November 1, 2005

Taking a New Approach Toward the Structure of Academia

University Task Force Considers a Move to the 4x4 Curriculum Model

BY JAMIE L.FREEDMAN

As GW continues its ascent into the ranks of first-tier educational institutions, a major, campus-wide initiative is now underway to explore the feasibility of implementing a 4x4 curriculum model aimed at increasing academic challenge and rigor. Last spring, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald Lehman convened a 4x4 Task Force to study the relative merits and disadvantages of shifting from the current 5x3 course structure to a four-credit, four-course per semester model for GW undergraduates. The group, composed of some two dozen faculty, administrators, and student representatives, has met biweekly since March to examine the pros and cons, as well as the educational, logistical, and resource implications, of adopting a 4x4 curriculum.

The 4x4 model is favored at many of the nation’s top universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and half of the schools in GW’s market basket. Undergraduates typically take 32 four-credit courses over eight terms, rather than 40 three-credit courses. The increased credit value of the courses is paralleled by a corresponding increase in the depth of material covered.

Lehman, who is a proponent of the model, says the task force is an outgrowth of a 2002 report by the Academic Excellence Strategic Planning Committee entitled Enhancing the Intellectual Engagement of GW Undergraduate Students. The report recommended that the University “continue to explore alternative curriculum models, such as the 4x4 model with the aim of increasing the academic challenge and depth of material covered within courses.”

“We created the 4x4 task force to continue the important discussions about increasing student engagement that took place during the development of the University’s 2003 Strategic Plan for Academic Excellence,” says Lehman, pointing out that the University Writing Program, a rigorous, four-credit freshman writing course, was another important byproduct of the project.

According to Lehman, the 4x4 model was examined twice over the past 15 years at GW—in 1992 and 2003, and ultimately rejected, but he believes that the time is now ripe for revisiting the possibility, based on the steady increase in GW student selectivity over the past decade. The 2003 probe of the 4x4 model was integrated with the study of a mandatory summer session, which diffused the depth of the investigation. The current task force will engage in a thorough and open-minded review of the potential benefits of the 4x4 model, as well as a detailed study of the associated costs. After careful deliberation, if the task force members agree that the 4x4 model has the potential to improve student engagement and the cost-benefit analysis is positive, an implementation plan for the transition will be developed. Lehman estimates that implementation would likely be at least a two-year process.
Task force members will spend the next few months visiting institutions that already employ the 4x4 curriculum, such as Boston University, Northeastern, New York University, University of Pennsylvania, Swarthmore, and Duke, gathering insights on costs and benefits from administrators, faculty, students, and staff. “We’re sending teams to each of the universities to speak directly with community members about the advantages and disadvantages of switching to a 4x4 curriculum, as well as about potential impacts of the model on students, faculty, curriculum, and special academic programs,” says Lehman. “We’ll also spend some time looking at our strategies for enhancing student learning through academic challenge and engagement.”

Task force member Cheryl Beil, executive director of academic planning and assessment, is thrilled to have the chance to participate in a University-wide discussion on bolstering academic excellence. “What excites me most about the 4x4 is the opportunity to look closely at the curricula in all undergraduate programs, decide what works and what doesn’t work, and then define, devise, revise, and improve the program,” she states. “I think the exercise, in and of itself, is beneficial to the University as a whole, because it forces us to explore all the components that make up a GW education and to ask a number of important questions about the GW educational experience: What do we expect students to know or be able to do after they have completed a course, a program, a major, a degree? How do we know that they are learning what we’re teaching? It is also a time to experiment with different pedagogies, to make students active learners, and to have them become more invested in what they learn. It’s difficult work, but I think it will result in an improved educational experience for our students.”

Fellow task force member David Grier, GW’s associate dean for academic programs, agrees. “I believe that the curriculum needs to move in the direction of greater depth,” he says. “One of our faculty said that GW is, at times, a combination of Amherst and Dade Community College. A few of our students really get the chance to look at ideas in depth and master the central trends of intellectual thought. The rest get a broad smattering of education, a brief exposure to a host of ideas with no framework to hold them together. I am hoping that the process of revisiting the curriculum as a whole will bring us some clarity. If we are to become a leader among universities, we have to take charge of our own curriculum and be able to say, “This is what we teach. This is what we are.’”

Representing the faculty viewpoint, task force member Ingrid Creppell, associate professor of political science, expresses both excitement and concern about implementing the 4x4 model at GW. “On the positive side, students could benefit from focusing on four courses more intensively, rather than trying to juggle five courses,” she states. “Class time would not necessarily have to be increased, but more would be expected of students and of faculty as they explore subjects in greater depth, hopefully resulting in heightened engagement and challenge for the students.” Creppell cautions that the transition may come with a price tag for the University. “Moving to a 4x4 would require that faculty reconstruct or at least add to their courses and that this new mandate on faculty be compensated, something that will cost the University, in the short run at least. Can the University afford this right now?” Turning back to the model’s strengths, she says, “Many of the best schools are structured on a 4x4 curriculum. We need to find out why and whether the change will make GW a more academically rigorous institution.”

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu