where well-defined and uniform requirements are common, (e.g. Germany, Austria and Switzerland). However, such training structures were mostly absent from the UK market for several decades (Snell, 1996). Previous apprenticeship initiatives in the UK, such as the Modern Apprenticeship established in in the 1990s suffered from inconsistent training approaches and duration. (Fuller and Unwin, 2003). Hence, the introduction of an employer-led standard framework approach was new to the United Kingdom.

Regarding degree level vocational apprenticeships, delivery of traditionally academic taught disciplines through such a structure was considered a significant milestone that would offer a substantially different student experience (Higgs, 2022). DA were broadly welcomed across multiple market sectors, with some Universities committing significant resources to delivering these new standards (Crawford-Lee and Moorwood, 2019). There was an increase in total apprenticeship uptake in the immediate years following the introduction of the levy that was not sustained following the introduction of the new standards (Foley, 2024). Analysis of initial issues about withdrawn industry participation found that the subsequent decrease was down to SME businesses who, despite a tradition of employing large numbers of apprentices, were not participating at the same rate as larger employers. However, within the total apprenticeship cohort, starts on FHEQ level 4 and above increased from almost non-existent to nearly 10% of total annual enrolments, with a larger proportion of mature age groups (i.e. students over 19 years of age) entering new apprenticeship schemes (Gambin and Hogarth, 2021).

A range of multiple standards were approved to meet the needs of UK industry, and it is within this common framework that this case study is presented. Although the case study involves a programme with delivery of a BSc Chemistry outcome, the role of both curriculum development by academics and apprentice student learners are a more complicated set of arrangements than are typically found within direct higher education delivery frameworks. Specifically, each DA standard is a portfolio of Knowledge, Skill and Behaviour (KSB) priorities that the apprentice learner is required to meet. Achievement of the standard is through completion of the BSc degree and then an external end point assessment (EPA). These standards are set by a Trailblazer group of providers and employers convened by IfATE. Hence, this is designed to be a demand led system that only functions when employers are actively recruiting or enrolling new learners. As such, HE institutes (HEI) are required to approach employers and advertise that their training programmes are of sufficient quality and specificity to meet the employers’ needs, and to agree specific details necessary for smooth delivery (i.e. will delivery be on site or off site, is delivery taught in blocks or by day release and who will supervise the workspace synoptic project). An employer needs to initiate the process by approaching a HEI with a planned apprenticeship job role they intend to recruit or reallocate existing staff towards, who once engaged will commit to dedicating a minimum 20% of their workload towards ‘Off the Job’ (OTJ) learning as part of their apprenticeship commitment. The HEI, Apprentice and Employer will then meet regularly in a tripartite meeting, that should, for example, occur quarterly to offer all parties continual oversight of the apprentice's progress on both the degree and the KSB targets for the EPA. This entire structure is inspected for quality assurance by Ofsted, in addition to any other responsible bodies involved in HEI governance and oversight. A conceptual framework showing all the stakeholders in curriculum development and learner engagement of the Level 6 Laboratory Scientist Apprenticeship discussed is shown in Scheme 1.


image file: d5rp00107b-s1.tif
Scheme 1 Stakeholders of the laboratory scientist level 6 degree apprenticeship delivery with relationships/interactions detailed.

UK apprenticeship provision in the chemical sciences

During recent UK history the uptake of chemistry apprenticeships has always been historically low; from 2002–2008 ≈ 0% of apprenticeship enrolments (including both intermediate and advanced levels) were in science or mathematical subjects (Cavaglia et al., 2020). While some individual companies have a history of degree-level apprenticeships in chemistry there has been a fragmented approach to high-level apprenticeship provision. From 1981 to 1995 the RSC offered a vocational Graduate of the Royal Society of Chemistry (GRSC) qualification which fulfilled this need for vocational recognition. The GRSC had two components, part 1 being equivalent to a BSc (ordinary) and part 2 matching a BSc (Hons). Part 2 would be required to meet the academic requirements for chartered chemist (CChem) recognition, something that in traditional academic qualifications would require a masters (MSc/MChem) qualification. This GRSC syllabus was taught both in the UK and some other countries by a mixture of participating colleges and universities. In 1995 when the GRSC was phased out the RSC moved to an outcome-based accreditation system, supporting institutional learning objectives rather than the syllabus.

Since the 80s, many HEIs have offered chemistry degrees with industrial placements either in a sandwich or final year placement as part of a broader BSc or MChem qualification (Wallace, 2000). Together these placement courses, the GRSC, and company specific apprenticeship programmes were a vital route for embedding skills in the UK chemical workforce (Tyson, 1982). However, the provision of such courses has waxed and waned over the decades. In the late 90s, many of the industrial placement courses were phased out along with the GRSC. This matched other changes in UK HE in that period which focused on full-time educational routes. As of 2024 there are 97 RSC accredited degrees with industry placements. However, while placements still exist and are promoted to introduce a significant proportion of residential chemistry students to the needs of the chemical industry, they do not introduce a true vocational pathway to access HE across a national framework. This made the IfATE DA standards the first nationally organised framework with the potential for offering degree level chemistry qualifications for part time learners since 1995.

For the new DAs, there was no standard created specifically to meet the requirements of chemistry as a sub-discipline. As apprenticeship standards at all levels were designed to reflect market sectors and their skills needs, a broad FHEQ level 6 Laboratory Scientist standard was designed to be used for all apprentices who need training in ‘carrying out technical and scientific activity in laboratories’ across multiple specialist disciplines, including but not limited to the chemical sciences. This Laboratory Scientist standard was created through consultation with employers, professional bodies and training providers and approved for delivery in January 2018. The standard consisted of 10 Knowledge, 11 Skills and 6 Behavioural traits that needed to be developed as a non-integrated apprenticeship over a 60-month delivery period. For non-integrated apprenticeships the delivery and attainment of a BSc degree is a ‘gateway requirement’ before completion of a distinct and separate EPA. Hence, the degree, contents and assessment therein, were fundamentally separate to a learner's progression through the apprenticeship standard. For the purposes of this case study, the delivery and marking of the apprenticeship BSc Chemistry curriculum is a distinct part-time degree level program with its own identity that was delivered within the larger apprenticeship framework.

