本研究旨在了解四技二專統一入學測驗中，商業類計算機概論試題的內容與方向，並利用布魯姆認知分類修正版來對試題做進一步的分析，探討其認知歷程與知識類型。
本研究採用內容分析法，以90年至93年的商業類計算機概論試題為樣本，除修正版分類表之外，並發展「單元主題分析表」為主要分析工具。另外，為提高研究信度，分析工作由研究者與另兩位分析者共同進行，並在分析過程中整理出「計算機概論知識類型分類表」與「不同認知層次之評量示例表」作為研究時的參考。
研究結果發現：一、經由布魯姆認知分類修正版的分析，發現評量不同知識類型需不同的認知歷程；二、試題的認知歷程皆未達「評鑑」與「創造」層次；三、整體的試題以「記憶事實知識」類型為最多，有56%；四、「演算法與程式語言」、「電腦網路相關知識」與「應用軟體的操作」試題之內容與類型有較明顯的趨勢；五、使用布魯姆認知分類修正版來分析試題仍有一些限制。

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the trends, contents and cognitive levels of computer science test in technical college entrance examination from 2001-2004. We categorized the knowledge and cognitive process type of each test item based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Three raters participated in the analysis to ensure the reliability of this study, and together developed “subject matter table” and adopted “revised taxonomy table” as analysis tools. The test item should require applying a particular cognitive process to a particular type of knowledge. No test item was at “evaluate” and “creative” levels of cognitive process, and most of the test items were at “remember factual knowledge” type. Although revised Bloom’s taxonomy is a useful tool for categorizing the knowledge and cognitive process types, it can not categorize difficulty of test items and formulate the knowledge type of the operating skill such as the ability to use software.

參考文獻
[中文部份]
余民寧(1997)。教育測驗與評量-成就測驗與教學評量。台北：心理出版社。
李坤崇(2004)。修訂Bloom認知分類及命題實例。教育研究月刊，122期，98-127。
陳豐祥(1994)。布魯姆認知教學目標在歷史教學上的應用。人文及社會學科教學通訊，2卷5期，74-117。
郭諭凌(1995)。布魯姆認知目標分類法在師資培育方面的應用與影響。教育資料與研究。第二期。
教育部(1998)：高級商業職業學校課程標準。台北：作者。
教育部(1989)：高級商業職業學校課程標準。台北：作者。
教育部(2003)：「國中基本學力測驗、技專統一入學測驗、大學學科能力測驗、指定科目考試、全國各研究所考試等考試相關問題檢討與規劃」專案報告。http://140.111.1.192/minister/case/920507.htm
張春興(1994)。教育心理學。台北市：正大印書館。
黃光雄(1982)。認知領域教育目標分類。台北市：復文圖書出版社。
楊明宗(2002)。數學試題分析模式的建制- 以「九十學年度四技二專入學測驗」商業類「數學科」試題為例。國立臺中師範學院數學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
董致平、吳正己(1997)。保送甄試計算機概論命題趨向與資料處理科電腦課程教學。商業職業教育季刊，67期，15-19。
葉連祺（2000）。教師自編紙筆式測驗試題類型之探討。研習資訊，17（4），42-53。
葉連祺、林淑萍(2003)。布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類修訂版之探討。教育研究月刊，105期，94-106。
簡晟峰、陳秀涵(2002)。內容分析法。http://blue.lins.fju.edu.tw/~su/rm91/res_ca.htm。
顧介梅(2002)。數學科試題檢核分析法之研究-以九十學年度四技二專工業類數學科試題為例。國立臺中師範學院數學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
[西文部份]
Abunawass, A., Lloyd, W., & Rudolph, E. (2004). On-line feedback & assessment: COMPASS: a CS program assessment project. Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 127-131.
Airasian, P. W. & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 349-354.
Anderson, W. (2002). Curricular alignment: a re-examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-259.
Anderson, W. & Krathwohl, D. R.(Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and Assessment: A revision of Blooms’ Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Bennett, J. (2001). Practical work at the upper high school level: the evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 97-110.
