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?

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

better phrased as "embark on the path"

seems more correct here to write "reflecting on".

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

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

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).

Where the learners asked about potentials of digitalization in their own learning? Are the learners capable of identifying what is potential? Seems what was examined was not potentials but instead practices.

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

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.

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. Only the author frames it as such.

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.

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.

Check difference in-depth of those terms.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Tools supportive of this stimulate social interaction rather than isolation.

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.

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

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 through non-rational means: It hallucinates.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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".

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.

Constructivist thinking, introduced by Heidegger, according to UBC blog post

seemingly more often labelled as Promethean gap