In 2025 this standard was updated and renamed as simply the Scientist standard, introducing specific learning pathways dedicated to the subject specialisms (i.e. Chemist, Biologist, Physicist routes). Hence, this case study is an opportune moment to report on the delivery to the original standard. Reporting from IfATE shown in Table 1 indicates that enrolments within scientific standards at all apprenticeship levels (Level 2 to Level 7) increased from 2019 to 2025. In total, there were 1167 apprenticeship starts in 2019, rising each year to 1444 in 2024 with 10–20% of new apprentices enrolling on the Level 6 Laboratory Scientist standard annually. Informal employer feedback shows the particular value of this standard as the majority of enrolments were new employees (hires made specifically to create new apprenticeship roles rather than internal appointments) allowing for growth of the employee business, which is not the case for the level 7 standard. Laboratory Scientist is the most significant of the Level 6 standards occupying >80% of entrants at this level. However, there is no publicly available data regarding the exact percentage of Level 6 Laboratory Scientist enrolments that were in the chemical sciences compared to biological or physical science laboratory roles. At UoB, our apprenticeship programme was delivered to ∼5% of the annual UK apprenticeship intake for the Laboratory Scientist standard.

Table 1 Annual starts on UK scientific apprenticeships from 2019–2024a
Level Standards 19/00 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25b
a Data is reported by the IfATE annually and retrieved from their public database. Additional level 3 and level 7 standards were introduced in 2023.b Covering the first 3 months of intake.c Science Manufacturing Process Operative.d Laboratory Technician, Polymer Processing Technician, Science Industry Maintenance Technician, Science Manufacturing Technician.e Technician Scientist.f Clinical Trials Specialist, Laboratory Scientist, Science Industry Process/Plant Engineer.g Bioinformatics Scientist, Clinical Pharmacology Scientist, Regulatory Affairs Scientist, Research Scientist.
2 c 37 121 168 63 61 8
3 d 827 622 794 762 947 557
5 e 77 59 52 67 41 34
6 f 152 173 231 256 256 105
7 g 68 123 127 98 139 29
Total   1161 1098 1372 1246 1444 733

Bradford case study – online identities and learning packages

A redesign of chemistry teaching provision at the University of Bradford was initiated in 2015 with the launch of new BSc, MChem and MSc degrees around a single integrated pathway. The UG courses were designed with a modularised spiral curriculum that taught fundamental chemistry subdisciplines and practical laboratory skills in separate modules. Chemistry is a subject well suited to spiral curricula as shown by other examples in both secondary (Schmidkunz and Büttner, 1986) and higher (Campbell et al., 2022) education. As the laboratories were modularised and focused on advancing practical and analytical data skills, it was relatively simple to design an apprenticeship degree where core subject’ modules (organic, inorganic and physical chemistry) were adapted only so far as was necessary to facilitate online delivery, whilst the practical modules were fully replaced to facilitate apprentice skills development through their employment whilst retaining some direct laboratory tuition.

The planned rollout of the part-time chemistry degree required significant investment in online teaching capabilities. As such the academic team at the University of Bradford revisited learning and teaching strategies, researching effective online learning approaches to support student learning at distance on DA programmes. Activities included embedding augmented reality elements into a virtual learning environment (VLE) and collating learning material into digestible packages.

VLEs have been under development for application in HE for over two decades (Koskela et al., 2005; Bayne, 2008), and has become one of the primary means of organising teaching content within modular structures (Aljawarneh, 2020). The programmes in this case study used the Canvas VLE, which is an open-source cloud based application with reasonable flexibility and an intuitive interface (Khatser and Khatser, 2022). Several other academic teams have discussed the rollout and development of Canvas for hybrid (online and face to face) content delivery with successful results, showing good student feedback when it is implemented successfully (Al-Ataby, 2021; Jusuf et al., 2021).

However, academics have no control over how a student consumes online material, therefore, a successful student experience online requires a clear, consistent approach and must manage student cognitive load. Considering points raised regarding metacognition (Livingston and Condie, 2006), there are advantages in breaking up information delivery with active tasks and embedding this structure into an online environment by design. According to these principles we used a defined structure for every module to direct students through the same pattern of information input, self-assessment, application and assimilation. The result of this was the development of a framework structure termed Online Learning Packages (OLP).

Each OLP had a dedicated VLE page within which we embedded all media and learning, along with reading prompts, quizzes and links to online games to allow students to regulate their learning, reflect on a topic more holistically and check their understanding. Bespoke embedded media was recorded by staff who converted their didactic lecture material (which varied from 1 to 2-hour lectures) into shorter segmented presentations that were ideally below 20 minutes in length. Student feedback showed that they preferred shorter, easily digestible content. This matches the experiences of other studies on flipped learning where learner video engagement rapidly decreases proportionally to increasing video length (Sigmon et al., 2024). Each OLP was associated with an online synchronous session, allowing academics to provide direct instruction on complex topics and respond to student questions. Synchronous sessions were scheduled after the associated OLP was released to the students. The students were instructed to assimilate the OLP material before attending the synchronous sessions in order to be able to fully participate and develop their learning.

An online delivery approach was already being developed across multiple modules due to the rollout of the apprenticeship programme. However, this process was accelerated and unified, with almost full transition to online teaching in March 2020 as a responsive action due to the first COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. Hence, with the first lockdown, these programmes already had the tools ready to quickly adapt our residential programmes to a hybrid approach with all teaching, except for practical labs, moved to this online environment. Residential programme students received access to the same asynchronous recordings and associated materials as the apprentices, and both groups received recordings of synchronous sessions. Hence, from March 2020, both programmes had an almost identical delivery mode. For the 20–21 academic year, we formalised the approach to be consistent across all chemistry programmes. Two key elements used in both our residential and apprenticeship programmes had a positive impact on the student learning experience: a chemistry online identity and online learning packages.

Another factor we considered was terminology. Across the sector there is much confusion over what exactly differentiates e-learning, online learning and distance learning, if they differ at all. From Moore et al.'s discussion of this situation (Moore et al., 2011), it was clear consistent use of terminology was key. Even if terminology was inconsistent across the sector, we decided to embed consistent use of terminology locally for our staff and students across the programme and all modules within it. Part of our planning was to decide on an adequate description for the range of blended teaching scenarios, to be simple and clear to both staff and students. The term online learning package achieved this as it was clear that it was online material and that it was a ‘package’ that was comprised of different elements. We purposely used the terminology as frequently as possible in all interactions with colleagues so that by the time teaching started, new terms, such as OLP, had become common vernacular within the programme team making it easier for the students to accept and understand the terminology themselves. In addition, every module introduction page explained the terminology. Mid-way through semester one it was clear that the terminology and online approach had been successfully adopted by students. The following student comments taken from module evaluation questionnaires at the end of semester one to identify if intervention was needed, show how these terms were used with familiarity by the students: “OLP were well arranged and easy to browse”; “OLPs were very helpful and the extra materials given to help in understanding the content”.

