Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum ETEC 500 Integrating wearable technologies into the TGFU curriculum: an action-research proposal Shaun Pepper University of British Columbia 1Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU CurriculumIntroduction Teaching in Physical Education (PE) is a a complex and diverse task. Physical educators are met with the demands of administration and provincial regulations on physical activity (PA) (Pate & Buchner, 2014),incorporating teaching practices based on research (Butler, 2006; Butte, 2012), staying true to ones own ideas of what values are present in physical education (Lindsay, 2014; Stolz & Pill, 2014), and engaging students with technology in a way that is applicable to their everyday realities outside the classroom (Juniu et al., 2012; Moseir, 2014).Since there is such diverse and different demands in every PE classroom, it is impractical and unrealistic to think that the same theories could be applied in different classrooms and expectsimilar results, without support and guidance. This study will provide support and guidance to enable teachers to be reflective in their practice and give them tools to try and engage learners in different ways. The most practical way of providing meaningful data and narratives to teachers is to use action-research inside of a real everyday classroom. The action-research that will be the basis for this study is succinctly explained in the definition provided by Gay et al. (2012): Action research in education is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counsellors, or other stakeholders in the teaching learning environment that involves gathering information about the ways in which their particular schools operate, the teachers teach, and the students learn. The systematic inquiry will focus on how to effectively introduce, currently available, wearable technology (Fitbit Zip, Jawbone Up24, among others) into an individual PE classroom using a variety of qualitative data points for reflection? The foundation of this study needs to be grounded in academic conversation and reflection. The research will be built on the most 2Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumprevalent academic PE framework Bunker & Thorpes Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (1984) and will use most recent research to understand the current realities of the classroom and the technology available. This proposed action-research will make an honest attempt to meet the demands of all the stakeholders inside of PE discipline.The primary purpose of this study is to provide PE teachers a tool to reflect on their own practices and a academic foundation to advocate for their own wearable-technology curriculum. In addition to this immediate objective, the secondary long-term goal is to provide all stakeholders a realistic look into the problems, challenges and successes while inquiring about significant and important questions regarding implementing wearable technology into current K-12 curriculums. Problem statement Currently, there is no action-research that helps guide educators in using currently available wearable technology in the TGfU classroom. With wearable health and fitness technology changing rapidly, it will be important that action-research exists to provide teachers with the relevant and up to date information to inform their practices. By documenting successs and failures of implementation of wearable devices in a TGfU classroom, the study will provide foundational research that others in the PE field can build upon. 3Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU CurriculumCritical review of the literature Introduction to the Literature Articles were reviewedfrom 2006 to 2014 using the keywords: Physical Education (PE), TGfU, Wearable Technology, PE Teacher, Physical Activity, and Curriculum.This review focuses on Current Realities of Physical Educators, TGfU Curriculum Planning, and Wearable Devices in Physical Education. Inside of this review, the researcher focused on providing a summary, analysis, critique and its impact on the study being proposed. The goal of this review was to gain a better understanding of the components of planning and developing strategies for effective integration of wearable technology into a TGfU PE Classroom and provide the reader with reasoning of its importance in the proposed study. Realities of Teachers In order to understand teacher realities, a chapter from the book Implementing Physical Activity Changes and a Research article from Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport were selected. The chapter in the book titled, Public School Physical Activity Legislative Policy Initiative(2014), provided insights into how the National Physical Activity Plan (NPAP) impacts PA and PE policy in states, schools. It provides examples and evidence of barriers to PA an PE change; schools lack of adequate facilities, lack of certified physical educators and lack of instructional time. These policies are at the forefront of the planning for school district administrators and districts, therefor it is very relevant in understanding it in the context of developing curriculum ideas. The chapter made a strong case for the need for physical educators to consider NPAP strategies inside of the Physical Education classroom. It also provided 4Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumcontextual understanding of the bigger picture of the relationship between PA and PE. By examining various schools and states the author was able to make a strong case that public policy needs to align more with the realities of the practitioner, in this case the physical educator.In contrast to the big picture view of national policy, Effective Teaching in Physical Education: The View From a Variety of Trenches (2014), communicated the Day to Day perspectives of physical education and the shortcomings of effective teaching in the classroom. This author provided some key insights about lack of measurement for PE teacher effectiveness. In her conclusion Lindsay provided information that validated my logic in pursuing action research, with limited time and a lack of consensus of program goals, PE teachers should look to personal reflection and lifelong learning to determine their own effectiveness (2009). These two sources provided contrasting yet similar perspectives. One one hand they provided a macro and micro view of physical