Proponents of formal learning

Anytime I ponder the value of informal learning like I did on Saturday, professional training departments appear to be in big trouble. When I explored the possibility of collaborative training departments last month, I'm under the same impression. As I read Learning in 3D, the authors shared this view of training departments in big trouble. They see training departments excluding themselves from the space of generative learning, teachable moments and self exploration.

I've taught Employee Training & Development many times at the undergraduate level. I noticed the students who enrolled in those classes were unlike those in my classes on leadership, entrepreneurial creativity or managerial effectiveness. I've also consulted the training departments in large organizations that we're plagued with a lack of skill transfer from their "indoctrination programs". The employees of those training departments exhibited similar characteristics to the college students learning to conduct TNA's, work with SME's and design instruction according to the ADDIE protocol.

With these experiences in mind, I've developed a theory about the differences in mindsets, personalities and emotional baggage between those who favor formal vs. informal learning. Both "types" are creating experiences of being right, making the other type wrong, and justifying their experiences in ways that avoid cognitive dissonance. Here's a brief outline of the theory I'm developing:

People with lots of experiences with learning being difficult for themselves inadvertently make learning difficult for others. Formal instruction fits their world view nicely. Those who find learning comes easily to them naturally expect learning to be easy for others also. They favor informal modes of learning.

• People who lose focus, curiosity and motivation to learn often expect others to suffer the same impairments. They will commiserate with their misfortune by avoiding any depth to exploration, personal reflection or collaborative interpretation. Those who experience themselves being naturally determined, inquisitive and inspired will set up others to delve deeply into alternative theories, viewpoints and models for framing the superficial level of data.
• People who have trouble shopping for things they need, finding what they want or discovering better ways to search will spoon feed others every morsel of information. Those who succeed at finding what they're looking for set up others to go on adventures to discover for themselves also.
• People who have written things that got ignored or received bad grades for -- expect information provided in archives, wiki and libraries to get ignored. They favor required reading, handouts and slide presentations to make sure the content does not get ignored. Those who have received lots of attention and recognition for what they have written expect that to continue. They are eager to generate digital archives of searchable tagged content that others may find useful at a later time using their own keyword searches.

All this suggests that we cannot talk others into "informal learning" or expect them to change their approach to learning. They have been convinced that formal learning is necessary by their persuasive prior experiences. They live in worlds which manufacture further evidence of their being unquestionably right. When they get assaulted by advice to switch to informal learning, they simply experience more difficulty learning that, a recurring loss of motivation, a repeated failure to find what they're looking for and further evidence of their viewpoint getting ignored. In others, they are seeing "all the more reason" to stick with formal learning.

Evaluating ourselves informally

Informal learning makes it nearly impossible to give fair grades to process or outcomes, to score accurately or to objectively compare informal learners. When we adopt informal learning as I explored in Learning to formalize informal learning, we will also need to adopt informal evaluation schema.

When we're playing games, we naturally keep score "in our heads". We know how we're doing as we're immersed in activities. We may even have some ideas of how we could do even better. Anytime there is an outcome from our efforts, we're learning from that feedback. We can see whether we made the difference we intended with our effort. We may even be able to assess whether we should next try harder at the same approach or wise up and try a different strategy.

When we're interacting with others, we can continually observe how we're doing. It's apparent by observing the others in our interchanges. We can get a sense of how we are meeting expectations, getting along, contributing effectively and doing our fair share. The readouts to watch are in people's eyes, body language, tone of voice and subtext of what they say to us.

When we're getting something done on our own, we can usually assess our effort from the effects we're having. We can discern whether we are making a problem worse, doing harm to the materials, or taking a long way to get a simple task completed. Likewise we can become impressed with how much we've accomplished, how we went about it, and the quality of the final result.

In each of these cases, we rely on our informal evaluation schema. We have already internalized criteria to rate ourselves and resolve in our own minds "how we're doing?". These standards give us many other open questions to continually consider. They focus our attention on performance indicators. We're looking for feedback that answers the questions raised by the criteria we have in mind.

When we get practiced, experienced and confident in our own informal evaluation schema, another benefit gets realized. We can take other's evaluation of us with a grain of salt. We can differ from their assessment with our self evaluation. We can prefer the criteria we apply to our efforts and outcomes over their way of scoring us. We can see how their way of evaluating us has a autobiographical dimension to it, saying more about them than us. We can be wonderfully selective about which feedback we accept and how we let it get to us. As with informal learning, there are these many benefits to informal evaluation.

According to the factory representatives

When there is work to be done, some say there is only one way to get it done. Anything else is messing around, failing to pay attention, getting distracted and losing focus. Others say there are many ways to get the work done and which way to use depends on the people, timing, available resources and contextual situation. Getting work done is an act of creativity rather than compliance. It won't necessarily get done the same way as last time or the next time. When routine work becomes non-routine due to contextualized responsiveness, two or more heads are better than one. The work gets done collaboratively, co-creatively and communally. Imagine how cool it would be if we had handheld devices for soliciting advice, viewpoints, solutions and strategies from a network of followers while we were getting something done. It would look like we weren't paying attention when we are doing something better than that.

According to the factory representatives, school work is perfect preparation for slaving away in cubicles and assembly lines after dropping out or graduating from prep school. Sitting for long periods in classroom seats get us ready for the mindless experiences of laboring to get the same work done repeatedly. The class requirements and grading are sufficiently degrading to endure the subjugation from the hierarchy above the worker. The conformity of students' submittals, reading and tests gets students thinking work is matter of compliance. It's no wonder advocates of creativity find schooling eradicates our ability to innovate pretty thoroughly.

According to the factory representatives, multitasking with handheld devices is worthless and Wifi/G3 connectivity is a distraction. They sound like the skeptics of those new horseless carriages a century ago. The opponents of progress were convinced that autos didn't work like they should. Horseless carriages could not muck out the stalls in the livery stable, shoe or groom a horse, tidy up a tack room, pull the fire wagon or harvest a field of hay to feed the horses. They were a distraction from the work that had to get done as always.

According to the factory representatives, they are always right about what is the wrong way to get work done.

Is multitasking making us scatterbrained?

It's too easy to take potshots at changing brain functions from our cushy seats in the bygone era. The new ways our brains have begun to function appear deficient compared to the ways they have since ink showed up on paper. However, what appears on the surface as deficient, is actually efficient in ways we don't yet appreciate. In my view, multitasking is not making us scatterbrained. It's restoring our natural way to be alive.

Our brains go through phenomenal gyrations to follow a printed sentence on a page or screen. Our natural inclinations to scan the panorama get overridden by the need to focus our sight on the squiggles we're paying close attention to with effort. Our instinct to look that the sound we just heard or movement that caught our attention has to be suppressed. Then we're obligated to turn the squiggles of text into letters, words and sentences. Once we've figured out what it says, we work on what it means. Then there's another sentence after the one we've just devoted significant processing capacity to decoding.

Marshal McLuhan forewarned that our brains would alter how they process sensory data thanks to the hidden effects of electronics. A trend that started with the telegraph, phonograph and telephone is in full swing with ear buds and video screens on cellphones, PDA's, laptops and tablets. He suggested we would get a divorce after being wedded to mechanical technologies and remarry all things electrical. Our senses would return to immersive experiences of acoustic spaces and panoramic vision. We'd lose our isolated point of view and get back into oneness with what we see, hear, taste, smell and touch.

The word "multitasking" speaks in reference to factories, motors and mechanisms. It's a transition word like "horseless carriage" that clings to the past while describing the future. It imagines that multitaskers are getting jobs done, being productive and making progress by multitasking. It assumes that we are "human doings" that grow up to function like reliable printing presses, scheduled railroads and organized factories.

I've been wondering what word will replace the word "multitasking", like "automobile" replaced "horseless carriage". I've been toying with possibilities like "multi-queuing", "multi-attentions" or "multi-responsiveness". It's not that we're getting things done simultaneously when we "multitask". It's that we've got several windows open and several responses we're in the midst of formulating. We're paying attention to more than one follower from our network paying attention to us. We're immersed in the oneness of multiple streams of inputs. We're functioning just like our brains when were "letting it all in" from all five senses at once. We acting naturally once again. We're acting like human beings.

Internalizing evaluations

Having submitted my Executive Summary for the Penn/Milken business plan contest yesterday, I've moved on to the designing the system architecture I proposed. This morning I've been focused on the ways the contributions of participants get evaluated. One facet of that process I'm modeling explores where we take an evaluation when we internalize it. It's not lost on me that I'm using a spatial metaphor that's very amenable to exploring in a virtual immersive environment. Here's the framework I developed for visualizing the places in our psyche that we take evaluations that we receive from others:

When others tell us how well we worked in process (formative assessments) or how our final outcome rates (summative assessment), we've suddenly got a lot on our plate. First we need to discern if we understand what we are being told. Then we may determine whether we accept the feedback or not. We may then notice how we feel about it, whether it agrees with our own evaluation and how we might put the imposed feedback to good use. All those considerations influence our rejection or internalization of the evaluation.

If we choose (usually unconsciously) to let the evaluation in, there are four places we can go with it:

1. Upgrading our hindsight - If the evaluation yields a constructive effect, we can review some of our past incidents with a new frame of reference. We can begin to take more responsibility, admit our own mistakes and stop blaming others as much.We can learn from the past to make better predictions about the future and foresee better ways to react next time if presented with a similar challenge. However, if the evaluation produces a destructive effect on us internally, we will fortify our defensive rationalizations, blame others with more conviction, and refuse to admit our own mistakes. We will make the same old predictions, react routinely and suffer the same consequences of our mistaken outlook.
2. Making better progress - With a constructive effect, we can use what we've been told about our process and/or results to take different approaches. We can realize how to be more efficient, discerning, clever or productive. We can suddenly see how we were getting in our own way, making things more difficult for ourselves or passing up valuable shortcuts. With a destructive effect however, we will second guess ourselves, doubt our abilities and hesitate to take any risks. We will become less efficient, observant, ingenious and productive. We will get in our own way and make things more difficult for ourselves.
3. Expanding our horizons - If the effect on us is constructive, we can utilize the evaluation to understand where other people are coming from, to relate to their outlooks and value different lenses for looking at the same situation. Our own ability to diagnose problems, size up situations and judge opportunities will be upgraded by internalizing the additional frames of reference in the external evaluation. However, if the effect is destructive, our new familiarity with others' outlooks will breed contempt, intolerance and distance in relationships. We will misdiagnose, misperceive and misjudge more often.
4. Deepening our experience - When the effect of an evaluation is constructive, we can internalize it as a facet of our identity. We can be as good as that assessment, live up to that expectation and represent that quality in our choices. If the effect is destructive, we can internalize the evaluation as proof of our being a mistake or a real loser. We will argue for our limitations to control our options on the basis on being defective, deviant or deficient.

With so many places to take internalized evaluations, there's no predicting how people will take feedback and what they will make of it. However, this model defines lots of ways to be there for them, lend support for their changing their minds and helping them find relief from chronic problems.

Exploring conceptual space

While virtual immersive environments (VIE's) are in their infancy, we will continue to see familiar places recreated in the vastness of cyberspace. The majority of structures will expect our avatars to show up in human sized forms. The experiences will prepare us for replicas in the physical world. Those experiences can be much less expensive to recreate in virtual environments than physical reality - like crash sites and other critical incidents. They can be places that are difficult to gain access to, schedule time in or clean up after invasion of students. As the book Learning in 3D shows us, there will also be experiences where we crawl around a gigantic version of a tool, fly over the North American continent with all the air traffic displayed in real time or enter into human organs at the scale of a blood cell. VIE's will not be boring during their infancy unless they replicate lecture halls and reading material.

I'm looking forward to the phase that comes after infancy. I'm hoping it will be far more pleasurable than the "terrible twos" of human infancy. II'm foreseeing breakthroughs in our ability to visualize what we conceptualize. Where we currently draw diagrams and animate them sometimes, I expect we will be able to move around conceptual spaces in this next phase. Since that's not something we do in physical reality, it calls for more creativity than it takes to replicate familiar surroundings. Here's some of what we will need to get more creative about:

• Picturing what it's like to "go there" and "come from there" when we're identified with a conceptual framework, positional stance or theoretic model.
• Visualizing the process of moving from one idea to the next, once the first concept is well enough understood to build on it.
• Comparing two concepts while poised between them where their commonalities and differences can be observed clearly.
• Rearranging several concepts that make more sense when placed in a different sequence or juxtaposition.
• Exploring the intersection of two unrelated ideas that reveal some unforeseen possibilities when they overlap.
• Combining several concepts into a comprehensive design solution that responds effectively to a full range of use cases.
• Imagining what it will look like to unlearn something that only made partial sense and replacing it withl a better understanding.

Notice how we already use visual metaphors to speak of our conceptual acrobatics. It seems perfectly natural to me that we will be exploring conceptual spaces like these virtually before long.

Evaluating immersive learning

Two decades ago, I was playing Tetris on my computer. The game issued one block at a time for me to orient before it fell into place, filling in the growing pile without gaps. Because my movements were so limited, the game could learn my habitual reactions and then outsmart me. It would issue an unexpected block that was also turned in ways I was not ready for. A decade later, Macromedia offered add-ons to Flash and Dreamweaver software for so-called learning. The user's movements were limited to dragging objects within a frame and inserting text into fields. The accuracy and time taken could both be scored.

