Abstract:

This session invites participants to explore how a course, Sophomore Seminar (ENG200) was created in such a way to bond major areas of study (psychology, literature, politics, education, etc.) with research writing, information literacy, public speaking skills, and multimodal literacy – thus representing how different university departments worked together in a unique writing-across-the-curriculum opportunity. Furthermore, because the course is part of the institution’s General Education program, the learner outcomes of the course map directly to the university assessment program. Ultimately, the purpose of the course was to prepare students for employment.

During the presentation, five major lessons (outcomes) will be shared as follows:
1) the pedagogical decision making behind the course design;
2) how cross-departmental relationships were formed;
3) the faculty and professional development programming initiatives;
4) the types of assignments included in the course and how they were designed;
5) the current assessment practices of the course and how they link to the General Education program of the university.

Additionally, these five speaking points are grounded in secondary research, specifically drawn from the sources offered at the end of the abstract. In short, each of these major lessons connect to ENG200 and the overarching mission of the university as grounded in a variety studies.

The discussion is designed to share the “lessons learned” of implementing a new gateway writing course but to also invite participants to think about how to approach such cross-curricula initiatives on their own campuses. The session is designed to encourage participants to reflect on the ways they might consider cross-campus/cross-disciplinary initiatives on their own campuses.

References:
[1] Abram, S. (2012). Workplace information literacy: It’s different. Information Outlook 16(4): 32-33. Print.
[2] Albitz, R. S. (2007). The what and who of information literacy and critical thinking in higher education. Libraries and the Academy 7(1): 97-109. Print.
[3] Armstrong, J. (2010). Designing a writing intensive course with information literacy and critical thinking learning outcomes. Reference Services Review 38(3): 445-457. Print.
[4] Blaine, S. (2009). Writing on wall for outcomes-based education. Business Day: 1-2. Print.
[5] Bogue, B. and Marra, R.R. (2013). Outcomes-based assessment: Driving outreach program effectiveness. Leadership and Management in Engineering: 27-34. Print.
[6] Bruce, C. S. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International Journal of Information Management 19: 33-47. Print.
[7] Brumberger, E.R. (2005). Visual rhetoric in the curriculum: Pedgagoy for a multimodal workplace. Business Communication Quarterly 68(3): 318-333. Print.
[8] Kinash, S. and Crane, L. (2015). Paper presented at the International Mobile Learning Festival. Hong Kong. Print.
[9] Mackey, T.P. and Jacobson, T.E. (2005). Information literacy: A collaborative endeavor. College Teaching 53(4): 140-144. Print.
[10] Musgrove, L. (2008). The metaphors we gen-ed by. Liberal Education 94(1): 92-97. Print.
[11] Rosenquist, C. (2012). Visual form, ethics, and a typology of purpose: Teaching effective information design. Business Communication Quarterly 75(1): 45-60. Print.
[12] White-Farnham, J. (2012). Writing 302: Writing culture. Composition Studies 40(2): 92-111. Print.

Keywords:

Program design, cross-curriculum, career readiness, course design.