Developing Sustainable International Partnerships: A Case Study of the Indian Sub Continent

1. Developing Sustainable International Partnerships:A Case Study of the Indian Sub Continent By Dharam Shadija

2. Brief about the partnership • Trans-national partnership between Sheffield Hallam University, UK and Vidyalankar School of IT, India • Two years of university course at VSIT equivalent to 240 credits • Progression onto final year of BSc Software Development at SHU • 120 credits of honours award from SHU

3. Brief about the partnership • 2 years to setup the partnership • Detailed mapping including • Comparing Pedagogy • Assessment • Quality Systems • Lots of similarities between the two systems such as the external examiner system. • Little autonomy at college level, quite tightly regulated by University.

4. Need for a bridging module • Sound theoretical foundation built in the first two years of their course at Mumbai • Student Autonomy needs to be addressed • Existing SHU students had experience of building substantial software applications. • Students from VSIT had theoretical concepts but had not applied these concepts practically to the same extent. • SHU learners used industrial software development tools • VSIT students had very little exposure to tools • VSIT learners were used to coursework • but assessments were usually smaller pieces of work • SHU students have bigger pieces of work.

5. First delivery • Bridging module aims to fill the gaps identified by mapping exercise • To be assessed using a SHU-style assignment. • Module delivered over 2 weeks by VSIT staff • Key topics covered were OO design, Java and J2EE technologies

6. Outcomes • All students submitted their work on time • Same structure of report • Number of students produced similar pieces of work • Students arrived late and missed SHU induction • At SHU some students complained about not liking programming

7. Differences noted while students were in UK • Marked difference between 'autonomy' of SHU learners in comparison to VSIT. • Both sets had studied topics related to professional development. • many SHU students have part-time employment, and some work experience to draw from • VSIT students rarely have any work experience. • Students weren’t used to different levels of support • at VSIT they had single point of contact.

8. Differences noted while students were in UK • Students missed a number of final • year project supervisor meetings • students didn’t have exposure to working on • larger pieces of assessment. • Students thought they could complete their • project closer to the deadline. • Issues with group work, as students weren’t used to team assessment. • SHU regulations regarding assessment were different to the VSIT regulations • Module at SHU usually taught by a team • students not used to this as modules were usually delivered by a single member of staff.

9. Differences noted while students were in UK • Short fat delivery of modules over the first two year of study, whereas module delivery at SHU primarily long thin. • Learners were used to their lectures and tutorials in the same building, same room. At SHU students timetabled over a number of buildings • During their first week at SHU learners were late for a number of lectures • As timetable had a number of gaps, students used to go home rather than using learning centre for additional work around the module. Due to this learners missed their lectures later in the day.

10. Second delivery • Long thin delivery by VSIT staff • SHU staff deliver lectures/tutorials while in Mumbai as tasters • Use alumni to address some issues, (turning up to sessions on time • Expose students to support available at the University • Get the students used to their teaching team at SHU (video conferencing) • Phased submission of assignment. • Use feedback on assignments to reinforce learning • Pre-arrival session organised for students with firm offers, to get them ready for the final year. E.g. elective choices, final year projects

11. Current observations • Both assignment submissions of high quality • Students seem to be well prepared and ready for their studies at SHU • Same structure of report • Closer working between academic staff SHU and VSIT • Closer working between support staff at SHU and VSIT to help bridge the gap

12. Staff Empowerment • What we wanted to achieve • Understanding of pedagogy on both sides • Understanding of nature and scale of the gaps between the two education systems • Appreciation of issues on the ground • Improve our delivery based on this new found understanding • How did we achieve it? • Workshops organised at SHU and VSIT • Staff visits to both institutions • Regular staff contact

13. Staff Empowerment One to one contact between academic and support staff at both institutions Professional development module takes into account lack of prior work experience of student group. Module assessment at SHU redesigned to reflect the same.

14. Learning points Partnership of equals! Alignment of Philosophy (don’t underestimate) Courting period Develop understanding and trust between two institutions Make it clear from start what both sides want to achieve of the partnership Not easy to setup two way exchanges! Have to think creatively!