In the art teacher training at the University of Lapland, my colleague and I have researched and systematically adopted differentiation as a perspective on the pedagogical studies of visual arts teacher students in the past year or so. Before these implementations, we have mapped in-service art teachers' practices and perceivings on differentiation in art education in lower secondary school (see Härkönen & Tuiskuvaara, 2025). This paper discusses what possibilities emerge to reperceive the core, objectives and methods of art education in a new and broader scope when it is examined through differentiation and for instance the crip-theory. The paper introduces our ongoing study conducted in the second-year art education students’ pedagogical course at the University of Lapland, Finland. In the course we have introduced, implemented and tested in practice how art pedagogy and teaching materials can be differentiated so that also those pupils with different learning barriers can reach the curricular learning objectives of art. The research question is: What are the new insights into art education obtained through implementing and researching differentiation perspectives in art pedagogics in art teacher training? Koneen Säätiö foundation has granted a research fund for Härkönen’s research of differentiation in art education between 2025–2027.   

Our thinking follows Tomlinson’s (2014) broad definition of differentiation as a holistic approach to education that underpins all teaching design and delivery. Like inclusive education, differentiation aims to remove barriers to learning and support the participation of all students (Tomlinson, 2014). 

Atkinson (2011, s. 82–89) discussed how teacher and learner identities are performed and what dominant coding systems inform the performance of these identities in school art education. Atkinson argues that compared to many practices in contemporary art that challenge our comprehension of the artist, objects and practices of art, school art practices tend to reproduce and confirm (though not exclusively) a particular conservative distribution of understandings and attitudes towards objects and subjects of practice (Atkinson, 2011). Teacher identities, perceptions and attitudes are often productions of their own background education, the values of surrounding societies, and global phenomena accessed through, for instance social media communities. Our research interest lies in increasing art teacher students’ awareness of their own perceptions of learning and art and how these might impact their future art teaching practices. Implementing differentiation methods into pedagogical thinking and examining curricular objectives enables us to make visible our privilege positions as educators, challenge our ways of perceiving art education norms.   

Penketh (2020) stresses the dangers of apparent attempts to inclusion in art education: Support may be put in place to remove barriers to learning, but there is less emphasis on making radical changes to the ways teachers conceptualize inclusive practice. She warns against ignoring diversity and the opportunity it brings for a non-normative worldview in the construction of inclusive schools and teaching and proposes curriculum-level changes that would examine arts education teaching practices and entities from the perspective of crip-theory. The theory challenges our understanding of abilities and capability (ableism), and the attempt to "cripple" arts education curriculum means drawing attention to taken-for-granted assumptions about abilities that are reinforced through curriculum systems and practices (Penketh, 2020). 

The study is conducted as art-based action research (ABAR) (Jokela, 2019). ABAR functions as a methodological approach incorporating research with practice and thereby supports research-based development of educational art activities. It stresses interaction and active agency of all participants in all stages of the researched action (Jokela, 2019). Our research take is phenomenological. The action processes are studied through cycles of planning, implementing, evaluating and redefining action. The data is collected during three art pedagogical courses mainly with same students: Didactics for Art Teaching for lower secondary schools, Teaching Practice in lower secondary schools, and Equal Art Education course during the Academic year 2025–2026. Differentiation in art education has been studied only a little in Finland. Therefore, this study was introduced to the participating students as co-development, where we introduced a loose predetermined framework of differentiation in art education and encouraged students to critically test and evaluate it. The aim has been to establish understanding, discoveries and construction of differentiation in art education in collaboration. The data consists documented classroom discussions, reflective inquiries, documented seminars for practice of differentiating art teaching materials, reflections/portfolios on differentiation during teaching practice and students’ reflections on their learning outcomes of differentiation in art education during these three courses of study. The data collection will be completed in the end of April 2026.

The first implications of results of this study are the insights related to the core features, questions and ethical ponderings of art education and its curricular objectives. It has become apparent so far in our research that art as a school subject has naturally differentiating features that enable exploring and arriving to outcomes through very different paths that support different types of learners without necessarily highlighting the differences or even disabilities. Nevertheless, also art education needs resources for support, one teacher alone with a big group of diverse students cannot do miracles. The study will showcase what questions arise when examining curriculum and teaching materials through the perspectives of differentiation, what are the struggles, discomforts and grieves of teacher students related to possible ideological conflicts between differentiation and art perception and emerging art teacher identities.

Atkinson, D. (2011). Art, Equality and Learning. Pedagogies Against the State. Sense Publishers. Härkönen, E., & Tuiskuvaara, T. (2025). Eriyttäminen kuvataiteessa perusopetuksen yläluokilla [Differentiation in art teaching in lower secondary education in Finland]. Research in Arts and Education, 2025(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.54916/rae.145643 Jokela, T. (2019). Arts-based action research in the North. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/acre-fore/9780190264093.013.522 Plenketh, C. (2020) Towards a vital pedagogy: Learning from anti-ableist practice in art education. International Journal of Education Through Art 16(1), 13–27. DOI:10.1386/eta_00014_1 Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.