# Category 4: Educational Transformation Cards

<span>Educational Transformation Cards describe structural shifts in how education is organized, delivered, and understood that create the conditions for immersive learning adoption. Unlike Societal Challenge Cards, which track broader social conditions, Educational Transformation Cards focus specifically on changes within educational institutions and systems.</span>

# New Page



# ET: Hybrid is the New Default

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Hybrid Is the New Default | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: Hybrid Is the New Default

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>hybrid-learning | remote | access | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-hybrid-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the normalization of hybrid learning models — simultaneous or alternating in-person and remote participation — in ways that have proven durable beyond the pandemic context. Immersive learning designers must now assume that learners will frequently be distributed across physical and virtual spaces, and that seamless transitions between these contexts are a baseline design requirement.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- Post-pandemic learner and institutional expectation reset
- Institutional investment in hybrid learning infrastructure
- iLRN and peer conference hybrid model normalization

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- Does hybrid immersive learning create a qualitatively inferior experience for remote participants, and how should that be accounted for?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: SCENARIO: Pragmatic Normalization | SC: Resilience

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: Hybrid Is the New Default | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: Hybrid Is the New Default

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-hybrid-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- Does hybrid immersive learning create a qualitatively inferior experience for remote participants, and how should that be accounted for?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: Assessment is in Crisis

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Assessment Is in Crisis | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: Assessment Is in Crisis

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>assessment | validity | integrity | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-assesscrisis-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Traditional assessment models — standardized testing, proctored examinations, written assignments — are under pressure from multiple directions: AI-assisted completion, accessibility critiques, validity challenges, and the inadequacy of 2D assessment for 3D competency development. Immersive learning offers new assessment possibilities but also introduces new validity and equity challenges not yet resolved.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- AI-assisted completion undermining existing assignment integrity
- Disability access critiques of standardized testing
- Lack of valid assessment frameworks for spatial and embodied competencies

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- How should immersive assessment be validated when the competencies being assessed are themselves contested?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: STRAND: Immersive Assessment

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: Assessment Is in Crisis | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: Assessment Is in Crisis

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-assesscrisis-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- How should immersive assessment be validated when the competencies being assessed are themselves contested?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: From Cohorts to Personal Trajectories

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: From Cohorts to Personal Trajectories | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: From Cohorts to Personal Trajectories

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>personalization | trajectories | cohorts | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-trajectories-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>The combination of AI-driven personalization, credential flexibility, and learner mobility is shifting educational models from cohort-based progression to individualized learning trajectories. Immersive learning environments that support personalization at scale are positioned within this shift, but must address the social isolation risks of purely individualized learning paths.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- LMS personalization engine adoption
- Microcredential and stackable credential system growth
- Learner mobility across institutional contexts

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- Does personalized immersive learning displace the communal experience that generates educational meaning and belonging?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: STRAND: Social &amp; Co-Regulated XR Learning

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: From Cohorts to Personal Trajectories | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: From Cohorts to Personal Trajectories

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-trajectories-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- Does personalized immersive learning displace the communal experience that generates educational meaning and belonging?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: Teacher Capability is the Bottleneck

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Teacher Capability Is the Bottleneck | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: Teacher Capability Is the Bottleneck

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>teacher-development | bottleneck | professional-learning | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-teachbottleneck-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Research consistently identifies teacher confidence, capability, and institutional support as the primary determinant of whether educational technology is used effectively in practice. Immersive learning adoption is constrained not primarily by technology availability but by the professional development, time, and institutional support required for educators to integrate XR into practice with competence and intentionality.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- Professional development investment gaps relative to technology investment
- Teacher time constraints limiting experimentation
- Lack of pre-service XR education pedagogy training

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- Who bears responsibility for educator XR capability development — institutions, technology vendors, or professional communities like iLRN?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: SCENARIO: Pragmatic Normalization | SC: Employment Upheaval

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: Teacher Capability Is the Bottleneck | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: Teacher Capability Is the Bottleneck

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-teachbottleneck-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- Who bears responsibility for educator XR capability development — institutions, technology vendors, or professional communities like iLRN?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s-1"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Inclusion Is No Longer Optional | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: Inclusion is No Longer Optional

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Inclusion Is No Longer Optional | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: Inclusion Is No Longer Optional

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>inclusion | UDL | design | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-inclusion-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Legal, ethical, and social pressure has elevated inclusive design from an enhancement to a baseline requirement for educational technology. For immersive learning, this means that accessibility, cultural responsiveness, and equitable access must be integrated from the earliest design stages rather than retrofitted after development — a shift that requires both design practice change and procurement standards change.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- Accessibility regulation extension to digital learning environments
- Universal Design for Learning policy adoption
- Community advocacy and litigation around EdTech exclusion

