Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33:2–14, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 online
DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2012.746951
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
Education: The Culture of Human Interchange
MARION BOGO
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
JULIANNE WAYNE
School of Social Work, University of Connecticut, West Hartford, Connecticut, USA
This article focuses on the culture of human interchange, which
is included as a component of the implicit curriculum in the current EPAS. It presents the use of the implicit curriculum concept
in teacher and medical education as a context for its application to social work education. The authors argue that professional
behaviors taught in the explicit curriculum of the classroom need
to be consciously reinforced in the many venues and through the
ongoing interpersonal relations throughout the educational environment. The article identifies the challenges that movement in this
direction would create but which the implicit curriculum standard
mandates us to address.
KEYWORDS implicit curriculum, culture of human interchange,
interpersonal relations
In 2008, the Council on Social Work Education introduced a new framework
for accreditation of social work education programs emphasizing the responsibility to educate for 10 specific professional competencies. As a result,
the curriculum design now includes an integration of a program’s mission
and goals, explicit curriculum, implicit curriculum, and assessment of educational outcomes (EPAS, 2008). Intended to encourage flexibility, programs
now have the opportunity to develop innovative approaches to preparing
students for contemporary and emerging social work practice relevant to the
context and mission of the school.
Address correspondence to Marion Bogo, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work,
University of Toronto, 246 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1, Canada. E-mail:
marion.bogo@utoronto.ca
2
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
3
The implicit curriculum is a newly identified and distinct component of
the curriculum. It refers to “the educational environment in which the explicit
curriculum is presented” (EPAS, 2008, p. 10). In this way, the latest EPAS
places greater emphasis than before on context as influencing the development of a school’s mission and program. It is consistent with this focus that
the context in which the explicit curriculum is taught be emphasized as well
(Holloway, Black, Hoffman, & Pierce, 2008).
The implicit curriculum in social work education includes policies, procedures, and processes related to admission, advisement, retention, and
termination; student participation in governance; administrative structures;
and faculty and resources. It is manifested through policies that are fair and
transparent in substance and implementation and through the qualifications
of the faculty. All of the above are said to inform the student’s learning
and development through the culture of human interchange, the spirit of
inquiry, support for difference and diversity, and values and priorities in the
educational environment, including the field practicum.
The EPAS mandates that programs describe and discuss how the learning environment models affirmation and respect for diversity and its specific
plans to improve their success in this area. Programs also must speak to policies and procedures for admissions, advisement, retention, and termination;
students’ rights and responsibilities in formulating and modifying policies
affecting academic and student affairs. Finally, programs must describe faculty qualifications and demonstrate adequate resources for achieving their
mission.
While the EPAS elaborates on the elements discussed above, there is
little discussion concerning “the culture of human interchange” (p. 10). The
profession of social work includes, as central values, the dignity and worth
of the person and the importance of human relationships. It is therefore
expected that these values will be demonstrated and reinforced in all educational venues and processes. The addition of the implicit curriculum standard
in the latest EPAS draws attention to the need to strengthen our focus upon
and activity in this area. This article addresses the human interchange component of the implicit curriculum and provides recommendations for social
work educators.
THE CULTURE OF HUMAN INTERCHANGE
“The culture of human interchange” is described in the EPAS (p. 10) as a
component of the medium through which the elements of the implicit curriculum inform the student’s learning and development. There appears to be
an assumption that if all of the above components meet the desired standards, the resulting culture of human interchange in the school environment
will promote the mission and goals of the program. This article asserts that,
4
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
on their own, the identified elements are not sufficient to create a quality
of human interaction between and among students, faculty, and staff that
will maximally reinforce the explicit curriculum. In order to strengthen the
positive impact of the educational milieu, the authors suggest that additional
educational interventions are required in the day-to-day human interchange
among all constituents of the educational program.
