technology, participation and coaching

0 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Thirdly, Market Leaders (n=6) of prominent app designers .... To do this, six Market Leaders in coaching technology ...... Smart clothing provides advanced bio.
© Mooshny/Shutterstock.com

TECHNOLOGY, PARTICIPATION AND COACHING Final Report March 2016

sports coach UK project in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University Report prepared by: Dr Amy Whitehead Liverpool John Moores University Email: [email protected] Professor David Morley Liverpool John Moores University Laura Quayle Liverpool John Moores University

3

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

INTRODUCTION Why we conducted the research What we aimed to achieve What we evaluated Key definitions

5 5 5 5 5

APPROACH Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change Seven key concepts for effective apps

6 6 7

RESPONSE TO TECHNOLOGY USE KEY FINDINGS Types of technology used Purpose of technology use

8 9 9 9

FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SEVEN KEY CONCEPTS Feedback Goal setting Self-learning Self-directed and remote coaching technologies

10 11 12 12 13

RELATIONSHIP TO FACE-TO-FACE COACHING Current positioning of technology in sport and physical activity coaching environments Technology as a facilitator for seeking face-to-face coaching Likelihood to seek a coach Supporting the coach

14 14 15 16 16

LIMITATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY USE IN SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Simplicity and ease of use Interaction with professional or peers Requirements of sport Understanding what technology is available

17 18 18 19 19

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Recommendations

20 20 21

REFERENCES

22

APPENDICES Project Team Survey demographics Additional findings Market Leader case studies

23 23 24 25 32

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aims

Relationship to face-to-face coaching

This report provides a comprehensive exploration of the use of technology within sport and physical activity (PA), its impact on sport participation and the potential interface to traditional face-to-face coaching environments.

Active participants in the action/maintenance stage of technology use have reported that using technology reduces the likelihood of them seeking face-to-face coaching. However, 5 out of 6 Market Leaders have emphasised that their app based technology is designed to facilitate and work alongside a coach rather than completely replace one. Overall, there was a generalised view that technology can act as facilitator in the transition between independent activity and face-to-face coaching.

Methods Two main conceptual frameworks underpinned the research; (i) the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (TTM) that identifies stages of participant engagement in sport or physical activity related to the use of technology, and (ii) a tailoring key concepts model for effective smartphone apps [1]. A mixed methods research approach was employed to facilitate a more robust triangulation of data for analysis. Firstly, an initial survey (n=593) was used to capture participants' perspectives on the use of technology. Secondly, follow-up interviews were conducted with 35 purposefully sampled participants, selected in relation to their position on the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change, as identified from survey responses. Thirdly, Market Leaders (n=6) of prominent app designers were involved in semi-structured interviews, which provided an insight into the purpose, objectives and motivational factors.

Findings Three of the key tailoring concepts featured prominently in our survey and were also reported to be important in participant and market leader interviews. These three concepts were:   

Feedback Goal setting Self-learning

Further findings revealed that active participants, in the action/maintenance stage of technology use, believed that technology can be used to improve knowledge and enhance participation and they would recommend technology use to others.

Limitations to using technology The main barriers reported were related to the technology being difficult to use and understand. Therefore, those who did not use technology reported that support guides, making the technology simple, and online tutorials would increase their likelihood of using technology to facilitate their sport or physical activity.

Recommendations For those actively using technology, it is recommended that coaches become familiar with the technologies and work with participants ‘remotely’. In addition, for individuals not engaging in technology use, coaches could provide user friendly technology workshops, which could provide both coaching support and technology support.

5

INTRODUCTION Why we conducted the research

KEY DEFINITIONS

There is limited research exploring: the use of technology by sport and physical activity participants; the impact of technology in the way it supports participation; and how technology is used to support coaching.

Key definitions have been used within this report have been constructed around participant views of the following terms:

sports coach UK commissioned this research to explore the usage and benefits of technology within sport participation and sport coaching.

scoring, rules and an outcome that cannot be predetermined, as key components of participation. Sports have been categorised into: Team, individual, combat, and net games.

What we aimed to achieve 1) To develop a comprehensive understanding of ‘sports and physical activity participation and coaching technologies’. 2) To understand the impact the use of technology has in providing a platform for progression to traditional face-to-face coaching.

What we evaluated Participant use of technology To gain an awareness of how technology is currently used within sport and physical activity participation, the research team conducted a nationwide survey that asked participants to provide information on their current level of sport and physical activity participation and use of technology within these activities. Following completion of the survey, 35 respondents were contacted and a follow up interview was conducted to collect additional information of their experiences of technology usage.

Sport: involves activities that have competition,

Physical Activities: involves activities undertaken on a recreational/leisurely basis for the purpose of improving health, fitness, and personal wellbeing. Includes active travel (walking/cycling), recreational running, recreational cycling, gym activities etc. Key definitions have been used within this report have been constructed from previous research:

Self-directed Coaching Technologies: Informal learning used to support an individual in personal [2], development sport participation and performance. Technologies may include, but are not limited to, a mobile app, wearable technology or online platforms (YouTube etc.) that support self-awareness, planning, analysis and reflection.

Remote Coaching Technologies: Receiving long-distance coaching via electronic or online [3] mediums , targeted to improve learning and performance, including discussion and increasing awareness of individual technique, applied understanding and achievement of goals.

