research-article

Open access

Construction of a Taxonomy for Tools, Languages, and Environments across Computing Education

Authors:

Monica M. McGill,

Adrienne DeckerAuthors Info & Claims

ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Pages 124 - 135

https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406258

Published: 07 August 2020 Publication History

Abstract

The sheer number of tools, languages, and environments (TLEs) used in computing education has proliferated in the last few years as more tools are developed to meet new demands of the growing amount of K-12 computing education that has been undertaken. However, there is little formalized language at either the K-12 or post-secondary level that provides for a way to classify these TLEs for discussing research and for classifying in databases.

In this research study, we step through a formal process for building a taxonomy for TLEs. As part of the supporting research, we first discuss the importance of taxonomies and classification systems in computing education, provide a formal method for building a taxonomy, and provide working definitions of TLEs based on previous literature. This is followed by a systematic literature review using a widely-accepted methodology for finding articles that have examined TLEs in primary, secondary, and post-secondary computing education. This literature review focuses on studies that looked at multiple TLEs and specifically attempted to classify or categorize them. We then propose a new taxonomy for classifying TLEs and provide definitions and samples for each category. This is followed by a discussion of the next steps in vetting the taxonomy and the challenges and issues that need to be considered when evaluating it for classifying TLEs in computing education.

References

[1]

ACM Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). 2017. Computer science standards. Computer Science Teachers Association (2017).

[2]

Amal Al-Abri, Yassine Jamoussi, Naoufel Kraiem, and Zuhoor Al-Khanjari. 2017. Comprehensive classification of collaboration approaches in E-learning. Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34, 6 (2017), 878--893.

[3]

Julian M Angel-Fernandez and Markus Vincze. 2018. Towards a definition of educational robotics. In Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018. 37.

[4]

Tehreem Anwar, Arturo Jimenez, Arsalan Najeeb, Bishakha Upadhyaya, and Monica M. McGill. 2020. Exploring the Enacted Computing Curriculum inK-12 Schools in South Asia:Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the International Computer Education Research conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.

[5]

Henri Barki, Suzanne Rivard, and Jean Talbot. 1988. An information systems keyword classification scheme. MIS quarterly (1988), 299--322.

[6]

Laura Beckwith and Margaret Burnett. 2004. Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments?. In 2004 IEEE symposium on visual languages-human centric computing. IEEE, 107--114.

Digital Library

[7]

Jyoti Belur, Lisa Tompson, Amy Thornton, and Miranda Simon. 2018. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological methods & research (2018), 0049124118799372.

[8]

John B Biggs and Kevin F Collis. 1982. Evaluation the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.

[9]

S Bloom Benjamin and David R Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay (1956).

[10]

Luca Botturi, Michael Derntl, Eddy Boot, and Kathrin Figl. 2006. A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design. In 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006).

[11]

Matt Bower. 2008. A taxonomy of task types in computing. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 281--285.

Digital Library

[12]

Marc H Brown. 1988. Perspectives on algorithm animation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 33--38.

Digital Library

[13]

Peter Brusilovsky, Stephen Edwards, Amruth Kumar, Lauri Malmi, Luciana Benotti, Duane Buck, Petri Ihantola, Rikki Prince, Teemu Sirkiä, Sergey Sosnovsky, et almbox. 2014. Increasing adoption of smart learning content for computer science education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference. 31--57.

Digital Library

[14]

Margaret M. Burnett and Marla J. Baker. 1994. A classification system for visual programming languages. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 5, 3 (1994), 287--300.

[15]

Charles H Calisher. 2007. Taxonomy: What's in a name? Doesn't a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Croatian medical journal, Vol. 48, 2 (2007), 268. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080517/

[16]

David D Chen. 2003. A classification system for metaphors about teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 74, 2 (2003), 24--31.

[17]

Andrea Danyluk, Paul Leidig, Lillian Cassel, and Christian Servin. 2019. ACM Task Force on Data Science Education: Draft Report and Opportunity for Feedback. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 496--497.

Digital Library

[18]

S. Dart, R. Ellison, A. Habermann, and P. Feiler. 1987. Software Development Environments. Computer, Vol. 20, 11 (nov 1987), 18--28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1987.1663413

Digital Library

[19]

Fadi P Deek and James A McHugh. 1998. A survey and critical analysis of tools for learning programming. Computer Science Education, Vol. 8, 2 (1998), 130--178.