education, but on the other handthere was an emergence of a similar lack of knowledge and understanding by government, administrators, teachers. One question emerged from these two article How are they going to effectively implement a curriculum in physical education that ensures preparation of a healthy and physically active lifestyle, yet engages students in a way that they can critical think about their own physical activity? After some research, it was clear the the dominant model for PE was TGfU. TGfU Curriculum Planning. In order to gain an understanding of the curriculum model that is TGfU, two articles were reviewed. First was Butlers article titled, Curriculum constructions of ability: enhancing learning through teaching games for understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model (2006). The 5Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumsecond built upon the TGfU model to include game sense (GS). The article by Stolz & Pill (2014) titled, A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS, explains the acceptance of TGfU-GS in academia but not in PE teaching. Butlers Article is carefully written, building her argument and case to implementing a curriculum away from a solely traditional games in PE with an approach from a framework for extrinsic and social values from Jewett called the five value orientations: (1) disciplinary mastery, (2) self actualization, (3) social reconstruction, (4) learning process and (5) ecological integration. She carefully explains the type of curriculum offered by each of the five orientations and suggests that most physical education classrooms are currently using the Direct Instruction Model only focusing on skill attainment and following directions described by the value disciplinary mastery. The author challenges this notion and provides evidence for a paradigm shift to moving toward self discovery, exploration, observation and interaction.Butler breaks down TGfU curricular content into 4 parts: conceptual frameworks, purpose, objectives and outcomes. Firstly, since TGfU bases its conceptual framework around intent and skills there is more skills transfer between games. This was not clear or understandable, for someone not familiar with TGfU. Here is an example: most net games have similar intent of getting an object over a net and inside a boundary and most of the skills required to do this involve extension of the arm serve/return in tennis, serve/spike in volleyball, the attack is the same and the conceptual understanding of the game is similar. Secondly, purpose of the student in the TGfU model is to construct meaning in the situations they are placed in and make appropriate decisions. Thirdly, objective is to engage problem solving skills and integrate previously learned experiences not transfer teacher learned skills into a national sporting 6Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumsituation. Lastly, outcome is based on why particular responses are good and effective and how to implement them using the strengths of individuals and teams. After wrapping up curricular content it moved into the section I was most interested in, inventing games in the TGfU model. In the section on inventing the games, the author explains how the TGfU process works and how students contribute equitably in designing a game that it inclusive and enjoyable for everyone. Another article was cited and provides guidelines for students democratic process in creating games. She also provides questions for student evaluation when re-evaluating the games and their effectiveness inside of the lesson. She argues that this discussion and group autonomy over the game environment engages learners at many levels.The article concluded with 11 desired learning outcomes for an inventing games unit that will be used to shape teacher lesson planning for activity tasks. The author also provided concluding thoughts about how teachers are not aware of their value orientations and being conscious of these value orientations affords teachers direction and justification for actions inside our curriculum. This lead me to more research on competing teacher perspectives on what constitutes good PE? In Stolz & Pills article, the authors framed their discussion on the disagreements in PE teaching philosophies by using a narrative conversation between a physical education teacher educator (PETE) and an enquiring physical education teacher (EPET). This narrative highlighted the fundamental differences in approaching the physical education curriculum.Throughout the narrative, Stolz and Pills were successful in their attempt to provoke change in how we think in PE (2014).The use of narrative scripts really allowed the reader to engage in the content as if he/she was observing the conversation first hand. This literally technique is not often seen and it 7Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumwas used in a research article, which should be extremely effective when presenting a position. The authors intentions was clearly to discuss the use of TGfU-GS inside the PE classroom and by having an opposing voice it left the reader a better understanding of what TGfU-GS inside the classroom looks like and suggestions for how it can be effectively implemented.These two articles provided insight into what constitutes effective TGfU-(GS) curriculum. It highlights examples and delivery of teaching components while giving the reader an understanding of the theoretical context that explains the lack of TGfU adoption inside of schools. These theoretical under pinning and teaching components provide me with the resourcesneeded to build upon. Based on this knowledge, it is possible to create activities and curriculum that meets the demands of academics and teachers in the field. Wearable Devices in PE When exploring the literature about wearable devices, 2 articles were reviewed that focused on assessing physical activity and integrating technology into PE. The first article on assessing physical activity by Butte et al. (2012) provided the underlying physiological research that contributes to building wearable devices. They highlighted types of activity that can currently be measured with technology and provided evidence for activities to be measured in the future, while provided the limitations and room for improvement in the devices. In the article, the authors identified the six main categories of wearable as (1) pedometers, (2) load