A formal BFO-aligned ontology of immersive learning grounded in constructivist theory, cognitive science, and instructional design — extending the companion Immersion Ontology into educational practice.
Eight ontology matrices, 41 formally defined terms, and an 11-test automated validation suite — providing a computationally analyzable foundation for researchers, instructional designers, and immersive technology developers.
Select a matrix to explore its terms. Each term carries a BFO category assignment, Aristotelian definition, and explicit relationship mappings to other ontology terms.
The instructional design framework forms a formal ontological chain from objectives (ICEs) through strategies and activities to scaffolding (realizable entities) — each level bearing a typed relationship to the next.
Complete is-a hierarchy from BFO root. Click nodes to expand or collapse branches.
Six research gaps — terminological inconsistency, technology-centric framing, binary treatment, neglect of individual differences, unclear affordance-outcome links, insufficient metacognitive coverage — motivated this BFO-aligned formal solution.
Immersive Learning is formally classified as a subtype of the Immersion class from the companion ontology, inheriting all BFO category assignments and relationship types. Eight extension terms bridge to core immersion constructs via extends, grounds, specializes_for, and moderated_by relationships.
Cognitive learning components are occurrents (processes); emotional learning components are realizable entities (dispositions realized in interaction). This distinction drives differentiated design guidance: dispositions are cultivated by structuring environments that trigger their realization, while processes must be occasioned by conditions meeting their activation thresholds.
Learning preferences, cognitive abilities, and cultural background are modeled as qualities or dispositions of specific learners — not abstract group-level categories. This grounding enables adaptive system design: the same environment may enhance engagement for one learner disposition while generating counterproductive cognitive load for another.
An 11-test programmatic suite checked all 41 defined terms for field completeness, BFO validity, non-circular inheritance, structural integrity, and bridge links to the companion ontology. Zero errors and zero warnings confirmed logical consistency and structural integrity across the entire term set.