Embedding-Based Educational Taxonomies

As computing education expands beyond traditional programming into operational domains such as systems administration and command-line environments, existing pedagogical frameworks struggle to capture a dimension that is critical in these contexts: the real-world consequences of learner actions. Existing cognitive taxonomies classify learning objectives by mental operations but do not account for system impact, leaving a critical gap in command-line education where conceptually simple commands can have severe consequences. This work presents CogTax, a four-level cognitive taxonomy that integrates two dimensions: cognitive complexity, derived from Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, and operational impact, which distinguishes observational, reversible, structural, and administrative operations. The four progressive levels range from safe read-only inspection to advanced system management requiring integration of multiple abstract models. Then, the taxonomy level is defined as the maximum of these dimensions, ensuring that both conceptual understanding and operational awareness are addressed. CogTax gives instructors a principled framework for sequencing course material and calibrating assessment difficulty, and gives students an explicit reference for self-assessment and gap identification. To demonstrate that taxonomy levels are automatically assignable, making the framework scalable without manual expert annotation, a classifier that combines syntactic representations derived from abstract syntax trees with semantic embeddings is trained. Evaluated on 585 expert-annotated Linux/bash commands, this combined approach achieves 89% accuracy, outperforming either representation alone, and demonstrates cross-language extensibility through structural equivalences across command languages.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in K-12 education, yet existing benchmarks such as C-Eval, CMMLU, GaokaoBench, and EduEval mainly evaluate factual recall through exam-style question answering. Effective educational AI additionally requires curriculum cognition: understanding how knowledge is structured through prerequisite chains, concept taxonomies, experiment-concept links, and pedagogical sequencing. To address this gap, we introduce K12-KGraph, a curriculum-aligned knowledge graph extracted from official People's Education Press textbooks across mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology from primary to high school. The graph contains seven node types (Concept, Skill, Experiment, Exercise, Section, Chapter, Book) and nine relation types covering taxonomy, prerequisite, association, verification, assessment, location, and order. Based on this graph, we construct two resources: (1) K12-Bench, a 23,640-question multi-select benchmark spanning five graph-derived task families (Ground, Prereq, Neighbor, Evidence, and Locate); and (2) K12-Train, a KG-guided supervised fine-tuning corpus of approximately 2,300 QA pairs synthesized from graph structure and node attributes. Experiments reveal substantial deficiencies in curriculum cognition: on K12-Bench, Gemini-3-Flash achieves only 57% exact match, while the best open-source model, Gemma-4-31B-IT, reaches 46%. Under a strictly matched 2,300-sample SFT budget on Qwen3-4B-Base and Llama-3.1-8B-Base, K12-Train consistently outperforms equally sized subsets from eight mainstream instruction-tuning corpora on both GaokaoBench and EduEval, demonstrating that curriculum-structured supervision is highly sample-efficient for educational tuning. We release the graph, benchmark, training data, and full construction pipeline.

Automatic Bloom's taxonomy classification of assessment questions can substantially reduce instructor workload, but labeling is subjective and teacher-dependent. Prior machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) approaches reported strong within-dataset results, yet were rarely evaluated in cross-dataset settings, leaving real-world generalizability unclear; meanwhile, LLM effectiveness for Bloom question classification has not been systematically studied. We evaluated the cross-dataset generalization of existing ML/DL methods and assessed LLMs with multiple prompting strategies on five datasets; the best prompting strategy combined in-context examples with course-specific action verbs. Supervised ML/DL models degraded substantially on unseen datasets, whereas LLMs were more stable, suggesting a robust alternative across diverse educational contexts. Based on the best prompting strategy, we also presented a lightweight UI that supports instructors in automatically classifying large question banks; a usability study indicated low workload and high usability.