Use of active learning strategies in public affairs education: Advances and lessons from the scholarship and the practice

Abstract

Public affairs education can benefit from the potential of active learning practices in preparing students for the complex surroundings of real public service. This article aims to explore the use of those practices in public affairs education and the extent to which those practices are suitable in a public affairs school in a country in the global South. To do so, it follows a threefold analytical approach. First, from a sample of empirical works in public affairs, it explores the active learning practices portrayed in the literature of public affairs education and identifies patterns and practices. Then, through content analysis of syllabi from a sample of master level courses of schools of public affairs in the US and Europe it identifies the most frequent participant-centered learning practices used in public affairs education. Finally, by means of a case study from a public affairs school in Colombia, it analyzes the adoption of active learning practices to be effectively adopted in such setting and compares them with the two sets of practices previously analyzed. The analysis provided some insights. Both the literature review and the benchmark of practices in public affairs schools, reflect that public affairs education already relies on a wide array of active learning strategies, which, according to some empirical literature, appear to be highly useful in preparing students for public sector practice. Then, the analysis of the use of active learning practices in a Latin American school of public affairs revealed a similarly evident use such practices, something that appears to be instrumental for the faculty, students and alumni of the program, and whose implementation does not appear to differ from other programs abroad.

Keywords

Active learning public affairs education 21st century skills Latin America Colombia

Introduction

The literature on public affairs education has remarked the value of active learning strategies on the classroom in helping to develop necessary skills for public service (Merrit and Kelley, 2018). Moreover, it has been argued that, in order to be successful in the complex, globalized and technology dependent 21st century, public affairs practitioners need to display abilities such as learn on the job, apply knowledge and critical thinking skills to problem-solving, use a problem-solving oriented approach as a platform for creativity, and communicate effectively in complex situations (Rosenbaum, 2006; Van der Wal, 2017).

These expectations present a challenge for schools of public affairs, since the traditional model of education—whereby teachers transmit knowledge to students via lectures and textbooks—does not necessarily allow students to effectively acquire, and to put into practice, the aforementioned skills (Rosefsky-Saavedra and Opfer, 2012; Rubaii, 2016). Thus, such limitation of the traditional instructional pedagogical strategies implies that public affairs education needs to be on a permanent reflection about the practical effectiveness of its teaching/learning strategies in order to successfully respond the governance challenges of the 21st century (Rubaii, 2016).

In this context, active learning (i.e. participant-centered education¹) would appear as a useful tool for public affairs programs in achieving that purpose. As some literature public administration has claimed, in order to acquire key contemporary practical skills for public sector practice, public affairs students need to be at the center of the learning process (Moreno, 2015; Rubaii, 2016), something that active learning, understood as a set of manifold practices that allow self-reflection and focus on practice (Ambrose et al., 2010), has claimed to do effectively. Hence, if active learning is an effective tool for developing practical skills through teaching strategies such as retrieval practice, spacing, or interleaving (Brown et al., 2014), using participant-centered practices could be a frequent practice in public affairs schools as prominent actors of governance education (Dufour, 2012; Rosenbaum, 2014).

Thus, the purpose of this work is to identify the state of the art of active learning practices in leading public affairs schools and, then, to explore whether those practices can be effectively adapted and used in a school of public affairs in a developing country. Our unit of analysis is the school of public affairs. We start our analysis by identifying (and classifying) practices that the scholarship has explored as part of active learning in public affairs education. Then, we attempt to identify a benchmark of active learning practices in leading public affairs schools at the international level. We focus primarily on US schools, a country where active learning practices, appear to be frequently used (Rubaii, 2016), and where most of the extant evidence claims that active learning is effective in promoting student learning (Prince, 2004; Wilson et al., 2007). Finally, we explore the use and adoption of such practices by studying the case of a school of public affairs in Latin America.

This work aims to serve both research and educational purposes. First, conducting comparative research about the use and adoption of active learning practices in public affairs schools can help to expand the international evidence regarding their usefulness in the education of future and present public servants who are usually exposed to complex organizational and political environments. It appears also fruitful to study the adoption process of such educational practices in developing countries, where professional civil services and effective governance are still “in progress,” and more importantly, where public affairs education is usually a relatively recent development (Rubaii and Sanabria, 2020).

Second, in terms of public affairs education, our analysis can help understand the applicability of key instructional practices in less studied settings such as Latin America, a relevant task considering the calls for public affairs education to be sensitive to contextual factors (Ingrams and Holzer, 2016; Newcomer et al., 2010; Raadschelders, 2011). Moreover, doing cross-country comparisons of the international use of active learning practices can even set the ground to improve collaboration among schools, and perhaps the development and smart transfer of instructional practices across public affairs programs in different countries.

Furthermore, our analysis may contribute to the debate whether a convergence process is taking place in public affairs education, not only on topics, but also on teaching methods such as active learning practices. Our results imply that active learning techniques are suitable to be applied in different national contexts. They certainly profit from environments where instructors have a wide array of resources at hand as well as autonomy for course design. Extracting this kind of lessons can help to understand whether public affairs education can advance an international dialogue in order to become more effective and relevant in helping students across countries to build the necessary skills for the challenges of governance practice.

Active learning in public affairs education

Different sources have argued that there is isomorphism and convergence in public affairs education practices at the international level. Nadia Rubaii argued that “many professors and programs of public administration have adopted more engaged pedagogies” Rubaii (2016). As a matter of fact, similar works have argued some sort of regional (Verheijn and Connaughton, 2003), and even international (Candler et al., 2010), convergence in public affairs education. In this context, the analysis of the international adoption of active learning instructional techniques can inform whether such convergence is actually taking place or not (Sanabria et al., 2016).

In this work, we understand active learning strategy as one that “involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (Bonwell and Eison, 1991) and imply that “all the students in a class session are called upon to do other than simply watching, listening and taking notes” (Felder and Brent, 2009). Thus, an active learning practice “helps students to develop a ¨can do¨ attitude” (Jones, 2007) and has been said to be one in which the “Roles of professor and student are dynamic: The professor and students are a community of learners. The professor serves as coach and mentor; the students become active participants in learning” (Knowlton, 2000).

According to the previous definitions, we argue that one key goal of active learning is to create a learning community in the classroom, putting the student as a central, active, key agent of the process (Oros, 2007). Eison (2010) defines active learning activities as those that include engaging students in thinking critically or creatively, speaking with fellow students in small groups or the whole class, expressing ideas through writing, and reflecting upon the learning process. Thus, we will use in this article the term active learning in order to refer to those practices that put the student as the protagonist of the learning process. A process that entails several classroom activities such as case studies, teamwork, simulations, role playing, acting, debating, questioning, among others.

Active learning practices have been found to be beneficial for learning in public affairs instruction due to the practical nature of the domain (Brock and Alford, 2015; Hall, 2009) and its interdisciplinary character (van der Waldt, 2014). They have also been said to be instrumental to develop key practical competencies for students. In this vein, scholars of public affairs have called for changes in educational programs in response to the new demands and challenges in the practice of public affairs such as non-bureaucratic governance structures/processes, cross-boundaries problems, rapidly changing realities and technologies, and uncertainty as a predominant trait (Rosenbaum, 2014; Rubaii, 2016). In Rubaii’s account, according to the tasks and challenges that practitioners face in real-work situations, providing public affairs students with opportunities to develop key skills necessarily implies a transition from the traditional lecture method toward active learning approaches.

This transition is apparently already taking place. For instance, the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), an international accreditation body, defines a set of five universal required competencies that have to be adopted and implemented in its accredited programs.² NASPAA demands that the schools ensure that the students at the end of their educational programs effectively embrace those competencies, skills, values, etc. Our review of the practices from the different NASPAA accredited schools included in our study, indicates that most of those competencies are usually aimed by a combination of approaches that very often entail active learning approaches.

Thus, the attainment of the competencies themselves can become a powerful motivator for schools in different settings, to identify, explore and emulate the teaching/learning strategies that leading schools use in their educational approaches. In the more globalized context of education, practices travel today from country to country more easily than ever. Thus, it is feasible that the accreditation itself generates a signaling effect for schools of international quality, and thus, other schools may later pursue isomorphism through emulation or collaboration in terms of educational practices and teaching strategies such as active learning.³

Research methodology

In this article, we follow a methodological approach divided in three stages. Firstly, in the third section, we initially conduct an extensive review of academic works regarding the actual use of active learning practices in public affairs education as a research methodology in itself. As Snyder (2019) states:

…a literature review is an excellent way of synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in which more research is needed, which is a critical component of creating theoretical frameworks and building conceptual models.

Hence, we explore the scholarship in the main educational journals in public policy and public administration in order to identify and classify the set of active learning practices that the academic literature has identified and studied as part of the educational strategies in programs in our field. Secondly, in the fourth section we complement the review of the scholarship, with a benchmark analysis of the active learning practices used in a group of top international schools of public affairs by exploring the syllabi of their MPA/MPP programs. Finally, in the fifth section, we explore the use of such active learning practices, by applying an in-depth analysis of the use of active learning practices to one case study of a public affairs school in a developing country.

The uses of active learning in public affairs programs: Evidence from the literature in the field

Recent public affairs education literature indicates a growing utilization of active learning practices in the classroom (Merrit and Kelly, 2018). Yet, most scholarship originates from authors and schools located in developed countries. The lack of publications from other countries might imply that active learning practices are less frequent in such countries. However, the evidence from different cross-country studies, indicates that public affairs schools, in other regions of the global South as Latin America, appear to benchmark and emulate educational practices from regions like the US and Europe (Sanabria et al., 2016). Hence, active learning might be already taking place in public affairs schools and programs outside North America and Europe, we aim to help understand better such process through this work.

Accordingly, in the first part of our research project, we reviewed scholarship from 2007 to 2014 regarding the use of active learning practices in postgraduate public affairs education (i.e. master programs in public administration and public policy). In doing so, we searched the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE), Teaching Public Administration (TPA) journal, and other multidisciplinary databases to also include journal articles from other fields that relate to the topic in question. We searched articles whose titles or keywords included or mentioned some of the terms active learning or participant-centered practices in public affairs education. Accordingly, we initially identified 186 articles and then, after a preliminary review of the title, abstract and conclusions, selected 57 that directly referred to specific active learning practices. Then, from the central topics of the articles, we identified three main categories in which we classified them: 1) articles analyzing learning strategy and methodology (29 articles); 2) articles regarding skill development (17 articles); and 3) articles about curriculum design (11 articles).

Our purpose was to recognize the use of active learning practices as a topic of analysis in scholarship on public affairs education. It is significant that 51% of the analyzed articles dealt with some sort of active learning methodologies in public affairs education, 30% with skills/competence development, and the remaining 19% were devoted to curricular design. A substantial group of such articles tend to focus on recommending “expected” teaching and classroom activities for public affairs programs, predominantly involving active learning activities. Therefore, our review of the literature indicates that works that address the use of active learning strategies are a frequent topic in the literature on education in public affairs and that they are frequently interested in exploring their effects on the development of skills for the practice of public service.

Then, after identifying the active learning practices reported/analyzed in those articles, we developed a typology of four categories. In doing so we aimed to find common patterns in the practices as portrayed in the selected academic works. Accordingly, we identify a first group which centers the discussion on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in classroom as tools to promote individual learning and creation of learning communities, for instance a Learning Management System (LMS) or a wiki. Then, a second group focuses on the use of case studies and problem-based learning (PBL) in the development of key skills for public management/policy. A third group illustrates teamwork training and practical tasks that put the students to deal with real public sector clients, for instance simulations and role play. Finally, we categorize a fourth group analyzes the role of instructors as coaches in encouraging individual learning, and how to train them in order to improve the impact of active learning.

The general contention of the first group of works, which focus on the use of ICT and social networks in public affairs education, is that technologies positively enhance students’ educational processes by putting them in the center of the process. The literature indicates that technologies can foster collaboration and learning, help creating learning environments that blend practice and knowledge, and conduce to better educational outcomes (Kapucu, 2012). In terms of the digital resources most used in public affairs education, the scholarship identifies online/audiovisual resources and wikies (Abel, 2009; Gibson and Trump, 2012; Hu and Johnston, 2012; Varol, 2010; Varda et al., 2012), social network apps and electronic devices (Eikenberry, 2012; Waldner et al., 2011), and computer simulations (Hu et al., 2012). According to the literature, this set of devices and tools appears to enhance students’ experience inside and outside the classroom by easing class participation, improving connectivity with the instructor, and helping build the students’ ability to grasp the complexity of public affairs (Glor, 2007). Thus, our review indicates that ICTs and social networks have become a key instrument for creating active learning spaces in public affairs classrooms.

