Shaping Pedagogy for the AI Generation: Active Learning Techniques and Theoretical Foundations for Public Service Education

Abstract

As AI becomes increasingly prevalent in our society, public affairs programs must consider how to integrate this tool into its pedagogy. This research examines how one class across two different universities taught about generative AI in public service while leveraging the use of the tool in the curriculum. The course was designed to promote active learning while avoiding emerging AI threats of cognitive off-loading or reduced critical thinking. The data from MPA students (n = 22) indicates that a peer-oriented, reflective learning environment invites student learning around ethical AI use, applications for AI, and AI skill development. Students also demonstrated some resistance to the active-learning requirements even though students could identify areas of high growth. The integration of AI in public affairs programs, whether as a singular course or within topic-specific contexts, should aim for a high-level of active learning within a peer-based model.

Keywords

AI and public service active learning AI incorporated pedagogy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ActivTrak Productivity Lab. (2026). 2026 state of the workplace: AI adoption & workforce performance benchmarks. ActivTrak.

Ajani

O. A.

Gamede

Matiyenga

T. C.

(2024). Leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance teaching and learning in higher education: Promoting quality education and critical engagement. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 7(1), 54–69.

Allgood

Musgrave

(2024). Leveraging ChatGPT in public sector human resource management education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 30(3), 494–510.

Anyoha

(2017, August 28). The history of artificial intelligence. Science in the News. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/history-artificial-intelligence/

Archambault

Leary

Rice

(2022). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178–191.

Bandam

(2025, July 28). Cognitive offloading: How AI is quietly eroding our critical thinking. IEEE Computer Society. https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/trends/cognitive-offloading

Boedeker

Schlingmann

Kailin

Nair

Foldes

Rowley

Salciccioli

Maag

Moreno

Ismail

(2025). Active versus passive learning in large-group sessions in medical school: A randomized cross-over trial investigating effects on learning and the feeling of learning. Medical Science Educator, 35(1), 459–467.

Bonds

C. W.

Bonds

L. G.

Peach

(1992). Metacognition: Developing independence in learning. The Clearing House, 66(1), 56–59.

Bonwell

C. C.

Eison

J. A.

(1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC.

10.

Børte

Nesje

Lillejord

(2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615.

11.

Bryer

Chen

(2010). The use of social media and networks in teaching public administration. Cutting-Edge Social Media Approaches to Business Education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and Blogs (HC), Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 241.

12.

Cameron

(2004). Public accountability: Effectiveness, equity, ethics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4), 59–67.

13.

Carter

J. W.

Scott

J. T.

Barrett

J. D.

(2025). The emotional cost of AI chatbots in education: Who benefits and who struggles? Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1, 100181.

14.

Chang

(2019). Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 23(1), 95–110.

15.

Cozzetto

D. A.

Kweit

R. W.

(1995). Using interactive video technology in graduate programs in Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(2), 116–129.

16.

Ferrandiz

Gonzalo

F. D. A.

Sanchez-Sepulveda

Fonseca

(2019). Introducing a new ICT tool in an active learning environment course: Performance consequences depending on the introduction design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), 360–371.

17.

Frantzen

(2014). Is technology a one-size-fits-all solution to improving student performance? A comparison of online, hybrid and face-to-face courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 565–578.

18.

Gerlich

(2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 1–6.

19.

Gouthro

P. A.

(2019). Taking time to learn: The importance of theory for adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 69(1), 60–76.

20.

Grinschgl

Neubauer

A. C.

(2022). Supporting cognition with modern technology: Distributed cognition today and in an AI-enhanced future. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 908261.

21.

Heaslip

(2023). Traditional AI Vs. Generative AI: A Breakd. U.S. Chamber of Congress. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/technology/traditional-ai-vs-generative-ai

22.

Henman

(2020). Improving public services using artificial intelligence: Possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221.

23.

Hjaltalin

I. T.

Sigurdarson

H. T.

(2024). The strategic use of AI in the public sector: A public values analysis of national AI strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101914.

24.

Hortsch

(2024). Transforming histology students from passive lecture listeners into active lecture learners. Anatomical Sciences Education, 17(6), 1174–1182.

25.

Humble

Mozelius

(2022). The threat, hype, and promise of artificial intelligence in education. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), 22.

26.