[20]

Melvil Dewey. 1876. Decimal classification and relative index...

[21]

Katrina Falkner, Sue Sentance, Rebecca Vivian, Sarah Barksdale, Leonard Busuttil, Elizabeth Cole, Christine Liebe, Francesco Maiorana, Monica M. McGill, and Keith Quille. 2019. An International Study Piloting the MEasuring TeacheR Enacted Computing Curriculum (METRECC) Instrument. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111--142. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372505

Digital Library

[22]

Cynthia J Finelli, Maura Borrego, and Golnoosh Rasoulifar. 2015. Development of a taxonomy of keywords for engineering education research. IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 58, 4 (2015), 219--241.

Digital Library

[23]

Ursula Fuller, Colin G Johnson, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Diana Cukierman, Isidoro Hernán-Losada, Jana Jackova, Essi Lahtinen, Tracy L Lewis, Donna McGee Thompson, Charles Riedesel, et almbox. 2007. Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 39, 4 (2007), 152--170.

Digital Library

[24]

Tatiana Gavrilova, Rosta Farzan, and Peter Brusilovsky. 2005. One practical algorithm of creating teaching ontologies. In 12th International Network-Based Education Conference NBE. Citeseer, 29--37.

[25]

Ephraim P Glinert. 1990 a. Visual programming environments: Applications and issues. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[26]

Ephraim P Glinert. 1990 b. Visual programming environments: paradigms and systems. IEEE Computer Society Press.

[27]

Anabela Gomes and António Mendes. 2009. Bloom's taxonomy based approach to learn basic programming. In EdMedia Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2547--2554.

[28]

Mercedes Gómez-Albarrán. 2005. The teaching and learning of programming: a survey of supporting software tools. Comput. J., Vol. 48, 2 (2005), 130--144.

Digital Library

[29]

TRG Green. 1991. NC Shu,pounds 25.95, Visual Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1988), 315 pp, ISBN: 0-442-28014-9.

[30]

Thomas R. G. Green and Marian Petre. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ?cognitive dimensions' framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, Vol. 7, 2 (1996), 131--174.

[31]

Isidoro Hernán-Losada, JÁ Velázquez-Iturbide, and CA Lázaro-Carrascosa. 2006. Programming learning tools based on Bloom's taxonomy: proposal and accomplishments. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of Computers in Education (SIIE 2006).(Leon, Spain. 325--334.

[32]

M. Horn and M. Bers. 2019. Tangible Computing. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, S.A. Fincher and A.V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter 22, 663--678.

[33]

Petri Ihantola, Ville Karavirta, Ari Korhonen, and Jussi Nikander. 2005. Taxonomy of effortless creation of algorithm visualizations. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research. 123--133.

Digital Library

[34]

Cruz Izu, Amali Weerasinghe, and Cheryl Pope. 2016. A study of code design skills in novice programmers using the SOLO taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 251--259.

Digital Library

[35]

Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 37, 2 (2005), 83--137.

Digital Library

[36]

Khalid S Khan, Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen, and Gerd Antes. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the royal society of medicine, Vol. 96, 3 (2003), 118--121.

[37]

David R Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, Vol. 41, 4 (2002), 212--218.

[38]

Adidah Lajis, Haidawati Md Nasir, and Normaziah A Aziz. 2018. Proposed assessment framework based on bloom taxonomy cognitive competency: Introduction to programming. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications. 97--101.

Digital Library

[39]

Raymond Lister, Beth Simon, Errol Thompson, Jacqueline L Whalley, and Christine Prasad. 2006. Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 38, 3 (2006), 118--122.

Digital Library

[40]

Loucas T Louca and Zacharia C Zacharia. 2008. The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modelling tools in early science education: The cases of textual and graphical program languages. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 30, 3 (2008), 287--323.

[41]

Lauri Malmi, Ian Utting, and Amy Ko. 2019. Tools and environments. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, S.A. Fincher and A.V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter 21, 639--662.

[42]

Spiros Mancoridis. 1993. A multi-dimensional taxonomy of software development environments. In Proceedings of the 1993 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research: software engineering-Volume 1. IBM Press, 581--594.

Digital Library

[43]

Raina Mason, Graham Cooper, and Michael de Raadt. 2012. Trends in introductory programming courses in Australian universities: languages, environments and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 123. 33--42.

