8110 Dis Wk4

iPADS AT SCHOOL? A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCHILDREN’S PEN-ON-PAPER

VERSUS FINGER-ON-SCREEN DRAWING SKILLS

DELPHINE PICARD

Aix Marseille University and

Institut Universitaire de France

PERRINE MARTIN

RAPHAELE TSAO

Aix Marseille University

ABSTRACT

A growing number of schools are embracing new mobile technologies,

such as iPads, with little (or no) prior empirical proof of their usability.

We investigated whether iPads, which allow children to write and draw

with their fingers without the need of a pen, are relevant devices for drawing

activities at elementary school. A within-participants design was used

to compare routine drawings produced by 46 elementary schoolchildren

with pen on paper (standard condition) and fingertip on screen (iPad

condition). Results revealed a significant effect of drawing condition on

graphic scores, with lower scores in the iPad condition than in the standard

condition. The finding that finger drawings were slightly poorer than pen

drawings can be ascribed to the shift from distal to more proximal control

of the drawing movements.

The iPad is a touchscreen tablet that was launched by Apple in January 2010,

and has since proved extremely popular. This new device combines several

features of previously distinct technologies (Buckley, 2010). For example, iPads

have all the functionality and connectivity of laptop computers, but are far more

203

� 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.2.c

http://baywood.com

J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 50(2) 203-212, 2014

lightweight, and all the mobility of smartphones, but with a larger, multi-touch flat

screen. The iPad’s finger-based interface is intuitive to use, convenient, and can

be used to perform a variety of activities, including writing and drawing with

the fingertip. A recent survey of the most commonly used devices in educational

settings (Pegrum, Oakley, & Faulkner, 2013) revealed that iPads are now a

familiar feature in classrooms around the world, regarded as a promising tool for

supporting teaching and learning. Accordingly, several projects looking at how

iPads are implemented in educational settings have been conducted in the past

3 years (e.g., United States: Bansavich, 2011; Scotland: Burden, Hopkins, Male,

Martin, & Traval, 2012; Canada: Crichton, Pegler, & White, 2012; Australia:

Jennings, Anderson, Dorset, & Mitchell, 2010, and Oakley, Pergrum, Faulkner,

& Striepe, 2012). These qualitative projects examined students’ and educators’

motivations, perceptions, and attitudes toward the use of iPads in the classroom,

via surveys, classroom observations, focus groups, and interviews. As a whole,

these projects indicated that the iPad was well received by teachers and students

alike, who were convinced that it changed learning for the better. A robust

observation was that iPad use seemingly increased students’ levels of motivation

and self-efficacy, while it encouraged teachers to explore alternative activities

and forms of assessments for learning, especially in elementary school settings.

However, beyond the initial burst of motivation and the novelty effect of the

iPad technology in the classroom, the longer-term benefits were less clearcut.

This uncertainty derives from the very limited amount of quantitative research

that has been conducted in this area (partly due to the newness of the technology

and its use in educational settings). Two notable exceptions are studies that

have tested the impact of iPads on mathematical skills. Carr (2012) carried out

a quantitative study in which fifth graders (10-11 years) from two different

schools either used iPads during math lessons (experimental group) or did not

(control group). Math skills were assessed at pre-test and post-test using standard

questionnaires. The effects of iPad use, as measured by changes in the mean

difference between the experimental and control groups between pretest and

posttest, were not significant. For their part, Haydon et al. (2012) conducted a

quantitative study in which high school students with emotional disturbance

alternatively used iPads (experimental condition) or worksheets (comparison

condition) to complete math problems. Students solved more math problems and

in less time in the iPad condition than in the worksheet one. This encouraging

finding should nevertheless be viewed with caution, on account of the small

number of students (N = 3) involved in the study. To summarize, there is paucity

of research confirming the positive impact of iPads in the classroom.

More quantitative research, using a rigorous methodology, is needed to plug

this gap in the existing literature, and help teachers make informed decisions about

purchasing and using iPads at school in different areas (numeracy, literacy,

drawing skills, etc.). Unlike previous studies that have concentrated on math

skills, we decided to focus on drawing skills. We designed the present study to test

204 / PICARD, MARTIN AND TSAO

whether iPads are a useful medium for drawing activities at elementary school.

It is important to study the use of tablets in drawing because the iPad’s finger-

based interface means that users can draw with the fingertip, thereby obviating the

need to handle a pen or a stylus, with all the challenges that can bring. Drawing

is a complex skill that develops during childhood and requires the combination

of motor, perceptual, and cognitive components (Laszlo & Broderick, 1985).

Children have to learn to handle writing/drawing implements, and this is some-

thing that many of them find difficult (Connolly & Dagleish, 1989). Previous

studies have shown that there is considerable variability in the manner in which

children hold pens and pencils (see, for example, Blöte, Zielstra, & Zoetewey,

1987; Braswell, Rosengren, & Pierroutsakos, 2007; Connolly & Dagleish, 1989),

and this affects the quality of their graphic production (Braswell et al., 2007;

Martlew, 1992). As iPads allow for finger drawing, and are now making inroads

into schools, it is worth testing whether their ease of use and immediacy actually

improve the quality of drawings produced in an educational context. To that

end, we adopted a within-participants design in which we compared drawings

of a familiar object produced by elementary schoolchildren with pen on paper

(standard condition) and fingertip on screen (iPad condition). Based on the

hypothesis that finger drawing on an iPad screen enhances the quality of the

resulting production because it bypasses the difficulties involved in handling a

pen, we predicted that drawing quality would differ between conditions, with

children scoring higher in the iPad condition than in the standard one.

METHOD

Participants

Forty-six children from kindergarten (5-6 years, n = 22, mean age = 5 years

7 months, SD = 4 months, 11 boys) and Grade 2 (7-8 years, n = 24, mean age =

7 years 6 months, SD = 4 months, 13 boys) took part in the study. These two

different age groups were chosen because they contained children with different

levels of drawing practice and formal learning of writing. All the children attended

state elementary schools in France. None of them had been diagnosed with a

learning disability or a special educational need. According to their teachers,

the children had never used an iPad at school prior to the study.

Materials

The materials consisted of an Apple iPad Version 1, sheets of white paper,

and a black felt-tip pen. The sheets of paper measured the same size as the

iPad’s drawing surface (14.5 × 16 cm), and both were presented in a portrait

format for the drawing task. The black felt-tip pen was chosen because it pro-

duced lines of approximately the same thickness (2 mm) as the electronic black

felt-tip pen of the Drawing Pad app.

iPADS IN THE CLASSROOM? / 205

Procedure

We set up a drawing workshop in a corner of the children’s classroom, with

an iPad placed flat on a large table next to a sheet of paper and a pen. Two chairs

were put in front of the large table, so that the children could sit either in front

of the iPad or in front of the standard drawing material. The children were invited

one at a time to come to the drawing workshop and produce “the best drawing

of a house you can,” using each medium in turn. A house was selected as the

subject of the drawing because it is a very familiar one for children, and is

sufficiently straightforward for children as young as 5 years to produce, using

their well-established graphic routines (see Picard & Vinter, 2005). In the standard

condition, children used their dominant hand to draw with the pen on the paper.

In the iPad condition, they drew with the tip of the index finger of their domi-

nant hand. The resulting drawings were saved in electronic files for subsequent

analysis. It should be noted that the children were not allowed to use an eraser in

either drawing condition. The order in which the house drawings were produced

in the iPad and standard conditions was counterbalanced across participants

in each age group. The iPad condition was preceded by a short familiarization

phase, during which each child was shown how to draw lines (horizontal, vertical,

and oblique) and simple geometric shapes (circle, square, triangle, cross) using

his/her index finger on the touch screen. This phase, lasting no more than

2 minutes, allowed the children to feel comfortable using the iPad’s drawing app.

In each condition, the children were given a maximum of 10 minutes to produce

their drawing.

Coding

A total of 92 individual paper and electronic drawings were collected for

analysis. The quality of these drawings was assessed on a standardized graphic

scale yielding an overall graphic score (Barrouillet, Fayol, & Chevrot, 1994).

This scale includes 21 items (see Table 1), each scored 1 point if it is present in

the drawing, except for Item 21, which is scored 2 points. A maximum score of

22 points could thus be obtained on the scale. The coding of the drawings was

performed by two judges working independently. Interjudge reliability was

high (> 98%), and the handful of disagreements that arose (1.08%) were settled

by discussion prior to the data analysis. Individual graphic scores on the house-

drawing scale were used as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

For both drawing conditions, the data were checked for skewness (standard:

S = –.03; iPad: S = –.35) and kurtosis (standard: K = .05; iPad: K = .28), which were

both within the normal range, and Levene’s test was run, F(1, 90) = .80, p = .37,

indicating the suitability of using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). A mixed

206 / PICARD, MARTIN AND TSAO

iPADS IN THE CLASSROOM? / 207

Table 1. Occurrence (Percentage) of Each Item of Barrouillet et al.’s

Scale in Children’s House Drawings as a Function

of Drawing Condition

Drawing

condition

Item Standard iPad

1-

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

9-

10-

11-

12-

13-

14-

15-

16-

17-

18-

19-

20-

21-

Outline (at least 3 rectilinear segments)

Roof (presence)

Roof shape * (triangular or trapezoidal)

Chimney (presence)

Vertical chimney (perpendicular to roof)

Door (presence)

Door handle * (presence)

Base (closed rectangular shape of outline)

Path (presence)

Window (presence of at least one window in

the facade)

Two windows upstairs (the facade has two windows,

one on the left, one of the right)

More than two windows (the facade has more than

two windows)

Window position (none of the sides of the house

constitutes one side of a window)

Window proportions * (height of window is between

1/4 and 1/6 of the height of the facade; same for width)

Window alignment * (windows aligned on the same

horizontal in the facade)

Panes (represented as crosses inside windows)

Shutters * (presence)

Curtains (presence)

Attic room (one or more windows drawn in the roof)

False perspective (two sides drawn, but incorrect

perspective)

Perspective (two sides drawn, correct perspective)

98

100

100

37

13

93

87

52

2

89

78

24

74

78

52

65

17

9

20

7

2

93

96

87

41

13

89

70

61

0

85

70

20

65

57

30

65

2

2

13

4

2

*Items for which there was a significant change in the children’s productions between

the standard and iPad drawing conditions (McNemar test).

ANOVA was run on the graphic scores, with drawing condition (2) as a within-

participants variable, and sex (2), age group (2), and order (2) as between-

participants variables. We set an alpha level of .05 for all statistical analyses.

The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of drawing condition, F(1, 38) =

14.35, p = .001, �2p = .27, with higher scores in the standard drawing condition

(M = 11.04, SD = 2.49) than in the iPad one (M = 9.67, SD = 2.93). There was no

other significant main or interaction effect (all ps > .05). A closer look at the

data indicated that, out of the 46 children, 27 (59%) scored higher in the standard

condition, 14 (30%) achieved similar scores in both conditions, and just 5 (11%)

scored higher in the iPad condition. It should be noted that, despite the lower

scores in the iPad condition, the children’s graphic scores were generally within

the normal range for their age in both conditions.

We decided to take a closer look at the data in order to determine which aspects

of the drawings deteriorated when the children drew with their fingers on the

iPad. To that end, we examined the occurrence of each item in each of the two

drawing conditions (see Table 1), using McNemar tests to look for significant

changes between the standard and iPad conditions. Significant changes were

found for the following five items: Item 3 (roof shape), �2(1) = 4.17, p < .05;

Item 7 (door handle), �2(1) = 4.90, p < .05; Item 14 (window proportions),

�2(1) = 5.06, p < .05; Item 15 (window alignment), �2(1) = 5.06, p < .05; and

Item 17 (shutters), �2(1) = 5.14, p < .05. As can be seen in Table 1, all these

items were produced less frequently in the iPad condition.1 The lower graphic

scores in the iPad condition were thus due to deterioration in the shape of

the roof, the proportions and spatial alignment of the windows, and to the loss

of some accessory features (i.e., door handle, window shutters) (see illustration

in Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to examine the ease of use and immediacy of iPads

for drawing in an educational context. We were interested in testing whether

iPads constitute a useful medium for drawing activities at elementary school, by

virtue of the fact that they allow children to draw with their fingers, thus obviating

the need to handle a pen. Contrary to our main hypothesis, we found a slight but

significant decrease in graphic scores in the iPad (finger drawing) condition,

208 / PICARD, MARTIN AND TSAO

1 It should be noted that several items on Barrouillet et al.’s scale were interdependent

(e.g., Item 3 (roof shape) is contingent upon Item 2 (roof); Item 7 (door handle) depends

on Item 6 (door), etc.). Each of the items for which we detected a significant change in

the children’s productions between drawing conditions (Items 3, 7, 14, 15, and 17) was

dependent on items where no significant change was found (roof for Item 3; door for

Item 7; window, two windows, or two or more windows for Items 14, 15, and 17). Thus,

despite the inter-dependence of some items, the results yielded by the McNemar tests were

not interpretatively ambiguous.

iPADS IN THE CLASSROOM? / 209

F ig

u re

1 .

H o

u s e

d ra

w in

g s

p ro

d u

c e d

in th

e s ta

n d

a rd

(l e ft )

a n

d iP

a d

(r ig

h t)

c o

n d

it io

n s

b y

a 5 -y

e a r-

o ld

g ir

l.

L o

s s

o f d

e ta

il c a n

b e

o b

s e rv

e d

in th

e fi n

g e r

d ra

w in

g (i

P a d

c o

n d

it io

n ).

compared with the standard (paper/pen drawing) condition. The finding that

drawings produced on iPads were inferior to those produced with paper/pen

contrasts with results from studies comparing children’s drawings produced with

tablet computers versus traditional media (e.g., Couse & Chen, 2010; Martin &

Ravenstein, 2006; Martin & Velay, 2012; Matthews & Jessel, 1993; Matthews &

Seow, 2007; Olsen, 1992; Trepanier-Street, Hong, & Bauer, 2001). These studies

either reported a positive impact of technology on drawing quality (Couse & Chen,

2010; Martin & Velay, 2012; Matthews & Seow, 2007; Olsen, 1992; Trepanier-

Street et al., 2001), or else a nonsignificant difference between drawing conditions

(Martin & Ravenstein, 2006; Matthews & Jessel, 1993). It is worth noting,

however, that the children in these studies were provided with a stylus to draw on

the computer, whereas in our study they had to draw with their fingertip on a tablet.

One explanation for the present findings is that despite motor equivalence

(similarity in stroke production across many contexts; see Bernstein, 1967;

Lashley, 1930), there are a number of fundamental differences between drawing

with a pen on a page and drawing with a fingertip on a flat screen, starting with

the muscles that subserve the actions. Whereas pen trajectory is mostly controlled

by distal joints and flexion/extension of the fingers, finger drawing may call for

the involvement of proximal joints (elbow, shoulder) in motor control. The shift

from distal to more proximal control of finger movements may have accounted

for the poorer graphic performance observed in finger drawing. Then again, the

participants in our study had not had any prior practice with iPads at school,

and were not given the opportunity to learn or improve, as they only produced

a single finger drawing on the iPad, and did not receive any feedback. It is,

therefore, possible that our negative findings partly stemmed from insufficient

training in the finger drawing technique.

Future research could focus on learning to draw with tablets in the classroom,

in order to test the effectiveness of iPads versus paper/pen in helping typically

developing children to learn to draw not just simple, but also more complex

objects. This approach could then be extended to children with disabilities or

special educational needs, such as those with Down syndrome. These children

often encounter difficulties in fine motor skills, and are particularly delayed

in their drawing ability (see, for example, Clements & Barrett, 1994; Cox &

Maynard, 1998; Laws & Lawrence, 2001; Tsao & Mellier, 2005). It would be

worthwhile assessing the usability of iPads and the finger drawing technique for

supporting learning to draw in this special population.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the children and their teachers who took part

in the study, and Camille Derbomez, Patricia Cuvelliez, and Camille Jalogne-

Redon for their helpful assistance in data collection. The authors declare no

competing interests.

210 / PICARD, MARTIN AND TSAO

REFERENCES

Bansavich, J. C. (2011). IPad study at USF. San Francisco, CA: University of San

Francisco.

Barrouillet, P., Fayol, M., & Chevrot, C. (1994). Le dessin d’une maison. Construction

d’une échelle de développement. L’Année Psychologique, 94, 81-98.

Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, UK:

Pergamon Press.

Blöte, A. W., Zielstra, E. M., & Zoetewey, M. W. (1987). Writing posture and writing

movement in kindergarten. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 13, 323-341.

Braswell, G. S., Rosengren, K. S., & Pierroutsakos, S. L. (2007). Task constraint on

preschool children’s grip configuration during drawing. Developmental Psycho-

biology, 49, 216-225.

Buckley, P. (2010). The rough guide to the iPad. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Traval, C. (2012). IPad Scotland evalu-

ation. United Kingdom: University of Hull.

Carr, J. (2012). Does math achievement “h’APP’en” when iPads and game-based learning

are incorporated into fifth-grade mathematics instructions? Journal of Information

Technology Education: Research, 11, 269-286.

Clements, W., & Barrett, M. (1994). The drawings of children and young people with

Down’s syndrome: A case of delay or difference? British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 64, 441-452.

Connolly, K., & Dalgleish, M. (1989). The emergence of a tool using skill in infancy.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 894-912.

Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring

its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 43, 75-98.

Cox, M. V., & Maynard, S. (1998). The human figure drawing of children with Down

syndrome. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 133-137.

Crichton, S., Pegler, K., & White, D. (2012). Personal devices in public settings:

Lessons learned from an iPod touch/iPad project. Electronic Journal of E-Learning,

10, 23-31.

Haydon, T., Hawkins, R., Denune, H., Kimener, L., McCoy, D., & Basham, J. (2012).

A comparison of iPads and worksheets on math skills of high school students with

emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorder, 37, 232-243.

Jennings, G., Anderson, T., Dorset, M., & Mitchell, J. (2010). Report on the step

forward iPad pilot project. Melbourne, Australia: Trinity College, University of

Melbourne.

Lashley, K. S. (1930). Basic neural mechanisms in behavior. Psychological Review, 37,

1-24.

Laszlo, J. L., & Broderick, P. A. (1985). The perceptual-motor skill of drawing. In

N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order (pp. 356-373). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Laws, G., & Lawrence, L. (2001). Spatial representation in the drawings of children

with Down’s syndrome and its relationships to language and motor development: A

preliminary investigation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 453-473.

Martin, P., & Ravestein, J. (2006). Une analyse de l’utilisation d’outils de création

numérique en expression graphique chez de jeunes élèves. Revue STICEF, 13, 1-11.

iPADS IN THE CLASSROOM? / 211

Martin, P., & Velay, J.-L. (2012). Do computers improve the drawing of a geometrical

figure in 10 year-old children? International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, 22, 13-23.

Martlew, M. (1992). Pen grips: Their relationship to letter/word formation and literacy

knowledge in children starting school. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 23,

165-185.

Matthews, J., & Jessel, J. (1993). Very young children use electronic paint: A study of

the beginnings of drawing with traditional media and computer paintbox. Visual

Art Research, 19, 47-62.

Matthews, J., & Seow, P. (2007). Electronic paint: Understanding children’s represen-

tation through their interactions with digital paint. Journal of Art Design, 26, 251-263.

Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., Faulkner, R., & Striepe, M. (2012). Exploring the pedagogical

applications of mobile technologies for teaching literacy. Perth, Australia: University

of Western Australia.

Olsen, J. (1992). Evaluating young children’s cognitive capacities through computer

versus hand drawings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33, 193-211.

Pegrum, M., Oakley, G., & Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of

the adoption of mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent

schools. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 66-81.

Picard, D., & Vinter, A. (2005). Development of graphic formulas for the depiction of

familiar objects. International Journal of Behavior and Development, 29, 418-432.

Trepagnier-Street, M. L., Hong, S. B., & Bauer, J. C. (2001). Using technology in

Reggio-inspired long-term projects. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 181-188.

Tsao, R., & Mellier, D. (2005). Planification et contrôle du geste graphique chez l’enfant

avec trisomie 21. Enfance, 1, 73-82.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Delphine Picard

Aix Marseille Université

Centre PsyCLE EA3273

Maison de la Recherche

29 avenue Schuman

13621 Aix en Provence

France

e-mail: [email protected]

212 / PICARD, MARTIN AND TSAO