In light of the recent November Scholium issue, we have received the following letter to the editor.
Dear Editor,
It’s with shock and disbelief that I read the article “Underused iPads prove themselves unnecessary” which I consider to be a collection of lies, misconstrued facts, out of context quotes and a complete mockery of the reality.
On behalf of the World Language Department, not Modern as the editors should have known, I want to publicly state that we are deeply grateful to the EAPA for the generous donation that allowed us to purchase 48 iPads, not 50 as stated. During an “interview” that the Scholium then misrepresented of what the Department feels, I reiterated many times that iPads were being used on a daily basis in most of the classrooms. I explained that because of technology’s use as a tool to support instruction, our Language Lab is mostly booked everyday and the Mac carts not always available.
I was very clear to demonstrate why, when and how we were using the iPads and also that they were a bridge that would soon lead us to 1:1 in Upper School.
I assume that it was easier for the Editor to dismiss most of what I said and only ask no further than a member of the Department who might respectfully think otherwise. I guess it would have required more in depth research and more time to contact the entire department to survey what they feel and think about technology in the classroom. Going to the editor’s own teacher was the easier and unequivocally the best way to grab people’s attention with sensationalized headlines and captions. Well, dear Editors, you succeeded and did grab my colleagues’ attention and mine. I invite you to attend any of our courses to observe and learn how efficiently our language teachers are using iPads. If the author had the impression that iPads are underused, it may be because not all class activities lend themselves to iPad use. Further, to assume that every student has an iPhone to do the very same activities denies the reality that it is not so. Providing iPads for all the students is a fairness and equity measure. This is not about playing games, this is about students being active, rather than passive, students producing knowledge and presenting that knowledge in a variety of formats with immediate feedback most of the time. This article also showed your complete lack of understanding of electronic grading which I understand since you never experienced it in the classroom. A simple question would have been easy and anyone of us could have shown you that partial credit did exist in electronic grading. This article simply makes no sense whatsoever and leads the audience to a very disturbing understanding of what is going on in the language classrooms. It also bring discredit to a group of dedicated teachers who worked hard on a proposal to convince the Administration and the EAPA of the advantages of bringing iPads in the classroom. This article was uncalled for, untrue, poorly written and misleading. I sincerely hope that it does not represent the work ethic of the entire group of editors. We would have appreciated that multiple sources be used to elaborate on the topic or to offer a broader sense of the actual use of the devices. I invite any member of the Faculty to stop by and sit in one of our classrooms to form their own impressions and judge by themselves how useful technology is. Our goal is to help students reach proficiency through different means and no longer by memorizing line after line. To my knowledge, overused iPads prove themselves necessary and if they are constantly charging in the office it might be because of that.
Marc Eripret, Chair
On behalf of the World Language Department Faculty
Addendum: After the publication of the editorial about the iPads use in the language classrooms, members of the department had the opportunity to have, what we think, effective and worthwhile conversations with the author of the article, various editors and the Scholium advisor. We understand the difference between an article presenting factual information and a more subjective or opinion-based editorial. We nonetheless feel that a minimum of research would have been beneficial and that sensationalized headlines and captions undermined the writers’ attempts at objectivity and the work of the members of the department. We wish that we all learned from it and move forward in a productive and constructive environment.