The project sounds quite similar to the assignment given in the SMC2 course. Beware that this project is evaluated on being an "independently completed task" - this project seems to have a high risk of lacking in independence.

Simpler than what? Will the system integrate with other systems currently in use, or is it just complared to using pen and paper or sticks in sand?

Scalable how? Covering multiple grading systems? Multiple ethnic groups?

Will your game need line drawing and path finding in a hexagonal grid, or how more specifically do you find this source relevant?

all 237 pages of that book, or something in particular?

aren't all choices decisive? Maybe instead "consequential" to emphasize effect over action?

if second stage goal is to survive, then how do sustainability come in? Is that a third stage, or sustainability not a goal but a factor for an egocentric game goal?

typo: Mechanics

grammar: connection

beware of language

beware of language

beware of language

beware of language

beware of language

beware of language

repeated word

Ligner en tastefejl, og der i stedet skulle stå "til dels"

Tænkes programmet at udgøre mere end "en specialiseret lommeregner"? Tænkes det eksempelvis at køre fortløbende og udløse en notits hvis et opsat CO2-budget skrider?

Er produktet tænkt unikt skræddersyet til denne ene virksomhed (hvor f.eks. firmaets logo kan være forankret i brugerfladen), eller genbrugelig også til konkurrende virkshomheder af samme type, eller mere bredt gengrugelig også til andre virksomhedstyper indenfor samme branche og/eller med samme beregningsmodel?

Er der formelle regler for udregningsmetode som programmet bør understøtte? Er der evt. flere divergerende modeller, hvor programmet fleksibelt kan vælge imellem, og måske ligefrem omregne fra et system til et andet?

Kilder som ikke er akademiske udgivelser bør angives med fuld dato.

Eksempelvis kan en webside i biblatex-format angives med kildetypen @electronic så detaljeret udgivelsesdato medtages.

Eksempel: bibtex @Electronic{Baumgartner2022, author = {Peter Baumgartner}, date = {2022-04-19}, title = {Toward a taxonomy of {Open} {Science} ({TOS})}, url = {https://notes.peter-baumgartner.net/2019/06/24/toward-a-taxonomy-of-open-science/}, urldate = {2025-01-08}, }

kilde er upræcist angivet.

Bedre:

bibtex @Unpublished{Jorgensen2018, author = "Niels Jørgensen", date = "2018-12-17", title = "Digital signatur", language = "dansk", subtitle = "En eksemplarisk analyse af en teknologis indre mekanismer og processer", URL = "https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/digital-signatur-en-eksemplarisk-analyse-af-en-teknologis-indre-m", urldate = "2024-03-12", publisher = "Roskilde Universitet", }

Angiv DOI om muligt - brug https://crossref.org/ til at slå efter.

Denne artikel har DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1191

Virker forkert at fremhæve enkeltforforfattere her - rapporten er skrvet i fællesskab, ikke som en ontologi af enkeltværker.

Folk er en mængde: motiverede

Er hacking relevant for opgaven? Det introduceres her, og uddybes senere i afsnittet, men synes ikke anvendt i de øvrige afsnit af rapporten.

Hvilket netværk? Det omtales i bestemt form, som om det er veldefineret, men er ikke introduceret forud.

Tidligere - meget tildgere, så det er uklart om det er samme som her - omtales to forskellige typer netværk. Dels netværk af computere, og dels TRIN-modellens netværk af teknologier.

Hvorfor "Menneskelige"? Den sammenstilling bruges vist mest indenfor ANT for at fremhæve at også ikke-menneskelige aktører er involveret.

Her synes ikke at blive brugt ANT, men der synes heller ikke at være tale om kun menneskelige aktører: Lovgivere og firmaer er ikke mennesker.

Lovgivne betyder et objekt givet ved en lov. Hvad der tales om her er subjekt der giver en lov: Lovgivende

Forslag: Angiv visuelt kodestrenge som kode, ved at omkranse det med een backtick på hver side af kodestumpen. `<iframe>`

Det sikrer vist også imod forvirrende ordeling som her.

