Sub-theme: Groupwork a complex and not perfect pedagogy

One of the most favoured pedagogical strategies used by the African participants is to set group work assignments where the international and home students are mixed together. This is similar to various Western scenarios when students from different cultures are present (De Vita, 2005; Edmead, 2013; Kimmel & Volet, 2012; Ryan, 2005). There is evidence of a nascent ‘internationalisation at home’ in terms of the positive effects of developing international perspectives through mixed group work that brings together home and international students from different cultural backgrounds (Caruana & Ploner, 2010). The mixing up of home and international students also stopped international students from ‘bunching’ together. Where the international students were found to be better students they were “stretched among groups” (Tom), whereby the teacher was involved in constituting the group with intention to;

“… stimulate the discussion, so that the local students would benefit from the

advantage the international students have had... the groups were strengthened in that way.” (Sean)

Teachers also spoke about constituting groups (Edmead, 2013) to bring about harmony in relationships and integrate international and home students:

“... integrate them and to ensure harmony, not necessarily to make them change their

strengths and weaknesses and then group them based on these strengths and weaknesses.” (Leo)

Setting up of ground rules for group work and managing group dynamics were important matters and there were both positive and negative experiences. There are positive examples of how teachers noticed that the differences between local and international students were “eroded” (Leo) and they also used the group work supervision opportunities to get to know the international students better as students would “disclose so many things they could not

disclose in a normal classroom” (Leo). African teachers also found that when group

dynamics are better managed, “each person [was] talking about what they know from their

experiences” (Mike). Members of the group become ‘mindful’ of others and they had to think

carefully before they spoke to ensure that the examples they shared were understood by others (Edmead, 2013) and this was achieved by teachers involving themselves more intensely in the group:

“I become part of these groups literally and there are times I would even be sitting

with them… for three obvious reasons. I get to work on the topic… I also establish the ground rules – being part of the group helps me with marking as I would know how the student had performed. The local students that are in the group should be mindful that the examples or the scenario that they present to the group… they structure it such that the international students get to appreciate.” (Mike)

However, there are challenges in establishing curricular collaborations due to prejudices and differences between home and international students and these divisions could be difficult to resolve (Caruana & Ploner, 2010). While similar to Australia, group work had to be

sometimes forced in order to mix international and home students; there are differences and the problems faced in Africa by our participants are the opposite of those experienced in

Australia, where domestic students are frustrated by international students (Harryba, Guilfoyle, & Knight, 2013). African teachers found that the more committed international students could get frustrated with group work because of the mismatch between their home and international students’ commitment:

“We will frustrate them [international students] as a faculty because we force them

into group work with locals. Locals are busy with other things – meetings will be called and the locals won’t come. If the groups are not properly constituted and managed and the level of commitment is not the same, you end up frustrating those with different goals.” (Vicky)

The problems seen above highlight that cultural diversity in the classroom can also complicate and exacerbate pedagogic issues (De Vita, 2007), thus leading to more

complexity for the teacher. Having students with different goals means that it is the teacher’s job to manage these trajectories.

Teachers spoke about the challenges of assessing group work, particularly where the English language is a challenge for the international student:

“You find that... these guys [international students] who are quiet – smiling or just

passive... but when they write assignments… they cough up the words… you cannot assess them on that basis… they do not talk but can write.” (Ben)

This sees such students acting more or less like ‘peripheral participants’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991): still listening and watching while surprisingly able to produce good written work. Teachers may be dealing with operational dilemmas regarding pedagogy and assessment and can find it difficult to use usual assessment norms for students who could be working in group projects with very little engagement due to their language deficiencies (Ryan, 2005).

Groupwork may be thus seen as complex and not a perfect pedagogy as the findings reveal that there are many factors such as the students’ language proficiency, academic abilities and cultural differences (De Vita, 2005; Kimmel & Volet, 2012) that impact on its success and which call for the teacher’s active involvement (Hernandez, 2012), particularly in terms of constituting the groups, setting guidelines and managing group dynamics (Edmead, 2013). Despite this, it was seen that international students could still be frustrated.