[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-598766-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-598766-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-info-lit-20-or-deja-vu","Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Reflecting on the Standards - Info Lit 2.0 or Déjà Vu?","","In 1999, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) formed a national task force to draft Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, supporting an outcomes-based learning shift. After a recent revision effort, this article argues the update targets the wrong question and omits key education professionals, instead urging action on education reform concerns: vertical integration with disciplinary knowledge, curriculum mapping, and assessment challenges where librarians can contribute.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-info-lit-20-or-deja-vu/598766/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-info-lit-20-or-deja-vu/598766.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"awa","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What prompted the original ACRL information literacy standards in 1999?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"In 1999, ACRL convened a national task force to draft Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, reflecting a broader move toward outcomes-based learning in higher education.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does the author criticize the current revision recommendations?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The author argues the revision focuses on the wrong question, centers on articulating learning outcomes, and excludes education professionals who are focused on assessing student learning reform.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What challenges does the author believe libraries should help address now?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The article emphasizes education reform priorities such as vertical integration with disciplinary knowledge, curriculum mapping, and assessment, suggesting librarians are well positioned to support these efforts.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},598766,1792164983,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Volume 7, Issue 2, 2013  \nREFLECTING ON THE STANDARDS [ARTICLE]  \nINFO LIT 2.0 OR DÉJÀ VU?  \nPatricia Anne Ianuzzi  \nUniversity of Nevada—Las Vegas  \nABSTRACT  \nIn 1999, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) convened a national taskforce to draft Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. ACRL has recently launched a revision to those standards. The original standards were influential because they helped advance a national need in higher education at the time: a shift to outcomes based learning. Fourteen years later, information literacy stands alongside oral and written communication, critical thinking and ethical reasoning as learning outcomes broadly acknowledged as needing to be integrated, with disciplinary content, into the curriculum. This author believes that, in contrast to the first process, the current recommendations for revision are focused on the wrong question and include the wrong people to address it. The point isn't to further define, redefine and write more, less or different learning outcomes. The challenge now is to move ahead and address the current concerns of education reform: vertical integration with disciplinary knowledge, curriculum mapping, and assessment. There are a host of challengesand libraries and librarians are perfectly poised to help.  \nIanuzzi, Info Lit 2.0 or Déjà Vu? Communications in Information Literacy 7(2), 2013  \nI appreciate the invitation from Communications in Information Literacy (CIL) to write this essay for this special issue,“Reflecting on the Standards.” Upon reflection, my thoughts on this topic are better expressed by another title, “Info Lit 2.0 or Déjà Vu?”  \nIn June 2012, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force submitted a recommendation that the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (herewith referred to as Standards), adopted in 2000 “should not be re-approved as they exist today, and should be extensively revised in the near future” (ACRL, 2012) . It is worth noting that of the eight recommendations in the task force report, seven focus on the articulation of the learning outcomes; and the eighth calls for better alignment with the American Association of School Librarians’Standards for the 21st Century Learner (2007).  \nThe original Standards proved influential in 2000 because they had the right focus at the right time. Within the broader context of education reform, there was a pressing need for colleges and universities to articulate measurable learning outcomes that extended beyond disciplinary content knowledge. Much has changed in the past 14 years, in some part due to the influence of the work of information literacy advocates. I believe that the new recommendations are focused on the wrong issues and that the process is flawed by excluding a wide range of education professionals who are focused on the reform of the assessment of student learning.  \nIf the challenge before the reviewers was toreword, reframe, and rehash the writing of each learning outcome, then the  \nrecommendations would suffice. However, I see little to gain from continuing the decades-old battle of the literacies. That discussion is a red herring, which leads ACRL and advocates of reform down the path of professional naval gazing at a time when academic librarians should expand their focus to the challenges of undergraduate and graduate education.  \nFourteen years ago, the first task force became embroiled in the debate over semantics, and advocates on all sides lobbied for their favorite phrases from lofty soapboxes. These advocates jockeyed for their favorite slice of the literacy pie: computer literacy, IT literacy, technology literacy, technoliteracy, digital literacy, visual literacy, media literacy, multimedia literacy, textual literacy, new literacies, multiple literacies, 21st-century literacy, metaliteracy, emotional literacy, civic literac","cbCairlg9F9G3mGW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairlg9F9G3mGW","pdf",417929,"English","# Reflecting on the Standards\n## Background of the 2000 ACRL standards\n## Critique of the revision recommendations\n## Outcomes-based learning and assessment needs\n## Debates on “new literacies” and terminology","[{\"question\":\"What prompted the original ACRL information literacy standards in 1999?\",\"answer\":\"In 1999, ACRL convened a national task force to draft Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, reflecting a broader move toward outcomes-based learning in higher education.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author criticize the current revision recommendations?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues the revision focuses on the wrong question, centers on articulating learning outcomes, and excludes education professionals who are focused on assessing student learning reform.\"},{\"question\":\"What challenges does the author believe libraries should help address now?\",\"answer\":\"The article emphasizes education reform priorities such as vertical integration with disciplinary knowledge, curriculum mapping, and assessment, suggesting librarians are well positioned to support these efforts.\"}]","Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Reflecting on the Standards - Info Lit 2.0 or Déjà Vu? | PDF",1792087560,25]