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?
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/infolitscitech
and
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/EDTEC470/sp09/5/bloomstaxanomy.html
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: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/#Bloom’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 Practice, 1(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. Journal, 102(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 literacy, 4(1), 6-21.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks