Article and Critique - TR's Hidden Curriculum


TherapeuTic recreaTion Journal Vol. XlIV, No. 3 213–222 2010
Conceptual Paper
Beyond Curriculum Reform: Therapeutic Recreation’s Hidden Curriculum
Marieke Van Puymbroeck David R. Austin Bryan P. McCormick
Abstract
Educators in the field of therapeutic recreation influence their students through for- mal and informal means, and overt and covert behaviors. Formal means and overt behav- iors are the traditional teaching that occurs in the course of instruction. Informal means and covert behaviors are what occur in the context of the learning environment, not only in the classroom but in interacting outside of the classroom and observing faculty behavior and departmental messages. These informal and covert means, termed “hidden curriculum,” may influence student’s beliefs about the field as strongly as the formal and overt behaviors. This article defines hidden curriculum, describes the faculty, structural and cultural influences on hidden curricula, describes the current state that many thera- peutic recreation curricula exist within, and offers suggestions for faculty and administra- tors to consider when examining their programs.
KEYWORDS: Curriculum reform, formal education, hidden curriculum, informal education, professional preparation
Please send correspondence to: Marieke Van Puymbroeck, Ph.D., CTRS, Assistant Professor, Indiana University, 1025 E. 7th Street, HPER 133, Bloomington, IN 47405. Email: mvp@indiana.edu; Phone: 812-855-3093
David R. Austin, Ph.D., CTRS, Professor Emeritus, Indiana University Bryan P. McCormick, Ph.D, CTRS, Associate Professor, Indiana University
VaN puymbroeCk, ausTIN, aNd mCCormICk 213
Curriculum is the primary vehicle for assuring quality professional prepara- tion for those who enter the therapeutic recreation profession. What occurs within therapeutic recreation in the 21st century will largely be determined by the type of curriculum provided those studying in our universities. Thus the future of our pro- fession rests in great measure on how we prepare those entering our profession. As Compton (2008) proclaimed: “Education and training is the life blood of any legiti- mate profession” (p. 212). Yet studies have found that university therapeutic recre- ation curricula are perceived as lacking the depth and breadth required by graduates (Compton & Austin, 1994/95; Hamilton & Austin, 1992). As a result there have been a number of calls for curriculum reform in therapeutic recreation (e.g., Austin, 2002a; Brasile, 1992; Compton, Austin, & Yang, 2001) and two conferences for therapeutic recreation educators (TREC and TREC II) were conducted within the past 5 years in order for faculty to critically examine cur- ricular reform (Compton).
Without exception, those dealing with therapeutic recreation curriculum have fo- cused on the formal curriculum reflected in courses and course syllabi. Neglected in the literature of therapeutic recreation has been what is termed the “hidden cur- riculum,” or the curriculum “composed of dimensions other than the intended and explicit curriculum...” (Hafferty, 1998, p. 404).
It has been argued that the hidden curriculum can have even more of an im- pact on learning outcomes than the formal curriculum (Gordon, 1982). In fact, the renowned educational philosopher John Dewey has been cited by Wear and Skilli- corn (2009) as suggesting it is “the collater- al learning that goes on in educational set- tings that may have more of a lasting effect on learners than the formal curriculum”(p.
452). These authors thus concluded that “...the hidden curriculum shapes behavior so much that mastery of the hidden cur- riculum is as important as mastery of the formal one” (p. 452).