Whilst gaining understanding of applied use, it was also of great importance to explore the development and overarching aims of the coaching technologies. This information could then be used to triangulate with user responses to identify any gaps or differences of opinion. To do this, six Market Leaders in coaching technology were interviewed.

© Craig Brough/Action Images Limited

Market Leaders

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

APPROACH Both the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (TTM) and seven key concepts for effective smartphone technologies [1] have been used to design and underpin this project.

Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (TTM) The Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (TTM) acts as an integrative method of understanding the intentional change in individual [4, 5] behaviour over a prolonged period of time . There are five key stages of the TTM that track the habitual behaviour change of individuals: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. Action/maintenance groups for both participation in sport and physical activity, and technology use have been combined due to both groups exhibiting frequent levels of participation and use. Furthermore, both groups presented extremely similar data in the survey and follow-up interview.

‘Non-active’ participants were not asked to identify their current stage of technology use within the survey due to not being currently active in sport or physical activity. Throughout the report, action/maintenance to Sport and Physical Activity participation will be referred to as ‘Active’ (see Table 1). TTM terms are then used in reference to ‘Active’ participants’ technology use (i.e. Active - AMa, Active - P, Active - C and Active - PC, see Table 1). All other participants are referred to as ‘Non-Active’.

The TTM has been used to identify two stages of behaviour: 1) Stage of sport and/or physical activity ‘participation’ 2) Stage of ‘technology use’

Table 1. An outline of the TTM identifying both ‘participation’ and ‘technology use’ definitions, and the related terminologies that have been used within this project. Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change Action/ Maintenance

Sport and Physical Activity Participation Term Definition used

‘Active’

Regular and sustained participation in sport or physical activity – participants in this stage intend to continue to maintain their behaviour

‘Nonactive’

Individuals getting ready and determined to start participating in sport or physical activity having made initial steps towards participating, e.g. acquired or purchased the relevant clothing etc. for the activity The participant has thought about participating in sport or PA and is intending on doing so in future however has not currently engaged. Participants in this stage can recognise their current level of behaviour and understand need for change Individuals do not foresee change to their behaviour in the foreseeable future and may not recognise a need for change

Preparation

Contemplation

Precontemplation

Technology use Term used

Definition

ActiveAMa

Regular use of technology within sport and physical activity participation

Active-P

The participant has acquired or purchased technology but has not used it within their sport or PA

Active-C

The participant has thought about using technology to engage participation but has not currently purchased

Active-PC

The participant is not interested in using technology within their sport or PA and does not intend to do so in the future

6

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

© Kaspers Grinvalds/Shutterstock.com

7

Seven key concepts for effective apps [1] Previous research suggests that sports technologies, such as smartphone apps, that aim to engage and change the behaviour of the consumer should involve [1] appropriate tailoring . This research presents seven tailoring concepts and the relationship to the communication properties of tailoring. op den Akker [1] et al.’s tailoring concepts have formed a basis for both data capture and analysis. The seven key tailoring concepts are:

Feedback – Involves presenting individuals with information about themselves, obtained during assessment and use of the technology.

Inter-human interaction – Support for any form of interaction with other real human beings. This may be built in support to contact professionals or peers, share information about performance or any built in support to contact the user to provide support or advice about the activity.

Adaptation – Tailored specific messages for specific individuals depending on what information or demographics they have initially provided. For example, a user in the earlier stages of behaviour change may receive different direct messages to those in the later stages.

User targeting – Aims to personalise the use of the technology by using the name of the user and recognizing the recipient’s birthday.

Goal setting – imperative in that people are more likely to change behaviour if goals are set which are [6] specific and achievable .

Context awareness – a tailoring concept that can be used in various ways to tailor timing, content and/or representation of communication instances.

Self-learning – technology that can update its internal model of the user by recording progress over time. By doing this targets can continually change and develop the user further through the behaviour change continuum. [1]

Figure 1. op den Akker et al.’s seven key tailoring concepts for effective smartphone technologies.

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

RESPONSE TO TECHNOLOGY USE 553 ‘Active’ participants: 68% 9% 15% 8%

in the action/maintenance stage (AMa) of technology use in the preparation stage (P) of technology use in the contemplation stage (C) of technology use in the precontemplation stage (PC) of technology use

68% ‘Active’ participants maintaining engagement in technology

94%

© Peter Bernik/Shutterstock.com

593

‘Active participants in COMPLETED sport/physical activity

66% ‘Nonactive’ -participants would use technology

9

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

KEY FINDINGS

Type of technology used

Purpose of technology use

Active-AMa participants identified the type of technology used. A combined response of smartphone and webbased information from all active users reported both were the most commonly use technologies within sport and physical activity participation.

Active- AMa survey participants identified that they primarily used technology to collect specific data and for motivational purposes. The use of technology supporting fitness was also ranked highly within the survey. However, it could be suggested that this type of participation is undertaken on an individual basis, as using technology as a group training tool was th reported as the 8 least frequent use of technology.

Figure 2: Active-AMa response to type of technology predominantly used. (n=378).

Figure 3: Purpose to use technology for Active-AMa participants. (n=378).