The articles in the second group address the use of case studies and problem-based learning (PBL) in public affairs education. They mostly converge in the positive effects of these approaches for skills development among students. According to them, these active learning strategies appear to facilitate interpersonal learning and enhance student satisfaction (Curran et al., 2008). They are also said to be effective in helping students to identify the applicability of conceptual models (Krain, 2010), and to expand policy analysis perspectives (Foster et al., 2010). Case studies and PBL facilitate immersing the students in real-work situations and to face potential ethical dilemmas (Gibson, 2008; Helms and Biggs, 2008) while also help the development of key analytical skills (Helms and Biggs, 2008; Nicholl and Lou, 2012). Furthermore, some authors observe such strategies as highly instrumental to universities by reducing schedule conflicts and decreasing operational costs (Nicholl and Lou, 2012). Hence, our review of the scholarship not only shows that case studies and PBL are already a widespread practice in public affairs education, but also that they appear to be effective in educational achievement and skills development.

The third group of reviewed works deals with the use of teamwork and real-client activities in educational practices in public affairs, including strategies such as team assignments, simulations, practicums, and capstone projects. The literature portrays them as effective tools for: student engagement and critical thinking development (Goings and Johnson, 2011; Van der Meer and Ringeling, 2010), collaborative learning (Goings and Johnson, 2011; Kramer, 2007); emotional intelligence, conflict resolution and leader capacities (Hartley, 2009; Kramer, 2007). They are also said to provide useful spaces that emulate real-life and real-work contexts (Green and Farazmand, 2012; Hartley, 2009; Van der Meer and Ringeling, 2010), and improve real-client satisfaction and student achievement, particularly in the case of capstones (Campbell and Lambright, 2011). Therefore, the extant literature shows a high potential of such active learning group strategies in anticipating the development of abilities that are deemed essential for public affairs practice.

The fourth group of articles emphasizes the key role of the teaching practices in creating active learning environments in the classroom. This set of works does not intend to provide evidence of effectiveness but instead prescribes a series of teaching practices expected to improve participant-centered learning in the classroom. For instance, the scholarship explores how the prior identification of the students’ learning styles can enhance the role of the MPA classroom as a learning community (Hall, 2009), how to use cultural strategies and reflection for collaborative learning (Bergom et al., 2011; Castelli, 2011), how to implement models and cases to improve student engagement and achievement (Andrade et al., 2012; Morse and Stephens, 2012) and how to improve interpersonal skills (communication, conflict resolution, teamwork, cross-cultural skills) (Christie, 2012). The focus of these works is essentially prescriptive, attempting to improve professorial skills through the description of active learning environments and practices.

How do the reviewed works identify the effects of the use of active learning practices in public affairs? Nearly 45% of the articles included in our literature review conducted some sort of empirical analysis in order to estimate the effects of such activities in the classroom. The most frequent empirical approaches in those works are quantitative analysis based on surveys or administrative databases, qualitative evidence from interviews, focus groups, content analysis and direct observation of classroom activities, among others. In general, although few works provide causal evidence of the impact of active learning practices, the ones with stronger methodological approaches tend to support the expectation that active learning activities help the development of key competencies for public affairs students.

To sum up, the reviewed literature reflects the diverse use of active learning approaches in public affairs education. The scholarship itself reveals that a substantial, and diverse, set of active learning practices is now part of core curriculums (case studies, teamwork, exposure to real-life and real-client situations) in public affairs programs. It also signals that innovative strategies and tools are increasingly been devised to help students develop key abilities for real-work situations (e.g. mixed strategies, use of ICT and social networking, problem-based learning). Finally, recent works remark the role of the professor in creating an environment for active learning. Our literature review tends to confirm a positive evidence of the use of such practices in the students’ achievement, indicating that they can be powerful tools to endow students with the kind of skills needed to work in complex governance scenarios.

Altogether, the reviewed literature is indicative of a growing trend in the use active learning approaches in public affairs education. However, the scholarship reviewed does not suffice to explain: 1) How widely these methodologies are used in the actual practice of public affairs education? 2) Are schools of public affairs in developing countries adopting active learning practices? In order to respond to the first question, and to have a better sense of the scope of these practices in public affairs education, in the next section we review the existence of active learning practices in top schools through the analysis of a set of syllabi from selected top schools of public affairs. Then, in order to respond the second question, in the fifth section we analyze the adoption of active learning practices in the case of a school in Latin America.

A review of active learning practices in top international schools of public affairs

We complement the review of practices drawn from the literature conducted in the prior section, with the identification and analysis of active learning activities in public affairs programs in top international public affairs schools. Portraying both sets of practices allows us to define a benchmark of the most common practices that are expected to be used in public affairs schools which can operate as a framework for our case study analysis conducted in the fifth section.

In terms of the methodology and procedures for data collection in this section we used a purposive approach in order to build a set of schools that are recognized as of high quality at the international level. By doing so we aim to explore the extent to which active learning practices are used in those top schools and the actual practices and activities that are used in their educational programs and courses. The list of schools was drafted using a ranking of top public affairs schools developed by Williams et al. (2014: 406). From the total of 14 schools 13 are located in the US and the remaining one in Europe. As can be seen in Table 1, 9 out of 14 schools are NASPAA accredited, indicating a pattern of quality in their educational supply. The 13 schools from the US in the sample are all part of the top 25 schools in the country, according to the US News 2019 ranking, reflecting the strong reputation and good will that they hold as schools.

Table 1.

List of Schools of Public Affairs from where we analyzed syllabi.