Universities hold academic freedom as a primary value, which implies
that all members of the community may question, comment on, and critique any relevant issue. However, freedom of expression is expected to
exist within an environment of civil discourse, respect for others’ opinions, and the ability to handle disagreement and conflicting opinions in a
civil manner. In social work education, such behaviors are considered more
than freedoms and responsibilities. Individual and interpersonal behaviors
are circumscribed in our explicit curriculum in Competence 2.1.1, which
calls for each student to “Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly.” This can be accomplished through behaviors that
include the practice of personal reflection and self-correction to ensure continual professional development, as well as evidence of professional roles
and boundaries and demonstration of professional demeanor in behavior,
appearance, and communication (EPAS, 2008, p.3). These practice behaviors
are designed to articulate and teach students how to interact at all levels in
their professional lives, including every arena of their educational environment. The desired behaviors can be fostered both within and outside formal
structures such as classrooms, committee meetings, gatherings of students
and faculty/staff, and in field placement. They are behaviors that can both
be “taught” and “caught” (Shulman, 2010), that is, that can be promoted
through education (the explicit curriculum) and socialization (the implicit
curriculum). Accordingly, in order to strengthen the impact of professional
social work education, the authors assert that educators must react whenever confronted with behavior that is antithetical to our professional goals,
regardless of the educational arena in which it occurs. There is a tendency to
think of “use of self” and “professional demeanor” as concepts to be taught
in the classroom and reinforced in the field. This article seeks to highlight the
message of the implicit curriculum, which is that powerful messages often
are taught in ways that are not explicit, both inside and outside formal structures and that education for and the practice of self-awareness is a critical
component in all social work educational venues.
THE IMPLICIT CURRICULUM IN TEACHER AND MEDICAL
EDUCATION
Social work educators are not the first to appreciate the influence of the
implicit curriculum. Literature on the concept of the implicit curriculum also
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
5
emanates from two other sources, elementary and secondary education and
medical education. Indeed, the concept has been present in education literature for more than 50 years, originally developed from observations in
elementary school education (Jackson, 1968; 1990). The term refers to the
values, attitudes, and expected behaviors that teachers and administrators
may unintentionally convey through a wide range of policies and informal
practices. Eisner (2002) captures its essence in stating:
The implicit curriculum of the school is what it teaches because of
the kind of place it is. And the school is that kind of place through
the ancillary consequences of various approaches to teaching, by the
kind of reward system that it uses, by the organizational structure it
employs to sustain its existence, by the physical characteristics of the
school plant, and by the furniture it uses and the surroundings it creates.
These characteristics constitute some of the dominant components of the
school’s implicit curriculum. Although these features are seldom publicly announced, they are intuitively recognized by parents, students, and
teachers. And because they are salient and pervasive features of schooling, what they teach may be among the most important lessons a child
learns. (p. 97)
Teacher educators examine the implicit curriculum and how it socializes
students to school environments and contributes to their success (Solomon
& Lee, 2008). Expectations, messages, and rules that are not explicitly stated
may be hidden or implicit, not easily recognized by individual students but
having an impact on their success. Furthermore, what is and what is not
taught conveys messages about what is important. Eisner (2002) provides
the example of requirements and scheduling as conveying implicit messages. Arts-based courses (such as music or drama) frequently are offered as
electives late in the day or as an extracurricular activity, suggesting these subjects are less valued than courses in mathematics or language. Furthermore,
this literature also discusses how gender stereotypes and racial inequality often are implicitly perpetuated through teachers’ differential behavior
toward performance expectations of students.
In medical education, most authors use the term hidden curriculum,
and a considerable literature has developed in a number of specialty areas,
such as pediatrics (Balmer, Master, Richards, & Giardino, 2009); end-of-life
care (Billings, Engelberg, Curtis, Block, & Sullivan, 2010); and psychiatry
(Agrawal, Szatmari, & Hanson, 2008). This literature examines the impact
of messages from teachers and role models about what is acceptable
behavior for a physician (Gaiser, 2009). Role models encountered in clinical
rotations include attending physicians, clinical instructors, residents, and
other health professionals who, by their behavior and comments, socialize
and acculturate medical students to attitudes and behaviors associated with
professionalism. When used in the medical literature, professionalism refers
6
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
to ethical practice, reflection and self-awareness; accountability for one’s
actions; respect for patients; teamwork; and social responsibility (Hilton
& Slotnick, 2005). A key theme across studies is that the values taught
in orientation, lectures, and readings regarding professionalism are not
uniformly reinforced in clinical settings (Karnieli-Miller et al., 2010). For
example, students reported an equal amount of positive and negative
experiences with professional demeanor, communication, and time spent
with patients on the part of their mentors and clinical instructors (Thiedke
et al., 2004). Others found attending physicians unaware of the negative
messages that students observed (Wear & Skillicorn, 2009).