Digital Library

[44]

Matchcraft Sales & Training. 2015. What is Taxonomy (And Why is it So Important to Search Marketing)? https://www.matchcraft.com/what-is-taxonomy-and-why-is-it-so-important-to-search-marketing/

[45]

Monica M McGill and Adrienne Decker. 2020. Tools, Languages, and Environments Used in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM.

Digital Library

[46]

Greg Moody, Taylor Wells, and Paul Benjamin Lowry. 2007. The Interactive Digital Entertainment (IDE) unification framework: creating a taxonomy of IDE and lifestyle computing. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07). IEEE, 160a--160a.

Digital Library

[47]

Brad A Myers. 1986. Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 17, 4 (1986), 59--66.

Digital Library

[48]

Brad A Myers. 1990. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, Vol. 1, 1 (1990), 97--123.

Digital Library

[49]

Rafi Nachmias and Inbal Tuvi. 2001. Taxonomy of scientifically oriented educational websites. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, 1 (2001), 93--104.

[50]

Thomas L Naps, Guido Rößling, Vicki Almstrum, Wanda Dann, Rudolf Fleischer, Chris Hundhausen, Ari Korhonen, Lauri Malmi, Myles McNally, Susan Rodger, et almbox. 2002. Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 131--152.

[51]

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2020. The Taxonomy Database. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy

[52]

Robert Neches, Richard E Fikes, Tim Finin, Thomas Gruber, Ramesh Patil, Ted Senator, and William R Swartout. 1991. Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI magazine, Vol. 12, 3 (1991), 36--36.

[53]

Optimal Workshop. 2020. Card Sorting 101: Your guide to creating and running an effective card sort. https://www.optimalworkshop.com/learn/101s/card-sorting/

[54]

Tihomir Orehovavc ki, Goran Bubavs, and Andreja Kovavc ić. 2012. Taxonomy of Web 2.0 applications with educational potential. Transformation in teaching: Social media strategies in higher education (2012), 43--72.

[55]

Kevin R Parker, Joseph T Chao, Thomas A Ottaway, and Jane Chang. 2006. A formal language selection process for introductory programming courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 5, 1 (2006), 133--151.

[56]

Arnold Pears, Stephen Seidman, Lauri Malmi, Linda Mannila, Elizabeth Adams, Jens Bennedsen, Marie Devlin, and James Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 204--223.

[57]

Dewayne E Perry and Gail E Kaiser. 1988. Models of software development environments. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, 60--68.

[58]

Blaine A Price, Ronald M Baecker, and Ian S Small. 1993. A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, Vol. 4, 3 (1993), 211--266.

[59]

G-C Roman and Kenneth C Cox. 1993. A taxonomy of program visualization systems. Computer, Vol. 26, 12 (1993), 11--24.

Digital Library

[60]

Timo Rongas, Arto Kaarna, and Heikki Kalviainen. 2004 a. Classification of computerized learning tools for introductory programming courses: learning approach. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE, 678--680.

[61]

Timo Rongas, Arto Kaarna, and Heikki Kälviäinen. 2004 b. Classification of tools for use in introductory programming courses. Lappeenranta University of Technology.

[62]

Daisuke Saito, Ayana Sasaki, Hironori Washizaki, Yoshiaki Fukazawa, and Yusuke Muto. 2017. Program learning for beginners: survey and taxonomy of programming learning tools. In 2017 IEEE 9th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED). IEEE, 137--142.

[63]

David Scaradozzi, Laura Screpanti, and Lorenzo Cesaretti. 2019. Towards a definition of educational robotics: a classification of tools, experiences and assessments. In Smart Learning with Educational Robotics. Springer, 63--92.

[64]

Gurminder Singh. 1990. Graphical support for programming: A survey and taxonomy. In CG International'90. Springer, 331--359.

[65]

Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 13, 4 (2013), 1--64.

Digital Library

[66]

John T Stasko and Charles Patterson. 1992. Understanding and characterizing software visualization systems. In Proceedings IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages. IEEE, 3--10.

[67]

B Swartout, R Patil, K Knight, and T Russ. 1997. Towards distributed use of large-scale ontologies. Spring Symposium Series on Ontological Engineering. (1997).

