Ee o Ropo & Rii a Jaa inen (eds),
Subjec Teache Educa ion in T ansi ion: Educa ing Teache s o he Fu u e
Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess, 289–309.
h p://u n. i/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8
Good enough a eache
De eloping isual iden i y
in eache educa ion
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
In oduc ion
As we li e in a wo ld ha unp edic ably quickly becomes mo e and
mo e pic u e-/image- illed, we do no o en s op o hink how old
pic u es/images as media a e. The oldes messages wi h pic u es
a e o e 2,000 yea s old and a e emendously eminiscen o hose
images and signs we s ill use. The bulls in he ca es o Al ami a ell us
a s o y in he same ype o ‘pic u e language’ as he language used in
he discussion si es in he In e ne .
290
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
The academic discou se be ween he a s
As human beings, we ha e many ways in which we can de ine
ou sel es o sum up who we a e. We can iden i y ou sel es as child en
o ou pa en s o pa en s o ou child en, as ci izens o a na ion o
an a ea, as a p o essional in a ce ain ield, o h ough ou hobbies
- he lis goes on. All o he a ibu es we use o de ine ou sel es
shape ou indi idual iden i ies. Thus, iden i y does no ha e a s able,
con inuous o m: each o us ede ines ou iden i y a di e en imes
and in di e en si ua ions. This agmen ed iden i y is ne e comple e
because o i s p ocess-like na u e, bu is in a cons an s a e o shaping
and pe haps e en de eloping (Hall 1999).
In his s udy, we ask how a educa ion s uden s desc ibe hei
iden i ies. The s a ing poin o his s udy was an in e es in inding
ou whe he hese s uden s de ined hemsel es mo e as u u e
eache s o as a is s, and how hey belie ed ha hey could combine
hese wo di e en p o essional iden i ies. We collec ed da a om a
cou se en i led Academic Discou se be ween he A s (3 ECTS) ha
we had designed and held. The cou se was eo ganized e e y yea
o e a pe iod o i e yea s (2011–2015), and i was a ge ed owa ds
he s uden s om ou di e en uni e si ies: isual a s educa ion
s uden s a Aal o Uni e si y, music educa ion s uden s a Sibelius
Academy, dance and hea e educa ion s uden s a Thea e Academy,
and p ima y school eache 1 educa ion s uden s specializing in a
educa ion a he Uni e si y o Tampe e. The goal o he cou se was
o guide pedagogically o ien ed s uden s om di e en ields o a
in o a dialog. Acco ding o Hu unen, iden i y is a esul o social
nego ia ion. Iden i y deals wi h he ques ion o who a pe son is in
ela ion o o he s (Ropo 2009; 2019; Hu unen 2013).
1 In Finland “p ima y school eache ” (o “class eache ”) e e s o a eache who
eaches g ades 1-6 in basic educa ion. P ima y school eache s ha e a mas e ’s
deg ee in educa ion.
Good enough a eache
291Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
The pu pose o he cou se was o encou age academic discou se
be ween he a s, in which s uden s would open up, discuss and
e o mula e hei own ideas on eaching, examine he connec ion
be ween educa ion and a is ic exp ession, skill, dialog and iden i y,
among o he hings. Ou aim was o ind, oge he wi h he s uden s,
mo e p ecise de ini ions o he concep s ha o en appea loosely
wo ded in a discou se: de ini ions associa ed wi h he s uden s’
wo lds o expe ience. Du ing he cou se, s uden s also unde ook
isual and li e a y assignmen s: iden i y pic u es and s o ies. Wi h
iden i y pic u es we e e ed o cons uc ed po ai s in which he
s uden s designed a pic u e, selec ed he loca ion and decided how
o se le in o he en i onmen and wha p ops o use. The idea was
o summa ize hei pe sonal iews on a s ‘ eache hood’ in o one
pho o. La e on, he pho os we e in e p e ed and discussed in g oups.
