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.

Engineering education for the 21st century:scholarship, synergy and student success

Starting with the question “How can University level Engineering Education be developed in such a way so as to enhance the quality of the student learning experience?”, this discussion paper proposes an approach to engineering education developed by a senior engineering educator working alongside a pedagogical researcher in an attempt to engage colleagues in contemporary debates about the issues currently faced across the Sector. Such issues include difficulties with recruiting students onto programmes as well as high levels of student attrition and failure. Underpinned by three distinctive concepts: Synergy, Variety & Relationships (S+V+R), the approach brings together pedagogic and engineering epistemologies in an empirically grounded framework in such a way so as to provide an accessible and relevant learning approach that, if followed, engenders student success [S2]. Specifically developed with the intention of increasing retention and positively impacting student success [S2], the S+V+R=S2 approach provides a scholarly and Synergetic (S) approach to engineering education that is both innovative and exciting. Building on the argument that Variety (V) in education is pivotal to promoting originality and creativity in learning and teaching, this paper shows how, by purposefully developing a range of learning and teaching approaches, student engagement and thus success can be increased. It also considers the importance of Relationships (R) in higher education, arguing that belonging and relationships are crucial factors impacting student experiences. When taken together (Synergy, Variety and Relationships) and applied within an Engineering Education context, students are provided with a unique learning environment – one that both promotes individual success and improves organisational effectiveness. The uniqueness of the approach is in the synthesis of these three concepts within an Engineering Education epistemology.

Whither human capital? The woeful tale of transition to tertiary education in India

In this article, we examine the issue of high dropout rates in India which has adverse implications for human capital formation and hence for the country's long-term growth potential. Using the 2004–2005 National Sample Survey (NSS) employment–unemployment data, we estimate transition probabilities of moving from a number of different educational levels to higher educational levels using a sequential logit model. Our results suggest that the overall probability of reaching tertiary education is very low. Further, even by the woeful overall standards, women are significantly worse off, particularly in rural areas.

Using cognitive load theory to interpret student difficulties with a problem-based learning approach to engineering education:a case study

This article reports on an investigationwith first year undergraduate ProductDesign and Management students within a School of Engineering and Applied Science. The students at the time of this investigation had studied fundamental engineering science and mathematics for one semester. The students were given an open ended, ill-formed problem which involved designing a simple bridge to cross a river.They were given a talk on problemsolving and given a rubric to follow, if they chose to do so.They were not given any formulae or procedures needed in order to resolve the problem. In theory, they possessed the knowledge to ask the right questions in order tomake assumptions but, in practice, it turned out they were unable to link their a priori knowledge to resolve this problem. They were able to solve simple beam problems when given closed questions. The results show they were unable to visualize a simple bridge as an augmented beam problem and ask pertinent questions and hence formulate appropriate assumptions in order to offer resolutions.