CFP last date
17 June 2024
Reseach Article

Taxonomies in Higher Education

by Abdullah H. Bin Sawad, Fahad Masood Reda, Fayez Nahed Al-Sehani
International Journal of Applied Information Systems
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 12 - Number 4
Year of Publication: 2017
Authors: Abdullah H. Bin Sawad, Fahad Masood Reda, Fayez Nahed Al-Sehani

Abdullah H. Bin Sawad, Fahad Masood Reda, Fayez Nahed Al-Sehani . Taxonomies in Higher Education. International Journal of Applied Information Systems. 12, 4 ( July 2017), 8-18. DOI=10.5120/ijais2017451695

@article{ 10.5120/ijais2017451695,
author = { Abdullah H. Bin Sawad, Fahad Masood Reda, Fayez Nahed Al-Sehani },
title = { Taxonomies in Higher Education },
journal = { International Journal of Applied Information Systems },
issue_date = { July 2017 },
volume = { 12 },
number = { 4 },
month = { July },
year = { 2017 },
issn = { 2249-0868 },
pages = { 8-18 },
numpages = {9},
url = { },
doi = { 10.5120/ijais2017451695 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2023-07-05T19:08:01.106097+05:30
%A Abdullah H. Bin Sawad
%A Fahad Masood Reda
%A Fayez Nahed Al-Sehani
%T Taxonomies in Higher Education
%J International Journal of Applied Information Systems
%@ 2249-0868
%V 12
%N 4
%P 8-18
%D 2017
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA

In higher education, there are many taxonomies or classifications. It needs more time and much resources to cover it. This paper trying to cover some taxonomies in higher education to make standardization. The taxonomy of Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome including first, second, third, third, fourth and fifth SOLO have been discussed. Furthermore, decision making in higher education is an important concern while the processes of decision-making involvement have been defined in six steps. In addition, the value chain, inbound logistics and operations of higher education has been discussed in detail along with integration in higher education. Quality assurance in higher education is examined. Additionally, open educational practices and reform in high education are considered. Besides, environment of learning and Decision Support Systems have also been depictured, along with data used in higher education. Taxonomy of cognitive domain is also analyzed as one of the fundamental taxonomies in higher education. Since important for modern world, instructional technology is described. Knowledge acquisition was also part of this paper.