A e he discussion, he s uden s w o e hei iden i y s o ies in which
hey opened up hei iden i y pic u e a e hei own in e p e a ion
and he collec i e in e p e a ion p ocess based on hei pho o. These
s o ies and pho os a e used as da a o his chap e ; hey p o ided
us wi h e sa ile ma e ial upon which o examine he iden i y o a
eaching s uden s.
Who am I? Whe e do I come om? Whe e do I belong o, and who
can I become? These a e he mos impo an , sensi i e and ha des
ques ions o human li e (Hu unen 2013). The s uden s aking ou
cou se we e in he phase o hei li es in which hese ques ions a e
e lec ed upon mos passiona ely. In gene al, s uden s cons uc
hei iden i ies bo h in hei s udies and in hei social ne wo ks.
The e o e, ou cou se ell upon a sensi i e and e ile g ound. As one
o he s uden s summa ized, “I el ha e lec ing on my iden i y
was use ul, and in my opinion he discussions wi h o he s uden s
we e e y ui ul. The iden i y pic u es opened up in a e y new way,
and we ecei ed he ools o cons uc ou own iden i ies a he same
ime. I also el ha i was e y ewa ding o he discussion ha he
s uden s came om di e en uni e si ies.”
292
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Inke i Sa a and A ja Ka ainen (2004) a gue ha he iew o onesel
as “I p ojec s” ha a e cons uc ed in social ela ionships and ha a e
cons an ly e ol ing makes oom o di e en iden i y expe imen s.
Sa a e e s o Zigmund Bauman when she a gues ha he mode n
human being is on a pilg image owa ds inding him- o he sel . The
pos mode n iden i y is oaming, wande ing and ou ing. The e o e,
iden i y wo k can be like play. One ies di e en oles in di e en
si ua ions, one cons uc s and ejec s hem and econs uc s hem
again. Those g adua ing as a eache s a e in he phase o li e when
he play o s uden s becomes eali y la e on in he wo king wo ld.
Re lec i e pho o
A look in o a magni ying e iew mi o
In ou s udy, we examine e lec i e pho os, isual na a i es,
in which he s uden s cons uc hei iden i ies. We had se e al
easons o choosing isual na a i es as ou da a. Being isual a s
p o essionals ou sel es, we belie e in he powe o isual s o y elling,
and, as esea che s, in he possibili ies o isual e hnog aphy. Like
Sa ah Pink (2001), we belie e ha pho og aphy is an excellen ool o
obse a ion and documen a ion and a use ul echnique o making
no es, o bo h esea che s and a is s. This pe cep ion is, o cou se,
based on he ‘ e aci y’ o pho og aphy as well as i s accu acy and non-
selec i i y. The came a cap u es wha e e he pho og aphe chooses
o poin i a .
In ou p ojec , we use pho os a li le di e en ly: we emphasize
hei s o y-like na a i e na u e. Pho os can ell s o ies, bu hey
can also in e p e colo and shape eali y. Pho os can also skew
eali y: i is e y easy o belie e a lie old by a pho o. We know ha ,
in hei iden i y pic u es, he s uden s cons uc ed hei iden i ies
Good enough a eache
293Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
h ough pho og aphy; hey old us exac ly wha hey wan ed o abou
hemsel es. Tha is wha makes i in e es ing.
Mo e han any hing, he iden i y pic u es a e e lec i e ools.
Rela i e o lea ning, e lec ion is also necessa y. P o ound lea ning
equi es an unde s anding o heo y and p ac ice. This kind o
in en ional unde s anding is he objec i e in he e lec i e p ocess.
In dic iona ies, e lec ion is de ined as medi a ion, conside a ion and
mi o ing. Th ough e lec ion, we mi o ou own lea ning; ende ing
i isible so ha we can obse e i and, i necessa y, change i o he
be e (Winnico 1981).