15%

21%

6% 11%

17%

14%

4%

9%

19% 19%

17% 10%

17% 6%

Smartphone/tablet apps Web-based information Technical info from online videos GPS enabled devices Remote feedback and input from coach Social media Wearable technology Other

Key Finding: Active-AMa participants predominantly used smartphone/tablet apps. In addition the primary purpose to use technology was a combination of collecting physical data, collecting performance data, and to selfmotivate

12%

Collect physical data Compare results As a tool to motivate Pick up technical information Group training tool Collect performance data Fitness purposes Communicate with coach/instructor Other

43% FEMALE

BREAKDOWN OF MALE AND FEMALE ACTIVE-AMa USERS OF TECHNOLOGY

57% MALE

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SEVEN KEY CONCEPTS [1] The following section provides an overview of three key themes related to app design that emerged from the participant survey, follow-up interviews, and Market Leader interviews: Feedback, Goal setting, and Self-learning. In addition, an understanding of the relationship between the use of technology and face-to-face coaching is presented.

Key Finding: Differences in TTM stages of technology use and preference to key concepts.

© guteksk7/Shutterstock.com

   

Active-AMa = ‘Tailoring and context awareness’ Active-P = ‘Goal setting’ Active-C = ‘Self-learning’ Active-PC = ‘Personalisation’

10

11

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Figure 4: Overall response to ‘What would make participants more willing or likely to use technology?’ (n=574).

19%

20%

19% Feedback

16%

Inter-human interaction User targeting

10% 7%

8%

Goal setting Context awareness Adaptation Self-learning

Feedback [1]

Providing feedback according to op den Akker et al. involves the capability for participants to receive individualised information about their performance, which is gathered through the technology. For example, Athos tracks and records muscle movement through an exercise in real time, and provides feedback data to inform participants of training mechanisms to support their performance. Overall data from the first phase of the project (survey) can be found at the top of page 17, and identifies feedback as the fourth most important concept across all stages of active participant - technology use.

“It’s at least consistent for me as an individual.” – Active-AMa of technology use

“Athos will tell you what you need to do well and what you need to improve on and so we help people be more engaged and more efficient in their activities... I think there’s a motivating factor to that and I think as our product evolved it'll be more motivating and competitive.” Athos “I think appropriate feedback such as the quantifiable data provided within apps is incredibly important, and is at the heart of what we do.” Strava

“It is really useful, you can see your fitness improving, I need that because that motivates me if I don’t figures that I’m improving I’ll just get demotivated.” – Active-P of technology use

Active-C of technology use

“Keeping you informed and letting you know how well you're doing.” – Non-active-would consider technology Izf/Shutterstock.com ©©Izf/Shutterstock.com

“You can see which training zones you’re in, and if you're maximizing your effort.” –

12

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Goal setting There is previous suggestion indicating that goal setting [6] is imperative , in that people are more likely to change behaviour if goals are set which are specific and achievable. For example, Market Leader Strava, provides targeting and goal setting measures with their app.

“People often misunderstand goal setting as something that has to take time, or long periods to cover, but goals can be within a task or training session.” CoachCam

Survey data reported that goal setting is the third most important concept of smartphone apps most likely to allow participants to use technology more readily.

“You think OK, this week I’ve managed to do 65000 steps ok next month what I’m going to do is set a target of 75000, and increase it all the time.” – Active-AMa of technology use

“I think it’s just in general, if you're gonna be doing something with an app you have to have a goal towards, and they're just really good for keeping you on your objectives really.” – Active-P of technology use

“It [technology] gives you something to work towards, motivates you and you could even set goals from that information.” – Active-C of

“Think it’s gotta help with either goal setting process.” – Non-active-would consider technology

technology use

Self-learning Response from the survey shows the importance for technology to have the ability to learn about the progress of the participant as a high influencing factor for individuals. This was evident by active participants, using, or willing to use technology. And was ranked the second most important concept. This was deemed an important factor by the survey participants, however it was not fully acknowledged in the Market Leader interviews. However, some Market Leaders did identify how the development of their technology will aim to learn with the user. Development of technologies to engage participation in sport or physical activity through the technology learning and providing adapted and motivational programmes was also highlighted for future development.

“We were missing the personalised training programme element, but this was launched last week actually, and the training programme, it takes your previous performance into account, so it learns.” Under Armour

“The technology that I currently use only tracks my data, but it doesn’t do anything with it, it would be cool if it did.” – Active-AMa of

“If it [the technology] learns about me and how I’m improving, it might motivate me to work harder.” – Active-

technology use

C of technology use

“I think I would want the technology to help me set goals as I get better.” –

© Mooshny/Shutterstock.com

Active-C of technology use

Key Finding: The technology needs to learn about the participant and set appropriate goals in order to aid development.

13

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Self-directed and remote coaching technologies Use of technology to support both self-directed (i.e. technology used independently) and remote coaching (i.e. technology used to support distance coaching) was evidenced in both the survey, and Market Leader interviews. As seen in figure 5, use of technology to both ‘act as a coach’ and ‘provide data for a coach’ reported similar responses indicating that the use of technology is variable and dependent on the needs of the user. Figure 5: Identifying overall purpose to use technology by all active participants. (n=554).