It is interesting to note that at least one kindred profession has taken the concept of the hidden curriculum seriously. Much of the literature on the hidden curriculum in higher education has focused on the field of medical education (e.g., Aultman, 2005; Cribb & Bignold, 1999; D’Eon, Lear, Turner, & Jones, 2007; Hafferty, 1998; Haf- ferty & Franks, 1994; Lempp & Seale, 2004; Ozolins, Hall, & Peterson, 2008; Stephen- son, Higgs, Sugarman, 2001). Ozolins et al. (2008) found that medical students were aware that hidden curriculum existed and played an integral part in their education. Wear and Skillicorn (2009) identified three hidden curriculum themes in their research on training in psychiatry. These themes involved the influences of role modeling, the use of time by practitioners, and the value of experience and intuition as con- trasted with textbook learning. Lempp and Seale (2004) reported that medical students identified both positive (e.g., positive role models, approachable teachers) and nega- tive (e.g., competitive atmosphere, teach- ing by humiliation) aspects of hidden cur- riculum. Hafferty (1998) illustrated the importance of the hidden curriculum in medical education stating that:
Not all of what is taught during medical training is captured in course catalogs, class syllabi, lec- ture notes and handouts, or the mountains of documents com- piled during accreditation re- views. Indeed, a great deal of what is taught—and most of what is learned—in medical school takes place not within formal course offerings but within medicine’s ‘hidden curriculum.’ (p. 403)
214
Tr’s hIddeN CurrICulum
We believe a similar statement to that of Hafferty’s words on medical edu- cation could be made about therapeutic recreation education. In this paper we will introduce the concept of the hidden cur- riculum, illustrate ways in which it can and has affected professional preparation in therapeutic recreation, and suggest ap- proaches that educators and institutions need to take in order to fully consider the hidden curriculum. In so doing, we hope to alert educators and practitioners to the existence of the hidden curriculum and to challenge what have been unacknowl- edged practices that have had a great im- pact on the therapeutic recreation profes- sion.
Defining the Hidden Curriculum
It is important to recognize that a hid- den curriculum coexists with both formal and informal curricula. Hafferty (1998) characterized the formal curriculum as that which is intended, formally stated, and endorsed. Examples of the formal cur- riculum in therapeutic recreation include course syllabi, course catalogues, and stu- dent handbooks. In contrast, the informal curriculum has been characterized as prin- cipally interpersonal and ad hoc in nature. The informal curriculum is transmitted through interactions between teachers and trainees and often represents unplanned instruction in which teachers’ transmit beliefs about what students should learn (Wear & Sillicorn, 2009). Overlaid on both the formal and informal curriculum is the hidden curriculum.
Horn (2003) has described hidden cur- riculum as “a broad category that includes all of the unrecognized and sometimes unintended knowledge, values, and beliefs that are part of the learning process....” (p. 298). According to a number of schol- ars in the medical education field, hidden curriculum incorporates overt and cover demands related to scholarship (Bergen-
henegouwen, 1987; Stephenson & Higgs, 2001), and social expectations about the field (Wirtz, Cribb, & Barber, 2003). In one of the most recent interpretations of hid- den curriculum, Wear and Skillicorn (2009) indicated it “includes the ideological and subliminal messages of both the formal and informal curricula” (p. 452). Further, they posit that the hidden curriculum can be conveyed based on behavior or through institutional practice. Thus, one type of in- fluence is that of faculty on students that takes place through interactions inside and outside the classroom. A second type of in- fluence is that of the structure and culture of the organization in which the curricu- lum is delivered. From these descriptions, hidden curriculum can be summarized as overt and covert messages that impact student learning and socialization to the field.
It is to these two major areas that we now turn in order to explore the impact on the field of the hidden curriculum in thera- peutic recreation. First, we review potential influences of therapeutic recreation faculty on students. Then, we examine structural and cultural influences on what is learned by therapeutic recreation students through the hidden curriculum.
Influences of Faculty
To begin the discussion of faculty in- fluences on students it must be acknowl- edged that the formal and hidden curri- cula are in dynamic interplay. The formal curriculum provides an important vehicle around which faculty organize learning and is one means through which faculty transmit hidden curriculum. Faculty mem- bers can easily convey hidden curriculum. Each has his or her individual standards of excellence, rigor, values, beliefs, biases, ex- pectations, relationship style, and passion for the profession; all of which can be read- ily displayed in interactions with students.
Faculty influences may be felt from
VaN puymbroeCk, ausTIN, aNd mCCormICk
215
the time of initial contacts with students. Because students typically depend on the therapeutic recreation faculty to acquaint them with the field, faculty may provide a clinical or a non-clinical interpretation of what professionals do in therapeutic recre- ation.1 Thus, the very foundation for the student’s learning can be set by their basic understanding of the field gained from the faculty person whom they first encounter.
Another example of faculty influence is with the way they approach a course. What may be taught or emphasized by one instructor in a course with the same title and catalog description may be very different from what is emphasized by an- other instructor. An example would be the instructor’s choice of the textbook for the course. This choice can signal a certain ap- proach to the course. For instance, an in- structor who wishes to influence students toward a non-clinical approach to thera- peutic recreation may adopt a textbook that does not emphasize clinical practice.