transducers/foot contact monitors (3) accelerometers (4) heart rate monitors (5) combined accelerometer/ heart rate monitors (6) Multiple sensor systems. The authors offer insight to the selection ofappropriate technology by suggesting, The selection of the 8Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumassessment tool depends on the physical activity component of interest, study objectives, characteristics of the target population, and the feasibility in terms of cost and logistics (Butte et al., 2009). This is supported by (Juniu et al, 2012) as they provided a resource reference that enables teachers to choose and integrate technology tools into the physical education classroom. They start first by making a statement about the design of the classroom. The authors message to educators is to plan first, then choose tech tools, later explaining affordances offered by following this method of technology integration. They direct the readers to a resources that divides physical activity into 56 learning types. These learning types are divided into physical fitness and motor skill; it is further examined by separating cognitive understanding (knowledge and application) and psychomotor development (practice and application). This will be used as a reference, when program planning and construction of the tasks specifically related to understanding wearable technology. Concluding thoughts on the Literature By choosing to focus my literature collection in three separate areas (PE teaching, TGfU Models, and Wearable technology) it was possible to have a specific understanding of each of the topics that will be incorporated in the study and also work on a well-designed action research. Research Method Description of Research The research being proposed is action research based on collecting qualitative data during a teachers Grade 9 Physical Education classes. The teacher will document his experiences in 9Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumimplementing a wearable technology component in all physical education classes using the TGfU curriculum model by videotaping his classroom and the participants in the classroom involved in their various activities (playing small sided games, focus group interviews) he will synthesize this information using Appendix C.The teacher will also administer and collect written student questionnaires as written in Appendix D.Data will be reviewed by a panel of PE teachers from the school district every month using Appendix E to allow the teacher/researcher to change components of the implementation to make it more refined.The overall aim of the researcher is to produce primary (participant-observer) information about the successes and failures of implementing wearable technology inside of a TGfU curriculum model. Participants Due to the nature of action research, the selection of participants in the research will be based on the teachers classroom for the given year. This creates a randomized sample population that is diverse in athletic ability and prior knowledge of wearable devices. This study will not allow for specific variables and relationships in the data to be measured. We expect that this research may provide the basis for those conversations and controlled quantitative sample studies may occur at a later date. As outlined by the video permission form in Appendix B, students and parents have the right to refuse to participate in the study. Exclusion will exist if the participant or participants parents are reluctant to sign the video release and consent form for the study that is provided as Appendix B. If this occurs all students who wish not to be recorded or videotaped will be placed in a focus group together to eliminate accidental participation in qualitative data points. 10Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum Instruments Three instruments will be used for collecting the qualitative data during the semester. These instruments are meant to measure students engagement in using their wearable device in the designed activities, students knowledge, and transfer of desired skills outside the classroom,. Collection of Field notes for play and focus group interviews via video will use Appendix C. Using video analysis of students to provide the descriptive notes and feedback (visual and audio) on the live video to provide reflections of observed behaviour. Student Questionnaires will be given as outlined by Appendix D. This is an attempt to eliminate group bias that could arise in the focus group interviews. Students will provide answers to questionnaires privately. This data will not be shared with peers and will be encouraged to be given critical thought. So that the students do not falsely report their qualitative data, it will explicitly be explained that negative feedback will not affect their mark. In fact it will be encouraged to allow students critical voice and autonomy in their learning.These data points will then be analyzed by the teacher and brought forward to monthly meetings with other PE teachers who will offer their critical insight into the research by using Appendix E. Procedure For the observational study with subjects under the age of 18 there is a sequential order the researcher must follow. The following is a list of items that are required to conduct this study: 1. Approval from the Ethics Board at UBC. 2. Approval from administrators and other stakeholders in the teachers school. 11Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum3. Gathering of PE teachers to form the review/advisory committee. 4. Forming the adapted TGfU units incorporating wearable technology for January. 