17%

16%

14%

12%

12%

11%

10%

8%

Useful data

Supports motivation

Enhances performance

Improves technique

Acts as a coach

Data for coach

Enhances fitness

Social interaction

Self-directed Coaching

17%

16% 14% 12%

12%

11%

10% 8%

Remote Coaching

The technology allows independence

“We actually provide a coaching element, on your mobile device, what you did well, what you’re going to do next time, we’re providing answers not just a data point.” Athos

“If you’re able to video yourself and use them as classic examples or ideas for performance, and compare yourself to that, then it enables another level of self-teach.” CoachCam

Collect physical and performance data

REMOTE COACHING

SELF-DIRECTED COACHING

Smartphone and web-based mediums

Limited use to communicate with a coach/instructor

“Coaches can’t be with their clients all the time, so it’s a way of tracking the activity for their [the participants] coaches to see what they're doing.” Strava

“I have five students; I don't need to be on the course as they play, and i can still track their performance and see how they're playing...Coaches get a notification to their phone or email." Game Golf

14

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

88% - ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS VIEWED TECHNOLOGY AS BEING IMPORTANT IN SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Improves knowledge

(74%) Enhances participation

(63%) Supports actively seeking face-to-face coaching

© Mike Dale

(28%)

RELATIONSHIP TO FACE-TOFACE COACHING

Current positioning of technology in sport and physical activity coaching environments

CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY IN SPORT/PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTS

The overarching purpose of technology, and use by participants was examined in relation to face-to-face coaching. Through follow-up interviews, participants across the TTM for technology use provided suggestions relating to how technology may influence their relationship with face-to-face coaching. Participants reported that technology can both support the coach and substitute the coach in some instances. “The coaching of an athlete should not be confined to fitness tracking, so we’re putting in place all the components that should be included in an integrated fitness management platform. Our platform allows a holistic approach that includes fitness, activity, sleep and nutrition and about how you [the participant] feel, which is really difficult to track. So by integrating all these pieces together, the technology will help us achieve a more integrated coaching. It is going to be 24h coaching instead of individual moments." Under Armour

REPLACING THE COACH

“I think just as a role it [the technology] plays a good role in it, it’s like a lighter version of coaching isn't it?” – Active-P of technology use

“There’s a huge amount of people motivating you in a way that technology can't.” – Active-C of technology use

“It takes a lot of input [the technology] and sometimes it can take away the human, erm, or the humanity of your interaction because people can be constantly on apps and enter data.” – Non-active-would consider technology

SUPPORTING THE COACH

15

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Technology as a facilitator for seeking face-to-face coaching

DISAGREE: n = 145 participants

(32%)

NEUTRAL: n = 179 participants

(40%)

AGREE: n = 126 participants

(28%)

Figure 6: Breakdown of active participants, who agreed technology had a place in sport or physical activity, identifying whether technology use would encourage them seek face-to-face coaching. (n=450).

© Valeriy Velikov/Shutterstock.com

WOULD USING TECHNOLOGY MAKE YOU SEEK FACE-TO-FACE COACHING?

Key Finding: Out of 450 survey respondent who were active and acknowledged that technology has a place in sport and physical activity, only 28% agreed using technology would encourage them to seek face-to-face coaching.

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Likelihood to seek a coach Participants suggested that the use of technology in sport and physical activity environments could potentially be a replacement for face-to-face coaching. “I don’t have to commit to a club, I just do it when I can and then erm, like once it’s done it’s done.” – Active-AMa of technology use

“If you're doing something like running where it’s not too hard to get the technique down, and you've just got to be self-motivated really, I think a personal coaching app would be fine.” – Active-P of technology use

16

“For day to day life, and Mr and Mrs Smith, technology can replace coaching, because they are the guys who would probably not envisage having a personal coach unlike performance athletes. There is still a lot of coaching done on paper today, so technology will allow recording, tracking, monitoring and provide feedback in absence of a coach…as you know in sport, there is more than just the activity - there is the mentoring element. There are plenty of platforms trying to do that now. This is going to replace a real coaching the next 5-10 years. Currently, you still need someone and not something, telling you what to do, or and listen to you. So, for mass market people, yes, current technology can definitely address most of the needs. For top athletes, both technology and a real coach are required.” Under Armour

Key Finding: 75% of active technology users interviewed stated that using technology would make them less likely to seek face-to-face coaching.

Supporting the Coach Interview response to actively seeking a coach 83% of interview participants who were contemplating using technology agreed that technology would encourage them to seek face-toface coaching. However, 75% of those actively using technology disagree. In addition, 67% of non-active participants also disagree that using technology would encourage them to seek a coach if they were to begin taking part in sport or physical activity. Figure 7: Likelihood of seeking a coach. (n=35).

Those in the active-P and active-C stages of technology use (preparing and thinking about using technology) indicated a greater opinion of technology acting as a supportive or facilitative mechanism to support participation. “Where that is being used is great, the people are learning for themselves and they're there looking back and going, ‘well I think this’, then someone else will wade in saying ‘well I think that’, I think the benefit for the coaches in that they don't have to be at every session and they can still contribute to that paddlers development I don't think it’s necessarily a replacement.” – Active-P of technology use

83% 75% 67% 50%

50%

“I think there’s not really a way that technology, it can only do so much, so it can see what you're doing wrong, but it can't see maybe if you're struggling with that or if you need some more emotional help.” – ActiveC of technology use

33% 25% 17%

Agree Active-AMa

Disagree Active-P

Active-C

Non- active participant

A high percentage of Active-AMa, and Nonactive participants, believe they do not require or need coach interaction to engage in sport or

physical activity.