Because the formal curriculum does not exist in a vacuum (Hafferty & Frank, 1994), faculty may strongly influence stu- dents by expressing their values, attitudes, and beliefs. Faculty views may be expressed in classrooms or in informal interactions before or after class in the hall, the faculty member’s office, or virtually any venue where faculty and students interact. It is through this socialization process that stu- dents tend to obtain their views. The po- tential to have a great impact on students is enormous in a profession that has not yet established a firm set of professional values that reflect the profession’s attitudes and beliefs (Austin, 2009).
Faculty may also influence students through role modeling. Students often
learn what they perceive to be the norms and expectations for their profession by observing their professors. If faculty are highly engaged members of professional associations students will likely observe this professional behavior and assume that they should become active in professional organizations. Of course, should faculty neglect professionalism, students will like- ly not realize the importance of maintain- ing professional affiliations.
Additionally, students generally gain knowledge about, and an appreciation for, research and scholarship through their in- teractions with faculty. If faculty engage in scholarly activities such as authoring textbooks and conducting research, stu- dents will come to understand and prize scholarship. If faculty do not engage in scholarship there is an obvious danger that their students may fail to see importance of professional literature or empirical find- ings, which may lead them to become anti- intellectual practitioners.
Finally, the types of internship place- ments (e.g., highly clinical or non-clinical) that faculty steer students toward can greatly influence student perceptions of what therapeutic recreation is and how it should be provided. Similarly, the level of professionalism displayed by intern super- visors can send messages to student interns about the level of professionalism that is expected by those actually practicing in the field.
These are some of the ways that facul- ty can significantly influence their students through the hidden curriculum. It should be clear that student behaviors, norms, at- titudes, and values may be shaped by uni- versity faculty outside of the delivery of the formal curriculum or through faculty
1 The term clinical as used here does not denote a traditional medical model or medical setting. Similarly, non-clinical does not denote a non-medical setting. Rather clinical is used in the context of the delivery of purposeful interventions employing the systematic process of assessment, planning an intervention, implementing the intervention, and evaluat- ing outcomes. The setting in which services occur is unrelated to our use of the terms clinical and non-clinical. See Austin (2002a) for further interpretation of the term clinical.
216 Tr’s hIddeN CurrICulum
influencing students through the formal curriculum in ways unarticulated by the official curriculum.
Structural and Cultural Influences
To recognize that therapeutic recre- ation education includes a hidden cur- riculum also encourages the examination of the effect organizational structures and cultures can have on what students learn. Much of what are students learn can come from effects the university, school, and de- partment housing their curriculum have on them.
University, school, and department policies can play a large role in influencing what constitutes the therapeutic recreation curriculum in a given institution. For in- stance, universities and schools regularly have general education requirements that all graduates must meet. Typically, the type of school in which the department housing the curriculum is located influences school requirements. For example, students in a department located in a school of educa- tion will likely be have to take at least a few education courses and be exposed to the hidden curriculum evolving out of a cul- ture that reflects educational terms, norms, attitudes, values, and beliefs.
An even greater impact on therapeutic recreation students can come from the cul- ture reflected by the department in which the therapeutic recreation curriculum is located. Therapeutic recreation curricula are commonly housed in departments of recreation, parks, and tourism and in recre- ation programs in departments of health, physical education, recreation, and dance (HPERD; Stumbo, Carter, & Kim, 2004). If the department faculty views therapeu- tic recreation as a specialization within recreation and parks, it is likely that the therapeutic recreation curriculum will be thought of as not a separate professional entity but simply as an emphasis within recreation. This will place the therapeutic
recreation curriculum on a par with oth- er emphases such as outdoor recreation, sport management, park management, and tourism. In such instances the entire departmental faculty hold the responsibil- ity to approve the therapeutic recreation curriculum because of its standing of being an emphasis within the overall recreation curriculum. Thus the hidden curriculum of the standing of therapeutic recreation as a profession versus a specialization or em- phasis is often embedded in the structure of the department.