Benson, M. J., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1992). Writing reviews of family literature: Guiding students using revised Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive. Family Relations, 41(1), 65-69.
Bloom, B. S., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green and Company.
Box, I. (2004). Objective-Oriented analysis, criterion referencing, and bloom. Proceedings of the sixth conference on Australian computing education, 30, 1-8.
Buck, D., & Stucki, D. (2000). Design Early Considered Harmful: Graduated exposure to complexity and structure based on levels of cognitive development. Proceedings of SIGCSE 2000(March 2000), ACM Press, 75-79.
Buck, D., & Stucki, D. (2001). JKarelRobot: A case study in supporting levels of cognitive development in the computer science curriculum. Proceedings of SIGCSE 2001(Feb. 2001), ACM Press, 16-20.
Chyung, S. Y., & Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the “congruence” principle of Bloom’s taxonomy to designing online instruction. The Quarterly of Distance Education, 4(3), 317-330.
David, A. (2002a). A framework relating outcomes based education and the taxonomy of educational objectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(1), 35-59.
David, A. (2002b). Implications and applications of modern test theory in the context of outcomes based education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(2), 103-121.
Doran, M. V., & Langan, D. D. (1995). A cognitive-based approach to introductory computer science courses: lessons learned. Proceedings of SIGCSE 1995 (March 1995) ACM Press, 218-222.
Frisbie, D. A., Miranda, D. U., & Baker, K. K. (1993). An evaluation of elementary textbook tests as classroom assessment tools. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(1), 21-36.
Granello, D. H . (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work: Using Bloom’s taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature reviews. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(4), 292-307.
Howard, R. A., Carver C. A., & Lane, W. D. (1996). Felder’s learning styles, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle: tying it all together in the CS2 course. Proceedings of the twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 28(1), 227-231.
Hoff, D. J. (2001). Teaching, standards, tests found not aligned. Education Week, 21(9), p6.
James, R. (2002). Improving instruction. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 233-237.
Karns, J. M. L., Burton, G. E., & Martin, G.D. (2001). Learning objectives and testing: An analysis of six principles of economics textbooks, using Bloom’s taxonomy. The Journal of Economic Education, 16-20.
Kastberg, S. E. (2003). Using Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework for classroom assessment. Mathematics Teacher, 96(6), 402-407.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Lipscomb, J. W. (2001). Is Bloom’s taxonomy better than intuitive judgment for classifying test questions? Education, 106(1), 102-107.
Lister, R. (2000). On blooming first year programming, and it’s blooming assessment. Proceedings of Australasian conference on Computing education (Dec. 2000), 158-162.
Lister, R. (2001). Objectives and objective assessment in CS1. Proceedings of SIGCSE 2001(Feb. 2001), ACM press, 292-296.
Lister, R., and Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. Proceedings of SIGCSE 2003(Jan. 2003), ACM Press, 143-147.
Martin C. D. (2003). Professional issues: Computing curricula 2001: reverse engineering a computer science curriculum (Part 2). ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 9-10.
Mayer, R. E. (2002a). A taxonomy for computer-based assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 623-632.
Mayer, R. E. (2002b). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
Oliver, D., Dobele T., Greber, M. & Roberts, T. (2004). This course has a Bloom rating of 3.9. Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Computing Education, 30, 227-231.
Miles-Board, T., Bailey, C., Hall, W. & Carr, L. (2004). Building a companion website in the semantic web. Proceedings of the 13th conference on World Wide Web.365-373.
Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s taxonomy applied to testing in computer classes. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 19(1), 267-274.
Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences. Theory Into Practice, 34(6), 36-44.
Squire, P. J. (2001). Cognitive levels of testing agricultural science in senior secondary schools in Botswana. Education, 121(3), 597-603.
Usova, G. M. (1997). Effective test item discrimination using Bloom’s taxonomy. Education, 118(1), 100-110.
Walker, H. M. (1998). The balance between programming and other assignments. SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(4), 23a-25a.