The Chemistry Online Identity was a broader framework developed to encompass the OLPs. It became clear that we could have a huge positive impact on our students during the pandemic if we created a consistent Online Identity for an entire programme. Such an online identity approach would provide our students with the consistency needed for them to adapt to a new way of working for the 20/21 academic year. We treated our school and programme online space as a brand identity. Brand identity can impact emotional associations consumers have with a product and how it is perceived. For example, Canziani et al. wrote about how identity can be a central communication objective and that three factors critical for this are “character, temporal continuity, and distinctiveness” (Canziani et al., 2020). While not relevant to education those three words inspired us to provide an online experience that gave all our students a sense of ‘belonging’. Hence, landing on any module site in our programme had to be immediately recognisable and induce a sense of organisation and ease of access to help our students feel secure in this new online environment. Not only that, but we needed to have temporal continuity or directionality in the material presented to encourage students to keep working forward through asynchronous material online (Fig. 1). Hence, we broke down the individual elements needed for a module and placed them in a simple structure where all the OLPs, coursework information, support material, linked to a main page with a clear route through the year's material in order. It also required using tools within Canvas, often overlooked, such as the Syllabus, to give students a dated schedule of Canvas pages to read and tasks to complete, such as quizzes, to help them stay on target and see what was coming next. To prevent students being overwhelmed by technology options becoming available during the pandemic, the identity also included a team agreement on consistent use of technology and software. The online identity consisted of a visual structure, a ‘brand guideline’, of how the VLE should be set out, down to the ordering of items in the navigation menu and demonstrated a mock-up of a working module.


image file: d5rp00107b-f1.tif
Fig. 1 Early 19/20 version of an online learning package showing the defined structure of learning activities packaged into a digestible topic. Learning activities consisted of mixtures of asynchronous lectures, recap videos, reading, quizzes and games.

Due to the positive response from students to our online learning approach and the autonomy it provided them with in planning their learning and revision, we have continued to use the Online Identity and OLP approach in both residential and apprenticeship programmes.

Research questions

For this study, we wanted to assess the impact of our online learning approach for two separate cohorts: level 6 Laboratory Scientist DA learners and BSc/MChem Chemistry degree residential students. The period analysed covers the COVID-19-pandemic and associated lockdowns. In reviewing module pass rates each year, we anecdotally noticed that our apprenticeship cohorts demonstrated higher performance than our home students. This led to the following research questions:

• What is the magnitude and consistency of the difference in the performance across the two cohorts?

• How is any significant difference between the cohorts’ performance attributable to a difference in learning modality?

• What evidence is there that the demographics or prior educational performance of the two cohorts could explain any significant differences?

And, in trying to answer these we considered if this study could show a need for further apprenticeship adoption.

Methods

Research design

The raw student record data held by UoB Registry and Student Administration were accessed and analysed using Microsoft Power BI. Data was compiled, visualised and analysed using Graphpad Prism (V10.5.0). Pearson's r correlations and Cohen's d index with pooled standard deviations were used to determine effect size. Incidental information from third parties mentioned within this study was taken from publicly available sources (e.g. press releases, IfATE/Ofsted reports).

Study context

This study examines outcomes of apprentices registered on the part-time Level 6 Laboratory Scientist (Chemistry) programme and the full-time BSc and MChem Chemistry programmes offered by the UoB. As the full-time courses share identical delivery and core modules for the first three years, we have chosen to analyse these as a single cohort. For clarity, students enrolled on the full-time BSc and MChem degrees will be referred to as the residential cohort and those enrolled on the Level 6 Laboratory Scientist programme will be referred to as the apprenticeship cohort. The apprenticeship cohort is taught the FHEQ level 4–6 core content over a 4-year period and the residential cohort covers the same core content over a 3-year period. Both programmes were delivered by a single academic teaching team; for all modules, the module leadership, session planning, session delivery and responses to student queries is handled by the same member of staff.

Data was collected on student outcomes and performance for both cohorts at FHEQ levels 4, 5 and 6 for the academic years 2018–19 to 2023–24, inclusive. Many modules from the academic year 2019–20 were excluded from the analysis due to the disruption midway through the year due to the pandemic. Therefore, with consideration of the disruption to the student cohorts, distinct academic cohorts A–F have to be considered separately as outlined within Table 2.

Table 2 Datasets of student progression considered within this case study
Cohort phase Academic years Data available Aspects considered
a Face to face teaching was suspended in week 9 of the students second semester of learning, meaning that for the modules (which run across the whole academic year) students had received 22 of 25 full weeks of normal tuition before study patterns were disrupted and over 90% of all laboratory assessments for practical modules.
A 2016–17 to 2017–18 Residential: years 1–3 Provides a baseline for student progression in chemistry course using this programme structure.
B 2018–19 Apprenticeship: year 1 Online vs. on-campus
  Residential: years 1–3 Progression and stage outcome only.
C 2019–20 Apprenticeship: years 1–2, residential: years 1–3 Data reviewed but incomplete due to COVID-19 disruption part way through the year.a Modules with auto progression of stage 1 enacted at the end of 19/20 are discounted.
D 2020–21 Apprenticeship: year 1–3, residential: year 1–3 Both cohorts on online delivery format. Data used to compare performance under similar format conditions.
E 2021–22 to 2022–23 Apprenticeship: stage 1–4, residential: stage 1–3 Residential cohort phasing back on campus
    Degree outcome data available for both
    Identified as immediate post COVID-19 years
F 2023–24 Apprenticeship: stage 1–4, residential: stage 1–3 Residential cohort back on campus
    Degree outcome data available for both

The case study apprenticeship programme shares the same core content and structure as the residential programmes. The residential course focuses in years 1 and 2 (Levels 4 and 5) on fundamental skills within the Inorganic, Organic and Physical (IOP) chemistry disciplines, accompanied by core practical laboratory modules, followed by core interdisciplinary modules in year 3 focused on defined chemical industry sectors (Analytical, Materials, Bioscience, Fine Chemicals). Due to the residential programme alignment with industrial areas and skills, minimal changes to the structure of the degree were required to create an apprenticeship format that met the needs of employers. All additional oversight required for development of the work-based learning and assessment of the KSBs was achieved through collation of a skills portfolio embedded in 30 credit practical modules present in each stage of the degree. Whilst the delivery pattern needed separation from the full-time residential programme to accommodate a dedicated weekday for OTJ training, assessment for all overlapping residential and apprenticeship modules could be carried out simultaneously using the same assessment strategy. The majority of modules on these programmes are 20 credit modules, although there are 30 or 60 credit laboratory practical and dissertation modules.

