This is an interesting perspective, as it hints at a view of learning content as fundamentally tied to, yet separated from, the operative aspect of learning. The learning content unfolds naturally, given the right circumstances. The goal of digital technologies for learning is reducing this hindrance more than is otherwise possible.

this conception of teachers as a sort of tuning fork might be relevant for a new understanding of digital technologies. One could say that the ideal of a worlding, digital technology is to serve as such a tuning fork, to broaden horizons and incite curiosity.

Learning interests are of central importance, as they are what determine whether the learning content is fulfilling to the learner. If content and method are determined from the outside, the content aspect of learning will mostly be incidental, as the interests of the learner and the learning content coincidentally match.

for the affinitive learning movement to take place, the subject must open themselves to the learning problem. Yet at the same time, they must define a certain area to open themselves to within. This effectively means that a key determinant of the success of the affinitive learning movement is the ability to close off from most of the world.

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.

mention of the unique temporal quality of the content related aspect of learning.

a term highlighting the importance of the emergent properties of two subjects relating to each other in a constant feedback loop. A description of the way entirely new, third ways of understanding can arise from 2 perspectives mutually challenging each other.

a description of the way the affinitive learning movement is established as a self-organizing process when a learner enters into dialogue with others.

It could be said of Hypothes.is that it creates digital spaces of mutual production of knowledge. It connects students rather than isolate them.

It is useful to know that correspondence in the context of learning can take place over a longer time as in letters, as this supports the view that Hypothes.is is a tool of entering into correspondence with the world in co-creation over a learning matter.

Here again, the importance of context and limits into which affinitive attention can expand is emphasized. It seems also to be suggested that the section of the world relating to the learning action can take any form, such as YouTube videos, ChatGPT, professionals on the subject, friends, Hypothes.is and so on.

This seems more to relate to freeing oneself of defensive reasoning, tuning in to curiosity as well as keeping oneself within the context of the learning matter. If the content of the learning material does not reflect the learning matter in a way that emotionally relates to the learner's conduct of everyday life, the affinitive learning movement will be hindered by the static and unchanging words in the learning material. Hypothes.is precisely works by letting multiple contexts of experience come to the fore as unhindered as possible.

An important counter-argument to this is that the very way we search for learning material is constitutive of the context with which the learner associates the learning material. As digital technologies enable new ways of relating to the learning material and their contexts, they change the character and clarity of affinitive attention. Clicking a hypothes.is annotation is a unique type of operation in which the following definitive and affinitive movements happen in ways not previously possible.

The argument for digital technologies is that they provide fundamentally new ways of relating to sources of knowledge, doing things with them and entering into dialogue with them.

Listening to a lecturer, reading a book or doing homework don't necessarily contribute to learning either. The point is not that digital technologies directly contribute to the content aspect of learning, but that the content aspect of learning is directly dependant on the operative. The operative can evolve, and new ways of relating to the world can develop. The potential of digital technologies lies in providing qualitatively new ways of contextualizing learning matters, thereby creating a learning environment that leans into affinitive learning movements. Most learning environments today lean into the definitive movements. Contexts are created in the users mind when relations between different books are understood intuitively. But this intuition can be described, visualized and co-created with other learners digitally.

The definitive movement is thus the final movement in reaching a new level of understanding.

Here, the key component of affinitive attention is explained to be relevancy. This is in direct opposition to the kind of affinitive movement you might find on Wikipedia, where each link to a mentioned keyword can only take you into a different context, as articles aren't meant to explain each other. This is also a strength of Scholia and Hypothes.is.

Affinitive attention is the context oriented learning stance. "Letting go of linguistic references to context" likely refers to the paradox of trying to understand a context by having it explained. Contexts are understood more based on emotions and intuition than definitions, operations and logic. Affinitive attention can be compared to abductive reasoning, letting understanding come from intuitive, contextual connections between concepts. Conclusions arrived at in this way is sometimes referred to as "valid guesses".

Qualitative learning leaps constitute the movement to more unfolded learning problems, leading to a better grasp of the learning matter, thereby developing the learning principles applied in the learning process. Qualitative learning leaps thereby constitute the movement of movements, from less depth to more depth, improving comprehension of the learning matter.

This word describes the mechanism by which a learner can overcome being stuck in a learning situation. It is an unfolding of the subject matter in the learners mind to encompass more connections and relations in the explanation and understanding of the subject at hand.