5. Purchasing of wearable devices5. Administering and collecting consent forms for all participants After all of the above items are completed the study will begin. The study will take place inside of Mr. Peppers physical education Grade 9 Block A and B classrooms from January 2015 - June 2015 at Scott Creek Middle School.During this period of time, students will be expected to bring their wearable devices, provided by the school or their own, to all physical education classes. At the beginning of the semester students will be given focus groups. Each class will have 30-35 students.These groups will be divided into groups of 6. This number allows for 3 vs 3 gameplay.These focus groups will be labelled A-F in Class 1 and G-L in class 2. This is more clearly understood in Appendix F. At the beginning of every class, students will be given their assignments for their class. Inside of this assignment there will be a wearable technology component that students will have to consider. For example: How does the amount of steps you take relate to your efficiency of movement. Is there a way you can conserve energy and make your movements more efficient inside of gameplay? If so, how? If not, why?. This question will then be used to guide the focus of the video recording and assist in directing the conversation in the focus group interviews.After the data is collected, it will be synthesized by the teacher at the beginning of every week. The teacher will look at the wearable task assigned and evaluate whether or not (a) the 12Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumtask is appropriate and (b) if students are engaging in deep discussions and understanding about their PA and designing appropriate games. Research Design and Analysis The research design will centre around two key areas (1) the need for reflection of PE teacher practices using a common language or framework and (2) student engagement and transfer of knowledge to their everyday life in PA and PE.These problems were identified by the literature review (Butler, 2006; Lindsay, 2014; Pate & Buchner; 2014 Stolz & Pill, 2014). The workflow of this research is not linear in nature. The model for the research project can be easily explained by Appendix A and is adapted from Mills, The Dialectic action Research Spiral (2011). The design of this study is limited by time and size. It is short in duration (6 months) and have a limited sample size (60-70 students). This is for two reasons; (1) Practicality, this research is action research and the researcher will collect data that is informative, but manageable for them working as a full-time teacher. (2) Technology is/will be changing rapidly; with technology cycles shortening, recorded qualitative data and results need to be easy to understand, informative, and have a short turn around to allow others in the community to put the research into practice.The data will be collected everyday for a month using the instruments mentioned previously in the proposal. After the data is collected each month, it will be analyzed by a committee that will be formed from other physical educators and leaders in the school district. This has three goals (1) to engage physical educators in the local community into critical discourse around the discipline while providing leadership in TGfU models with technology 13Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumintegrations, (2) to try and remove bias from my own perspective as participant observer, (3) To hear suggestions for changes and improvements. Along with the committee members we will analyze the data into a simple monthly review that is designed to engage in the various data. By using model What? So What? Now What? in Appendix E it will allow critical thinking about what is documented (What?), what it means to the research and learning outcomes adopted from Butlers work on inventing games (So what?), what should be changed or adjusted (Now what?). Minutes for these meetings will be taken and used to create the final version of the article that will provide a summary of these meetings and a final conclusion that allows the reader to make an informed decision when using wearable technology in the classroom. Schedule of Activities To gain a better understanding a visual reference of when each of the instruments are used to collect data and when classes will take place refer to appendix F. Discussion Significance This study will be conducted using the TGfU Model as a framework for discussion. The TGfU model is becoming a widely recognized framework for Physical Educators to engage in Critical Discourse about the profession in a way that is objective (Stolz & Pill, 2014). By using this model, the author hopes to build on previous conversations, in Physical Education research, 14Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculumwhile adding an original voice inside the discipline. In order to have original voice I have attempted to try and meet the demands of all major stakeholders in the PA and PE. By trying to address all major stakeholders in the PE discipline and the PA mandates of governmental organizations, this study, and others that build from it, will be able to explore multiple avenues for funding. Research Funding is often funded by governments and non-profit organizations that want to see improvement in PA across states/provinces and countries. By linking and focusing on the relationship between PA, using wearable devices to track physical activity and PE, using TGfU models in the classroom, the researcher seeks to provide an academic and practical solution that all stakeholders can agree on and build from. 15Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU CurriculumReferences Bunker D., Thorpe R., & Almond R. (1986), Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough. Butler, J. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through teaching games for understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport Education and Society, 11(3), 243-258. doi:10.1080/13573320600813408 Butte, N. F., Ekelund, U., & Westerterp, K. R. (2012). Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: Measures of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,44(1 Suppl 1), S5-S12. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399c0e Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Juniu, S., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2012). Grounded technology integration: Physical education.Learning & Leading with Technology, 40(2), 34. Lindsay, E. L. (2014). Effective teaching in physical education: The view from a variety oftrenches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(1), 31-37. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2014.873330 16Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU CurriculumMills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.).Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mosier, B. (2014). Meeting PETE students in their world: Tracking physical activity throughtechnology. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(3), 46. Pate, R. R., Buchner, D. (2014). Implementing physical activity strategies: Put the nationalphysical activity plan into action with 42 proven programs. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics. Stolz, S. A., & Pill, S. (2014). A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS. Sport, Education and Society, , 1-23. doi:10.1080/13573322.2014.890930 17Appendix A: Action-Research Design 18Appendix B: Consent FormDate: January 5th,2014 - June 23rd, 2014 Study Name: How can Physical Educators effectively integrate wearable technologies into the TGFU curriculum? Researchers: Shaun Pepper, Scott Creek Middle School Physical Education Teacher/University of British Columbia (UBC) Researcher. Contact: shaunpepper@gmail.com or 604-653-9797. Purpose of the Research: To develop an understanding of how to effectively integrate wearable technology into Physical Education (PE) using a Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) model. What Participants Will Be Asked to Do in the Research: Students will be asked to fill out surveys, participate in videotaped instruction and play, and participate in small class focus group interviews with their teacher. Risks and Discomforts: We do not foresee any risks or discomfort from your participation in the research. Benefits of the Research and Benefits to You: This research is trying to provide resources for physical educators in Canada and internationally. By participating in this research, you will learn and understand how to use wearable technology efficiently and effectively, while allowing the researchers to improve teaching and program delivery so that learning is optimized for student needs and teacher outcomes. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you may choose to stop participating at any time.Your decision not to volunteer will not influence the nature of your relationship with Scott Creek Middle School or UBC either now, or in the future. Withdrawal from the Study:You can stop participating in the study at any time, for any reason, if you so decide.Your decision to stop participating, or to refuse to answer particular questions, will not affect your relationship with the researchers, UBC, Scott Creek Middle School, or any other group associated with this project. In the event you withdraw from the study, all associated data collected will be immediately destroyed wherever possible. Confidentiality: All information you supply during the research will be held in confidence and unless you specifically indicate your consent, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. The data will be collected by videotaped interviews/gameplay and written questionnaires. Your data will be safely stored in a locked facility and stored on private servers. Only research staff will have access to this information. The data will be kept in archive on the private server for other research staff and will be destroyed in 5 years time. Confidentiality will be provided to the fullest extent possible by law. 19Appendix B: Consent FormQuestions About the Research?If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact Shaun Pepper either by telephone at (604) 653-9797 or by e-mail (shaunpepper@gmail.com). This research has been reviewed and approved by the Human Participants Review Sub-Committee, University of British Columbia Ethics Review Board and conforms to the standards of the Canadian Tri-Council Research Ethics guidelines.If you have any questions about this process, or about your rights as a participant in the study, please contact UBC Office of Research Ethics, 210-828 West 10th Ave, Vancouver BC. Telephone (604-875-4111) or e-mail Laurel Evans (laurel.evans@ors.ubc.ca). Legal Rights and Signatures: I, consent to participate in How can Physical Educators effectively integrate wearable technologies into the TGFU curriculum? conducted by Shaun Pepper.I have understood the nature of this project and I wish to participate.I am not waiving any of my legal rights by signing this form.My signature below indicates my consent. SignatureDate Participant SignatureDate Parental Guardian SignatureDate Principal Investigator Note. Adapted from York University, 2009. 20Appendix C: Video Play Observations/ Focus Group Interviews Setting: Focus Group Observed: Observation #: Observer Involvement: TGFU Objective:Wearable Technology Task: Date/ Time:Place: Duration of Observation (Start/End times): Note. Adapted from Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (10th ed.). p.385. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Video Recording Clip Time Observationex: 1:05 ex: Participant in Black. takes more steps in his game play to try and maximize the distance travelled on his wearable device. 21Appendix D: Student Questionnaire Student Questionnaire Below is a list of skills that Mr. Pepper would like to transfer in the classroom. Put a check in front of each skill you think you will be able to do autonomously (by yourself) _calibrate wearable devices provided by the school. _calibrate your own wearable device. _download wearable data into the computer _analyze wearable data_provide suggestions for increasing or decreasing level of physical activity. _provide suggestion for increasing or decreasing physical activity while participating in TGfU small sided game principles. The following are a number of statements describing your focus groups use of wearable technology in the classroom. Read each statement and circle whether you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), are uncertain (U), disagree (D), or strongly disagree (SD). In my focus group wearable technology is used to: 2. determine the objective of the invented game 3. create discussions in every class 4. ask deep and rich questions to the teacher during focus group interviews 5. Regarding your wearable device, describe some skills that you would like to learn, but have not been included thus far in the classroom? 22 SAAUDSD SAAUDSD SAAUDSD Appendix D: Student Questionnaire 6. Do you use your wearable device outside of the classroom? if so, what do you use it for? Other comments: Note. Adapted from Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (10th ed.). p.385. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. 23Appendix E: Monthly Review Minutes Monthly Board Review Meetings Agenda and Questions Name of Secretary: Committee Members Present: Possible Topics for Discussion (from teacher analysis of collected data): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Minutes:Topic of Discussion (What)Impact on the research (So What)Suggestions (Now What) 24Appendix F: Monthly Schedule of Activities 25