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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BansavichJ. C. (2011). IPad study at USF. San Francisco, CA: University of San Francisco.
2.
BarrouilletP.FayolM.ChevrotC. (1994). Le dessin d'une maison. Construction d'une échelle de développement. L'Année Psychologique, 94, 81–98.
3.
BernsteinN. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
4.
BlöteA. W.ZielstraE. M.ZoeteweyM. W. (1987). Writing posture and writing movement in kindergarten. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 13, 323–341.
5.
BraswellG. S.RosengrenK. S.PierroutsakosS. L. (2007). Task constraint on preschool children's grip configuration during drawing. Developmental Psychobiology, 49, 216–225.
6.
BuckleyP. (2010). The rough guide to the iPad. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
7.
BurdenK.HopkinsP.MaleT.MartinS.TravalC. (2012). IPad Scotland evaluation. United Kingdom: University of Hull.
8.
CarrJ. (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.
9.
ClementsW.BarrettM. (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.
10.
ConnollyK.DalgleishM. (1989). The emergence of a tool using skill in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 894–912.
11.
CouseL. J.ChenD. 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.
12.
CoxM. V.MaynardS. (1998). The human figure drawing of children with Down syndrome. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 133–137.
13.
CrichtonS.PeglerK.WhiteD. (2012). Personal devices in public settings: Lessons learned from an iPod touch/iPad project. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 10, 23–31.
14.
HaydonT.HawkinsR.DenuneH.KimenerL.McCoyD.BashamJ. (2012). A comparison of iPads and worksheets on math skills of high school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorder, 37, 232–243.
15.
JenningsG.AndersonT.DorsetM.MitchellJ. (2010). Report on the step forward iPad pilot project. Melbourne, Australia: Trinity College, University of Melbourne.
16.
LashleyK. S. (1930). Basic neural mechanisms in behavior. Psychological Review, 37, 1–24.
17.
LaszloJ. L.BroderickP. A. (1985). The perceptual-motor skill of drawing. In FreemanN. H.CoxM. V. (Eds.), Visual order (pp. 356–373). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
LawsG.LawrenceL. (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.
19.
MartinP.RavesteinJ. (2006). Une analyse de l'utilisation d'outils de création numérique en expression graphique chez de jeunes élèves. Revue STICEF, 13, 1–11.
20.
MartinP.VelayJ.-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.
21.
MartlewM. (1992). Pen grips: Their relationship to letter/word formation and literacy knowledge in children starting school. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 23, 165–185.
22.
MatthewsJ.JesselJ. (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.
23.
MatthewsJ.SeowP. (2007). Electronic paint: Understanding children's representation through their interactions with digital paint. Journal of Art Design, 26, 251–263.
24.
OakleyG.PegrumM.FaulknerR.StriepeM. (2012). Exploring the pedagogical applications of mobile technologies for teaching literacy. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia.
25.
OlsenJ. (1992). Evaluating young children's cognitive capacities through computer versus hand drawings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33, 193–211.
26.
PegrumM.OakleyG.FaulknerR. (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.
27.
PicardD.VinterA. (2005). Development of graphic formulas for the depiction of familiar objects. International Journal of Behavior and Development, 29, 418–432.
28.
Trepagnier-StreetM. L.HongS. B.BauerJ. C. (2001). Using technology in Reggio-inspired long-term projects. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 181–188.
29.
TsaoR.MellierD. (2005). Planification et contrôle du geste graphique chez l'enfant avec trisomie 21. Enfance, 1, 73–82.