Name of School	Accredited Programs by NASPAA (as of September 2019)	International Institutional Productivity Ranking in Williams et al. (2014)	US News Ranking of Public Affairs Schools (2020)
Department of Public Administration and Policy. The University of Georgia	Master of Public Administration	1	6—General 3—Public Management and Leadership 20—Public Policy Analysis
La Follette School. University of Wisconsin-Madison,	None	4	25—General 15—Public Policy Analysis
School of Public Affairs. The American University	Master of Public Administration, Master of Public Policy, Key Executive Master Degree	5	13—General 4—Public Management and Leadership 14—Public Policy Analysis
SPEA, Indiana University	Master of Public Affairs	7	1—General 2—Public Management and Leadership 3—Public Policy Analysis
Kennedy School. Harvard University	None	12	3—General 5—Public Management and Leadership 4—Public Policy Analysis
School of Public Affairs and Administration. Kansas University	Master of Public Administration	17	19—General 11—Public Management and Leadership
Maxwell School, Syracuse University	Master of Public Administration	23	1—General 1—Public Management and Leadership 8—Public Policy Analysis
Wagner School. New York University	Master of Public Administration	24	10—General 19—Public Management and Leadership 10 —Public Policy Analysis
Ford School. University of Michigan	None	25	8—General 28—Public Management and Leadership 2—Public Policy Analysis
Sol Price School. University of Southern California	Master of Public Administration	39	3—General 8—Public Management and Leadership 9 —Public Policy Analysis
Trachtenberg School. The George Washington University	Master of Public Administration, Master of Public Policy,	44	13—General 9—Public Management and Leadership 12 —Public Policy Analysis
Woodrow Wilson School. Princeton University	None	Not ranked	10 —General
Heinz College. Carnegie Mellon University	Master of Public Management Master of Science in Public Policy and Management	Not ranked	13—General 30—Public Management and Leadership 7—Public Policy Analysis
Hertie School (Berlin, Germany)	None	Not ranked	N/A

According to the list, we gathered and analyzed syllabi from 14 top schools who had available website data (see the list of Universities in Annex I), unfortunately not all the top-ranked schools publish homogeneously and have updates syllabi on their websites. Thus, in this group of selected schools, we found 432 syllabi and selected 124 that mentioned public affairs topics in the course titles and are mainly core courses in MPP/MPA programs. We then grouped the syllabi in 6 categories: 1) General Public Affairs (14); 2) Policy Analysis (18); 3) Public Administration/Management (27); Policy Evaluation (14); Economic Analysis of Policy (20); and 6) Capstone projects (31).

One downside is that the reviewed sample of syllabi might not be representative of the whole universe of public affairs courses offered worldwide. However, it comes mainly from leading international schools with a long-lasting tradition of public affairs education and research. Those schools are mostly accredited, consistently ranked as top schools (see Table 1), and well known for educating leading practitioners and scholars around the world, helping thus to disseminate educational and research practices in this domain (Kim and Myeong, 2014; Raadschelders, 2011). Hence, considering that catalyst role that those schools play in public affairs’ teaching practices, we consider them a good source to identify the most frequently used active learning practices in their MPA/MPP programs.

The analysis of the syllabi attempted to identify the topics and course subjects that appear to use active learning practices more often. In terms of frequencies, among the most oriented toward the use of active learning strategies we found general courses in public administration and management (27 courses), economic analysis (20 courses), policy analysis or related areas (18 courses), and policy evaluation (14 courses). Across these areas, we could identify in the courses’ syllabi the use of a wide array of active learning practices such as: active class preparation, enhancing class participation, debates, teamwork, role play, PBL and case studies, and a collection of other activities that expose the students to real work situations like simulations and real-client projects. We also observe that there is a growing use of ICTs both inside and outside the classroom. Hence, from our review, it is possible to assert that active learning is a pedagogy strategy that appears to be prevalent in a sample of different courses of renowned public affairs schools.

Altogether, our review of syllabi reflects a wide-ranging use of active learning pedagogies in public affairs education. Furthermore, one of our key findings is that the more applied the focus of the course, the more frequent is the use of active learning practices. A sort of self-selection process for public affairs education. One possible explanation is that several of the courses in public affairs graduate programs deliberately attempt to develop practical abilities and analytical tools for which active learning appears to be desirable. Since most of those skills are, to certain degree, both generic and global, one should expect an easy transfer and a similar use of those tools in schools in other countries where they can be transferred through different channels (Hall, 2009).

We found that the most frequent active learning practices in public affairs classrooms appear to be straightforward (see Figure 1). For instance, 48% of the reviewed syllabi mention class participation as a strategy to enhance individual student learning. To increase its effectiveness, some courses claim to provide guiding questions for the students, whereas others appear to require summaries and reports as part of the assignments of the course. 58 out of the 124 syllabi reviewed included an indication that students’ participation is graded.

Figure 1.

Distribution of some practitioner-centered practices in a sample of international public affairs schools syllabi (n = 42) Source: Authors’ elaboration.

In second place, our review shows that a significant number of courses have started to use social networks and ICTs as tools to enhance and facilitate students’ class preparation and participation. Among the mechanisms reported are blogs, wikies, twitter, and online forums, all of them tools with which the students are, in general, highly familiar nowadays. Thus, it seems that although the two most frequent active learning strategies are relatively simple, the traditional lecture approaches tend to be not as predominant in public affairs education today and are being enhanced by an increasing use of technologies. This is consistent with our findings in the third section, according to which new technologies are bringing effective learning opportunities to the active learning classroom in public affairs.

Teamwork activities are the third most common practice observed among the reviewed MPA/MPP course syllabi. Indeed, 26 course syllabi report some kind of group-work as part of the course load and activities. The usual reported group size ranks between three and four members. Teamwork is particularly present in policy analysis courses and in other classes in which the objectives involve developing communication skills. As expected, all capstone courses are teamwork based. This trend is also consistent with what we reported in the literature review: teamwork is considered a highly looked-for skill among public affairs professionals, and consequently schools are devising different strategies to prompt teamwork abilities and real-life situations in the classroom.

The fourth most frequently used active learning practices are case studies. Nearly 18 syllabi incorporated solving case studies among the main activities to be conducted inside and outside the classroom. Six of them include management/policy cases as part of the assigned class preparation activities and another half-dozen provide instructions as to how students are expected to use cases during the class. Moreover, one of the reviewed syllabi requested the students to develop and write their own cases as part of the curriculum. Again, in line with the literature previously reviewed, programs in public affairs tend to use cases as a tool that offers feasible opportunities to put students in real-work situations, and which help them to deal with real dilemmas faced by managers and public servants in day-to day life.

Finally, there are a few other active learning activities that are used to a lesser degree but still mentioned in some of the reviewed syllabi. Seven out of the 124 reviewed syllabi state to use debates and class discussions as part of their activities. Similarly, four of the course syllabi argued using role-play exercises, whereas two request prior press reading by the students. Finally, only two of the courses require students to interview decision makers and public officials and, interestingly, one course appears to be conducting in-class behavioral experiments.