Pei ce’s iadic s uc u e o signs
In his chap e , we ocus on he e lec i e pho os o he s uden s and
lea e hei w i en s o ies in he backg ound. We wan o handle
he pho os as independen na a i es wi hou explana ions o
in e p e a ions o he s uden s. As a ool, we use he well-known and
o en used semio ic heo y o signs by Cha les S. Pei ce, he Ame ican
p agma ic philosophe . Acco ding o Pei ce, a sign, a piece o a , o
in his con ex , a pho o, can ela e o eali y in h ee di e en ways: as
icons, as indexes and as symbols. Pei ce’s heo y is b oadly applied,
some imes in a b u ally simplis ic way depending on he use. (See
Seppänen 2002.) We, oo, use Pei ce’s heo y in a li le uno hodox
way, pe haps, applying i o ou pu poses2.
An iconic pic u e is simila o he objec i ep esen s. One
cha ac e is ic o d awing and o he isual wo k is po ayal. Fo
some eason, we a e ascina ed wi h he idea ha a clus e o lines
ha seem o be o med a bi a ily o ha he con as o o e ones
and colo s begin o look like some hing, o po ay some hing. Fo
example, a pic u e o a abbi is o med on a su ace. A depic ion
2 In he ollowing pa s o ex we p esen ou applica ion o Pei ce’s heo y. We
ha e c ea ed i o many yea s while being a is s and a eache s.

294
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
ha is unde s ood by anyone, ega dless o one’s mo he ongue. A
pho o is in i s essence always iconic, because wi h a documen a y
pho o, especially, he e is always a coun e pa in eali y. Many a ic
signs and guidepos s a e based on iconism. Fo example, he sign
o a oad cu e shows he cu e o he oad ahead. I is, howe e ,
no ewo hy ha a pic u e can be iconic e en wi hou a coun e pa ,
a e e en , in eali y. Fo example, he po ai o Mona-Lisa is ha dly
in e es ing because we wonde whose pic u e i is - a leas , no be o e
Dan B own’s book “The Da Vinci Code”. Is i e en possible o know
i he e is a coun e pa o his pic u e? Ins ead, du ing cen u ies
people ha e ponde ed he mys e y behind Mona-Lisa’s smile. We
can, wi h ou imagina ion, c ea e and cons uc iconic pic u es, o
ins ance he wo lds o sci- i ilms. Likewise, he iden i y pho os o he
s uden s a e cons uc ed pho os and do no , despi e hei iconism,
necessa ily po ay he eali y as i is. Howe e , ha is wha makes
hem in e es ing.
The index sign has a causal ela ion o eali y. Fo example, smoke
is a sign o a i e. A lag on a lagpole indica es a lag day o a amily
celeb a ion. In he ield o pho og aphy o isual a , index can also be
ela ed o a pos mode n cha ac e is ic in which a piece o a e e s in
almos e e y case o o he pieces o a . A pic u e o a abbi indica es
o he isual wo ld o Joseph Beuys in he Eu opean con ex and in
he Finnish con ex o Ris o Suomi’s p oduc ion. In addi ion, mo ies
e e o o he mo ies and hei meaning is also cons uc ed by he
meanings o hose mo ies hey e e o. The index ela ionship can be
cons uc ed consciously o by he iewe . The e o e, in his case, he
in e p e a ion o he iden i y pho os depends upon he expe iences o
he in e p e e . We in e p e he s uden s’ iden i y pho os om ou
own pe spec i e knowing ha we may aliena e om he meaning
ha he s uden has in ended.
Symbol is a con en ional sign, he meaning o which is based
on a con en ion. We ha e ag eed ha , o example, some le e
combina ions mean some hing. The w i en language is an example
Good enough a eache
295Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
o a ully con ac ual sign language. Visual signs can also be
con ac ual, such as he Ch is ian symbols, bu he connec ion is
uzzie han in w i en language. Fo example, a abbi like o he
animals can ha e many di e en symbolic meanings depending on
whe e geog aphically and in wha ype o en i onmen i is being
in e p e ed. In addi ion, e e y indi idual can also see he abbi
ep esen ing some hing o a ea u e in his o he own way.
On he o he hand, isual language is in a way uni e sal. Pic u es
can be in e p e ed and unde s ood by anyone ega dless o na ionali y
o backg ound. The meanings cons uc ed and based on pic u es,
howe e , a e always linked o cul u al adi ions as well as o he
subjec i ely and expe ien ially buil symbolism.
