For the oppressed teacher: stay real!

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ For the oppressed teacher: stay real! © 2018 The Author(s) Published version Isomöttönen, Ville Isomöttönen, V. (2018). For the oppressed teacher: stay real!. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1437131 2018 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20 Teaching in Higher Education ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20 For the oppressed teacher: stay real! Ville Isomöttönen To cite this article: Ville Isomöttönen (2018) For the oppressed teacher: stay real!, Teaching in Higher Education, 23:7, 869-884, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1437131 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1437131 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 01 Mar 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 327 View Crossmark data For the oppressed teacher: stay real! Ville Isomöttönen Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT This article addresses teachers’challenges in relation to other stakeholders, in light of funding policies and evaluation mechanisms. In particular, a condition where pressures toward high pass rates or ‘throughput’in the degree system provide a good negotiation position for students with little learning orientation as to their aspirations after credit units is considered. This condition is intensified by the fact that the mere completion goals of non-learning-oriented students align with the collective goals of administration (university), given the throughput-based funding policies. A teacher willing to honorably exercise the profession is, then, ‘squeezed in between.’Daily teaching endures by the incorporation of the wrong kind of flexibility, which undermines the education system. This problematic pattern is reviewed, and a remedy proposed by drawing on Freire and considering a recent theorization by Sutton on the position of an academic under a neoliberalist condition. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 21 February 2017 Accepted 18 January 2018 KEYWORDS Oppression; higher education; teacher; Freire 1. Introduction The education system or ‘degree system’has its quietly overlooked tensions. I speak for teachers with an emphasis on higher education context. ‘Teacher’is used to denote an educator whose primary agenda is to advance students’, and in this process her or his own, intellect. An alternative role for an educator in the degree system is that of a ‘degree system representative.’This term denotes an educator who primarily serves ‘degree system expectations’instead of insisting on advances in higher education stakeholders’ thoughts. Furthermore, ‘degree system expectations’is used to signify the quantitative evaluation of education progress in terms of the number of credits and degrees granted, a conduct which hardly gives attention to whether competences are increased amongst learners and that is destined to be cursory. The quietly overlooked tension that I will address is entirely trivial for a reflective educator. This tension nevertheless constantly emerges when teachers discuss their anxieties, and it is a highly complicated issue to resolve. To be precise, the perception of one stakeholder’s primary educational goals in higher education may not align with other stakeholders’goal perceptions. My worry is that the teacher is being ‘squeezed between’two © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Ville Isomöttönen [email protected] Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box (35), Jyväskylä FIN-40014, Finland TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2018, VOL. 23, NO. 7, 869–884 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1437131 stakeholders: students and administration. Students with non-learning orientation are in a good position to burden teachers with requests for course completions and credits, regardless of the level of performance they demonstrate. The phrase, ‘non-learning-oriented,’is used to refer to conditions where the learner is not primarily directed by the will for improved competences but rather some other motive(s), such as receiving credit units. 