To understand my teaching journey thus far and how it culminated into a duoethnography, refer to the following: 

• 2013: Humble Beginnings

• 2014: Learning the Hard Way

• 2015: A New Start

• 2016: Certain Habits Die Hard

• 2017: Innovation in teaching

​

The goal in 2017 was to submit a proposal so that the scholarship of my teaching I applied to my teaching practices could be published in journals (versus only written up in my teaching portfolio), However, Ronelle and I found ourselves taking one step back once more to think more deeply about the teaching and learning space before initiating the proposal write-up and hand-in for 2017. Although all the teaching strategies identified for 2017 were implemented, I had many personal reflective notes on the 2017 journey and I had qualitative data from student meetings (instead of the dominant quantitative data collection methods I had normally employed); Ronelle and I did not hand in a proposal beforehand for ethics clearance. Based on our experiences in 2017 and systemic barriers we both faced work-wise, we decided to firstly critically reflect on our journey through a duoethnography and then pursue handing in a proposal. This thinking process was additionally supported by the feedback from the HELTASA teaching committee.  

​

Here is one of the segments of my duoethnography reflection, which will form part of our formal write-up in the future: 

​

As I reflect now, on the 21/05/2018, on my teaching experience from the year 2013 to 2018 I find myself once again changing my 'lens' of analysis. Although many of the reflections on the data collection methods used between the year 2013 to 2016 are still relevant, I find myself thinking about possible paradoxes which exist within my, my colleagues and my students' thinking and the system in which teaching takes place. Areas of interest which have become some of our prominent critically reflecting points have included the following paradoxes which we have experienced along our journey together:

​

1) My teaching and NMU's teaching philosophies (student-centered and humanizing pedagogy) versus the system's dominant economic model of implementation. 

2) Each student year group's learning and application developmental status applied to the transformative learning theory (i.o.w. their personal journey of transitioning from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching) versus a mindset focused on obtaining "perfect learning". If the normal nature of learning includes "disruption" and "messiness" and a possible change in one's values, beliefs and "ways of being/thinking" then the application and interpretation of "good" and "bad" qualitative/quantitative data from students' necessitates a different lens of data collection and analysis. 

3) Focusing only on transformation within my classroom practices and excluding my colleague's and the NMU's system's practices seems counterproductive to the NMU value of Ubuntu. If Ubuntu is a value within NMU it should be fostered not only between lecturer and student but lecturer, student, colleagues and the NMU system when it comes to applying student-centered and humanizing pedgogy.  

​

Consequently to finish off this 2013 to 2017 journey before embarking on a new 2018 scholarly journey, a duoethnography write-up will ensue.