An insightful student who is finishing the course work component of the masters degree in sustainable development that I coordinate, reflected in his learning journal on the dynamics of group work over the course of the 8 modules he has done. He discovered that where the groups were gender balanced, the marks were higher. His reflection on the reason is worth quoting: “Male-dominated groups tend to hone in on one solution quickly, do not explore other possible ideas enough and discard different suggestions quickly. Female-dominated groups are very creative but explore and accommodate too many ideas, make things personal and at times lose focus. Gender balanced groups tend to, both intentionally and unintentionally, draw on these generalized male-dominant and female-dominant tendencies, when appropriate, to their benefit.” This is very interesting to me. Our students are required to work in groups of 3 to 4 people over the course of their week-long modules, ending in a group presentation on the last day (Saturday morning). We do not allocate them to groups. We invite them to self-select themselves into their groups, with a gentle prod to be conscious of racial and gender balance. It does not always work.

There has also been a mild backlash this year, with some students suggesting we allocate them into groups because, they say, our system can result in inequalities because well-educated students with good presentation skills (and this is NOT code for ‘white students’ in our case) know how to quickly assemble like-minded high performers to get good marks.This student comments on this, calling this practice “distasteful”, admitting frankly this is what he has done during his most recent modules. But what I found interesting was his reflection on the discriminatory implications of accents. He writes: “Does race matter? Yes. Especially in South Africa. My private school accent largely shields me from overt racism. I am often afforded the courtesy I have seen South Africans in general give to English-speaking Western visitors of all racial hues. “Where are you from? You do not sound like a South African” is a constant refrain I hear. My township-schooled colleagues with their “black” accents however, assert that on one or two occasions they were racially discriminated against and undermined in their groups. Listening to their stories and how they resolved their issues I have no reason to dispute their claims.”

This student’s experiences seem to vindicate our approach, i.e. he experienced a diversity of groups that may not have happened if he had benefited from politically correct group allocations by academic staff.  However, his suggestion that academic staff improve their facilitation skills is well taken, especially when it comes to facilitating class discussion when the class composition is so diverse in racial, class and gender terms. The natural tendency for staff to gravitate towards the articulate must be vigorously countered. I get that, loud and clear.

His beautiful conclusion is as follows: “Over time I am expectant that group members will improve their abilities to work with those of different races and gender and will hone their skills in assigning commensurate responsibilities to the shy, the brash, the engineer, the social scientist, the activist, the poet, the ambitious, the victim, the intellectual, the stupid, the hardworking, the lazy, the wise, the liberal, the neo-liberal, and the socialist – people different from themselves in countless ways.”

Thank you, my dear student, for your wise words!! This is what decolonising learning looks like in practice.