1 The good position for the non-learning oriented holds because the mere completion goals align with the goals of the administration (whether a faculty or university) who is unavoidably willing to witness steady and improved credit accumulation under pervasive, ‘throughput’-based, funding regulations. The teacher squeezed in between constantly encounters the dilemma between insisting on a teacher role or descending into a degree system representative; herein is potentially a corrupt pattern undermining education. I am voicing that teachers are tempted to be not much more than degree system representatives and related to this concern will give specific attention to the interplay between teacher and students. The text reads similar to an essay and advances a particular analysis on a teacher position by utilizing multiple sources and without an intention to be exclusive. It started from considering Freire’s accounts in connection with personal observations and challenging experiences within academia. These personal ‘memories’were committed to paper and contextualized and conceptualized by referring to Freire and other relevant literature. Authenticity was the guiding principle in preparing the text; authentic occasions and research experiences also underlie the text when conceptualizing, contextualizing, and arguing about education system. To illustrate, authenticity with personal involvement underlie the general narrative when referring to teacher rationale and unions in Section 5.3. Authenticity in this sense was not needed when describing related work or the education system, and some arguments simply arose from the educational position adopted. On reflection, this essay resembles auto-ethnography because it springs from inwardlooking epiphanies on lived experiences (Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2010), and draws on memory, which has been argued to constitute plausible data (Wall 2008,45–46). It also resembles self -ethnography: a self-ethnographer is an authentic participant of the research scene, that is, an ‘observing participant’instead of the usual ‘participant observer’ in an ethnographic study (Alvesson 2003). I also adhered to ‘relational ethics,’which means that the identities of important others were protected (see Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2010). To achieve this, I alternated between active and passive voice, and frequently merged personal narrative with the literature. This text is not restricted to one university or the Finnish (my home ground) higher education. The incentive to prepare this analysis arose from unobtrusive observations and informal discussions of teachers’experiences during close and far encounters. 2. Oppression, Freirean hope, fear Freire et al. (2005) 2 denounced a ‘banking method’of education as a measure by which an oppressor is able to uphold oppressive conditions. For Freire, banking, where information is deposited in learners, signaled a closure bearing affinity to the concept of necrophilia. He instead made a point of openness or ‘humanization,’a process of becoming more fully a human. The key vehicle of change was the identification of oppressive conditions and action, ‘conscientization.’Taking action upon increased awareness signified a 870 V. ISOMÖTTÖNEN departure from mere activism. Freire’s departure from the closure, or absolutism in epistemological terms, did neither indicate relativism because he noted that education cannot transform into mere chatting. The critique of Freire’s thought has seized upon potentially harmful western interventions in non-western settings, and suffering arising from increased consciousness under a sustained lack of power to act (see Roberts 1996). This text is anchored to Freire’s canon that, of the oppressor and oppressed, only the oppressed may discharge oppression: only the strength springing from the oppressed is able to release both the oppressed and the oppressor. My locution, ‘teacher squeezed in between,’nevertheless refers to an oppressor without a clear identity. The oppressor herein is a structural entity, an ‘intangible stakeholder’resulting from funding regulations and the maxim of education as a service, which is actualized and shows itself to a teacher in the interplay between stakeholders. The intricacy of the oppression existing in the form of an intangible stakeholder can be further understood through a notion that under the condition of gaining more, the conducts of an apparent oppressor (e.g. administration) may be projections, signifying that the apparent oppressor is also oppressed, whether in a conscious or an unconscious way (Myers et al. 1991). In effect, Myers et al. argue that anyone socialized into need to be ‘better than’(56) and into the condition of external orientation are adherents to a suboptimal conceptual system; they are oppressed and have difficulties to realize a positive self-identity. A solid sense of self, Myers et al. theorize, results from intrinsic experiences of worth and value. These notions illustrate how difficult the oppression experienced by a teacher is to tackle. They also help stress that my position in this article does not suggest a lack of awareness regarding the imposed nature of the behaviors of other stakeholders. Freire has received attention in texts addressing the bureaucracy that circumscribes sincere aims for teaching and learning. In his self-reflexive exposition, Sutton (2015) recognizes ‘fatalistic disenchantment’in encountering instrumentalist conduct in neoliberalist higher education. While seizing upon Freirean hope, Sutton’s message can be viewed as devastating because he such