Evaluation of the quality and promotion of open learning materials

In the UK, Open Learning has been used in industrial training for at least the last decade. Trainers and Open Learning practitioners have been concerned about the quality of the products and services being delivered. The argument put forward in this thesis is that there is ambiguity amongst industrialists over the meanings of `Open Learning' and `Quality in Open Learning'. For clarity, a new definition of Open Learning is proposed which challenges the traditional learner-centred approach favoured by educationalists. It introduces the concept that there are benefits afforded to the trainer/employer/teacher as well as to the learner. This enables a focussed view of what quality in Open Learning really means. Having discussed these issues, a new quantitative method of evaluating Open Learning is proposed. This is based upon an assessment of the degree of compliance with which products meet Parts 1 & 2 of the Open Learning Code of Practice. The vehicle for these research studies has been a commercial contract commissioned by the Training Agency for the Engineering Industry Training Board (EITB) to examine the quality of Open Learning products supplied to the engineering industry. A major part of this research has been the application of the evaluation technique to a range of 67 Open Learning products (in eight subject areas). The findings were that good quality products can be found right across the price range - so can average and poor quality ones. The study also shows quite convincingly that there are good quality products to be found at less than 50. Finally the majority (24 out of 34) of the good quality products were text based.

The development and diffusion of industrial robots

This thesis describes the history of robots and explains the reasons for the international differences in robot diffusion, and the differences in the diffusion of various robot applications with reference to the UK. As opposed to most of the literature, diffusion is examined with an integrated and interdisciplinary perspective. Robot technology evolves from the interaction of development, supply and manufacture, adoption, and promotion. activities. Emphasis is given to the analysis of adoption, at present the most important limiting factor of robot advancement in the UK. Technical development is inferred from a comparison of surveys on equipment, and from the topics of ten years of symposia papers. This classification of papers is also used to highlight the international and institutional differences in robot development. Analysis of the growth in robot supply, manufacture, and use is made from statistics compiled. A series of interviews with users and potential users serves to illustrate the factors and implications of the adoption of different robot systems in the UK. Adoption pioneering takes place when several conditions exist: when the technology is compatible with the firm, when its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, and particularly when a climate exists which encourages the managerial involvement and the labour acceptance. The degree of compatibility (technical, methodological, organisational, and economic) and the consequences (profitability, labour impacts, and managerial effects) of different robot systems (transfer, manipulative, processing, and assembly) are determined by various aspects of manufacturing operations (complexity, automation, integration, labour tasks, and working conditions). The climate for adoption pioneering is basically determined by the performance of firms. The firms' policies on capital investment have as decisive a role in determining the profitability of robots as their total labour costs. The performance of the motor car industry and its machine builders explains, more than any other factor, the present state of robot advancement in the UK.

Logics, thresholds, strategic power, and the promotion of liberalisation by governments: a case study from British Higher Education

Liberalisation has become an increasingly important policy trend, both in the private and public sectors of advanced industrial economies. This article eschews deterministic accounts of liberalisation by considering why government attempts to institute competition may be successful in some cases and not others. It considers the relative strength of explanations focusing on the institutional context, and on the volume and power of sectoral actors supporting liberalisation. These approaches are applied to two attempts to liberalise, one successful and one unsuccessful, within one sector in one nation – higher education in Britain. Each explanation is seen to have some explanatory power, but none is sufficient to explain why competition was generalised in the one case and not the other. The article counsels the need for scholars of liberalisation to be open to multiple explanations which may require the marshalling of multiple sources and types of evidence.