Employer and employee cohorts

Apprentices discussed in this case study were employed by 21 different employers, who ranged from SME companies to British components of large multinational organisations. Across this case study the average number of apprentices per employer was 2, although the largest was 15. The apprentices were in physically distinct regions across England between 5 and 250 miles distant from campus. The employers also varied by industry sector with some operating in coatings and adhesives manufacture, pharmaceutical productions, analytical testing or renewable technologies.

This data is recorded both for the whole student cohort, and disaggregated by gender (M or F), ethnicity (declared as white or other ethnic groups) or disability (if declared or not/unknown). Simply observing ‘Not or Unknown’ means one has not been declared, not that one does not necessarily exist. We note that under 10% of students registered on the DA programme were from other ethnic groups. Therefore, for confidentiality purposes, some data regarding their progression has been omitted to ensure nobody is identifiable.

Data collection and analysis

We have presented data records showing the number (n) of student enrolments for each annual occurrence of a module enrolment who either obtain a “pass” at the relevant exam board or fail to progress. This Module Enrolment Pass Rate (MEPR) is a key parameter of the student cohort strengths or weaknesses.

As is common across UK HEIs, UoB students who fail a module (graded <40%) are automatically entitled to resit the module assessments, at second attempt, which caps the module grade at 40%. However, acceptable extenuating circumstances allow a resit with no cap applied, i.e. it is treated as another first attempt. For residential students, a third attempt is allowed dependent on the number of stage credits the student requires to progress. However, different rules and regulations governed apprenticeship learners and these students were only permitted two attempts without justifiable extenuating circumstances. Each attempt is a single record entry in our student information system – thus using MEPR to assess student progression or attainment is complicated where extenuating circumstances have been accepted as these incidences are still reported as a ‘fail to progress’. Therefore, because each attempt submitted to an exam board is counted as a separate outcome, a student who attempts a module twice (even for legitimate unforeseen circumstances) will artificially increase the reduction in % progression rate by being reported multiple times. Due to the regulations this affects the residential degree to a greater extent than the apprenticeship programme. To have a baseline comparison of cohort performance prior to the degree, we compared UCAS points using unpaired t-tests.

Case study results

Before performing any comparative analysis of performance on the apprenticeship and residential programmes, we first examined the demographics and prior educational attainment of the two cohorts. Compared to our residential programme, the apprenticeship programme has a higher male intake, far lower ethnic diversity and lower numbers of students with a reported disability (Table 3). The residential programme cohorts have a significantly higher percentage of other ethnic groups, a consequence of target student demographics of the UoB as a HEI compared with the employer sector average. According to the UK government, the number of students with reported disabilities nationally has increased to 17% as of 2019 (Bolton and Hubble, 2024). While our apprenticeship cohorts fall within the UK reported statistics, the numbers of students with reported disabilities in our residential cohort exceeds this UK average (Table 3). Further analysis of our student backgrounds on enrolment are presented in the ESI,† which indicate that both cohorts contain students that cross economic backgrounds, as defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) access quintiles (Fig. S2c, ESI†). While both cohorts were split across the five access quintiles, the residential degree has a significantly higher proportion of students from areas categorised as Access quintile 1, which represents areas of lower socioeconomic status where students are less likely to access HE. We believe this is a direct consequence of the UoB's focused commitment on social mobility and inclusive learning embedded within its institutional values.
Table 3 Number of module completions between 2017 and 2024
  All Residential Apprentice
a N = number of module enrolments in chemistry taught modules over this period.
Na 3522 3099 423
% M 53.5 51.3 72.4
% F 46.5 48.7 27.6
% White 36.4 30.2 92.0
% Other ethnic groups 63.6 69.8 8.0
% Disabled 24.0 25.3 13.7
% None or unknown 76.0 74.7 86.3

While the student demographics do differ between the two programme formats considered in this study, the prior educational attainment does not. This provides a consistent baseline for comparison between the two cohorts. A comparison of the UCAS points of students entering each programme over the defined period showed no significant difference (unpaired t-test, p = 0.5543, effect size = 0.26) between the average points of incoming students (Table S2a, ESI†). As expected, with a significantly higher number of students enrolled, the residential degree had a broader range of UCAS points attained (Table S2a, ESI†). However, the average points for the two cohorts lay within one standard deviation of each other.

Degree outcomes and MEPR

Due to the small number of students enrolled on the apprenticeship we have elected not to provide a full detailed breakdown of degree outcomes by grade to ensure data confidentiality. However, since 2019, the overall cohort outcomes indicate equivalent levels of high achieving students with the proportion of first- and second-class honours awarded being ≈50% on both programmes.

To get a full view of the student journey for the two student cohorts over their degree programmes, we broke down the programmes into module components and performed a statistical analysis of progression and pass rates at the module level. Over the 2018–19 and 2021–24 years, 3500 module enrolments were made, with an overall progression rate of 75.0%. The student makeup of those module completions are shown in Table 3 and the MEPR in Table 4.

Table 4 Percentage MEPR of all attempts across sampled student body. Top: Summary of all students in case study. Bottom: Students split by cohorts A–F from Table 2
  All Residential Apprentice
All 75.1 73.1 89.5
M 75.3 73.1 88.6
F 74.0 72.6 95.4
White 78.5 75.1 88.5
Other ethnic groups 73.6 73.2 100
Disabled 68.3 67.8 75.0
Not or unknown 77.3 74.9 93.2
Cohorts A B C D E F
Residential
N 504 512 461 512 262 70
% MEPR 78.1 79.4 93.1 75.7 48.5 79.5
 
Apprentice
N — 8 28 49 176 106
% MEPR — 100 100 89.1 88.0 88.3

The average total MEPR of all learners over the period sampled, disaggregated by all personal groupings and stage cohorts is shown in Table 4, and chronologically by academic year in Fig. 2. These data indicate a significant difference in the outcomes for residential and apprentice students of all categories. When comparing the percentage module pass rates of residential students with that of apprentices via a Mann–Whitney U test (p-value < 0.0001), we observe a significant difference with a large effect size of 1.3.


image file: d5rp00107b-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Module enrolment pass rates segregated by academic year. As indicated in our methodology section, a low module progression rate does not mean a high failure rate and could imply a large number of students resat assessments due to extenuating circumstances.