germanely and elegantly theorizes suffering through fate, concluding that one needs to ‘settle for’(45) the current circumstance. His hope springs from the possibilities of critical pedagogy in the ‘interstices’of the education system, the concrete proposals addressing assessment in ways that involve students. Similar co-existence of critical pedagogy and neoliberalism is concluded by Ingleby (2015), who reports conflicting patterns while, upon his discoveries, refrains from general conclusions. He discovered ‘right skills’leading to ‘employability’as the students’ perception of higher education; in contrast to the tutors in his sample, the students’perceptions thus reinforced neoliberalist policy. Furthermore, in my interpretation, the need to ‘settle for’while seeking relief from the ‘interstices’is shown in a qualitative study by Ylijoki and Ursin (2013): they report on a ‘bystander’(1146) narrative by Finnish academics, which indicates a tendency to parry bureaucracy by attempting to let it occur outside daily praxis. Under constraining bureaucracy, hope is grounded to the possibility of transformative projects arising from resistance identities (see Castells 2009; Ylijoki and Ursin 2013; Sutton 2015). Reflecting on my own experience, I add that teachers nevertheless fear to speak outwards and to act. We are condemned to produce not much more than ‘intellectual suffering.’ Fear characterizes the profession of a teacher under a neoliberalist condition. Personally, this fear arises from imagining a negative repute for and consequences from delaying the TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 871 production of quantitative outcomes while adhering to a teacher identity. The feeling is amplified through the lived experiences of administrative meetings where reviews of pass rates and anonymous student feedback are considered personally regardless of whom they might concern; Lyotard’s(1984, xxiv) address to the post-modernism referred to ‘terror’ injected in the education system in terms of pressure to ‘be operational or disappear.’ The recent studies reviewed rest on academic identity conflict; however, I came to the same concern through a ‘role conflict’in teaching. Castells (2009) deems identities a stronger apparatus than roles ‘because of the process of self-construction and individuation that they involve’(7) and alludes to a primary identity that endures over time and space. I accordingly feel that I am in touch with my own teacher identity but pressurized to dress up to fit the role of a degree system representative. A prevailing aspect of role theory is conformity to norms and behaving according to expectations stated by the norms with a role conflict, then, denoting ‘two or more incompatible expectations’ (Biddle 1986, 82). In my experience, teaching itself carries the inherent norm of assisting in learning, which conforms to teacher identity, while the managerialist system forces ‘performativity’(Sutton 2015)–a wrong uniform. ‘Performativity’above denotes a ‘systems-orientation’(Yeatman 1994, 110), that is, ‘governance which establishes strictly functional relations between a state and its inside and outside environments’(111), which concerns an education system as well (e.g. Ball 1998). Relatedly, Giroux (2001) conveyed worries on corporate-fashioned functions in vocationalized universities who have lost their critical, societal voice. In another context, performativity means that entities are performative, that they are continuously performed (MacKenzie 2004). In this connection, Butler (2010) rather emphasizes that performativity yields effects that link with our perceptions of the entity in question (e.g. gender). She clarifies that performativity resists positivism –entities taken as fixed – and that this signifies a critical view to the underpinnings of the entities. Taken together, this suggests that when critically referring to the systems orientation, a reminder of the inevitability of performing, which also concerns teaching, and the lack of materialization of the learning versus non-learning-oriented as a simple condition must be recognized. A link between role conflict and stress has been proposed (see review by Biddle 1986, 82), and the role conflict leading to teacher burnout has been highlighted (Maslach and Jackson 1981). In studies by Maslach and many others, the consequences of burnout are made up of emotional exhaustion, cynical attitude toward clients, and lowered appreciation of one’s own accomplishments, which dramatically add to the Sutton-posed ‘fatalistic disenchantment.’Schwab and Iwanicki (1982) explain that teachers may experience these outcomes in varying degrees, which, in my thinking, matches the view of the present-day higher education teachers struggling in ‘interstices.’ The old literature on role conflicts altogether shows affinity to texts on academic identity conflicts; Biddle (1986, 80) explained that deviations from norms can occur ‘secretly,’ and that they may continue to occur although discovered. This appears similar to the narrative of ‘bystanding’(Ylijoki and Ursin 2013) and the ‘co-existence’of bureaucratic condition and sincere teaching and learning (Ingleby 2015; Sutton 2015). These references differ in their approach while complying with the dualistic sense in the life of an academic –a kind of a natural triangulation: Sutton theorizes from subjective experiences; Ylijoki and Ursin present an inductive analysis of the interviews on academics and Ingleby on tutors and students; and Biddle advances a conceptual literature review. The last examines 872 V. ISOMÖTTÖNEN role theory generally but the included ideas of role conflicts and norm deviations provide a reference point that is substantiated by the other literature in this paragraph. Taking issue with an oppressing system is impossible without commitments to change through action (Freire et al. 2005, 96), while hopelessness denotes a means for escaping (Freire et al. 2005, 100). In view of these Freirean maxims, I conclude that we are challenged to reach beyond verbalism in facing inherent difficulties. I attempt to contribute to the shared narrative by insisting on a teacher role and looking at ways to capitalize on this increased awareness –leaving behind fear. My proposals will focus on the ordinary interplay between teacher and student(s) during academic courses, where the tension that I am addressing can emerge and which the examples in Section 5.1 illustrate. 3. Education system is preventing itself Next, I advance the claim that the ‘education system is preventing itself.’An educational action researcher is, then, likely to discover that all roads lead to the education system itself. When transforming an advanced programing course into a flexible delivery that enabled both online and contact participation and studying the difficult topic in different course sizes and pace, we finally ‘encountered the system.’After several action-taking and reflection iterations, course didactics improved, but considerably many students noted that they could not self-regulate under increased flexibility. Students descended into a conflict where they enjoyed and appreciated flexibility but were not able to act upon it. A portion of those noting the challenge stated that they should practice freedom, while another portion called for a more teacher-directed course resembling their previous studies. The study is described elsewhere (Isomöttönen and Tirronen 2017). This pattern shows the education system itself representing the root problem during improvement efforts on single courses, a problem that cannot be fully tackled by taking actions on those courses. Educational action researchers attempt to desperately introduce compensating activities, which they hope will mitigate the effects of the education system that is ‘backfiring.’Personally, ‘fatalistic disenchantment’(Sutton 2015) arises from observing the same difficulty in different coatings during compensating activities, and from the resultant question of what can be achieved by action research –the end point is known from the start. I continue to illustrate these difficulties with insights into study difficulties. A severe difficulty for Finnish higher education students arises from their schooling background. 3 Students comment that they passed with little effort, that they never needed to struggle to learn, and that their academic studies are now impeded by the lack of such critical capacities: My [univeristy] studies have progressed a bit slowly for many reasons. The biggest obstacle is nevertheless the fact that I am sluggish to do anything study-related in an unprompted manner or to plan my studies. […] I have noticed that in the university you should be active as to your studying. In particular time management is in a bad way, as I have never done such a thing. In the high school, I went to just sit in the classes and left the reading stuff for others. My success was quite decent then, although my compensation started to show up in the matriculation exam. (Translated from Finnish) [Transcription no. 54841/4; 2016-Jan-14th; 67 min] TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 873 Such student accounts correspond with another study where a university course was offered to Finnish high school students. Workload was one difficulty expressed by high school students, and the reason for dropping out of a university course (Lakanen and Isomöttönen 2013): I think it was because it was so laborious [why I dropped out]. I am not used to working so hard on something, you know, school things. [See interview details in the cited study] I am highlighting the conflict between the aspired and actual consequences of schooling. Reported aspirations for the mandatory school in Finland emphasize thinking skills, ways of working and interaction, crafts and expressive skills, participation and initiative, and self-awareness and personal responsibility. 