In an instance where the overriding mission of a department or program is pre- paring students to organize, market, and deliver recreation services there may be a direct conflict with the mission of the ther- apeutic recreation curriculum if it exists to prepare students to use recreation primar- ily as a medium to restore and promote health. In this instance, the therapeutic recreation students would likely receive mixed messages through the hidden cur- riculum. On one side, the overall faculty and the culture of the department would likely transmit messages regarding the im- portance of recreation as an end in itself, while the therapeutic recreation faculty would deliver messages about the value of recreation as a means to the end of health enhancement. Adams (1992) emphasized the potentially powerful effect faculty may have on students due to the fact that they can transmit the cultural systems they em- brace both through the control they ex- ercise over the curriculum and how they teach.
Thus, the structures and culture of the university, school, and particularly the de- partment, can have a large and direct im- pact on faculty attitudes, values and beliefs that are likely to be reflected in both the formal curriculum and hidden curricu- lum. This, as has been indicated, has direct ramifications for therapeutic recreation
VaN puymbroeCk, ausTIN, aNd mCCormICk
217
students and what they are exposed to through both the formal and hidden cur- ricula.
Status of Hidden Curriculum in Therapeutic Recreation
It is conceivable that every therapeu- tic recreation professional preparation pro- gram has a hidden curriculum that impacts on the attitudes, values, and beliefs that students take away from their educational experiences. Further, we believe the cur- rent state of therapeutic recreation curri- cula can be understood, at least in part, by comprehending the notion of the hidden curriculum.
Because therapeutic recreation curri- cula exist primarily in departments of rec- reation, parks, and tourism and recreation programs in departments of HPERD, to a large degree they have taken on the culture that is a part of those departments. Broad- ly, faculty in recreation, parks, and tourism curricula wish their students to develop positive attitudes toward recreation and leisure experiences that they believe all people should enjoy. Further, these units promote values and beliefs regarding the professional’s responsibility to develop and deliver recreation and leisure services that satisfy people’s needs for recreation.
With the culture of these departments focused around the delivery of positive rec- reation experiences, it would be natural for faculty to perceive therapeutic recreation specialists as an occupational group that seek to bring recreation to persons with ill- nesses and disabilities. It should be noted that this view of therapeutic recreation is in sharp contrast to those therapeutic rec- reation practitioners in healthcare agencies that employ recreation as a modality to be used in treatment or rehabilitation (Austin, 2009).
In the 1970s and 1980s the field of therapeutic recreation was struggling with understanding its own identity. Some saw
the mission of therapeutic recreation to be the provision of special recreation ser- vices for persons with disabilities. Oth- ers perceived therapeutic recreation to be a healthcare profession directed toward health enhancement (Austin, 2002b). In an effort to provide a conceptual foun- dation for practice, University of Illinois professors Carol Peterson and Scout Gunn (1984) developed the first formal concep- tual model for therapeutic recreation. They termed it the Leisure Ability Model. Under this model therapeutic recreation existed to facilitate “the development, mainte- nance, and expression of an appropriate leisure lifestyle” (Peterson & Gunn, 1984, p. 15) for individuals with disabilities.
This model was quickly adopted by many university faculty members who in- structed students in therapeutic recreation. In retrospect, three major reasons seem to have enhanced its adoption. One reason for the embracement of the Peterson/Gunn model was that it appeared in their widely used textbook titled Therapeutic Recreation Program Design (Peterson & Gunn, 1984). The second reason was that Peterson and Gunn were charismatic national figures who continually disseminated their model across the United States. While Gunn has since left the profession, the significant in- fluence of Peterson has been made abun- dantly clear in a tribute by Sneegas (2002). The third, and perhaps major reason for the acceptance of the model was that the Leisure Ability Model fit perfectly within the culture of recreation, parks, and tour- ism departments and recreation programs in HPERD departments that had as their mission preparing students for careers di- rected to the development and delivery of recreation services. The model matched the values, attitudes, and beliefs expound- ed within the departments that housed therapeutic recreation professional prepa- ration programs.
218
Tr’s hIddeN CurrICulum
The Leisure Ability Model has been criticized in the literature of therapeutic recreation (e.g., Austin, 2009; Bullock, 1987) and was perceived by respondents in one study to be less than adequate as a conceptual model (Hamilton & Austin, 1992). Nevertheless, the Leisure Ability Model continues to be widely embraced and has been termed “the best-known model of therapeutic recreation” (Austin, p. 168). The utility of this model may lead general recreation, parks, and tourism fac- ulty and therapeutic recreation faculty to hold the view of therapeutic recreation as being largely the delivery of recreation services to persons with disabilities. This necessarily influences the values, attitudes, and beliefs they share with therapeutic rec- reation students.
These conveyors of hidden curriculum espouse views that stand in contrast to the position that therapeutic recreation exists as a profession that employs recreation as a purposeful intervention to bring about spe- cific health enhancing outcomes. This has occurred in a period of time when much of the literature of therapeutic recreation cur- riculum is focused therapeutic recreation’s place in healthcare (e.g., Keogh Hoss, Pow- ell, & Sable, 2005; Riley & Skalko, 1998; Shank & Coyle, 2002) so there is the ob- vious potential for the hidden curriculum conveyed by many faculty to not coincide with what is occurring within therapeu- tic recreation. Recognition of this conflict between the non-clinical and clinical ap- proaches to therapeutic recreation prompt- ed Brasile (2005) to state that “Instead of buying in to an old and antiquated para- digm, we now need to ascertain just who we (i.e., those in therapeutic recreation) are and where we are as a profession today, and then determine where we fit within the health care or parks and recreation dis- cipline” (p. 3).
One method to incorporate a health related model that would speak clearly about the place of therapeutic recreation within the healthcare framework would be to incorporate the World Health Organiza- tion’s (WHO) International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF; WHO, 2001). Both the American Thera- peutic Recreation Association and National Therapeutic Recreation Society have each issued statements embracing the model (American Therapeutic Recreation Asso- ciation, 2005; personal communication, Alexis McKenney, June 19, 2008). Further, therapeutic recreation scholars have de- scribed the model and its potential use in research, education and practice in recent manuscripts (Howard, Browning, & Lee, 2007; Porter & Van Puymbroeck, 2007; Van Puymbroeck, Porter, & McCormick, 2009). Finally, a book using the ICF model as the framework for practice was recently published (Porter & burlingame, 2006). In addition, there have been a number of pre- sentations related to the ICF and its utility in therapeutic recreation practice at a num- ber of national and state conferences (e.g., Howard, McCormick, & Van Puymbroeck, 2005; Howard & Van Puymbroeck, 2006; Van Puymbroeck, McCormick, Howard, & Lee, 2006; Van Puymbroeck, 2007). Thus, while the exposure of the ICF model with- in the field has been great, students within therapeutic recreation curricula will not be learning the nomenclature, structure, or philosophy behind the ICF if it is not integrated into the classroom. If the hope is that students will be able to function as part of a multidisciplinary health related team, it will be important for them to uti- lize a model understood by individuals in allied health fields.
Hopefully resulting from this explana- tion is an understanding of how the atti- tudes, values, and beliefs held by those in a department can impact on both the estab-
VaN puymbroeCk, ausTIN, aNd mCCormICk
219
lishment of the official curriculum and the transmission of hidden curriculum. Yet, to date there has been no explicit acknowl- edgement of how the culture of depart- ments and the views of individual faculty influence the educational outcomes of stu- dents in therapeutic recreation.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Adams (1992) exclaimed that: “In aca- deme, as in any culture of origin, many of the most sacrosanct practices remain un- stated, unexamined and unacknowledged unless they are challenged by divergent beliefs from outside the predominant cul- ture” (p.1). This statement certainly can be applied to the notion of hidden curricu- lum in therapeutic recreation. While there has been a substantial amount of litera- ture appear on hidden curriculum (Wear & Skillicorn, 2009), its existence has not been acknowledged by those responsible for professional preparation in therapeutic recreation. It is time that university per- sonnel fully acknowledge the culture that has affected therapeutic recreation curri- cula since their inception.
Without an awareness of the hidden curriculum, unacknowledged influences will continue to operate on therapeutic recreation curricula. Further, without ex- amination of the attitudes, values, and beliefs imbedded within departments and held by faculty, both the formal curricula and hidden curricula of therapeutic recre- ation are likely to be covertly influenced without recognition of what attitudes, val- ues, and beliefs are being transmitted.
It seems imperative that faculty, ad- ministrators, students, and other key con- stituencies (e.g., advisory councils) at each university join together in the identifica- tion of hidden curriculum that exists with- in the therapeutic recreation professional preparation program. Methods used to examine hidden curriculum have included
interviews (Lempp & Seale, 2004) and fo- cus groups (Ozolins et al., 2008; Wear & Skillicorn, 2009). Masella (2006) has rec- ommended surveying senior students and alumni to determine components of hid- den curriculum.