As the programme is designed to teach traditional inorganic, organic and physical (IOP) chemistry in core modules, these data can be further disaggregated into these subdisciplines as shown in Fig. 3. When we consider the student groupings in Table 4 within the context of these subdisciplines, there is no clear predictor for outcome based on the module subject. One exception to this is the observation that students with reported disabilities demonstrated lower performance on the inorganic and physical chemistry modules. We attribute this to the mathematical or conceptually heavy content within these modules, which could be more challenging for students with dyslexia or other specific learning disabilities. These particular modules are possibly where students are most challenged by the inductive versus deductive nature of chemistry and have the greatest potential for misconceptions (Tümay, 2016). As the proportion of students with declared disabilities is greater in our residential cohort this diversion becomes most apparent in Fig. 3B – years where COVID impact had the least impact in progression.


image file: d5rp00107b-f3.tif
Fig. 3 Average MEPR of students across core organic (Org), inorganic (Inorg), physical (Phys) and practical (Prac) chemistry modules on residential (FT) and apprenticeship programmes. (A) Data from all cohorts; (B) average pass rates of students from 2017 to 2024 using only cohorts A, B and F (i.e. non-pandemic affected years); (C) data from 2019/20 only. Error bars reflect standard deviation of average. A two-way ANOVA of the raw data in each graph was performed to analyse any interactions of sub-discipline and cohort route on MEPR. This revealed there was not a statistically significant interaction between these (whole study A) f = 0.45, p = 0.72, non-pandemic (B) f = 1.73, p = 0.18, pandemic year (C) (f = 0.28, p = 0.84).

A distinct trend to address is the pronounced ‘COVID effect’ evident in our data. These data cover a period both predating, during and following the COVID-19 pandemic where student cohort learning patterns and module outcomes were not constant (Table 2). The average MEPR for each academic year (Fig. 2) demonstrates that prior to 2020, the residential students had an MEPR that varied from 75 to 80%, which decreased to 48–66% in the years following the pandemic. The apprentice cohort, which had a higher MEPR of 100% prior to 2020 also exhibited a reduction, albeit smaller in magnitude. Hence, both programmes show a dip in progression rate commencing in 20/21, reaching a trough in 21/22, followed by a slow recovery. Differences in performance across these years was anticipated as the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on both current learners and incoming applicants entering the HE system (Turner et al., 2020). However, the situation is complicated. Temporary academic regulations for UG awards introduced by the institution in 2019–20 to mitigate the impact of the pandemic allowed all students in stage 1 to be automatically progressed without further assessment. The scale of the impact from this decision is remarkably different for the two programme types as seen in the relative size of the troughs in 21/22 and resulted in an artificially high number of resits the following year.

Hence, the MEPR can be misleading due to the potential for double or triple accounting of a module's outcomes when a student resits a module. For example, students who failed modules in 2021 were permitted an attempt to retake those modules the same year, and then if unsuccessful on that attempt a third attempt in 2022. We hypothesise that this duplicate accounting is the reason for the long tail of apparent low performance following the 2020 pandemic, which took a further three academic years to stop impacting the MEPR. The recovery from this COVID effect was judged by the return of the residential MEPR of student cohort F (23–24) to match that of cohort A (16–18). During this study the number of potential resit assessments in the residential chemistry increased dramatically from 7–20% (2018–2019) to up to 54% (2021). Industrial apprentice students however showed only a small incremental increase.

The 2019–20 academic year

As a result of this variation, it is tempting to omit the academic years 2019–2022 from this study and simply report the comparison of the apprentice degree to the residential degree. Analysis on this basis is provided in the ESI† – it increases the average residential % progression rate to 93%, and a Mann–Whitney U test comparison of the residential and apprenticeship degree still yield a significant difference (unpaired t-test, p < 0.0001). However, it is more useful to compare the relative impact that the pandemic created on the two respective student cohorts and the varying resilience their respective situations provided in the following years. Fig. 4 shows the attainment of cohorts D and F (2020–21 and 2023–24 academic years) broken down by the FHEQ level of the respective modules. There was substantial impact on residential students adapting to the flipped method of delivery in 2021, who had a significantly lower MEPR than would be expected from the delivery method at all stages of their learning journey (effect sizes for D vs. F cohorts: level 4, 3.8; level 5, 1.4; level 6, 2.0) However, for the apprentice learners, only level 5 was significantly affected (effect size 1.5) whilst the others showed a smaller effect (Table S4b, ESI†).
image file: d5rp00107b-f4.tif
Fig. 4 Analysis of student MEPR in academic years 2021–22 (Cohort D) and 2023–24 (Cohort F) performance based on FHEQ level. This is not a perfect comparison as whereas the FHEQ level of the residential degree maps onto year of study, FHEQ levels of the apprentice degrees are combined. However, it does reflect early, middle and later stages of their separate learning experiences. Error bars show standard deviation of average. A two-way ANOVA of the raw data in each graph was performed to analyse any interactions of the student level in the specified year of study and cohort route on MEPR. This revealed there was a statistically significant interaction between these in 2021/22 (A) f = 8.31, p = 0.002, 2023/24, but not in 2023/24 (B) f = 2.48, p = 0.11.

Discussion

Case study analysis

Digital technologies have become a core implementation strategy of higher education teaching since the 2020 pandemic. Several studies have reported successful implementation but reported that teaching staff may require re-training to ‘upskill’ to the different pedagogical requirements of this student cohort (Fung et al., 2023). However this case study shows that a team already skilled in the development and delivery of both direct and digital delivery mechanisms learning outcomes can be affected by significant challenges.

The data presented here shows the successful rollout of a part-time degree level chemistry programme delivered primarily by online, flipped learning methods. Both programme cohorts were comprised of students from broad socioeconomic backgrounds. However, both had a significantly higher percentage of students from the lower indices of multiple deprivation than is typical for the sector. As is shown in the ESI,† the residential degree had 54% students from Access quintile 1; the sector average over this same time period was 16% (Aspires, n.d.). The data is complicated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; both in the immediate disruption to learning but followed by several years of reduced student attainment compared to before the pandemic. Throughout this period the apprenticeship programme consistently outperformed the residential degree, in every cohort and discipline subcategory both before and after the pandemic.

This can partially be explained by considering the ability of the programmes to match student expectation. Part-time apprentices had enrolled on a programme where they expected online delivery from the outset. While all apprentices were impacted by the pandemic, the impact on their work and study environments was variable. Not all were able to continue working throughout the pandemic and, where working was possible, their individual working practices were heavily affected. However, the extent of this disruption is of a significantly smaller magnitude than that experienced for students on the residential programme.