Thus, our review of the syllabi indicates that although this set of top public affairs schools appears to be using a wider set of active learning strategies to empower pedagogy, the most frequent practices tend to be the simplest. This is a sign that there are still a significant number of active learning approaches that can be explored further. Schools appear to be still concentrated on a small group of practices such as active preparation of classes and students’ participation. However, other activities as case studies, capstone, and team projects, as well as exposure to real work situations are present in most of the programs reviewed. More interestingly, it appears that ICTs and social networks are creating new avenues to encourage the involvement of students in their own learning and are widely used in most public affairs programs. This is as a situation that the COVID-19 pandemic probably will accelerate.

Case study: Adoption of active learning practices by a Latin American school of public affairs

As mentioned above, it is worthy to explore whether such active learning activities are used in other settings and, beyond that, whether they are suitable, or not, to the context of a public affairs school in Latin America. A general review if the extant literature indicates that active learning is already used in education in different countries in the region. As the general literature from Latin countries reveals, such practices are already reported as in use and expanding (Benavides, et al., 2013; Gomes, et al., 2017; Oliveira and Rubin, 2013). Thus, one might argue that the generic concepts/skills of public management and public policy can be taught through active learning regardless of the location, whether in US, Europe or Latin America. It can be also expected that active learning strategies can be adapted to the specific realities of each country even in regions with common structural traits in public sector practice. Although the public sector in Latin America is exposed to similar governance challenges and structural changes (Rubaii and Pliscoff, 2013), it also displays diversity in terms of availability of resources and institutional capacity.

In order to explore the use and suitability of active learning activities in a developing country we examined a renowned school in a Latin American country. The Alberto Lleras Camargo School of Government was founded in 2006 at Universidad de los Andes, a top private university in Colombia. It offers three public affairs masters programs, an MPP (Master’s in Public Policy), an MPM (Master’s in Public Management) and an MPH (Master’s in Public Health), and an undergraduate program in Government and Public Affairs. In our analysis we focused on the MPP program, which is older, and which has graduated already a critical mass of students.

In the first part of this section we analyze data regarding teaching practices obtained from a pedagogical workshop that took place in 2014. It was intended for the instructors of the 11 core MPP courses⁴ in order to share teaching practices and experiences. Professors claimed having significant leeway for the design and adjustment of the courses’ syllabi, methodology, evaluation criteria, etc. At the workshop, instructors of the core courses presented: 1) their course objectives, in terms of skills development; 2) the methodology and tools used to develop those skills; 3) their perceptions about how effective those practices were. Professors were asked to report all these data by filling a form developed by the researchers. The main data for this analysis comes from those forms and from the review of the courses’ syllabi.

In the second part of our project, we analyzed data from a survey directed to the graduates of the MPP at the Lleras School of Government. We analyzed three open-ended questions included in the survey: 1) what courses, taken during the MPP, have turned out to be useful in your current job? 2) Which skills/tools acquired/deepened during the MPP are now useful to you? 3) What are the reasons that explain the effectiveness in learning those skills/tools? We analyzed the survey responses in the light of the information from the first part, provided by professors regarding the courses they teach.

It is important to acknowledge that the School of Government at Universidad de los Andes (Uniandes) might not be necessarily representative of all schools of public affairs in Latin America. Since it is recently established (2006), most academic processes tend to be flexible and the school itself promotes experimentation and innovation in teaching. It is housed in the best-ranked private university in Colombia and one of the top 10 in Latin America (according to the QS and Times Higher Education university rankings 2020), which gives the school access to multiple resources. Uniandes attracts highly talented students according to the university’s strong reputation and the prominent role that the university has played in educating the higher echelons of the Colombian government. The School is a member of NASPAA and accredited its MPP in 2018. In doing so, the School of Government at Uniandes has adopted the NASPAA competencies (learning goals) as part of its MPP program and of its Master´s in Public Management. We are aware that those particularities of the School, and of the university, are not necessarily representative of the universe of schools of government in Colombia and Latin America. Still, for the same reasons, we consider that the case of a recently created school, with strong international ties and ample resources, can be used as a case study to explore how much are active learning practices already used in a developing country and how suitable they are perceived by their graduates in practice.

Results from the analysis of professors’ reports and courses’ syllabi

The review of the professors’ survey evidences the use of active learning practices in this MPP program, aiming to achieve three different kinds of skills: 1) basic preparation and communication skills, 2) public management and policy skills and 3) 21st century skills. First, in terms of practices for developing preparation and communication skills, the 11 MPP core courses required the students to conduct active preparation of the classes through reading, study guides and pre-class workshops. The professors argued that the students were also expected to be active in class sessions and discussions and were graded for it. Moreover, all core courses, even the quantitative ones, also explicitly seek to help develop written and verbal communication skills by asking students to write reports, briefs, issue papers, policy memorandums, as well as to make presentations, participate in class discussions, prepare and participate in debates, engage in role playing and dramatization exercises, etc. Thus, we observe an evident adoption of active learning practices from the data coming from faculty members.

Second, in all reviewed courses the syllabi were explicit as to how the skills learned would help students to tackle public affairs issues. Most of the MPP courses claim to implement practices that help students apply knowledge to the solution of real public affairs problems for clients or for themselves. Just to name a few, Analysis of Colombian Problems is a PBL course, designed with the support of the School of Education which requires students to collaborate in the production of the different analyses required to write a policy brief for a real client. Besides, the Public Policy course ends with a policy practicum in which the entire class does teamwork to solve a policy challenge from a real client. Those examples show how such active learning practices are naturally included in the educational platform of this school.

Third, all the professors of the core courses argued that active learning practices were instrumental to aim help the students developing “21st century skills,” namely: complex thinking, leadership, strategic communication, collaborative learning, teamwork, cooperation and/or problem-solving. As an example, the Strategy and Leadership in Public Organizations course requires students to write personal leadership cases and develop them in groups. Also, it encourages students to adopt the class and their groups as leadership labs/systems for personal reflection and to learn from the internal dynamics. The class itself is a space where they can deliberately intervene to generate learning and mobilize people and resources to improve the status quo. A review of recent students’ evaluations of teaching at the school reveals (minor) resistance of the students to develop teamwork, a trait that has been identified previously as one of the challenges in the context of Colombian education (Hernandez and Benítez, 2010). Nonetheless, according to the review of practices, active learning practices in this school are already applied for the development of non-cognitive skills including those identified as 21st century skills.

The review of the reports by faculty members at the Lleras School reflects practices that are consistent with both the ones conducted in top international schools and identified in the scholarship. It demonstrates that most of those active learning tactics are already part of the educational strategy of this public affairs school in Latin America. However not all practices appear to be as frequent. For instance, only three of the core courses reported having a frequent use of case studies as a tool for learning. This probably points to the low availability of local case studies, in Spanish of Portuguese, which remains a challenge for public affairs professors in Latin America.

Yet, other active learning practices appear to be present in the educational strategy of the Lleras School MPP, according to the reports by the instructors. As an example, most of the courses require students to teamwork. Instructors have experimented and sought to extract lessons as to how assemble groups, define group size, and set evaluation standards for group versus individual work, looking to increase its learning potential. They have also learned on the road how to reduce pitfalls such as free riding. Interestingly, the instructors report diverse strategies that also include learning to deal with situations that can emerge in public affairs practice. For instance, in one course the instructor allows the students to deal autonomously with the free-rider problem within their groups, as an important leadership skill to develop.

Regarding educational support, all core courses rely, to different degrees, on the use of technology and ICTs to support learning and create active learning environments. The university accommodates the courses in a Blackboard technology platform, and all the courses use the interphase to communicate with students, upload content, create links for students to upload their assignments, check for plagiarism, etc. Three courses reported using a technology called Learning Catalytics, which is a “bring your own device” that enhances student engagement, direct assessment, and classroom intelligence system. Thus, according to the data, ICTs and use of electronic devices seem also to be a common practice to enhance active learning in this Latin American school of public affairs.

In conclusion, the analysis of the inventory of practices in the Lleras MPP from the instructors’ reports reflects not only a widespread use of active learning strategies, but also an intended emphasis toward the development of 21st century skills and the use of technology to support other key public affairs competencies required for practice. Our analysis indicates that most MPP courses in this school, by the time of the review, used state of the art active learning strategies in manifold forms.

Results from the alumni survey

The previous analysis responds to our question as to how most active learning practices can be used and adapted to teach public affairs in contexts other than the US or Europe. Yet, what are the students’ views on the suitability and usefulness of the use of such practices to generate useful skills for practice? In order to answer this question, we conducted an e-mail survey to all the Lleras School graduates by mid-2014. We obtained a response rate of roughly 76% (28 out of 37 graduates).

Table 1 summarizes the responses to the first question: What courses taken during the MPP program, have turned out to be very useful in your current job? Not surprisingly, the most mentioned courses were those that showed an applied focus and provided students with concrete policy analysis tools. Coincidentally, those courses were copious in the use of active learning practices. Moreover, in this program students appear to value courses that are practical, focused on real problems, and seek to develop specific abilities and skills. When asked about the most useful courses during the masters, the most chosen option here (n = 22) were the courses on statistics and quantitative methods, which evidently provide students with further analytical skills. In second place Analysis of Colombian problems (n = 21), which enhances policy analysis skills. Nonetheless, the third most mentioned course (n = 7) is Strategy and Leadership, a course strongly devoted to developing “soft” skills. The frequencies indicate an interesting combination of technical and interpersonal skills recognized by the students. These results are consistent with what we previously mention from the international analysis: applied and tool-oriented courses tend to benefit from active learning practices.

Table 2 summarizes the responses for the second question: Which skills/tools acquired/deepened during the MPP are now useful to you? The tools and skills most frequently mentioned by the MPP alumni in their jobs were quantitative data analysis (n = 25) and communication skills (n = 8). Again, students tend to appreciate better the technical/tool-oriented courses, which are, coincidentally, also highly reliant on active learning practices. Again, those courses tend to provide the MPP students with skills that are highly valuable in public affairs day-to-day practice such as quantitative analysis and communication.

Table 2.

MPP courses useful in current work.

MPP Course	FrequencyN = 28
Data Analysis Techniques I and II	22
Analysis of Colombian Problems	21
Strategy and Leadership in Public Organizations	7
Microeconomics for Public Affairs	4
Thesis Seminar	4
The Politics of Public Policy	4
Social Policy Impact evaluation	2
Law and Public Policy	1
Qualitative Research Methods	1

Source: Student surveys—The curricular structure of the MPP was updated in 2018 and some of the courses have different names in the current version.

Table 3, summarizes the answers to the third question: What are the main reasons that explain the effectiveness in learning those skills/tools? The answers are especially interesting for the purposes of this paper. MPP alumni considered as key reasons: 1) the structure and content of the courses and of the MPP, 2) the methodological strategies used by professors, and 3) the high level of qualifications of the MPP professors. This is consistent with our findings from the literature review: course design, content and methodology as well as professors’ skills, play a major role in the effective acquisition of public affairs competencies and the so-called 21st century skills. As a matter of fact, it is remarkable that the students perceive the methodological strategies in the classroom as one of the most powerful elements that explain their achievement. Since the most valued courses are also the ones with strong active learning strategies, the results of our students’ survey reinforces the idea that active learning practices are also effective in helping students learn key skills for public affairs practice in countries outside the US or Europe.

Table 3.

Useful skills learned at the MPP.

Tool/Skill	FrequencyN = 28
Quantitative data analysis	25
Written and verbal communication	8
Qualitative data analysis	7
Research	2
Problem-Based Analysis	1
Strategic	1

Source: Student surveys

In brief, it is remarkable to witness that most MPP courses in this Latin American school of public affairs are experimenting with, and consciously learning from, active learning strategies. Public affairs education benefits anywhere of putting the participants at the center of learning. The methodologies used at the Lleras School (teamwork, PBL, simulations, play role, practicums, ICT use, etc.) are like those reported in the specialized literature on public affairs education, and seemingly as modern and experimental as the courses analyzed in the review of top US public affairs schools. Our data analysis from the Lleras School allows us to infer that an environment that fosters experimentation, creativity and autonomy appears to promote the use of active learning practices (see Table 4). Mainly, this implies those practices can be applied as effectively in a Latin American school as in US/Europe settings, although they certainly still need adaptation and contextualization.

Table 4.

Factors that promoted individual learning.

Factors that promoted Learning	FrequencyN = 28
Teaching Methodology	23
Curricular structure	22
Professors skills	19
Course’s content	18
Personal interests and motivation	3
Pertinent feedback	1
Participation in research seminars	1

Source: Student surveys

Discussion and concluding remarks

We started this research with two aims: to portray the state of the art regarding active learning methodologies in the scholarship on public affairs education and in the practices of top public affairs schools, and to respond whether those state-of-the-art practices can be used and re suitable to the context of a school in a developing country. From our revision of the specialized literature in public affairs education we concluded that there seems to be a trend of experimentation and innovation in order to help skills development by the students through active learning strategies. Although not necessarily all the literature has an empirical approach, those works that offer empirical evidence find a positive relation between the use of active learning techniques and the acquisition of 21st century skills. From the specialized literature review it is not easy to conclude how widely are these practices being used across and within public affairs schools but the interest in the topics reflects a growing awareness and diversity of those methods.