A number of strategies are identified in the medical education literature
to make the implicit or hidden messages explicit and subject to discussion
and analysis with students. These strategies include developing awareness of
the existence and impact of the implicit curriculum on the part of all who are
instructing students and open discussion with students, course, and clinical
instructors (Hafferty & Franks, 1994); attention to ethical situations that occur
in any medical education experience such as in patient-contact settings or
a clinical or research laboratory (Hafferty & Franks, 1994); during review of
institutional policies and procedures to ensure the implicit curriculum does
not negatively influence students (Hafferty, 1998); and upon the establishment of specific guidelines and competencies for clinical learning settings
with regard to role-modeled behavior (Gofton & Regehr, 2006; Hafferty &
Franks, 1994).
In summary, the literature on the implicit curriculum has been conceptualized and studied in primary and secondary education and in medical
education. The essential theme in this literature is that the implicit curriculum is conveyed through institutional policies, the physical environment, and
human and interpersonal experiences with personnel involved in students’
education, including course instructors in lectures and clinical instructors
in practice settings. Authors and researchers highlight the influence of the
implicit curriculum and imply that it does not receive enough attention.
A gap in this literature reflects the dearth of attention to the need for
educational interventions in daily human interchanges that will promote the
professional values and demeanor we are mandated to both model and
teach. In fact, there are interactions that may be observed, but not used
as teachable moments. This article aims to address this reality and consider
the implicit messages sent when interactions that do not reflect professional
values and demeanor are not made explicit, reflected upon, or discussed.
EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF SOCIAL WORK’S
SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY
The 2008 EPAS identifies field education as the “Signature Pedagogy of social
work education.” As such, it is the arena “in which [our] profession socializes
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
7
its students to perform the role of practitioner” (p. 8), and in which students
are helped to connect and integrate theory and practice. Lee Shulman introduced this term to the literature on education for the professions and focuses
on the importance of socializing students to the professions’ fundamental
ways of thinking, performing, and acting with integrity. The EPAS asserts
that classroom and field are of equal importance within the curriculum, each
contributing to the development of requisite competencies of professional
practice. To this statement, based on the characteristics of the implicit curriculum, as described in the EPAS, the authors suggest extending the boundaries
of the signature pedagogy beyond field settings to the entire educational
arena. In this sense, the school itself can be thought of in the same light as
a field setting—as a place where students are helped to engage in behaviors that reflect the integration of the profession’s theory, values, and skills.
Some currently underused activities and structures that provide opportunity
for such education include the classroom, school committees, one-to-one
exchanges between faculty, administrative staff and students, and the field
placement process.
Fostering a Culture of Positive Human Interchange
MODELING
This article has already discussed the impact of the messages and lessons
that are conveyed to students outside of the explicit curriculum. The idea
of modeling the behaviors we teach as one component of the implicit curriculum certainly is not new. In most instances, social work educators do
this automatically. The purpose of this section, however, is to stress the
importance of this behavior and to reduce the instances of “slippage” that
inevitably occur in stressful or what seem to be “off-duty” moments. Gaiser
(2009) explains this particular phenomenon as follows: “We are teaching far
more than we know. Every word we speak, every action we perform, every
time we choose not to speak or act, every smile, every curse, every sigh is a
lesson in the hidden curriculum” (p. 3). According to Gaiser, we are subtly
teaching behaviors in hallway encounters with students or when responding
to their e-mails. Timeliness in returning messages, the nature of class assignments, and starting classes on time all send a message about an important
aspect of professional behavior. We also model professional practice when
we intervene when we observe negative interactions among students and
between students and faculty and staff. Every encounter potentially is grist
for the educational mill.
