Post by Sarah Silverman, March 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Excerpts below. Full article available on Substack here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have been pondering a growing trend in writing and conversation about teaching in our current technology- and AI-saturated world: The idea that we should return or recommit to more\u00a0slow<\/a>,\u00a0deliberate<\/a>, and\u00a0analog<\/a>\u00a0teaching and learning. Analog in this case mostly means \u201cwithout the use of electronic devices\u201d and in the case of writing, sometimes with the goal of avoiding the influence of AI. Some of the rationale for these ideas is that if we ask students to read from a physical book, write sentences or take notes\u00a0by hand<\/a>, and otherwise remove the temptation to use electronic shortcuts or AI, then they can focus on the development of their own skills and perspectives with less interference. Another rationale is that electronic devices, even when they may aid learning, have become so distracting that we might benefit from a complete \u201ctech fast\u201d or space of respite from technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n … Access friction, or conflicts of access needs, has been a main topic<\/a> of this blog space almost since its inception. As I have explored this topic over a few years, I have come to realize that while access friction can narrowly describe a situation in which two sets of disability-related needs collide, it also has a more general form. Access friction can be a useful framework for thinking about situations in which a decision made with the goal of supporting, including, or engaging a majority of students has downsides for a smaller subgroup of students. In this way, it seems to me that the analog trend, as well as the larger and very contentious \u201cdevices in class\u201d debate, is probably one that could benefit from an access friction analysis. I don\u2019t think I need to re-tread all the ground of the \u201cdevices in class\u201d debate but I would summarize the two most salient points for our discussion here as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any approach that attempts to maximize benefits for either students who need devices or those whose experience is harmed by them creates trouble for the other group: a form of access friction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My working hypothesis on the broader category of access friction has been that it is not a brand new idea for teachers. Rather, it is a phenomenon that many instructors and writers have experienced or contemplated without having a name for it, perhaps referring to instances of access friction as \u201ctricky teaching dilemmas\u201d or \u201ccomplex problems.\u201d For example, in his book Distracted: Why Student\u2019s Can\u2019t Focus and What You Can Do About It<\/a><\/em> Jim Lang introduces his recommendations on developing a classroom device policy this way: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat follows in this chapter will come as good news if you see legitimate arguments on both sides of the tech ban debate, and bad news if you came here hoping for a one-size-fits-all solution to this complex problem. […] We can ban laptops, and that produces some benefits for attention while making life more difficult for students who would be helped by a laptop. We can adopt a laissez-faire policy of allowing all devices in the classroom at any time, and that treats students like adults while potentially harming well-intentioned students who might be distracted by the off-task work of their peers. We can also adopt solutions that fall between or outside of these two alternatives. All of these positions have costs and benefits, which we will review.\u201d (p. 63-64) <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n That there are usually costs and benefits to any classroom decision is a fact at the core of my access friction concept, and I think this passage provides a great example of how many of our thorniest issues require sensitively balancing a number of competing concerns, as with access friction. I often say that I believe consensus<\/strong> and compromise<\/strong>are two important approaches to navigating access friction, as they actually confront the collision of needs rather than shunting one set off to the side. While re-reading Distracted<\/em> the other day I found it interesting that after discarding both \u201cdevice bans\u201d and the \u201claissez-faire\u201d approach, Lang offers two other tech policy models that correspond more or less to consensus and compromise: One is developing a policy on device use in the classroom in collaboration with students (consensus) and the other is creating a policy which strategically allows and discourages device use in different contexts (compromise). Even these policies have their benefits and drawbacks, but they at least attempt to address friction in a way that \u201cdevice bans\u201d and \u201claissez-faire\u201d do not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n … here are some of the questions on my mind, as someone who is intrigued by some of the \u201canalog\u201d or \u201cslower\u201d ideas and also wants to seriously consider disability, accessibility, and access friction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n