Tidligere blev anvendt klassificeringer fra Hewlett-Packard, og det er ikke nævnt hvorfor der veksles mellem to forskellige klassificeringssystemer.

Ordet har to danske staveformer, hvor brug af engelsk flertalsendelse ikke har en bestemt form, så hvis der er brug for bestemt flertalsform skal bruges den anden bøjning: cookierne.

Detaljer om servertyper synes irrelevant for denne opgave.

HP er en forkortelse. Introducer først det fulde navn Hewlett-Packard og derfter forkortelsen i parantes.

Ikke et godt belæg at citere Hewlett-Packard for at firmaet selv er velrenommeret.

Forslag: Drop ordet - det synes ikke at være afgørende for konteksten.

Undgå at begynde en sætning med "men".

Forslag: "økosystem, men"

Eller alternativt drop ordet "Men".

fast vending som skal stå i flertal: i detaljer

Bedre at skrive hvad I har gjort: "Vi har valgt ikke at bruge... men i stedet kun ..."

TSA er en forkortelse. Introducer altid forkortelser ved først at nævne det fulde navn og derefter forkortelsen i parantes.

Forslag: Udskift med "Teknologiske Systemer og Artefakter (TSA)"

STS er en forkortelse for en forældet navngivning af den dimension som nu (kun) hedder "Mennesker".

Forslag: Slet STS og konsekvensret til omtale "Mennesker".

Der er formuleret mere end eet problem.

Opgaven vil stå stærkere, hvis I kan præcisere til at indramme den i een problemformulering - f.eks. ved at identificere det vigtigste af problemerne, og flytte de øvrige ned som arbejdsspørgsmål.

Digital er knyttet til privatliv, som er et intetkønsord, så det skal bøjes som digitalt.

To fejl:

1. TRIN-modellen indeholder ikke trin men aspekter.
2. Flere aspekter fra TRIN-modellen inddrages, så det skal bøjes som udvalgte

udtrykket "i almindelighed" er anvendt to gange i samme sætning.

mangler kilde

jeg vil mene at privatliv netop opstår af sig selv, men at det kræver pleje at *opretholde.

Forslag: omformuler til "...sikres privatliv ikke af sig selv"

This inferred assumption seems the most accurate framing of the concept, lacking an explicit definition.

What does that even mean? Ok, I can imagine some specific things that are both "distraction" and inherently "digital", but how are those significant compared to specific non-digital distractions, like drugs and whatever type of music not in your particular taste?

seemingly more often labelled as Promethean gap

Any digital device, according to the text, inherently individualizes learning.

I disagree, and instead blame subjectivity here: Our imposing expectatons of digitalizations being more efficient amplifies the development and use of such efficiency-oriented tools.

If not pretty close to a definition, then what is the purpose of "exactly" here?

Wait, what? Where in previous chapter was that concluded, rather than than just superficially mentioned?

These are some concrete assumptions that could be interesting to challenge, e.g. in DigiPro.

A dimension is quantifiable, which seems not the relevant feature here.

Perhaps better use aspect or group?

looks close to a definition

Hartmut Rosa talks about digital communication and digital media, and a problem of those being always available.

That is not digitalization in general, but the subset of never sleeping systems, commonly referred to as "online" systems.

Papadopoulus highlights as an example of decolonial politics of matter the Free Software movement.

FastGPT was asked the following:

which poetic significance might be hinted at in the phrase "provinces that are free of 48 The Politics of Digitalization self-contradiction and dialectics, and that digital technologies, of all things, would represent such an Elysian province"?

The response was this:

The phrase "provinces that are free of self-contradiction and dialectics" suggests territories or domains that are not subject to internal conflicts or opposing forces. The reference to such provinces as "Elysian" evokes the Greek mythological conception of Elysium as a paradise or ideal place of contentment. Seen in this light, describing digital technologies as representing "such an Elysian province" portrays them as seemingly offering a harmonious, contradiction-free realm. However, the passage may also hint that this portrayal is overly simplistic or even illusory, since all human creations and systems are subject to tensions between opposing elements or the potential for unintended consequences over time.¹

¹ [PDF] Reading Contemporary Performance | TDM CoLLab 2020

The larger context of this concrete suggestion is identifying, that social interactions as part of an academic collaboration process was hampered by the limited bandwidth of digital media, referencing Hartmut Rosa's notion of loss of resonance.

