Location of Repository

Developing a Computer Science-specific Learning Taxonomy

By Ursula Fuller, Colin G. Johnson, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Diana Cukierman, Isidoro Hernán-Losada, Jana Jackova, Essi Lahtinen, Tracy L. Lewis, Donna McGee Thompson, Charles Riesdel and Errol Thompson


Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domain and the SOLO taxonomy are being increasingly widely used in the design and assessment of courses, but there are some drawbacks to their use in computer science. This paper reviews the literature on educational taxonomies and their use in computer science education, identifies some of the problems that arise, proposes a new taxonomy and discusses how this can be used in application-oriented courses such as programming

Topics: QA76
Publisher: ACM Press
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:kar.kent.ac.uk:23997

Suggested articles



  1. (2007). A Categorization of Novice Programmers: A Cluster Analysis Study.
  2. (1995). A cognitivebased approach to introductory computer science courses: lesson learned. doi
  3. (2003). A framework for assessing programmers' knowledge of software systems. doi
  4. (2000). A fundamentals-Based Curriculum for First Year Computer Science. doi
  5. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, doi
  6. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. doi
  7. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. doi
  8. (2001). A taxonomy for learning and teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
  9. (2005). Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación. doi
  10. (1990). An Application of Bloom's Taxonomy to the Teaching of Business Ethics. doi
  11. (2006). An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the bloom and SOLO taxonomies.
  12. (1999). Applying Bloom's taxonomy of cognition to knowledge management systems. doi
  13. (2003). Assessing the assessment: an empirical study of an information systems development subject.
  14. (2003). Bloom's taxonomy applied to testing in computer science classes.
  15. (2001). Chapters from engineering pedagogy.
  16. (2005). Computing Accreditation Commission. Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs: Effective for Evaluations During the 2006-2007 Accreditation Cycle.
  17. (1990). Critical thinking; A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction, research findings and recommendations,
  18. (2000). Design Early Considered Harmful: Graduated Exposure to doi
  19. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. Jossy-Bass Inc,
  20. (1988). Different worlds in the same classroom. In Improving learning: new perspectives,
  21. (2004). Does the sum of the parts equal the whole?
  22. (2003). Evaluating the educational impact of visualization. doi
  23. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: doi
  24. (2000). Experience of applying Bloom's Taxonomy in three courses.
  25. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. doi
  26. (1996). Felder's learning styles, Bloom's taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle: tying it all together in the CS2 course. doi
  27. (2003). First year programming: Let all the flowers bloom.
  28. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,
  29. (2005). Framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area,
  30. (2007). Holistic assessment criteria - applying SOLO to programming projects.
  31. (2003). How to apply the Bloom taxonomy to software engineering. doi
  32. (2002). How to use level descriptors. Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer,
  33. (2004). Incorporating HCI into the undergraduate curriculum: Bloom's taxonomy meets the CC'01 curricular guidelines. Frontiers in Education, doi
  34. (2005). Introduction to programming: blooming in America.
  35. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and Bloom. doi
  36. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? doi
  37. (2006). Is Bloom's taxonomy appropriate for computer science? doi
  38. (2001). JKarelRobot: A case study in supporting levels of cognitive development in the computer science curriculum. doi
  39. (2003). Learning and Teaching Programming: a Review and Discussion. doi
  40. (2003). Learning programming by solving problems. doi
  41. (2007). Learning Skills Program - Bloom's Taxonomy, http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.htm l, Accessed on 19/07/2007,
  42. (1994). Lesson segments based on component display theory.
  43. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. doi
  44. (2007). Network: Educational Resources, http://www.ion.illinois.edu/resources/tutorials/assessment/b loomtest.asp, Accessed on 19/07/2007,
  45. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. doi
  46. (2000). On Blooming First Year Programming, and its Blooming Assessment. doi
  47. (2004). On the use of Bloom’s taxonomy as a basis to design educational software on programming.
  48. (2005). Outcomes-based computer science education doi
  49. (1998). Permutational multiple-choice questions: an objective and efficient alternative to essay-type examination questions. doi
  50. (1958). Personal knowledge: towards a postcritical philosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
  51. (2003). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. doi
  52. (1990). Pomiar sprawdzajacy w dydaktyce. Teoria i zastosowania (in Polish).Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
  53. (2006). Programming learning tools based on Bloom's taxonomy: proposal and accomplishments. doi
  54. (1996). Programming Pedagogy - a Psychological Overview. doi
  55. (1996). Requirements for a computer science curriculum emphasizing information technology: subject area curriculum issues. doi
  56. (2005). Taxonomy for Teaching: A System for Teaching Objectives, Learning Activities and Assessment Tasks (Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain). In Pedagogicka revue (in
  57. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of 169 educational goals. Handbook Volume 2: Affective domain. doi
  58. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook Volume 2: Affective domain. doi
  59. (2005). Taxonomy of effortless creation of algorithm visualizations. doi
  60. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. doi
  61. (1966). The classification of educational objectives: psychomotor domain.
  62. The descriptive component display theory.
  63. (1994). The elaboration theory and instruction: a model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. doi
  64. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status, C.M. Reigeluth, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
  65. (2005). The Overview Report. http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_ieeecs/ieeecs/ed ucation/cc2001/CC2005-March06Final.pdf,
  66. (1994). The prescriptive component display theory.
  67. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. Routledge & Kegan Paul, doi
  68. (1994). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications. doi
  69. (2004). This course has a Bloom Rating of 3.9.
  70. (2005). Visualizations to Support Programming on Different Levels of Cognitive Development.
  71. William Perry's scheme of intellectual and ethical

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.