Once identified, the positive compo- nents of the hidden curriculum need to be strengthened and negative ones eliminat- ed. Of course, in order to begin the process of identification of the hidden curriculum it is critical that faculty and administrators acquaint themselves with the notion of the hidden curriculum and acknowledge the need to examine it.
It would appear that therapeutic recre- ation faculty should become the catalysts to ignite a national examination of hidden curriculum in departments with therapeu- tic recreation curricula. It is also therapeu- tic recreation faculty who will primarily transmit the attitudes, values, and beliefs needed by their graduates by proclaim- ing them to students and modeling them for students. Learning from faculty can be transformational as students make connec- tions between their inner motivational sys- tems and the attitudes, values, and beliefs shared by those in the therapeutic recre- ation profession.
Because of the potentially powerful impact of faculty on students it is impera- tive that we have exceptional faculty that are well prepared as teachers and scholars and who demonstrate to students their passion for their profession. Unfortunately, for some time there has existed a shortage of highly prepared faculty in therapeu- tic recreation (Ashton-Shaeffer, Kunstler, Skalko, & Voelkl, 2005; Compton & Aus- tin, 1994/95; Compton, Austin, & Yang, 2001; Hamilton & Austin, 1992). The shortage of qualified faculty is a real con- cern for the successful transmission to stu- dents of the attitudes, values, and beliefs shared by those in therapeutic recreation,
220
Tr’s hIddeN CurrICulum
as well as achieving success in launching a movement to examine hidden curricula.
In closing, it should be emphasized that while the focus of this paper is on the hidden curriculum, it is not meant to detract from the importance of the formal curriculum. It is critical that advancements be made in terms of improving formal cur- ricula in therapeutic recreation. Formal and hidden curricula are in dynamic inter- play and that both the formal and implic- itly imparted components of curriculum need to be acknowledged and considered in therapeutic recreation professional preparation programs.
RefeRences
Adams, M. (1992). Academic culture: The hidden curriculum. Excerpted with permission from L. Border & N. Chism, Teaching for Diversity: The Opening of the College Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 49. Re- trieved from http://programs.weber.edu/tlf/ POD/packet5/v3n6.htm
American Therapeutic Recreation Association. (2005). News release: ATRA affirms support for ICF. Retrieved from http://www.atra-tr. org/Press%releases/ATRA%20ICF%20state- ment%20Newsrelease%20.pdf
Ashton-Shaeffer, C., Kunstler, R., Skalko, T., & Voelkl, J. (2005). Master’s education in thera- peutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Ed- ucators’ Conference (TREC) Concept Paper. Retrieved from http://www.atra-tr.org/trec/ conceptpapers.htm
Aultman, J. M. (2005). Uncovering the hidden medical curriculum through a pedagogy of discomfort. Advances in Health Sciences Edu- cation, 10, 263 – 273.
Austin, D. R. (2002a). Therapeutic recreation edu- cation: A call for reform. In D.R. Austin, J. Dattilo, & B. P. McCormick (Eds.), Concep- tual Foundations for Therapeutic Recreation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., pp. 207–224.
Austin, D. R. (2002b). A third revolution in thera- peutic recreation?. In D.R. Austin, J. Dattilo, & B.P. McCormick (Eds.), Conceptual Founda- tions for Therapeutic Recreation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., pp. 273–287.
Austin, D. R. (2009). Therapeutic recreation process- es and techniques (6th edition). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, Inc.
Bain, L. L. (1985). The hidden curriculum re-ex- amined. Quest, 37, 145–153.
Bergenhenegouwen, G. (1987). Hidden cur- riculum in the university. Higher Education, 16(5), 535–543.
Brasile, F. (1992). Professional preparation: Re- ported needs for a profession in transition. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 3, 58–71.
Brasile, F. M. (2005). Response to concept paper on undergraduate education in
therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Educators’ Conference (TREC) Concept Pa- per. Retrieved from http://www.atra-tr.org/ trec/conceptpapers.htm
Bullock, C. C. (1987). Recreation and special populations. In A. Graefe & S. Parker (Eds.), Recreation: An Introductory Handbook. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Compton, D. M. (2008). Call for papers: Therapeu- tic Recreation Journal special issue on “trends and innovations in therapeutic recreation higher education.” Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 4(4), 212-213.