Based on our revision of the course syllabi, we found that the teaching of public affairs in core courses at top international schools appears to be frequently materialized in basic active learning approaches (e.g. active class preparation and class participation). However, other active learning strategies such as case studies, PBL, teamwork, capstones, simulations and practicums have started to appear to be frequently used. More interestingly, the syllabi analysis shows that ICT and social networks are creating new avenues to encourage active learning in public affairs education toward the development of 21st century skills.

Then, our analysis of the case of the Lleras School of Government indicates that active learning practices are already being used in a school of public affairs at a developing country. More importantly it shows diversity of practices and adaptation to local realities. In general terms, the evidence shows that most active learning practices appear to be easily adapted in the context of the case analyzed. Moreover, the analysis of survey data indicates that most MPP graduates at this school tend to provide a high value to technical and tool-oriented courses, which are ultimately strong in their use of active learning strategies. Beyond that, MPP alumni consider that course design, content, and methodology, as well as the professors’ teaching skills, played a major role in the effective acquisition of skills currently valuable for their jobs and careers. Hence, our review from the case study shows that the application of active learning practices enhances public affairs education regardless of the location.

These conclusions contribute to the understanding of how active learning practices are being embraced in public affairs education. The analysis opens the question about the adaptability of learning tools from developed countries in other settings. For instance, case studies, simulations and games frequent deal with topics related to the US or appear to be contextualized there. Namely, there is a significant body of available cases for public affairs from US schools mainly on US public administration and policy topics (e.g. Harvard Kennedy School or the Electronic Hallway of U. of Washington) whereas very few are based in Latin American institutions and are of recent creation (e.g. Tecnológico de Monterrey and the Lleras School itself). Accordingly, the use of cases from developed countries requires careful consideration by Latin American public affairs educators, as the context matters in public affairs education. On the flip side, it seems a promising task for government schools in the region to develop a local supply of case studies, games and simulations.

Other practices such as capstone projects, teamwork, role-play, interviews, and debates appear to be more easily usable outside developed countries, as long as they are intended to convey general knowledge and develop generic abilities in public administration and policy analysis. Yet, the use of ICTs in the classroom appears to be contingent to the availability of technological and financial resources, which vary from country to country and school to school. In this way, it seems that the adaptation process of those practices should ponder elements such as the level of applicability of the concepts, the need for context awareness, the availability of resources, and the type of skill at hand. All in all, some active learning practices can be easily adapted or used by schools in regions other than the US, as the case of Universidad de los Andes shows.

Yet, as we cautioned before, it is possible that although we evidence the adoption of such practices in a leading program in Latin America, with its faculty mostly trained in US schools, the experience from other programs in the region might differ. In this vein, Sanabria et al. (2016) found no evidence of a widespread emulation of the US model of public affairs education in Latin America according to key cultural differences and language. The finding of those authors is informative of the diversity of models that can be found in public affairs education in Latin America. It might also imply that the case reviewed in this work might be more representative of schools with a strong international outlook than most schools in the region. Hence, one interesting question for future research is whether there is one type of schools of public affairs in the global South that is more suitable to the adoption of active learning practices, and whether the Lleras School is perhaps more representative of that type.

Moreover, the results of this work open the avenue for further study of the factors that promote effective innovation in public affairs education through active learning. Concurrently, our literature review, the benchmarking of practices, and the results of our survey to the MPP alumni, identified that active learning strategies appear to be beneficial for the acquirement of public affairs competencies in different settings, and also to be useful for the effective learning of a diverse set of skills for public affairs practitioners. Thus, another empirical question that derives from this work is whether public affairs schools that have environments that foster and prize experimentation with active learning practices, regardless of the location or the level of development of the recipient country, are in a better position to ensure the achievement of such aforementioned skills.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Pablo Sanabria is also affiliated with Public Administration Division, CIDE Mexico.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was funded by Universidad de los Andes, Colombia.

ORCID iD

Pablo Sanabria-Pulido

Notes

References

Abel

(2009) Toward a signature pedagogy for public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(2): 145–160.

Ambrose

Bridges

DiPietro

, et al. (2010) How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Andrade

Huff

Brooke

(2012) Assessing learning: a blend of practices can create a balanced, student-centered assessment system. The Students at the Center: Teaching and Learning in the Era of the Common Core, a Job for the Future Project. https://studentsatthecenterhub.org/resource/assessing-learning-the-student-at-the-center-series/ (accessed 10 November 2019).

Benavides

Fierro-Villa

Cobian

(2013) Public service, justice, transparency and good governance vs. corruption, concealment, injustice and self-promotion: MPA programs in Mexico. Journal of Public Affairs Education 19(4): 615–634.

Bergom

Wright

Brown

, et al. (2011) Promoting College Student Development Through Collaborative Learning a Case Study of Hevruta. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals.

Bonwell

Eison

(1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brock

Alford

(2015) Interactive education in public administration (2): strategies for teachers. Teaching Public Administration 33(1): 6–21.

Brown

Roediger

McDaniel

(2014) Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell

Lambright

(2011) How valuable are capstone projects for community organizations? Lessons from a program assessment. Journal of Public Affairs Education 17(1): 61–87.

10.

Candler

Acevedo

Obenhauzen

(2010) Towards global scholarship in public affairs. Public Administration 88(3): 836–850.

11.

Castelli

(2011) An integrated model for practicing reflective learning. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 15: 15–30.

12.

Christie

(2012) An interpersonal Skills learning taxonomy for program evaluation instructors. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(4): 739–756.

13.

Curran

Sharpe

Forristal

, et al. (2008) Student satisfaction and perceptions of small group process in case-based interprofessional learning. Medical Teacher 30: 431–433.

14.

Dufour

(2012) University matters: early institutional development of public administration education in Québec. International Journal of Public Administration 35(13): 914–923.

15.

Eikenberry

(2012) Social networking, learning, and civic engagement: new relationships between professors and students, public administrators and citizens. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3): 449–466.

16.

Eison

(2010) Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create Excitement and Enhance Learning. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

17.

Felder

Brent

(2009) Active learning: an introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief 2(4): 4–9.

18.

