This paper connects the technological practice of activity monitor gaming to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) science and engineering practice of “analyzing and interpreting data,” and to the foundational constructionist idea of personal meaning. In our larger study, eighth-grade students, ages 12–14, wore physical activity monitor devices for approximately four months, encountered their own and peers’ data on device displays and dashboards, and played a game designed by the project team that converted their device data into game bonuses and player actions. The analysis for this article examined focus groups and individual interviews with students from the project to determine alignment between students’ thinking and the NGSS “analyzing and interpreting data” practices for grades 6–8: considering limitations related to measurement accuracy and error, measurement tools, and appropriateness of the data collection model. The analysis also identified what types of student experiences and reflections could be characterized as constructionist components of knowledge generation and knowledge reformulation, both of which are key to NGSS recommendations around finding “relevance” in data. Findings revealed that while students engaged in all three types of consideration, as well as creating meaningful interpretations of pattern identification and reasoning from evidence, their reflections and insights did not, for the most part, lead to actionable understandings. Our results have implications for implementing activity monitor technologies and practices in science education, particularly in regard to student meaning and motivation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Science and Engineering Practices are thematically stranded throughout NGSS documents, but they are all consolidated and described in detail in Appendix F, which is where most of the citations and page number quotes in this article come from.
The device used in this study was the Fitbit Zip, which is no longer widely available. More expensive, wrist-mounted devices with integrated heart-rate monitors are now much more common.
Conversations with students often referenced the commercial name of the device (“Fitbit”), but transcripts have been reprinted here with more generic terms (“device,” “activity monitor,” etc.)
The research team excluded these “unlikely” step totals (more than 30 k in one day) from device data analysis in the larger project.
All student names have been changed.
Physical Education (“PE”), also internationally sometimes called “Gym” or “Sport.”
Anderson, J. L., & Wall, S. D. (2016). Kinecting physics: Conceptualization of motion through visualization and embodiment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 161–173.
Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2012). Influencing individually: Fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(2), 9–11.
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.
Boyce, C. J., Mishra, C., Halverson, K. L., & Thomas, A. K. (2014). Getting students outside: Using technology as a way to stimulate engagement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 815–826.
Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). Investigating flow experience and scientific practices during a mobile serious educational game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 795–805.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Ching, C. C., & Schaefer, S. (2014). Identities in motion, identities at rest: Engaging bodies and minds in fitness gaming research and design. In V. Lee (Ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation (pp. 201–219). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ching, C. C., Stewart, M., Hagood, D., & Rashedi, R. (2016). Representing and reconciling personal data in a wearable technology gaming project. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 342–353.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Consolvo, S., Landay, J. A. & McDonald, D. W. (2009) Designing for behavior change in everyday life. Computer 2009, 85–89.
Contento, I. R., Manning, A. D., & Shannon, B. (1992). Research perspective on school-based nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education, 24(5), 247–260.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149–160.
Delen, I., & Krajick, J. (2015). What do students’ explanations look like when they use second-hand data? International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1953–1973.
Ensign, T. I., Rye, J. A., & Luna, M. J. (2017). Embedding probeware technology in the context of ocean acidification in elementary science methods courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 646–656.
Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don't show nothing I didn’t know: Emergent tensions between culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 139–174.
Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reitsma, R., Roux, K., Salmonsen, L., & Marra, P. P. (2005). The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 589–594.
Evenson, K. R., Goto, M. M., & Furberg, R. D. (2015). Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 159.
Falloon, G. (2017). Mobile devices and apps as scaffolds to science learning in the primary classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 613–628.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Fritz, T., Huang, E. M., Murphy, G. C., & Zimmermann, T. (2014). Persuasive technology in the real world: A study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 487-496). ACM.
Gardner, P. J., & Campagna, P. D. (2011). Pedometers as measurement tools and motivational devices: New insights for researchers and practitioners. Health promotion practice, 12(1), 55–62.
Goodyear, V. A., Armour, K. M., & Wood, H. (2018). Young people learning about health: The role of apps and wearable devices. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–18.
Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725–1751.
Jarke, J., & Breiter, A. (2019). The datafication of education. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 1–6.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Ablex Publishing.
Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M. L., Ching, C. C., & Shih, J. C. (1998). Games as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.
Kang, M., Marshall, S., Barriera, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Effect of pedometer-based physical activity interventions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 648–655.
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Perry, J. (2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 285–297.
Kornbluh, M., Ozer, E. J., Allen, C. D., & Kirshner, B. (2015). Youth participatory action research as an approach to sociopolitical development and the new academic standards: Considerations for educators. The Urban Review, 47(5), 868–892.
Lee, V. R. (2013). The Quantified Self (QS) movement and some emerging opportunities for the educational technology field. Educational Technology, (November- December 2013), 39.
Lee, H. S., & Butler-Songer, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9172-8.
Lee, V. R., & Wilkerson, M. (2018). Data use by middle and secondary students in the digital age: A status report and future prospects. Commissioned Paper for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Science Education, Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades 6-12. Washington, D.C.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children’s understanding of math and science. Teachers College Press.
Li, I. (2009). Beyond counting steps: using context to improving monitoring of physical activity. Proceedings of Ubiquitous Computing 2009.
McFriedes, P. (2014). Tracking the Quantified Self (technically speaking). Spectrum IEEE, 5, 24.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: The National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Envisioning the handheld-centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 281–294.
Peckenham, J. M., Thornton, T., & Peckenham, P. (2012). Validation of student generated data for assessment of groundwater quality. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 287–294.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.
Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. Routledge.
Rye, J. A., Zizzi, S. J., Vitullo, E. A., & Tompkins, N. O. H. (2005). The pedometer as a tool to enrich science learning in a public health context. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5), 521–531.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.
Stewart, M., Hagood, D., & Ching, C. C. (2017). Virtual games and real-world communities: Environments that enable and constrain physical activity in games for health. International Journal of Game-Based Learning.
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 177–193.
Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning: Use of mobile media devices among youth. Convergence, 18(4), 445–464.
Swan, M. (2012). Sensor mania! The Internet of Things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 1(3), 217–253.
Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 89–95.
Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1-2), 65–93.
White, T., Booker, A., Ching, C. C., & Martin, L. (2012). Integrating digital and mathematical practices across contexts: A manifesto for mobile learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3, 7–13.
Williamson, B., & Piattoeva, N. (2018). Objectivity as standardization in data-scientific education policy, technology and governance (pp. 1–13). Media and Technology: Learning.
Wolf, G. (2010). The data-driven life. The New York Times, 28.
Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Inscriptional 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.
Our game design partner on Terra is Funomena Inc., led by Robin Hunicke and Martin Middleton, with principal programming by Ted Aronson and art by Glenn Hernandez. Thanks are due also to the participating school, teacher, and students for their cooperation and their insights.
This study was funded by two grants from the National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate, Cyberlearning Program, IIS 1451446 and IIS 1217317.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, and from their parents, since students were minors at the time of data collection.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Ching, C.C., Hagood, D. Activity Monitor Gaming and the Next Generation Science Standards: Students Engaging with Data, Measurement Limitations, and Personal Relevance. J Sci Educ Technol 28, 589–601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09789-5
- Next Generation Science Standards
- Data interpretation
- Physical sensors
- Student data collection