ACRL information literacy standards and Blooms taxonomy

Am I the only one who thinks these things should somehow map to each other more easily? It says that you can figure out which ones are higher order and which are lower order in the different outcomes. Wouldn’t it make sense to either list them hierarchically or be more explicit about which are which?

There’s this literal mapping of the Standards with notes about the taxonomy covered, but it’s mostly for a curriculum review and it’s specific to the university that created it.

I should check out the digital taxonomy:’s%20Taxonomy

and do a literature search, these look promising:

[maybe] Koufogiannakis, D., & Wiebe, N. (2006). Effective methods for teaching information literacy skills to undergraduate students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice1(3), 3-43.

Callister, P. D. (2010). Time to Blossom: An Inquiry into Bloom’s Taxonomy as a Means to Ordered Legal Research Skills. Law Lib. Journal102(2), 191-218.

Keene, J., Colvin, J., & Sissons, J. (2010). Mapping student information literacy activity against Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive skills. Journal of information literacy4(1), 6-21.

2 comments to ACRL information literacy standards and Blooms taxonomy

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>