Research
Before building the programme, the project asked coaches in Türkiye, Estonia and Norway how they use wearable technology and what they need.
The research report
Research Report on Wearable Technologies for Coach Education and Training
The report asks how wearable technology is used in coaching today, what holds coaches back, and what training they need. It ends with recommendations for a training programme for coaches.
Research Report on Wearable Technologies for Coach Education and Training, Version 2.0, in English and Turkish.
PDF, English, Turkish, 65 pages, 2.2 MB
How the study was done
- A review of research papers, industry reports and policy documents.
- An online survey answered by 104 coaches.
- One-to-one interviews with 22 coaches and experts.
- Three focus groups, one in each country, with nine participants in all.
The coaches surveyed work in Türkiye, Estonia and Norway. Almost half of them coach at grassroots or youth level; the others coach at semi-professional, professional or elite level.
What the survey found
More coaches have wearable technology than use it regularly, and fewer than half of the coaches surveyed have had any training in it.
62% of the coaches who have had training call it insufficient or too general.
82% rate data interpretation and analysis as a critical training need, the highest of seven areas. Bringing data into training plans comes second, at 76%.
18% of the grassroots and youth coaches surveyed use wearable technology regularly. Among the professional and elite coaches surveyed it is 71%.
78% prefer learning that combines theory with practice.
What the report recommends
The report recommends learning by practice, with real training scenarios and case studies. It puts data literacy, which is understanding and interpreting data, first among five content areas, with ethics and privacy across all components. The report presents its recommendations as the reference point for the training programme, the toolkit and the mobile app.
Limits
The survey covers 104 coaches in three countries. The report itself says that the sample size and the geographical scope limit, to some degree, how far its findings can be generalised.
