Experiencing being objectified? A critical investigation of basic pedagogical categories in digital health education

Abstract

Background:

In this paper, we explore the role digital health education can play in physical education. We argue that the use of digital media and technologies has been accompanied by fundamental changes in basic sports pedagogical categories such as body, movement and experience. In doing so, we advance the thesis that increasing digitalisation offers multi-layered and partly paradoxical opportunities and risks for health education, which have not yet been sufficiently discussed from a sports pedagogical perspective in a digitalised world.

Objective:

To develop a deeper understanding of these changes, we aim to analyse the mechanisms, opportunities and challenges created by digital health education in physical education, with a focus on the use of tools such as wearables.

Method:

We draw on a Bildung-oriented perspective rooted in German-speaking pedagogy. With this in mind, we first look at the possibilities and limits for digital health education in physical education at the surface level, before we offer a deeper investigation of body, movement and experience in a digitalised world. This leads us to critical reflection at a structural level.

Results and Conclusion:

Supposedly clear distinctions between ‘virtual’ and ‘real’, and ‘digital’ and ‘analogue’, are increasingly untenable. On the one hand, the use of digital technologies can convey reductionist images of humankind and a narrow understanding of education. On the other hand, students can experience differences between supposedly objective and subjective views of their bodies and their movement behaviour using digital technologies. This can lead to Bildung processes in which the relationship between oneself and the world is questioned, which in a sense constitutes a form of Bildung-oriented digital health education.

Keywords

Bildung critical pedagogy digital health education physical education self-measurement

Introduction

Within this journal and beyond, physical education has been ‘acknowledged as a practical and important part of health education’ (Walker, 1947: 27) for many decades and still plays an important role in this respect (e.g. Fane et al., 2019; Harris and Cale, 1997). Recognising this importance and from a sports pedagogical perspective, in this paper, we engage with the relationship between physical education and a current ‘hot’ topic: namely, digital health education in countries such as Germany. While it is not necessary in a journal such as Health Education Journal to explain why we focus on health education (HE), it is important to note that the relationship between HE and physical education differs considerably between countries.

For instance, there is a strong relationship between HE and physical education in Scandinavian countries (Naul, 2003). However, in the German-speaking world, HE has come to the fore only in the last two decades as a pedagogical orientation with an important role to play alongside others such as Bewegungsbildung (movement education) or Soziales Lernen (social learning) (Ruin and Stibbe, 2021). In other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the relationship between health education and physical education is conveyed via terminology such as ‘health and physical education’ (Thorburn and Gray, 2021). Regardless, within current pedagogical discussion on HE, health is mainly conceptualised from a salutogenic point of view (Antonovsky, 1979), in which importance is given to the development of a ‘sense of coherence’ as personal resource for health.

Such a perspective is also central to the notion of Bildung in Germany and other continental European contexts (Madsen and Aggerholm, 2020; Wibowo et al., 2023). Bildung may be understood as the self-determined enlightenment of young people in their subjective relationship to themselves and to the world (e.g. Biesta, 2021; Brinkmann and Giese, 2023). The overarching aim of Bildung in respect of HE is to initiate mature, health-conscious behaviour through processes in which learners sound out what healthy behaviour and a healthy lifestyle might bring to them, and what role they want it to play in their lives. In these processes, subjective desires and available resources are just as relevant as external requirements – or in other words, the processes occur in a dialectic relation between ‘pupils’ interaction with academic content’ (Madsen and Aggerholm, 2020: 160). The perspective stressed here aligns with other prominent conceptualisations of HE, such as concern for the overall aims of health and physical education in Australia. As McCuaig et al. (2013: 122) have written, ‘Strength[s]-based HPE is about learning, and not only what students learn in terms of subject content, but also what they learn about themselves and society’. Thus, the issues discussed in this article can hopefully contribute new perspectives and insights to international discussion of HE.

In parallel with these developments, both everyday practices and pedagogical settings such as physical education are increasingly affected by processes of digitalisation. Digital technology and media are widely used for communication and learning as well as for measuring and monitoring bodily data (Goodyear et al., 2019; Jastrow et al., 2022; Sargent and Calderón, 2021). However, in pedagogical discussion, it often remains vague what digitalisation means (Buck, 2020). In relation to physical education, this leads to the need to ‘redefine’ elementary sports pedagogical categories such as body, movement and experience since the meaning of each of these categories may change as the result of ongoing digitalisation (Ruin and Giese, 2023). Doing so is also of profound significance for HE, where the use of digital tools (Bodsworth and Goodyear, 2017; Jastrow et al., 2022; Romeo et al., 2019; Sargent and Calderón, 2021) and questions of (digitally driven) self-optimisation (Bateman et al., 2015) lie at the heart of much contemporary practice. Hence, in this paper, we aim to better understand the mechanisms, opportunities and challenges that digital health education poses for physical education, with a focus on the use of tools such as wearables from a Bildung-oriented perspective.

Our focus is on the above-mentioned notions of body, movement and experience as ways of describing human encounters with the world. This is especially relevant because physical encounters with the world have been and still are key to sports pedagogical considerations – whether in respect of the learning of sport, in areas of work such as obesity prevention (Tinning, 2012), in the ‘grand promises’ associated with physical literacy (Quennerstedt et al., 2021: 846), or in making sense of fundamental embodied experiences (Thorburn, 2020). Such human-world encounters are increasingly challenged and shaped by digitalisation (Chambers and Sandford, 2019; Ruin and Giese, 2023).

To date, however, digital health education has focused primarily on the use of knowledge-based methods (McCall et al., 2018), rather than on the changing world encounters considered more fundamental in the context of physical education. These issues are focused on in this paper. German-speaking discourse on sports pedagogy contains a number of well-founded philosophically oriented reflections using the body, movement and experience as key categories (e.g. Giese, 2008; Grupe, 1984). In this paper, we use some of these reflections to enrich international discourse on digital health education in physical education, with our work in this respect being theoretically underpinned by our commitment to enabling Bildung (e.g. Biesta, 2021; Brinkmann and Giese, 2023).

Since physical education, Bildung and digitality constitute very broad fields, and it is impossible to discuss every aspect in detail, we will focus our attention on digital self-measurement (Lupton, 2016). We begin by taking a look at the possibilities and limits for physical education in digital health education at a surface level, before proposing a deeper investigation of body, movement and experience as part of digitalised physical education and of digital health education. This leads to critical reflections and new ways of thinking about digital health education in Bildung-oriented physical education at a structural level. We conclude with some final thoughts on the pedagogic implications for digital health education in physical education.

A first look: possibilities and limits for physical education in digital health education

The increasing use of new technologies and digital media brings with it a fundamental change in human ways of being in the world (Allert et al., 2017). The digitalisation of everyday practices (Schnell and Dunger, 2019), and thereby the interweaving of everyday practices with digital technologies, is producing a digital condition (Stalder, 2018). This, in turn, is provoking a significant change in our lives. It also has implications for various issues relevant to education and thus to HE and physical education. In these specific contexts, the human body, human movement and related experiences – and especially their interconnectedness with digital tools and media – come to the fore (Ruin and Giese, 2023). Noticeable here is an increase in digital self-measurement (Lupton, 2016), the growing importance of body norms as conveyed through social media (González-Calvo et al., 2022), and the increasing use of digital tools in physical education (Jastrow et al., 2022). Unsurprisingly, not all players in the field are enthusiastic about these changes. While some traditional positions criticise the growing use of technology as contributing to a loss of core identity in sport (e.g. Hofmann, 2019), others explore the possibilities for HE; for example, in the digital promotion of physical activity via smartphone apps (e.g. Romeo et al., 2019) or in online physical activity interventions (e.g. Goodyear et al., 2021). This points to a multi-layered, dynamically changing field.

Within these changing conditions, digital tools are increasingly used in physical education to advance digital health education, which is also reflected in school curricula (Meier and Poweleit, 2023). First, tools such as wearables or smartphones are often used to capture bodily functions and movement data which can then be recorded, shared and used to monitor fitness (Jastrow et al., 2022). Ongoing technical developments in this respect are leading to increased parametrisation, more accurate measurement and thus more credible data. Second, digitally augmented reality is being used to develop fundamental motor skills (FMS): for instance, by using the Test of Gross Motor Development (Spinosa et al., 2020). FMS are generally recognised as a much-needed building block that must be mastered prior to mastering the complex movements needed for participation in games, sports and other recreational activities (Lloyd et al., 2014). In addition, well-developed FMS are considered important predictors of an active lifestyle and the avoidance of sedentary behaviour. Third, the video functions of smartphones and tablets are frequently used to demonstrate certain movement patterns, or to enable learners to film themselves to assess movement learning processes based on video recordings (Kok et al., 2020).

However, since current work with videos in physical education, as well as digital FMS development, is more currently focused on movement learning than on HE, this article focuses on the first of these three aspects: namely, the use of tools for measuring bodily functions and generating movement data. An overarching goal of this technology-led digital health education in physical education can be seen as increasing young people’s physical activity by using technology to motivate them to exercise, measuring their fitness-related data, and providing feedback on their physical condition based on this data to enable them to keep their own fitness under personal control. This tendency can be observed in recent work in primary (e.g. Lee and Gao, 2020) as well as secondary schools (e.g. Engen et al., 2018). In both contexts, learners can get to know and use the technology, they can then try it out and thus be introduced to an active lifestyle so as to avoid sedentary behaviour.

A look beneath the surface, however, reveals that the above approach ignores the fact that the technologies used are neither neutral nor value-free. In this respect, they are far from ‘innocent tools’ (Rode, 2021: 15). Instead, they work with specific concepts of body and movement and thus to a certain extent predetermine experiences. Tacitly woven into the digital collection and preparation of data are specific Menschenbilder (concepts of humankind) and ableist imperatives which we believe require critical analysis from a Bildung perspective. First and foremost, supposedly objective data are collected from a natural-scientific perspective and presented in a pregiven format. In addition to the pedagogical question of whether this perspective on body and movement is the only relevant one, the validity of the data collected with tools such as wearables can be questioned. For example, the validity of data varies greatly with the location of the devices, as they are designed to be placed in a specific position (mostly on the wrist or ankle), but also collect informstion when incorrectly located (Schwartz and Baca, 2016). The inaccurate data arising from such misplacement may have an impact on body awareness with false implications. Furthermore, it can also be questioned on what basis data are measured, classified, and presented by such devices, and how. Undoubtedly, the data are formatted in a certain way. This preformatting overlaps the subjective experience of one’s own body – for example one might not feel tired, although the app suggests the opposite – and it is to be discussed what this means for sports pedagogy. Here, it becomes clear that, and how, an orientation towards technology brings with it the danger of losing sight of self-determination and subjectivity – important pedagogical variables from a Bildung-theoretical perspective. In this respect, we should also look at the extent to which an orientation towards technology that applies a medical and training science perspective to exercise and sport, leads to a problematic narrowing of educational goals.

Digitally informed conceptualisations of body, movement and experience in Bildung-oriented physical education

As mentioned earlier, body, movement and experience can be seen as fundamental issues in sports pedagogical contexts that acquire new, multi-layered and sometimes paradoxical meanings in an increasingly digitalised world. In this section, we outline what body, movement and experience might mean in digitally informed physical education (Ruin and Giese, 2023)¹ prior to an exploration of these same issues in terms of HE. In line with a continental European pedagogical approach, we adopt a Bildung-inspired theoretical perspective linked to the goal of educating responsible citizens in a humanist and democratic social order. As indicated earlier, Bildung can be understood as the self-determined enlightenment of young people in their subjective relationship both to themselves and to the world. In contrast to outcome and competence-oriented or psychological conceptions of learning, Bildung does not imply continuous adaptation or development, but a possibly uncomfortable experience in which the relationship to oneself and to the world is challenged and permanently changed (Brinkmann and Giese, 2023).

Within this tradition, the body constitutes the fundamental category in physical education and sports pedagogy. German-language discourse related to the body highlights the obligation of humans to engage productively with their own corporeality in the duality of being physically in the world (the being body) while having a body that they can, and have to, work on and with (Prohl, 2010). However, interpretations of the body differ across different sports pedagogical approaches. Thus, there are perspectives that seek to functionalise and normalise the body (Ruin, 2023). Nowadays, these tend to be linked to the booming fitness movement (Millington, 2016), increasing self-measurement (Lupton, 2016), and the progressive technologisation and optimisation of the body (Bateman et al., 2015). In these respects, the health of children and adolescents, and thus their HE, has received greater attention (Romeo et al., 2019). Increasing disembodiment in many areas of life is paralleled by increasing work on the person’s own body. A growing imperative to care for one’s own body regarding health and fitness finds expression in many educational approaches and physical education curricula (Ruin and Stibbe, 2021). Work on one’s own body thereby becomes an identity-forming project (Shilling, 2012: 6), a trend aligned with prominent neoliberal concepts of young, fit and healthy bodies (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2022). At the same time, however, and in the wake of growing discourses concerning diversity and intersectionality (e.g. Hill Collins and Bilge, 2016), the pedagogical claim is formulated to promote recognition of each individual person and their unique body. This also includes, to a significant degree, a needed but at the same time an often missed recognition of their unique physicality (Giese and Ruin, 2018).

Turning to digital contexts, previously immutable physical restrictions can now be renegotiated (one can, for example, be stronger or more attractive, or liberated from external circumstances that affect the body). Linked to this is an absence of existential bodily consequences of one’s actions. Those who, for instance, use virtual running programmes to run inside on a treadmill do not feel any disturbing wind and are not exposed to the weather. They can stop or pause at any time, without having to make a return trip or get wet from the rain. This opens up the potential to experiment with one’s own body and movement. For instance, one can push what is physically possible to the limit. Nevertheless, it is not possible to step beyond also ‘being our body’ that will sooner or later emerge with its needs. And, in this respect, the traditional forms of the duality of body-having and body-being may not be sufficient to grasp what is happening in digitalised sport at an epistemic level.

Closely linked to the body, movement is a fundamental sports pedagogical category that – in combination with the body – can be seen as a unique feature of physical education. In German language discourse about physical education, a body-anthropologically oriented view of movement is significant, in which movement is considered not in terms of a change of location of bodies in space and time, but as a form of meaningful behaviour charged with purposefulness, intentionality, meaning and significance. These ideas have their origins in the belief that movement enables bodily experience as an intentional relationship with the meaningful world (Merleau-Ponty, 2011 [1945]). In moving oneself, reciprocal resonances between subjective structures of experience and structures objectively given in the (social) world constitute a unity between human being and the world (Biesta, 2021).

Recently, another educational influence has been identified of relevance to children and young people in their engagement with the body and with movement. Within it, movement is conceptualised as a health giving compensation for an increasingly disembodied lifestyle with little physical action. This perspective is closely linked to the problematisation of lack of exercise and prolonged sitting which has been a recurrent theme in German physical education literature since the 18th century (Ruin, 2023). Now – there is a new dynamic – since physical activity can be promoted by the use of digital tools (Goodyear et al., 2021; Romeo et al., 2019). In this perspective, technology creates new possibilities in an unprecedented way: body and movement-related parameters can be collected on a large scale in a technically simple way, which can be checked and used to drive greater control through increasingly fine-grained parameterisation. However, this currently prominent view of movement as a compensatory measure to protect against the diseases of civilisation (Romeo et al., 2019) risks losing sight of the sensual and subjective aspects of the body and movement (Ruin and Stibbe, 2021).

However, as mentioned earlier, other qualities of this new world open up new relationships. In a virtual context, one may still be moving with their own body, but movement here is different from that experienced in an ‘analogue’ world. In contemporary physical education that seeks to engage with the multifaceted nature of digitality, this needs to be accepted. ‘Virtual’ movements should not be seen as second-class movements but as implying new relationships. Humans, who in their physical world movements ‘always question and respond to the other’ (Tamboer, 1979), do the same in virtual contexts where they may encounter new experiences.

Focusing on experience also is a strong tradition in German-speaking sports and general pedagogy. In sports pedagogy, experience is of particular importance because it is characterised by a special bond to body and movement. To gain experience, it is essential for the individual themselves to experience. A purely linguistic mediation of experience is not possible. Etymologically, experience refers to the ancient topos of homo viator, to be found for example in Odysseus, the hero of Homer’s The Odyssey. Hence, it is indispensable to have the experience oneself, with one’s own body and movement. Those who do not embark on the journey themselves cannot have this experience (Bollnow, 1981: 29). From a Bildung-theoretical perspective, it is important to recognise the moments of not being able to, of failure and of irritation, which are referred to as negative experiences. In this sense, negative experiences can be – very positive – prerequisites for learning and practice (Brinkmann and Giese, 2023). But, in terms of current curricular and conceptional approaches to physical education, experience is often reduced to the enhancement of physical abilities and skills and rarely problematised in such a profound manner. Furthermore, with respect to digitalisation and from a German-speaking sports pedagogical perspective, it can also be said that a distinction between primary and secondary experiences (Grupe, 1995: 21) is common. In contrast to primary experiences, which are made directly with one’s own body, secondary experiences are those mediated through (digital) media and technologies. Within such an approach, secondary experiences are often rejected naively and simplistically as insignificant and impediments to development (Grupe, 1995). Seen from this perspective, digitalisation is only welcome in so far as it supports real movement and thus primary experience.

Understood in these terms, it must be stated that the homo viator who unexpectedly encounters an uncomfortable experience in the course of their journey has the possibility at any time to stop running, turn off the screen and escape from the situation. If we follow the assumption that Bildung is not possible without negative experiences in which the self is challenged, then education is only possible so long as the subject voluntarily surrenders themself to situations that cannot be escaped from at any time. Hence, the nature and value of negative experiences and their placement within the educational process need to be reconsidered.

Deep structure: critical reflections and new forms of digital health education in a Bildung-oriented physical education

Summarising the previous discussion, it should be emphasised that it is never possible to step beyond the body, neither in ‘analogue’ nor in ‘digital’ contexts – a human being is always physically in the world. But recently, it is possible to observe a trend to functionalise and objectivise the body in a reductionist way so as to optimise it in relation to (neoliberal) body ideals of fit, healthy and powerful bodies. Such efforts are often supported by technology.

Furthermore, in both ‘virtual’ and ‘analogue’ settings, movement is present as a central mode of encountering the world, and the experiences associated with this cannot be prevented. What is often different in digital contexts are the movement-related relationships between the self, the body and the world. This is accompanied by noticeable changes in the quality of experience. These considerations illustrate that because of its emphasis on corporeality, physical education is particularly well suited to taking a differentiated look at the multi-layered and pedagogically ambivalent processes at the interface between the so-called ‘analogue’ and ‘digital’ worlds – also regarding HE. What follows is a deeper look at these connections.

In our reflections on these issues, we focus primarily on digital self-measurement in physical education as a widely used approach to digital health education. Specifically, we look at the use of fitness-tracking wearables in physical education as a common form of digital health education that aims to increase physical activity (Jastrow et al., 2022; Jin et al., 2020). Our focus is on the use of ‘electronic devices that can be comfortably worn or attached to the body of individuals’ (Jin et al., 2020: 243) and which can ‘track individuals’ physical functions (e.g. steps, heart rate)’ (Jin et al., 2020). We are aware that the narrowness of this focus carries limitations and that other issues could be explored.

Looking at this form of self-measurement in digital health education from our theoretical perspective, the first thing to note is that the use of digital technologies is driven by natural-scientific and objectifying conceptualisations of the body and movement, and thus by reductionist images of the human being and a narrow understanding of education. Digital devices, which have a certain aura of objectivity by means of the ‘ancient association of numbers with ideals of rationality and universalism’ (Espeland and Stevens, 2008: 432), are at best only approximately objective in conduct of their technical tasks (i.e. measurement, data transmission), and considerable measurement inaccuracies are to be expected (Schwartz and Baca, 2016). Above all, they are not objective with regard to the question of what is actually measured and how, and which data are considered relevant and classified in what way. Rather, they are preformatted with specific natural-scientific and thus objectifying conceptualisations of the body (as a biomechanical functional system) and of movement (as a change of location of bodies in space and time). This is reflected in the selection of data collected with common wearables such as time, location, heart rate, blood pressure, sleep patterns, calories burned and number of steps (Schwartz and Baca, 2016). In addition, the scaling and assessment of the measured values is based on pre-defined norm and values (Crawford et al., 2015). Therefore, persons who find themselves in the marginal ranges, for example due to bodily functions that do not correspond to this standard, are largely ignored. In this way, wearables act as agents of societal norms, as they embody neoliberal, economic ideals of a fit, healthy, efficient human being (Macdonald, 2011). From an educational perspective, this is to be criticised. Through their use, individuals are empowered to increase their human capital in relation to neoliberal ideas, but at the same time they are given the task and the responsibility of doing so (Ruin and Stibbe, 2021) – the norm itself is not questioned. Accordingly, subjective perspectives are not only ignored, but their value is visibly reduced. The body is thus functionalised, movement is reduced to physical activity that is to be increased, and experience is negated to a certain extent.

However, at the same time, self-measurement can be read as self-empowerment. By ‘measuring’ aspects of the self, people are positioned to take care of their own health, weight and fitness, and can control and steer themselves in this process. This form of self-empowerment – historically known in connection with the weighing scale – is taken to the extreme in wearables (Crawford et al., 2015). In addition to long-established preventive and curative concerns, the focus of measurement often is on exceeding a (mean) value in line with an optimisation logic (Röcke, 2021: 214). Seen positively, this can be viewed as educationally relevant to the body and movement since it opens up new horizons of self-awareness and empowerment, especially with regard to experience. However, this form of self-empowerment only works when there is recognition of the above-described premises of a natural-scientific orientation and the associated normative of fit and healthy bodies. These premises provide the framework for what is made possible as a self-empowering experience. Therefore, this self-empowerment is not accessible to everyone in the same way.

It should also be borne in mind that digital tools are not just devices that measure certain parameters. Rather, they also output aggregated data as bundled and interpreted information (such as ‘you slept well’ or ‘you should be physically active’). This aggregation process is based on algorithms. Similar to other areas of life in which digitality plays an important role, the programming of these algorithms is rarely questioned in the practice of self-tracking. From the perspective of educational theory, it is surprising that digital tools are used in physical education without critical discussion of the implications of algorithms that preformat experiences of wearables. Hence, ‘[w]e need to look beyond the algorithms themselves to explore how the concept of the algorithm is also an important feature of their [digital devices’] potential power’ (Beer, 2017: 7). Contrary to common practices of self-measurement, in which data is diligently measured, consumed and shared, it is educationally relevant to question the programming of algorithms and their effects. In this respect, a key educational goal should be to become ‘algorithm aware’ (Gran et al., 2020). Doing so requires a focus on how algorithms affect our perceptions of the world and hence also influence our behaviour (Just and Latzer, 2017). It is precisely here that the question of if and how one’s own body is objectified via digital self-measurement could be made experienceable.