Compton, D., Austin, D., & Yang, H. (2001). A national study of perceptions related to therapeutic recreation faculty and curricula. Expanding Horizons in Therapeutic Recreation, 19, 49–60.
Compton, D. M., & Austin, D. R. (1994/95). Per- ceptions of therapeutic recreation in higher education. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 5, 57–67.
Cribb, A., & Bignold, S. (1999). Towards the re- flexive medical school: The hidden curricu- lum and medical education research. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 195–209.
D’Eon, M., Lear, N., Turner, M., & Jones, C. (2007). Perils of the hidden curriculum re- visited. Medical Teacher, 29, 295–296.
Gordon, D. (1982). The concept of the hidden curriculum. Journal of Philosophy of Educa- tion, 16(2), 187–198.
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 struc- ture of medical education. Academic Medi- cine, 69(11), 861–871.
VaN puymbroeCk, ausTIN, aNd mCCormICk
221
Hamilton, E.J., & Austin, D.R. (1992). Future per- spectives of therapeutic recreation. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 3, 72–79.
Horn, R. (2003). Developing a critical awareness of the hidden curriculum through media literacy. The Clearing House, 76(6), 298–300.
Howard, D., Browning, C., & Lee, Y. (2007). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Therapeutic recre- ation code sets and salient diagnostic core sets. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(1), 61-81.
Howard, D., McCormick, B., & Van Puymbroeck, M. (2005). The World Health Organizations’ ICF Model: Structure, implications, and use in recreation therapy practice, research, and higher education. Therapeutic Recreation Education Conference. Itasca, Illinois.
Howard, D., & Van Puymbroeck, M. (2006). Inter- national Classification of Functioning, Disabil- ity, and Health: Implications for TR. American Therapeutic Recreation Association. Orlan- do, Florida.
Keogh Hoss, M. A., Powell, L., & Sable, J. (2005).
Health care trends: Implications for therapeu- tic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Edu- cators’ Conference (TREC) Concept Paper. Retrieved from http://www.atra-tr.org/trec/ conceptpapers.htm
Lempp, H., & Seale, C. (2004). The hidden curric- ulum in undergraduate medical education: Qualitative study of medical students’ per- ceptions of teaching. British Medical Journal, 329, 770 – 773.
Masella, R.S. (2006). The hidden curriculum: Value added in dental education. Journal of Dental Education, 70, 279 – 283.
Ozolins, I., Hall, H., & Peterson, R. (2008). The student voice: Recognising the hidden and informal curriculum in medicine. Medical Teacher, 30, 606 – 611.
Peterson, C.A., & Gunn, S.L. (1984). Therapeutic recreation program design (2nd edition). En- glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Porter, H. R., & burlingame, J. (2006). Recreational therapy handbook of practice: ICF-based diag- nosis and treatment. Enumclaw, WA: Idyll Arbor
Porter, H. R., & Van Puymbroeck, M. (2007). Utili- zation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health within therapeutic recreation practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(1), 47-60.
Riley, B., & Skalko, T.K. (1998). The evolution of therapeutic recreation. Parks and Recreation, 33(5), 65–71.
Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2002). Therapeutic recre- ation in health promotion and rehabilitation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Sneegas, J.J. (2002). Carol Ann Peterson. In D. R. Austin, J. Dattilo, & B. P. McCormick (Eds.), Conceptual Foundations for Therapeutic Recre- ation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Stephenson, A., Higgs, R., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Teaching professional development in medi- cal schools. The Lancet, 357(9259), 867–870.
Stumbo, N., Carter, M. J., & Kim, J. (2004). Na- tional therapeutic recreation study part a: Accreditation, curriculum and internship characteristics. Therapeutic Recreation Jour- nal, 38(1), 32–52.
Van Puymbroeck, M. (2007). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and its impact on the field of therapeu- tic recreation. Presented at the Longwood University Alumni Therapeutic Recreation. Farmville, Virginia.
Van Puymbroeck, M., McCormick, B., Howard, D., & Lee, Y. (2006). The International Classi- fication of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Recreation Therapists of Indiana. Lafayette, Indiana.
