8110 Dis Wk4

Colleagues Posts

Janelle Pierce 

Pierce-Week 4

Top of Form

    The article, iPads at school: A Quantitative Comparison of Elementary Schoolchildren's pen-on-paper Versus Finger-on-Screen Drawing Skills, did not have an essential component from the purpose statement checklist. In a research article, the purpose statement should be clearly defined in the abstract.  It is helpful to provide the purpose statement at the beginning of the article and then to provide a summary of the analysis of the finding (Babbie, 2017).  The problem statement of this article was difficult to locate because the authors did not utilize signal words that assist the reader in locating the problem. It is important to provide those signal words because it allows the reader to quickly identify the problem and then determine whether the research provided is useful to the study they are completing (Babbie, 2017). While the paper lacked signaling words and a problem statement, other aspects of the checklist were clearly included in the article.

 

    The authors identified the research methods used as a quantitative research approach using elementary students (Picard, Martin, & Tsao, 2014).  The approach of the study was to compare drawings of students who drew pictures using pencil and paper to students who drew pictures on an iPad. The site of the research took place in the students’ classrooms. The researchers set up a drawing corner in the participating classroom (Picard, Martin, & Tsao, 2014).  The intent of the study was clear: the authors used quantitative research to help teachers make informed decisions when deciding to purchase iPads for their classrooms (Picard, Martin, & Tsao, 2014). The researchers conclude that drawing on iPads had a positive impact because the drawing from the iPad was better than the drawings from pencil and paper (Picard, Martin, & Tsao, 2014).

 

    There is a clear relationship between the research in this article and social change.  The current pandemic had made the need for technology a requirement in today's classrooms versus when this article was written when it was just a tool that could be used. The school systems must be able to provide resources and training to students and teachers to implement the technology needed. In the current world, the need for interactive instruction is necessary (Williams, S.,  Enatsky, R., Gillcash, H., Murphy, J., & Gracanin, D., 2021). It would be interesting to see if Picard has followed any other technology during this time of uncertainty in education.

References

Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

 

Picard, D., Martin, P., & Tsao, R. (2014). iPads at school: A quantitative comparison of elementary schoolchildren’s pen-on-paper versus finger-on-screen drawing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 203–212. doi:10.2190/EC.50.2.c

 

Williams, S., Enatsky, R., Gillcash, H., Murphy, J. J., & Gracanin, D. (2021). Immersive Technology in the Public School Classroom: When a Class Meets. 2021 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (ILRN), Immersive Learning Research Network (ILRN), 2021 7th International Conference of The, 1–8. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.23919/iLRN52045.2021.9459371

Bottom of Form

Angelica Mason 

Evaluating Purpose Statements

Top of Form

This week I explore the research journal article: iPad at School? A Quantitative Comparison of Elementary Schoolchildren’s Pen-on-Paper versus Finger-on-Screen Drawing Skills by Picard, Martin & Tsao. This research study explored forty-six elementary school students’ abilities to use a pen on paper and a fingertip on an iPad screen. Picard et al. (2014), 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 (p.203). 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 (p. 203). 

Picard et al., identified that the research approach would be quantitative; this was evidenced based on the article title: iPads at School? A Quantitative Comparison of Elementary Schoolchildren’s Pen-on-Paper versus Finger-on-Screen Drawing Skills.  Burkholder et al. (2020), Quantitative research questions are commonly characterized by their intent to make comparisons or examine the relationship between variables (p. 317).  The research study topic is justified due to the lack of information, little/to no empirical proof, and the subject area has not been thoroughly researched. Prior research was noted in the research article. The first research article referenced was Carr(2012), who conducted a quantitative research study with the iPad in the mathematics domain with fifth-grade students. The second research article referend was by Haydon et al. (2012), who conducted a quantitative research study with the iPad with students who had emotional disturbances on the high school level. 

  The authors identified the key variables in the research study were participants, materials, procedures, and coding.  The authors did provide a general definition and words to connect the variables when introducing the method, participants, materials, and procedure.  At the conclusion of the article, the authors analyzed and summarized the study's results.  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; Matthew & Seow, 2007; Olsen, 1992; Trepanier-Street, Hong, & Bauer, 2001) )(p.210).  I found it intriguing that at the beginning of the research study, the authors thought that the students drawing on the iPad would have a better outcome than traditional paper/pen drawing.  Based on the results of previous studies and Picard et al., technology does provide a positive impact.  Based on the results and prior studies, additional research is warranted.        

The authors identified the key variables in the research study were participants, materials, procedures, and coding.  The authors did provide a general definition and words to connect the variables when introducing the method, participants, materials, and procedure.  At the conclusion of the article, the authors analyzed and summarized the study's results.  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; Matthew & Seow, 2007; Olsen, 1992; Trepanier-Street, Hong, & Bauer, 2001), or else a nonsignificant difference between drawing conditions (Martin & Ravenstein, 2006; Matthews & Jessel, 1993)(p.210).  I found it intriguing that at the beginning of the research study, the authors thought that the students drawing on the iPad would have a better outcome than traditional paper/pen drawing.  Based on the results of previous studies and Picard et al., technology does provide a positive impact.  Based on the results and prior studies, additional research is warranted.          

Technology can enhance social change based on the assumption that technology can positively impact our society and help address more significant societal problems in K-12 education.  As stated in the study, students had no prior knowledge of the iPads within the school. Research can play a significant role in social change when it comes to technology.  The information obtained during the study will provide you with vital information needed to make changes, inform practices, and get information to the partitioners to help facilitate change.  Through social change, we can create a powerful challenge for individuals and educational institutions worldwide.

References

Picard, D., Martin, P., & Tsao, R. (2014). iPads at school: A quantitative comparison of elementary schoolchildren’s pen-on-paper versus finger-on-screen drawing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 203–212.  https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.2.c

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (eds.) (2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Bottom of Form