It is also clear that self-measurement has great social relevance. Self-measurement in physical education can be understood as an educational reinforcement of subjectivation towards a natural science–oriented ideal of health. This form of subjectivation refers above all to the measuring, consuming and sharing of body and movement-related data (Gröschner and Krückel, 2023) whose meaning is determined by this ideal of health. This process is initially about subjectification as a technology of the self (Foucault, 1988) in relation to existing notions of ‘normal’, fit and healthy bodies. However, the social practice of self-measurement is much more than just a widely used technique of subjectification. Most recently, through its application in physical education in schools, it appears as a socially enforced form of subjectification. This form of subjectification, because of its implicit orientation towards fixed norms, is not promising for everyone and is by no means inclusive. People with deviant bodies are disadvantaged from the outset, since they are more or less ‘forgotten’ (Giese and Ruin, 2018).

Conclusion

The above analysis reveals that digital self-measurement goes hand in hand with the use of digital technologies that convey natural-scientific and objectifying conceptualisations of body and movement, and which carry with them reductionist images of the human being and a narrow understanding of education. Even if digital self-measurement can be understood as empowerment in a certain sense, this only works within the premises implicitly conveyed by the devices: namely, a natural-scientific orientation towards the body and movement and associated normative understandings of fit and healthy bodies.

These preconditions, promoted and at the same time concealed by preformatted and largely unquestioned algorithms, set the framework for a problematic process of self-empowerment. When applied to physical education, their consequence is a socially enforced form of subjectification in which students risk being severely limited and, in many cases, disadvantaged in terms of recognition of their individual physicality and subjective perspectives concerning the body, movement and health. If one adopts a Bildung-oriented understanding of education that values the self-determined engagement of the individual with the world, and refrains from an objectifying obligations to a healthy lifestyle (Ruin and Stibbe, 2021), restrictions such as those outlined above warrant serious criticism. Instead, we should be looking at how self-determination and relating to the world can be promoted in and through digital health education.

In a positive sense, digital self-measurement in physical education could be used to make implicit images of the human being and narrowed understandings of the body and movement more visible and thus more accessible to reflection. Aided by the use of digital technologies, students could experience differences between supposedly ‘objective’ and subjective views of their bodies and their movement behaviour. This could be achieved, for example, by consciously opposing subjective perceptions (e.g. of fatigue or exertion) with the data received from the wearables. This might provoke desired negative experiences of loss of orientation² and thus potentially lead to Bildung processes in which one’s relationship to oneself and the world is called into question (Brinkmann and Giese, 2023).

It is also valuable to remember that the supposed ‘objectivity’ of digital devices is based on the choice of certain (easily measurable) parameters and certain forms of data processing via algorithms. Thus, it is by no means objective, but always an expression of a particular assumption and a specific world view. To reflect on this, on the associated norms (in the form of fit, healthy bodies that are able to work) and on the possibilities for subjectivation under these preconditions (Verständig and Ahlborn, 2020) is important from a pedagogical point of view. In terms of Bildung, students may experience and reflect on digital tools as a symbol of societal normalisation, on the one hand, and calibrate this against their individual needs, on the other hand. This could lead to a balancing of social parameters and subjective perspectives and hence facilitate a deeper form of health-related self-empowerment. Through such processes, students can become the determiners of their health, neither completely subordinating themselves to coercion by societal concerns nor over-stretching their subjectivity in the pursuit of an arbitrary individuality. To put it succinctly, students can experience here how they might be objectified and reflect on to what extent this is meaningful for them or not.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sebastian Ruin

Notes

References

Allert

Asmussen

Richter

(eds) (2017) Digitalität und Selbst. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Subjektivierungs- und Bildungsprozesse [Digitality and Self. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Processes of Subjectivation and Education]. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Antonovsky

(1979) Health, Stress, and Coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bateman

Allouche

Gayon

, et al. (2015) Inquiring into Human Enhancement. Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beer

(2017) The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 1–13.

Biesta

(2021) World-centered Education: A View for the Present. London: Routledge.

Bodsworth

Goodyear

(2017) Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22(6): 563–579.

Bollnow

(1981) Philosophie der Erkenntnis [Philosophy of Knowledge]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Brinkmann

Giese

(2023) Practising the practice. Towards a theory of practising in physical education from a Bildung-theoretical perspective. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Epub ahead of print 8 February. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2023.2167968.

Buck

(2020) Of Chimæras and Trojan Horses – Critical remarks on digitalization in democratic societies. In: Binder

Drerup

(eds) Demokratieerziehung und die Bildung digitaler Öffentlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 183–196.

10.

Camacho-Miñano

Gray

Sandford

, et al. (2022) Young women, health and physical activity: Tensions between the gendered fields of Physical Education and Instagram. Sport, Education and Society 27(7): 803–815.

11.

Chambers

Sandford

(2019) Learning to be human in a digital world: A model of values fluency education for physical education. Sport, Education and Society 24(9): 925–938.

12.

Crawford

Lingel

Karppi

(2015) Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of selftracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device. European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4–5): 479–496.

13.

Engen

Giaever

Mifsud

(2018) Wearable technologies in the K-12 classroom – Cross-disciplinary possibilities and privacy pitfalls. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 29(3): 323–341.

14.

Espeland

Stevens

(2008) A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49(3): 401–436.

15.

Fane

Pill

Rankin

(2019) How do pre-service physical education teachers understand health education and their role as health educators? Health Education Journal 78(3): 288–300.

16.

Foucault

(1988) Technologies of the Self. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

17.

Giese

(2008) Erfahrung als Bildungskategorie: Eine Sportsemiotische Untersuchung in Unterrichtspraktischer Absicht [Experience as an Educational Category: A Sport Semiotic Investigation with Instructional Intentions]. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.

18.

Giese

Ruin

(2018) Forgotten bodies – An examination of physical education from the perspective of ableism. Sport in Society 21(1): 152–156.

19.

González-Calvo

Gallego-Lema

Gerdin

, et al. (2022) Body image(s): Problematizing future physical education teachers’ beliefs about the body and physical activity through visual imagery. European Physical Education Review 28(2): 552–572.

20.

Goodyear

Armour

Wood

(2019) Young people learning about health: The role of apps and wearable devices. Learning, Media and Technology 44(2): 193–210.

21.

Goodyear

Skinner

McKeever

, et al. (2021) The influence of online physical activity interventions on children and young people’s engagement with physical activity: A systematic review. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 28(1): 1–15.

22.

Gran

Booth

Bucher

(2020) To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society 24(12): 1779–1796.

23.

Gröschner

Krückel

(2023) Sich selbst ver-messen [Self measuring]. In: Buck

Zulaica y Mugica

(eds) Digitalisierte Lebenswelten. Bildungstheoretische Reflexionen. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, pp. 187–204.

24.

Grupe

(1984) Grundlagen der Sportpädagogik: Körperlichkeit, Bewegung und Erfahrung Im Sport [Fundamentals of Sport Pedagogy: Physicality, Movement and Experience in Sport]. Schorndorf: Hofmann.

25.

Grupe

(1995) Erfahrungen im Sport: Haben sie eine besondere pädagogische Bedeutung? [Experiences in sport: Do they have a special educational significance?]. In: Schaller

Pache

(eds) Sport als Bildungschance und Lebensform. Schorndorf: Hofmann, pp. 20–26.

26.

Harris

Cale

(1997) How healthy is school PE? A review of the effectiveness of health-related physical education programmes in schools. Health Education Journal 56(1): 84–104.

27.

Hill Collins

Bilge

(2016) Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity.

28.

Hofmann

(2019) eSport or the disembodiment of sports: A threat to PE classes? International Journal of Physical Education 56(3): 31–42.

29.

Jastrow

Greve

Thumel

, et al. (2022) Digital technology in physical education: A systematic review of research from 2009 to 2020. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52: 504–528.

30.

Jin

Halvari

Maehle

, et al. (2020) Self-tracking behaviour in physical activity: A systematic review of drivers and outcomes of fitness tracking. Behaviour & Information Technology 41(2): 242–261.

31.

Just

Latzer

(2017) Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society 39(2): 238–258.

32.

Kok

Komen

van Capelleveen

, et al. (2020) The effects of self-controlled video feedback on motor learning and self-efficacy in a physical education setting: An exploratory study on the shot-put. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 25(1): 49–66.

33.

Lee

Gao

(2020) Effects of the iPad and mobile application-integrated physical education on children’s physical activity and psychosocial beliefs. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 25(6): 567–584.

34.

Lloyd

Saunders

Bremer

, et al. (2014) Long-term importance of fundamental motor skills: A 20-year follow-up study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly: APAQ 31(1): 67–78.

35.

Lupton

(2016) The Quantified Self. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Macdonald

(2011) Like a fish in water: Physical education policy and practice in the era of neoliberal globalization. Quest 63: 36–45.

37.

Madsen

Aggerholm

(2020) Embodying education – A Bildung theoretical approach to movement integration. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 6(2): 157–164.

38.

McCall

Spencer

Owen

, et al. (2018) Characteristics and efficacy of digital health education: An overview of systematic reviews. Health Education Journal 77(5): 497–514.

39.

McCuaig

Quennerstedt

Macdonald

(2013) A salutogenic, strength-based approach as a theory to guide HPE curriculum change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4(2): 109–125.

40.

Meier

Poweleit

(2023) Talking ‘bout digitalization: A curricular analysis of PE curricula in German-speaking countries. Current Issues in Sport Science 8(3): 003.

41.

Merleau-Ponty

(2011 [1945]) Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.

42.

Millington

(2016) Fit for prosumption: Interactivity and the second fitness boom. Media, Culture & Society 38(8): 1184–1200.

43.

Naul

(2003) Concepts of physical education in Europe. In: Hardman

(ed.) Physical Education: Deconstruction and Reconstruction ‒ Issues and Directions. Schorndorf: Hofmann, pp. 35–52.

44.

Prohl

(2010) Grundriss der Sportpädagogik [Foundation of Sport Pedagogy]. Wiebelsheim: Limpert.

45.

Quennerstedt

McCuaig

Mårdh

(2021) The fantasmatic logics of physical literacy. Sport, Education and Society 26(8): 846–861.

46.

Röcke

(2021) Soziologie der Selbstoptimierung [Sociology of Self-optimization]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

47.

Rode

(2021) Digitalisierung als kultureller Prozess – Grundlegende Bestimmungen und sportpädagogische Anschlüsse jenseits der Technologie [Digitization as a cultural process – Fundamental provisions and sports pedagogical connections beyond technology]. In: Steinberg

Bonn

(eds) Digitalisierung. Baden-Baden: Academia, pp. 1–21.

48.

Romeo

Edney

Plotnikoff

, et al. (2019) Can smartphone apps increase physical activity? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(3): e12053.

49.

Ruin

(2023) Körper und Bewegung – Vernachlässigung, Kultivierung, Instrumentalisierung, Sensibilisierung [Body and movement – neglect, cultivation, instrumentalization, sensitization]. In: Ruin

Stibbe

(eds) Sportdidaktik und Schulsport: Zentrale Themen einer diversitätssensiblen Fachdidaktik. Schorndorf: Hofmann, pp. 147–170.

50.

Ruin

Giese

(2023) What is real? (Re-)Locating body, movement and experience in an increasingly digitized world. Current Issues in Sport Science 8(3): Article 002.

51.

Ruin

Stibbe

(2021) Health-oriented ‘Bildung’ or an obligation to a healthy lifestyle? A critical analysis of current PE curricula in Germany. The Curriculum Journal 32(1): 136–151.

52.

Sargent

Calderón

(2021) Technology enhanced learning in physical education? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 41(4): 689–709.

53.

Schnell

Dunger

(eds) (2019) Digitalisierung der Lebenswelt. Studien zur Krisis Nach Husserl [Digitization of the Lifeworld. Studies on Crisis According to Husserl]. Weilerswist-Metternich: Velbrück.

54.

Schwartz

Baca

(2016) Wearables and apps – Modern diagnostic frameworks for health promotion through sport. German Journal of Sports Medicine 67(06): 131–136.

55.

Shilling

(2012) The Body and Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

Spinosa

RMO

Santo

Costa

RZF

, et al. (2020) Comparing live and digital augmented reality models for demonstrating two motor skills from the test of gross motor development – second edition: TGMD-2. Perceptual and Motor Skills 127(2): 386–400.

57.

Stalder

(2018) The Digital Condition. Cambridge: Polity.

58.

Tamboer

(1979) Sich-Bewegen – ein Dialog zwischen Mensch und Welt [Moving oneself – A dialogue between man and world]. Sportpädagogik 3(2): 14–19.

59.

Thorburn

(2020) Embodied experiences: Critical insights from Dewey for contemporary education. Educational Research 62(1): 35–45.

60.

Thorburn

Gray

(2021) Potentialities in health and physical education: Professional boundaries and change agendas. The Curriculum Journal 32(1): 1–13.

61.

Tinning

(2012) The idea of physical education: A memetic perspective. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 17(2): 115–126.

62.

Verständig

Ahlborn

(2020) Decoding subjects? Über Subjektivierung und Kreativität im algorithmischen Zeitalter [Decoding subjects? On subjectification and creativity in the algorithmic age]. In: Holze

Verständig

Biermann

(eds) Medienbildung zwischen Subjektivität und Kollektivität. Reflexionen im Kontext des digitalen Zeitalters. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 77–94.

63.

Walker

(1947) The future of physical education. Health Education Journal 5(1): 27–31.

64.

Wibowo

Krieger

Gaum

, et al. (2023) Bildung: A German student-centered approach to health and physical education. European Physical Education Review 29(2): 233–250.