Course Evaluation Evidence for Degree Apprenticeships: OfS, Ofsted and End-Point Assessment

Degree apprenticeships are regulated on two tracks at once, and a single end-of-module satisfaction survey satisfies neither. For a Level 6 or Level 7 apprenticeship in England, Ofsted inspects the quality of the apprenticeship provision under its Education Inspection Framework, the Office for Students (OfS) regulates the higher-education quality and standards through conditions B1 to B5, and the end-point assessment (EPA) is regulated by the OfS for integrated degree apprenticeships and by Ofqual for non-integrated ones. Above all of that sits the tripartite reality of work-based learning: the apprentice, the employer, and the training provider each hold a piece of the truth about whether the programme is working. Course evaluation evidence that will survive an inspection has to capture all three voices, theme them, and show the loop was closed.

This guide maps what each body actually asks for to concrete evaluation outputs, and shows where a conversational, AI-moderated evaluation layer such as Koji produces defensible evidence that a Likert-only survey cannot. It also says plainly where an incumbent tool is still the right instrument.

The 2026 regulatory map, briefly and correctly

The oversight landscape has been moving, so get the framing right before you build evidence against it:

• Ofsted inspects the quality of apprenticeship provision at all levels, including degree apprenticeships, under the Education Inspection Framework. Inspectors look at the quality of education, how off-the-job training is planned and delivered, and how well providers and employers work together.
• The Office for Students (OfS) regulates higher education quality and standards in England through registration conditions B1 to B5, and has a specific role regulating the end-point assessment for integrated degree apprenticeships. The OfS assesses quality directly; the QAA ceased to be England's Designated Quality Body from 1 April 2023, though the QAA UK Quality Code remains the sector reference.
• Ofqual regulates end-point assessment for non-integrated apprenticeships. Ofqual's new apprenticeship assessment regulatory framework came into force on 1 April 2026.
• Skills England is absorbing the functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE); IfATE's functions began transferring in June 2025, with the transition expected to complete by August 2026. Assessment plans are being redesigned to be shorter and clearer during this period.

The practical consequence for evaluation: your evidence has to speak to teaching quality, to the integration of on- and off-the-job learning, and to the employer relationship simultaneously. None of those is a five-point scale.

Why the end-of-module questionnaire is the wrong instrument

A standard Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) form was designed for a cohort sitting in the same room following the same timetable. A degree apprenticeship breaks every one of those assumptions:

• Apprentices are distributed across employers, so the same module is experienced very differently depending on the workplace and line manager.
• Learning is split between the classroom and the job, and the off-the-job training requirement (a weekly-hours minimum under the funding rules) means the quality question is really "did the on- and off-the-job elements join up?" - which a module Likert scale never asks.
• The employer is a delivery partner, not a bystander, yet almost no SET instrument collects the employer voice at all.
• Progress is reviewed in regular tripartite reviews (commonly every 10 to 12 weeks) between apprentice, workplace mentor and provider, and inspectors expect those reviews to be meaningful rather than administrative.

Ask "how satisfied were you with this module, 1 to 5?" and you learn nothing an inspector can use. Ask "walk me through a time this term when what you learned in class changed how you did your job" and you get evidence of integration, transfer and impact - exactly what Ofsted and the OfS B-conditions are looking for.

Requirement-to-evidence mapping

Requirement (source)	What inspectors/regulators want to see	Concrete evaluation output
Quality of education & intent/implementation/impact (Ofsted EIF)	Evidence that the curriculum is coherent and that teaching leads to skills gained at work	Themed apprentice interviews showing knowledge-skills-behaviours transfer, cohort-level over time
On- and off-the-job integration (Ofsted; funding rules)	Proof the off-the-job training is planned, delivered and connected to the role	Structured questions probing how classroom content is applied on the job, tagged and reported by employer
Employer engagement (Ofsted; apprenticeship standard)	Employers actively shaping and supporting delivery	Separate employer feedback stream, themed against apprentice feedback for divergence
OfS B1 (academic experience) & B2 (resources, support, engagement)	Students receive a high-quality, well-supported experience	Longitudinal, closed-loop evidence that support gaps were surfaced and fixed
OfS B4 / assessment & EPA readiness	Assessment is valid and apprentices are prepared for EPA	Formative check-ins on gateway readiness, confidence and gaps before EPA
QAA Quality Code - Monitoring & Evaluation / Student Engagement	Systematic collection, analysis and action on feedback	Automatic thematic analysis plus an auditable action-tracking log
Tripartite progress reviews	Reviews are substantive and drive improvement	Standardised review prompts capturing apprentice + mentor + provider views in one record

The pattern is the same across every row: regulators reward systematic collection, genuine analysis, and demonstrable action, and they specifically discount averaged satisfaction numbers that show none of the reasoning behind them.

