Master of Public Administration Program
Master of Public Administration (M.P.A.)
Learning from the real-world evidence.
- To produce graduates who have knowledge and expertise in support of the development of a country.
- To produce graduates who have capabilities to analyze, synthesize and apply knowledge to solve complex issues and are able to use their research skills to provide innovative solutions to the problems in the public sector.
- To encourage students to realize the importance of good governance in public management.
- To train students to become change leaders who are keen to seek new knowledge in order to facilitate sustainable development.
ELO 1 Explain public administration theories and practices.
ELO 2 Apply knowledge of public management to offer solutions based on a disciplined and responsible consideration of academic and professional ethics.
ELO 3 Demonstrate leadership in supporting others to make moral and ethical decisions and collaborate with others to solve problems.
ELO 4 Analyze problems by gathering relevant evidence to support decision- making in solving issues concerning public management.
ELO 5 Synthesize information to address problems by adhering to the principle of justice and social responsibility.
ELO 6 Develop conclusions or recommendations based on academic research to advance knowledge in public administration and to communicate them to the academic and the professional communities.
- Hold a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent from educational institutes accredited by the Office of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, or the Office of the Civil Service Commission, or organizations with standard accreditation or with accreditation recognized by the National Institute of Development Administration.
- Have required professional experience in accordance with the announcement of the Institute.
- Pass selection criteria set by the Institute through written exam and / or interview.
- Presentation Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Delivery of content | –Fluent, smooth, easy and quick for audience to get the points -Uses proper pauses and puts timely emphasis on words or important information to hold audience’s attention. -Speaks at the right pace. | –Fluent, smooth, easy for audience to get the points -Uses proper pauses. -Speaks at the right pace. | –Not eloquent with occasional halts. -Speaking too fast to understand or too slowly. | –Unsmooth or frequently repeats words like ‘Uh’ and ‘Ah’. -Many halts. -Speaks too fast to understand or too slowly. |
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Independent Study Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy ** | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the facts. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the topic / research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect
| – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard (75-100%) | Standard (50-74%) | Close to Standard (25-49%) | Below Standard (0-24%) *
|
|
|
| shallow analytical skill. |
|
Coherence of content | Complete coherence | Incoherent in some parts | Incoherent in most of the content | Complete incoherence |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Content amount | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. | Completely inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. |
Credibility of reference information sources | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | Some reference sources are short of credibility such as blogs or websites with unverified names of writers and / or other details failing to build credibility for the information on the blogs or websites as proven facts. | Low credibility and / or no reference to sources of information. |
Student participation | Regular participation | Frequent participation | Occasional participation | Little participation / No participation |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
** Factors taken into account are as follows :
1.Research question / Research objective
2.Literature review
3.Methodology
4.Information analysis
5.Discussion on results and conclusion / recommendations
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Take-home examination – Report – Essay Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the fact. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the topic / research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect shallow analytical skill. | – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Coherence of content | Complete coherence | Incoherent in some parts | Incoherent in most of the content | Complete incoherence |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Content amount | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Appropriate amount pursuant to the topic / answers to research questions. | Inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. | Completely inadequate amount for the topic / answers to research questions. |
Credibility of reference information sources | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | High credibility sources such as academic journals on international and / or national databases, research published by national-level organizations etc. | Some reference sources are short of credibility such as blogs or websites with unverified names of writers and / or other details failing to build credibility for the information on the blogs or websites as proven facts. | Low credibility and / or no reference to sources of information. |
Participation of students in group work ** | Regular participation | Frequent participation | Occasional participation | Little participation / No participation |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
** In case of group work on assigned reports, an individual student’s opinion report corresponding to the content of the assigned report is used as a measure of participation.
Date published: April 9th, 2019
- Closed-book examination Scoring Rubrics
Standard Level / Marking Criteria | Above Standard | Standard | Close to Standard | Below Standard |
Well-roundedness and accuracy | -Well-rounded with completeness of all issues. -Reference information is true to the proven facts. | -Well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Reference information is true to the fact. | -Not well-rounded with some issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. | -Misses the point. -Not well-rounded with all issues still incomplete. -Parts of reference information are inaccurate. |
Clarity and analytical depth | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect deep analytical skill. | -Explanations / arguments / observations clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process. -Explanations / arguments / observations reflect analytical skill level corresponding to the research question. | -Explanations / arguments / observations do not clearly demonstrate analytical thinking process, due to considerable proportion of descriptive facts. – Explanations / arguments / observations reflect shallow analytical skill. | – Explanations / arguments / observations are descriptive facts without analysis. |
Suitability and Accuracy of the language used | -Proper academic language -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language slightly mixed with colloquialisms. -Good selection of words, correct grammar and spelling. -Completely legible hand-writing. | -Academic language heavily mixed with colloquialisms. -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in some parts. | -Colloquialisms -Improper selection of words, incorrect grammar and spelling in some parts. -Hardly legible hand-writing in many parts or illegible hand-writing. |
Remarks : * 0 mark is assigned only to students who fail to sit the examination or fail to answer one or all of the questions.
Date published: April 9th, 2019
Study at Bangkok classes
Track A: 97,000 THB
Track B: 178,000 THB
Study at Provincial classes
Track B: 174,000 THB
1. Executives in the public and private sector
2. Politicians and political officials
3. Professionals in public and private organizations
4. Lecturers or academics in the social sciences
5. Military officers, police officers and government officers
6. Independent workers
GSPA’s Bangkok Office
Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA)
National Institute of Development Administration
Navamindradhiraj Buliding
10-11th Floor, 148 Moo3
Seri Thai Road, Klong-chan
Bangkapi, Bangkok 10240
Tel. 0 2 727 3909, 0 2 727 3871 Fax. 02-375-9164
GSPA’s Provincial Offices
Nakhon Rachasima Provincial Office
Suranaree Wittaya school 2, Srisura building 4th Floor.
118 Leab Klong Chonprathan Road, Nong Krathum,
Mueang Nakhon Ratchasima District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000
Tel.: 044 756 790
Udon Thani Provincial Office
Thailand National Sports University Udon Thani Campus,
Erawan building 3th floor.
380 Moo 5, Udon Thani-Nong Bua Lamphu Road,
Mak Khaeng Subdistrict, Mueang District, Udon Thani 41000
Tel.: 042 243 380, 086 634 9066
Phitsanulok Provincial Office
Bueng Phra Phitsanulok Commercial College
410 Bueng Phra, Mueang Phitsanulok District,
Phitsanulok 65000
Tel: 055 337 518, 081 379 1691
Surat Thani Provincial Office
Surat Commercial Technology College
8/23 Road, Si Wichai 59 Tambon Makham Tia,
Mueang Surat Thani District, Surat Thani 84000
Tel: 081 849 3527