Is flipped the reason?. Overall, these data shows that the original pass rate on the apprentice programme was higher than that of the residential degree, despite the apprentices studying part time while employed within the chemical industry. One might think that this indicates that this is due to the flipped learning pedagogical approach to the apprenticeship degree. However, in 2020–21 we had implemented the same approach across our residential cohort in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If we look at the MEPR and the modules by subdiscipline for 2020–21 we see some stark differences. For example, 89% of our apprentices passed organic chemistry in stage 1, while only 32% of our residential students achieved a pass at first attempt.

We could reason that the lower performance of our residential cohort was due to a sudden change in delivery with which they were not familiar. However, this lack of familiarity also applies to incoming apprentices. If we compare the stage 1 data for residential students and apprentices for the 20–21 academic year, we find that incoming residential students, who were exposed to online learning on commencement of new studies from their arrival in HE, demonstrated the lowest percentage pass rate of any cohort (38% MEPR compared to 83% for the equivalent apprentice students). Similarly, all students in their second year of study who had been automatically progressed from stage 1, struggled in the 2021/22 academic year as evidenced by a reduction in the MEPR to approximately 50%. Further, there is no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of the apprentice and residential students studying FHEQ level 5 modules in 2021/22 (t-test p = 0.46). Students studying stage 3 (FHEQ Level 6) on the residential programme continue to struggle through learning with reduced contact, whilst the apprentice cohort had a 100% MEPR.

So, if the modality of the teaching delivery did not have a powerful impact on performance, what do these data really show? We believe it evidences the value of vocational based learning and application of knowledge alongside academic education. Not only this, but it also further supports that embedding of academic learning as part of work-based training gives it more meaning. This view aligns with the higher engagement experienced with apprenticeship learners and also the more persuasive course correction through reinforcing expectations with line managers as part of the quarterly tripartite meetings (Fig. 1).

Student employment and changes in study habits

Student paid employment is one of the most debated and researched influences on attendance that sits almost entirely outside of the control of the HEI (Moores et al., 2019). This was not a historical problem that HEI's concerned themselves with, in fact in 1970, when writing on the specifics of University Chemical Education in Britain compared to other countries, such as Germany and America, Davies and Stern wrote:

“We know that the background education is much narrower in the UK than either in Germany or in the USA where up to the age of 18 or 21, respectively, students read a very wide range of subjects. We think that the difference resides here. We are witnessing the unique unworldliness of the British student-in his work he never comes into contact with money pressures and indeed money is generally despised within the academic environment.”

Quotation 1. Reproduced from the Summary and Conclusions of Davies and Stern ‘University Chemical Education and Industrial Employment in Britain’ for the Journal Pure and Applied Chemistry (Davies and Stern, 1970).

Whilst the general narrow focus of UK Higher Education compared to other countries remains the view that financial pressures are a foreign concept to students is certainly no longer the case. Student part time work has historically been a common cause for students missing lectures (Paisey* and Paisey, 2004) and has been directly correlated as a predictor for poor attendance (Oldfield et al., 2018). Even before the pandemic the insurers Endsleigh suggested in 2015 that 77% of UK students undertook part or full time work (Endsleigh Student Survey, 2015). In Australia, Bradley sampled 246 students in 2006 and found that 85% were in paid employment (Bradley, 2006).

In 2010 a study by Hall showed that although students in the UK would appreciate more financial support, the majority believed that HEIs should cater more for the needs of working students (Hall, 2010). Work and study commitments of full-time undergraduate students at the University of New South Wales were investigated in four surveys conducted in 1994, 1999, 2006 and 2009. Respondents to the surveys reported the amount of time they spent during term time in paid employment, studying outside of formal class hours and in leisure activities (1999 and 2006 only). Fifty full-time students in 2006 and 37 in 2009 who were identified through the survey as working more than 10 hours per week were interviewed about their work and study relationships. Findings are consistent with UK studies showing an increase in part-time work by full-time students. In addition, a steady decrease was found in hours of study outside normal class time and in time spent on leisure activities. Reasons for working offered by interviewees were predominantly financial, although many reported that gaining work experience was an important consideration, even in areas not related to their studies. While some of the students interviewed felt that the Government should provide more support for full-time students, the majority thought that the university should cater more for the needs of working students by providing more online facilities for assignment submission and communication and more flexible timetables and submission requirements. Regardless of any change to the financial support landscape for students, universities need to recognise the increasing demands placed on full-time students by part-time work and to implement procedures to assist working students (Hall, 2010).

This historical perspective is not unique to the UK; in Germany a study by Gewalt across the pandemic period correlated a student's part-time work status throughout their studies with a higher probability of financial distress (Gewalt et al., 2022). An online survey of medical students in New Zealand by Stevenson indicated that 49% of students were undertaking part time work with 24% stating they would not be able to remain studying if they did not work (Stevenson et al., 2022). Clearly then – even though students are enrolling onto full time education courses – the work–study relationship is a global issue and there is not yet a sufficient body of literature to draw conclusions about how it has impacted student preference for undertaking separate term-time employment away from their studies. Anecdotal evidence from students summarised in this study indicates it is at a higher rate post 2022 than it was prior to 2019.

This work–study relationship is a concern that the DA model can successfully overcome given it offers a part-time course designed to accommodate a student's employment. Further, the apprenticeship also focuses that vocational career aspect within the industry that their degree is designed to target. As the Laboratory Scientist standard was designed for the period 2018 through to 2024 the BSc degree is a mandatory, but separate, qualification to the level 6 apprenticeship certificate.

Developments, such as those reported in this study, are of particular interest as this overlaps with a recognised period of decline in the United Kingdom of A-level chemistry students choosing not to pursue chemistry as a pure undergraduate degree topic (Wester et al., 2021). The offer of stable employment, reduced student debt combined with an internationally recognised degree qualification may overcome many of the recognised push/pull factors known to inform student degree choices (Archer et al., 2023).

It also addresses one of the concerns central to the aforementioned historical discussion by Davies and Stern – that students being trained in the ‘Chemical Sciences’ were potentially not sufficiently informed regarding the ‘Chemical Industry’ on graduation. Graduate employability is a major concern amongst UK HEIs – both for the students and the institutions. Pre-pandemic reports comparing UK chemistry undergraduates found that, whilst the majority planned for a career that used their degree, they also valued the broad range of potential career aspirations it could facilitate (Ogunde et al., 2017).

Conclusions

The original goal of this study was to report upon the successful implementation of a DA program that taught chemical science to a HE standard directly comparable to a Royal Society of Chemistry accredited BSc degree. The hybrid teaching approach, with embedded flipped and work-based learning has been successful and has allowed students to absorb an entire chemistry curriculum through part-time remote teaching. Not only that, but the DA provides authentic learning in the chemical sciences and directly illustrates to students the importance of chemistry within the UK. The benefit this approach has had within a chemical science environment is reflected in the high progression rate of students throughout all modules on the course.

