Ontology of Bloom's Taxonomy

[Ali Raza]

Hi,

I hope you are all well.

I am Ali, doing PhD from University of Malaya. A small part of my research involves creating ontology of Bloom's taxonomy, a well known framework for categorizing educational goals and objectives. It has three domains, namely, Affective, Psychomotor and Cognitive. My research focuses on the cognitive domain, which has six cognitive levels, namely, remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating, in ascending order. Remembering being at the lowest cognitive level and creating the highest cognitive level.

I have created the ontology (snapshot attached), Kindly help me in validating or suggesting improving this ontology.

It will be so kind of you and means a lot to me.

Kind regards,

Ali

[João Oliveira Lima]

Dear Ali,

Thank you for the clarification. Based on your ontology, the relationships between *CognitiveDomain* and *BloomTaxonomy* need to be adjusted. The current structure represents these relationships as subsumption (is-a) hierarchies, which is not conceptually accurate.

Here is the revised hierarchy that corrects the relationships:

1. **BloomTaxonomy**

   - Has-part: *AffectiveDomain*, *PsychomotorDomain*, *CognitiveDomain*

2. **CognitiveDomain**

   - Has-part: *CognitiveLevels* (the six levels: *Remembering*, *Understanding*, *Applying*, *Analyzing*, *Evaluating*, *Creating*)

In this structure, the relationship between *BloomTaxonomy* and its domains (*AffectiveDomain*, *PsychomotorDomain*, and *CognitiveDomain*) should be a part-whole (has-part) relationship, meaning that *BloomTaxonomy* is composed of these three domains rather than being a superclass of them. Similarly, *CognitiveDomain* is composed of *CognitiveLevels*, but it is not a superclass of those levels.

The adjusted hierarchy would look like this:

- **BloomTaxonomy** (has-part: *AffectiveDomain*, *PsychomotorDomain*, *CognitiveDomain*)

   - **CognitiveDomain** (has-part: *CognitiveLevels*)

     - **CognitiveLevels** (subclasses: *Remembering*, *Understanding*, *Applying*, *Analyzing*, *Evaluating*, *Creating*)

This adjustment will correctly represent that *CognitiveLevels* are parts of the *CognitiveDomain* and the three domains are parts of the *BloomTaxonomy*.

I hope this helps to improve your ontology. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,  

João

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAEWU1hmUiNRpsSyun6bXLwvLuAm6WGyqNOStSJKWRGKEonBbEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ali Raza]

Hi  João,

Thanks for prompt and very logical explanation. I have some questions regarding axioms and object properties, I will email once I edit this part.

Kind regards,

Ali

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAEWU1hmUiNRpsSyun6bXLwvLuAm6WGyqNOStSJKWRGKEonBbEw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CADtko5%2BjBCb6c4xcGk6KB3x0eEQxanyCdnBXH07kzesZitmwOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Hi Ali.

I think you should not use the class BloomTaxonomy in your ontology as this is the name of the entire ontology.

And you should not use class Keyword as not specific for the domain.

Anyway it is great you are formalizing particular theoretical knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy.

A version  of taxonomy itself may be important.

And I hope you find Bloom's taxonomy expert.

I doubt the "is-a" diagram as this is a diagram for individual-class relationship, not class-class.

And if we verbalize a little we get "class CognitiveLevel is a member of class CognitiveDomain"

But anyway you need Bloom's taxonomy expert.

Alex

пн, 23 сент. 2024 г. в 12:38, Ali Raza <aliraz...@gmail.com>:

--

[Ali Raza]

Hi Alex, 

Thanks for valuable feedback, the suggestions are really helpful. I'm also trying to approach some experts from education particularly having some experience in implementing BT such as implementing or adapting Outcome Based Education (OBE). 

Kind regards, 

Ali

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROQ1LbkGWvJ5QNX42H9-JzuV%3DoDuhMTipBchQ4hZSUzipQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Hi Ali,

Your work to formalize BT is coherent with my work to formalize Statics.

Let me share my experience.

When we formalize theoretical knowledge of any kind we need to point out precisely to the text part of which we are formalizing.

In a particular case of BT is this "Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company." or anything else?

The idea here is that this must be a reference to the initial author's text or textbook, not Wikipedia etc, i.e. not secondary sources.

For example, for Mechanics I can refer to Newton's Principia, or to the first volume of Landau, Lifschitz Theoretical physics famous in Russia.

The next point is that every statement of formal ontology must have reference to the statement or paragraph of the source text to be justified.

This is a burden of formalization: we do not invent new knowledge - we formalize knowledge they have.

This is a kind of well annotated ontology 🚙 

Then if you wish, send us the reference to the source text of theoretical knowledge you are formalizing.

And for some statements of "is a" or "subclass" kind where in the text justification is.

I know it's boring and it's better to do automatically during ontology development: you put in ontology OWL2:"subclassOf(Remembering CognitiveLevel)"

and immediately form an annotation "TB1, page ?, line ?" and citation if you wish.

Keep in touch. Formalizing theories of the mind activities is very interesting.

Best regards,

Alex

пн, 23 сент. 2024 г. в 18:45, Ali Raza <aliraz...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAEWU1hmBocHfyFyZcUaZynYBmNOF92voYduDFTz8h5WcrsOeNg%40mail.gmail.com.