Relating to and contextualizing the learning problem at hand is seen as the emotional mechanism by which the learner understands the limits of their knowledge, and the relates those limits to their everyday life. The affinitive movement in learning is therefore grounded in the ability of the learner to relate the world to themselves.

Expansive reasons for learning is connected to the affinitive movement in learning. Affinitive movements in learning are seen as directly dependant on expansive reasoning. Without influence of the content of the learning matter, the learning movement isn't tied to the learners everyday conduct of life. When the context is external to the learner, it can't be relied upon to understand the topic at hand.

Learning is fundamentally defined to be the result of an intentional, future-oriented understanding of the present as defined by a lack of something. Only by understanding what lacks, can you understand what is to be gained from learning something.

Here, the affinitive learning movement is defined as an opposite, yet complementary, supplement to the definitive learning movement.

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.

These values and interests might be best described as those of the private sector and the profit motive. The teaching management platform Moodle seems to follow this trend as the interactivity of the platform is largely controlled by the teacher. This is one way that capitalism enforces bisected learning, and it is also an example of how bisected learning and capitalism are indirect contradiction to explorative learning and free knowledge.

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.

Expansive acts are future-oriented

This might also be understood in the sense that you can't learn anything from a text that you don't have any expectations for. If you don't have some idea about the conclusions that are going to be drawn, there are no concepts in your mind that I improved changed or created.

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.

This is the precisely the conclusion you would draw on learning if you were to analyse the process of learning dialectically. This conclusion also stands in direct opposition to the dominant narrative and method of approximating knowledge by splitting up the whole into smaller and smaller isolated pieces

as this applies to the learning action as well, an effective digital learning tool would have to tear down the conceptual walls, that divide the different texts that constitute a university lecture

These four components of a learning action can serve as a framework for analyzing the efficiency of tools for learning digitally like Scholia and Hypothes.is.

Categorizing learning itself as an action is an important step to understanding the difficulties associated with learning digitally. Perhaps the problem with digital tools for learning is that they make the learning process less dynamic, more formulaic and predetermined?

Learning movements are defined to be the process of going from not knowing to knowing. Learning is therefore fundamentally tied to goal-setting and intention.

Tentacular learning therefore must take its outset in a minimally complex context, and digital tools might be able to bridge this gap.

The learning matter is never visible to the learner in its entirety, hence the potential for learning. Before learning about a thing, that thing cannot be perceived as more than the categories already established in the learners conduct of everyday life as the prelearned.

Much like a tool enters the consciousness of its user when it breaks, the learner gets a feel for the learning problem when the prelearned is unable to explain a learning matter.

This is another way of saying that the affinitive learning movement is impossible without a pre-learned context to relate to the world.

Hvordan har det været gavnligt? Vi savner empiriske eksempler.

Der er mange henvisninger til metoden og hvordan I har brugt den, men der er ingen koblinger mellem metoden og teorien og empiriske eksempler fra jeres interviews. Overvej at skrive kapitlet med større fokus på empiriske eksempler.

Det lader tid at designprocessen er central for jeres projekt. Overvej om D&K kunne være mere relevant end STS

TRIN-modellen er ikke en metode

Er gruppedynamikker relevant for en app, som ikke umiddelbart har et socialt formål?

Et semi-struktureret interview kan også opnå disse informationer, men åbner op for uddybning. Man kunne måske begrunde yderligere ved at pointere, at en væsentlig motivation for at lave interviews er at sammenligne psykolog og psykiater.

Undersøges det også hvordan en app kunne hjælpe på dette specifikke problem? Har I kigget på state of the art på området? Der er mange apps der i forvejen forebygger burnout.

Kunne man undersøge problemstillinger relateret til stress og planlægning? At finde belæg for at planlægning hjælper på ADHD-relateret stress?

Mit (Ians) forrige projekt designede også en app ift. SoMe addiction, og hertil kan jeg anbefale værktøjet "Figma" til at illustrere den.

Vil det sige at jeres projekt specifikt tager udgangspunkt i stressrelaterede problemstillinger ift. ADHD og digitalisering? Og vil det sige at jeres app løsning allerede er begrænset til en hjælper til mindfuldness frem for stress?

Det kunne være en ide at adskille de taksonomiske niveauer, så der ikke i redegørelsen kommer for meget spekulans ind i indholdet.

Er fokus skiftet fra at handle om data til teknologiske redskaber generelt?

Interessant, at der snakkes så meget om design når D&K ikke indgår i den eksplicitte semesterbinding

Her forklares hvordan artiklens fokus skifter, når analysen starter.