INTERVENING
IN NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS
Opportunities in the classroom. Educators and students recognize that
professional education requires students to actively engage with contentious
8
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
issues and propose the need for safe classroom environments, as defined
by Holley and Steiner (2005), to be “safety or a safe space in the classroom where students can freely express their ideas and feelings, particularly
around challenging areas such as diversity, cultural competence, and oppression” (p. 49). Studies of social work students and instructors show their
common recognition of the need for comfortable environments (Chan &
Treacy, 1996; Hyde & Ruth, 2002), where instructors take the leadership
in creating a climate of safety (Hyde & Ruth, 2002). However, social work
classes inevitably include discussion of emotionally charged topics, strongly
held personal and professional feelings, as well as complex, messy, and
thorny practice issues (Schon, 1987). Many have questioned whether the
metaphor of safety is realistic (Boostrom, 1998; Holley & Steiner, 2005;
Hyde & Ruth, 2002) given that difficulties will arise in communication,
understanding of one another, achieving mutual respect, and resolving different perspectives (Mishna & Rasmussen, 2001; Rasmussen & Mishna, 2003;
Mishna & Bogo, 2007).
Indeed, it appears that classroom instructors frequently are uncertain
and uncomfortable when faced with student behaviors that challenge the
maintenance of a desirable educational milieu. In response to this reality,
Chan and Treacy (1996) suggest instructors in fact may unwittingly influence classes in a direction that results in avoidance of conflict and difficult
emotions. For example, some students may respond harshly in class to comments of a fellow student who voices a particular view. Often, such students
do so without awareness of the negative impact their behavior has on the
interpersonal dynamics in the classroom and, in some instances, may feel so
self-righteous about their own views that they do not care if their demeanor
has intimidated their classmates. When this occurs, it is not unusual for classroom instructors to remain focused primarily on the content of their courses
and to overlook (or work around) the expression of educationally inappropriate feelings. The avoidance of attending to these dynamics could result
in less expressiveness by students in future classes, which could inhibit the
desired “spirit of inquiry.” The inattention to this area may be pronounced in
a course such as research or social welfare policy but also is likely to occur
in a practice course, which may well include attention to “use of self” as a
curriculum item.
Social work educators have recommended a number of useful strategies
to form and maintain productive environments such as developing classroom norms with students that include expectations for student behavior
as well as the responsibility of the instructor (Chan & Treacy, 1996; Garcia
& Van Soest, 1997, 2000a; Tatum, 1992). Norms can be discussed in a way
that highlights the tensions that may be encountered in classroom discussions. On one hand, we hope for spirited inquiry, expression of different
perspectives, and freedom to deal with difficult issues (Chan & Treacy, 1996;
Garcia & Van Soest, 2000b). On the other hand, such discussions sometimes
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
9
lead to misunderstandings, questioning of one anothers’ use of language
and tacit meanings, and challenging of opinions (Chand, Clare, & Dolton.
2002). Instructors often note that, despite best efforts to create an inclusive
classroom environment, discussion can become controversial. Reflecting on
the parallel with social work practice situations, where work with clients,
groups, teams, committees, and community members can lead to impasses
and ruptures, Mishna and Rasmussen (2001) recommend use of these experiences to teach about practice. The instructor’s ability to name and manage
tensions and to identify times when particular situations cannot be improved
and worked through sends a powerful implicit message about the stance of
social work practitioners.
While recognizing that there are many times when instructors are limited in their ability to change the classroom environment, the concept of
the implicit curriculum suggests that instructors cannot ignore rising tension
and conflict. They need to be attuned to the level of human interchange
(EPAS, 2008, p. 10) and, in spite of the structure and topic in the syllabus,
the course content needs to shift to consideration of the classroom interpersonal processes. This would involve setting limits on student-to-student
confrontations that can be destructive for individual students and for the
learning environment (Sullivan & Johns, 2002), meeting with students individually, and extending the discussion to include additional participants so
that a plurality of voices and opinions can be heard. Useful to this discussion is an alternate metaphor to safety, that of student civility, defined as
“the ability to act as a ‘citizen’ of a group and function in a positive manner so that individual engagement can benefit both the individual and the
group” (Marini, 2009, p. 61, offered by Barrett [2010]). Rather than working solely with intrapersonal thoughts and feelings and their expression in
the classroom, Barrett proposes that instructors intervene when observable
student behaviors cumulatively interfere with the overall quality of the learning through behaviors that range from interruptions to sarcasm to escalation
in tone, intimidating comments, and aggressive body language. Respect for
the significance of the implicit curriculum should stimulate the social work
education community to address the challenging question, how to balance
work with group dynamics and attention to substantive content. For now, it
remains a judgment call of the instructor.
