本研究的目的在希望透過教科書分析，瞭解高中電腦教科書的涵蓋範圍是否符合課程標準的規定，以及教學目標、教材內容及習題的認知分類情形，並探討三者的分類情形是否一致。本研究以三本高中電腦教科書作為研究對象，使用布魯姆認知分類修正版為分析工具，由分析結果探討教學目標、教材內容及習題的的分類情形，及三者是否一致。
研究結果發現：(1)三本教科書涵蓋範圍未完全符合課程標準的規定；(2)教學目標、教材內容和習題多為低認知層次，只有少部份的教學目標和習題具有高認知層次；(3)三本教科書的教學目標、教材內容及習題在認知分類上普遍不一致。

參考文獻
1. 方炳林（1986）。教學原理。台北：教育文物。
2. 吳正己、何榮桂(1998)。高級中學櫎訂電腦課程的內涵與特色。科學教育月刋，280，26-32。
3. 吳正己 (2000)。高中電腦科教科書編撰建議。國立編譯館通訊，13(2)，11-17。
4. 李坤崇(2004)。修訂Bloom認知分類及命題實例。教育研究月刊，122，98-127。
5. 周祝瑛(1995)。國中日常教學活動之生態研究。行政院教育改革審議委員會委託專題報告。
6. 林凱胤(1996)。高中職計算機概論教科書分析(碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，1996)。國立台灣師範大學博碩士論文系統，85NTNU3395001。
7. 柯華葳(1995)。國小日常教學活動之生態研究。行政院教育改革審議委員會委託專題報告。
8. 陳宏煒(2002)。高中電腦課程實施現況調查(碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，2002)。國立台灣師範大學博碩士論文系統，91NTNU0395028。
9. 黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。台北：東華。
10. 黃政傑(1995)。教科書的誤用與正用。載於黃政傑(著)：多元社會課程取向，頁167-179。台北：師大書苑。
11. 黃炳煌(1991)。課程理論之基礎(修訂四版)。台北：文景。
12. 教育部(1996)。高級中學課程標準。台北:作者。
13. 教育部(2001)。高級中學教科用書審定辦法。台北:作者。
14. 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，105，94-106。
15. 葉志文(2002)。高級中學英文教科書之內容分析研究(碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學，2002)。全國博碩士論文資訊網，91NKNU0332016。
16. 劉昭宏(1994)。從考慮學習者的角度來看教科書內容設計的原則。科學教育通訊，26，50-64。
17. 劉清水(1999)：高中學生基礎生物學基本能力之研究。臺灣省中等學校教師研習會專案研究報告。臺中：臺灣省中等學校教師研習會。
18. 賴皇觀(2001)。高中電腦教科書「中央處理單元」概念呈現之分析(碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，2001)。國立台灣師範大學博碩士論文系統，90NTNU0395025。
19. Anderson J. (1981). Analysing the readability of English and non-English texts in the classroom with Lix. Educational Resources Information Center.
20. Anderson, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms’ educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
21. Armbruster, B. B. (1988). Why Some Children Have Trouble Reading Content Area Textbooks. Technical Report No.432. ERIC: ED300 782.
22. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman, Green.
23. Bloom, B. S. (1981). All our children learning. N. Y. : McGrawHill.
24. Buck, D., & Stucki, D. (2000). Design Early Considered Harmful: Graduated exposure to Complexity and Structure Based on Levels of Cognitive Development. Proceedings SISCSE 2000 (March 2000), ACM Press, 75-79.
25. Calder, J. R. (1983). In the cells of the ‘Bloom taxonomy’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(3), 291-302.
26. Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 939-951.
27. Costa, A. L. (1985). Teacher’s Behaviours that Enable Student Thinking. In A. L. Costa (eds.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking, 125-137.
28. Davies, I. K. (1976). Objectives in curriculum design. London: Mc-Graw-Hill.
29. Dreyer, L.G.. (1984).Readability and Reading Ability: Implications for the Classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA.
30. Ellen, F. P.; Sue, V.R. (1992).Factors in Life Science Textbooks that May Deter Girls’ Interest in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 669-686.
31. Fain, S. M., & Bader, B. (1983). Challenges to curriculum and teaching based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229348).
32. Farley, G. T. (1968). Increasing the cognitive level of classroom questions: An application of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. (University Microfilms No. 68 - 13794).
33. Harrison, J. M. (1984). The relationship between Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking skills. (University Microfilms No. 84-19246).
34. Holliday, W. G. (1988). The Perils of Illstrations. Basic Education, 32(10), 13-15.
35. Lister, R. (2000). On Blooming First Year Programming, and its Blooming Assessment. Proceedings of the Australasian conference on Computing education,158-162
36. Lister, R. (2001). Objectives and Objective Assessment in CS1. Proc. Thirtieth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Charlotte, NC, USA.
37. Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory Programming, Criterion-Referencing, and Bloom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 35(1), 143-147.
38. Lowery, L. F., & Leonard, W.H. (1978). A Comparison of Questioning Styles among Four Widely used High School Biology Textbooks, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 1-10.
39. Marksberry, M. L., McCarter, M., & Noyce, R. (1969). Relation between cognitive objectives from selected texts and from recommendations of national committees. The Journal of Educational Research, 62, 422-429.
40. Marsh, C.J. (1997). Planning, management and ideology: Key concepts for understanding curriculum 2. London: Falmer.
41. Masterson, T. F., & Meyer R. M. (2001). SIVIL: a true visual programming language for students. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 16(4), 74-86.
42. Moyer, W. A., & Mayer, W.V. (1985). Consumer Guide to Biology Textbooks, In: People for the American Way, Washington, D.C. P.5(ED213430)
43. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. R. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge Press.
44. Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning Science and Science of Learning, Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-109.
45. Olive, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004). This Course Has A Bloom Rating Of 3.9. Proceedings of the sixth conference on Australian computing education, 30, 227-231.
46. Ormell, C. P. (1974). Bloom’s taxonomy and the objectives of education. Educational Research, 17(1), 3-18.
47. Pfeiffer, I. L. (1966). Teaching in ability grouped English classes: A study of Verbal interaction and cognitive goals. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kent State University.
48. Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s Taxonomy Applied to Testing in Computer Science. The Journal for Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(1), 267-274.
49. Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Questioning Level of Junior High School science Textbooks and Their Implications for Learning Information. Science Education, 75(6), 673-682.
50. Tobin, K. (1990). Rearch on Science Laboratory Activities: In Pursuit of Better Questions and Answers to Improve Learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
51. Ulerick, S. L. (1989). Using textbooks for meaningful learning science. NARST News, 32, 15-16.
52. Yager, R.E. (1989). Toward Quality Textbook to Match Science Education Goals. In: T. P. Sachse, (Ed.). Science Education Occasional Paper Series (No.12), Sacramento, CA: California Development of Education.