Foster

McBeth

Clemons

(2010) Public policy pedagogy: mixing methodologies using cases. Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(4): 517–540.

19.

Gibson

(2008) Evaluative criteria to create and assess case studies for use in ethical decision-making analysis. Journal of Public Affairs Education 14(3): 297–309.

20.

Gibson

Trump

(2012) Creating quality online course design through a peer-reviewed assessment. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(1): 209–228.

21.

Glor

(2007) Preparing for work in government. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(2): 281–300.

22.

Goings

Johnson

(2011) The synergistic effect of matrix learning: a case study using matrix learning in business classes. Business Education Innovation Journal 3(1): 77–87.

23.

Gomes

Almeida

Lucio

(2017) New agenda for teaching public administration and public policy in Brazil: institutional opportunities and educational reasons. Teaching Public Administration 34(2): 159–177.

24.

Green

Farazmand

(2012) Experiential learning: the internship and live-case study relationship. Business Education and Accreditation 4(1): 13–23.

25.

Hall

(2009) Cognitive styles matching: expanding the efficacy of group work in MPA courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(4): 493–513.

26.

Hartley

(2009) Putting yourself in their shoes: the analysis of real-world disputes through group field projects. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(4): 535–552.

27.

Helms

Biggs

(2008) Policy mapping: a new framework for teaching policymaking and policy design through case studies. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(3/4): 565–584.

28.

Hernandez

Benítez

(2010) Desmitificando el trabajo en grupo entre docentes de Educación Superior. Magis Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación 4(7): 169–184.

29.

Hood Cattaneo

(2017) Telling active learning pedagogies apart: from theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal) 6(2): 144–152.

30.

Johnston

(2012) Using a wiki-based course design to create a student-centered learning environment: strategies and lessons. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3): 493–512.

31.

Johnston

Hemphill

, et al. (2012) Exploring the role of interactive computer simulations in public administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3): 513–530.

32.

Ingrams

Holzer

(2016) The educational and professional goals of international students in public service degrees. International Journal of Public Administration 39: 1134–1147.

33.

Jones

(2007) The Student-Centered Classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Kapucu

(2012) Classrooms as communities of practice: designing and facilitating learning in a networked environment. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3): 585–610.

35.

Kim

Myeong

(2014) Public administration education in South Korea: developed but still evolving. International Journal of Public Administration 37(10): 676–684.

36.

Knowlton

(2000) A theoretical framework for the online classroom: a defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 84: 5–14.

37.

Krain

(2010) The effects of different types of case learning on student engagement. International Studies Perspectives 11: 291–308.

38.

Kramer

(2007) How might action learning be used to develop the emotional intelligence and leadership capacity of public administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(2): 205–242.

39.

Merrit

Kelley

(2018) What individual and organizational competencies facilitate effective collaboration? Findings from a collaborative governance simulation. Journal of Public Affairs Education 24(1): 97–121.

40.

Moreno

(2015) Team-based learning: a model for democratic and culturally competent 21st century public administrators. Journal of Public Affairs Education 21(2): 143–164.

41.

Morse

Stephens

(2012) Teaching collaborative governance: phases, competencies, and case-based learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3): 565–584.

42.

Newcomer

Allen

ElBaradei

(2010) Improving public service education programs through assessing the performance of MPA alumni. International Journal of Public Administration 33(6): 311–324.

43.

Nicholl

Lou

(2012) A model for small-group problem-based learning in a large class facilitated by one instructor. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 76(6): 117.

44.

Oliveira

Rubin

(2013) Public administration education in Brazil: evolution, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Public Affairs Education 19(4): 635–655.

45.

Oros

(2007) Let’s debate: active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education 3(3): 293–311.

46.

Prince

(2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3): 223–231.

47.

Raadschelders

(2011) The study of public administration in the united states. Public Administration 89(1): 140–155.

48.

Rosefsky-Saavedra

Opfer

(2012) Teaching and Learning 21st Century Skills: Lessons From the Learning Sciences. RAND Corporation, April 2012.

49.

Rosenbaum

(2006) Excellence in public administration education: preparing the next generation of public administrators for a changing world. In: Rosenbaum

Kauzya

(eds) Excellence and Leadership in the Public Sector: The Role of Education and Training. New York, NY: United Nations, pp. 11–24.

50.

Rosenbaum

(2014) Putting first things first: critical issues for public administration education. Teaching Public Administration 32(1): 80–94.

51.

Rubaii

(2016) Bringing the 21st century governance paradigm to public affairs education: reimagining how we teach what we teach. Journal of Public Affairs Education 19(3): 467–482.

52.

Rubaii

Pliscoff

(2013) Public administration education in Latin America—understanding teaching in context: an introduction to the symposium. Journal of Public Affairs Education 19(4): 585–589.

53.

Rubaii

Sanabria

(2020) Evolution of policy analysis as a field of study and instruction in Colombia. In: Sanabria

Rubaii

(eds) Policy Analysis in Colombia. International Library of Policy Analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.

54.

Sanabria

Rubaii

Purón

(2016) Public affairs education in Latin America: Emulation or identity? Policy & Society 35(4): 315–331.

55.

Snyder

(2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–339.

56.

Van der Meer

Ringeling

(2010) An education strategy for practitioners in public administration master’s programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(1): 77–93.

57.

Van der Wal

(2017) The 21st Century Public Manager. Challenges, People and Strategies. London: Palgrave.

58.

Van der Waldt

(2014) Public administration teaching and interdisciplinarity: considering the consequences. Teaching Public Administration 32(2): 169–193.

59.

Varda

Retrum

Kuenzi

(2012) The influence of teaching methodology on student social interaction. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(4): 633–660.

60.

Varol

(2010) Knowledge Management on Student Centered Learning Methods. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Hong Kong, China.

61.

Verheijn

Connaughton

(2003) Public administration education and Europeanization: Prospects for the emancipation of a discipline? Public Administration 81(4): 833–851.

62.

Waldner

Roberts

Widener

, et al. (2011) Serving up justice: fusing service learning and social equity in the public administration classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education 17(2): 209–232.

63.

Williams

Slagle

Wilson

(2014) Ranking universities for scholarship in public administration research 2006–2010. Journal of Public Affairs Education 20(3): 393–412.

64.

Wilson

Pollock

Hamann

(2007) Does active learning enhance learner outcomes? Evidence from discussion participation in online classes. Journal of Political Science Education 3(2): 131–142.