Good enough art teacher : Developing visual identity in teacher education

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