Examining data across the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the varying impact of learning outcomes in two different groups of HE students. Separate studies by Simmons and Mistry indicate that instructors were far more pessimistic about the impact of the pandemic on student development than much of the student body (Simmons and Mistry, 2023). Our evaluation of the MEPR may explain this difference in experience as it has allowed us to observe the additional impact a reduction in MEPR causes on instructors. As the MEPR declines, instructors are managing an increased number of resit attempts with associated increases in workload focused on the hardest hit proportion of student body. The degree outcomes (fraction of 1st class degrees awarded) across these programmes were comparable, but the workload requirements of our staff was not. Our explanation is that during the pandemic, students on the residential degree became disconnected from their usual route of study, compared to those on the DA. Whereas students on the DA were still in contact with their companies, working where possible, and remained connected to the relevance of what they were learning. We found that the disconnection of those not working in the chemical industry resulted in disengagement from the subject itself. We also believe having learning outcomes tied to employment also provided an incentive the residential students did not have.

This comparison shows that not only are DAs in chemistry viable, but they are also a high-performing, authentic and robust educational pathway, even during a pandemic. Due to the practical nature of the subject, DAs may be a more effective alternative to teach HE chemistry as we move into an ever uncertain future where business and societies needs are expected to become more dynamic.

Unfortunately, 2025 has shown several UK Higher Education Institutions withdraw their chemistry provision due to the cost of delivery compared to other courses. Despite the UoB chemistry course being one of the most cost effective in the country (spend per student ranked 4/10 in 2025 Guardian League Table) (“The Guardian University Guide 2025 – the rankings, 2024”), we are sad to say that a decision has been made to close this course also. As the residential and apprenticeship courses were so closely interlinked, this means that the level 6 Laboratory Scientist programme is also ceasing enrolling new applicants as of September 2025. Yet the closure of chemistry courses comes at a time when there is growing demand for graduate chemists (Royal Society of Chemistry, n.d.). We highlight this because, if the most cost-effective provisions available are unable to survive then clearly there are unavoidable structural pressures on UK HE and without intervention this could manifest the growing concern that this country will lose its presence as a leader in scientific endeavour and innovation.

Nevertheless, this case study is offered as a testament to the effectiveness of flipped learning and online education to support the UK knowledge economy. While the study of a specific DA programme from a single higher education provider does not offer a substantially large dataset from which to draw conclusions, we believe the results of this case study shows the value of investing in DAs within the chemical sector and inform others attempts to introduce apprenticeships within UK HE.

Ethical considerations

The authors consulted the University of Bradford ethics committee for advice regarding the preparation of this manuscript. We were advised that the only concern regarded data ownership, and that we were assured by the University Business Manager that all data used was publicly available.

Conflicts of interest

The authors are, at the time of writing, employees of the University of Bradford. The Level 6 Laboratory Science Apprenticeship programme is no longer recruiting as of Spring 2025 and thus they have no conflict of interests to declare.

Data availability

No primary research results, software or code have been included and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review. The data analysed are either publicly available, or held by, IfATE (Home/Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education) or the University of Bradford (University of Bradford). Where data is not publicly available it was analysed with the permission of the data owner (University Business Manager). We cannot reproduce the extracted data from these sources due to confidentiality concerns within the discussed student cohort.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the programme team involved in developing and delivering the Degree Apprenticeship programme reported on. In particular, we would like to thank the former Head of School, Stephen Rimmer, for his full-throated support of higher vocational education, alongside Drs Philip Drake, Colin Seaton and Zak Hughes for their significant engagement in both development and delivery.

References

  1. Accettone S. L. W., (2021), Student Perceptions of Remote Chemistry Lecture Delivery Methods, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 3667–3679 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00758.
  2. Al-Ataby A., (2021), Hybrid Learning Using Canvas LMS, Eur. J. Educ. Pedagogy, 2, 27–33 DOI:10.24018/ejedu.2021.2.6.180.
  3. Aljawarneh S. A., (2020), Reviewing and exploring innovative ubiquitous learning tools in higher education, J. Comput. High. Educ., 32, 57–73 DOI:10.1007/s12528-019-09207-0.
  4. Archer L., Francis B., Moote J., Watson E., Henderson M., Holmegaard H. and MacLeod E., (2023), Reasons for not/choosing chemistry: Why advanced level chemistry students in England do/not pursue chemistry undergraduate degrees, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 60, 978–1013 DOI:10.1002/tea.21822.
  5. Aspires, n.d. Young People's STEM Trajectories, Age 10–22, Chemistry.
  6. Bayne S., (2008), Higher education as a visual practice: seeing through the virtual learning environment, Teach. High. Educ., 13, 395–410 DOI:10.1080/13562510802169665.
  7. Bolton P. and Hubble, S., (2024), Support for disabled students in higher education in England.
  8. Bolton P. and Lewis J., (2024), Degree apprenticeships (No. 8741), House of Commons Library.
  9. Bradley G., (2006), Work participation and academic performance: a test of alternative propositions, J. Educ. Work, 19, 481–501 DOI:10.1080/13639080600988756.
  10. Broad H., Carey N., Williams D. P. and Blackburn R. A. R., (2023), Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chemistry Student and Staff Perceptions of their Learning/Teaching Experience, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 664–671 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00856.
  11. Campbell C. D., Midson M. O., Mann P. E. B., Cahill S. T., Green N. J. B., Harris M. T., Hibble S. J., O’Sullivan S. K. E., To T., Rowlands L. J., Smallwood Z. M., Vallance C., Worrall A. F. and Stewart M. I., (2022), Developing a skills-based practical chemistry programme: an integrated, spiral curriculum approach, Chem. Teach. Int., 4, 243–257 DOI:10.1515/cti-2022-0003.
  12. Canziani B. F., Welsh D. H. B., Dana L.-P. and Ramadani V., (2020), Claiming a family brand identity: the role of website storytelling, Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Adm., 37, 68–81 DOI:10.1002/cjas.1543.
  13. Cavaglia C., McNally S. and Ventura G., (2020), Do Apprenticeships Pay? Evidence for England, Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat., 82, 1094–1134 DOI:10.1111/obes.12363.
  14. Crawford-Lee M. and Moorwood S., (2019), Degree apprenticeships: delivering quality and social mobility? High. Educ. Ski. Work-Based Learn., 9, 134–140 DOI:10.1108/HESWBL-05-2019-123.
  15. Davies D. S. and Stern E. S., (1970), University chemical education and industrial employment in Britain, Pure Appl. Chem., 22, 177–182 DOI:10.1351/pac197022010177.
  16. Endsleigh Student Survey, (2015), 77% of students now work to fund studies.
  17. Foley N., (2024), Apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises.
  18. Fuller A., and Unwin L., (2003), Creating a “Modern Apprenticeship”: a critique of the UK's multi-sector, social inclusion approach, J. Educ. Work, 16, 5–25 DOI:10.1080/1363908022000032867.
  19. Fung C. Y., Weissmann M. A., Phang C. S. C., Heng K. S., Chang J. S. G., Sim C. H., Lim A. S. S., Wasudawan K., Ki Y. P., Su S. I., Lim T. Y., Ngui L. L. H., Lim A. L., (2023), A Review and Reflection on Online Learning and Assessments in Higher Education after the Pandemic, Int. J. Adv. Res. Educ. Soc., 5, 394–405.
  20. Gambin L. and Hogarth T., (2021), Employers’ behavioural responses to the introduction of an apprenticeship levy in England: an ex ante assessment, J. Vocat. Educ. Train, 73, 476–501 DOI:10.1080/13636820.2020.1744689.
  21. Gewalt S. C., Berger S., Krisam R., Krisam J. and Breuer M., (2022), “University students’ economic situation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Germany”, PLoS One, 17, e0275055 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0275055.
  22. Hall R., (2010), The work–study relationship: experiences of full-time university students undertaking part-time employment, J. Educ. Work, 23, 439–449 DOI:10.1080/13639080.2010.515969.
  23. Higgs A., (2022), The England degree apprenticeship: a lens to consider the national and international context of social work education, Soc. Work Educ., 41, 660–674 DOI:10.1080/02615479.2021.1873935.
  24. Jenkins S., (2023), Young people are wising up to the Great British student rip-off – and they’re voting with their feet, The Guardian.
  25. Jusuf H., Ibrahim N. and Suparman A., (2021), Development of Virtual Learning Environment Using Canvas To Facilitate Online Learning, JTP – J. Teknol. Pendidik, 23, 153–168 DOI:10.21009/jtp.v23i2.22240.
  26. Khatser G. and Khatser M., (2022), Online Learning Through LMSs: Comparative Assessment of Canvas and Moodle, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. IJET, 17, 184–200.
  27. Koskela M., Kiltti P., Vilpola I. and Tervonen J., (2005), Suitability of a Virtual Learning Environment for Higher Education. Electron, J. E-Learn. 3, 23–32.
  28. Livingston K. and Condie R., (2006), The Impact of an Online Learning Program on Teaching and Learning Strategies, Theory Pract., 45, 150–158 DOI:10.1207/s15430421tip4502_7.
  29. Moore J. L., Dickson-Deane C. and Galyen K., (2011), e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: are they the same? Int. High. Educ., 14, 129–135 DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001.
  30. Moores E., Birdi G. K. and Higson H. E., (2019), Determinants of university students’ attendance, Educ. Res., 61, 371–387 DOI:10.1080/00131881.2019.1660587.
  31. Nawaz R., Edifor E. E., Holland S. R., Cao Q. and Liu L. S., (2023), The impact of degree apprenticeships: analysis, insights and policy recommendations, Transform. Gov. People Process Policy, 17, 372–386 DOI:10.1108/TG-07-2022-0105.
  32. Ogunde J. C., Overton T. L., Thompson C. D., Mewis R. and Boniface S., (2017), Beyond graduation: motivations and career aspirations of undergraduate chemistry students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 457–471 10.1039/C6RP00248J.
  33. Oldfield J., Rodwell J., Curry L. and Marks G., (2018), Psychological and demographic predictors of undergraduate non-attendance at university lectures and seminars, J. Furth. High. Educ., 42, 509–523 DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1301404.
  34. Paisey* C. and Paisey N. J., (2004), Student attendance in an accounting module – reasons for non-attendance and the effect on academic performance at a Scottish University, Acc. Educ., 13, 39–53 DOI:10.1080/0963928042000310788.
  35. Royal Society of Chemistry, n.d. Future Workforce and Educational Pathways.
  36. Schmidkunz H. and Büttner D., (1986), Teaching chemistry according to a spiral curriculum, Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 8, 9–16 DOI:10.1080/0140528860080102.
  37. Sigmon A. J., Lee E. and Bodek M., (2024), Transforming Student Interactions with Flipped Content from an Isolated, Passive Activity into a Collaborative and Engaging Endeavor, J. Chem. Educ., 101, 3107–3117 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01007.
  38. Simmons T. and Mistry N., (2023), A Snapshot of Chemistry Teaching and Learning Practices in UK Higher Education as It Emerges from the COVID-19 Pandemic, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 2564–2573 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00676.
  39. Smith S., Caddell M., Taylor-Smith E., Smith C. and Varey A., (2021), Degree apprenticeships – a win-win model? A comparison of policy aims with the expectations and experiences of apprentices, J. Vocat. Educ. Train., 73(4), 505–525 DOI:10.1080/13636820.2020.1744690.
  40. Snell K. D. M., (1996), The apprenticeship system in British history: the fragmentation of a cultural institution, Hist. Educ., 25, 303–321 DOI:10.1080/0046760960250401.
  41. Stevenson E., Smith-Han K. and Nicholson H., (2022), Medical students’ experience of studying while working part-time and the effects of COVID-19, N. Z. Med. J., 135, 38–48.
  42. Students O., (2025), Degree apprenticeship funding competition evaluation: Early findings from Wave 1 – Office for Students [WWW Document]. URL https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/(accessed 3.29.25).
  43. The Guardian University Guide 2025 – the rankings, (2024), The Guardian.
  44. Tümay H., (2016), Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 229–245 10.1039/C6RP00008H.
  45. Turner K. L., Hughes M. and Presland K., (2020), Learning Loss, a Potential Challenge for Transition to Undergraduate Study Following COVID19 School Disruption, J. Chem. Educ., 97, 3346–3352 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00705.
  46. Tyson J., (1982), Is There a Shortage of Analytical Chemists? in: Analytical Proceedings.
  47. Wallace R. G., (2000), The chemistry graduate destined for employment but with no experience of it. Does it make sense? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 1, 169–174 10.1039/A9RP90018G.
  48. Wester E. R., Walsh L. L., Arango-Caro S. and Callis-Duehl K. L., (2021), Student Engagement Declines in STEM Undergraduates during COVID-19-Driven Remote Learning, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 22, 22.1.50 DOI:10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2385.

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00107b
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.