What a conversational evaluation layer produces

Koji runs AI-moderated conversational interviews in place of (or alongside) a static form, then does the analysis automatically. For a degree apprenticeship provider that means:

• Standardised, bias-aware moderation so every apprentice is asked comparable questions regardless of employer, which makes cross-employer comparison defensible rather than anecdotal.
• Automatic thematic analysis of open responses at module, cohort and employer level - the qualitative half of an inspection narrative, generated rather than hand-coded.
• A separate employer voice, themed against the apprentice voice, so divergence (the classic "the apprentice loved it, the employer saw no change at work" gap) is visible.
• Longitudinal cohort reporting, so you can show a theme raised in one intake, the change you made, and the improvement in the next - the closing-the-loop story an OfS submission and an Ofsted inspection both want.
• Built-in action tracking, linking each decision back to the feedback that prompted it, producing the audit trail the QAA Quality Code's Monitoring and Evaluation theme expects.

The same conversational interview engine underpins the main Koji platform for general user and customer research, so institutions running both student and stakeholder studies get one method and one evidence standard across the board.

When an incumbent or another tool is the better choice

Honesty converts better than overclaiming with this audience, so be clear about fit:

• If you run high-volume paper capture or deep student-information-system automation at scale, an established SET engine such as EvaSys or Explorance Blue may still be the right operational backbone; many providers keep it for the numbers and add a conversational layer for the qualitative, closing-the-loop evidence.
• If your immediate need is live in-session engagement rather than evaluation, a classroom-response tool is the better instrument for that job.
• If a central insights team already owns an enterprise survey platform such as Qualtrics, you may prefer to extend it rather than adopt a second system - accepting that thematic analysis and action tracking then fall to your team.

The realistic pattern for most degree apprenticeship providers is a hybrid: keep the quantitative survey for indicator-aligned numbers, and use a conversational layer to generate the integration, employer-voice and closing-the-loop evidence that inspection specifically rewards.

A practical checklist before your next inspection window

1. Can you show apprentice, employer and provider views on the same programme, side by side?
2. Do you have themed qualitative findings at cohort and employer level, not just averages?
3. Can you trace at least three examples of feedback to a decision to a measured improvement?
4. Is off-the-job integration evidenced from the apprentice's own words?
5. Is every step GDPR-compliant, with EU/UK data handling, a signed processing agreement, and genuine anonymity thresholds so apprentices speak freely?

If you cannot answer yes to all five, the gap is not effort - it is instrument. A conversational evaluation layer closes it.

Frequently asked questions

Who regulates the quality of degree apprenticeships in England?

Three bodies, on overlapping tracks. Ofsted inspects the quality of apprenticeship provision at all levels, including degree apprenticeships, under the Education Inspection Framework. The Office for Students regulates higher-education quality and standards through conditions B1 to B5 and has a specific role in the end-point assessment for integrated degree apprenticeships. Ofqual regulates end-point assessment for non-integrated apprenticeships, with its new framework in force from 1 April 2026.

Is a standard module evaluation survey enough for a degree apprenticeship?

No. A module Student Evaluation of Teaching form was designed for a co-located cohort and does not capture the two things that define an apprenticeship: whether on- and off-the-job learning joined up, and what the employer observed. Inspectors expect the employer voice and evidence of integration, neither of which a satisfaction scale provides.

What happened to IfATE and how does it affect assessment plans?

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is being absorbed into Skills England, with functions beginning to transfer in June 2025 and the transition expected to complete by August 2026. During this period assessment plans are being redesigned to be shorter and clearer, so providers should track updates to the standards they deliver.

How does course evaluation evidence support an Ofsted inspection?

Ofsted looks at the quality of education and how well off-the-job training and employer collaboration work. Themed apprentice and employer feedback that shows knowledge and skills being applied at work, tied to decisions and improvements over time, is far stronger evidence than averaged satisfaction scores, which reveal none of the underlying reasoning.

How does Koji help degree apprenticeship providers specifically?

Koji runs standardised, bias-aware conversational interviews with apprentices and employers, themes the responses automatically at cohort and employer level, reports longitudinally, and tracks the actions taken in response. That maps directly onto the OfS B-conditions, the QAA Quality Code's Monitoring and Evaluation theme, and the integration and employer-engagement evidence Ofsted expects.

Do we have to replace our existing survey tool?

Not necessarily. Many providers keep an incumbent survey for high-volume, indicator-aligned numbers and add a conversational evaluation layer to generate the qualitative, employer-voice and closing-the-loop evidence that inspection rewards. The two are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Related Resources

• Course Evaluation Evidence for the UK TEF and QAA Quality Review
• Evaluating Clinical Placements and Work-Based Learning
• Student Feedback as ESG Accreditation Evidence
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Programme Review and Revalidation
• Institution-Level Evaluation Reporting for QA Audits