Wha ‘ca ches he eye’ in he iden i y pho os?
Ba hes (1980) sepa a es s udium and punc um in his analysis o
pho os. S udium is some hing in a pho o ha gene a es common
in e es , bu is no uly any hing mind-blowing. Punc um, on he
o he hand, means ha he a en ion o he iewe becomes a ached
o some hing, pe haps, o a de ail o some hing else ha makes
him o he s op and linge wi h he pic u e o de ail in he pic u e
longe . The iewe is no necessa ily awa e o wha i is ha d aws
his o he a en ion s aigh away. In a good pho og aph, he e mus
be his punc um ha pene a es he s udium so ha he iewe pays
a en ion o he pho o. The Finnish exp ession “pis ää silmään” (ca ch
he eye) desc ibes well he hough s exp essed by Ba hes.
Punc um may also be some hing in isible. Ba hes (1980, 148–151)
explains how a po ai o a young man g asped a di e en meaning
om he ac ha he was abou o be execu ed. One can conclude
om he pho o ha he was a con ic , because he has handcu s,
bu his doom is no isible o he wise. In he same way, ou own
in e p e a ions a e a ec ed by e e y hing else we know abou he
296
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
pho os. Pa icula ly, he a ield we know and wha he iden i y
pho os also ep esen .
One p oblem o in e p e ing a pic u e and also o a educa ion
occu s when we y o unde s and wha we see in he pic u es, we, as
Ko ka i a (2009) pu s i , e balize pic u es in o wo ds and ansla e
hem in o ano he kind o syn ax and seman ics. This happens
whene e we ocus ou a en ion on he meanings he pic u es ha e
gene a ed, meanings ha a e no necessa ily made consciously a all.
The aim o e balize and become awa e o he meanings and images
he pic u es ca y collides wi h i s limi s and ails o some ex en .
A e all, a pic u e always con ains much mo e han wha we a e able
o pu in o wo ds. Pic u es o en gene a e images and e ec s ha a e
impossible o become e balized. Some imes i is good o jus le he
pic u es alk in hei own language wi hou u ile explaining.
Rega dless o his, we boldly begin o e balize some o he
in e p e a ions o he iden i y pho os we ha e chosen. We us in
ou own in e p e a ions ha a e subjec i e, bu made in a mu ual
dialogue. We ha e a elled wi h he s uden s’ iden i y pho os o a
long ime, examining hem in di e en si ua ions and om di e en
poin s o iew. We hope ou eade s con inue hese spon aneously
de eloped in e p e a ions. As he au ho s o his chap e and ha ing
p ocessed dialog in ou disse a ions and p oduced a in a dialogical
p ocess, we ha e de eloped an o ganic me hod o app oaching,
e lec ing on, and unde s anding phenomena. Bo h o us a e
he meneu ic by na u e, and we wan o emphasize pa icula ly he
e lec i e and dialogical na u e o he p ocess o unde s anding. We
eel, like Veli-Ma i Vä i, ha dialog is an indispensable me hod in
eaching as well (Vä i 1997; see also Bube 1999). In ou opinion,
dialog has p o ed o be a use ul me hod in encoun e ing s uden s
om di e en uni e si ies and a ields. Ins ead o he adi ionally
highly na cissis ic a alk, dialogs a e polyphonic, lis ened o wi h
sensi i e ea s sea ching humbly o he unde s anding o o he s and
onesel (Gadame 2004; Me a & Pullinen 2008). In he dialogs, s ong,
Good enough a eache
297Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
sha ed expe ience was connec ed wi h people’s own s a ing poin s
o , as Juha Suo an a pu s i in his a icle, “You ha e o emembe you
s a ing poin .” Subsequen ly, i is possible o e lec on and b eak
down he s ong expe ience wi h he dea ones – e en o e a long
pe iod o ime (Suo an a 2008).
