Classmate A Learning Outcomes In Chapters 5 and 6, we have learned about the cost behavior patterns and process costing in an organization. It considered that the cost behavior patterns and process costing in accounting decisions. Cost behavior patterns define how the organization and operating expenditures change or remain the same through dissimilar events. Practices can be changed, particularly while changing the production levels or sales volume within a business. It may rise in fixed, variable, and mixed expenditures. For example, let's assume that the cost of direct material of a bike company for each bike is $40. If the motorcycle unrestricted made one bike, the total variable price for natural materials is around $40. If the bike company made two bikes, the total variable cost becomes double that is $80. It shows that the variable cost mainly changes in percentage to change in the volume of activity. If the production becomes double, then total variable cost also double, and the cost per unit remains similar. The term variable costs must define the full price with the variations in activities, not the price per unit. In chapter 8, we also learned about how united airlines fight to regulate costs. United Airlines is considered the second primary air carrier in the world. The industry study that the airlines had high fixed prices, making it hard for the business to cut prices rapidly in line with its deduction in income. It also shows that there is difficulty in finding the fixed costs. The fixed expenses are a significant element of total operating expenditures, making it hard for airlines to create short-term cuts in spending when income reduces. It seems that the variable, fixed, and mixed expenses are essential for quick decision-making and are used for a particular period. The appropriate variety is the range of actions for which cost behavior patterns are like to be correct. In chapter 9 it has been discussed the process costing in production costs. Process costing is an introductory section in production costs because process costing defines the price of each product made as similar to the price of every other product. It seems that a desk company produces desks, and it maintains a benefit over it that their participants made desks in large quantities, that is 4000 to 8000 desks per month, with the help of globally accepted designs. It permits the business to purchase material in bulk, which results in a discount on costs from suppliers. The same desk is made for all the consumers; as a result, desk products can limit the production procedure to two processing sections: assembly and finished. New participants recently started producing the same desk, and the desk company worried whether the desk production price is reasonable. The above example shows that it is hard to make the production process successful without proper technique costing. The managers can use cost behavior patterns while making decisions because it helps ...

1. Classmate A
Learning Outcomes
In Chapters 5 and 6, we have learned about the cost behavior
patterns and process costing in an organization. It considered
that the cost behavior patterns and process costing in accounting
decisions. Cost behavior patterns define how the organization
and operating expenditures change or remain the same through
dissimilar events. Practices can be changed, particularly while
changing the production levels or sales volume within a
business. It may rise in fixed, variable, and mixed expenditures.
For example, let's assume that the cost of direct material of a
bike company for each bike is $40. If the motorcycle
unrestricted made one bike, the total variable price for natural
materials is around $40. If the bike company made two bikes,
the total variable cost becomes double that is $80. It shows that
the variable cost mainly changes in percentage to change in the
volume of activity. If the production becomes double, then total
variable cost also double, and the cost per unit remains similar.
The term variable costs must define the full price with the
variations in activities, not the price per unit.
In chapter 8, we also learned about how united airlines fight to
regulate costs. United Airlines is considered the second pr imary
air carrier in the world. The industry study that the airlines had
high fixed prices, making it hard for the business to cut prices
rapidly in line with its deduction in income. It also shows that
there is difficulty in finding the fixed costs. The fixed expenses
are a significant element of total operating expenditures,
making it hard for airlines to create short-term cuts in spending
when income reduces. It seems that the variable, fixed, and
mixed expenses are essential for quick decision-making and are

2. used for a particular period. The appropriate variety is the range
of actions for which cost behavior patterns are like to be
correct.
In chapter 9 it has been discussed the process costing in
production costs. Process costing is an introductory section in
production costs because process costing defines the price of
each product made as similar to the price of every other
product. It seems that a desk company produces desks, and it
maintains a benefit over it that their participants made desks in
large quantities, that is 4000 to 8000 desks per month, with the
help of globally accepted designs. It permits the business to
purchase material in bulk, which results in a discount on costs
from suppliers. The same desk is made for all the consumers; as
a result, desk products can limit the production procedure to
two processing sections: assembly and finished. New
participants recently started producing the same desk, and the
desk company worried whether the desk production price is
reasonable. The above example shows that it is hard to make the
production process successful without proper technique costing.
The managers can use cost behavior patterns while making
decisions because it helps to correctly calculate the costs and
how the prices behave given changes in inactivity. It helps to
know how fees are structured. The executives can use process
costing while making decisions because it helps determine the
price of existing procedures by which the products and services
are completed, acquired, delivered, and supported. For example,
a company that produces ink containers relates process costing
through different sections. During a 30 day time, the total direct
cost of material is around $80,000, and labor head and overhead
costs are around $100,000. The design section of a procedure of
10,000 containers during a month shows that per unit containers
amount to $8 for direct costs and $10 for indirect costs.

