Simplifying my ideas down to a dichotomy for easy digestion, technology impacts communication in two opposing ways: barrier or asset. When message reception is unwanted, technology disrupts communication with a convenient distraction. When message reception is desired, technology enhances communication with additional assets such as real-time exchanges over distances, and optional visual components like one-to-one live video broadcasts or simple found images procured on the web. These ideas are stated under the assumption that the given technology is working smoothly at the time of the message exchange.
The biggest consequence I have observed in communications via technology is a potential loss of social presence and, therefore, an absence of meaningful connection between interacting humans. If not an absence, then an inauthentic connection might result from individual participants misrepresenting themselves (accidentally or intentionally) through the filtering qualities of technology. Many digital modes and formats can compromise nonverbal information like body language and tone of voice.
I believe I am being understood (assuming a wanting to understand in the other) when technology factors into the exchange. However, I do not believe that to be the case in the population at large, but rather a result of the combination of my personal skills in communication and technology. These skills are not talents or innate gifts. They are the fruit of education.
Teaching and learning with technology should be the de facto mode of education whenever possible, and fairly, but not at the expense of the human relationship between teacher and learner. There is an important caveat: Technology enhances self-learning by providing a wider range of tools for those on a solo quest for knowledge. (Realistically, the teacher is present, but unseen; likewise, the student is unknown to the teacher as a unique individual. Khan Academy is one example. Coursera is another. Both are effective, and exciting, tools for learners.)
In a formal schooling environment, the most cutting-edge technologies will not be distributed evenly among learners. The poor schools will be given inferior equipment, or inherit discarded equipment from wealthier institutions, or get nothing at all. I can speak for Dallas public schools, where I have witnessed resources allocated to the magnet schools first. Then the trickle-down remainders reach the honors sections of the regular schools. Kids who were labeled intellectually mediocre (or worse) are eventually issued broken, unusable relics for laptops, and no charger at all. If that isn’t systemic racism, I do not know what is. Last week, I was asked if I teach at a high school that requires students to pass a course in digital literacy. The answer was no.
Betsy Lewis Blog 
Leave a comment