Pho o 1, in ou opinion, ep esen s an iconic image o he wo k o a
p ima y school eache . A he same ime, while we see ecognizable,
e en imeless de ails, o a class oom, he pho o also e eals he clichés
ha we associa e wi h eache ’s wo k. The hing in which we a e
in e es ed in he pic u e, wha ‘ca ches he eye’, is he magni ying glass
and he eye ha has been magni ied. We know ha he s uden in he
pho o is g adua ing as a p ima y school eache wi h a quali ica ion
o wo k as a isual a s eache as well. The magni ying glass is ela ed
o in es iga ing hings. E en a ew yea s ago, isual a s was p ima ily
called sel -exp ession, he p ac ice o he eye and he hand. Howe e ,
in ou opinion, he pho o ells us abou he new di ec ion o isual a
Pho o 1 ( om he a chi es o he au ho s by pe mission
o an anonymous s uden pho og aphe )
304
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
we canno know o ce ain whe he ou in e p e a ion is wha he
c ea o has in ended. The e o e, i is no possible o us o conclude
any hing de ini e conce ning he cons uc ion o he iden i y.
Skill as a basis o a educa ion
Acco ding o ou da a, we a gue ha he u u e a eache s base
hei eache iden i ies mainly on skill. This is also suppo ed by he
en ance examina ions o a ins i u ions. In he ield o music and
dance, he echnical skills o playing, singing and dancing seem o be
he s a ing poin o all eaching. In ou i s a icle based on his da a,
we old a s o y o a dance , in which he pedagogical s udy pa h was
a consequence o an inju y, when he body was no longe i enough
o handle he physically demanding wo k o a dance . Some imes,
he e ha e been doub s whe he young people g a i a ing owa ds
becoming isual a , hea e o music eache s a e he ones ha could
no succeed in a s as a is s, ac o s o musicians. The ques ion abou
skill is, howe e , mo e complica ed han ha . Pedagogical skill can be
mo e impo an o an a eache han he a is ic skill.
Based on ou long-s anding expe ience as eache educa o s, we
belie e ha passion abou wha one is doing is impo an , bu he
passion mus come om he inside. Fana ic a i udes a ac ana ic
ollowe s, bu how long can he s uc u e emain whole i he
ounda ion is no solid? I a s uden h ows he sel passiona ely in o
he s udies unde he wing o an expe , wha happens o he no ice
acing he ield alone?
Sel -cen edness
In one way, ou da a also indica e a ugged pic u e o he sel -
cen edness o ou ime. The iden i y pho os o u u e a eache s
in e wine o a la ge ex en wi h he pe sonali y ai s o hei c ea o s,
wi h he en i onmen s whe e hey ha e g own up and wi h pe sonal

Good enough a eache
305Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
hobbies. Ins ead, one has o sea ch o e o me s closely. In he
pho os, he young adul s’ conce n o na u e is no e iden , nei he is
he socie al ac i i y no he mul icul u al wo ld.4 Pe haps, he na u e
o he assignmen did no pe suade hem o pho og aph ha .
The unc ion o mos pho os was me ely o be beau i ul. One migh
a gue ha i is iden i y wo k as well, bu in ela ion o ou pedagogical
goals i seems qui e supe icial. Many young people li e in his so-
called sel ie-cul u e and a e used o sha ing he o me ly w i en
messages as pho os: me in on o he Ducale Palace, me wi h my
iend ea ing, me on he B idge o Whispe s, me in beau i ul e ening
make-up. The pho os ell us abou ‘me’ somewhe e, doing some hing,
no necessa ily any hing deepe . Pe haps we didn’ know how o
emphasize he academic and e lec i e na u e o he assignmen . I is,
o cou se, a di e en ma e o ell one’s s o y o one’s own ci cle o
iends han o wo uni e si y lec u e s doing esea ch.
Empowe ing iden i y pho os
In e es ingly, many pho os o ou da a a e consciously cons uc ed
e en hough hey highligh he cha ac e is ics no necessa ily ound
in he s uden , e en i she o he would like hem o exis . They, in
some way, ied o build an ideal pic u e o an a eache , as a goal o
pu sue la e on. In his sense, he cons uc ion p ocess o iden i y can
be seen as a he apeu ic expe ience.
