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

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!1

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

Introduction
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 expect
similar 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
!2

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

prevalent 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.

!
!
!
!
!3

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

Critical review of the literature
Introduction to the Literature
Articles were reviewed from 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
!4

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

contextual 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 hand there 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
!5

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

second 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
!6

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

situation. 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
!7

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

was 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 resources
needed 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 of appropriate technology by suggesting, The selection of the
!8

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

assessment 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
!9

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

implementing 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.

!
!10

Integrating 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.
!11

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

3. 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 devices
5. 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

!12

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

task 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
!13

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

integrations, (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,

!14

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

while 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.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!15

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

References
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 of
trenches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(1), 31-37. doi:
10.1080/02701367.2014.873330

!
!16

Integrating Wearable Technology Inside of a TGFU Curriculum

Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

!
Mosier, B. (2014). Meeting PETE students in their world: Tracking physical activity through
technology. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(3), 46.

!
Pate, R. R., Buchner, D. (2014). Implementing physical activity strategies: Put the national
physical activity plan into action with 42 proven programs. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

!
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

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!17

Appendix A: Action-Research Design

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!18

Appendix B: Consent Form

Date: 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.

!19

Appendix B: Consent Form

Questions 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.

!
!

Signature
Participant

Date

Signature
Parental Guardian

Date

Signature
Principal Investigator

Date

!
!
!

!
!
Note. Adapted from York University, 2009.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!20

Appendix 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):

!!

Video Recording Clip Time

Observation

ex: 1:05

ex: Participant in Black. takes more steps in his

game play to try and maximize the distance
travelled on his wearable device.

!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.

!21

Appendix 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

SA A U D SD

3. create discussions in every class

SA A U D SD

4. ask deep and rich questions to the teacher during focus group
interviews

SA A U D SD

!
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

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.
!23

Appendix 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:

!
!24

Topic of Discussion
(What)

Impact on the
research (So What)

Suggestions (Now
What)

Appendix F: Monthly Schedule of Activities

!
!

!25