5 of the 6 Market Leader interviews emphasised that technologies were designed to support the coach as opposed to replace. “Because, now, with our systems, the coach does not need to be on the course as they [participants] play. They can be in a different country, in a different state, or in a different city.” Game Golf “[Coaches] could actually create, kind of the exact workout that you want your participants to do, and the send it to them, then they can do it in their own time.” Sworkit “Coaches can't be with their clients all the time, so using the app is a way of users tracking the activity for their coaches to see what they're doing.” Strava

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

© Peter bernik/Shutterstock.com

17

SIMPLICITY AND EASE OF USE

INTERACTION WITH PROFESSIONALS

REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPORT

UNDERSTANDING WHAT TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE

LIMITATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY USE IN SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Figure 8: Identifying 3 primary reasons for non-use of technology by active-P and active-C participants, and recommendations for facilitating engagement. (n=126).

Top 3 reasons for not using technology

34%

COST

NOT CONFIDENT

NO BENEFIT SEEN

22%

Top 3 recommendations for facilitating technology use

43%

26%

19%

23%

SIMPLICITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY

ONLINE TUTORIALS

SUPPORT GUIDES

N.B. Additional reasons for not using technology included: ‘Technology being too complicated’ (14%), and ‘other’ (11%) which included not having the right equipment and club/sport requirements. Additional recommendations for facilitating technology used included: ‘other’ (8%) which included purchasing equipment and knowing what is available.

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

18

Simplicity and ease of use Simplicity of the technology was also identified as a barrier by both Market Leaders and participants. Both the action-P and action-C stages of technology use selected their preferred methods for support, with simplicity of the technology being the highest reported response when asked what would support engagement in technology:

“Some of them are just too indepth, I don't want to be downloading stuff onto a computer then tracking my performance like that.” – ActiveAMa of technology use

“We believe the biggest barrier now is the attitude and culture that using technology has…straight away we realised that that had to be very simple to use.” CoachCam

“It’s at least consistent for me as an individual.” – Active-AMa of technology use

Although featuring as a key concept in op den Akker et [1] al.’s model for effective smartphone apps, survey respondents reported interaction with professionals or peers as the fifth most important concept for sport and physical activity technologies. Despite this finding, the theme appears to be an area of focus for Market Leaders. “People engage with Strava outside of just uploading day-to-day activities. They engage with it because they want to see what their friends are doing, and engage on a social level. This motivates and entertains them. Ultimately encouraging them to be more active.” Strava

“You still need a human interaction with somebody, to correct what you're doing wrong, it just shows you what you're doing wrong, it can't correct it I don't believe.” – Active-AMa of

“So it can see what you're doing wrong, but it can't see maybe if you're struggling with that or if you need some more emotional help.” –

technology use

Active-C of technology use

Key Finding: Market Leaders identify coach interaction as a key factor when using technology to facilitate sport or physical activity participation.

© Stefan Schurr/Shutterstock.com

Interaction with professionals or peers

19

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Key Finding: The coach will be needed if the technology cannot adapt to the specific sport.

Requirements of sport An additional barrier involved the feasibility of using technology in different environments, and the requirements or rules of the sport or physical activity affecting engagement. “You still need a human interaction with somebody, to correct what you're doing wrong, it just shows you what you're doing wrong, it can't correct it I don't believe.” - Active-AMa of

“So it can see what you're doing wrong, but it can't see maybe if you're struggling with that or if you need some more emotional help.” – Active-C of technology use

technology use

Active-P and active-C participants also identified the practicality of technologies, specifically within team sports:

“I’ve not found anything I can use in swimming because obviously it’s in water, so what I’m planning on using is technology for outdoors really” – Active-P of technology use

“I was considering getting one [a wearable] then [at Christmas], but them my mum pointed out I wouldn't be able to wear it for most of the exercises I do… not just netball or lacrosse, but football, rugby, you can't actually use them.” – Active-C of technology use

“In the last years, many apps did focus on GPS tracking leaving indoor activities untapped. We now see the emergence of activity trackers e.g. Wearables, and dedicated apps for indoor. We are now able to serve the needs of users wherever they are, whatever they do...throughout the day.” Under Armour

Understanding what technology is available Understanding and knowledge of technologies was also a key theme emerging in follow-up interviews, particularly by those who were thinking about using technology:

“I don’t know how much technology there is out there to be fair in terms of what you can use for sport and exercise.” – Active-P of technology use

“I know for the app, you can go on the app store and look for it, but knowing which one's the best, one’s for you really, or would be best for you, I wouldn’t really know, apart from going online like on my phone, where to find them.” –

© Stuart Jenner/Shutterstock.com

Active-C of technology use

Within this theme, participants identified methods of gaining knowledge, for example: “If someone explained to me how it worked it or how it could help, what it does or how it works, then that would probably help [engagement in technology].” – Active-P of

“I think probably just the internet …and maybe one of the big magazines like women’s health might have something about it [technology]” – Active-C

technology use

of technology use

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Technology should be simple and support guides provided

Not all technologies are supportive of all sport environments

Technology is used predominantly to support individual sports

© gpointstudio/Shutterstock.com

Technologies used were for the purpose of both ‘self-directed’ and ‘remote coaching’ engagement.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary It was identified that:   

20

More males used technology than females Apps were the most popular type of technology Technology is used to ‘motivate’ and ‘collect’ personal data.

Those who actively use technology engage predominantly in individual sports (running), in addition to individual recreational activities (recreational running). Feedback, goal setting, and self-learning were identified as key concepts that were found to be important when using an app. Reasons for not using technology were that it was too complicated, can be costly and not always easy to understand. Therefore, it was recognised that support guides are needed and the technology needs to be simple.

Those who use technology have been identified as less likely to see a coach, or reported to not needing to see a coach as often as the technology can ‘act as the coach’. However, it was identified that the current technologies available do not apply to all sporting environments and therefore the coach is needed to provide adequate support in more technical and team based sports. The data being collected from this technology was identified as being used for both self-directed coaching and remote coaching, where data is being sent to the coach. Market Leaders also identified how their technology was designed to complement the coach, and that there will always be a place for face-to-face coaching; this may just look a bit different in the future.

21

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

22

Recommendations Based on our findings it is clear that technology can be a key facilitator in sport or physical activity participation. However, there are a few take home messages and recommendations for using technology within a coaching environment. Individuals in the active-AMa stage of technology reported that using the technology allows them to avoid the commitment to a club and a coach. Although this does not mean that these active participants do not seek coaching, as 50% of our population sample did have access to a coach, this does have implications as to the amount of contact needed with the coach. It would be recommended that coaches become familiar with these technologies and work with participants ‘remotely’ with this technology. Those that did not engage in sport or physical activity or use technology to facilitate this did report that the main barriers were difficulty in understanding the technology and they would be more interested if simple guides were provided. Therefore, coaches could provide user friendly technology workshops, which could provide both coaching support and technology support.

Interestingly, Market Leaders have emphasised that their app technology is designed to facilitate and work alongside a coach rather than completely replace them. By educating coaches on how technology can be used and working with market leaders in the development of this app-based technology, coaches and Market Leaders could both facilitate: 1. Participation levels in sport and physical activity 2. The likelihood or interaction happening between coach and participant. However, this interaction may not always be face-toface.

Figure 9: Identifying the TTM for participation and technology use and recommendations to support technology. use

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

REFERENCES [1]

op den Akker, H., Jones, V. M., & Hermens, H. J. (2014). Tailoring real-time physical activity coaching systems: a literature survey and model. User Model User-Adapted Interaction, 24, 351–392.

[2]

Nelson, L., Cushion, C., & Potrac, P. (2006) ‘Formal, Nonformal and Informal Coach Learning: A Holistic Conceptualisation’, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 1 (3): 247–260.

[3]

McQuade, S., Davis, L., & Nash, C. (2015) ‘Positioning Mentoring as a Coach Development Tool: Recommendations for Future Practice and Research’, Quest, 67 (3): 317–329.

[4]

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behaviour Change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12 (1), 38–48.

[5]

DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. I. (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behavior. Plenum Press.

[6]

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57 (9), 705–717.

22

23

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

APPENDICES Project team Dr Amy Whitehead Amy is a Senior Lecturer in Sport Coaching and Physical Education Psychology. She specialises in sport and exercise psychology, and is currently research active in the areas of decision making and expert novice paradigms. Amy also works as an applied sport psychology practitioner with a range of professional athletes and clubs.

Professor David Morley Dave is Professor of Physical Education and Youth Sport, and Associate Dean for Scholarship, Research and Knowledge Transfer. He continues to work closely with national sports organisations, such as Sport England and governing bodies of sport, such as the RFL, and British Cycling, in evaluating talent development systems, coach education pathways and programmes

Laura Quayle Laura is a Research Assistant at LJMU, who specialises in sports coaching research. Laura’s research focusses on coach behaviours and new methods to enhance coach education. She is currently supporting senior staff members within the school of Sport, Leisure and Nutrition with large scale research projects.

24

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Survey demographics Gender

Age

Overall response to gender reported 51% Male, 47% Female, 1% who preferred not to disclose their gender, and 1% ‘other’.

Overall: 25% (16-25), 17% (26-34), 23% (35-44), 21% (45-54), 9% (55-64), 3% (65+), 1% who preferred not to disclose their age. Breakdown of active participant ages based on the TTM for technology use can be seen in the below bar chart.

Breakdown of active participants’ gender based on the TTM for technology use can be seen in the bar chart below.

50% 40%

70% 60%

30%

50%

20%

40% 10%

30% 20%

0%

16-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

10% 0% Men

Women

Active-AMa

Prefer not to say

Active-P

Active-C

Other

Active-PC

Active - AMa

Active - P

Active - C

Ethnicity

England regions

Overall survey response to ethnicity: South West

7%

South East

12%

London

6%

East

6%

East Midlands West Midlands

3% 3%

12% 8%

Yorkshire & Humber

16%

North West North East

3%

28% 6%

91%

White Asian/Asian British Black/African/Caribbean/Black british Mixed/multiple ethnic groups

65+

Prefer not to say

Active - PC

25

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Additional Findings

COACHING 51% of respondants were not coached Active females were more likely to participate in sport which involved being coached.

ENVIRONMENTS

TOP ACTIVITIES

Participation rates in competitive environments decreased through the stages of TTM for technology use.

Sport – Running, Football & Athletics. Physical activity – Rec. running & rec. cycling.

The results below provide analysis of survey data from ‘active’ participants in sport and/or physical activity, in relation to their participation in sport and/or physical activity. Data has then been analysed using the TTM for technology and a comparative analysis of how active participants use technology has been presented.

Response to coaching Participants were asked to identify their current level of coach support (i.e. face-to-face, remote communication etc.) within their sport or physical activity participation. Overall response for active participants reported an equal difference with 51% indicating that they are not coached. When identifying stages of technology use on the TTM, clear differences in coached activity can be seen by those in the active-AMa stage (47%), when compared with active-P (58%) and active-C (53%) stages.