4 Responsible and participating self-directed individuals with good interaction capacities are the goal, while, as I underline here, being in the school system undermines this goal by cumulatively institutionalizing individuals and their orientations. 5 Thus, as a form of prescribed regulation, schools are upholding lives for us, and when this structure is removed, problems emerge. Research literature on ‘transition to university life’ and ‘preparedness for higher education’is evidence of this condition. Speaking both personally and as an observer, it may take several years of higher education for an individual to reach a level of self-regulation that constantly yields outcomes –personal experience has showed evidence of student populations who acknowledge their higher education potential while articulating that they (students) need to be awakened and ‘saved’in this respect. My thinking here is that this issue is known by scholars who study topics such as the transition to university, and through little prompting by learners who are already troubled, but it does not receive sufficient reaction in reform discussions –perhaps because the critical conceptualization that the education system is preventing itself is missing. Here, the intent is not to criticize schools, but rather to pronounce the inherent difficulty. For the present purposes, the assertion is that higher education entered with institutionalized orientations, which are further reinforced by massed higher education courses, initiates a challenging scene for the interplay between higher education students and teachers. This challenge is intensified by study allowance regulations requiring a fixed standard of progress for all students and by the condition of education as a service. 4. Where our polices lead to Rinne, Kivirauma, and Simola (2002) raised a change in the perceived role of education in Finnish schooling: before the 1990s ‘the main duty of education was to produce citizens to develop society’while during the 1990s education was considered ‘existing in order to serve the citizen.’Along with this change, students and guardians became ‘active and rational players and choice makers.’Rinne, Kivirauma, and Simola (2002) explained that politically, this march was underpinned by ‘free the lead’or ‘invest in the best’thinking adopted as a measure to respond to international competition. What I am concerned with –when education is primarily seen as a service, with the schools accountable to their clients who are the choice makers –is the teachers’omission from thinking regarding education. With education as a service, clients can use it and complain with little or no accountability, which, as reported in the media, is evidenced in the high number of Finnish school teachers who experience bullying. It should also 874 V. ISOMÖTTÖNEN be mentioned that along with neoliberalist decentralization in Finland, the earlier role of a principal as the teachers’confidant was turned into an executive role (Rinne, Kivirauma, and Simola 2002). Finnish universities apply ‘management by results’(Kuoppala 2005). In performance negotiations between the Ministry of Education and Culture and each university, the results of the university are inspected and targets are set for the next four-year period. The negotiations determine the funding and standing of the university, for instance, by setting seat quotas for particular disciplines. The funding model by which the Finnish universities receive basic governmental funding is declared by the Council of State as a specific statute (331/2016). The number of higher degrees and students who receive a minimum of 55 yearly credits play a key role in funding, 13% and 10% respectively. The number of employed graduates affects it by 2% and anonymous student feedback by 3%. That is, a set of Likert questions is annually administered to bachelor-level students. In light of the funding indicators, the questions phrased such as ‘I am satisfied with my personal studying’and ‘Sufficient guidance has been available..?’indicate the quality of service instead of the quality of education. In this aspiration, the conception of quality is heavily linked with fluency so as to steer learners as quickly as possible through the system. Universities tend to imitate the national funding model. At my university, the national feedback is accompanied with local feedback collected from each course. Such anonymous and voluntary feedback can scare teachers regarding the future of their careers because this local feedback is delivered to local administration; course titles are included and the feedback reflects student satisfaction levels, which might also surface in national surveys tied to funding. It is less clear if anonymous criticism received from students whose expectations of