Closing the gap: how to avoid “cognitive sedentarism”

We live in an era of fascinating contradictions. Never before in the history of humanity have we had so much access to information, and yet, never before have the differences between those who know how to take advantage of it and those who merely consume it been so stark.

That is why, in one of the episodes of the Smowltech podcast, titled “Closing Gaps: Technology with Meaning in Education,” we sat down to talk with two authorized voices on the matter: Sandra Restrepo Ruiz, a communicator expert in public policy, and Milena Rodríguez, a systems engineer and leader in educational technology.

The conversation, which lasted an hour, was not simply a technical review of platforms or connectivity. It was a sociological and pedagogical journey that laid bare an uncomfortable reality: technology, by itself, saves no one.

In fact, if implemented without strategy, without gender awareness, and without critical pedagogy, technology has the potential to amplify the inequalities it promises to cure.

Throughout this article, we will break down the crucial points of this interview, exploring everything from the injustice of the “Single Device” in Latin American households to the concept, as alarming as it is real, of “Cognitive Sedentarism” in the age of Artificial Intelligence.

The paradox of technology: bridge or wall?

To understand the present, sometimes you have to look at the protagonists’ past. Milena Rodríguez opened the conversation by sharing a personal anecdote that perfectly illustrates the state of the matter. As a systems engineer, her initial training was purely technical (“gadgets,” code, machines).

However, upon transitioning to the educational sector, she encountered a revelation that defined her career: the paradox of technology.

Milena raised a fundamental idea: technology is, simultaneously, the greatest generator of gaps and the most powerful tool to close them.

• As a gap generator: It creates an immediate dividing line between those who have access and those who do not; between those who have stable electricity and those who do not; between those who can afford mobile data and those who rely on a saturated public network.
• As a gap solver: It is the only tool capable of bringing a high-quality master’s program to a rural area where a physical university professor would never reach. It allows a single mother or a full-time worker to access education on their own schedules, breaking down the barriers of time and space.

This duality is the starting point for any modern educational policy. If we understand that technology is an amplifier (it amplifies the capacity for learning, but also amplifies social differences), we then understand that the solution is not just “handing out tablets,” but managing that amplifier with equity.

The gender gap: the pending debt begins at home

One of the most revealing segments of the interview with Sandra and Milena was the analysis of the gender gap. Often, when we read reports on “women in technology,” we are bombarded with cold statistics on the low percentage of female graduates in STEM careers (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).

Milena experienced it firsthand: in her university cohort of 22 students, only 4 were women.

But Sandra Restrepo invited us to look further back, to the sociological root of the problem. The gap doesn’t start at university; it starts in the living room of the home.

The “Single Device” Syndrome

In much of Latin America and globally disadvantaged areas, the family economy only allows for the existence of a single device connected to the internet (either a computer or a mid-range smartphone). This is where unconscious cultural biases come into play.

“When there is only one device, it is culturally prioritized for the man of the house or the male child to use it. It is assumed that he needs it more for ‘important things,’ while the access of the woman or the girl is seen as secondary.”

This dynamic creates a devastating domino effect:

1. Fewer flight hours: The male child accumulates thousands of hours of experimentation, play, and error with technology. The girl, having restricted access, accumulates far fewer hours.
2. The competence gap: Upon reaching adulthood or university age, the man feels “naturally” more comfortable with technology because he has lived with it. The woman, due to lack of practice (not capacity), feels alienated from it.
3. Self-exclusion: This leads many women to self-exclude from technology careers or jobs that require high digital competencies, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and wage inequality.

To “close the gender gap,” therefore, university scholarships for women are not enough. A family awareness effort is required to democratize access to the keyboard within the home itself.

The three layers of the digital divide

During the talk, the idea that the “digital divide” is a single problem was demystified. In reality, as our guests explained, we are facing a problem with three layers or dimensions that must be addressed sequentially but with the same urgency.

A. The access gap (the infrastructure)

This is the most visible. It refers to the lack of cables, antennas, devices, and electricity. If there is no internet, there is no discussion possible. Sandra emphasized the need for Public Policies that stop seeing the internet as a luxury service and start legislating it as a basic human right, on par with access to clean water. Without this foundation, any discourse on educational innovation is meaningless.

B. The use gap (literacy)

This is where many government initiatives fail. They fill schools with computers, but no one knows how to use them productively. The use gap refers to having the machine but lacking the competencies to operate it.

• The classic example: A student who has a latest-generation smartphone but only knows how to use it for social media and messaging, being incapable of writing a formal email, managing a calendar, or researching reliable sources.

C. The appropriation gap (the meaning)

This is the most sophisticated and difficult layer to achieve. Appropriation occurs when technology becomes transparent, and the user utilizes it to transform their reality.

It is no longer about “knowing how to use Word,” it is about using digital tools to solve problems in one’s community, to create art, to start a business, or to innovate. As Sandra mentioned, the ultimate goal of technological education is to empower the citizen so that technology has meaning in their daily life, beyond mere consumption.

“Cognitive Sedentarism”: the great risk of AI

Perhaps the most powerful and original concept that emerged in this episode was that of “Cognitive Sedentarism.”

We are witnessing the massive irruption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, etc.). The initial reaction of many educational institutions has been panic over plagiarism: “How are we going to evaluate if the machine writes everything?” However, our experts invite us to worry about something much deeper.

The human body, if it stops moving, atrophies. Muscles lose mass, bones weaken, and health collapses. We call this physical sedentarism. What happens to the brain if we stop exerting ourselves to think?

“If I don’t have the need to think, to structure an idea, to search for an argument, because the AI already gives me everything done and chewed… my neurons enter a state of inactivity. We fall into cognitive sedentarism.”

The risk is not that AI is smarter than us; the risk is that we become dumber by delegating our superior cognitive functions to it.

The solution: training “critical adversaries”

Is the answer to prohibit AI? Absolutely not. That would be like prohibiting the calculator. The answer is to radically change how we teach interaction with it.

Sandra and Milena propose training students to be critical adversaries of technology. This means:

• Not accepting the first answer the AI gives.
• Having enough criteria to detect hallucinations, biases, or false data in the machine’s output.
• Using AI as a “sparring partner” to debate ideas, not as an oracle that dictates the truth.
• Understanding that AI is a co-pilot, but the steering wheel (ethical and strategic judgment) must be held by the human.

The educator at the crossroads: fear vs. opportunity

No educational transformation is possible without educators. However, the interview revealed a painful reality: teachers are afraid.

On many occasions, the educator faces a classroom full of “digital natives” (or rather, digital orphans who know how to swipe a finger on a screen but don’t know computer science) and feels a loss of authority. The traditional model of the professor as “the single source of knowledge” has died, because Google knows more facts than any human.

The necessary role change

To close the gap, the educator must transition from being a transmitter of information to being a mentor and content curator.

• They don’t need to know how the TikTok algorithm works, but they do need to teach the student how that algorithm manipulates their emotions.
• They don’t need to be an expert in programming, but they do need to guide the student on how to use technology to research ethically.

The call to attention here is for institutions: the educator cannot be asked to transform alone. Training, support, and empathy are needed for the teaching staff, who are often overwhelmed by a digital bureaucracy they do not understand.

Innovation and future: where are we going?

Towards the end of the conversation, the topic of innovation was touched upon. We often confuse innovation with “buying gadgets.” But innovating in education is, above all, a change in mentality.

The future of education, as derived from the talk, is hybrid and flexible. Technology will allow for personalization of learning like never before, adapting rhythms to the needs of each student (something impossible in a lecture hall with 50 students). But this personalization will only be effective if we manage to overcome the barriers of access and competence that we discussed at the beginning.

Real innovation will come from the intersection between pedagogy and engineering. Profiles like Milena Rodríguez (engineer in the educational world) or Sandra Restrepo (communicator in public policy) are essential because they build bridges between worlds that used to be isolated. Programmers must talk to pedagogues, and politicians must listen to both.

Conclusion

The episode “Closing Gaps: Technology with Meaning in Education” leaves us with an urgent list of tasks, both individually and collectively.

1. Review our biases: Are we fostering digital equality in our own homes and companies?
2. Demand comprehensive public policies: That go beyond the photo inaugurating a computer lab and focus on long-term training.
3. Exercise the brain: Faced with the convenience of AI, we must force ourselves to continue thinking, questioning, and creating. Cognitive sedentarism is a comfortable trap, but deadly for human development.

Technology is not magic. It is not fairy dust that, when sprinkled over a school, automatically improves grades. It is a powerful, complex, and double-edged tool. And like any powerful tool, it requires steady hands, critical minds, and empathetic hearts to be used correctly.

If you work in education, technology, or are simply a citizen worried about the future, we invite you to listen to the complete conversation. Because understanding the gap is the first step, and the only possible one, to begin closing it.

🎧 Listen to the complete episode

To delve into Milena’s anecdotes and Sandra’s analysis, don’t miss the full video on our YouTube channel: We talk to Sandra Restrepo Ruiz about digital divides.

And you? Do you feel that technology in your environment is closing gaps or creating new barriers? Leave us your comments; debate is the only way to combat cognitive sedentarism.