3. References
Anderson, A. M., & Van der Merwe, A. (2021). Time-driven
activity-based costing related to digital twinning in additive
manufacturing. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering,
32(1). https://doi.org/10.7166/32-1-2271
Prinja, S., Brar, S., Singh, M. P., Rajsekhar, K., Sachin, O.,
Naik, J., Singh, M., Tomar, H., Bahuguna, P., & Guinness, L.
(2020). Process evaluation of health system costing –
Experience from CHSI study in India. PLOS ONE, 15(5),
e0232873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232873
Varadi, S. S., & Taghavi, A. (2017). Identification and
Prioritization of the Factors Affecting the Implementation of
Activity-Based Costing with Analytic Hierarchy Process:
Qaemshahr Municipality Case Study. Journal of History Culture
and Art Research, 6(1), 366.
https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i1.748
Xu, S., & Zheng, K. (2018). Tax Avoidance and Asymmetric
Cost Behavior. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance,
0148558X1879375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558x18793757
Classmate B
Production Costing
The objective of this module is to educate students on various
production costs, differentiate between job costing and process
costing, product cost flows using different methods, cost
behavior patterns, and cost estimation methods. Production
costs refer to the total costs involved to produce a certain
number of items or services and usually includes labor, raw
material, etc. It includes direct materials, direct labor, and
manufacturing overhead. A process costing system is used by

4. businesses that produce identical units of product in batches
using a consistent process. A job costing system is used by
businesses that produce different products or jobs. It uses the
example of a company that produces wooden desks and tries to
reduce the production costs to stand in the competitive markets.
The average cost per unit is the sum of all costs divided by the
number of items produced. A company is in profit when the
revenue is higher than the costs. Thus, it is important to identify
different factors and types of costs involved in the production
of an item depending on the nature of the company to be in
profit.
Managerial accountants provide a clear understanding of
different input parameters involve for any operation in a given
period of time and it is very helpful for the management to take
important decisions. It is also important to understand fixed,
mixed, and variable costs for pricing, product mix, and capacity
expansion decisions. (Kee, 2008). Fixed costs are independent
of the number of units produced or sell whereas the variable
cost changes with the sales or production. Mixed cost is the
combination of two and contains a fixed based rate and a
variable rate that fluctuates. For example, a resort offers you up
to 30 days of free stay for a $1000 membership, and the cost
$100 per day of any additional stays over 30. Hence, if you
utilize the resort for 35 days in a year then your mixed cost
would be ($1000 + $100 * 5) which is $1500 per year. (Bode, &
Marcinko, 2010)
Reference:
Kee, R. (2008). The sufficiency of product and variable costs
for production-related decisions when economies of scope are
present. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2),
682-696.
Bode, G. L., & Marcinko, D. E. (2010). Accounting for Mixed

5. Practice Costs. The Business of Medical Practice:
Transformational Health 2.0 Skills for Doctors, 395.
Classmate C
Process costing describes as a method for collecting and
assigning manufacturing costs to the unit produced (Averkamp,
2019). It helps to indicate the production cost for mass
production. It helps to collect and assign manufacturing costs to
the different units. There are few types of process costing like,
- Standard costing – for calculating costs for production
units called standard costing. In accounting terms, total costs
are calculated based on the standard cost.
- Weighted average – weighted average uses the average
cost per unit by calculating the difference between beginning
cost and current period costs.
- First-in, first-out – this term focuses on the cost of the
units in order they are produced. The first produced product
cost will calculate first.
In conclusion, for internal control over the inventory, process
costing is helpful. It determines the cost for each process and
adds them to the final cost. It also helps to standardized the
production cycle.
Cost Behavior:
In basic terms, cost behavior patterns are known as fixed,
variable, and mixed costs (Schmitz, 2012). When the cost reacts
to changes in the production or activity in the organization is
called cost behavior. The concept of cost behavior will help the
management to know the cost and react according to by creating
budgets, forecasting, planning of risk in the beginning, and