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- How should existing iLRN resources and projects be evaluated against retrospective inclusion standards?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: SC: Accessibility | STRAND: Inclusive &amp; Accessible Immersion

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: Inclusion Is No Longer Optional | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: Inclusion Is No Longer Optional

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-inclusion-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- How should existing iLRN resources and projects be evaluated against retrospective inclusion standards?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s-1"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>cost | investment | ROI | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-costcrisis-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Educational institutions globally face significant cost pressure at precisely the moment when immersive technology investment is at its highest demand. The tension between financial constraint and technology promise is shaping which immersive learning investments are pursued, by whom, and on what justification. Research on cost-effectiveness and return on educational investment is urgently needed and systematically underprovided.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- Higher education financial model stress in multiple regions
- EdTech vendor pricing structures misaligned with institutional budget cycles
- Lack of standardized cost-effectiveness methodology for XR learning

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- How should iLRN members evaluate immersive technology adoption decisions without adequate cost-effectiveness evidence?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: SC: Equity | STRAND: Transfer &amp; Ecological Validity

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: The Cost Crisis Meets the Tech Promise

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-costcrisis-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- How should iLRN members evaluate immersive technology adoption decisions without adequate cost-effectiveness evidence?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

# ET: Digital Literacy is now Spatial

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-i-%E2%80%94-foresight-s"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART I — FORESIGHT SNAPSHOT | ET: Digital Literacy Is Now Spatial | Fixed Time-Stamped Synthesis

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>## 2026 ET: Digital Literacy Is Now Spatial

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-card-type-educationa"><table><colgroup><col width="173"></col><col width="451"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Card Type

</td><td>Educational Transformation

</td></tr><tr><td>Series

</td><td>Immersive Futures Guild — Vision 2035

</td></tr><tr><td>Layer

</td><td>1 — Atomic Foresight Object

</td></tr><tr><td>Status

</td><td>Active

</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence

</td><td>Medium

</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop

</td><td>Circle of Scholars — January 2026

</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator

</td><td>Circle of Scholars Workshop Team

</td></tr><tr><td>Tags

</td><td>digital-literacy | spatial | curriculum | layer1 | et

</td></tr><tr><td>Tally.so Form

</td><td>https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-spatlit-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>The addition of spatial computing, AR navigation, and virtual environment interaction to the competency landscape means that digital literacy now has a spatial dimension. Educators are required to develop spatial literacy — the capacity to navigate, create, and critically evaluate three-dimensional digital environments — alongside existing digital skill frameworks. No widely adopted curriculum framework yet adequately addresses this requirement.

Key Drivers / Contributing Conditions:

- Spatial computing normalization in consumer devices
- 3D design tool adoption in professional practice
- XR platform navigation as an expected educational technology skill

Tensions Carried Forward to Part II:

- How should spatial literacy be defined and assessed given the rapid evolution of the technologies it addresses?

Linked Scenarios / Strands: SC: Accessibility | STRAND: Learners as World-Builders

Ways of Knowing: Tree · Garden · Lantern

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-community-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>PART II — COMMUNITY EVIDENCE &amp; DIALOGUE TRACK | ET: Digital Literacy Is Now Spatial | H2 2026 — Living

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-t-community-contribu"><table><colgroup><col width="27"></col><col width="597"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>T

</td><td>COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FORM — ET: Digital Literacy Is Now Spatial

Submit case examples, methodological challenges, cultural perspectives, and proposed evidence criteria via: https://tally.so/r/ilrn-if-et-spatlit-2026

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div><div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-part-ii-%E2%80%94-scope-and-"><table><colgroup><col width="624"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Part II — Scope and Instructions

</td></tr><tr><td>This section collects community responses, case examples, and challenges to the Part I foresight snapshot above.

</td></tr><tr><td>It opens July 1, 2026 and undergoes synthesis review in September 2026, November 2026, and January 2027.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions are submitted via the Tally.so form above and appear in the registers below after editorial review.

</td></tr><tr><td>The Part I text is not modified in response to Part II contributions; it is versioned at the Annual Handoff review.

</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution categories: Case Example | Methodological Challenge | Cultural/Community Perspective | Proposed Evidence Criterion

</td></tr><tr><td>Ways of Knowing accepted: Tree (evidence) | Garden (practice) | Lantern (futures)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>Tensions Open for Community Response:

- How should spatial literacy be defined and assessed given the rapid evolution of the technologies it addresses?

<div align="left" dir="ltr" id="bkmrk-contributor-%2F-date-c"><table><colgroup><col width="147"></col><col width="133"></col><col width="144"></col><col width="200"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th scope="col">Contributor / Date

</th><th scope="col">Category

</th><th scope="col">Way of Knowing

</th><th scope="col">Contribution Summary

</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>\[ Awaiting contributions — form opens July 1, 2026 \]

</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td><td>  
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>