service were not fulfilled by a poor teacher aspiring after true learning is thoroughly analyzed. Regardless if a teacher responds, conclusions by administration are subject to interpretation. The steering described dictates that a quality education system is a ‘well-oiled machine’ and continues to estrange higher education from a fruitful sphere that is primarily concerned with the epistemic development of its stakeholders and the surrounding society. It is important to question and acknowledge the type of education and interplay that emerges from a pedagogue-student relationship defined as a service provider-client relation. A related critical departure is to ask what learning theory proclaims education as a service. In light of these questions, education as a service constitutes one more argument for the degree system preventing itself. Giroux (2001) opposed the corporate model of university where teachers become mere subjects of corporate-fashioned functions. His thinking that ‘markets don’t reward moral behavior’(32) reflects the problem of the corporate efficiency model. To summarize the present section, this claim can be restated to convey that it becomes difficult to act morally with the pressures imposed by corporate-fashioned funding models. Moral actions can be in the opposite direction to the degree system’s expectations. 5. Return to the problem Students and administration see benefits in the same conduct: the number of credit units granted. Non-learning-oriented students are in a good position to request that their TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 875 challenge of administration not being aware of what is happening inside university premises. Echoing this thinking, formal education may comprise and engender tensions, of which legislature and administration do not know about. The important question is whether the actions of such bodies are informed enough. That is, when taking somewhat weighty actions, those actions should, as Freire emphasizes, draw on sufficient reflection and awareness to reach beyond mere activism. The remedy I proposed generally indicates a Freire-anchored guideline: teacher, stay real! Finally, I encourage autoand self-ethnographic texts from inside academia to foreground the critical patterns that should inform action on a larger scale. Such accounts should be prepared by all stakeholders. Notes 1. The term ‘non-learning-oriented’is an abstraction and necessary simplification adopted for theorization and argumentation about the oppressive teacher position, which materializes in relation to other stakeholders; I acknowledge various life situation-related reasons, and issues such as widening participation, which may cause student behaviors to appear non-learningoriented without that term being a fitting characterization. It is equally clear that the term does not characterize all students; I do not attempt to make any quantitative claims; studies including approximations of higher-education preparedness may inform the reader in this regard; see, e.g. (Lowe and Cook 2003). 2. I used the Finnish translation (2005) of the Pedagogia do Oprimido by Kurtti, Tomperi and Suoranta but will frequently refer to this work shortly by the name Freire. 3. A qualitative study in progress. 4. The attributes originate from the past curriculum outline but provide a relevant summarization. 5. The argument is not exclusive but drawn from my repeated exposure to situations where university students reflect on their past education and raise the habitual condition where one is not used to work for advancing in education; existence of other patterns is obvious, for instance, that a student appearing low in self-direction may not adhere to an institutionalized system. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. References Alvesson, Mats. 2003.“Methodology for Close Up Studies –Struggling with Closeness and Closure.”Higher Education 46 (2): 167–193. doi:10.1023/A:1024716513774. Ball, Stephen J. 1998.“Performativity and Fragmentation in ‘Postmodern Schooling’.”In Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare, edited by John Carter, 187–203. London: Routledge. Biddle, Bruce J. 1986.“Recent Developments in Role Theory.”Annual Review of Sociology 12: 67– 92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435. Butler, Judith. 2010.“Performative Agency.”Journal of Cultural Economy 3 (2): 147–161. doi:10. 1080/17530350.2010.494117. Castells, Manuel. 2009.The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Vol. 2. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell. Chapman, David W., and Samira Lindner. 2016.“Degrees of Integrity: The Threat of Corruption in Higher Education.”Studies in Higher Education 41 (2): 247–268. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014. 927854. 882 V. ISOMÖTTÖNEN Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams, and Arthur P. Bochner. 2010.