Jenkins

Khanna

(2025). AI-enhanced training, education, & development: Exploration and insights into generative AI’s role in leadership learning. Journal of Leadership Studies, 18(4), 81–97.

27.

Johnson

(2022, March 7). How wrongful arrests based on AI derailed 3 men’s lives. WIRED.

28.

Korzynski

Mazurek

Krzypkowska

Kurasinski

(2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(3), 25–37.

29.

Kosmyna

Hauptmann

Yuan

Y. T.

Situ

Liao

X.-H.

Beresnitzky

A. V.

Braunstein

Maes

(2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2506.08872, 4.

30.

Lan

Zhou

(2025). A qualitative systematic review on AI empowered self-regulated learning in higher education. Npj Science of Learning, 10(1), 21.

31.

Le Poidevin

. (2025, October 21). AI assistants make widespread errors about the news, new research shows. Reuters.

32.

MacDonald

Frank

M. C.

(2016). When does passive learning improve the effectiveness of active learning? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 38, 1–7.

33.

Manousou

(2025). Critical thinking in distance education: The challenges in a decade (2016–2025) and the role of artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 15(6), 757.

34.

Mettler

Phillips

A. S.

Massey

C. M.

Burke

Garrigan

Kellman

P. J.

(2019). The synergy of passive and active learning modes in adaptive perceptual learning. CogSci. . . Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society (US). Conference, 1, 2351.

35.

Michael

(2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.

36.

NectirAI. (2024). NectirAI [Computer software]. NectirAI. https://nectir.io

37.

Nilson

L. B.

(2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. John Wiley & Sons.

38.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Governing with artificial intelligence: The state of play and way forward in core government functions. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en

39.

Pathiranage

Karunaratne

(2023). Teachers’ agency in technology for education in pre-and post-COVID-19 periods: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(9), 917.

40.

Rahman

M. M.

Watanobe

(2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783.

41.

Risko

E. F.

Gilbert

S. J.

(2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

42.

Ruijer

Porumbescu

Porter

Piotrowski

(2023). Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 316–332.

43.

Salman

Fatima

Anees

R. T.

Sylvia

G. R.

(2024). The barriers to effective remote education, including access to technology, student engagement and teacher preparedness. Review of Education, Administration & Law, 7(4), 289–302.

44.

Sandberg

Wasif

Hand

L. C.

(2025). Addressing the promise and peril of AI for nonprofit management through a data feminist pedagogy. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 31(2), 192–212.

45.

Sandfort

J. R.

(2016). Using technology to support interactive learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 321–326.

46.

Shafiee Rad

. (2025). Reinforcing L2 reading comprehension through artificial intelligence intervention: Refining engagement to foster self-regulated learning. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 23.

47.

Shi

Yang

MacLeod

Zhang

Yang

H. H.

(2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in technology-enabled active learning environments: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 791–817.

48.

Shukla

Bui

Levy

S. S.

Kowalski

Baigelenov

Parsons

(2025). De-skilling, cognitive offloading, and misplaced responsibilities: Potential ironies of AI-assisted design. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–7. ACM Press.

49.

Smith

R. A.

(2026, March 11). AI isn’t lightening workloads. It’s making them more intense. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-isnt-lightening-workloads-its-making-them-more-intense

50.

Stenmark

(2001). The relationship between information and knowledge. Proceedings of IRIS, 24, 11–14.

51.

Tabrizi

Rideout

(2017). Active learning: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to support critical pedagogy. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 8(3), 3202–3209.

52.

Tharayil

Borrego

Prince

Nguyen

K. A.

Shekhar

Finelli

C. J.

Waters

(2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–7.

53.

Wei

Wang

Lee

L.-K.

Liu

(2025). The effects of generative AI on collaborative problem-solving and team creativity performance in digital story creation: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 23.

54.

Yeung

K. L.

Carpenter

S. K.

Corral

(2021). A comprehensive review of educational technology on objective learning outcomes in academic contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1583–1630.

55.

Zheng

(2022). The public law construction of government agencies’ obligations to disclose when handling personal information in the digital age. Journal of Human Rights, 21, 439.

56.

Yuriev

Burton

M. G.

Knott

Terrill

A. E.

Jackson

N. R.

Chen

(2025). Integrating generative AI in chemistry education: Enhancing career-ready writing skills in pharmaceutical science. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(5), 1991–2001.