Teaching about public affairs can be difficult in applied programs of study. Undergraduate students in applied fields tend to have more utilitarian perspectives on higher education, valuing it for the accomplishment of specific career-related objectives. This can make teaching about government difficult because students may not see the immediate relevance of such study for their career paths. This article posits that instructors can frame undergraduate public affairs classes to emphasize the relevance of government and public affairs for students’ careers. By taking a constructivist approach and focusing on government regulation as it pertains to students’ majors and programs of study, instructors can transform students’ career-related self-interest into a foundation for deeper learning about government, public affairs, and the challenges of modern governance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanC.EwellP.GastonP.SchneiderC. G. (2011). The degree qualifications profile.Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
2.
AndersonT. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning.Edmonton, AB: AU Press.
3.
ArumR.RoksaJ. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
AshmanA. F.ConwayR. N. F. (2002). An introduction to cognitive education: Theory and applications. London, UK: Routledge.
5.
BlumenthalM. S. (1998). Teaching policy to computer science students.Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
6.
CareyM. P. (2013). The federal rulemaking process: An overview (RL32240 no. 7-5700). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
7.
CarpiniM. X. D. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341–349. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178942.
8.
ClarkA. K. (2015). Rethinking the decline in social capital.American Politics Research, 43(4), 569–601.
9.
EkmanJ.AmnåE. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology.Human Affairs: Postdisciplinary Humanities and Social Sciences Quarterly, 22(3), 283–300.
10.
FigueroaC. (2014). Developing practical/analytical skills through mindful classroom simulations for “doing” leadership.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(1), 113–130.
11.
FlanneryD. D. (1993). Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
GirouxH. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education.Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
13.
Hart Research Associates. (2016). Recent trends in general education design, learning outcomes, and teaching approaches.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report2_GEtrends.pdf.
14.
HolborowM. (2012). Neoliberalism, human capital and the skills agenda in higher education: The Irish case.Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 93–111.
15.
LoaderB. D.VromenA.XenosM. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement.New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
LossC. P. (2012). Between citizens and the state: The politics of American higher education in the 20th century.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
MandlerG. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r) evolution.Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 339–353.
18.
MettlerS. (2007). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.McNealR. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
PaxtonP. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship.American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277. http://doi.org/10.2307/3088895.
21.
PatchenT.CoxPetersenA. (2008). Constructing cultural relevance in science: A case study of two elementary teachers.Science Education, 92(6), 994–1014. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20282.
22.
PerlrothN.LarsonJ.ShaneS. (2013, September 5). N.S.A. able to foil basic safeguards of privacy on web. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsafoilsmuchinternetencryption.html.
23.
PowellK. C.KalinaC. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom.Education, 130(2), 241–250.
24.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
25.
QueenJ. A. (1984). Simulations in the classroom.Improving College and University Teaching, 32(3), 144–145. http://doi.org/10.1080/00193089.1984.10533863.
26.
RosenbloomD. H.McCurdyH. E. (2006). Revisiting Waldo’s administrative state constancy and change in public administration.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=547772.
27.
SaegertS.ThompsonJ. P.WarrenM. R. (2002). Social capital and poor communities.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
SchneiderC. G. (2015). The LEAP challenge: Transforming for students, essential for liberal education.Liberal Education, 101 (1/2), 6–15.
29.
SemitsuJ. (2011). From Facebook to mug shot: How the dearth of social networking privacy rights revolutionized online government surveillance.Pace Law Review, 31(1), 291.
30.
SchultzD. (2012). The rise and demise of neoliberal university: The collapsing business plan of American higher education.Logos Journal, 11 (2/3). Retrieved from http://logosjournal.com/2012/springsummer_schultz.
31.
SilviaC. (2012). The impact of simulations on higherlevel learning.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 397–422.
32.
SkinnerB. F. (2011). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House Digital.
33.
SoghoianC. (2010). Caught in the cloud: Privacy, encryption, and government back doors in the web 2.0 era. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 8(2010), 359.
34.
SplitterL. J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education.Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1121700891053.
35.
StillmanR. J.II (1997). American vs. European public administration: Does public administration make the modern state, or does the state make public administration?Public Administration Review, 57(4), 332–338. http://doi.org/10.2307/977316.
36.
SunsteinC. R. (2014). Valuing life: Humanizing the regulatory state.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
VaughanG. B. (2006). The community college story.Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
38.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
39.
WhiteleyP. F. (2000). Economic growth and social capital.Political Studies, 48(3), 443–466. http://doi.org/10.1111/14679248.00269.