We wan o main ain a clea dis inc ion be ween his and he
me hod called empowe ing pho og aphy. Fo su e, as a p ocess,
iden i y pic u es can be he apeu ic, bu ha was no ou goal in he
p ojec . Miina Sa olainen de eloped empowe ing pho og aphy in o
a me hod used in social ca e and nu sing. The basis o empowe ing
pho og aphy – i s soul, as Sa olainen pu s i – emains in i s bi hplace,
i.e. in child wel a e. Wha does a se e ely mis ea ed pe son need o
4 This way o hinking is no ound in he essays he s uden s w o e based on hei
iden i y pho os.
306
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
become aluable, in ol ed and connec ed o o he people (Sa olainen
2008)? The hough ha a pe son has o be p ecious in someone
else’s eyes be o e hey can be p ecious o hemsel es was e e sed
in ou p ojec ; i was abou a e lec i e p ocess in which s uden s
e alua ed hei ela ionship o hei u u e educa ional ole and hei
expec a ions o becoming a eache s. P ima ily, we we e hoping he
s uden s would look hones ly inwa ds, in o hei own mi o . Ins ead
o empowe ing hem, i was mo e abou hem becoming awa e (see
also Pienimäki 2013).
Good enough a eache
Ou da a indica e ha skills a e a sensi i e spo o a eache s. Bu
who is skilled enough as an a eache ? When skill is iewed as
pedagogical unde s anding, we a e close o he e hos o su iciency,
which Hannu Simola (2001) and Donald Winnico (1981) ha e also
discussed. Le us apply Winnico ’s idea o becoming an a eache .
A good-enough eache who is dedica ed o a bu also educa ionally
awa e can be a e y good op ion o child en and young people. An
excessi e a is ic ambi ion can dis up he lea ning and g ow h o
young people. A i s wo s , he eache ’s need o ecogni ion can o ce
hei s uden s o a emp o ac ualize he a is ic ambi ions o he
eache . I is good o emembe ha , in a educa ion, he oppo uni y
o ail is also ui ul in ela ion o lea ning. This shi s he emphasis
om he end esul o he p ocess. Based on ou expe ience, hose
s uden s who emphasize hei a is hood oo hea ily end o become
apped in hei own p econcei ed ideas and do no da e o open
hemsel es up o lea n some hing new, o uly plunge in o he
unknown, whe eas hose s uden s who iew hei compe ence mo e
skep ically es hei limi s mo e boldly and a e cu ious abou he
wo ld. In an inclusi e en i onmen , his ype o s uden becomes a
skilled and unde s anding eache who conside s guiding he pupils
along hei own pa hs o c ea e some hing signi ican .
Good enough a eache
307Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Acco ding o Ba hes (1980), pho os show dea h. Pe haps we
wan o immo alize wha we would no like o see o die/disappea .
The s uden s ake pho os o wha is close o hem and pe haps e en
he mos impo an o hem: one’s own amily his o y, childhood
en i onmen , iends, s uden li e and he expec a ions and p ejudices
o hei own a ield. Time goes on and we can ne e go back o wha
has been. Th ough he s uden ’s own pic u e he o she can go back o
ha momen in he u u e – b ing his o y in o he p esen . Howe e ,
we as esea che s, look in o he u u e h ough he pho os. I would
be in e es ing o see how a educa o s see hei a eache iden i ies
a e en yea s.
308
Jouko Pullinen and Juha Me a
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Re e ences
Ba hes, R. 1980. Valoisa huone. Helsinki: Suomen aloku a ai een museon
sää iö.
Bube , M. 1999. Minä ja Sinä. Po oo-Helsinki-Ju a: WSOY.
Finnish Na ional Agency o Educa ion. Co e cu iculum o Basic Educa ion
2014. Helsinki: Finnish Na ional Agency o Educa ion.
Gadame , H. G. 2004/1953-1980. He meneu iikka. Ymmä äminen ie eissä
ja iloso iassa. Tampe e: Vas apaino. (I. Nikande , T ans.) (Selec ed
ex s om Gesammel e We ke 2 and 4, 1953-1980).