Opportunities in school committees. The same principles of communication described in the discussion of the classroom may be applied to school
committee meetings. Surely every reader has served on school committees in
which the flow of unarticulated feelings interfered with a rational progression
toward getting the work done. Yet, to avoid open recognition and communication of these observations and feelings is common. In the presence of
students, such behavior will reinforce the attitudes most students have been
socialized into by the time they enter professional education: that conflict
and negative feelings are “not nice” to talk about. If the implicit curriculum
10
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
is to be as powerful as the explicit curriculum, social work educators need
to help reduce the social inhibitions that work against reaching professional
goals and objectives. Instead, they must reinforce and model the principles of
open communication that we teach, even when the venue is a task-oriented
committee.
Opportunities in the field placement process. The field education placement process also presents many opportunities for educating students
outside of the classroom and field settings. During the placement process,
field education faculty and staff observe students’ relationship patterns and
personality traits that may relate to their potential as professional social
workers. Some of these characteristics may make it a challenge to locate an
appropriate placement. All too often, field placement office personnel work
around these problems and maintain a singular focus on finding a placement
rather than trying to raise students’ awareness of the negative impact of their
behaviors and helping them to enter the practicum with educational objectives more closely related to the development of their professional selves.
The more common practice is to rely on the field instructor to address this
educational issue.
An example of the foregoing point arose when a field education placement coordinator, in a conversation with a colleague, relayed that she had
just come from working with a student who kept going on and on about
her past achievements. The staff person said the student just talked too
much and appeared to know little about professional boundaries. She complained that it was hard work just to keep the student focused on what was
needed for the placement process to continue. She concluded by saying,
“This one will be a handful to supervise.” If we consider it our responsibility to implement an implicit curriculum, this student would have been
made aware of her inappropriate and self-absorbed behavior as it unfolded
to the placement coordinator. She could have provided feedback to the student about her unfocused and unbounded manner of speech and let her
know that she will be learning more about this and about self-reflection
when she studies the interview process and professional communication in
class.
Challenges to Implementing These Interventions
There are many challenges to the implementation of a serious focus on
“human interchange” within the several venues of the social work education
program. After all, the educational culture has socialized us into expectations that the purpose of the classroom experience is to teach content, that
the purpose of the placement process is to build skills, and that committees are to do the work assigned. In working to meet each of these goals,
there is little expectation that the quality of interpersonal communications
will be assessed and addressed. Related to this is that faculty are more
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
11
accountable for scholarship, teaching, and service than for helping students
to improve their interactional skills. As long as an instructor’s teaching evaluations are satisfactory, there generally is relatively little attention paid to
classroom dynamics as a component of the educational process. In short,
there is little pressure and scant reward for attending to the socio-emotive
aspects of the classroom environment. Finally, it is difficult to address the
negative emotions that influence classroom dialogue. Initiating what is meant
to be a conflict resolution process could lead to hurt feelings, with little time
to assuage them and to end the class on a positive note. If we were to
strengthen this component of the implicit curriculum, classroom instructors
may need to gain skills in how to do so effectively.
Leaders in higher education have highlighted the role of doctoral programs in preparing the next generation of instructors and scholars for roles
in scholarship, research, and teaching. The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, Initiative on the Doctorate characterizes the purpose of doctoral education as preparing future stewards of a discipline
(Carnegie, 2011). This entails educating individuals who “will creatively generate new knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and
responsibly transform those understandings through writing, teaching, and
application” (Golde et al., 2006, p. 5). Leaders in social work doctoral education have argued also for recognizing the responsibility for the professional
enterprise “playing a central role . . . in understanding and improving social
work practice and the delivery of social work services” (Anastas & Kuerbis,
2009, p. 72). Following such an approach, doctoral programs would be
committed to developing social work educators with competence for effective practice as social work teachers as well as the capacity for curriculum
development and scholarship.
