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?

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?

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

this term describes the ambiguity of the presence of a fellow learner who is only present digitally. Both there, and not there, present and absent. This ambiguity is a central problem of learning digitally, tentacularly.

here is a central critique of digital tools for dialogue. Important thing to note is that the situation differs when you're talking person to person to when you're learning from the world.

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

This is an example of the prisoners dilemma being promoted by the way digital learning technologies are constructed. Scholia and hypothesis might present the antithesis to this problem, as these platforms constantly remind the user that the way their learning is dependent on others. Since hypothesis is always present at the side of the screen the learner is also constantly being reminded that they are able to contribute to the public knowledge database.

It seems possible that the arguments made against digital technologies for learning could also be made for any other human technology. Perhaps the underlying argument is that learning exists in the relation itself between the subject at hand and the learner. in that case, " nobody learns technologically". The point that seems to be made is that a digital technology for world making and learning needs to promote the relations themselves between the learner and the text. It could be argued that this is a quality of semantic tools.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The dimension of learning concerned with the how might not be the only dimension that digital technologies can grasp. Using semantic digital technologies for learning could for example radically change the way we see the learning process as we learn. For example using scholia might prompt the learner to ask more questions about the why as they have more material in front of them and have to make choices about which one to read based on the information about each of them. Hard to understand concepts would be opened up to the learner and the learner would get used to being able to open up these concepts. Using a tool like hypothesis might also prompt the reader to ask critical questions about the text that they are reading and these critiques could be written down for the other students to use and learn from.