Figure 10: Active participant response to engaging in a coached or not coached environment. (n=554). Active-AMa

47%

Active-P

58% 53%

53% 41%

Coached

Active-C

Active-PC

59% 42% 47%

Not coached

Figure 11: Percentage breakdown of active participate (male and female) response to participating in coached environments across different levels of technology use. (n=554).

‘Active’ males reported the highest overall percentage of participants not receiving coaching across the TTM for technology use.

26

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Environments for participation The graphs below demonstrate the type of environment that participants predominantly participated in. It is evident that all participants across the TTM are mostly involved in club activities, in comparison to ‘Gym’ and ‘another organisation’ environments. In addition, the active-AMa group reported a greater percentage of individuals participating in sport on an individual basis when compared to those in the other behavioural stages of using technology

Figure 12: Type of environment participated in by all active participants engaging in different levels of technology use. (n=554). Active-AMa

60%

Active-P

Active-C

Active-PC

55%

50% 40% 37% 38%

40% 30% 20%

20% 21%

24% 17% 15%

13% 10% 11%

10%

5%

9% 10%

21%

13%

17% 18%

8%

0% With Friends

Club

Another Organisation

Gym

Myself

Key Finding: Technology users predominantly engage in club and individual environments.

27

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

28

Competition vs. recreation In addition, participants were asked to identify whether participation in the environments listed above was on a competitive or recreation basis. Individuals in the active-PC stage of technology use reported to having a substantially lower percentage in 4 out of 5 environments for participation on a competitive basis away from a club setting. Club environments reported the highest percentage for competitive activity across Active-AMa, P, and C. Active-AMa also identified participation in competitive environments on an individual basis. Recreational activities such as the gym, individual and social environments were predominantly participated in by individuals in the Active-AMa, P, and C stages of technology use. In contrast, ActivePC individuals reported greater involvement in club based activities on a recreational basis when compared to competitive environments. Figure 13: Active participant response to engaging in competitive environments in different levels of technology. (n=418).

Active-AMa

Active-P

Active-C

Active-PC

What about tech users?? And also mention recreation - put a headline together here for this page Competitive 100%

88% 77%

80%

76% 79%

75%

60%

45%

40% 23%

38%

35%

29%

28% 25% 15%

20% 0%

20%

14%

0%

28% 17%

0%

0% With friends

Club

Organisation

Gym

Myself

Figure 14: Active participant response to engaging in recreational environments in different levels of technology. (n=418). Active-AMa

Active-P

Active-C

Active-PC

Recreational 100%

100%

100% 80%

77%

86%

85% 72% 75%

71% 55%

60% 40%

100%

33%

62%

80% 65%

72% 75%

25%

24% 21% 12%

20% 0% With friends

Club

Organisation

Gym

Myself

29

28

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Comparison of competitive vs. recreational environments

Figure 15: Differences in participation in competition and recreational environments by stage of technology use

A comparison of competitive and recreational environments found that Active-PC participants engage more in competitive environments with friends (77%) than in recreational environments (33%). Active-AMa, P and C groups all reported to participating within a competitive club environment. However, ActivePC individuals reported no engagement in competitive club environments (0%) compared to recreational club (100%). Active – C participants engaged much more in a competitive environment within ‘another organisation’ (75%) in comparison to a recreational environment (25%).

Competitive With Friends Club Organisation

Recreational PC

AMa

P

AMa

P

C

C

PC AMa

P

Gym

AMa

P

C

PC

Myself

AMa

P

C

PC

C

PC

Key Finding: Active participants across all stages of the TTM for technology use participated more in recreational environments compared to competitive environments.

Type of activity Participants were asked to identify the type of sport or physical activity that they predominantly participated in. The active users participated in ‘individual sports’ 39% of the time, ‘team sports’ – 34% and ‘fitness activities’ – 24%. Active participants’ responses suggest users engage more in individual activities when compared with those ready to use and those thinking about using technology. It is also interesting that individuals who indicated that they do not use technology (i.e. active-PC) participate more in fitness activities in comparison to other stages of TTM. Figure 16: Active participant response to the type of activity predominantly participated in in different levels of technology use. (n=554). Active-AMa

60%

52%

Active-C

Active-PC

57% 46%

50% 36%

40% 30%

Active-P

34% 29%

26% 21%

25% 27%

23%

20%

12%

10%

1% 0% 1%

5%

1% 0% 1% 1%

0% Team Sports Coached participants AMa PCPC -

M M M M

(61%), (83%), (59%), (67%),

F (76%) F (94%) F (66%) F (33%)

Individual sports Coached participants AMa PCPC -

M M M M

(45%), (0%), (29%), (50%),

F (56%) F (50%) F (70%) F (33%)

Combat Sports

Net Games

Fitness Activities Coached participants AMa PCPC -

M M M M

(17%), (0%), (25%), (44%),

F (25%) F (38%) F (20%) F (14%)

29

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Sports participated in

Archery, Boccia, Bowls, Equestrian, Fives, Handball, Lacrosse, Modern pentathlon, Mountaineering, Movement & dance, Orienteering, Parkour/Free running, Rugby (Wheelchair), Shooting, Snow sports, Table tennis, and Wrestling.

Figure 17: Breakdown of sports participated in by all active participants. (n=418).

Triathlon Running Rugby Union

Participants reported relatively minor participation in the following sports, which could not be included in the full analysis:

Rounders

American football (4), Angling (1), Badminton (3), Baseball/softball (1), Boxing (2), Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (1), Camogie (1), Climbing (1), Cricket, (2), CrossFit (1), Dodgeball (5), Fencing (3), Goalball (1), Gymnastics (2), Judo (1), Karate (4), Korfball (1), Rowing (6), Rugby League (3), Sailing (1), Squash (1), Swimming (5), Taekwondo (1), Tennis (5), Volleyball (6), Waterskiing (1), Water polo (2), Weightlifting (1)

Hockey

Netball

Golf

18% 2% 8% 5% 3% 4%

Football

11%

Cycling

5%

Canoeing/Kayaking Basketball (wheelchair) Basketball

N.B. sports highlighted in red have been added based on response to ‘other’ by participants

5%

Athletics

6% 4% 3% 10%

© Alan Edwards

Participants in this study did not participate in the following sports:

30

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Sport activities The table and graph below identify the sports that participants across all stages of technology use engage in. It is interesting that those in the active-AMa stage of technology use participate mostly in running (indicating these individuals participate predominantly in individual based sport). Similarly, for this group, both athletics, triathlon nd rd and cycling were the 2 and 3 highest sports respectively. In contrast, those in the active-P, active-C and active-PC stages of technology participate in activities such as Rounders, Football and Netball.

Table 2: Breakdown of sport activities for active participants across the stages of the TTM for technology use. (n=418).

Athletics Basketball Basketball (Wheelchair) Canoeing/ Kayaking Cycling Football Golf Hockey Netball Rounders Rugby Union Running Triathlon

Active Participants P C 6% 11% 6% 3% 6% 10% 9% 8% 6% 0% 14% 14% 3% 1% 0% 5% 17% 8% 6% 16% 6% 0% 0% 8% 3% 0%

AMa 11% 4% 4% 6% 9% 8% 6% 3% 3% 5% 3% 29% 9%

PC 10% 3% 0% 10% 0% 3% 3% 7% 7% 21% 3% 10% 0%

Physical activities As seen in sport activities, participation in physical activities for active-AMa for active technology users was highest in recreational running and recreational cycling. However, those in the active-PC stage for technology use also reported high levels of participation in recreational running and High Intensity Tactical Training (HITT).

Table 3: Breakdown of physical activities for active participants across the stages of the TTM for technology use. (n=136). AMa

Recreational running Brisk Walking High Intensity Tactical Training (HITT) Recreational cycling Active travel (walking/ cycling) Yoga Aerobic workouts Dance Recreational swimming Gym activities

43% 7% 9% 13% 2% 1% 14% 2% 0% 9%

Active Participants P

8% 15% 15% 8% 8% 8% 15% 0% 0% 23%

C

PC

9% 18% 9% 9% 0% 9% 0% 0% 18% 27%

14% 0% 21% 7% 14% 7% 14% 0% 14% 7%

Key Finding: Technology users engage predominantly in INDIVIDUAL BASED SPORTS (e.g. running) and INDIVIDUAL FITNESS ACTIVITIES (e.g. recreational running).

31

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

32

Findings relating to the seven key concepts [1] [1]

Based on op den Akker et al.’s key concept model, all participants across the TTM for technology use were asked to select which of the concepts they believed were important features of technology use within sport and physical activity participation. Participants were asked to select as many of the concepts that they related to. It is clear that respondents in the active-C stage i.e. those thinking about using technology see a benefit of technology to facilitate ‘self-learning’, and provide support and focus through the technology employing

methods of ‘goal setting’, whereas, active-PC participants (those not currently interested in using technology) recorded just 7% of responses for goal setting. ‘Individual feedback’ was consistently reported by all participants from all stages of the TTM. However, ‘interaction and communication’ with professionals or peers was clearly valued by activeAMa participants when compared across the stages of the TTM. However, despite this finding, interaction th and communication was only the 5 highest concept overall.

Figure 18: Identifying key technology concepts valued by active participants across stages of TTM for technology use. (n=554).

Active-AMa 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Active-P

Active-C

Active-PC

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

32

Market Leader case studies ATHOS – Wearable and app

SWORKIT – Smartphone app

Smart clothing provides advanced bio signal monitoring technology to gather data and feedback straight to a mobile app during a workout. Athos is currently available in the United States and is predicted to enter the UK market in 2016.

Pre-built and self-created workouts are available. The app provides both video demonstrations, and verbal instruction through the duration of the workout. Availability to sync workouts to Health, Google Fit and MyFitnessPal.

STRAVA – Smartphone app

COACH CAM – Smartphone app

Global community of millions of runners, cyclists and triathletes. Strava allows you to track your running and riding with GPS, join challenges, share photos and follow friends.

New, unique and effective coaching app providing the opportunity and ability to record, edit, analyse and create performance videos.

GAME GOLF – wearable and app

UNDER ARMOUR – Smartphone app

Revolutionary way to track your shot performance. Records all stats to help visualise your game through real time shot tracking as you play. Ability to set challenges, see and share progress, compare and improve performance.

Under Armour digital includes the development of smartphone apps MyFitnessPal, Mapmyrun, and Endomondo. Under Armour technologies allow tracking through smartphone and wearable devices to provide informed and customisable workouts.

TTM Technology Use – AMa (Action/maintenance); P (Preparation); C (Contemplation); PC (Precontemplation)

Commissioned by sports coach UK www.sportscoachuk.org