If teaching is conceived of as professional practice (Schon, 1987; referred
to as academic practice by Light, Calkins, & Cox, 2009), it requires knowledge about learning, accompanied by teaching experience. Such experiences
would include reflective supervision with peers and master teachers for the
purpose of examining one’s educational practice, developing a teaching persona, and developing the ability to recognize and intervene effectively with
the situations described in this article—situations that may arise when the
values embedded in the implicit curriculum need to be addressed in formal
and informal interactions. In his seminal work, Schon (1987) makes clear
that educating professionals requires a place and a space for students to
elaborate, refine, and modify existing knowledge through reflecting on its
meaning and usefulness for the particular situations encountered by a professional. It is unknown whether doctoral students currently experience this
type of preparation in doctoral social work programs. Indeed, it has been
more than a decade since the social work literature has provided systematic
information about preparation of doctoral students for their role as educators
(Valentine et al., 1998).
12
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
CONCLUSION
The implicit curriculum is a newly identified standard of the EPAS (2008).
This article focuses on one of its components, the “culture of human interchange.” Since the introduction of this standard, we expect social work
educators will begin to share the approaches they are using to implement the
Council’s expectations. Holosko, Skinner, MacCaughelty, and Stahl (2010) in
fact have appropriately credited the EPAS for the impetus to articulate and
formalize the significance of what “many of us have long understood [about]
the significance of professional socialization of social work students” (p. 421).
In order to maximize the influence of professional socialization and
acculturation, this article argues that the professional behaviors and practices
taught in the classroom need to be consciously reinforced in all venues of
the educational experience. The EPAS identifies field education as the arena
in which the application of the profession’s values become integrated with
practice. This article argues that the conceptual boundaries of the field be
expanded to all areas of the educational program. We argue, in fact, that
wherever students engage in professional and educational interactions with
others, they be helped to do so in a way that reflects the values and core
principles of our profession.
Movement in this direction would present an additional challenge to
instructors who are understandably focused on the content they teach.
However, since EPAS (2008) puts forth that “the implicit curriculum is as
important as the explicit curriculum in shaping the professional character
and competence of the program’s graduates” (p. 10), social work educators
are expected to meet the challenge.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, S., Szatmari, P., & Hanson, M. (2008). Teaching evidence-based psychiatry:
Integrating and aligning the formal and hidden curricula. Academic Psychiatry,
32(6), 470–474.
Anastas, J., & Kuerbis, A. N. (2009). Doctoral education in social work: What we
know and what we need to know. Social Work 54(1), 71–81.
Balmer, D. F., Master, C. L., Richards, B., & Giardino, A. P. (2009). Implicit versus explicit curricula in general pediatrics education: Is there a convergence?
Pediatrics, 124(2), e347–e354.
Barrett, B. J. (2010). Is “safety” dangerous? A critical examination of the classroom as
safe space. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
1(1), 1–12.
Billings, M. E., Engelberg, R., Curtis, J. R., Block, S., & Sullivan, A. M. (2010).
Determinants of medical students’ perceived preparation to perform end-oflife care, quality of end-of-life care education, and attitudes toward end-of-life
care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 13(3), 319–326.
The Implicit Curriculum in Social Work
13
Boostrom, R. (1998). ‘Safe spaces’: Reflections on an educational metaphor. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 30(4), 397–408.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of the Doctorate. (2011). Carnegie initiative on the doctorate. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
previous-work/professional-graduate-education
Chan, C. S., & Treacy, M. J. (1996). Resistance in multicultural courses: Student,
faculty, and classroom dynamics. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2),
212–221.
Chand, A., Clare, J., & Dolton, R. (2002). Teaching anti-oppressive practice on a
diploma in social work course: Lecturers’ experiences, students’ responses and
ways forward. Social Work Education, 21(1), 7–22.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of
school programs (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
EPAS. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Alexandria, VA:
Council on Social Work Education.