“Autoethnography: An Overview [40 Paragraphs].”Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12 (1). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108. Freire, Paulo, Joel Kurtti, Tuukka Tomperi, and Juha Suoranta. 2005.Sorrettujen pedagogiikka. Tampere: Vastapaino. Finnish translation of Pedagogia do Oprimido. Giroux, A. Henry. 2001.“Vocationalizing Higher Education: Schooling and the Politics of Corporate Culture.”In Beyond the Corporate University: Culture and Pedagogy in the New Millennium, edited by Henry A. Giroux and Kostas Myrsiades, 147–161. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hallak, Jacques, and Muriel Poisson. 2007.Corrupt Schools, Corrupt Universities: What Can Be Done? Paris: International Institute for Education Planning. Ingleby, Ewan. 2015.“The House that Jack Built: Neoliberalism, Teaching in Higher Education and the Moral Objections.”Teaching in Higher Education 20 (5): 518–529. doi:10.1080/13562517. 2015.1036729. Isomöttönen, Ville, and Ville Tirronen. 2017.“Flipping and Blending—An Action Research Project on Improving a Functional Programming Course.”ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17 (1): 1–38. Juurikkala, Juha. 2008.Ilon Pedagogiikka: Kohti Nykyaikaista Koulua: Konstruktiivinen Peruskoulun Käyttöteoria. Jyväskylä: Tutkiva Opettaja. In Finnish. Kuoppala, Kari. 2005.“Management by Results at Finnish Universities.”Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27 (3): 345–355. doi:10.1080/13600800500283692. Laing, Christopher, Alan Robinson, and Veronique Johnston. 2005.“Managing the Transition into Higher Education: An On-line Spiral Induction Programme.”Active Learning in Higher Education 6 (3): 243–255. doi:10.1177/1469787405059575. Lakanen, Antti-Jussi, and Ville Isomöttönen. 2013.“High School Students’Perspective to University CS1.”Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE ’13, New York, NY, 261–266. ACM. doi:10.1145/ 2462476.2465585. Leese, Maggie. 2010.“Bridging the Gap: Supporting Student Transitions into Higher Education.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 34 (2): 239–251. doi:10.1080/03098771003695494. Lindeman, Eduard C. 1926.The Meaning of Adult Education. San Bernardino, CA: Windham Press. Reprint 2013. Lowe, Houston, and Anthony Cook. 2003.“Mind the Gap: Are Students Prepared for Higher Education?”Journal of Further and Higher Education 27 (1): 53–76. doi:10.1080/ 03098770305629. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1984.The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Translation from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi Foreword by Fredric Jameson. MacKenzie, Donald. 2004.“The Big, Bad Wolf and the Rational Market: Portfolio Insurance, the 1987 Crash and the Performativity of Economics.”Economy and Society 33 (3): 303–334. doi:10.1080/0308514042000225680. Maslach, Christina, and Susan E Jackson. 1981.“The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 2 (2): 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205. Melrose, Mary J. 2001.“Maximazing the Rigor of Action Research: Why Would You Want To? How Could You?”Field Methods 13 (2): 160–180. doi:10.1177/1525822X0101300203. Myers, Linda J., Suzette L. Speight, Pamela S. Highlen, Chikako I. Cox, Amy L. Reynolds, Eve M. Adams, and C. Patricia Hanley. 1991.“Identity Development and Worldview: Toward an Optimal Conceptualization.”Journal of Counseling & Development 70 (1): 54–63. doi:10.1002/ j.1556-6676.1991.tb01561.x. Rinne, Risto, Joel Kivirauma, and Hannu Simola. 2002.“Shoots of Revisionist 1 Education Policy or Just Slow Readjustment? The Finnish Case of Educational Reconstruction.”Journal of Education Policy 17 (6): 643–658. doi:10.1080/0268093022000032292. Roberts, Peter. 1996.“Defending Freirean Intervention.”Educational Theory 46 (3): 335–352. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1996.00335.x. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 883 Schwab, Richard L., and Edward F. Iwanicki. 1982.“Perceived Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Teacher Burnout.”Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (1): 60–74. doi:10.1177/ 0013161X82018001005. Sutton, Paul. 2015.“A Paradoxical Academic Identity: Fate, Utopia and Critical Hope.”Teaching in Higher Education 20 (1): 37–47. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.957265. Transparency International. 2013.Global Corruption Report: Education. Abingdon: Earthscan by Routledge. Wall, Sarah. 2008.“Easier Said Than Done: Writing an Autoethnography.”International Journal of Qualitative Methods 7 (1): 38–53. doi:10.1177/160940690800700103. Yeatman, Anna. 1994.Postmodern Revisionings of the Political. New York, NY: Routledge. Ylijoki, Oili-Helena, and Jani Ursin. 2013.“The Construction of Academic Identity in the Changes of Finnish Higher Education.”Studies in Higher Education 38 (8): 1135–1149. doi:10.1080/ 03075079.2013.833036. 884 V. ISOMÖTTÖNEN