However, in your example, most people have been on at least one side of that equation, if not (at least informally) both sides.
I mean, it's true that I have no clue how to run the machine that mounts a tire on an automobile wheel, but I've at least put a bicycle tire on a wheel so I have at least a little idea of what might make it complicated.
The idea that there is perhaps a larger gap between casual users of technology and the people implementing that technology has some merit to it.
I wonder if, in a sense, what defines "technology" is that size of that gap: it seems like there could be a scale along which we could measure how much we need a techne in order to comprehend the working of something. Although that really would probably be overstating it, I do think that some kinds of work require a lot more technical understanding to appreciate/do... but I could be wrong about that.
Many professions have subtleties that the layperson may not grasp at first, but most people can understand the basics.
Your example is too simplistic. The answer to that question would include information about academic area, lectures, homework, exams, schedules, and what makes a good teacher and a bad teacher. The layperson could go into detail on any of those subjects, citing first-hand examples.
"Um, someone was on a computer, and typed things on a keyboard… uh…"
I'm not so sure.
"How did that child get taught?"
"Um, someone stood up in front of them, talked to them and got them to do exercises... uh..."
I think most professions have a dark art to them that the average layperson does not understand.