Hall, S. 1999. Iden i ee i. Tampe e: Vas apaino. (M. Leh onen & J. He kman,
T ans. and eds.)
Hu unen, M. 2013. Na a ii isen iden i ee ip osessin kehi yminen
a haislapsuudes a nuo uu een. In E. Ropo & M. Hu unen (eds.)
Puheen uo oja na a ii isuudes a ope uksessa ja oppimisessa.
Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess, 125–154.
Ko ka i a, J. 2009. Miksi ku ia on hankala lukea? In L. Haapa an a, T.
Klemola, J. Ko ka i a & S. Pihls öm (eds.) Ku a. Ac a Philosophica
Tampe ensia, 42–52.
Me a, J. & Pullinen, J. 2008. Sanansaa aja. Pohdin oja ai eellisen dialogin
mahdollisuudes a. Tampe e: G a iikanpaja Himmelblau.
Pienimäki, M. 2013. Valoku ien k ii inen ulki seminen medialuku ai ona.
Laji yypi ely sen kehi äjänä. Väi öski ja. Jy äskylän yliopis o.
Tai eiden ja kul uu in u kimuslai os.
Pink, S. 2001. Doing isual e hnog aphy. London: Sage Publica ions.
Pullinen, J. & Me a, J. 2015. A S uden Explo ing Thei Iden i ies. In
M. Kallio-Ta in & J. Pullinen (eds.) Co e sa ion on Finnish A
Educa ion. Helsinki: Aal o Uni e si y, 82–98.
Ropo, E. 2009. Iden i y de elopmen as a basis o cu iculum de elopmen .
In P-M. Rabens eine & E. Ropo (eds.) Eu opean dimension in
educa ion and eaching: Iden i y and alues in educa ion. Schneide
Ve lag, Hohengeh en, 20–34.
Ropo, E. 2019. Cu iculum o iden i y: Na a i e Nego ia ions in
Au obiog aphy, Lea ning and Educa ion. In C. Hébe , N. Ng-A-
Fook., A. Ib ahim, & B. Smi h (eds.) In e na ionalizing cu iculum
s udies: His o ies, en i onmen s and c i iques. Cham: Palg a e
MacMillan, 139–156.
Good enough a eache
309Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Sa a, I. & Ka ainen, A. 2004. Taide ja a inallisuus i sen ja oisen koh aamisen
ilana. In I. Sa a & V. Vesanen-Laukkanen (eds.) Tai eeksi a inoi u
oma elämä. Jy äskylä: PS-kus annus, 22–40.
Sa olainen, M. 2014. Voimau a a aloku a websi e. Re ie ed om h p://
www. oimau a a aloku a.ne /mene elma.h m in May 5 h 2015.
Sa olainen, M. 2008. Maailman ihanin y ö. Helsinki: Blink En e ainmen .
Seppänen, J. 2002. Ka seen oima. Koh i isuaalis a luku ai oa. Tampe e:
Vas apaino.
Simola, H. 2001. Koulupoli iikka ja e inomaisuuden ee os [Inaugu al
speech]. Re ie ed om h p://www.m .helsinki. i/home/hsimol/
KoPo%20ja%20e inomaisuusden%20ee os%2001.pd in May 5 h
2015.
Suo an a, J. 2008. Täy yy ain muis aa läh ökoh ansa. In J. Me a & J.
Pullinen (eds.) Sanansaa aja. Pohdin oja ai eellisen dialogin
mahdollisuudes a. Tampe e: G a iikanpaja Himmelblau, 83–93.
Va o, J. 2001. Kauneuden ai o. Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess.
Vä i, V.-M. 1997. Hy ä kas a us – kas a us hy ään. Dialogisen kas a uksen
iloso inen a kas elu e i yises i anhemmuuden näkökulmas a.
Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess.
Winnico , D. 1981. Lapsi, pe he ja ympä is ö. Espoo: Weiling & Göös. (I.
Hollo, T ans.) (O iginal wo k The Child, he Family and he Ou side
Wo ld published 1964).

310