  1. Safurah Abdul Jalil, Beryl Plimmer, Ian Warren, and Andrew Luxton- Reilly. Design eye: an interactive learning environment based on the solo taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 22_27. ACM, 2013.
  2. Claus Brabrand and Bettina Dahl. Using the solo taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4):531_549, 2009.
  3. Vasile Paul Bresfelean and Nicolae Ghisoiu. Higher education decision making and decision support systems. 2009.
  4. Satyadhyan Chickerur and Aswatha Kumar. Designing outcome-based curriculum for industry-relevant courses in engineering education: Integrating social networking, information and communication technology, modi_ed bloomâs taxonomy, and student personality types. Cutting edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6:159_178, 2012.
  5. Mahsa Dorri, Mohammad H Yarmohammadian, and Mohammad Ali Nadi. A review on value chain in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46:3842_3846, 2012. 43(6):949_964, 2012.
  6. William Ho, Prasanta K Dey, and Helen E Higson. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in higher education. International journal of educational management, 20(5):319_337, 2006.
  7. Joseph Klein and Itzhak Weiss. Towards an integration of intuitive and systematic decision making in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(3):265_277, 2007.
  8. Felix Maringe. Sta_ involvement in leadership decision making in the uk further education sector. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(4):463, 2012.
  9. Janet Salmons. Taxonomy of collaborative e-learning. 2006.
  10. Silke L Schneider. The international standard classi_cation of education 2011. Comp Soc Res, 30:365_379, 2013.
  11. DS Sukirno and Sununta Siengthai. Does participative decision making a_ect lecturer performance in higher education? International journal of educational management, 25(5):494_508, 2011.
  12. Daniel W Surry and Mary Ann Robinson.A taxonomy of instructional technology service positions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(3):231_238, 2001.
  13. Viraiyan Teeroovengadum, TJ Kamalanabhan, and Ashley Keshwar Seebaluck. Measuring service quality in higher education: Development of a hierarchical model (hesqual). Quality Assurance in Education, 24(2):244_258, 2016.
  14. XuemeiTian and Bill Martin. Business models for higher education: anaustralian perspective. Journal of Management Development, 33(10):932_948, 2014.
  15. Kimberley Tuapawa, William Sher, NingGu, et al. Pentexonomy: a multidimensional taxonomy of educational online technologies| nova. the university of newcastle's digital repository. 2014.
  16. Redeker, G. (2003). An educational taxonomy for learning objects.IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.
  17. J. Yu, R. Buyya, "Taxonomy of Workflow Management Systems for Grid Computing" in Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 3, no. 3–4, pp. 171-200, Sept. 2005.
  18. Marginson, S. (2010).Higher Education in the Global Knowledge Economy.Soc. Behav. Sci. 2, 6962–6980.
  19. StankaHadzhikoleva , Emil Hadzhikolev . Quality Assurance in Higher Education as a Service . Plovdiv University PaisiiHilendarski,Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics,236 Bulgaria Bul., Plovdiv, Bulgaria
  20. Angela Murphy , Open educational practices in higher education: institutional adoption and challenges . Distance Education, 2013.
  21. William G. Tierney. Higher education research, policy, and the challenges of reform.Studies in Higher Education, 2014.
  22. Liu Xianjun, Yu Yang, Zhang Junchao, Wei Shuguang, and Ding Ling. On the Effects, Problems, and Countermeasures of Undergraduate Teaching Evaluation in Higher Education.Chinese Education & Society, 49: 20–38, 2016.
  23. Sarah O’ Sheaa*, Cathy Stoneband Janine Delahuntyc . Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment .Distance Education, 2015.
  24. TeodorMihali, Cluj-Napoca. Higher Education Decision Making and Decision Support Systems. ISSN: 1790-1979 43 Issue 2, Volume 7, February 2010.
  25. Ben Daniel. Big Data and analytics in higher education: Opportunities and challenges.British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 46 No 5 2015.
  26. B.S. Bloom. "Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals ." 1956.
  27. L. Anderson, D. Krathwohl, and B.S. Bloom. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
  28. K. Tuapawa, W. Sher, and N. Gu. "Pentexonomy: A Multi-Dimensional Taxonomy of educational online technologies." Revolutionizing Education through Web-Based Instruction: 225. 2016.
  29. D.W. Surry, and M.A. Robinson. "A taxonomy of instructional technology service positions in higher education." Innovations in Education and Teaching International 38, no. 3: 231-238. 2001.
  30. R. Phipps, J. Merisotis. "What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education." 1999.
  31. R. Gagne, W. Wager, K. Golas, J. Keller, J. Russell, Principles of instructional design. 2005.
  32. C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Routledge. 2013.
  33. M. Riel, L. Polin, Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical support. Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, pp.16-52. 2004.
  34. P. Andersen, "What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education" (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-64). Bristol: JISC. 2007.
  35. T. Anderson, D. Whitelock. The educational semantic web: Visioning and practicing the future of education. Journal of interactive Media in Education, 2004.
  36. S. J. Bell and J. Shank, “The Blended Librarian: A Blueprint for Redefining the Teaching and Learning Role of Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 65, 372–75, 2004.
  37. D. Nahl-Jakobovits, L.A. Jakobovits. "Bibliographic Instructional Design for Information Literacy: Integrating Affective and Cognitive Objectives." Research strategies 11.2: 73-88. 1993.
  38. D. Edelson, D. Gordin, and R. Pea. "Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design." Journal of the learning sciences 8.3-4: 391-450. 1999.
  39. B. Bruce, J. Levin. "Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression." Journal of educational computing research 17, no. 1: 79-102. 1997.
  40. P. Pereira, J. Bernardino, I. Pedrosa. "Decision support portal to higher education degree selection: the creation of a personal ranking." In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication, pp. 155-160. ACM, 2014.
  41. A. Currah. "Hollywood, the Internet and the world: A geography of disruptive innovation." Industry and Innovation 14, no. 4: 359-384. 2007.
  42. A. Subiksha, "Knowledge Models, current Knowledge Acquisition Techniques and Developments", The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES), 313-317, 2001.
  43. S. Cassidy, P. Eachus. "Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education." Educational Psychology 20, no. 3: 307-322. 2000.
  44. T. Reeves, J. Herrington, R. Oliver. "Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16, no. 2: 96-115. 2005.
  45. D. Jonassen, T. Mayes, R. McAleese. A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231-247). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 1993.
  46. R. Earle. The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY-SADDLE BROOK THEN ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS NJ-, 42(1), pp.5-13. 2002.
  47. D. Kuhn, M. Garcia-Mila, A. Zohar, C. Andersen, S. White, D. Klahr, S. Carver. Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the society for research in child development, pp.i-157. 1995.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences


Taxonomy Higher education