6. profits. As mentioned earlier, process costing has mainly three
terms.
- Fixed cost – fixed cost remains the same even though
production changes. It stays the same regardless of any number
of units produced in the organization. For example, if a
company produces 1000 units of TV and the fixed cost for those
1000 TVs is $45,000. It remains the same for 950 TVs and for
1050 TVs.
- Variable cost – the cost which changes according to the
product changes, it called a variable cost. When production
increase, variable cost increase and vice-a-versa. For example,
if the variable cost for 1 table is $5, the variable cost for
producing 100 tables will be $500, for 500 tables, it will be
$2,500, and so on.
- Mixed cost – the cost that has characterizes variable and
fixed cost is called mixed cost. To calculate the mixed cost, it
should be divided between variable and fixed costs.
Therefore, analyzing the cost behavior helps the management to
define their profit and break-even points.
Reference:
Averkamp, H. (2019). What is process costing?:
Accountingcoach. Retrieved from
https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-is-process-costing
Schmitz, A. (2012). Chapter 5 How do organizations identify
Cost Behavior Patterns? Retrieved from
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_managerial-accounting/s09-
how-do-organizations-identify-.html

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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
iPADS AT SCHOOL? A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCHILDREN’S PEN-ON-PAPER
VERSUS FINGER-ON-SCREEN DRAWING SKILLS
DELPHINE PICARD

12. 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

13. 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
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.2190%2FEC.50.2.c
&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-08-12

14. 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’

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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,

24. 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-

25. 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)

26. 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)

27. 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

28. 74
78
52
65
17
9
20
7
2
93
96
87
41
13
89
70
61
0

29. 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-

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. p
ro
d
u
c
e
d
in
th
e
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
(l
e
ft
)
a
n
d
iP
a

35. 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

36. 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

37. e
fi
n
g
e
r
d
ra
w
in
g
(i
P
a
d
c
o
n
d
it
io
n
).

38. 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.

39. 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,

40. 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 als o
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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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,

46. 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.

47. 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
8110-Week 4 Discussion: Evaluating Purpose Statements
There is a link between understanding the purpose of one’s
research and selecting the appropriate methods to investigate
the questions that are derived from that purpose.
–(Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & DeMarco, G. M. P., Jr.,
2003, p. 169)
For this Discussion, you will evaluate the purpose statements in
assigned journal articles in your discipline and consider the
alignment of theory, problem, and purpose. You will also
explain your position on the relationship between research and
social change.
Alignment means that a research study possesses clear and
logical connections among all of its various components. To
achieve these connections, researchers must carefully craft the
components of their study such that when they are viewed
together, there is a coherent interrelationship.

48. As you read the authors’ purpose statements, consider how well
the intent of the study, and its connection to the problem and
theoretical framework, is presented. Also consider if the
purpose statement reveals the study’s potential for engendering
positive social change.
As you know, social change is a distinguishing feature of
Walden University’s mission. Positive social change implies a
transformation that results in positive outcomes. This can
happen at many levels (e.g., individual, family systems,
neighborhoods, organizations, nationally and globally); and
positive social change can occur at different rates: slow and
gradual or fast and radical.
With these thoughts in mind, refer to the Journal
Articles document for your assigned articles for this Discussion.
You will switch your journal article assignment from Week 3. If
your last name starts with A through L, use Article B. If your
last name starts with M through Z, use Article A. Follow the
prompt below for your program.
Article A:
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
Assignment Task Part 1:
Write a 1pg critique of the research study in which you:
· Evaluate the purpose statement using the Purpose Statement
Checklist as a guide
· Analyze alignment among the theory, problem, and purpose
· Explain your position on the relationship between research and
social change

49. Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with
reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly
evidence in APA Style.
Read a selection of your classmates’ postings.Assignment Task
Part 2
Respond to 2 classmates in 3 paragraphs each who was assigned
a different article than you by further supporting his or her
critique or respectfully offering a differing perspective. Use
intext citations and Citate Information and References APA
style.