When wearable devices first appeared in physical education (PE) classes, many teachers hoped they would spark lasting motivation. But do students actually see value in strapping on an accelerometer and doing homework for “gym”? I conducted a mixed-methods study to explore just that, examining 221 U.S. middle schoolers who completed a 12-lesson “Fitness Integrated with Technology” (F.I.T.) unit built around MOVband wrist-worn accelerometers. Thirteen students were later interviewed to capture their voices. Here’s what the research tells us.
Headline Results
Initial excitement fades quickly. Students liked the novelty of the wrist-worn trackers, but many stopped wearing them once the bands felt bulky, had to be removed for sports (e.g. swimming, lacrosse), or needed daily charging (short battery life).
Homework met resistance. Five homework tasks (goal setting, math graphing, reflection writing, fitness plans, and a collage) were offered. The creative collage—ironically the only task not tied to tech—was by far the most popular; traditional written or data analysis assignments were largely ignored.
Data can motivate—but only some students, some of the time. High activity students used step counts competitively—raising daily goals from 10,000 to 15,000 moves—while others said the numbers simply confirmed what they already knew about their activity habits.
What the Discussion Adds
Using the Theory of Planned Behavior as a lens, the authors explain why uptake varied:
Attitude: Most participants liked PE itself, yet attitude toward the device changed from “cool” to “annoying” as novelty waned. Homework perceived as irrelevant (“pretty stupid that you had to do a collage for gym”) provoked especially negative attitudes.
Subjective Norms: Peer interest in the MOVband created early social pressure to wear it, but rules that banned trackers during competitions or swimming (it wasn’t water proof) undercut that momentum. Without visible “credit,” students left their devices at home.
Perceived Behavioral Control: Syncing issues, lack of Internet access, and parental restrictions at home made some students feel the tech was more hassle than help—a barrier strong enough to derail engagement altogether with some students.
Together, these factors shaped intention: students who liked the tech and found it easy to use and felt others valued it were the ones who kept wearing the band and analyzing their data. Many others drifted away.
Key Takeaways for Teachers & Program Designers
Design for durability, not novelty. A flashy gadget may hook students, but comfort, waterproofing and “set-and-forget” syncing may keep them wearing it. For instance, I now wear the Whoop band myself. It charges on my wrist, it works when I am sleeping and tracks on my iPhone app. I forget about it- and then I get a pop up alert on my phone. The Whoop is MUCH different than the MovBand (also much more expensive and requires a smart phone).
Homework must feel authentic. Tasks that let students express themselves (e.g., image-based collages) landed far better than worksheets or essays.
Leverage social features wisely. Anonymous class leaderboards gave competitive students a nudge, but teachers should watch for shame or disengagement among less active or already disengaged youth.
Support access outside school. Build in class upload stations and offline viewing options to avoid the home tech divide.
Rotate technology roles. Use trackers for goal setting one week, game design the next, and data storytelling after that to counteract the novelty drop off.
Bottom Line
Wearables can enrich PE, but only when the technology stays invisible enough to let movement and enjoyment take center stage. The F.I.T. unit shows that student voice is essential: ask them early, tweak often, and remember that sometimes a low-tech poster beats a high-tech dashboard. My goal was to use tech to teach what a physically active day was, it was partially fulfilled. I learned a lot from this research, and I haven’t used accelerometers to track PA since this project (so read into that as much as you’d like)!
Full Article:
Marttinen, R., Daum, D., Fredrick, R., Santiago, J*., & Silverman, S. (2019). Students’ perceptions of technology integration during the F.I.T. Unit. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90(2), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1578328
This blog post was written with the assistance of AI to support clarity and accessibility. It is intended to help disseminate and discuss research findings with a broader audience. However, for the most accurate and reliable information—including conclusions and practical applications—please refer to the original peer-reviewed publication on which this blog is based. The peer-reviewed article remains the most authoritative source.