Increasing complexities: Teaching public policy in the age of discontent

Introduction

Introductory courses on public policy aim to bring together concepts and skills that enable students to understand policy problems and to consider ways to address these problems. In Australia, many introductory courses on public policy sit within broader Bachelor of Arts, Law, Social Science and Business degrees. This presents a set of complex dynamics, as students are often not familiar with the language of public policy, the processes of government and – perhaps more importantly – many appear to be disenchanted with politics (Loader et al., 2014). Complexity also underpins many policy problems that confront Australian society and the global political environment. Questions of climate, energy needs, concerns around global food insecurity, refugees, acts of terror, unstable markets and debates on fairness and equity play out across politics and media. For many of these issues simplistic solutions are proposed, ones that minimize the interdependencies between policy and society. For undergraduate students, this presents some key challenges, primarily, developing the capacity to bracket the ‘noise’ in the public realm, challenge any preconceived ideas and explore the complex dynamics that underpin policy problems that face contemporary society.

Undergraduate teaching in Australia also faces significant challenges and therefore increasing complexities. Declining levels of government funding and increased pressure to retain student numbers (Universities Australia, 2017) contribute to complexities for academics and students in terms of increasing class sizes and greater reliance on web-based teaching formats. An additional challenge is the way in which degrees are structured. In the Australian university system, students must complete both broad-based ‘practice’ skills, as well more subject-specific knowledge (Australian Government, 2018). The resulting degree structure includes a set of compulsory subjects that emphasize practice skills, compulsory or core content knowledge-based units and the inclusion of more secondary knowledge through a range of electives. This situation has resulted in the rationalization of some content-specific subjects and encouraged the expansion of more generic, broad-based subjects that apply across a range of areas. At undergraduate level, public policy and public administration-based subjects sit well within this context. For example, introductory public policy and public administration subjects provide practice-based learning for politics programs, arts and law, planning and environmental design, business, social work and community development, tourism and events, security, terrorism, aid and development. On the one hand, this provides for an interesting mix of undergraduate students to consider policy as it pertains to their area of study. On the other hand, however, it assumes those who teach policy can do so in ways that actively engage a broad student cohort.

A further level of complexity is the apparent rise of populist politics. While Mudde argues that any claims to the impact of populist politics is overstated (2013), Ingelhart and Norris (2016) make a very clear case regarding the impact of populism across the globe. Populist politics, accordingly, has emerged from a resentment toward political classes (Inglehart and Norris, 2016: 2) and more intense questioning from the conservative side of politics on the role of immigration and human rights, green politics and cosmopolitanism (Inglehart and Norris, 2016: 3). In Australia, this is evident in debates regarding refugees and asylum seekers (Fozdar and Hartely, 2013) and a ‘creeping sense of islamophobia’ (Briskman, 2015), which has resulted in simplistic solutions to many of the complex policy issues in society. This underlying discontent, coupled with what some consider a disengaged youth (Farthing, 2010), raises further considerations when drawing young students into the world of public policy.

For many students, coming to a public policy class without any background or interest in politics raises several concerns. For the students, the concerns amount to passing a subject that is compulsory, but outside their knowledge base. For the lecturer, this includes engaging students about policy in ways that grab students’ attention, as well as highlighting the transformative possibilities available. The situation raises a set of questions regarding how to address these complexities in ways that encourage students to explore deep-seated assumptions regarding policy issues, while still challenging their critical thinking (Brock and Alford, 2015). Moreover, in some instances, the levels of complexity are contradictory. For example, the expansion of broad-based subjects that incorporate diverse student cohort leave scant time for transformative learning that has been part of university study. Further, the growing emphasis on practice-based skills is inconsistent with the interconnected and complex nature of many problems that face society. These challenges and complexities are also situated in a shift in teaching practice. On the one hand, students are encouraged to actively participate in their own learning, with lecturers taking a facilitator role that guides students in their learning process. On the other hand, university education has adopted a more instrumental approach, with many courses now aiming to prepare students for future employment with a set of readily identifiable credentials. These challenges and tensions add extra layers of complexity for both students and teaching staff within the university sector in Australia.

This paper explores how students have responded to the changing nature of teaching public policy over a nine-year period in one Australian university. The paper considers a range of questions through an examination of university managed student survey subject data. While the survey is managed by the university, with the aim to inform lecturers as to students’ perception of the subject, it contains both quantitative and qualitative questions which provide ample ‘data’ to consider a range of issues relevant to teaching public policy. Specifically, the paper is particularly interested in how students grapple with the increasing levels of complexity; how students view interactive and participatory strategies as tools for learning; and what, if any, insights might be gleaned from these shifting levels of complexity.

To examine these issues, the paper proceeds in a series of steps. First, it outlines the relevance of introducing students to complex issues as part of the introductory public policy subject. Second, it covers contemporary approaches to undergraduate teaching; these include interactive and participatory teaching, student-centered learning and the use of case studies. Next, it outlines some background information in relation to the specific subject, the role of student survey data and the methods used to review the student survey data. The fourth section discusses the insights from the data in terms of the questions outlined above. The paper concludes with some further reflections for teaching undergraduate students and highlights key areas for further research.

Complexity, learning and experience

Teaching public policy to undergraduate students is fun and it presents a range of challenges. Regarding the former – the fun aspect – an introductory class provides students with the opportunity to grapple with their views on policy issues. The very process of ‘discovering’ your own assumptions and beliefs and subsequently questioning these positions in a supportive learning environment is one of the primary learning goals of tertiary education. As a lecturer, watching the change in students’ perception when a ‘light bulb’ moment flashes across their face, when it is plain to see that the content and engagement with material is making a significant difference to the lives of students, is indeed one of the pleasures of teaching within the tertiary environment. However, there are significant challenges in undertaking such exploration. Primarily, students must be motivated to explore their own positions and assumptions and request assistance when they are unsure how to proceed (English and Kitsantas, 2013). According to Hess and McAvoy (2015), many students require assistance to develop their ability to conceptualize their views on public issues, and the capacity to deliberate on the pros and cons of solutions to issues facing society. In other words, undertaking this exploration requires that lecturers balance student experience and learning with the importance of the subject material.

A further aspect of the complex nature of teaching public policy is to illustrate the political nature of policy making without making a political judgment, something Iris Marion Young argues is part and parcel of teaching politics and public policy (Young, 2000). To introduce students to the study of public policy is to illustrate the relationship between knowledge, information, interpretation and politics. For many students, this is the challenge, as there is not necessarily a ‘correct’ answer. One of the main teaching goals is to highlight how some policies may render a particular response unavailable (Foster et al., 2010). For example, students in a technology-based degree, such as environment technology, may find it challenging when technologies can address a policy issue but there is no political support for the adaptation or implementation of the technology as part of a policy response. This highlights how politics embeds notions of ‘truth’ that support a political position. In turn, this can reinforce normative views which may privilege some ideas and people while being detrimental to others.

Introducing students to complexity is therefore part of teaching public policy. An awareness of the complex dynamics that inform policy making enables students to consider how policy is being shaped, rather than viewing policy as simply a practical response to a set of ‘problems’ or ‘data’ (Bacchi, 2009). Teaching public policy attempts to illustrate how policy involves managing conflicts and competing interests that aim to balance trade-offs between conflicting positions on a policy issue (Boelens et al., 2017). Moreover, highlighting these dynamics provides students with the possibility to consider how the political system interacts with the social, economic and global systems – in effect, providing students with the space to view the interconnections and interdependent nature of policy making, and enhance their capacity to position themselves in relation to policy ideas and initiatives.

It is important to clarify that this paper is not advocating for the inclusion of complexity theory into an introductory policy course. Geyer and Cairney (2015) argue that policy theory and policy making would benefit from the characteristics of complexity theory. Geyer and Cairney’s text provides a detailed discussion of complexity theory, reference to case studies and areas for further research. The positions taken in the text, and by other scholars in the field of public administration (see for example Tiesman and Klijn, 2008; Eppel and Rhodes, 2018), raise many questions about the relationship between policy, administration and the importance of acknowledging the complex dynamics that comprise contemporary policy problems. These scholars position complexity theory as an additional component for research, which no doubt is relevant for scholarship. By contrast, the key premise in this paper is to consider how students grapple with increasing levels of complexity and how teaching may assist students with this exploration.

Undergraduate teaching: More is more

In the recent text, More is More (2017), Blake Morgan delivers a range of strategies and case studies for marketing professionals to assist with enhancing customer experience. The text advocates that to be successful, companies and businesses need to do more, not less; need to listen more, engage more – and in an age where information is a commodity freely available, the best-placed companies tailor their customer experience specifically to their needs (Morgan, 2017: 4–5). This is not to suggest that teaching undergraduate students is similar to a successful business based around customer experience. However, the ideas that underpin More is More also play out in the university sector. Universities do compete to sell their ‘brand’, universities do use the language of customer satisfaction, couched in terms of student satisfaction, and universities use a range of ‘hard sell’ strategies to inform and remind prospective students of the benefits of studying at their particular university (Marginson, 2006; Marginson and Considine, 2010).

University education across the globe has taken up the mantle of the market. According to Nixon, Scullion and Hearn (2018: 929), academic capitalism has remodeled the university sector through reference to student choice and satisfaction replacing the pursuit of intellectual endeavor, or at the very least, enjoying the experience of university study as the means to transformation. Marketization of tertiary education has resulted in the iconic position of the student-consumer (McCulloch, 2009) who embarks on university study for the purposes of gaining skills for employment and secure income, as opposed to exploring ideas which may enhance the wellbeing of society (Natale and Doran, 2012: 188). As the organizing principle of university education, the market in effect enshrines specific skills deemed appropriate or necessary by employers as opposed to the processes of deep and critical thinking. This further increases the complex dynamics for teaching public policy and administration. On the one hand, lecturers aim to instill in students the moral underpinnings of democracy – part and parcel of public policy – while on the other hand, the growing instrumental nature of the university sector often privileges the adoption of skills and practices as opposed to critical thinking and reflection necessary for considering the moral base of contemporary democracy.

Marketing of university education plays a role in how students choose their study program. Relevant for this paper, public policy and public administration do not appear to resonate particularly well for undergraduates when compared to topics such as law, criminology, security and terrorism, forensic science or nursing (see Butt et al., 2017; McNeill, 2018). At the undergraduate level, public policy and public administration are not necessarily a degree in their own right. As such, when undergraduate students are confronted in their first or second year of study with exploring some of the broad social issues that confront society, many do not have a depth of experience in regard to ‘real-world’ problems, nor a framework with which to explore the relationship between their view of the issue and government intervention that aims to address the issue (Walker, 2009: 215).

While introductory public policy and administration subjects assume students have a basic understanding of systems of government, increasingly this is not the case. In the Australian system of education, students in lower level schools are introduced to the Australian system of government, and while this is supplemented in upper school education, there is growing evidence that Australian students do not grasp the complexities of the Australian political system. In the 2016 NAPLAN Report on Civics and Citizenship there has been a documented decline in students’ comprehension in this area (ACARA, 2016: xvi). This raises several challenges for an introductory public policy class, especially one that encapsulates a diverse student population. While students who are enrolled in a politics program will have been reacquainted with the process of government, those who undertake a different program are still expected to complete an introductory public policy and administration subject which provides extra challenges.

Teaching and learning practices

Contemporary university education in Australia has incorporated a range of student-centered learning practices to alleviate some challenges and enhance student learning. Adopting interactive and participative approaches provides strategies to transform student learning. According to Brock and Alford (2015) interactive teaching encourages students to engage in both listening and discussing ideas, and it engenders a ‘learning by doing’ format that aims to spark students’ interest (Foster et al., 2010). Interactive teaching is grounded in the belief that learning requires a shift in control whereby lecturers and students shape discussion (Boehrer, 1995). Participative and interactive practices in a sense encourage students to move beyond what is comfortable (Simmons et al., 2011) This is especially pertinent for public policy courses, as interaction and participation is an integral aspect of policy making. For example, policy practitioners engage with stakeholder groups in order to grasp the nuances of the problem and addressing complex problems requires committed, energetic and passionate public servants who are prepared to unsettle and challenge administrative shortfalls.

Student-centered learning underpins the ideals of participative and interactive teaching strategies. According to Baeten et al. (2013), student-centered learning requires three interrelated factors: first, that students are actively involved in selecting, interpreting and applying information in order to construct knowledge for themselves; second, lecturers and teachers play a facilitation role that guides students through a learning process; and third, that assignments are realistic in terms of subject matter and emphasize possible solutions to difficult problems (Baeten et al., 2013: 14–15). One of the key features of a student-centered approach is that students must take responsibility for their learning and actively participate in generating meaning (English and Kitsantas, 2013). Teaching and learning therefore is more a form of guided inquiry, rather than a set of definitions to memorize. Moreover, student-centered learning specifically encourages students to find topics and problems of interest to them. The rationale is that students are motivated to direct their own learning because they have, with some guidance, chosen a topic of their interest.

One of the key strategies that incorporates student-centered learning and integrative teaching strategies is the use of policy case studies. The case study method is used across a range of disciplines (see Boehrer, 1999; Kunsleman and Johnson, 2004; Lundeberg and Yadav, 2006). Accordingly, this method of teaching aims to provide students with ‘real-world’ problems used in various ways to explore and propose alternative solutions. Alford and Brock (2014) point out that cases can take various forms depending on the purpose of the class. Cases may illustrate problems and causal relationships, they can emphasize conflicts between groups, and they promote active problem solving and as such, enhance critical thinking (Foster et al., 2010: 523; Peters, 2015: 229). While there is significant research regarding the usefulness of cases in highlighting complex problems, there is little documented evaluation of the process in terms of generating student learning outcomes especially at the undergraduate level, especially in relation to law, business and public policy (Herreid, 2011).

The use of interactive and participatory teaching strategies also raises some challenges in the evolving teaching environment. With the advent of more online teaching formats and increasing recognition of problems around student retention (Crosling et al., 2009; Gunson et al., 2016), the practices that encourage student-centered learning assume students are willing participants in a shared learning environment. For some students, this can engender a sense of a loss of structure from the traditional learning approach (Hung, 2011). According to Vardi and Ciccarelli (2008) and Hung (2011), in a review of participatory learning evaluations, several studies highlight that there are significant workload implications for both students and lecturers, which are often not taken into account when planning the teaching context.

Contemporary learning environments in the university sector are also utilizing web-based learning strategies to enable distance or off-campus students to participate in similar ways as students on campus. In the Australian university sector, external students are those who for a range of reasons cannot attend campus and access the subject content online. While historically this included taped lectures and printed study materials, contemporary web-based technology has enabled a more ‘real-time’ experience for external students as lectures and seminars are uploaded on the course website as close to the same time as those who attend the face-to-face lecture or seminar. According to Woo et al. (2008), the use of web-based learning strategies has blurred the boundary between internal and distance education, as those who listen or watch online can communicate or participate in online discussion forums. The particular course under consideration here has an external cohort of students; their comments are part of the student survey discussed below.

A further level of complexity in teaching public policy and public administration to undergraduate students refers to the growing emphasis on work-based learning practices. While the undergraduate course under consideration is not part of a work-integrated learning program per se, nor is the course situated in a partnership with an external organization or agency that takes students as interns, the course acts as a transitional point for some students who wish to undertake an internship or work-integrated learning experience later in their program. Students in this course are introduced to the language of public administration through an examination of government departmental annual reports, departmental scoping papers, the development of legislation and the importance of parliamentary committees as each plays a role in the development of public policy. In effect, this course sits as a transdisciplinary field (Lester and Costley, 2009) that acts alongside the subject disciplines with which students are more familiar (Boud, 2001).

In the university context, employing work-based learning pedagogies provides students with the opportunity to draw on their disciplinary knowledge but to move beyond these knowledge boundaries (Boud, 2001). This is especially relevant for teaching public policy and administration as students are introduced to ‘real-world’ problems that require looking beyond familiar knowledge silos to develop both a wider view of the issue and to consider interdisciplinary solutions. Work-based learning practices emphasize more experiential learning, as students often work on team-based projects that require a range of professional skills to grasp and examine (Brodie and Irving, 2007). In effect, work-related practice shifts students conceptually from being ‘learners’ to ‘professional practitioners’, ones that experience the indeterminate nature of social problems and the mix of stakeholders who have opposing views on how to best address the issue (Lester and Costley, 2009).

Background, methods and data

The public policy subject that forms this research is part of a larger Bachelor of Arts, and more recently, the Bachelor of Commerce. This subject has had a range of iterations, from a second-year subject, a third-year skills-based subject and back to a second-year subject with an emphasis on developing professional practice. This subject is the only one that covers policy and public administration related topics in the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Law, Bachelor of Business, or Bachelor of Commerce presently offered at the university. Over the period used for this paper, the public policy course moved from a lecture format of one hour and a 1.5-hour tutorial in 2008, to an interactive and participatory approach broken into 15-minute segments whereby students worked in groups on short class exercises from 2009 onwards. The lecture slot provided ample space linking subject content with contemporary policy issues while the tutorials examined readings and debates.

In 2013, the subject was listed as compulsory in some programs within the Bachelor of Arts, primarily global politics and policy, and tourism and events management. It also serves as a specified elective in the Bachelor of Law, Criminology and Journalism degrees. The Bachelor of Arts covers the main student cohort, which includes security, terrorism and counterterrorism, history, sociology, community development, international aid and development, sustainability and philosophy; the subject is listed on all of these programs, but is not compulsory. Over the period under consideration, the subject has been well received with student satisfaction scores ranged from 4.5 to 5.5 out of a possible 6. However, while students regularly comment that the subject is ‘fun’ and provides the opportunity to consider public policy, the transition to a practice-based subject that employs more interactive and participatory teaching methods coupled with a diverse student cohort has raised challenges around student expectations and satisfaction. For academic teaching staff, this has required developing content that is meaningful for a broad section of the student population.

Reviewing the student survey data highlights two distinct groups. The first group are those who comprise the period 2008–12. During this period, the subject was only compulsory for students undertaking a BA with a major in politics and comprised the lecture and tutorial as stated above, with the latter capped at a limit of 18 students. In 2013 significant changes were implemented, for example, the tutorial size increased to 25 students and the subject was compulsory for students undertaking a BA major in tourism and events management. In 2015, the subject changed format to a lecture/seminar workshop, with all internal students attending a 2.5-hour session once per week: this amounted to 55 in 2015, 64 in 2016 and 46 in 2017. The subject is offered in external mode with both a communal online discussion post and one set for external students only. In the period under consideration, the student cohort ranged from 52 to 98 students: this figure includes between 20% and 30% external students; the average over the period is 68.2 students per year.

The two periods also used different assessment and teaching strategies (see Table 1). In the first period, assessments followed a traditional essay, student participation and exam. The essay format allowed students to select a policy issue of their choice, develop an essay plan that outlined the policy problem and a traditional essay that highlighted a range of policy changes over time. In the later period, the assessments replicated the practices of policy makers, students develop a policy scoping paper on a topic of their choice and a policy briefing paper that highlights areas within the policy that require amendment or alteration. Teaching strategies in the two periods also changed. The first period employed tutorial discussion on set readings, policy debates and group presentations. The second period utilized interactive and problem-based teaching strategies, policy case study reviews, stakeholder analysis, policy problem scenario building and implementation evaluations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Teaching activities and assessment comparison.

Group 1	Teaching activities
2008 – 2012	Small group activity –Policy think tank review	Large group activity –Tutorial reading and discussion	Small group activity –Debate presentation	Group presentation
	Assessment processes
Assessment	Essay plan	Group presentation	Policy essay	Exam
Group 2	Teaching activities
2013 – 2017	Small group activity –Policy think tank review	Small group activity –Policy problem scenario building:Tax Review exercise	Small group activity –Case study review and stakeholder analysis	Small group activity –Policy case study: implementation evaluation
	Individual assessment processes
Assessment	Policy scoping paper	Case study review	Policy briefing paper	Exam

The student survey is undertaken every year. While the data provides lecturers with an indication of student satisfaction and the usefulness of teaching strategies, the survey also enables students to comment on the subject and to raise ideas that could improve it in the future. It is in this context that the survey data is useful for the purposes of considering how students grapple with increasing levels of complexity and how they engage with interactive and participatory teaching strategies to enhance their capacity to explore complex policy problems. The surveys are managed by the University Survey Management System; ¹ they are anonymous, ² voluntary, and ask students to address a range of teaching, assessment, activities and satisfaction questions. The surveys are undertaken online. The surveys ask a set of quantitative questions with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to unable to judge; these questions cover unit objectives, assessment, learning activities and satisfaction (see Table 2 as an example). The second section of the survey has open-ended questions asking for comments on the best aspects of the subject, areas that need improvements and space for any final comments.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Example of student survey.

Question	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly agree	Agree	Strongly agree
It was clear what I was expected to learn in this unit.
The assessment tasks tested my understanding of the subject area, rather than just memory
The unit resources and activities were useful for my learning in this unit
Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this unit.

Table 3 outlines the student survey data across four relevant factors. The response rate is simply the percentage of students who completed the survey. The expectations category asks students to rate the clarity of expected learning. The assessments category asks students to rate whether the assessed tasks test understanding as opposed to simply memorizing content. In the activities and objectives category, students rate how well the activities within the subject assist with learning objectives, and the satisfaction category asks students to rate their overall satisfaction with the quality of the subject.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Student cohort results 2008–17.

Year	Response rate (%)	Expectations (%)	Assessments (%)	Activities and resources (%)	Satisfaction (%)
2008	50	96	96	92	92
2009	39	90	100	90	95
2010	41	100	100	95	95
2011	39	97	97	94	97
2012	33	100	100	100	100
2013	36	100	95	85	90
2014	37	100	96	96	100
2015	32	84	84	83	80
2016	25	95	95	95	95
2017	28	83	89	89	89

At a first glance, the primary observation is the declining level of respondents from 2008 to 2017, from 50% to 28% respectively. Second, 2012 appears as a standout with 100% rating across the four factors. A further simple observation is that there appears to be a decline across all four factors over the nine-year period. For example, 2008 had 96% of those surveyed considering the learning expectations clear, while in 2017, 83% of those surveyed rated learning expectations as clear. In 2008, 92% rated the activities within the subject as helpful to achieve the learning objectives, while in 2017, 89% rated the activities as relevant, and the overall satisfaction rating dropping from 92% to 89% respectively. While the differences between these percentages are not excessive, they do suggest there has been some shift over time in terms of levels of responding and overall satisfaction. In the first instance, it is important to consider whether there is a statistically significant difference between the period 2008–12 and 2013–17. Once undertaken, further qualitative analysis can proceed. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was undertaken across the data (see Table 4), and then separately for response rate for each factor (see Table 5). The analysis across the complete survey data highlights there is a statistically significant difference between the two sample groups (see Table 3 below); the p-value .869 > .05 highlights this difference. The decline in response rate was also tested in each of the four factors – response rate in relation to expectations, assessment, activities and satisfaction – indicating that the decline in response rate is not correlated with the decline across these categories.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Two-way factor analysis 2008–17.

F	P-value	F crit
14.695	0.000438	4.084746
227.136	6.37E-27	2.605975
0.310439	0.869299	2.605975

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Two-way factor analysis: Response rate correlated with each factor.

	Expectations p-value 0.05	Assessment p-value .05	Activities p-value .05	Satisfaction p-value .05
Response rate	0.415	0.651	0.387	0.651

Qualitative reflections

Further analysis of the qualitative data was also undertaken to expand upon possible reasons for both the decline in response and the decline in overall satisfaction. As previously stated, the survey asks two specific questions relating to the content of the course, that is, what are the best aspects of the course, what could be improved and one open question for any further comments. While qualitative analysis in terms of key themes will be addressed, a consideration in terms of the level of engagement in the qualitative responses was considered. In 2008, 70% of respondents provided qualitative responses; in 2009, 66% provided qualitative responses; between 2010 and 2017, the percentage of responses moved between 77% and 88%, with 2016 providing the most qualitative responses. These response rates suggest that while there is a statistically significant difference between the responses in the two periods 2008–12 and 2013–17, students are prepared to provide feedback, or in other words, there has not been a decline in the amount of feedback provided. Noticeably the feedback over the nine-year period emphasizes the positive aspects of the course – with 70–80% of all respondents highlighting what was thought to be the best aspects of the course, and 52–65% responding to the question regarding what could be improved.

As previously explained, the main purpose of this paper is to explore how undergraduate students grapple with increasingly complex dynamics both in terms of grasping complex policy issues, working in increasingly complex learning environments and to garner their views on interactive and participatory tools for learning. The qualitative responses have been categorized into themes drawn from the two time periods. In the first time period, the key themes of atmosphere, relevance and discussion were highlighted. Atmosphere pertained to include accessibility and the importance of learning environment, relevance related to students’ degree and ideas regarding future employment. The third category, discussion, related to the use of structured and unstructured discussion in lectures and tutorials. In the second time period, atmosphere and relevance were also highlighted, but rather than discussion, choice was raised as a key theme. The qualitative responses are presented in the two time periods in order to capture differences in students’ perception of the course.

Atmosphere, relevance and discussion 2008–12

Discussion, structure and guidance

One of the key points raised by students over this period was the role of discussion both in the lectures and in the tutorials. On the one hand, many students commented they enjoyed the discussion that was not simply based on questions regarding the set readings. For example:

I loved discussing the topics that were not just about the readings (2009)

The discussion was the best part of the course…I learnt so much from everyone (2010)

The interaction helped make things easier…we were encouraged to freely discuss and debate in both lectures and tutorial (2012)

Atmosphere, relevance and choice 2013–17

In the next period, the course changed in several areas. Perhaps the most difficult change was the expansion of the course into disciplinary areas not aligned with a politics major. As previously stated, the course replaced discipline specific topics and was embedded into the structure of some degrees as a compulsory subject due to university restructuring. In turn this led to larger class sizes and a more diverse spread of students. The comments during this period reflect some of the changes implemented in the course. As previously noted, there was no decline in the level of qualitative comments in this period, there is however an increase in the comments referring to areas of improvement, from an average of 55% in the first period, to an average of 60% of responses referring to areas of improvement. The main themes drawn from this time period therefore reflect some of these changes.

Choice

The issue of choice was highlighted in comments regarding the assessment and the allocation of people into classes. While the latter had little to do with the teaching aspect of the subject, some students noted in the section what could be improved – that he or she did not like the time of the lecture, or that they had no choice, or limited choice as to their allocated tutorial. For the most part, choice emerged as a theme in relation to assessment in that students were ‘free’ to choose a policy area and a policy initiative of their own interest. Freedom to choose their topic of interest was raised in relation to the open question in the survey. In each report from 2013 to 2017 students commented this ‘freedom’ was a new experience, it provided a chance to explore a real problem, and it enabled a sense of being independent. However, several students found this challenging, commenting this was daunting with little idea as to how to locate a policy. For example:

Being an independent learner is great (2014)

Allowing students to explore their own area of interest was great for maintaining interest (2016)

While daunting at first, being able to choose a policy from around the world was a chance to explore my own area, not many subjects allow this (2016)

We need more support for choosing a policy, the examples need more explanation (2015)

Grappling with increasing complexity

The data above serve as a snapshot of both the changing context in offering the introductory public policy subject and students’ perceptions of the subject. The data suggest some areas for further consideration. Primarily, the quantitative data indicate that while there is a decline in overall satisfaction between 2008 and 2017, the level of decline is not increasing – the low point being 2015 at 80% and high points of 2012 and 2014 at 100%, with the more recent years midway between. These percentages suggest that, given the level of changes students are engaging with the content and exploring areas of complexity. While the decline in response rate is certainly something for lecturers to take seriously, simple suggestions have been implemented, such as reminding students of the importance of evaluation surveys, highlighting research into the relevance of student views on learning and teaching and demonstrating how universities take students ideas and perceptions seriously.

The data above also point to three key messages important for teaching undergraduate students. First, students respond to lecturers making time to understand their world, to get to know students personally. Second, students appear to enjoy interactive and participatory approaches to learning. Both the quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the activities used in the course were generally well received, that the ‘atmosphere’ was conducive to learning, and importantly, provided an encouraging and safe space for students to explore complex issues. The third area of importance is relevance – that is, the relevance of the content to students’ area of study and future possibilities. This is the most pressing area as university education adopts a global approach with increasing levels of diverse student populations and a reduction in discipline-specific content (Kahu, 2013). As the data in this project indicate, relevance is important to students’ overall satisfaction; therefore, how they perceive the relevance of the course has some impact on learning. In this context, further attention to detail, such as why changes have been implemented, and greater emphasis on the interconnections between public policy and administration to broader social issues could alleviate some of the concerns or dissatisfaction raised in the qualitative data.