This week, I reviewed some SCORM compliant software that supports avatars moving around in virtual space and conversing with programmed characters. Once again, the accuracy of movements, object selections and text entries could be scored, as well as counting mistakes and the amount of time taken. In spite of all the maneuverability of each learner's avatar within the virtual environment, the learning was as confined as if Java scripted objects were sliding around on a web page.

In pondering this experience since, I've realized how spellbinding the measurement of learning must be. We assume that measurable learning is what counts at the expense of intrinsic, serendipitous and social modes of learning. This spell induces uses of immersive environments for learning to pass up the rich opportunities for locating learning in space.

I suspect this pattern will persist until we rely on synchronous encounters with peers and coaches who's avatars observe our avatars in action. "Learning to evaluate others" will become part of the instructional objectives. We will get practiced at noticing the conduct, choices, confusion, and repetitive movements we can see in other avatars. We can also interact with other avatars in conversation and collaborative efforts. This will give us impressions of comprehension, competencies and ongoing curiosity they bring to the issues or skills under development. Evaluation of others' learning can then involve 360 degree feedback models, instead of quantitative measures of accuracy and duration of efforts. Individual bias will get diluted and compared by the variety of viewpoints included in an assessment.

Dislocated learning experiences

As it becomes the norm that learning experiences get located in space, we will develop new ways to critique educational offerings. The practice of finding where learning experiences are located and moving between locations will give us a difference sense of what to expect, what works and what could improve. Here's some possibilities I'm playing with for how learners will criticize locations when they become sophisticated consumers of immersive learning in space.

Too obvious a location: Delivered content will seem to be "plastered on billboards". When the thing needed to make progress is on the next page of text, it will lack challenge. If it can be found by simply following a link on a web page or in a pdf document, that will seem way too blatant. Locations can also err by being too hidden and difficult to find.

Too easy to find hidden locations: Learning experiences will get valued for how well hidden they are. Searching with difficulty will be part of the fun. Locations that are "hard to miss" will undermine the challenge and rewards for the learners. Hidden locations can also be so well hidden that no one finds them.

Too scattered a layout: The distribution of locations can lack "any rhyme or reason". If no pattern emerges for how the locations are spread out, it will seem like senseless busywork to the learners on the prowl. Distributed locations can also seem to be too centralized, contiguous or convenient.

Too straightforward a sequence: The order of locations can lack suspense, mystery and surprises. The sequence can come off like the predictable plot in a boring story. Sequenced locations can also seem too mysterious and incomprehensible to make sense of the order.

As we become accustomed to applying new criteria like these to learning experiences, conventional delivery of content and exercises through classrooms and online venues will seem increasingly antiquated. Just as the introduction of superior sound quality of FM stereo radio made AM radio sound tinny, well located learning experiences will make conventional education seem dislocated.

Locating learning in space

Virtual immersive environments (VIE's) provide lots of space for learners to move around within. Suddenly, designers of instruction are faced with a new issue: where to locate the learning experiences. It's no longer assumed to be found in front of seats in classrooms or at computer screens. The freedom of movement opens a whole new design opportunity. I had lots of fun contemplating this new "solution space" this morning. Here's some of the ideas that dawned on me.

Well defined path

We can locate learning experiences on a well defined path. Learners can then follow the path to come to the next experience. By following the path, they will get a sense of a sequence to their experiences. This may be a logical progression that builds from simple to complex or from a beginning to a conclusion. It might also provide a narrative sequence that sets up a payoff or builds to a climax through a sequence of scenes. 

Finding a path

We can create a challenge to finding which path to take. The learner can be moving through a maze or exploring a densely obstructed terrain. There may be paths that lead to dead ends, cliff edges or back to the beginning. The paths may include "forks in the road" which go off in different directions. By exploring these possible paths, the learners will get a sense of the difference between the right path and others as well as paths that lead where they want to go or and those that don't.

Random ordered stations

We can distribute the learning experiences at stations to be visited in any order. Those locations may provide information on the spot. However, they will be more captivating of the learners' imagination, curiosity and sense of adventure if the stations are portals. They may provide instant access to other spaces, tunnels that serve as shortcuts or entrances to higher vantage points which offer overviews of the terrain. By finding stations and exploring what they offer, learners may get a sense that there is a lot to be discovered in this space that offers more than meets the eye at first glance.