The mentioned tool is NB

The core problem is digital communication and digital media being always-on.

Not given a clue of a pace, we fail to mentally recharge, leading us to need an occational complete timout.

Schraube defines two (plural!) learning dimensions: content and reason. Perhaps there it is only one dimension containing those two aspects.

Problem with tools like ChatGPT is not an inherent individualization, but that its lack of transparency hampers the ability for critical reasoning, including social collaborative reflection. Tools that present statements (words put together) without reference to the origins of presumed reasoning for concluding the statement, invites only for taking the statements as-is, not for reflecting and therefore do not stimulate a constructive learning process. But that is a criticism of tools lacking transparency, not of digitalization in general.

Interesting distinction!<br /> Collaboration versus Cooperation, and the more specific collaborative learning versus cooperative learning.

Only when asking students to reflect on their own potentials of digitalization does it seem reasonable to conclude about that.

If instead (as suspected here) the students were asked about their *practices", then it seems unfair to extrapolate potentials.

Related: Are the learners even capable of identifying what is potential? That seems to depend on their skills on the involved practices.

Probably¹ the argument here is that words placed into sentences are merely building blocks for information - i.e. they can contain information but can also lack information, and ChatGPT by design lumps together pieces of information through non-rational means: It hallucinates.

¹ The source Bender, 2023 is behind a paywall, so only guessing here.

Not all technology promotes "hiding behind" - some promotes transparency and collaboration.

Understandable that "Elaine" conflates an issue of peer pressure with a quite different issue of surveillance. But problematic that it is quoted in a context of understanding problems of digitalization, without defusing the obvious hyperbole: The word "surveillance" is commonly associated with control imposed by superior parties external to the (immediate, intended) dialogue (notably governments and multinational corporations). It is notably not commonly associated with kinds of the control the immediate group imposes on you when you expose your uncertainties in a collaborative learning process. Maybe "Elaine" really feels as strongly an oppression as if NSA of Google was puppetmastering her, but more likely she is sloppily describing "peer pressure" - which however does not as strongly give off a smell of being an issue with digitalization. In the context the quote is used to boost digitalization as a villain, which is not helpful.

Fun word play, but also deceptive: The haystack of finding relevant source material for covering a problem space is not a digital one. Jokingly framing it as such, exactly in the context of identifying problems with digitalization in learning, is quite problematic.

True that those digital tools intensifying individualization of learning is a serious problem for (expansive) learning. False (or unknown, however. that digital learning in general inherently is seriously problematic in this way. Reason is that only individualizing tools have so far been examined, and therefore only potential for individualization can be concluded.

seems the reasons given are relates to fluency in using the tool, more than the tool being digital.

Examinations so far have been biased: Not generally on digital tools, but highlighting problems by picking extreme tools. Problems exist, but examining the problematic part of a filed and concluding that the field is problematic is tautologic.

Probably the same urge to do it privately first, before risking the exposure of the group, is the same for non-digital collaborative tools like a whiteboard or a blackboard.

The students identify a problem in navigating vast amount of information, but even if they mention "internet" they do not frame that as a problem of digitalization: The framing is on the author.

Right: This is something specific to ChatGPT - not general for digitalization.

So this digital tool (computers used for writing) is internalized (possibly as a result of schooling and/or peer pressure or other interactions in a previous part of life) compared to alternatives for the same task (pen and paper), so it is not a comparison between options in principle equal but one being digital and the other not, but instead options in principle equal but the other internalized and the other not.

It is difficult not to read the text as arguing, that digitalization in general inherently is biased towards individualizing the practice of learning. Yes, there is potential for that quality, but no, it is neither general for digital tools nor unique for digital tools.

Why scoping that challenge as being "in the digital space"? Do any of the students examined here (or anyone else) find it particularly confusing or in other ways hard to search "in the digital space" as opposed to outside of it?

