Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 18, Issue 1–2, pp 39–63 | Cite as

Digital Physical Activity Data Collection and Use by Endurance Runners and Distance Cyclists

Article

Abstract

The introduction of sensor technologies to sports has allowed athletes to quantify and track their performance, adding an information-based layer to athletic practices. This information layer is particularly prevalent in practices involving formal competition and high levels of physical endurance, such as biking and running. We interviewed 20 athletes who participated in distance cycling or endurance running and also had experience using these technologies. This paper presents two cases and a number of shorter descriptive examples from these interviews that illustrate the factors salient to the introduction of these athletes to their respective sports, their continued participation in running or cycling, and their use of physical activity data. The effects of these data and logging practices among these individuals are examined, including some of the tensions that these athletes have with respect to quantifications of their performance and how they see themselves as athletic individuals in light of the increased presence of digital data. Educational implications are also discussed.

Keywords

Physical activity data Fitness tracking Quantified self Bicycling Identity Running Bike computers Affinity spaces Sensors 

References

  1. Azevedo, F. (2011). Lines of practice: A practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ching, C. C., & Foley, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). Constructing the self in a digital world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  7. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2012). Navigating life as an avatar: The shifting identities-in-practice of a girl player in a tween virtual world. In C. C. Ching & B. J. Foley (Eds.), Constructing the self in a digital world (pp. 222–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From The Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halverson, E. R., & Halverson, R. (2008). Fantasy baseball: The case for competitive fandom. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 286–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Cook, M. S. (2010). Your second selves: Avatar designs and identity play. Games and Culture, 5(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanter, D., Sherin, B., & Lee, V. (2006). Changing conceptual ecologies in task-structured science curricula. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 293–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, V. R. (2013). Knowing and learning with technology (and on wheels!): An introduction to the special issue. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. doi:10.1007/s10758-013-9204-2.
  19. Lee, V. R., & Drake, J. (2012). Physical activity data use by technoathletes: Examples of collection, inscription, and identification. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 2, pp. 321–325). Sydney, NSW: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, V. R., & DuMont, M. (2010). An exploration into how physical activity data-recording devices could be used in computer-supported data investigations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 167–189. doi:10.1007/s10758-010-9172-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, V. R., & Thomas, J. M. (2011). Integrating physical activity data technologies into elementary school classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 865–884. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9210-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. McDougall, C. (2009). Born to run: A hidden tribe, superathletes, and the greatest race the world has never seen. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  24. Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179. doi:10.1080/10508400801986108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noss, R., Pozzi, S., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Touching epistemologies: Meanings of average and variation in nursing practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.Google Scholar
  27. Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 149–166. doi:10.1080/17439880701343337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2009). Children’s self documentation and understanding of the concepts ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1953–1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivera-Pelayo, V., Zacharias, V., Müller, L., & Braun, S. (2012). Applying quantified self approaches to support reflective learning. In S. Dawson & C. Hathornwaite (Eds.), LAK ‘12 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 111–114). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherin, B. (2001). A comparison of programming and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, B. K., Frost, J., Albayrak, M., & Sudhakar, R. (2006). Facilitating narrative medical discussions of type 1 diabetes with computer visualizations and photography. Patient Education and Counseling, 64, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stefani, R. (2012). Olympic swimming gold: The suit or the swimmer in the suit? Significance, 9(2), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson, D. G. (2004). Bicycling science (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wu, H., & Kracjik, J. S. (2006). Inscription practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology and Learning SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations