Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Designers of public administration and public affairs curricula face the challenge of incorporating various disciplinary perspectives into a coherent curriculum that is academically challenging as well as oriented towards real-world administrative and political challenges. This article describes and analyzes the redesign of a Bachelor of Public Administration (BPA) program at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The curriculum, which was first implemented in the academic year 2007–2008, features a sequential program of modules that are integrated through overarching studio modules. The theoretical and pedagogical backgrounds of the curriculum are explained and the authors reflect on the design requirements, implementation issues, and impact of the curriculum.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abel

C. F.

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

Ackerman

D. B.

(1989). Intellectual and practical criteria for successful curriculum integration. In Jacobs

H. Hayes

(Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 25–37). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Bloom

(1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Coleman

Bolte

J. R.

Franklin

(1984), Academic calendar change impact on enrollment patterns and instructional oucomes. Research in Higher Education, 20(2), 155–166.

Denhardt

R. B.

(2001). The big question of public administration education. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526–534.

Edwards

A. E.

Ringeling

A. R.

(2003). Academie en Atelier; Vormgeven aan de praktijkgerichtheid van de bestuurskundeopleiding [Academy and studio: Shaping the practical orientation of public administration education]. Bestuurskunde, 12(3), 132–141

Goodlad

(1979). Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hayes Jacobs

(Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Jansen

E. P. W. A.

(1996). Curriculum organization and study progress. (PhD thesis). Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen Press.

10.

Lynn

L. E.

(1996). Public Management as art, science, and profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

11.

Rainey

(1990). Public management: Recent development and current prospects. In Lynn

N. B.

Wildavsky

(Eds.), Public administration: The state of the discipline (pp. 157–184). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

12.

Schmidt

H. G.

Cohen-Schotanus

Arends

L. R.

(2009). Impact of problem-based, active learning on graduation rates for 10 generations of Dutch medical students. Medical Education, 43, 211–218.

13.

Schön

D. A.

(1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9.

14.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for postindustrial education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401–1421.

15.

Smith

S. R.

(2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications for schools of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 115–128.

16.

Stalling

(1980). Allocating academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11–16.

17.

Vaughan

Carlson

(1992). Teaching and learning. One-course-at-a-time. Innovative Higher Education, 16(4), 263–276.

18.

Vigoda

(Ed.). (2002). Public administration: An interdisciplinary critical analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.

The Studio Approach in Public Administration Teaching: Bringing Coherence and Practice into the Curriculum

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References