Gaiser, R. R. (2009). The teaching of professionalism during residency: Why it is failing and a suggestion to improve its success. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 108(3),
948–954.
Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Changing perceptions of diversity and oppression:
MSW students discuss the effects of a required course. Journal of Social Work
Education, 33(1), 119–129.
Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (2000a). Teaching about diversity: Learning from the analysis of critical classroom events. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 18(1/2),
149–167.
Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (2000b). Facilitating learning on diversity: Challenges
to the professor. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 9(1/2),
21–39.
Gofton, W., & Regehr, G. (2006). What we don’t know we are teaching: Unveiling
the hidden curriculum. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 449, 20–27.
Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral
education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hafferty, F. W. (1998). Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden
curriculum. Academic Medicine, 73(4), 403–407.
Hafferty, F. W., & Franks, R. (1994). The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the
structure of medical education. Academic Medicine, 69(11), 861–871.
Hilton, S. R., & Slotnick, H. B. (2005). Proto-professionalism: How professionalisation
occurs across the continuum of medical education. Medical Education, 39(1),
58–65.
Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom
environment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49–64.
Holloway, S., Black, P., Hoffman, K., & Pierce, D. (2008). Some considerations of
the import of the 2008 EPAS for curriculum design. Retrieved from http://www.
cswe.org/File.aspx?id=31578
Holosko, M., Skinner, J., MacCaughelty, C., & Stahl, K. M. (2010). Building the
implicit BSW curriculum at a large southern state university. Journal of Social
Work Education, 46(3), 411–423.
Hyde, C. A., & Ruth, B. J. (2002). Multicultural content and class participation: Do
students self-censor? Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 241–256.
14
M. Bogo and J. Wayne
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms [Reissued edition]. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Karnieli-Miller, O., Vu, T. R., Holtman, M. C., Clyman, S. G., & Inui, T. S. (2010).
Medical students’ professionalism narratives: A window on the informal and
hidden curriculum. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,
85(1), 124–133.
Light, G., Calkins, S., & Cox, R. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education:
The reflective professional. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marini, Z. (2009). The thin line between civility and incivility: Fostering reflection and self-awareness to create a civil learning community. Collected Essays
on Teaching and Learning, 2, 61–67. Retrieved from http://edit.brocku.ca/
webfm_send/3828
Mishna, F., & Bogo, M. (2007). Reflective practice in contemporary social work
classrooms. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 529–541.
Mishna, F., & Rasmussen, B. (2001). The learning relationship: Working through
disjunctions in the classroom. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29(4), 387–399.
Rasmussen, B., & Mishna, F. (2003). The relevance of psychodynamic theories to
teaching social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74, 31–47.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3),
52–59.
Shulman, L. (2010). The skills and dynamics of teaching: Addressing the hidden group
in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.socialwork.buffalo.edu/facstaff/
skills_dynamics.asp
Shulman, L. (2012). The dynamics and skills of classroom teaching: Integrating
content and process in a social work practice course. CSWE electronic teaching resources website [www.CSWE.org]. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.
org/Publications/56618.aspx
Solomon, M. A., & Lee, A. M. (2008). Research on social issues in elementary school physical education. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3),
229–239.
Sullivan, E., & Johns, R. (2002). Challenging values and inspiring attitude change:
Creating an effective learning experience. Social Work Education, 21(2),
217–231.
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application
of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(1), 1–24.
Thiedke, C., Blue, A. V., Chessman, A. W., Keller, A. H., & Mallin, R. (2004). Student
observations and ratings of preceptor’s interactions with patients: The hidden
curriculum. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(4), 312–316.
Valentine, D. P., Edwards, S., Gohagan, D., Huff, M., Pereira, A., & Wilson, P. (1998).
Preparing social work doctoral students for teaching: Report of a survey. Journal
of Social Work Education, 34, 273–282.
Wear, D., & Skillicorn, J. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The formal, informal, and
hidden curricula of a psychiatry clerkship. Academic Medicine, 84(4), 451–458.
Copyright of Journal of Teaching in Social Work is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.