Van Puymbroeck, M., Porter, H., & McCormick, B. P. (2009). The role of the International Clas- sification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) in therapeutic recreation prac- tice, research, and education. In N. Stumbo (Ed.), Client Outcomes in Therapeutic Recre- ation (pp. 43-57). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
Wear, D. & Skillicorn, J. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The formal, informal, and hidden cur- ricula of a psychiatry clerkship. Academic Medicine, 84(4), 451–458.
Wirtz, V., Cribb, A., & Barber, N. (2003). Un- derstanding the role of “the hidden cur- riculum” in resource allocation—the case of the UK NHS. Health Care Analysis, 11(4), 295–300.
222
Tr’s hIddeN CurrICulum










Critique of:  Beyond Curriculum Reform: Therapeutic Recreation’s Hidden Curriculum
Chalese Adams
Brigham Young University













Critique of:  Beyond Curriculum Reform: Therapeutic Recreation’s Hidden Curriculum
            There are many different things that can influence the education a student receives in any situation. These different aspects that influence the education a student receives is examined in the article: Beyond Curriculum Reform: Therapeutic Recreation’s Hidden Curriculum by Van Puymbroeck, Austin & McCormick (2010). To examine this article further I will summarize the key points, emphasize strengths and weaknesses the article contains and then show how it can apply to my life as a current therapeutic recreation student.
Summary
            This article emphasizes the different components that can go into the education of a recreation professional. The authors point out many factors that go unmeasured that can influence a student’s education including: quality of professors, cultural factors, and structural factors. The article then continues to talk about the Leisure Ability Model and how it influenced and continues to influence different perceptions students have of therapeutic recreation by the educational background it gives.
Strengths of the Article
             There are three main strengths in this article. The first is that it is well organized and has the rest of the article mapped out with headings and clear topic sentences. The second is that the authors define formal and informal curriculum and then describe the relation of these two types of curriculum to the hidden curriculum—the main focus of their article. The third and final strength I found in this article is the author’s argument about the influence of professors on the student. They claim that the professor can influence the student’s perception of the therapeutic recreation field to be clinically or non-clinically based. I believe this is a good point because it supports their main argument that there is hidden curriculum in the field of therapeutic recreation.
Weaknesses of the Article
There are three main weaknesses in this article. The first is that measuring hidden curriculum is difficult because this article states that to measure it you have to use behaviors of the recreational therapist or the practices implemented in each individual institution, two aspects that aren’t the easiest to measure because they aren’t quantifiable. The second major weakness I found in this article is that it explained that the category most recreational therapy programs are in is HPHERD (Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance) and the main focus is providing recreational opportunities to people with disabilities instead of using recreation as part of the treatment or rehabilitation process. This is a problem because this hidden curriculum hinders the recreational therapists from seeing a broader purpose for their services. The third weakness is the largest. It can be summarized best by the authors when they state, “Yet to date there has been no explicit acknowledgement of how the culture of departments and views of the faculty influence the educational outcome of students in therapeutic recreation” (Van Puymbroeck, Austin & McCormick, 2010, p. 220). This negates much of their main argument. They are stating that there isn’t much of a purpose to their article because there is no explicit evidence.
Application
            This article applies to me personally because in class we have been talking about the Leisure Ability Model. However this is the only thing that can be applied currently because one of the weaknesses was the inability for the authors to claim evidence for their argument. This article needs further research to be applied fully. The idea of the paper is very intriguing despite the lack of evidence for the major argument.  
Personal Reaction and Interest
             I was interested in this article because I wasn’t quite sure what hidden curriculum meant and the title intrigued me. After reading through the complete article I can personally see how some cultural aspects of learning about therapeutic recreation (TR) has influenced my perception of the field as a whole.  Being at Brigham Young University (BYU) provides a base understanding of the worth of every individual and influences how I perceive the principles of TR that I am being taught by my professors. Therefore I do believe that this article does have a point and even though some of the evidence can’t be documented statistically it does ring true to me personally.










References
Van Puymbroeck, M., Austin, D. R., & McCormick, B. P. (2010). Beyond curriculum reform: Therapeutic recreation’s hidden curriculum. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 64(3), 213-222.

No comments:

Post a Comment