Hidden stations

We can hide the stations for learning experiences so they are difficult to find. The difficulties with locating them force the learners to get a better sense of the layout and to recognize where they have already explored. The adversity in locating stations increases the sense of satisfaction when one is located. After locating several, the learners may even get a sense of the pattern in how the places were hidden, the rationale in choosing where to hide them, or a hidden message in where or how the stations are hidden.

Sequenced stations

We can enforce a particular sequence to the stations by requiring key from the previous station to unlock the next one. Learners that find a station out of sequence can develop a sense of anticipation and urgency to find the intermediate stations. Their minds will formulate predictions about what to expect came before the one they found, as well as what may come after. This reasoning may deepen their comprehension of the components by assembling a big picture they fit into. 

Obstacle course

We can put obstacles in the path to the learning experiences that require the learners to find a way around, solve a problem or outsmart an adversary. Like the payoffs from hiding stations, an obstacle course can induce more confidence in the learner's approach to making progress and conquering adversity. Facing locked doors, washed out bridges, invisible walls, or many other obstacles -- require the learners to think strategically and creatively. Reacting by taking the evidence literally will get them nowhere. Learners will realize they are capable of being very resourceful when situations necessitate that level of response from them.

Distant destination

We can create a distant destination to be reached through a long ordeal. The learners may encounter previews of the coming attraction, promises of reward upon arrival, or excited visitors from the beneficial destination which all whet their appetites to arrive there. Access the destination may be achieved by a high or low road, a fast or slow road and an easy or challenging road. The choice of roads may self-select the level of difficulty for each learner or set up a reward schema where hard work pays more than easy work. Learners may get a sense of how rewarding it can become to be diligent and eager to take on challenges. 

Learning will be much more fun in VIE's judging from the fun I had imagining all these cool ways to locate learning in space :-)

Learning more from how we're treated

For decades, I've been captivated by the possibility that "we learn more from HOW we're treated than WHAT we're taught". This frames instructional design as a strategic intervention. It calls attention to the effects of how learners are set up to learn, be described and learned from. It exposes the impacts on learners of "actions speak louder than words". It works with the premise that we continually send signals from where we're coming from, how we say things and what we didn't see, say or do. It suggests we can seem congruent and credible to learners by doing as we say or we can function hypocritically. 

I've just returned to this possibility with a new frame of reference thanks to Karl Kapp, Tony O'Driscoll and their many contributors. Their book: Learning in 3D reveals the educational uses of virtual immersive environments (VIE') to be an ideal setting for "learning more from how we're treated than what we're taught".

There are several ways that "how we're treated" could be misinterpreted by "content delivery devotees":

• How many slides we're shown before the break
• How much of the required reading will be on the exams
• How much studying it takes to do well on tests
• How tough it is to get a good grade
• How many times we can skip before it affects our grade
• How much class participation counts in the total points accumulated
• How many times we have to meet with our group to complete the assigned project

I've been exploring very different dimensions of learner experience which are not formally instructed:

1. Experience of participation while making decisions (tradeoffs, evaluations, priorities, plans, etc) -- getting utilized or given lip service, having significant or negligible impact
2. Experience of self expression while contributing to others' learning -- getting nurtured or stifled, valued or downplayed
3. Experience of rights while learning -- being protected or violated, exercised or neglected
4. Experience of justice during conflicts -- being restored or corrupted, sought through a fair process or denied

Since these dimensions have not been taught, conventional instructors assume those experiences could not have been educational, much less done damage, turned students off or trashed the teacher's credibility. Yet all these experiences can be inherent in one's interactions, roles, explorations and conversations within VIE's. Negative experiences can become memorable lessons and opportunities to take corrective action. Unlike passive students sitting in chairs facing forward, avatars can make moves to see that learners' experiences get turned around, upgraded or resolved through collaborations. Those students would then confirm my premise, that we learn more from how we're treated than what we're taught.