[68]

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2020. Card Sorting. https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/card-sorting.html

[69]

Michael S. Vasta. 2020. Product Taxonomy: Categorizing Your Website Hierarchy to Increase Sales. https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/product-taxonomy/

[70]

Euripides Vrachnos and Athanassios Jimoyiannis. 2017. Secondary education students' difficulties in algorithmic problems with arrays: An analysis using the SOLO taxonomy. Themes in Science and Technology Education, Vol. 10, 1 (2017), 31--52.

[71]

Zach Wahl. 2013. Taxonomy Consulting and the Importance of UX Design. https://enterprise-knowledge.com/taxonomy-consulting-and-the-importance-of-ux-design/

[72]

Betsy Walli. 2014. Taxonomy 101: The Basics and Getting Started with Taxonomies. https://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=98787

[73]

Mary Whittaker and Kathryn Breininger. 2008. Taxonomy development for knowledge management. In 74th general conference and council of the world library and information, Quebec, Canada.

[74]

Tim Wright and Andy Cockburn. 2003. A language and task-based taxonomy of programming environments. In IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2003. Proceedings. 2003. IEEE, 192--194.

Digital Library

[75]

Cecile Yehezkel. 2002. A taxonomy of computer architecture visualizations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34, 3 (2002), 101--105.

Digital Library

Cited By

Negrini LMarras AGiang CBabazadeh M(2024)Exploring Programming Language Choices to Boost Student Interest in Coding and Educational RoboticsHigher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online10.1007/978-3-031-67351-1_1(3-17)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67351-1_1
McGill MThompson AGransbury IHeckman SRosato JDelyser LDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Building upon the CAPE Framework for Broader Understanding of Capacity in K-12 CS EducationProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569799(577-582)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569799
Malmi LSinclair JSheard JSimon Kinnunen P(2023)The Evolution of Computing Education Research: A Meta-Analytic PerspectivePast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_4(51-77)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_4
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Construction of a Taxonomy for Tools, Languages, and Environments across Computing Education
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Tools, Languages, and Environments Used in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
ITiCSE '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

With the advent of teaching primary and secondary computing education, tools, languages, and environments (TLEs) are important pedagogical support systems for students and teachers. While there are a number of resources available for teaching K-12 ...
Conducting Sound, Equity-Enabling Computing Education Research
ITiCSE-WGR '23: Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Problem. To investigate and identify promising practices in equitable K-12 and tertiary computer science (CS) education, the capacity for education researchers to conduct this research must be rapidly built globally. Simultaneously, concerns have arisen ...
A Taxonomy of Social Cues for Conversational Agents
Highlights
- Development and evaluation of a taxonomy of social cues for conversational agents.
Abstract
Conversational agents (CAs) are software-based systems designed to interact with humans using natural language and have attracted considerable research interest in recent years. Following the Computers Are Social Actors paradigm, many ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

August 2020

364 pages

ISBN:9781450370929

DOI:10.1145/3372782

General Chairs:
Anthony Robins
University of Otago, New Zealand
,
Adon Moskal
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand
,
Amy J. Ko
University of Washington, United States
,
Renée McCauley
College of Charleston, United States
,
Program Chairs:
Anthony Robins
University of Otago, New Zealand
,
Amy J. Ko
University of Washington, United States

Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 August 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

ICER '20

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ICER '20: International Computing Education Research Conference

August 1 - 5, 2020

Virtual Event, New Zealand

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

ICER 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

August 3 - 6, 2025

Charlottesville , VA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
1,177
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)342
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26

Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Negrini LMarras AGiang CBabazadeh M(2024)Exploring Programming Language Choices to Boost Student Interest in Coding and Educational RoboticsHigher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online10.1007/978-3-031-67351-1_1(3-17)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67351-1_1
McGill MThompson AGransbury IHeckman SRosato JDelyser LDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Building upon the CAPE Framework for Broader Understanding of Capacity in K-12 CS EducationProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569799(577-582)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569799
Malmi LSinclair JSheard JSimon Kinnunen P(2023)The Evolution of Computing Education Research: A Meta-Analytic PerspectivePast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_4(51-77)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_4
Heckman SCarver JSherriff MAl-zubidy A(2021)A Systematic Literature Review of Empiricism and Norms of Reporting in Computing Education Research LiteratureACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/347065222:1(1-46)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3470652
Corno FDe Russis LPablo Saenz J(2021)TextCode: A Tool to Support Problem Solving Among Novice Programmers2021 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC51201.2021.9576164(1-5)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC51201.2021.9576164

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten