An intensive examination of Georgetown's curriculum is underway, in a process that may bring substantial changes to undergraduate education -- or not many at all.

Provost James O'Donnell has established two committees to consider the education Georgetown offers and whether changes would enhance the rigor of students' time at the Hilltop.

No idea or innovation is out of bounds for consideration, according to O'Donnell.

"This isn't worth doing unless we believe that what we do here does and can make a difference in the lives of the students who come here," the provost said.

In a paper, "The Culture of Learning at Georgetown: The Way Ahead," O'Donnell outlines questions he wants the two committees to consider. They include how to better align the student-centered and research-intensive dimensions of Georgetown, how to go beyond grading to document student learning, what the expectations are for undergraduate education and the sequencing of a four-year education.

O'Donnell hopes to achieve "a clearer, common understanding of what we seek to do with our undergraduate program and a more engaged community of students who are active learners, questioners, innovators, entrepreneurs -- people who haven't simply been trained or simply educated, but set on fire."

Whether that can be accomplished through the current system or through a series of changes is for the committees to consider, he added.

The 11-member Committee on Student Learning, led by Randy Bass, assistant provost and associate professor of English, will look at curriculum innovation and assessment. O'Donnell will head the Committee on the Future of the Curriculum, whose seven members will look at the direction Georgetown undergraduate education is heading and where it should go in the next several decades.

Georgetown has undertaken curriculum examinations in the past, but the efforts fell short of major institutional change. One reason is that the university's complex governance structure and the many stakeholders that must be part of the process made it difficult to institute reform, O'Donnell said.

"That is frustrating for people. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that if the system prevents change from happening, then why don't we just muddle through?" he said. "I'm not a muddle througher kind of
person."

So what is different about these latest committees?

"This is being very carefully designed to have the broadest possible consultation and buy-in over the course of the next few years before we get to the point of having a report with recommendations and next steps," he said. "We want to respect the complexity of the forces in play and we want people to have every opportunity to think ambitiously, but think carefully, before we get to the point of making some choices and enacting some changes."

Those changes could include changing course requirements, which have tended to amass in recent years. The development of majors will be studied and the groups will consider whether the academic calendar should be changed.

Both committees will have student and administrator representatives. The Main Campus executive faculty also nominated members for service. The other committee members, chosen by O'Donnell for their teaching styles, intelligence and personalities, are "people who get it deeply about Georgetown." One of those is Amy Leonard, associate professor of history.

"Georgetown is certainly a top research university, but we need to make sure we stay true to the undergraduate education and balance those two things," Leonard said. "We can't forget it's a main part of our jobs here."

Part of that process is reminding faculty and staff that students are not here just to earn a degree, but to develop into lifelong learners, she added.

The Intellectual Life Report, a document that scrutinizes Georgetown's academic culture, will partially guide the committees' work, O'Donnell said. But the report, which has been updated and is now under discussion by faculty members, is a separate endeavor that is progressing on its own. Still, the provost said, the report raises certain issues that the new committees also will discuss.

While results from the student learning group will happen more immediately, work for the committee studying the curriculum's future is expected to spread out over several years before any change is seen. Following a committee report, O'Donnell predicts that consultations will occur through the 2008-2009 academic year, culminating in another round of discussions about implementing changes.

-- By Lauren Burgoon, Blue & Gray Assistant Editor

(December 10, 2007)