Learning in 3D hits a home run

Welcome to the thirteenth Blog Tour stop for Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration. With 22 more after this stop, I'll leave for others many topics I'm anxious to see explored from during this Blog Tour including: productive vs. generative learning, teachable moments, crossing the chasm and the "conceptual orienteering" archetype. Next stops after me are Janet Clarey followed by Cammy Bean. Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on the superb structure of this book from an Acquisitions Editor's viewpoint. What Karl Kapp and Tony O'Driscoll have included in this volume is going have wonderful effects on its readers. I can already speak from my own experience:

• I've been rereading Part One of the book since I realized I wanted to think like Karl and Tony about the challenges and sensibilities involved with designing Virtual Immersive Environments (VIE's) for learning.
• I've begun imagining how collaborative training departments could function better in 3D environments as I became inspired by the examples of roles plays and operating practice included in Part Two.
• I've been incorporating ideas from Part Three for handling resistance to technology adoption as I'm developing a business model for giving college dropouts a second chance.
• My imagination got so energized by the futuristic forecasts in Part Four that I've been envisioning avatars entering models of the cognitive states of people stuck delivering productive learning in classroom environments and changing their simulated minds with hands-on practices that induce generative learning.

Effects like these on readers is largely the result of a book's structure. What gets included between the covers and how it's sequenced can greatly impact what the readers think about, bring up in conversations and take action to make changes. Poorly structured books get very little response and often effect the readers negatively. It's obvious to me that the structure of Learning in 3D has hit a home run out of the park and paid a visit to all four bases.

When any book is purely academic, it's usually extremely conceptual, abstract and analytic. Readers find it to be boring, preachy and easily forgotten. However, when the academic competencies are combined with the pragmatic approaches, more value gets offered to the readers. The combination of knowledge and praxis enhances both approaches. The academic component defines the problems with the status quo, what's missing in current approaches and likely consequences of sticking with business as usual. The practical component then provides solutions to those problems, paths out of the mess that's been created and methods to face those similar problems effectively.

Karl and Tony originally conceived of their book answering a long series of questions. They then combined their conceptual prowess to define some very intriguing problems within conventional training functions and useful methods for solving them such as:

• What will happen if the training department in organizations does nothing differently from their proven practices while the world around conventional training changes dramatically?
• Why do some VIE's turn into ghost towns that offer no return on the initial investment?
• What's missing in the sensibilities of training professionals to support their making full and effective use of VIE's after a career in "Flatland"?

When any book is purely pragmatic, it's usually comprised of tedious instructions, intimidating guidelines and sidebars with shortcuts for advanced users. Most readers find a "how-to" cookbook to be overwhelming, out of reach and far from user friendly. However when methods are combined with practitioner experiences, the readers benefit immensely. It becomes possible to picture how the methods apply to actual situations. The difficulties with putting techniques into practice appear easily handled in the case studies. The added dimensions of context and narrative make the methods seem so much more doable and valuable that the book gets reread several times.

Karl and Tony have included nine case studies that show us how varied the uses of VIE's can be and how captivating they can be when immersed in them. The design principles and archetypes come alive when put to use by different designers meeting diverse learning objectives.

When a book is filled with contributions from pioneers in the field, it usually reveals the state of the art to be highly compromised, under developed and plagued by obstacles. The readers find it discourages their motivation to personally advance the discipline. However, when the current field work gets combined with strategies for making changes and with visionary forecasts, the readers' passions get revived. The current state of the art gets contextualized with learning curves and change models. It becomes clear there is necessary groundwork prior to making faster progress in the field to fulfill its lofty dream.

Karl and Tony have asked some "change agents" in this field to answer some very insightful questions about overcoming resistance to Learning in 3D such as:

• What are the most compelling ways to make the case for 3D learning within the enterprise? 
• What are the keys to success in moving from concept to execution to avoid falling in the chasm? 
• What are the most important issues to consider when you move from successful pilot to executing at scale?

Getting questions like these answered by experienced implementors move the reader from shaky to solid ground. Going in this "unpaved" direction looks more feasible by learning from the experiences and following the advice of the pioneers in this field.

Following the diagram I've included, the book's structure can come full circle back to home plate. An analytical framework can serve as the means to appreciate the changes as the book's message takes effect. As the future becomes reality, Learning in 3D will enable us to value the sensibilities taking hold, the design principles getting applied, and the design archetypes finding new forms and effects on immersive experiences.

Thus the structure of the entire book is designed to effect readers in very valuable ways. It remains to be seen how deeply these insights, methods and strategies enter into the dialogue and praxis of training professionals around the world. Promoting their book "on steroids" suggests their message will get spread far and wide. Besides these 35 blog tour stops, the authors are presenting at conferences, speaking in podcasts,  providing: a website, a Facebook page, and a wiki for case studies, posting on Twitter with the hashtag #lrn3d, and offering a sample immersive experience of the archetypes in Protosphere. With so much going in the book's favor, Learning in 3D should rock the entire world like it did mine!