Search engines can be confusing to use effectively, especially as a new scholarly student, but I strongly doubt that many will find it harder than effectively using index cards.

True, lack of focus is a "highly problematic phenomenon", and nowadays where most entertainment is digital, distractions are quite often digital. But it is not a problem of digitalization. If it were, then students would have generally been super focused back in the day before the rise of the internet.

This problem seems not tied to digitalization: Responses from a collection of books in a library is also "completely disconnected" from the world outside, due to books being static. ChatGPT being static is not rooted in it being digital but despite that: Generative artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT can easily be designed to be connected, and ChatGPT specifically is deliberately crippled as a security mechanism - i.e. concerns by those producing the service over the lack of control over the conversations possible between the service and its consumer/learner. Arguably, books are inherently disconnected and ChatGPT is designed to mimick a similar disconnected model even though digitalization offers opportunity for letting go of that constraint.

Commonly, sure, but are digital technologies really categorically insignificant for tentacular learning?

Seems that certain set of digital technologies are supportive of tentacular thinking by design, and thus potentially significant if used as per their intended design.

some dimensions are decisive - but which?

the material dimension is the use of technologies: Instrumentation

Definition of the whole group of reasoning traps.

Constructivist thinking, introduced by Heidegger, according to UBC blog post, but by some scolars attributed to the book When Species Meet by Donna Haraway.

better phrased as "embark on the path"

seems more correct here to write "reflecting on".

the pre-learned is viewed as dialectically in opposition to learning matter

Ok, so this theory explicitly, as here baptized, belongs to Ernst Schraube.

Ah, the very definition of "the content-related".

Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link is broken as well (bogusly contains spaces).

Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link is broken as well (bogusly contains spaces).

Defensive and expansive reasons for engaging into learning is distinct from defensive and expansive modes of engaging.

Tools supportive of this stimulate social interaction rather than isolation.

This seems to imply - unsubstantiated! - that intended purpose of technologies is inherently about oppression, whereas unintended secondary uses of technology is where liberation from oppression should be sought.

A comma is crucially missing after "knowledge", to make it clear that "turn on my device" is an action, rather than "knowledge turn" being a weird thing to search for on my device.

comma seems inappropriate here

There is an "in" missing, as it is required both for what "they place us in" and also for how that placement is in our activity: "the new situation they placed us in in our learning activity".

Hyperlink is broken (links to front page of the website). Content link works.

seems ambiguous to leave out negation for the last part of a repeated list. Also, feels confusing albeit technically correct to tie the parts with "and" when negated. Together, seems better to rephrase like this: "there is no fulfilling learning, <del>no</del> creativity, <del>and</del>or innovative thought". Alternatively, if the intent is to emphasize stronger each part, then it feels better to at least explicitly negate the last part, like this: "there is no fulfilling learning, no creativity, and no** innovative thought".

sentence seems incomprehensive - perhaps replace with "those", or is something else misread or wrong?

grammatical error: Change to either "is [...] described" or "can [...] be described".

Defensive and expansive reasons for learning, as defined by Holzkamp

A key to digitalization becoming supportive rather than distractive is shifting from more passive to more active modes of use.

Studies on "screen inferiority" - slower learning with digital than with analog media - show issues for passive learning but not (or only notably lesser?) for active learning like text editing

Studies on "screen inferiority" - slower learning with digital than with analog media - show issues for passive learning but not (or only notably lesser?) for active learning like text editing

explicitly mentions the introduction of (assumably an academic) theory on the topic aquaponics.

Her nævnes utvetydigt en videnskabelig teori og metode

test4

test3

test2

test

Kilden synes ikke at omhande unge men forskning om unge. Sørg derfor for at dobbeltchecke at det rent faktisk er kilden (fremfor een af kildens kilder) der pointerer hvad I refererer.

Det er lidt diffust hvad jeres substantielle kapitel handler om.

Undertitlerne indikerer at kapitlet omhandler jeres valg af teori og metode, men hvor jeg i et sådant kapitel ville forvente en fremadrettet præsentation af planer og intentioner med jeres valg af tilgang til projektet, synes teksten indholdsmæssigt i højere grad at rumme en reflektion af erfaringer med anvendelsen af teori og metoder. Hvis kapitlet er ment som præsentation fremadrettet så virker det distraherende at det er skrevet i datid, og bør nok begrænses til at omhandle planer (ikke også erfaringer).

Omvendt, hvis det er et evaluerende kapitel, så vil det nok være en god idé at indikere det tydeligere i dets overskrifter, og tydeligere knytte jeres vurderinger om succes (eksempelvis det direkte citerede om at det var "særligt værdifuldt") direkte på jeres teorier og metoder og planer.

Hvorfor til sidst, hvis I tænker at modellen kan understøtte appen?

lyder interessant.

Uddyb: Det virker til at I har fat i noget super relevant her, men I når ikke hen til hvad det rent faktisk er.

Ja, et slideshow kan siges at være effektivt til at fastholde og engagere et publikum, hvilken kan være relevant.

I bør dog beskrive her ikke at det kan være effektivt men hvorfor effektiv engagement af jeres publikum er relevant for jeres opgave.

Pas på om jeres kilde er Petersen eller Kappelgaards fortolkning af Petersen!

Det er tautologisk at I anvender en teori fordi den "er gældende": Beskriv hvorfor teorien er gældende.

...eller undlad at skrive at teorien er gældende, hvis ikke I vil sige noget mere med sætningen.

Uddyb hvordan det er relevant for jeres opgave at I inddrager jer selv og derved fremhæver kompleksiteter i gruppedynamik.

Og uddyb hvilke nye ideer i den interaktive kontekst af et fokusgruppeinterview der er relevant for jeres opgave.

Eller hvis pointerne her ikke er direkte tilknyttet behov i jeres opgave, men er mere generelle betragtninger, så overvje om det er relevant at medtage i jeres tekst. Fordi alt hvad I vælger at inddrage har betydning - det har også betydning hvad I inddrager men så ikke følger op på eller hægter en pointe på.

Hartmut ?(med "t")

Hartmut (med "t")

Måske overveje og komme ind på hvilken alternativ økonomisk model I sigter efter (f.eks. helt lavpraktisk at I foretrækker at bidrage med jeres egen arbejdskraft og viden pro bono - dvs. uden at tage jer betalt for det), fremfor blot at nævne hvad I ikke vil sigte efter.

Bedre med belæg - f.eks. henvisning til et bilag hvor informationen kommer frem.

Reference til ordbogsopslag har en særlig stil i APA

Ligner en journalistisk populærvidenskabelig artikel. Bedre hvis I kan finde belæg i de underliggende *videnskabelige artikler som den refererer til.

Lyder meget relevant at medtage - personligt vil jeg meget gerne læse det afsnit og forventer at blive klogere!

Dette synes at være den nuværende problemformulering. Til en anden gang kunne det være fremhævet tydeligere - eksempelvis ved ligesom de tidligere nævnte problemormuleringer at fremhæve med kursiv, eller måske endnu bedre at nævne den først og evt. kraftigt fremhævet med fed.

Ordet hedder "Deficit" med "i".

Som jeg forstå det, handler ansvarsfraskrivelse om at fralægge sig et mere formelt ansvar. Da I ikke har et formelt ansvar overfor folk med ADHD, er det formodentligt mere korrekt at omtale motivationen her som respekt.

god idé! Det kunne måske være en idé ikke kun at samenligne hvad de siger men også hvad deres forskellige faogområder kvalificerer dem til at sige - dvs. de kan sige det samme men den ene kan have faglig rygdækning for det mens den anden måske blot gisner om noget udenfor sit faglige felt.

Måske er "læremiddel" en skarpere og/eller politisk mindre ladet betegnelse end "redskab"?

Præcisering af forskellige læringsmæssige formål med digitalisering

god opsummering af problemstillingen

Scope of definition of defensive and expansive learning by Holzkamp, as interpreted by Ines Langemeyer

This smells like a strong warning on the scope of Holzkamps concept, but how exaclty - what does this really mean?