Increasing complexities: learning and teaching

As explained at the outset, the purpose of this paper is to consider how students grapple with increasing levels of complexity, to consider their views on participative and interactive teaching strategies as learning tools, and to gather any insights in terms of managing these shifting dynamics. In terms of enhancing learning, the perceptions of the above student cohorts suggest that, while students are prepared to explore complex issues and engage in participative and interactive teaching strategies, providing clear steps and messages along the way helps to build confidence. The views provided by these students support the evidence that employing interactive and participatory approaches can spark students’ interest and provide the basis for transforming students’ learning (Foster et al., 2010; Brock and Alford, 2015). However, one of the key messages drawn from students’ responses emphasizes that messages are more beneficial when familiar ways of learning are linked very clearly to the unfamiliar. In effect, these messages suggest that lecturers need to ‘stretch’ students in ways that use the familiar as a base, but position it in different ways to generate expanded knowledge. This is especially important with increasing diversity of students who complete courses that sit parallel to their chosen subject area.

A further consideration raised in the survey data refers to the manner in which students are encouraged to construct knowledge and meaning for themselves (English and Kitsantas, 2013). The data indicates that for many students stepping into this ‘uncertain’ space is challenging. While the ideals of student-centered learning emphasize the positive learning environment this entails, the data suggests a sense of ‘risk’ that underscores fear of failure. As Baeten et al. (2013) argue, key to adopting a student-centered approach is the combination of lecturers facilitating students through the learning process and providing the means for students to develop their own interpretative skills. The insights from the student surveys however, suggest a more ‘invitational’ approach, whereby lecturers in a sense ‘invite’ students as a form of welcome to participate in learning. These ideals emerge in the students’ overall reference to the importance of lecturers providing an atmosphere that is open, friendly and respectful of students’ uncertainty.

The student survey data also highlight that while students enjoy the freedom to choose their assessment topic, many found this experience daunting and for some completely outside their comfort zone, especially when incorporating this into a new format. As noted by Baetens et al. (2013), choice in terms of assessment is integral to deep learning, and more effective when it is realistic. In terms of the data, freedom to choose their topic of interest had been available from 2008, it was the introduction of different forms of assessment that caused more concern. In other words, the difficulty arose when attempting to reframe an area of interest into a format that is new, untried and unfamiliar. While accordingly students had been provided with examples of the new assessment, they particularly wanted to ‘practice’ undertaking the new assessment prior to actually completing the assessment. This further suggests that while exploring ‘real-world’ problems is effective to engage students in learning, time must be set aside for students to build capacity and confidence when engaging in new learning practices.

The survey data also indicate that teaching in increasingly complex environments requires lecturers to position knowledge in ways that makes sense for the cohort. As the data indicate, the students appreciate the experience and knowledge of the lecturer, however what encourages learning is a sense of balance between expertise, passion and encouragement that provides students with the opportunity to explore their own assumptions and viewpoints. In other words, learning and teaching is therefore as much about building relationships with students in order to encourage their exploration as it is about introducing content. In effect, the survey data suggest that adopting the practices of interactive and participatory teaching equally requires lecturers to step outside their own teaching comfort zone.

Conclusion

This paper has reflected upon teaching public policy to undergraduate students in an Australian university. The paper has drawn on students’ ideas, suggestions and views over a nine-year period regarding an introductory public policy subject, one that is offered across broad university programs of arts, business and law. The paper highlighted that many students enjoy studying public policy, certainly more than they had expected. The paper also suggests that while discussion and debate provide a lively format for engagement, incorporating diverse student populations into one course requires lecturers to be mindful of differences and ensure that clear links are evident between the familiar and the unfamiliar.

The paper has provided a set of reflections that aim to increase our understanding of teaching undergraduate students’ public policy in diverse and complex environments. While these ideas reinforce the importance of embracing student-centered learning and adopting and reinvigorating the use of interactive and participatory practices, the students’ voice emphasizes the importance of generating a respectful, supportive environment, that is open, questioning, balances guidance with freedom to explore while based on a practice of welcome invitation.

The thoughts and perceptions of students highlighted in this study raise questions that would benefit from further research. As public policy and public administration courses appear to link into work-based learning programs, how students perceive the intersections would benefit from deeper exploration. Of particular interest is the relationship between students’ perceptions of the necessity for credentials and their capacity for critical thinking and conceptualization. In part this leads to questions regarding how to ensure students are best placed to meet the challenges of an unknown and fast-paced future.